Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Stop food price speculation

Dr Jon

so many beers, too little time
Banned
As the global economy continues to implode, it seems that money jugglers have turned their attention to food:
The markets are now abusing a price mechanism that was set up to smooth the price of commodities out over time for the benefit of supplier and user alike. Now we have speculators who have no interest in that particular market and who never take delivery of the commodity sat in the middle of trades purely to profit. They add no value to the transaction and actually get in the way of proper market price discovery.
Economists call on G20 finance ministers to stop food speculation

Fucking parasites!
:mad:
 
Of course they're parasites, and you might as well advocate revolution (no bad thing). Any barriers will be swiftly circumvented.
 
Here's a recent paper from Cornell on the subject:

Title: The Food Crises: A quantitative model of food prices including speculators and ethanol conversion

The results show that the dominant causes of price increases are investor speculation and ethanol conversion. Models that just treat supply and demand are not consistent with the actual price dynamics. The two sharp peaks in 2007/2008 and 2010/2011 are specifically due to investor speculation, while an underlying upward trend is due to increasing demand from ethanol conversion...

..Claims that speculators cannot influence grain prices are shown to be invalid by direct analysis of price setting practices of granaries. Both causes of price increase, speculative investment and ethanol conversion, are promoted by recent regulatory changes---deregulation of the commodity markets, and policies promoting the conversion of corn to ethanol. Rapid action is needed to reduce the impacts of the price increases on global hunger.

The paper is available in full from the link above (PDF link on the upper right).

I've yet to read the whole thing - I'm wondering what role resource constraints play in their model.
 
OK, in answer to my q above; They don't. Or rather, it's all reflected in the price.

Careful scrutiny, however, suggests that energy costs cannot account for food price changes. First, the peak of oil prices occurred after the peak in wheat prices in 2008, as shown in Fig. 3 F [below]. Second, US wheat farm operating costs, including direct energy costs and indirect energy costs in fertilizer, increased from $1.78 per bushel in 2004 to $3.04 per bushel in 2008 [149]. The increase of $1.26, while substantial, does not account for the $4.42 change in farmer sales price.
wheat oil price F p9 arXiv.1109.4859v1 [q-fin.GN].png

Hmmm. Careful scrutiny. Whatever, if the oil price spike had preceded the wheat price spike, [they say,] it would only have been because of the speculators pushing the oil price up. :D

Also worth keeping in mind is the work of Bouchaud and Mézard, which shows us that the notion that "individual speculators who profit do so because they are somehow cleverer or better than the rest" is also utterly false.
 
As the global economy continues to implode, it seems that money jugglers have turned their attention to food:

Economists call on G20 finance ministers to stop food speculation

Fucking parasites!
:mad:

I don't think this sort of thing is a new game...

billy-trading-places.jpg


Really it's just another symptom of what happens when you have a global architecture that prevents poorer nations from moving toward greater self-reliance in food production and distribution.
 
an interesting aside on this theme concerns Soya beans. Theres a bit of a bubble going on in China, where traditional warehouse financing deals for Copper have been severely curtailed with newish Government rules- for years, traders and financiers have stockpiled the red metals in warehouse and arranged longish term formal financing deals to free up the cash - which is then relent into the grey market for large returns on a month by month basis.It was easy money for a while. Now the humble soya bean has been roped into the equation to replace many copper deals. Chinese domestic consumption Demand for soya has not increased that much in the past year, but warehouse stocks are racing ahead, based on the new financing arrangements. Now there is a banana skin in this theory - Soya has a limited shelf life, unlike copper which can sit around for centuries with no degredation. Both sides in the deal are taking big risks lending money on a comparatively unstable product.These huge stocks will have to hit to market eventually, before they are effectively unsaleable.

I am not a doom and gloom merchant, but it will be interesting to watch the Soya market for the next year or so and see how this progresses
 
As the global economy continues to implode, it seems that money jugglers have turned their attention to food:

You're posting as though this is something new? 'As the global economy continutes...'

