Moj Novac -> Forumi

Moj Novac -> Forumi (http://www.mojnovac.net/forumi/index.php)
-   Svijet (http://www.mojnovac.net/forumi/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
-   -   Nafta zvana Crude Oil (http://www.mojnovac.net/forumi/showthread.php?t=1729)

MEA 25.03.2008. 17:40

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Kako sam već ranije rekao rano je zvati vrh u commoditima, ali sigurno znam da je sad kasno za ulaz - risk/reward ratio je sada daleko nepovoljniji.
Ako bih se išao povesti sa ovim analitičarima onda bih eventualno prije ulazio u pozicije solarnog sektora obzirom da velika većina sada trguje blizu IPO levela.
Pitanje za 1 mil kuna - zašto BDI pada? Možda zato što druga strane vage - ponuda brodskog prostora - raste.
Gledam DRYS na $ 60 i malo ga tko kupuje (on je doduše najviše izložen spot vozarinama a to mu u zadnje vrijeme nije baš najbolja strategija obzirom na pad BDI-a).
Ali ni EXM i TBSI također ne privlače mnogo pozornosti.

kagemusha 26.03.2008. 00:13

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

MEA (Post 391747)
Kako sam već ranije rekao rano je zvati vrh u commoditima, ali sigurno znam da je sad kasno za ulaz - risk/reward ratio je sada daleko nepovoljniji.
.

Mislim da nije kasno nego taman treba odabrati pravi trenutak za ulaz jer ih kupujes na razinama cijena koje su bile od prije skoro godinu dana, kao npr. BTU, ACI, ICO, MEE, a mnogo pozitivnih stvari se dogodilo u medjuvremenu.

MEA 26.03.2008. 16:34

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Ne znam da li gledamo iste grafove ali meni se čini da su leveli na kojima trguju trenutno navedene dionice svega 20-tak % ispod recent multi year high - nije to baš nešto izrazito povoljno.

ACI trenutno $ 45 support je 200 dma 38,26 ako za tgt uzmemo previous high (double top) 56,16 imamo r/r ratio od 1,7:1 što je slabo (osobno gledam 2,5:1 idealno 4:1) - ako probije 50 dma i postavi se stop loss malo ispod ratio je tada mnogo povoljniji - dakle čekati eventualni proboj 50 dma prije ulaska long.
U najpovoljnijem položaju je MEE jer je već probio 50 dma i nameće se kao najbolji play (danas mu je Goldman Sachs povisio rating iz SELL u Neutral).
Ovo je sa pozicije short term tradera.
Investitoru je IMHO kasno za ulaz - investitori su ušli prije 3-4 g.

Osim ako ne misliš da će sve ove dionice vidjeti $ 100.

Erik 26.03.2008. 17:15

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

Investitoru je IMHO kasno za ulaz - investitori su ušli prije 3-4 g.
Onda baš i nisu nešto zaradili, MEE je prije tri godine bio $40+, sad je na $38. :)

Ma dobro, shvaćam što želiš reći, rudarske kompanije su jako odradile u zadnjih 6 mjeseci, ali cijene ugljena na spotu i dalje divljaju, met. ugljen u Aziji ide već preko $300, a ugovori za 2008 godinu mogli bi se sklopiti na razinama o kojima se još prije 3 mjeseca moglo samo sanjati. Kompanije su do sada zarađivale manje od $3 po toni ugljena i ovakvi skokovi mogu im strahovito uvećati profite. Pitanje je koliko dugo su takve cijene ugljena održive, ili bolje rečeno, na koje razine će se spustiti kada se situacija malo smiri.

MEA 26.03.2008. 17:35

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
[quote=Erik;392207]
Citat:

Onda baš i nisu nešto zaradili, MEE je prije tri godine bio $40+, sad je na $38. :)
A prije 4 = 20 :)
BTU prije 3 = 22 sada 53
ACI prije 3 = 22 sada 46

Citat:

Pitanje je koliko dugo su takve cijene ugljena održive, ili bolje rečeno, na koje razine će se spustiti kada se situacija malo smiri
Now you're talking.(the right stuff)
BTW Goldman Sachs (koji se do sada pokazao najjačim igračem i najboljim prognozerom je prije 2-3 tjedna snizio outlook za ugljenaše i manje više svima dao SELL rating (zato u se i spustile sa high) - evo danas je smilovao MEE i dao mu Neutral). Ja se baš ne obazirem mnogo na te prepruke (nedavno sam prodao POT na 160 iako su mu povisili tgt na 210 a neki dan čak i na 250 - po sadašnjim najavama managementa to je 30-35 forward PE - dostojno "tehnoloških" dionica - pravo je pitanje koliko će rasti POT u narednih 10 godina - po stopi od 30-35 % ???) i radije gledam r/r ratio prije ulaska long - da li je racionalno očekivati skok ovih dionica za još 100 % ??? I u kojem vremenskom okviru?

I da li pijemo vodu sa izvora ili pri ušću u zagađeni zaliv ?

Erik 26.03.2008. 18:04

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

MEA (Post 392216)
evo danas je smilovao MEE i dao mu Neutral).

Da, smilovao se i ANR-u, pa mu rejting danas promijenio iz SELL odmah u BUY, iako mu cijena u međuvremenu nije mnogo pala.

Rio Tinto traži ugovore za 2008 od $135 za tonu termalnog ugljena, za metalurški se već govorka o $225. Vjerojatno to nije dugoročno održivo, vjerojatno će za koju godinu (možda već slijedeće) cijene biti niže, ali koliko? Rudarima ne treba $225, i $120 im je dovoljno za ogromne profite, ako su u prošloj prodavali po $80 (i zarađivali $2).

Nafta je možda prenapuna i možda se balon rasprsne, ali ne vjerujem da će nazad na 40 USD gdje je bila prije par godina.

MEA 26.03.2008. 18:30

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Naftašima je granica rentabilnosti $ 25 po barelu pa ipak imamo naftu iznad 100 a potražnju za njom 3,2 % manja nego lani u ovo vrijeme.
Ova "diskonekcija" izmedju fundamenata i tržišta je konačna potvrda u definiranju bubble-a - balon se može i dalje puhati ali kad pukne nitko ne voli biti u blizini.
Ono što doista želim reći je da je za mene prekasno za LT ulazak u oil & commodities iako dozvoljavam mogućnost daljnjeg rasta i jednih i drugih ali kako već rekoh - ja volim piti vodu na izvoru rijeke a ona nas je evo dovela u blizinu ušća.

