Are oil futures over-valued?

[Jae Onasi]

OK, this is totally unscientific, but I think the oil speculation is starting to get out of control. I understand the increased demand, but I'm not sure the demand has gone up enough to justify the 33+% increase in oil prices in the last few months. This is starting to have the feel of what was going on in the internet market over-speculation right before that bubble burst. Obviously, that's a different situation, but the mentality appears to be the same. Thoughts? Opinions? Will the oil bubble burst or will it sort of trickle down at some point, or skyrocket even higher?

 

It's a good thing I keep track of what oil prices are doing--I heard it hit a record high yesterday, so I filled up my gas tank, at 3.87 a gallon (over 80 bucks for a tank of gas....ugh). Today the gas was 4.09 a gallon.

[Litofsky]

According to executives at Exxon, the reason for the increased profit is due to the increased demand. This is true, but only in part. China and India, the up-and-coming developing countries are consuming more and more oil, while the supply stays the same. I think the question is, "Does the increase in demand justify the exponential increase in cost?"

 

To me, the answer is absolutely not. Sure, it would make sense to increase a bit, but in the past month, a barrel of oil has increased from $100 to $130. Does this sound fair in the least bit? Where are the mass-protests? To my knowledge, a good portion of the country watches the news, and everyone is constantly bombarded with the increasing gas prices. If we're so displeased, why haven't we done anything?

 

I have a friend, and I mean no disrespect, who is completely dedicated to Bush. She has six siblings, and the family car gets ten miles per gallon. The increased prices are crushing them. When I confronted her about this, she responded with the statement of "He's (Bush) doing the best he can." Monkey-turd.

 

I'll get back on-topic now, and answer your question: The increase in price is mostly unjustified and incredulous. However, both factions are to blame. The Oil Companies should be ashamed of themselves, but the Public should be responding in an uproar.

 

So, the question is, "How long will we just sit around and take this?"

[Achilles]

OK, this is totally unscientific, but I think the oil speculation is starting to get out of control. I understand the increased demand, but I'm not sure the demand has gone up enough to justify the 33+% increase in oil prices in the last few months.

While I feel pretty confident that I understand economics well, I never was that good with finance. Therefore, I'll take a stab at this, but I'm counting on mimartin to correct me if I get something wrong.

 

Speculative markets run on more than simple supply and demand. They also consider scarcity as forecasted by other things. Therefore it's not that supply and demand dictate that oil should cost $130/barrel right now, so much as it is that people that watch this kind of thing closely foresee supply and demand dictating that it will cost $130 by the time its been pulled out the ground, refined, shipped here, etc.

 

Political turmoil in oil-rich regions adds to speculative prices. Refineries running at capacity or refineries that are taken off-line due to age, acts of sabotage, acts of nature, etc adds to speculative prices. OPEC telling everyone that they can't increase production adds to speculative prices. So on and so forth.

 

China and India, the up-and-coming developing countries are consuming more and more oil, while the supply stays the same.

Actually supply is diminishing. Experts projected that world oil production would peak in the early 2000's but they were dismissed as nay-sayers. Now that oil prices are rising so quickly and OPEC is signalling that there just isn't any way to increase production, I'm more inclined than ever to believe that they were right. We've gone from $30/barrel to $80/barrel in 5 years. Then we went from $80 to $130 in about 9 months. I wonder how long it will take us to get to $200/barrel.

 

If we're so displeased, why haven't we done anything?

Big reason: not very many people understand econcomics. Runner up: no one wants to risk being told that they might have to give up their SUVs. Bush just finished telling us that the economy is strong right? Surely he wouldn't lie to us.

 

I have a friend, and I mean no disrespect, who is completely dedicated to Bush. She has six siblings, and the family car gets ten miles per gallon. The increased prices are crushing them. When I confronted her about this, she responded with the statement of "He's (Bush) doing the best he can." Monkey-turd.

Ooo, if I had read ahead one more sentence, I could have seen you make my point for me

 

I'll get back on-topic now, and answer your question: The increase in price is mostly unjustified and incredulous. However, both factions are to blame. The Oil Companies should be ashamed of themselves, but the Public should be responding in an uproar.