I don't think commodity speculators only started doing this as the global economy started doing anything - they've been doing it for over 100 years...
 
...
I don't think commodity speculators only started doing this as the global economy started doing anything - they've been doing it for over 100 years...

Maybe so, but not on the same scale.

As I said before, growth used to be the way that businesses made "an honest living" before the limits to growth were surpassed. Now that prospects for making a profit through "honest" trade have all but evaporated, money-juggling, speculation and hoarding allow the rich to keep taking the biggest slices off a shrinking pie.
 
Maybe so, but not on the same scale.

As I said before, growth used to be the way that businesses made "an honest living" before the limits to growth were surpassed. Now that prospects for making a profit through "honest" trade have all but evaporated, money-juggling, speculation and hoarding allow the rich to keep taking the biggest slices off a shrinking pie.

Anyone hoarding commodities over the last 5 - 6 months would have taken serious losses , markets move down as well as up . Nothing is that simple . Look at palm oil or soyabeans for an example .

adm


adm
 
Anyone hoarding commodities over the last 5 - 6 months would have taken serious losses , markets move down as well as up . Nothing is that simple . Look at palm oil or soyabeans for an example
Not just 5-6 months. Look at your soybean example over a longer timeframe:

90080.png

source
 
Maybe so, but not on the same scale.

erm yes actually, on a larger scale actually relatively speaking:

hunt brothers - silver market - late 70s - at one point they owned rights to half the world's deliverable silver - if that isn't abusing a commodities market on a large scale then please give me a modern example where someone has such a huge position in a single commodity....

Some other examples of commodities abuse

black friday 1869: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)

onion futures 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act - (onion futures are still illegal in the US)

Frozen concentrated Orange juice 1983 - Louis Winthorp III/Billy Ray Valentine ;)
 
an interesting aside on this theme concerns Soya beans. Theres a bit of a bubble going on in China, where traditional warehouse financing deals for Copper have been severely curtailed with newish Government rules- for years, traders and financiers have stockpiled the red metals in warehouse and arranged longish term formal financing deals to free up the cash - which is then relent into the grey market for large returns on a month by month basis.It was easy money for a while. Now the humble soya bean has been roped into the equation to replace many copper deals. Chinese domestic consumption Demand for soya has not increased that much in the past year, but warehouse stocks are racing ahead, based on the new financing arrangements. Now there is a banana skin in this theory - Soya has a limited shelf life, unlike copper which can sit around for centuries with no degredation. Both sides in the deal are taking big risks lending money on a comparatively unstable product.These huge stocks will have to hit to market eventually, before they are effectively unsaleable.

I am not a doom and gloom merchant, but it will be interesting to watch the Soya market for the next year or so and see how this progresses

What will happen when this glut hits the market?
 
erm yes actually, on a larger scale actually relatively speaking:

hunt brothers - silver market - late 70s - at one point they owned rights to half the world's deliverable silver - if that isn't abusing a commodities market on a large scale then please give me a modern example where someone has such a huge position in a single commodity....

Some other examples of commodities abuse

black friday 1869: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Friday_(1869)

onion futures 1950s: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Onion_Futures_Act - (onion futures are still illegal in the US)

Frozen concentrated Orange juice 1983 - Louis Winthorp III/Billy Ray Valentine ;)

Hunt Brothers went bankrupt on the back of that " manipulation " the markets don`t always go up in cases of hoarding . It rallied strongly then fell back to original prices leaving them holding high priced silver .

For a more recent attempt try Anthony Ward at Armajaro on Cocoa last year ( and other years ) took delivery of cocoa in expectation of market shortage , Cocoa dropped in a market where almost every other agricultural and metals market rallied strongly , again traders do not get it right all the time , far from it .
 