Dokle će dolar padati? To je pitanje na koje treba ispravno odgovoriti - ja pojma nemam ali znam da neće još dugo i mnogo (ili je to možda wishfull thinking obzirom da sam 100 % u njima :confused:).

MEA 26.03.2008. 19:18

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Kad smo već kod analitičara (i Ratings game) - isti čovjek - ista kompanija:

15/2/08

THE RATINGS GAME: Goldman Sachs Downgrades Four Coal Firms To Sell
1:49 PM EDT February 15, 2008


By Steve Gelsi

NEW YORK (Dow Jones) -- Goldman Sachs analyst Michael Molnar assigned sell ratings to four coal producers Friday and cut ratings on two others, citing higher inventories, rising costs and hefty multiples.

Forecasting a 20% average downside to the group, Molnar singled out Arch Coal (ACI) for inclusion on the bank's Conviction Sell list and removed Consol Energy (CNX) from its Conviction Buy List, as he flagged likely problems for the sector.

"We feel now is a good time to take profits," Molnar said.

Goldman also cut ratings of Foundation Coal (FCL), International Coal Group (ICO) and Massey Energy (MEE) to sell from neutral.

Goldman downgraded Consol Energy and Peabody Energy (BTU) to neutral from buy.

U.S. coal stocks have gained about 30% this year -- compared to a 3% loss for the Russell 3000 -- amid a perfect storm of international supply problems, but stock prices are now too rich, he said.

"Peak multiples on peak(ing) earnings mean trouble," Molnar said in a note to clients. "Most coal companies are trading at peak historical multiples. This makes sense if one believes that earnings will ramp even harder beyond that. However, we do not believe this will be the case."

Molnar said pricing for the industry is undergoing a shorter-term upcycle versus a major secular shift.

"Coal is abundant and, at these prices, supply will come to the market much faster than bulls may expect," he said. "In addition, our supply/demand forecast for inventories indicates that they will be at high historical levels through 2009 -- making it hard for us to believe that pricing could go much higher from here."

Shares of all the coal firms in the downgrade fell Friday morning. Massey Energy was the deepest decliner, giving up nearly 7% to $38.95.

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
02-15-08 1348ET
Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.




26/03/08

US Coal Sector Gains As Goldman Sachs Raises Its View On Cos
12:07 PM EDT March 26, 2008


NEW YORK (Dow Jones)--Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) raised its view on the U.S. coal sector to neutral from cautious, saying investors should take advantage of a pullback in the valuation of coal stocks.
"Given the valuation contraction, we feel now is a good time to take profits on our cautious coverage view on the coal stocks," said Goldman Sachs analyst Michael Molnar wrote in a note to clients.
Molnar said the best risk/reward scenario would be to take a long position in metallurgical coal and short thermal coal as the pair trade would "hedge out the volatility of the sector and the broader market."
He said that steel, the end market of metallurgical coal, continues to show signs of significant demand, and the production supply of metallurgical coal is more limited than thermal coal.
Molnar added that pricing for metallurgical coal has more potential upside and is often realized faster, given shorter length contracts.
Specifically, Molnar recommended pairing a buy of Alpha Natural Resources Inc. (ANR) with a sell of Foundation Coal Holdings Inc. (FCL) stock.
"Alpha, with 40% of tonnage being met coal in 2009, has by far the most met exposure in our coverage universe," Molnar wrote. "Foundation is mainly thermal coal, has priced a significant amount already, and our trading range analysis indicates the potential for stagnant valuation."
Molnar also upgraded Alpha Natural Resources Inc. and Consol Energy Inc. (CNX) to buy and raised his rating on Arch Coal Inc. (ACI), International Coal Group Inc. (ICO), and Massey Energy Co. (MEE) to neutral.
Shares of Alpha Natural Resources recently traded up 10% at $32.33, while Foundation Coal Holdings shares rose 1.4% to $51.51. Consol Energy rose 5.7% at $72.13, Arch Coal gained 6.1% to $45.96 and Massey Energy surged 7.7% to $38.40.

-By Brett Philbin, Dow Jones Newswires; 201-938-5393; brett.philbin@dowjones.com

(END) Dow Jones Newswires
03-26-08 1206ET
Copyright (c) 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Pitanje koje se nameće samo od sebe - da li velike kuće poput GS (koja je dala Ministra Fin. USA) daje preporuke investitorima na duge staze ili short term traderima? Da li ih bespogovorno slušati ? Da li su 100 % unbiased ?

I onda se sjetim pjesme "What a difference are they make,... 40 little days":) i činjenice da je pamćenje market playera vrlo kratko - zbog toga ove preporuke još uvijek "pale" i ljudi se za nijh hvataju - moramo biti svoji vlastiti analitičari, naučiti dobro taj posao i zanemariti što drugi o tome govore - uvijek će biti netko tko se ne slaže s našim mišljenjem ili suprotnog raspoloženja.
Ako nekom drugom damo "ruku da nas vodi" nikad nećemo ići svojim putem.
U životu sam znao dati ruku "drugom da me vodi" jer sam mislio da su pametniji i sposobniji - završio sam na ulici i birou za zapošljavanje.

Ako i pogriješim - pogriješit ću s vlastitom lovom - i iznad svega neću se kajati što sam slušao nekog drugog a ne sebe.
(molim ne shvatiti ovo kao pretendiranje da nema pametnijih od mene - dapače - stvar je samo u tome da kad pogriješim - nemam koga kriviti osim sebe - i onda mi je lakše jer znam da smo svi sazdani od pogrešaka i pogodaka - i da ne možemo ama baš uvijek biti u pravu.)
Soros je "samo" 25% puta bio u pravu - i na tome zaradio svu lovu.



Žao mi je što ne mogu pronaći graf ENRN i kako su se kretale preporuke analitičara dok je dionica padala u ponor bankrota - Buy na polovici pada sa all time high je prerastao u Screaming buy - mjesec dana prije Ch 11.

