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 : The Epic American Credit and Bond Bubble Laboratory -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: ild who wrote (54714)2/25/2006 8:33:18 PM
From: ild  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 110194
 
Bernanke, Like Greenspan, Won't Get in Way of Asset Price Rises
Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke, like his predecessor Alan Greenspan, doesn't plan to get in the way of surging home or stock prices.

Bernanke, staking out a key policy in his first month on the job, said yesterday at Princeton University that the central bank ``doesn't really have good instruments for addressing asset price bubbles should they exist, particularly if they are in one particular segment or another.''

Bernanke's views on dealing with rising asset prices match those of Greenspan, who was faulted by some economists for allowing a stock-price bubble to inflate in the late 1990s and for letting U.S. home prices soar in recent years. Timothy Geithner, vice chairman of the Fed panel that sets the benchmark U.S. rate, said last month the role of asset prices in Fed policy may expand.

``It's generally a bad idea for the Fed to be the arbiter of asset prices,'' said Bernanke, 52, who became chairman Feb. 1, succeeding Greenspan, who was in the post for 18 1/2 years. ``The Fed doesn't really have any better information than other people in the market about what the correct value of asset prices is.''

Bernanke, a former economics professor at the New Jersey school, said in response to a question after a speech on inflation that the Fed does need to ``pay close attention'' to changes in the prices of assets because they can affect spending and economic growth, important factors in the Fed's assessment of the economy.

`Mop Up'

``To use interest rates to try to puncture the housing bubble would be a disastrously bad idea, and Bernanke obviously agrees, because he's not going to come close to doing that,'' said Alan Blinder, a former Fed vice chairman who is now a Princeton economics professor. He wrote a paper last year saying Greenspan may have been the ``greatest central banker'' ever.

Blinder said the Greenspan-Bernanke approach to bubbles is ``basically, you do nothing, and then the corollary to that is that you mop up after they burst to keep the financial system from taking a big fall.'' Bernanke's hands-off approach has ``been his position for years, since he was an academic,'' Blinder said.

U.S. home prices have risen 55 percent in the past five years, according to the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight. Sales of previously owned U.S. homes fell in December to the lowest level since March 2004, evidence the five-year housing boom may be coming to an end.

Geithner

Geithner, who is president of the New York Federal Reserve bank, said last month the rise and fall of asset prices such as stocks, bonds and homes will probably play a bigger role in setting U.S. interest-rate policy in the future. Bernanke in the past has said using interest rates to attack asset prices may damage the broader economy.

``A much better approach for the Fed in dealing with problems of financial markets is from the microeconomic point of view,'' Bernanke said yesterday. ``For example, we pay a lot of attention to the supervising of banks to make sure that they are taking sound policy, making sound loans.''

In his speech, Bernanke's first outside Washington since taking over the Fed this month, the new chairman stressed the benefits of stable prices in achieving high employment and moderate interest rates.

``Low and stable inflation and inflation expectations enhance both economic growth and economic stability,'' Bernanke said at a symposium for the 75th anniversary of Princeton's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. The compatibility of those goals, now the consensus view among economists and central bankers, was reached over ``many years'' of experience, leadership and analysis, he said.

Stable Prices

Most of Bernanke's speech was devoted to a review of the history of central banking and the development, over time, of the benefits of price stability.

Fighting inflation was a hallmark of Bernanke's predecessors, Greenspan and Paul Volcker. Volcker, who was Fed chairman from 1979 to 1987 and attended yesterday's speech, won plaudits for defeating the inflation that plagued the U.S. during the 1970s and early 1980s. Greenspan helped cut the rate of consumer price increases further, from about 4.4 percent a year in 1987 to less than 2 percent by early 2004.

Volcker, asked whether Bernanke would benefit from taking office at a time of low inflation, said the new chairman would have to deal with the imbalance in U.S. trade with other countries. The U.S. trade deficit last year was $726 billion.

``Bernanke is not inheriting the best of situations,'' Volcker said in an interview after Bernanke's speech. ``How would you like to be responsible for an economy that's dependent upon $700 billion of foreign money every year? I don't know what I would do about it, but he's going to have to do something about it sooner or later.''

`Prerequisite' to Growth

Jeremy Siegel, a finance professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Wharton School, said Bernanke's approach at the Fed will be to ``emphasize continuity, and frankly, that's what the market wants.''

In his prepared remarks, Bernanke said ``stable prices are desirable in themselves and thus are an important goal of monetary policy. But stable prices are also a prerequisite to the achievement of the Federal Reserve's other mandated objectives, high employment and moderate long-term interest rates.''

Bernanke told Congress last year he may want the Fed to announce an annual goal for inflation and then work to keep prices near that level. He has suggested that inflation of 1 percent to 2 percent, excluding food and energy, may be an acceptable range. Bernanke said last year such a policy would require ``extensive discussion and consultation.''

Bernanke didn't mention inflation-targeting specifically in his speech.