I'm not sure how much the oil companies are responsible for the current oil prices. We are absolutely justified to be upset about their record profits, but I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that this is more of a question of the subsidies being paid to the oil companies more than it is natural market forces. That public uproar should be directed at Congress, not at the oil companies. And if we truly wanted to do something, we'd start voting with our dollars, and decide not to use so much oil (ya know, like Europe).

 

So, the question is, "How long will we just sit around and take this?"

I imagine as long as driving that Hummer is more important than paying an arm and a leg for gas.

[Jae Onasi]

Speculative markets run on more than simple supply and demand. They also consider scarcity as forecasted by other things. Therefore it's not that supply and demand dictate that oil should cost $130/barrel right now, so much as it is that people that watch this kind of thing closely foresee supply and demand dictating that it will cost $130 by the time its been pulled out the ground, refined, shipped here, etc.

 

Political turmoil in oil-rich regions adds to speculative prices. Refineries running at capacity or refineries that are taken off-line due to age, acts of sabotage, acts of nature, etc adds to speculative prices. OPEC telling everyone that they can't increase production adds to speculative prices. So on and so forth.

.

 

Oh, I understand the factors driving some of the decisions--broken pipelines, hurricanes in the Gulf, markedly increased demand, Memorial day weekend *cough* oil companies would never take advantage of that*cough*, OPEC flipping the US the bird, Ahmadinejad sneezing, etc. It just feels like some of the increase is simply 'oh, it's gone up a lot--so I'm going to bet that it's going to go up more!' without the underlying reasons really being able to justify that kind of increase. This has a more frenzied feeling to it lately.

[Achilles]

It just feels like some of the increase is simply 'oh, it's gone up a lot--so I'm going to bet that it's going to go up more!' without the underlying reasons really being able to justify that kind of increase.

That's determined by traders, not by oil companies. And all those reasons you just acknowledged are precisely how they justify it. You can't type "Ahmadinejad sneezed" into a console and get a precise figure on how much that's going to affect the price of oil (or when). This kind of stuff is a judgment call.

 

This has a more frenzied feeling to it lately.

I agree! But I think that's because things have been ****ing nuts lately!

[Tommycat]

I think oil is the new bubble. It might be good to get in on it now, but it will pop eventualy. Much like the tech and housing bubbles, it will pop. Basically I am saying that Yes they are overvalued.

[Jae Onasi]

I agree! But I think that's because things have been ****ing nuts lately!

This is very true.

[The Source]

At this moment in time, the oil stocks are being feed into by regular investors. If you turn back the clock, you will see a pattern of stock bubbles. Let us look at current history. During the late 1990s, the internet and technology stocks soured. People bought into the idea of new this or new that. Once President Bush got into office, not because of Pres. Bush, the internet stocks fell. What am I getting to?

 

We as Americans go through psychological cycles, which feeds into extreem success, failures, and fears. Within the later part of the 19th century, we bought into the 'doomsday' senerio of Y2K. People raced out to buy food, water, clothes, and other essentials. As a result of a technological spoof, people also purchased new computers. Computers were also going through a revolution, which caused the job market to expand. People were buying into the idea, "New Technology Now!" Stocks surounding information technologies and software rose to extreme levels. Once everyone owned a computer, the informaiton technology and software sectors started to loose money. Eventually, the internet and information technology sector broke down. People were removing stocks like crazy. As a result of not making a profit from an unstable technology sector, people sought out other stable means for investing. Since everyone needs oil, gas, and housing, the people who invested in information technology said, "Hey, lets go over here." Untlimately, they are driving the price of oil through the roof. Demand is low, but the price is rising.

 

Another interesting element is: During the 'information technology revolution', high school students bought into the "get rich now" schema. Since buisnesses were not able to find workers, they sucked high school students into working for them. Fast-forward to today, those high school students are still looking to get rich. Since they can no longer get the same wages, that they had during the 'information technology revolution', they can no longer pay for their new homes and cars. Instead of getting an education to secure their future, they are forced to foreclose on their homes and investments. The housing markets is all about bad choices, which were made by uneducated individuals who wanted "more money" and "no education".

 

On the flip side of things, where do we invest to stay rich. "Oil" Why? Oil is a resource, which everyone in the world needs. Regardless about the demands, the price of gas will rise because people want to get rich. Its a moral question, which people who have stocks don't want to face. "Should I invest in something that everyone needs, and cause people pain and suffering?"

