Who Is To Blame For Soaring Gas Prices?

[Nimue1995 1]

Check out the IQ on this guy!

Lol I'm not a guy.Someone needs to check out loogie's humor IQ. It's seriously deficient today.

[loogie 115]

Someone needs to check out loogie's humor IQ. It's seriously deficient today.

RAGE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nimue1995 1]

SERENITY

[El Guapo 8]

This guy has some good points.http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/...-president.html

[El Guapo 8]

.

[BigLebowski 0]

EDIT: 2 weeks ago, pension were re-restricted from purchasing any new oil futures. That seems to coincide quite nicely with the almost 20% decline in oil prices in the last 2 weeks.

[El Guapo 8]

You know what Loogie I was doing some thinking about your purpose for this thread, and not that Dems are to blame for the high gas prices, because they are not, IMO you have a better chance at lower future prices do to their willingness to open up drilling. Both parties seem to have a unified front on finding alternative enrgies now, but that is obv still debatable.

[copernicus 0]

EDIT: 2 weeks ago, pension were re-restricted from purchasing any new oil futures. That seems to coincide quite nicely with the almost 20% decline in oil prices in the last 2 weeks.

Link?

[El Guapo 8]

Link?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/business/invest26.phpNEW YORK: A proposal in the Congress to ban pension funds from investing in commodity markets threatens to further squeeze retirement plans whose funds are already lower because of a woeful stock market.It could also result in two unequal types of pension funds: those that moved money into the sector early and those that missed their chance to diversify their portfolios with what is currently the best-performing asset class."The missed opportunity would be for people who have yet to get into commodities and unable to partake in what has been a strategic asset class," said Eliot Geller, managing director and global head of commodity indexes at Jefferies Financial Products, which is co-owner of the Reuters-Jefferies CRB index.The CRB index, which tracks 19 commodity futures and is one of the most popular investment outlets for pension funds, is up 27 percent year-to-date.The S&P 500 index of the top 500 U.S. stocks, by contrast, is down by around 10 percent as the American stock market heads to what could be its worst annual performance since 2001. U.S. bonds are doing better, although benchmark yields hit five-year lows recently.Today in Business with ReutersU.S. jobless rate hits 4-year highGM posts $15.5 billion second-quarter lossPolice report says Société Générale was unaware of rogue tradesAnalysts say the clear outperformance of commodities is naturally a magnet for investors. But U.S. lawmakers are targeting pension funds for purportedly contributing to the speculation that has driven up food and fuel prices.Of the numerous congressional proposals, one suggests pensions with assets of $500 million or more be barred from commodities, while others call for a blanket ban on institutional funds, including pensions, from the sector."It would certainly hurt to take one tool away - and a tool that can be important from a portfolio standpoint," said Karen Dolan, director of funds analysis at Morningstar, a firm that provides research on financial markets and alternative investments like commodities.To press their case, U.S. lawmakers cite the growth of index-related commodity investments by major funds to $260 billion compared with $13 billion five years ago.But analysts said most institutional investors devote only 3 percent to 5 percent of their portfolio to commodities and alternative assets like real estate, compared with the 40 to 50 percent typically allocated to equities and the balance to bonds.The strategy is intended to minimize losses from stocks as commodities move to their own fundamentals and have historically rallied during bear markets in equities.Analysts say the benefit of having commodities in a portfolio has become more evident this year as a streak of record highs in oil, gold and grain prices helped create gains beyond market expectations for some investors.On the same score, the slump on Wall Street has been bad enough to wipe out the bulk of gains made by many pensions through 2007, casting doubt on the ability of some funds to meet future payouts and other financial commitments.Analysts said pensions needed wider diversification opportunities, and argued that removing commodities would do the opposite.Blocking pension funds from investing in U.S. commodity markets could also drive them to look for diversification opportunities outside the country."Somebody will open up a futures exchange in Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Malta and all the business from the institutional funds and pensions would go there, and the U.S. would be the biggest loser," said Victor Sperandeo, a veteran commodities trader and president of Alpha Financial Technologies.Strange thing, I cannot find the news wire that says it happened. I'll keep looking, we have it at work somewhere

[wakiki 0]

Wow, I'm extremely impressed with the intelligence of the people who have posted in this thread. Gives me some hope. Except the OP. Bad poll. Sorry OP guy. :PPeople at my work think that the gas companies are making too much money and they should simply lower the prices and pass on some savings to us. Sigh...the lunacy...