So much about ANALytics.

panzer 03.04.2008. 15:36

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Kakva je vjerovatnoća da se formirao "symetrical triangle" odnosno da je pokret u zadnjoj fazi prije izlaska?

kagemusha 03.04.2008. 16:14

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

panzer (Post 395901)
Kakva je vjerovatnoća da se formirao "symetrical triangle" odnosno da je pokret u zadnjoj fazi prije izlaska?

Vidjet cemo u ova dva dana hoce li probiti onaj support od 100 dolara ili ce probiti trend line i otici na gore sto ce odrediti novi trend. Po meni ce prije na dolje jer hedge fondovima kronicno fali novca, u Martu njihov indeks-HFRX je pao za 2.5%, što je najvise od 1998.god i propasti Long Term Capital Management-a.

hjk 25.05.2008. 11:27

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Those Nasty Index Speculators

Are institutional investors in the form of large commodity index funds the reason behind the current rise not just in oil prices but in the prices of seemingly all commodities? Michael Masters, a long-short hedge fund manager, in testimony before the Congressional Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said:

"You have asked the question 'Are Institutional Investors contributing to food and energy price inflation?' And my unequivocal answer is 'YES.' In this testimony I will explain that Institutional Investors are one of, if not the primary, factors affecting commodities prices today. Clearly, there are many factors that contribute to price determination in the commodities markets; I am here to expose a fast-growing yet virtually unnoticed factor, and one that presents a problem that can be expediently corrected through legislative policy action."

You can read the entire testimony at http://www.mcadforums.com/forums/fil..._testimony.pdf, but let's hear the basics of his argument:

"What we are experiencing is a demand shock coming from a new category of participant in the commodities futures markets: Institutional Investors. Specifically, these are Corporate and Government Pension Funds, Sovereign Wealth Funds, University Endowments and other Institutional Investors. Collectively, these investors now account on average for a larger share of outstanding commodities futures contracts than any other market participant.

"These parties, who I call Index Speculators, allocate a portion of their portfolios to "investments" in the commodities futures market, and behave very differently from the traditional speculators that have always existed in this marketplace. I refer to them as "Index" Speculators because of their investing strategy: they distribute their allocation of dollars across the 25 key commodities futures according to the popular indices - the Standard & Poors - Goldman Sachs Commodity Index and the Dow Jones - AIG Commodity Index."

These index funds are composed of a number of commodities. While oil is the biggest component of the various funds, they also have exposure to grains, base metals, precious metals, and livestock. When you buy one of these funds you are buying a basket of commodities.

Why would an investor want exposure to a long-only index of commodities? Perhaps for portfolio diversification, as commodities are uncorrelated with the rest of the portfolio, or as a way to play the growing demand for commodities of all sorts from emerging markets, as a hedge against inflation, and so on. Mainline investment consultants began to suggest a few years ago to their clients that they get into the commodity market on a buy and hold basis, just like they do with stocks and bonds.

And they have done so in a very large way. As the chart below shows, at the end of 2003 there was $13 billion in commodity index funds. By March of this year, that amount had grown 20 times, to $260 billion. Masters also shows that this corresponds with the stratospheric rise in commodity prices. In many commodity futures markets, index speculators are now the single largest participant.

John Mauldin - Commodity Index Investment
Is Correlation Causation?

There is no doubt that the rise in the investment in commodity indexes and the rise in prices correlate significantly. But does correlation necessarily mean that there is a direct cause and effect? Masters says it does. (Later we will look at arguments against this view.)

As an illustration, he shows that the rise in demand for oil from China in the past five years has been 920 million barrels of oil per year. But index demand (the word Masters uses) for oil has risen by 848 million barrels, almost as much as another China.

And Masters gives us facts that are interesting. There is enough wheat in the index speculator "stockpiles" in the US to feed every many, woman, and child all the bread, pasta, and baked goods they can eat for the next two years - about 1.3 billion bushels. Yet wheat has soared in price.

As the prices of the indexes have risen, the demand for the indexes has grown. And these indexes are not price sensitive. If a billion dollars is invested in a given week, the index funds simply buy whatever allocation of futures contracts is needed to make up their index, at whatever price is offered.

For the first 52 trading days of the year, demand for commodity index funds grew by more than $55 billion, or more than $1 billion a day. And as Masters points out, "There is a crucial distinction between Traditional Speculators and Index Speculators: Traditional Speculators provide liquidity by both buying and selling futures. Index Speculators buy futures and then roll their positions by buying calendar spreads. They never sell. Therefore, they consume liquidity and provide zero benefit to the futures markets.

"Index Speculators' trading strategies amount to virtual hoarding via the commodities futures markets. Institutional Investors are buying up essential items that exist in limited quantities for the sole purpose of reaping speculative profits."

And now we get inflammatory:

"Think about it this way: If Wall Street concocted a scheme whereby investors bought large amounts of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices in order to profit from the resulting increase in prices, making these essential items unaffordable to sick and dying people, society would be justly outraged."

What about position limits? Aren't there real limits to the amount of a physical commodity that a fund or speculator can accumulate? Masters points out that there is, but the CFTC has given investment banks a loophole, in that they can sell unlimited size positions in the OTC swap markets if they hedge the positions.

So, a hedge fund could buy $500 million worth of wheat, which would be way beyond the actual market position limit, through a swap with a Wall Street bank, without having to worry about position limits. And there is no doubt that large purchases of any commodity will drive up prices, at least in the short term.

What does Masters think Congress should do? Prohibit pension funds from commodity index buying, close the swaps loophole on speculative positions, and make the CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) provide more transparency as to who is buying commodities. That would stop those nasty index speculators from driving up food and energy prices. Prices would come back down and we could all go back to driving our SUVs without having to worry about the cost.

Well, then, maybe not. It is not that simple. While there is no doubt that excess demand in the form of index buying can have a very real effect -on prices, it is not the whole story.

What an index funds does is buy a futures contract for a given commodity when money is first invested. Say that contract is six months out. When the contract is one month from expiration or delivery, the index fund sells that contract and buys another contract six months out. They sell before the contract could have an effect on the cash price of the physical commodity. The cash price is determined by supply and demand.

Let's look at supply. Masters mentioned wheat. Yes, the index speculators have built up a large futures position. But that is not the same as a large physical position. With demand soaring abroad and droughts crimping supply, the world's wheat stockpiles have fallen to their lowest level in 30 years, and stocks in the United States have dropped to levels unseen since 1948. That could go a long way to explaining rising wheat prices.