Some may say this is pastying over the cracks

http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...-approve-limits-on-commodity-speculation.html

"
Oct. 18 (Bloomberg) -- The top U.S. derivatives regulators voted 3 to 2 today to curb trading in oil, wheat, gold and other commodities after a boom in raw-materials speculation, record- high prices and years of debate and delay.
The rule has been among the most controversial provisions of the Dodd-Frank financial overhaul, enacted last year, which gave the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the authority to limit trading in over-the-counter commodity swaps as well as exchange-traded futures. The rule will limit the number of contracts a single firm can hold.
“Our duty is to protect both market participants and the American public from fraud, manipulation and other abuses,” Chairman Gary Gensler said at the commission’s meeting in Washington in support of the rule. “Position limits have served since the Commodity Exchange Act passed in 1936 as a tool to curb or prevent excessive speculation that may burden interstate commerce.”
The rule limits traders to 25 percent of deliverable supply in the month nearest to delivery. The spot-month limits apply separately to physically settled and cash-settled contracts. Deliverable supply will be determined by the CFTC in conjunction with the exchanges.
Gas Contracts
Cash-settled natural gas contracts will be subject to a different regime. Traders will be permitted to hold contracts equal to five times deliverable supply in Henry Hub swaps, derivatives that settle in cash instead of the delivery of the underlying commodity. Henry Hub is a natural gas delivery point in Erath, Louisiana, and the benchmark for U.S. futures.
Outside the spot month, the caps limit traders to 10 percent of the first 25,000 contracts of open interest and 2.5 percent thereafter.
“You want speculation or you don’t have any markets,” said Commissioner Bart Chilton in an interview today on Bloomberg TV. “There’s nothing wrong with speculators. It’s when it begins to get excessive. We’ve seen where you can have 30, 35, 40 percent plus in some markets with just one trader holding onto that concentration. That can impact markets.”
The commission estimates that the limits will affect 85 energy traders, 12 metals traders and 84 traders of certain agricultural contracts. The caps will go into effect 60 days after the agency defines the term “swap.” The agency declined to estimate when that will be. Limits outside the spot month are likely to go into effect in late 2012.
Affected Contracts
The limits will apply to 28 physical commodity futures and their financially equivalent swaps including contracts for corn, wheat, soybeans, oats, cotton, oil, heating oil, gasoline, cocoa, milk, sugar, silver, palladium and platinum.
The rule calls for traders to aggregate their positions, a change that may affect large firms with multiple strategies. It also would tighten an exemption allowing so-called bona fide hedgers to exceed the caps.
“Today is no doubt the single most significant vote I have taken since becoming a commissioner,” said Commissioner Jill Sommers, who voted against the rule. “Not because imposing position limits will fundamentally change the way the U.S. markets operate, but because I believe this agency is setting itself up for an enormous failure.”
The close vote split along party lines, with the three Democrats, including Gensler, voting in favor and the two Republicans against.
No Proof
Commissioner Michael Dunn, a Democrat, said position limits are a “sideshow,” and there’s no proof that there is excessive speculation, or that prices will drop once limits are in place. Dunn said he voted in favor of limits because Congress directed the commission to impose caps.
“Things will remain relatively the same, except for those who use the markets we regulate to provide the very resources we all need,” Dunn said. “For these farmers, producers and manufacturers, position limits, and the rules that go along with them, may actually make it more difficult to hedge the risks they take on in order to provide the public with milk, bread and gas.”
The Dodd-Frank legislation gave the commission jurisdiction over the estimated $300 trillion U.S. derivatives market and the CFTC has proposed more than 50 rules. The agency missed deadlines to impose position limits in energy and metals markets by mid-January and agricultural markets by April.
Economic Impact
“I recognize there are passionate views on both sides, especially with regard to position limits, but our role is to make decisions on policy in a dispassionate manner that is rooted in facts,” Commissioner Scott O’Malia, a Republican, said. Parts of the rules are arbitrary and vulnerable to legal challenge and may have a substantial economic impact on market participants, he said.
Senators Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat, Maria Cantwell, a Washington Democrat, Bill Nelson, a Florida Democrat, and Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent, have criticized the agency for the delay.