[copernicus 0]

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/25/business/invest26.phpNEW YORK: A proposal in the Congress to ban pension funds from investing in commodity markets threatens to further squeeze retirement plans whose funds are already lower because of a woeful stock market.It could also result in two unequal types of pension funds: those that moved money into the sector early and those that missed their chance to diversify their portfolios with what is currently the best-performing asset class."The missed opportunity would be for people who have yet to get into commodities and unable to partake in what has been a strategic asset class," said Eliot Geller, managing director and global head of commodity indexes at Jefferies Financial Products, which is co-owner of the Reuters-Jefferies CRB index.The CRB index, which tracks 19 commodity futures and is one of the most popular investment outlets for pension funds, is up 27 percent year-to-date.The S&P 500 index of the top 500 U.S. stocks, by contrast, is down by around 10 percent as the American stock market heads to what could be its worst annual performance since 2001. U.S. bonds are doing better, although benchmark yields hit five-year lows recently.Today in Business with ReutersU.S. jobless rate hits 4-year highGM posts $15.5 billion second-quarter lossPolice report says Société Générale was unaware of rogue tradesAnalysts say the clear outperformance of commodities is naturally a magnet for investors. But U.S. lawmakers are targeting pension funds for purportedly contributing to the speculation that has driven up food and fuel prices.Of the numerous congressional proposals, one suggests pensions with assets of $500 million or more be barred from commodities, while others call for a blanket ban on institutional funds, including pensions, from the sector."It would certainly hurt to take one tool away - and a tool that can be important from a portfolio standpoint," said Karen Dolan, director of funds analysis at Morningstar, a firm that provides research on financial markets and alternative investments like commodities.To press their case, U.S. lawmakers cite the growth of index-related commodity investments by major funds to $260 billion compared with $13 billion five years ago.But analysts said most institutional investors devote only 3 percent to 5 percent of their portfolio to commodities and alternative assets like real estate, compared with the 40 to 50 percent typically allocated to equities and the balance to bonds.The strategy is intended to minimize losses from stocks as commodities move to their own fundamentals and have historically rallied during bear markets in equities.Analysts say the benefit of having commodities in a portfolio has become more evident this year as a streak of record highs in oil, gold and grain prices helped create gains beyond market expectations for some investors.On the same score, the slump on Wall Street has been bad enough to wipe out the bulk of gains made by many pensions through 2007, casting doubt on the ability of some funds to meet future payouts and other financial commitments.Analysts said pensions needed wider diversification opportunities, and argued that removing commodities would do the opposite.Blocking pension funds from investing in U.S. commodity markets could also drive them to look for diversification opportunities outside the country."Somebody will open up a futures exchange in Dubai, Abu Dhabi or Malta and all the business from the institutional funds and pensions would go there, and the U.S. would be the biggest loser," said Victor Sperandeo, a veteran commodities trader and president of Alpha Financial Technologies.Strange thing, I cannot find the news wire that says it happened. I'll keep looking, we have it at work somewhere

thats because it hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen. The Senate failed to pass a cloture vote, and I dont believe the House has even considered it. Pension funds are not blind speculators, those that do invest in commodities are almost entirely through hedge funds and portable alpha strategies.

[El Guapo 8]

thats because it hasn't happened and is very unlikely to happen. The Senate failed to pass a cloture vote, and I dont believe the House has even considered it. Pension funds are not blind speculators, those that do invest in commodities are almost entirely through hedge funds and portable alpha strategies.

It does not matter if they are blind speculators or not, cal pers alone has bought over a billion in oil futures this year.

[copernicus 0]

It does not matter if they are blind speculators or not, cal pers alone has bought over a billion in oil futures this year.

Of course it matters whether they are blind speculators. Hedge strategies dont drive up prices because they arent all in the same direction. LMAO @ calpers buying 1 billion in futures. Thats less than 1/2% of the fund.There isnt a single major pension fund asset manager who is concerned about S3268.

[El Guapo 8]

Of course it matters whether they are blind speculators. Hedge strategies dont drive up prices because they arent all in the same direction. LMAO @ calpers buying 1 billion in futures. Thats less than 1/2% of the fund.There isnt a single major pension fund asset manager who is concerned about S3268.

You are missing the point. First off 5% of PERS is currently in oil, that is a lot. 2nd, if billions of dollars are flowing to something, that it once previously did not, it will artificially drive up the price. It is estimated that 40% of the price of oil is based on this and speculators.

[copernicus 0]

You are missing the point. First off 5% of PERS is currently in oil, that is a lot. 2nd, if billions of dollars are flowing to something, that it once previously did not, it will artificially drive up the price. It is estimated that 40% of the price of oil is based on this and speculators.

How do you get 5%? Its a $250 billion fund. They dont have 12.5 billion in oil. They have less than 1/2%. The bill will not limit any speculation, it only will limit "excessive" speculation. Talk in the committee has been that excessive would be defined somewhere around % so it wouldnt affect Calpers even at your inflated number.There are also conflicting views that very little of the price rise is due to speculators.

[El Guapo 8]

How do you get 5%? Its a $250 billion fund. They dont have 12.5 billion in oil. They have less than 1/2%. The bill will not limit any speculation, it only will limit "excessive" speculation. Talk in the committee has been that excessive would be defined somewhere around % so it wouldnt affect Calpers even at your inflated number.There are also conflicting views that very little of the price rise is due to speculators.

Sorry I keep saying oil instead of Commodities. Last year they kept commodities between .05% and 3% but it spiked to 5% at one point with increase in that position.The point is investments in Commodities have grown from 13 billion to 260 billion in a couple years. What happens when people keep buying? Price keeps going up.