Corn? The USDA is expected to report corn stocks for the year ending Aug. 31, 2009, to fall to 685 million bushels, according to analysts surveyed by Thomson Reuters, down 47% from 1.283 billion bushels in 2008. The corn crop season ends on Aug. 31. (They expect wheat and soybean stocks to rise, for which we can be thankful.)

Bob Greer, executive vice president at PIMCO, rebuts Masters arguments in a very cogent paper recently sent to me. He argues that index funds do not affect the price but may contribute to volatility.

"Some market observers have tried to tie the level of inventories to index investment, most notably in crude oil. Their arguments take one of two forms:

"1) The indexer's act of selling the nearby and buying the distant contract forces the futures curve to be upward sloping (future price is higher than nearby price). This creates an incentive to own inventories and earn the "return to storage" represented by the slope of the futures curve. The act of increasing inventory keeps the commodity off the market, thus decreasing supply.

"2) A variation of the above argument is that the short seller, who takes the other side of the indexer's purchase, needs to protect their position by buying and holding the physical commodity.

"It would be nice if either of these arguments were true, in which case, the developed world would not be hostage to the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Any time we needed to increase crude inventories, we need merely to bring in more indexers, and the inventory would appear. In fact, the explanation for inventory levels of any commodity is much simpler. If, in the cash markets, production exceeds demand, inventories will rise. Otherwise they will fall. That is why, in six of the last eight years, global wheat inventories fell, regardless of index investment (USDA). That is why from 2006 to 2008, crude oil inventories declined and the crude oil curve went from upward sloping to downward sloping, in spite of increasing index investment (EIA). Furthermore, the second argument above breaks down when applied to non-storable commodities such as live cattle."

Further, Greer shows a chart from Deutsche Bank which highlights the fact that many commodities which are not in the index fund portfolios have risen higher than exchange-traded commodities (rice, for instance). Look at the chart below:

John Mauldin - Price Appreciation of Exchange vs Non-Exchange Traded Commodities

Greer concludes with these important paragraphs:

"Regarding intrinsic value, commodity futures prices converge to cash prices, and cash prices are set by the level of demand to consume physical goods such as steak, gasoline, and Wheaties. The price setting mechanism is not based on possibly erroneous assessment of a financial statement, nor on irrational exuberance. In commodities there is an outside measure of intrinsic value--the cash market--that is not dominant in equity, real estate, or tulip bulb markets. As actual commodity prices go higher or lower, they reflect consumption requirements for actual products, many of which are not very storable.

"This is a sharp contrast from internet stocks or vacation condos, which are subject to speculative bubbles. Unfortunately, our conventional wisdom regarding factors that create bubbles is rooted in asset classes like stocks and real estate, asset classes that have fundamentally different characteristics than physical and futures markets.

"Coincidence is not the same thing as causality. It is a coincidence that commodity index investment has increased in the last few years just as commodity prices have increased. If there is any causality, it is the other way around. Rising commodity prices have caused an increased interest in commodity investment. And it is certainly causality that fundamental supply, demand and inventory factors have driven commodity prices in many markets higher, whether or not those are markets in which index investors participate. This is the same causality that has driven commodity prices both higher and lower for many decades."
Where Will Oil Prices Go?

So, let's look at the fundamentals for oil. While a large part of this week's rise in oil was short covering (you can tell that from open positions), the supply of oil was down 7% from last year, even with demand beginning to fall. But there is an interesting footnote to that statistic, which we will visit later. Look at the chart below from www.economy.com:

John Mauldin - Where is the Supply Response?

Notice that supplies turned down sharply this last month, while the momentum of falling supply had been dropping since January. That is to say, the change in crude oil stocks was a negative 10% in January and was a little over -4% a month ago, falling to -7% today. But this is in the face of demand slowing. Today we learned that gasoline usage was down 4.2%, as prices are finally changing American driving behavior.

Jakab Spencer noted in his always interesting Dow Jones column that there is a disconnect between the New York Stock Exchange and the New York Mercantile Exchange, just one mile apart. The NYSE is pricing in $75 oil in oil stocks, while the futures market is surging over $135, and there are calls for near-term $150-a-barrel oil. The stock market is telling us that oil, at least in futures terms, is in a bubble.

And frankly, if you listened to their testimony, and more importantly pay attention to their actions, oil company executives simply do not believe that the price of oil is going to be $135 a barrel for the next few years. If they did, they would be punching more holes in the ground in places where it might be expensive to get the oil to market - but at $135 a barrel it would be profitable.

And then there is an odd circumstance in the oil picture that I think may suggest that we could see a break, and perhaps a violent one, in the near term for the price of oil.
Where Are All the Tankers?

For a few weeks now, observers have noticed that Iran is leasing tankers and storing oil in them. At about $140,000 a week or so, that is expensive storage. At first, conspiracy theorists were wondering if they were preparing for some kind of war or attack. But more conventionally, it may be they are having problems selling their oil. Their oil is not very high-quality, and there are only a few places that can take it and refine it. India, China, and the US are among the countries with refineries that can take Iranian oil. (And yes, George Friedman of Stratfor tells me some of it does end up in the US from time to time.)

India's refiners are telling Iran they no longer want their oil, preferring the higher-quality oil that is readily available in the area. So Iran has to decide whether to send it to China or "repackage" it so that it can end up in the US, while they try to get refiners in India to change their minds. Thus, they are leasing tankers to store the oil they are pumping.

I called George about six this evening and asked him about the Iranian situation, as that is a lot of oil that could come on the market at some point, as well as a possible reason that oil supplies are down. George has analysts on top of this situation.

He told me, "John, it's more interesting than that. It is not just Iran. Today we started checking on how many tankers Iran had, and soon discovered that there is a serious tanker shortage. Lease prices have soared in the past few weeks. It is clear there are a lot of speculators betting that oil is going to rise to $150 or so and are willing to pay very high prices for keeping the oil on the seas waiting for higher prices. It is a speculative boom."

He then told me about flying into New York in the early '80s. Outside the harbor were 30 or so tankers just sitting, waiting for prices to continue to increase as they had been doing for some time. When they did not, they all tried to get into the harbor at the same time, and of course they couldn't. It was the top of the market. Prices dropped, and the owners of the oil had to go to the futures market to hedge what they could. I had heard that story, but George saw it with his own eyes.