Levin, chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, had scheduled a hearing on Oct. 6 to scrutinize the CFTC’s compliance with the position limit requirement. He delayed the hearing to Nov. 3 after the agency said it would vote on the regulations as early as today.
Middle-Class Families
“The position limits rule approved today by the CFTC represents significant progress for middle-class families facing roller-coaster gasoline, electricity, and food prices,” Levin said today. “Businesses that actually use commodities -- farmers, manufacturers, airlines -- will not be affected and will continue to operate free of position limits.”
Levin’s committee has led inquiries into speculation in the past five years as raw-material investing gained in popularity. The first exchange-traded funds in 2003 allowed investors to bet on raw materials without the hassle of storing physical materials or managing a futures account.
The SPDR Gold Trust, best known by its ticker GLD, went on the market in 2004 and has $66 billion in assets backed by physical gold. Investment in agricultural exchange-traded products reached a record in April, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Derivatives made the boom possible. Unlike futures contracts, which trade on regulated exchanges and fall under CFTC jurisdiction, swaps trade on the over-the-counter market where the commission had no authority before Dodd-Frank, allowing traders to amass large unregulated positions.
‘Too Big’
“The fund participants have been able to grow too big and trade the markets without regard to the underlying fundamental supply and demand factors,” said Roy Huckabay, an executive vice president for the Linn Group, a research and brokerage firm in Chicago. “The market’s job of price discovery had been forgotten or ignored.”
Off-exchange bets played a role in the September 2006 collapse of Amaranth Advisors LLC, a hedge fund that lost $6.6 billion on natural-gas bets. The Greenwich, Connecticut-based fund had sidestepped limits and built a large position on IntercontinentalExchange Inc. after being told to reduce its futures position on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Amaranth’s implosion triggered Senate scrutiny. In June 2007, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a report blaming Amaranth for distorting prices. Amaranth later paid $7.5 million to settle CFTC allegations of manipulation.
Record Prices
Rising commodity prices kept Congress and consumers focused on market regulation and the role of speculators. Wheat reached a record of $13.495 a bushel in February 2008, and oil soared to $147.27 a barrel five months later. Gold futures hit an all-time high of $1,923.70 last month.
“This is not going to affect prices so I would call this a non-event,” Frank McGhee, the head dealer at Integrated Brokerage Services LLC in Chicago, said in a telephone interview today. “But ultimately it’s not good for the U.S. market as the people they are trying to regulate can selectively decide which market they want to trade in.”
The commission’s decision also was criticized today by a leading Republican member of Congress.
“I am concerned the rule will unnecessarily restrict hedging by our agricultural and energy producers, the very hedging that helps them stabilize the costs of food, fuel and power, and may very well exacerbate price volatility rather than reduce it,” said Congressman Frank Lucas, an Oklahoma representative who is chairman of the House Agriculture Committee."
 
Turns out the figures we use to calculate world hunger are next to useless: http://www.globaldashboard.org/2011/11/04/how-many-people-are-hungry/

FAO’s figures have faced sustained criticism for at least a decade. Back in 2004, a somewhat huffy note from a FAO statistician defended its methodology as ‘the best available’ and dismissed various ‘methodologically incorrect’ alternatives.
More recently, however, the damn has burst, with FAO sent back to the drawing board in 2010, by the Committee on World Food Security. We are promised revised statistics that will improve modelling of the impact of price increases and income shocks, strengthen food balance sheets, integrate more household surveys, and include micronutrients and other factors in the mix.
But in the meantime, the presentation of data is suspended. Estimates for the number of undernourished people in 2009 and 2010 have been withdrawn, and no figures for 2011 have been prepared.
In the midst of the first ever global food crisis, in other words, the lights have been turned off. 837m people were probably hungry four to six years ago. Maybe. That might have gone up above a billion, or perhaps it didn’t. Hunger is either resurgent or it isn’t.
He's been looking at the Millennium Development Goals, and notes that we're supposed to have seen a drop in poverty but not in hunger, which I presume also means there's some useless free market assumption underlying the measures of poverty too.
 
Back
Top Bottom