[copernicus 0]

Sorry I keep saying oil instead of Commodities. Last year they kept commodities between .05% and 3% but it spiked to 5% at one point with increase in that position.The point is investments in Commodities have grown from 13 billion to 260 billion in a couple years. What happens when people keep buying? Price keeps going up.

Futures contracts are not typical "buying". The ultimate delivery price depends, as always, on supply and demand. Contracts that settle before delivery do very little to drive up actual delivery price. The oil supply/demand relationship is somewhat inelastic so speculation can have some push on prices if purchasers agree to delivery early out of fear of increases in the settlement price. Ultimately that fear goes back to supply and demand though.

[El Guapo 8]

Futures contracts are not typical "buying". The ultimate delivery price depends, as always, on supply and demand. Contracts that settle before delivery do very little to drive up actual delivery price. The oil supply/demand relationship is somewhat inelastic so speculation can have some push on prices if purchasers agree to delivery early out of fear of increases in the settlement price. Ultimately that fear goes back to supply and demand though.

This is where you and I are in disagreement. This is what the commodities markets original purpose was, it was to flatten out the price curve over time so that companies could properly forecast future prices and now how much they would be paying for delivery on the consumable goods, say 3 months from now. But now that Pensions, Institutional investors, Hedge Funds, etc. have been allowed to purchase commodities, cash has flown there at astronomical rates, 2000% in the last 2.5 years, especially since the stock market has been unstable for the past 12 months. They are looking for returns, they will never ever take delivery on goods.It has basically opened up the flood gates and now pretty much every institution can purchase these future contracts.This is a large reason that the price has gone the direction it has. I am not saying it is the only reason by any means, but what it does is creates a (here comes the dirty word) bubble, and we have the possiblity of seeing $40-60 per barrel of oil again in the next 12 months.

[copernicus 0]

Theres another area we disagree...your Calpers numbers are all wet. Their largest direct commodity allocation last year was 500 million. 3% was the policy allocation for Invesment Linked Assets, which includes direct investment in commodities, forestry and infrastructure. The policy allocation was increased to 5% recently, but infrastructure will be a large portion of that.

[copernicus 0]

we have the possiblity of seeing $40-60 per barrel of oil again in the next 12 months.

I saw this about 10 minutes ago and just stopped laughing. This is absolute nonsense. For oil to go that low in the next 5 years a workable hydrogen fuel cell would have to be developed, we would have to start drilling on the CS and ANWR, 20 nuclear plants would have to be approved, and China would have to commit to nuclear. In the next 12 months? I lay you 10:1 on any amount you like, bet is off if a viable hydrogen fuel cell is announced.

[El Guapo 8]

I saw this about 10 minutes ago and just stopped laughing. This is absolute nonsense. For oil to go that low in the next 5 years a workable hydrogen fuel cell would have to be developed, we would have to start drilling on the CS and ANWR, 20 nuclear plants would have to be approved, and China would have to commit to nuclear. In the next 12 months? I lay you 10:1 on any amount you like, bet is off if a viable hydrogen fuel cell is announced.

I am not going to argue over something that is speculation. But for the last 2 years analysts have said that $40 a barrel is just as likely as $200 a barrel.I think the leveling point will probably be around $80 a barrel by then end of the year, early next year. This is assuming the fed raises interest rates which could drive oil down another 30% just by th re-strengthening of the dollar.And I hope 50 nuclear plants get approved, drill the shit out of Alaska and the coast. That would solve so many of our problems.BTW: Who shit in you cereal recently, you just like to argue with everyone? Even the ones who agree with you, its kind of weird.

[NickZepp 0]

The Congress can do more than the White House can as far as lowering gas prices. It won't matter who is in the White House as long as we keep using Middle East for our gasoline, the prices will continue to soar. Problem is that neither party really cares about what the problems are in America because there is no real conservative party. Just 2 liberal parties.

[copernicus 0]

BTW: Who shit in you cereal recently,

Southern Buddhist Who have I argued with that agrees with me about something?

[copernicus 0]

The Congress can do more than the White House can as far as lowering gas prices. It won't matter who is in the White House as long as we keep using Middle East for our gasoline, the prices will continue to soar. Problem is that neither party really cares about what the problems are in America because there is no real conservative party. Just 2 liberal parties.

There is a little wider difference than in Canada, but you are right, GWB managed to push conservatism into the background in every area except national security and taxes.

[El Guapo 8]

The Congress can do more than the White House can as far as lowering gas prices. It won't matter who is in the White House as long as we keep using Middle East for our gasoline, the prices will continue to soar. Problem is that neither party really cares about what the problems are in America because there is no real conservative party. Just 2 liberal parties.

65% of our oil comes from North America, Canada being the number one provider, US number two. I don't remember the number exactly but I believe under 25% of our oil is from the middle east.

Southern Buddhist Who have I argued with that agrees with me about something?

Me.