Greenspan's Fed voted unanimously on Jan. 31 to raise its main rate to 4.5 percent and said more increases ``may be needed'' to keep inflation under control. Bernanke, who wasn't present at the meeting, told Congress last week he agreed with that stance. The next Fed meeting is March 27-28.

bloomberg.com



To: ild who wrote (54714)2/25/2006 11:10:49 PM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 110194
 
i think gold is the most relevant to this discussion because the argument for gold is more purely the fiat-currencies-are-burning trade. the bullish argument for copper, oil, etc. has more to do with the Chindia demand story. so, if Chopper Ben turns out to be more serious about fighting inflation than the market and gold speculators anticipate, i think gold takes it on the chin. secondarily, one may argue that this tighter money will reduce demand for industrial commodities, and they will also be hit. that can be a valid argument (both from the fundamental supply/demand perspective and the speculator perspective) but i think the chain of causation is one degree removed from the case of USD interest rates vs. gold.

and let us not forget: unlike gold, oil is something the world actually needs in order to function. so, you have al Qaeda or whoever actually succeed in one of these terrorist attacks, and boom, you've got hundred-dollar crude, regardless of where the Fed is at.

also, as we have discussed before, it is not so much the absolute Fed rate which is in effect, as the market's perception of when the Fed is going to stop. already, it must be said, the Chopper has surprised the consensus with hawkish talk. when i say consensus, i don't necessarily mean J6P lumpen investoriat. i'm talking about the extremely common dollar-is-going-to-zero type of perspective you see out of all these hedge manglers. these people control a lot of leveraged money betting on this outcome. i consider Grant the poster boy for this perspective, partly because he is the most articulate, partly because he has been arguing for it (wrongly, i might add) for so many years. and then people like Fleck and Fry take his arguments and sprinkle it out to a wider audience. btw, to give you an idea how much street cred this perspective has, Paul Volcker is going to be a headline speaker at Grant's Spring Conference.

personally, i think the Chopper wants to kick some hedge mangler ass, which can easily be done by taking the discount rate up to, even, 5.5-5.75%. remember: regardless of what you have heard about him, he is smarter than 99% of the OPM yahoos out there. he knows Volcker is going to be speaking at the hedge fund hard-money lovers conference and denigrating the helicopter perspective. this is his great chance to knock them flat. i think he can buy some "street cred" relatively inexpensively over the next six months. that will also put a serious lid on the housing bubble and reduce a lot of inflationary pressure, at least perceptionwise, methinks.



To: ild who wrote (54714)2/26/2006 9:58:25 AM
From: Wyätt Gwyön  Respond to of 110194
 
the potential for terrorists to attack Saudi infrastructure was discussed here three years ago, including the attacked facility (Abqaiq).
Message 18853538

now, at long last, it seems the terrorists are getting their act together. "experts" say there's a $10 "terrorist premium", not to mention a $10 "speculator premium"--these are in addition to the China premium, the housing premium, and the USAma premium, of course (oil's "fair price" is about 50 cents a barrel when you add them all up). what happens when 7 million bpd goes offline thanks to a terrorist attack? is $200 too high, before the "experts" are right and oil goes to its long-term price of 50 cents?

Thwarted Attack
At Saudi Facility
Stirs Energy Fears
Officials Worry Terrorists
Are Targeting Oil System;
Crude Futures Jump 4%
By BHUSHAN BAHREE and CHIP CUMMINS
February 25, 2006; Page A1

A foiled attack Friday on a Saudi oil-processing facility reinforced a dire concern for the U.S. and the energy industry: that terrorists are looking to score a direct hit on one of the world's largest petroleum chokepoints.

Friday's target, the vast Abqaiq facility, may be the single most vital cog in the world petroleum system. Saudi Arabia is the world's largest oil exporter. Abqaiq processes six million to seven million barrels a day of crude oil -- equal to about two-thirds of daily Saudi output and 8% of the world's consumption.

"There is nothing that matches Abqaiq, in volume and strategic terms, in the world," said Jim Burkhard, senior director of oil-market analysis at Cambridge Energy Research Associates in Cambridge, Mass.

Saudi officials said the thwarting of the attack proved that their oil assets are tightly guarded. Officials said two vehicles laden with explosives were attempting to drive through defenses at the facility's outer gates, roughly a mile from the main entrance, when security forces fired on them. The vehicles blew up, killing those inside and critically injuring two security guards, who died in the hospital Saturday.

Al Qaeda has been implicated in previous oil attacks, and on Saturday the terrorist group in an Internet statement claimed responsibility for the foiled attack on the Abqaiq plant. It also threatened suicide bombers will attack more Saudi oil facilities.
[Icon] ABOUT ABQAIQ

• Oil was first discovered there in 1940.

• The oil field has 17 billion barrels of proven reserves.

• Aramco facility there processes about two-thirds of Saudi Arabia's oil output

• It is Aramco's main crude processing center.