 

On top of all these issues, Intel and AMD don't want the vast public to know another truth. We hit a milestone in how far we can advance the CPU. At this moment in technological history, we cannot make CPUs that do not burn out the motherboards. We have hit a 3.0ghtz limitation. What does this have to do with the economy? Everything. Its a massive cycle of denial, corporate scandal, and a series of dumb choices. We are now in the second 'technology stand still, which mirrors the slump between 1980 and 1995. Until we can find othe rmeans to expand information technology, the industry will steadly fall to a crawl.

 

We have many more years of hell ahead. Soon the baby boomers will retire, and there will be a massive shake in all markets. In order for the oil industry to stablize, the government is about the take action in regulating how people invest in the oil market. Once the investors 'find morality', the oil prices and stocks will begin to fall.

[Arcesious]

Well, I have some good news. General Motors is going to start focusing on making fuel efficient cars instead of so many trucks.

 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200806031251DOWJONESDJONLINE000427_FORTUNE5.htm

 

On top of all these issues, Intel and AMD don't want the vast public to know another truth. We hit a milestone in how far we can advance the CPU. At this moment in technological history, we cannot make CPUs that do not burn out the motherboards. We have hit a 3.0ghtz limitation. What does this have to do with the economy? Everything. Its a massive cycle of denial, corporate scandal, and a series of dumb choices. We are now in the second 'technology stand still, which mirrors the slump between 1980 and 1995. Until we can find othe rmeans to expand information technology, the industry will steadly fall to a crawl.

 

One problem with that statement... google shows that there are some 4.0 Ghz motherboards... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4.0+ghz+motherboard

[The Source]

Well, I have some good news. General Motors is going to start focusing on making fuel efficient cars instead of so many trucks.

 

http://money.cnn.com/news/newsfeeds/articles/djf500/200806031251DOWJONESDJONLINE000427_FORTUNE5.htm

 

One problem with that statement... google shows that there are some 4.0 Ghz motherboards... http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=4.0+ghz+motherboard

I have seen those as well, but they are still having overheating issues.

[mimartin]

On the flip side of things, where do we invest to stay rich. "Oil" Why? Oil is a resource, which everyone in the world needs. Regardless about the demands, the price of gas will rise because people want to get rich. [/Quote]Personally, I would say the opposite is true. Sure, if you are already invested in oil stocks I would hold them for now, but I would not be investing new capital in that sector today. The stock prices are already high based on record earnings. There is the uncertainty to what a new administration will do. The oil companies are not investing in new capacity and the consumer is looking for alternatives to paying the high gas prices. Add it all up and there is enough uncertainty to warrant caution in investing in this sector. (Disclaimer: I am not saying gas prices will be coming down. I am saying I see oil companies profits coming down causing their stock price to come down).

 

Its a moral question, which people who have stocks don't want to face. "Should I invest in something that everyone needs, and cause people pain and suffering?"

Funny as I set in my air conditioned office, listening to my new Sara Evans CD, while reading the label through my contact lens, I take a sip of my Dr. Pepper in a plastic bottle that I got out of the refrigerator and think to myself that the oil industry is not all about pain and suffering.

[The Source]

On the "Nightly News: With Brian Williams", they mentioned how investors are responsible for the high price of oil. Even though there are other elements involved, the high price of oil is being driven by people who want to take advantage of the opportunity. Demand is currently low, and oil stocks are still rising. I am watching the news tonight, for they will cover more on this issue.

[Arcesious]

I have seen those as well, but they are still having overheating issues.

 

I beleive that there may be a solution. Fans may not work, but liquid should. In the time about a year ago when Youtube still wasn't blocked on my computer by the stupid parental control IE filter Bsafe I have now, I saw a video where a person made a computer that uses, if I remember correctly, mineral oil, as lubricant to keep it clean, and to keep it cool. The water was kept cold by a fan and a filter inside it, if I remember correctly. Apply that conscept to a 4.0-5.0 Ghz motherboard setup, and you won't have to worry about burnouts... If that isn't true and doesn't work, maybe all they need is to start constucting computer hardware out of sturdier, stronger, more heat resistant materials. Perhaps alloys? I don't know what metals are needed for computers, but I know they need silicon. Maybe a silicon-metal alloy(I know that silicon is not a metal, I'm just theorizing here. It may be possible to make alloys between metals and other elements, but I don't actually know, so maybe that wouldn't work.), and alloys with the other metals, made in such a way that the metals specifically need for transferring information through the hardware will still work well, even in conjunction with less 'transmittive' metals and elements.