Almost everyone (except the stock market) is convinced oil is going higher in the near term. As I noted above, this week's rally was partially due to short covering by large institutions and companies which had sold production far into the future at much lower prices. They finally threw in the towel and took off their hedges.

MEA 26.05.2008. 16:54

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Također vrijedno pogledati - već druga rečenica jasno govori o dostatnosti nafte odnosno o sasvim dovoljnoj ponudi
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...KoOg2ALbiPDnAw

gollum007 26.05.2008. 18:01

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
http://business.hr/Default2.aspx?Art...772a8&open=sec
Neslužbeno se doznaje da će eurodizel na Ininim postajama od sutra stajati 9,81 kunu po litri, što je 5,8 posto više od dosadašnjih 9,27 kuna, dok će dizel poskupjeti 5,2 posto, na 9,65 kuna (do sada 9,17 kuna).

Poskupjet će i plavi dizel, i to 5 posto, i nova mu je cijena 5,63 kune po litri (do sada 5,36 kuna), te loživo ulje 5,7 posto, na 6,98 kuna (do sada 6,60 kuna).

Cijene naftnih derivata na hrvatskom se tržištu mogu korigirati svaka dva tjedna, ovisno o cijeni derivata na tržištu Mediterana i kretanju tečaja dolara, a nekako je uobičajeno da u slučaju rasta Ininih cijena i ostali trgovci dižu cijene na svojim crpkama.

MEA 27.05.2008. 22:21

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...6/cnoil126.xml

Nakon Indije i Njemačka traži zabranu trgovine terminskim ugovorima na naftu i druge sirovine.
Bilo bi "zabavno" vidjeti zabranu trgovanja i tankere nafte "parkirane" u New Yorku sa pozivom Goldman Sachsu da preuzme naftu koju je je "kupio".

panzer 27.05.2008. 22:36

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
To je onaj Goldman čije analize o rastu cijene barela iznad 150 USD izazivaju "zabrinutost" na tržištu?

MEA 27.05.2008. 22:53

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Priloženih dokumenata: 1
Da, i za razliku od prošlog puta kad je izazvao podsmjehe (i moje osobne) najavom nafte na $ 100 (prije 3 g.) sad se više nitko ne želi kladiti protiv njih.

Malo propitkivanja oko njihove analize: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...=moreheadlines

Interesantno je da i pored njihove projekcije cijene nafte istovremeno Exxon Mobile-u zadržavaju NEUTRAL rating - tu nešto ne štima ili pak u samom Goldman Sachsu svi ne vjeruju svom kolegi iz susjednog ureda.

Veoma dobra studija o kalkulaciji cijene nafte u attachmentu (nimalo zabavna - puno formula :))

Izvor: http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/...tanding_c.html

panzer 27.05.2008. 23:09

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Ova cijena i nije toliko loša jer možda postoji i druga dimenzija mada se niko ne slaže da je to u stvari to.

U zadnje vrijeme se znatno više počelo govoriti o globalnom zagrijavanju, topljenju polova i opštem zagađenju izazvanim ekonomskim rastom na svim kontinentima.

Niko se neće potruditi da racionalnije koristi energiju i ostale resurse samo radi ekologije,
ali će svaki amerikanac smanjiti potrošnju u svojim vozilima koja inače troše znatno više od ostalih kada ih udari po džepu.

Isto tako i ostatak svijeta će "malo stati na loptu". Nešto slično današnjem protestu engleskih autoprijevoznika.

MEA 28.05.2008. 20:15

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Evo i američki senatori posežu za načinima kako "probušiti" oil bubble.
Ciljaju na "rupe" u trgovanju terminskim ugovorima. Nastoje limitirati iznose s kojima mogu trgovati non-commercial traders (hedge fondovi i inv. banke). Na taj način bi smanjili potražnju za futures kontraktima i smanjili priliv sredstava na futures marketu.

"Ogadili" su i Goldman Sachsa izjavom:"da oni analitičari koji smatraju da je cijena nafte od $ 200 ekonomski opravdana se ne razlikuju mnogo od dot.com analitičara".

Mike Masters - prekaljeni hedge fond manager je prošli tjedan svjedočio pred Senatskim odborom i iznio podatak da je udio inv. banaka na tržištu sirovina porastao sa $ 13 bn u 2003 na $ 260 bn u Mar. 2008.
Čak su i mirovinski fondovi postali igrači na ovom marketu a među njima je i najveći CALIPERS iz Kalifornije.
Naravno da ni Sovereign Wealth fondovi nisu htjeli biti izostavljeni iz ovog napuhavnja balona pa su osim na terminskim ugovorima zaradili i tako što su podigli cijenu nafte da mogu komodno zarađivati i na nafti (svi su oni naime iz zemalja proizvođača nafte i prema procjenama Međunarodnog instituta za financije SWF iz zemalja iz arapskog zaljeva
su ove godine narasli za dodatnih 10 % i procjenjuju da im je vrijednost imovine premašila $ 2 trilijuna.

Druga "rupa" koju zakonodavac nastoji sada zakrpati je ona koja je omogućavala premašivanje iznosa koje su napr mirovinski fondovi mogli plasirati na riskantno tržište sirovina na način da se sa inv. bankom uđe u swap agreement na način da se umjesto njih banka pojavi kao kupac.

I onda su "jadna" Kina i Indija krive za visoku cijenu nafte.


(članak (ne uključuje zadnju rečenicu :)) mi je na platformi pa ne mogu copy/paste - by Ian Talley - DJ Newswire tel 202-862-9285 email: ian.talley@dowjones.com)

matematic 28.05.2008. 21:08

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

MEA (Post 413762)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/mai...6/cnoil126.xml

Nakon Indije i Njemačka traži zabranu trgovine terminskim ugovorima na naftu i druge sirovine.
Bilo bi "zabavno" vidjeti zabranu trgovanja i tankere nafte "parkirane" u New Yorku sa pozivom Goldman Sachsu da preuzme naftu koju je je "kupio".

Zasto? Zato sto..

