SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : John Pitera's Market Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: macavity who wrote (7182)8/25/2005 12:14:39 AM
From: Jon Koplik  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 33421
 
NYT piece on bet with Matthew "oil price should go up a lot" Simmons .....................................

August 23, 2005

The $10,000 Question

By JOHN TIERNEY

I don't share Matthew Simmons's angst, but I admire his style. He is that rare doomsayer who puts his money where his doom is.

After reading his prediction, quoted Sunday in the cover story of The New York Times Magazine, that oil prices will soar into the triple digits, I called to ask if he'd back his prophecy with cash. Without a second's hesitation, he agreed to bet me $5,000.

His only concern seemed to be that he was fleecing me. Mr. Simmons, the head of a Houston investment bank specializing in the energy industry, patiently explained to me why Saudi Arabia's oil production would falter much sooner than expected. That's the thesis of his new book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy."

I didn't try to argue with him about Saudi Arabia, because I know next to nothing about oil production there or anywhere else. I'm just following the advice of a mentor and friend, the economist Julian Simon: if you find anyone willing to bet that natural resource prices are going up, take him for all you can.

Julian took up gambling during the last end-of-oil crisis, in 1980, when experts were predicting a new age of scarcity as the planet's resources were depleted by the growing population. Julian had debunked these fears in "The Ultimate Resource," the bible of Cornucopian economics, which showed how human ingenuity had kept driving down the price of energy and other natural resources for centuries.

He offered to bet the pessimists that oil or any other resource they chose would be cheaper, in real terms, at any date they picked in the future. The ecologist Paul Ehrlich, author of "The Population Bomb" and "The End of Affluence," took up his offer and chose copper, tin and three other metals worth $1,000 in 1980.

When the famous bet was settled 10 years later, the value of the metals had declined by more than half. As usual, people had found new ways to get the metals as well as cheaper substitutes, like the fiber optic cables that replaced copper telephone wires.

After collecting his winnings, Julian expanded his challenge, offering to bet anyone on any other resource price or measure of human welfare. Julian, who died in 1998, never managed to persuade Mr. Ehrlich or other prominent doomsayers to take his bets again. But now we have a braver prophet in Mr. Simmons.

I proposed to him a bet using what Julian considered the best measure of a resource's value: how it compares with the average worker's wage. I offered to bet that the price of oil would not rise faster than the average wage, meaning that future workers would be able to afford oil more easily than they could today.

Mr. Simmons said he favored a simpler wager, based on his expectation that the price of oil, now about $65 per barrel, would more than triple during the next five years. He said he'd bet that the price in 2010, when adjusted for inflation so it's stated in 2005 dollars, would be at least $200 per barrel.

Remembering a tip from Julian, I suggested that we use the average price for the whole year of 2010 instead of the price on any particular date - that way, neither of us would be vulnerable to a sudden short-term swing as the market reacted to some unexpected news. Mr. Simmons agreed, and we sealed the deal by e-mail.

The first person I told was Julian's widow, Rita Simon, a public affairs professor at American University. She was delighted to see Julian's tradition carried on and thought the bet sounded so good she wanted a piece of the action herself.

With Mr. Simmons's approval, we arranged for Rita and me to split the wager, with each of us putting up $2,500 against Mr. Simmons's $5,000. (Note to accounting department: I'm aware that my expense account doesn't cover gambling. I'm using my own money.) All the money is being put into escrow in a joint account; the winning side will collect the $10,000 plus any accrued interest on Jan. 1, 2011.

I realize this isn't a sure thing, because the price of oil has risen before - it quintupled in the 1970's. But then it dropped, thanks to new discoveries and technologies, validating the Cornucopians' optimism.

So I figure the long-term odds are with me. And while I'm at it, I'll extend Julian's challenge and consider bets from anyone else convinced that our way of life is "unsustainable." If you think the price of oil or some other natural resource is going to soar, show me the money.

Email: tierney@nytimes.com

For Further Reading

"The Breaking Point" by Peter Maass. New York Times Magazine, August 21, 2005.

Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy by Matthew R. Simmons. Wiley, 448 pp., May 2005.

The Ultimate Resource 2 by Julian L. Simon. Princeton University Press, 778 pp., revised edition, July 1998.

"Betting on the Planet" by John Tierney. New York Times Magazine, December 2, 1990.

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company.



To: macavity who wrote (7182)8/25/2005 7:39:55 PM
From: John Pitera  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 33421
 
A 9 Fold Increase in Credit-Swaps Derivatives in 3 years, That's substantive. this article illustrates a potential
systemic weakness in the Financial System.

-------------------------------------------------------
Fed, Will Meet Over Derivatives August 25, 2005

By HENNY SENDER, MICHAEL MACKENZIE and RAMEZ MIKDASHI
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
August 25, 2005; Page C3

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York will meet with Wall Street banks next month to discuss the still relatively opaque market for credit derivatives.

The market is a young but rapidly growing one where traders and investors use the derivatives to buy and sell protection against defaults. Trading volumes have soared, but back-office functions needed to make sure trades get completed haven't kept up with that growth.


It is these so-called settlement issues that the New York Fed wants to discuss with the bankers on Sept. 15. New York Fed President Timothy Geithner sent a letter to dealers on Aug. 12 inviting them to meet on "how best to address a range of important issues in the credit-derivatives market."

While those issues appear technical, they are essential to keep losses from snowballing into more systemic problems when the markets are volatile.

In May, for example, a downgrade of General Motors Corp. debt sparked violent moves in the market for credit derivatives and at least paper losses for Wall Street firms and the hedge funds on the other side of some trades. Those events led to calls for greater discipline and monitoring. More recently, problems surfaced when car-parts company Collins & Aikman Corp. filed for bankruptcy protection. A daisy chain of trades made it hard for many in the market to figure out who their ultimate counterparty was.

According to the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the notional value of credit-default swaps outstanding reached $8.4 trillion at the end of 2004, a ninefold increase in just three years.


The New York Fed invited 14 banks from the U.S. and abroad but declined to name them. The credit-derivatives market is dominated by a handful of banks, including J.P. Morgan & Chase Co., Deutsche Bank AG, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. and Citigroup Inc. Goldman Sachs and J.P. Morgan declined to comment, while other banks couldn't be reached for comment.

Hedge funds account for much of the recent surge in credit-derivatives activity. Banks welcome the funds as trading partners, but the funds sometimes move out of trades -- "assign" them -- without telling the bank that sold them the credit-derivative contract that their counterparty has changed. This makes it harder for other participants to know whether their positions are properly hedged.

Questions about the rising backlog of trades that haven't been settled have been with the market for some time. Indeed, the issues the Fed raises in its letter have been flagged by regulators in the United Kingdom and most recently in a report last month from the Counterparty Risk Management Group led by Gerald Corrigan, a former New York Fed president.

Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and others have praised the role of the derivatives market in diluting financial risk, although the central-bank chief did warn in a speech in May of the potential risks to the economy if the use of derivatives isn't properly managed.

Banks and even some hedge funds say they welcome the Fed's initiative because it will help them focus on how to beef up their own back-office functions.

"We've always thought issues surrounding confirmations, settlements and assignments were really important, and have ourselves invested a great deal of time, money, people and technology to make sure that we've got this right," said Stephen Siderow, president of BlueMountain Capital Management, a hedge-fund manager overseeing investments of $2.7 billion. "We think these kinds of conversations between dealers and regulators can be very valuable."