[The Source]

I beleive that there may be a solution. Fans may not work, but liquid should. In the time about a year ago when Youtube still wasn't blocked on my computer by the stupid parental control IE filter Bsafe I have now, I saw a video where a person made a computer that uses, if I remember correctly, mineral oil, as lubricant to keep it clean, and to keep it cool. The water was kept cold by a fan and a filter inside it, if I remember correctly. Apply that conscept to a 4.0-5.0 Ghz motherboard setup, and you won't have to worry about burnouts... If that isn't true and doesn't work, maybe all they need is to start constucting computer hardware out of sturdier, stronger, more heat resistant materials. Perhaps alloys? I don't know what metals are needed for computers, but I know they need silicon. Maybe a silicon-metal alloy, and alloys with the other metals, made in such a way that the metals specifically need for transferring information through the hardware will still work well, even in conjunction with less 'transmittive' metals and elements.

My 2' by 3' computer weighs in at 75lbs. Lol... Just kidding. I have horrible jokes. Grrr...

 

You have a point though. Maybe they will find something that will cool things down. I think this is one of those waiting periods, which the chip companies just have to work on a solution. As long as my computer doesn't use oil or gas, I will be okay with anything they come up with. Oh, I want to keep my hair, so no radiation allowed please. Lol...

[mimartin]

On the "Nightly News: With Brian Williams", they mentioned how investors are responsible for the high price of oil. Even though there are other elements involved, the high price of oil is being driven by people who want to take advantage of the opportunity. Demand is currently low, and oil stocks are still rising. I am watching the news tonight, for they will cover more on this issue.

But the stock price has nothing to do with the price of oil. Oil prices are set in a speculate market, which Achilles explained in post #3 in this thread. Now if Brian Williams is saying that oil companies are over inflating gas prices, there may be some truth to that. Not investing record profits into capital improvements (new refineries) to increase capacity artificially reduces gas supply and increases the price of gasoline and more importantly diesel. For the American Oil Companies to affect the world price of oil would require a huge and extremely risky investment in the speculative mark. I know the Securities and Exchange Commission is under staffed at this time, but with the size of the investment required, even they could see and investigate such an investment. Investing in natural gas futures is one of the many things that lead to Enron’s implosions and the SEC will be watching those types of investments in the future.

 

Yes, investors are responsible for high oil prices, just not those that have their money in oil company stocks.

 

If you want to gripe about who set oil prices, blame investors at International Petroleum Exchange in London, New York Mercantile Exchange and the Singapore Exchange LTD.

 

As long as my computer doesn't use oil or gas, I will be okay with anything they come up with.

I hate to be the one to tell you, but if you have any plastics on your computer or if you use CD or DVD when you are using your computer then you are using oil products.

[Jae Onasi]

I heard from a business reporter on the news radio I listen to that part of the problem with the oil futures market is that 'the rules are different than the stock market, and because of that insider trading is not exactly illegal.' He also reported that the gov't was looking into trading practices. However, I don't think I caught the full explanation, so if someone has some insight on that, I'd love to hear more.

[ForeverNight]

I would too...

 

Also, to whomever brought up the 3.0 Ghz limit... I know that IBM makes a 5 something gigahertz CPU that doesn't have overheating issues, as the guy who designed a lot of it said, "We do this thing called planning."

 

Gotta go take the dog on a walk.

[Achilles]

I heard from a business reporter on the news radio I listen to that part of the problem with the oil futures market is that 'the rules are different than the stock market, and because of that insider trading is not exactly illegal.' He also reported that the gov't was looking into trading practices. However, I don't think I caught the full explanation, so if someone has some insight on that, I'd love to hear more.

If I had to guess, I'd say it probably has more to do with sharing information than traditional "insider trading" per se. Generally speaking, company officers are not allowed to divulge information which could be seen as influencing the market positively or negatively unless it is done publicly. I could see where this kind of information might be vital to determining future prices of commodities while also meeting the definition of insider trading. But again, that's just my guess.

[Arcesious]

Also, to whomever brought up the 3.0 Ghz limit... I know that IBM makes a 5 something gigahertz CPU that doesn't have overheating issues, as the guy who designed a lot of it said, "We do this thing called planning."