..a conservative calculation is that at least 60%of today’s $128 per barrel price of crude oil comes from unregulated futures speculation by hedge funds, banks and financial groups using the London ICE Futures and New York NYMEX futures exchanges and uncontrolled inter-bank or Over-The-Counter trading to avoid scrutiny. US margin rules of the government’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission allow speculators to buy a crude oil futures contract on the Nymex, by having to pay only 6% of the value of the contract. At today's price of $128 per barrel, that means a futures trader only has to put up about $8 for every barrel. He borrows the other $120. This extreme “leverage” of 16 to 1 helps drive prices to wildly unrealistic levels and offset bank losses in sub-prime and other disasters at the expense of the overall population..

uskok 03.06.2008. 02:44

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
To je progres !

In 1921, GM lost $65 million, leading [GM President Alfred P.] Sloan to conclude that the auto market was saturated, that those who desired cars already owned them, and that the only way to increase GM's sales and restore its profitability was by eliminating its principal rival: electric railways. At the time, 90 percent of all trips were by rail, chiefly electric rail; only one in 10 Americans owned an automobile. There were 1,200 separate electric street and interurban railways, a thriving and profitable industry with 44,000 miles of track, 300,000 employees, 15 billion annual passengers, and $1 billion in income. Virtually every city and town in America of more than 2,500 people had its own electric rail system. Source www.lovearth.net/gmdeliberatelydestroyed.htm

I dalje,

General Motors, Firestone Tire, Standard Oil of California and Phillips Petroleum formed the National City Lines (NCL) holding company, which acquired most streetcar systems throughout the United States, dismantled them, and replaced them with buses in the mid 20th century. After all was said and done, and all the streetcar systems gone, GM was convicted of violating the Sherman Antitrust Act, fined a whopping $5,000. Each executive was ordered to pay a fine of $1 for a conspiracy to force the streetcar systems to buy GM buses instead of other buses (but not for dismantling the streetcar systems, which were also being dismantled by non-NCL owned systems). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General...car_conspiracy

Still think that what's good for GM is good for America?

Donat 04.06.2008. 10:53

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
"George Soros, the billionaire hedge fund manager, will warn later today that the oil price has become a bubble that could trigger a stock market crash..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2...03/commodities

panzer 04.06.2008. 22:16

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Šta je ovo sa cijenom.
Gdje je ta Kina, Indija, Nigerija, problemi, zabrinutost i sve ostalo?

Preko noći sve postalo idealno?

dj_no1 05.06.2008. 11:43

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Citat:

panzer (Post 415864)
Šta je ovo sa cijenom.
Gdje je ta Kina, Indija, Nigerija, problemi, zabrinutost i sve ostalo?

Preko noći sve postalo idealno?


Pričalo se dosta o špekulacijama o zalihama nafte... Navodno su "odgovorni" ljudi podastirali dokaze o znatno manjim zalihama od stvarnog stanja. Jednostavnom računicom dolazimo do rješenja: manje zaliha- veća cijena...

Shogun 11.06.2008. 00:42

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Šta mislite o teoriji da Bush napadne Iran i tako podigne rejting svojem nasljedniku iz stranke? Tome bi odgovaralo ovo divljanje cijena nafte.

koljenovic 11.06.2008. 01:02

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Analiticar, 2005 :

Q: Do you think $105 per barrel is probable?
A: We always say it can't be ruled out, but if we were to put a probability or expectation on it, I think...maybe there's a 5% chance that Saudi Arabia slides into the Red Sea and there's a run on oil supplies.

We have to get to $60 before we can get to $105. We haven't gotten to $60 yet.

Q: Do you consider this a bubble -- like the tech bubble of the late '90s?
A: I do. Some of the bullish analysis specifically warns people away from traditional methods of valuation. They'll say things like, "Inventory levels are no longer relevant, or a meaningful measure." Except that inventories levels are an objective measure. It's not a matter of opinion -- it's factual.

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/...50427_5199.htm

P.S. Results 1 - 10 of about 313,000 for crude oil is bubble

traderhr 12.06.2008. 12:10

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
http://www.swing-trading.net/other/heavycrude.gif

MEA 18.06.2008. 17:22

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
An oilman dies and, upon ascending to the Pearly Gates, is told by St. Peter that, while he deserves to get into heaven, can't go in because there already are too many oilmen in heaven.

The recently deceased asks St. Peter for an opportunity to have a minute to talk to those other oilmen and wonders, if he can convince any of those others to leave, whether he can make it into heaven.

St. Peter says sure.

A minute or two later, there is a stampede of oilmen away from heaven. St. Peter, amazed, asked what the oilman's trick was.

It was easy, he said: He simply announced that oil had been discovered in hell.
Amazingly, however, the oilman declined the promised invitation to enter Heaven, and instead began following the stampede.
Why, St. Peter asked?
Because, the oil man responded, you never know -- the rumor about oil in hell just might be true.

spread 19.06.2008. 00:16

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
:biggrin: dobar Mea :thumbsup:

Nesto za citati: http://marketplace.publicradio.org/d...08/06/16/cftc/

Cowboy opet jase, pa ajmo vidjeti sto ce kongres uciniti: http://www.reuters.com/article/ousiv...00968520080618

MEA 20.06.2008. 17:15

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Fantastični su ovi oil bull drukeri - skoro da im se imaš nakloniti i kapu skinuti.
Jučer po objavi vijesti da je Kina povisila cijene derivata za 17 % nafta je pala $ 5 po barelu.
Danas kažu da je to u biti odlično jer će sada rafinerije imati više razloga da ne obustavljaju proizvodnju (jer će im naravno rafinerijska marža biti veća) pa će one na tržištu tražiti dodatne količine i time povećati potražnju za naftom.

I danas je nafta UP za $5.

Nevjerovatno - kakve sve razloge smisle da bi potaknuli kupnju.
A najjača im je teorija da je ovo zapravo dobro za svijet u cjelini.

Jer dvocifrena inflacija je nešto - apsolutno fantastično - za cijeli svijet, a posebno za onaj siromašniji dio.

Zimbabwe - here we come.

spread 20.06.2008. 19:27

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
He he slazem se sa komentarom, svaka iole "teža" vijest ima veliki utjecaj na market, pa tako i današnja vijest iz Pentagona(yeah right) da je Izraelska vojna vjezba pocetkom ovog mjeseca na Mediteranu, imala za namjeru demonstraciju mogucnosti napada na Iranska nuklearna postrojenja, ...

"Oil futures rebounded Friday as Pentagon officials said a large scale Israeli military exercise in the eastern Mediterranean early this month could have been a demonstration of Jerusalem's ability to attack Iranian nuclear facilities."

http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080620/oil_prices.html

Iako Kina znacajno gomila zalihe nafte(uvoz) u zadnjih 5 mjeseci: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080620/china_energy_prices.html

spread 20.06.2008. 19:31

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
A Chavez opet prijeti sa nebuloznim idejama

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez Thursday threatened to stop selling oil to European countries if they apply a new ruling on illegal immigrants that is criticized in Latin America and by human rights groups.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/25277403

Mahir 26.06.2008. 03:15

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Priloženih dokumenata: 1
Citat:

dj_no1 (Post 416004)
Pričalo se dosta o špekulacijama o zalihama nafte... Navodno su "odgovorni" ljudi podastirali dokaze o znatno manjim zalihama od stvarnog stanja. Jednostavnom računicom dolazimo do rješenja: manje zaliha- veća cijena...

Ne bih se složio sa konstatacijom naime "odgovorni" ljudi bi i rekli da rafinerije ne žele gomilati/skladištiti naftu po 130$ pb zato je recimo logično da se prodaje nafta iz zaliha kupljena recimo po 70$ te se na gasolineu uzima masna provizija, uostalom elastičnost cijene i potrošnje je danas pokazala relaciju - pad potrošnje od 2,1%.
Znakovito je i to da su saudijci (koji nisu največi proizvođaći ali imaju najveće rezerve najisplativije nafte) u veljači 06 počeli smanjivati proizvodnju sa 9,5 Mbpd (crude je tada bio ispod 70$ pb) na 8,6 Mbpd u veljači 07 (službeni podaci EIA i IEA) i tu razinu držali sve do kolovoza 07 kada kreće povečanje proizvodnje, međutim psihološka barijera od 100$ pb je probijena u tom razdoblju bolje rečeno razina od 106$ pb što je ekvivalent inflation adjusted price iz 1980 (peak) ali ne i jednakosti udara na standard građana osamdesete i danas koji se prema SG-u nalazi na cca 190$ pb. Razlika je u 900.000 bpd-a.
Red veličina strašna Nigerija proizvodi cca 350.000 - 380.000 bpd dok recimo američka vojska troši oko 360.000 barela dnevno. Važno je kazati da je i Rusija smanjivala proizvodnju ali razloge i podatke nisam mogao naći samo imam nagađanja da se radi o špekulaciji/manipulaciji.
Evo i jedne slikice da nafte ipak ima, samo je bitna cijena eksploatacije te kapaciteta koji se u kratkom roku mogu staviti u pogon.
Ne zaboravimo da je prije par mjeseci otkriveno offshore polje ispred Ria procjenjenih rezervi od 33Bb-a.
Uz sadašnju potrošnju največeg, daleko največeg potrošača SAD-a od 20Mbpd uz ulazak Manife u 2013 ukupne snage od 51 milijardu barela (naravno postepen) dolazimo do izračuna da samo mega polje Manifa je u stanju 7 godina snabdijevati sadašnju potrošnju SAD-a (za sada potrošnja je počela opadati). A polje je otkriveno 1957!!!

P.s. Nadam se da se vidi svjetlo na kraju tunela

spread 02.07.2008. 01:35

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Index speculators su uzeli maha, pa da vidimo sto CFTC kaze o tome :rolleyes:

http://cftc.gov/stellent/groups/publ...heet062308.pdf

Citat iz svjedocenja Michael Mastersa ispred: Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate

"Over the same five-year period, Index Speculatorsʼ demand for petroleum futures has increased by 848 million barrels. The increase in demand from Index Speculators is almost equal to the increase in demand
from China!"

Uglavnom ne ocekujem da ce Iran zacepiti prolaz kroz Hormuz tjesnac, ali psihologija i dalje cini svoje :rolleyes:

pozdrav

bubimir 02.07.2008. 01:58

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Mon Jun 30, 4:32 PM ET Iraq opens bidding on 8 oil and natural gas fields:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080630/...bi_ge/iraq_oil
"Addressing a press conference in Baghdad, al-Shahristani said the oil ministry would prepare the legal framework and conditions for signing the contracts and send them to companies by the end of September.
The contracts to be signed by the end of June 2009 are expected to clear the way for major international investment for the first time in four decades.
Iraq produces around 2.5 million barrels of crude oil a day, close to its pre-war output levels. It could be augmented by an additional 1.5 million barrels with the development of these oil fields, al-Shahristani told reporters.
He added that Iraq aimed to raise output to 4.5 million bpd by 2013, levels prior to the first Persian Gulf War in 1991.
The contracts are not given on a production sharing basis, as firms will be given exclusive rights for long-term development, he said.
"During a press conference Monday, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani named 35 companies that would qualify to bid on service contracts for eight oil and gas fields. The firms included seven from the U.S., three from Britain and others from countries like Russia and China.
Al-Shahristani said the companies would be invited to bid on the oil fields of Rumeila, Zubair, Qurna West, Maysan, Kirkuk and Bay Hassan; and the natural gas fields of Akkaz and Mansouriyah.
"These fields were chosen because their production can be raised in a short time and at a low cost," said al-Shahristani.
All of the oil fields are currently producing crude, and al-Shahristani said the new contracts would raise Iraq's production by 1.5 million barrels per day. Iraq currently produces 2.5 million barrels per day and hopes to raise that to 4.5 million by 2013.
The introduction of 1.5 million barrels of oil each day would likely be enough to move the price for a barrel downward, but analysts are not convinced, given the deterioration of the Iraq's infrastructure and potential instability, that it is realistic.

"I'm pretty skeptical of that figure," said Jim Ritterbusch, president of energy consultancy Ritterbusch and Associates. "Amount is one thing, timing is another. They still need to upgrade their infrastructure and while things have stabilized, I think you're assuming a best-case scenario on security and other issues."

Jones Dow 06.07.2008. 21:09

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Bin Ladenova želja 2001. godine bila je da barel nafte bude 144 USD, sedam godina poslije želja mu se ostvarila! The New York Times October 14, 2001 :(

gollum007 09.07.2008. 08:27

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Iran testirao nuklearno oružje
http://www.poslovni.hr/85401.aspx

MEA 10.07.2008. 13:42

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Airline Chiefs Call For End To Oil Speculators
AN OPEN LETTER TO ALL AIRLINE CUSTOMERS
From 12 Airline CEOs 7-10-08

"Our country is facing a possible sharp economic downturn because of skyrocketing oil and fuel prices, but by pulling together, we can all do something to help now.