 

Yeah, I saw that too. I think the highest overclocking/ghz ever done was 5.6 ghz. So far, I haven't seen anything over 6.0.

 

But I'm getting off topic, so we should proobably stop this discussion about ghz limitations, or keep on about it in another thread, I suggest.

[mimartin]

I heard from a business reporter on the news radio I listen to that part of the problem with the oil futures market is that 'the rules are different than the stock market, and because of that insider trading is not exactly illegal.' He also reported that the gov't was looking into trading practices. However, I don't think I caught the full explanation, so if someone has some insight on that, I'd love to hear more.

 

As far as ‘insider information” I’m trying to grasp how insider information would be possible when dealing with oil futures. I guess if knew what large investors were thinking then you could possible take advantage of that information. If you knew “inside information” about a terrorist attack, if you knew there would be military action in a certain area of the world or if you knew a major oil producer was going to cut or increase production then you could use that information to your advantage.

 

Still most “insider information” cases that I remember studying are prosecuted using fraud laws and not insider information laws due to the difficult in proving.

 

It shall be unlawful for any person, directly or indirectly . . .,

 

(a) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud,

(b) to make any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading, or

© to engage in any act, practice, or course of business which operates or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person, in connection with the purchase or sale of a security. [/Quote]

 

Therefore, if your concern were that someone is using “insider information” or any other means to artificially inflate the price of oil, then in my opinion it would still be prosecutable under SEC rules because they are defrauding other investors, the oil companies and the American public.

 

I really miss the access I had to the SEC website back when I was in school. I could have given you a more definitive answer back then. Seems someone that has a Series 6 license should have more access than a student.

[Achilles]

Oil jumped more than $10 today based on projections that we'll be at $150 a barrel by July. Oil closed at $138 per barrel.

 

Glad I filled up yesterday

 

Link

Prices pushed sharply higher Friday after Morgan Stanley analyst Ole Slorer predicted strong demand in Asia could drive prices to $150 by Independence Day, when millions of Americans are expected to take to the roads. Slorer said shipments from the Middle East are mimicking patterns seen in the third quarter last year, when Morgan Stanley based an oil price spike prediction on falling supplies in the Atlantic.

 

"We made the same call using the same parameters, but now we are starting from much lower inventory levels," Slorer said.

 

Traders also zeroed in on remarks by an Israeli Cabinet minister, who was quoted as saying his country will attack Iran if it doesn't abandon its nuclear program. Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz added that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad "will disappear before Israel does," the Yediot Ahronot daily reported.

 

Iran is the second-biggest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, and traders worry that any conflict with Israel could disrupt global supplies.

[Arcesious]

I heard about that on CNN... Just as the people on CNN said in that recent CNN special about the oil crisis, things are going along exactly as expected. $138 a barrel!

 

And the record foreclosures... we are so screwed...

[Litofsky]

Oil jumped more than $10 today based on projections that we'll be at $150 a barrel by July. Oil closed at $138 per barrel.

 

Glad I filled up yesterday

 

Link

 

 

Great. So, we need Israel and Iran to keep their heads on if we don't want World War III to start. Of course, that would be a rather predictable pattern: Israel/Iran attacks (the opposite side), and almost every other country gets involved. *Sigh* I sense that the Draft is coming back in the near future, but that's a different conversation.

 

Anyways, I still think that the World Situation right now is incredibly fragile. One false move, and we're all going to see a pretty, mushroom-shaped cloud. Or, more optimistically, we won't nuke each other, mostly from fear of mutually-assured destruction.

[Achilles]

I heard about that on CNN... Just as the people on CNN said in that recent CNN special about the oil crisis, things are going along exactly as expected.

Do you happen to recall what this special was titled? I'd like to try to find it on YouTube if I can.

 

This was a good film if anyone is interested in seeing it.

[Litofsky]

[sarcasm]This is great [/sarcasm](the emphasis is mine):

But before that happens there will come a day when oil production ‘peaks,’ when demand overtakes supply (and never looks back), resulting in large and possibly catastrophic price increases that could make today's $60-a-barrel oil look like chump change. Unless, of course, we begin to develop substitutes for oil.

 

Wow. What I would give for $60 a barrel... Of course, I wonder if Oil will spark a War in the future. Only time will tell, as the old saying goes.