For airlines, ultra-expensive fuel means thousands of lost jobs and severe reductions in air service to both large and small communities. To the broader economy, oil prices mean slower activity and widespread economic pain. This pain can be alleviated, and that is why we are taking the extraordinary step of writing this joint letter to our customers.

Since high oil prices are partly a response to normal market forces, the nation needs to focus on increased energy supplies and conservation. However, there is another side to this story because normal market forces are being dangerously amplified by poorly regulated market speculation.

Twenty years ago, 21 percent of oil contracts were purchased by speculators who trade oil on paper with no intention of ever taking delivery. Today, oil speculators purchase 66 percent of all oil futures contracts, and that reflects just the transactions that are known. Speculators buy up large amounts of oil and then sell it to each other again and again. A barrel of oil may trade 20-plus times before it is delivered and used; the price goes up with each trade and consumers pick up the final tab. Some market experts estimate that current prices reflect as much as $30 to $60 per barrel in unnecessary speculative costs.

Over seventy years ago, Congress established regulations to control excessive, largely unchecked market speculation and manipulation. However, over the past two decades, these regulatory limits have been weakened or removed. We believe that restoring and enforcing these limits, along with several other modest measures, will provide more disclosure, transparency and sound market oversight. Together, these reforms will help cool the over-heated oil market and permit the economy to prosper.

The nation needs to pull together to reform the oil markets and solve this growing problem.

We need your help."

Source: http://www.StopOilSpeculationNow.com

The position of StopOilSpeculationNow.com on oil prices is as follows:

"The Problem"

"What is causing the high price of fuel?

The oil price bubble is unfairly taxing American families and restricting our nation’s economic potential. While everyone is aware that supply and demand constraints contribute to price increases, there’s another force at work that, like gravity, is invisible yet powerful. This force is rampant speculation.

Every time you buy products such as food or gas, you are impacted by unregulated, secretive and often foreign commodities futures markets. Speculators in these markets are increasingly buying and selling commodities such as oil to sell again, rather than to use. As largely unregulated speculators pocket billions of dollars at your expense, the price of commodities has increased out of proportion to marketplace demands.

As speculators continue to dominate the market, the volume of oil traded “on paper” has been as high as 22 times greater than the volume of oil consumed. As prices rise, institutional investors have become active traders, turning commodities into just another asset class. This has caused severe market imbalance and upset the natural relationship between supply and demand. As a result, legitimate customers such as trucking companies, airlines, and consumers have been forced to purchase oil at unnecessarily higher prices. This has dramatically raised costs, resulting in needlessly high prices for American consumers and businesses.

How do they get away with that?

Over the last 20 years, commodities markets have become increasingly less regulated. Today, as many as 90 percent of all commodities trades occur outside of the traditional marketplace exchanges. In these so-called “Swaps trades”, parties secretly buy and sell commodities with absolutely no one watching. This means speculators can manipulate oil prices and corner the market without anyone knowing.

In addition, other loopholes exist allowing increasingly sophisticated speculators to take advantage of consumers. For example, in 2000 Enron lobbied policy makers to permit some U.S. commodities exchanges to operate without normal oversight. This has allowed speculators to dodge public disclosure rules that would normally limit the number of trades an investor can make."

dspin 10.07.2008. 14:09

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Morat cemo se prilagodit i dio sredstava za mirovinski fond svaki mjesec uplacivat u long call crude oil futurese. :p:

spread 11.07.2008. 19:35

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Odlican citat MEA, vise manje su rekli sve sto je trebalo reci.
Na Strong buy sam naveo vise manje iste razloge, od Enrona, swap loophole-a, commodity exchange act-a iz 1936 itd itd.

Ameri sve manje putuju radi skupljih avionskih karata, a velikih guzvi na cestama za produzeni vikend za 4th of July ovaj puta nije bilo :cool:

MEA 12.07.2008. 18:17

Odgovor na: Nafta zvana Crude Oil
 
Priloženih dokumenata: 1
Citat:

spread (Post 423381)
Odlican citat MEA, vise manje su rekli sve sto je trebalo reci.
Na Strong buy sam naveo vise manje iste razloge, od Enrona, swap loophole-a, commodity exchange act-a iz 1936 itd itd.

Ameri sve manje putuju radi skupljih avionskih karata, a velikih guzvi na cestama za produzeni vikend za 4th of July ovaj puta nije bilo :cool:

Da sve poznato i to svima koji su zainteresirani ali čeka se odluka Kongresa. Ako sam dobro razumio "začepljena" je Londonska rupa a i Enronova ostala je još Swap (u Ponedjeljak su Lehmanu privremeno zabranaili trgovinu naftnim futuresima) i naravno zabranu trgovanja non-commercial traderima (malo sutra:p:) - Wall St. tada može staviti "ključ u bravu" - naime za sada zarađuje samo na nafti i commodittima.

Kad si spomenuo avioprijevoz u attachmentu je graf koji prikazuje prevaljene milje svih USA vozača - nikakav komentar nije potreban.
(Economy 101 - high prices kills demand.)

(BTW kad smo već kod Enrona i on i svi ostali energy traderi su bili u sličnoj shemi koja je trajala do 2002 (trgovina energetskim futuresima - el. energijom, plinom - koja sigurno nije ostala u ugodnom sjećanju u Kaliforniji posebno kad su se ljeti kuhali bez klima uređaja. Osim Enrona još je nekoliko trgovaca el. energijom potražilo zaštitu pod Ch. 11 (zadnja je bila CPN - Calpine).

Koliko će hedge fondova otići sa "trbuhom nagore" kad se naftna vaga definitivno preokrene (remember Amaranth ?)

I na kraju milsim da bismo svi mogli biti "sretni" ako je sve ovo samo rezultat špekulanata i oil bubble - tada je naime sigurno da će nafta dogodine biti na oko $ 50.
U suprotnom - "mrka kapa" :thumbsdow


Prikaz vremena: GMT +2. U trenutku učitavanja stranice, bilo je 11:43 sati.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.