Sources: Saudi government, EIA, Aramco
MORE ON OIL MARKETS

Issue Briefing: Unrest Behind Oil's Rise

Though Saudi oil minister Ali Naimi said the attack and explosions at the site didn't affect oil and gas production or exports, markets were jolted by the news. Crude-oil futures jumped 4% on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Light sweet crude for April delivery surged as high as $63.25 a barrel before settling at $62.91, an increase of $2.37, on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (See related article on page B5.)

The attack comes as trouble in a slew of oil-producing powers has put energy security back atop the world agenda. Insurgents have hobbled oil output in both Iraq and Nigeria. Russia last month briefly cut off gas supplies to neighboring Ukraine. Iran has threatened to disrupt Persian Gulf shipments amid its dispute with the West over its nuclear ambitions.

Oil prices have doubled since 2003, as growing demand has outpaced supply increases, leaving the world with only a thin cushion of spare pumping capacity. The shortage has made it easier for governments, rebels and terrorists alike to use energy as a potent political weapon, sending prices soaring by withholding supplies, attacking pipelines or merely threatening to cause havoc.
[Map of Abqaiq]

More broadly, the attack brought to mind the nightmare scenario that has worried Washington for more than three decades: a significant disruption at Saudi export facilities on the Persian Gulf side of the kingdom. The threat from internal subversion has always been considered greatest in that area, and the ability of foreign military forces to help prevent trouble there is the lowest.

Such fears help explain President Bush's declaration in his State of the Union address this year that the U.S. needs to reduce its dependence on Middle Eastern oil imports. The fact that Mr. Bush referred specifically to the risks of reliance of Middle Eastern oil -- as opposed to imported oil generally -- offended the Saudis, who have long prided themselves on being a reliable supplier to the U.S. and the West. The Saudis may point to the fact that the attack was stopped as evidence they remain as reliable as ever, but the Bush administration could suggest it shows the need to follow up on the president's challenge.

Underscoring growing concern about oil terrorism, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization last week in Prague held its first energy-security conference, attended by senior U.S. and NATO officials.

In recent years, Saudi Arabia has ramped up spending on security following a spate of terrorist incidents. In 2004, there was a rash of oil-infrastructure strikes in Saudi Arabia that involved refineries and foreign oil workers, which while sensitive aren't strategically important enough to hobble the global energy supply.
[Hot Spot text box]

According to the Energy Department, Saudi spending on security rose by 50% in 2004 to $5.5 billion. Abqaiq, for one, is so well-protected that "you would need an army, probably with air support, to get through," said Nawaf Obaid, a Saudi oil and security consultant and an adviser to the government.

Still, the mere attempt highlighted the world's dependence on the facility, which may have been the purpose of the attack. "This is a weapon of mass media," said Anthony H. Cordesman, an energy-security analyst at Washington's Center for Strategic and International Studies. "Even if they fail, they get the publicity."

Security analysts said terrorists in Saudi Arabia appear to have switched to targeting oil facilities after a backlash in the kingdom. In previous attacks in populated areas, Saudis were angered by the terrorists killing innocent Muslims, Mr. Cordesman said. At the same time, Friday's attack also suggests terrorists have so far been unable to recruit people inside oil facilities who could help them penetrate the huge plants, he said.

The purported al Qaeda statement appeared Saturday on a militant Web site saying that Friday's attack was "part of a series of operations that al Qaeda is carrying out against the crusaders and the Jews to stop their plundering of Muslim wealth." It was signed "al Qaeda in the Arab Peninsula," the name of the Saudi branch of the terror network. The statement didn't acknowledge that the attack was foiled. In fact, it claimed that the two "heroic holy warriors" managed to enter Abqaiq.

"There are more like them who are racing toward martyrdom and eager to fight the enemies of god, the Jews, the crusaders and their stooges, the renegade rulers" of Arab countries, the posting said. "You will see things that will make you happy, god willing," concluded the statement.

Abqaiq receives petroleum streams that are pumped in from Saudi Arabia's giant fields, processes and cleans the oil by separating out water and gas, then pumps it through pipelines for export via shipping terminals on the nation's coasts.

Damage to Abqaiq could cripple Saudi exports, bottling in crude streams that can't be processed for export. That has happened once before: An accidental fire at Abqaiq in 1977 knocked out 70% of Saudi Arabia's output for three days. The Saudis gradually fixed the damage and output recovered over several weeks. Had the fire reached the complex's generating plants, it might have taken months, and possibly years, to rebuild Abqaiq.

Saudi Arabia has a few other vulnerable targets, including Ras Tanura on the Persian Gulf, the world's largest oil-export terminal, which can ship up to 6 million barrels a day. But the kingdom's network of pipelines and export terminals has a large cushion of fallback facilities. The Saudis have built spare facilities on the Red Sea coast, on the other side of the Arabian Peninsula. All told, they can move some 14 million barrels a day through their pipelines and ports, much higher than their current daily output of some 9.5 million barrels.

Almost all of the world's slim spare oil-pumping capacity of some 1.5 million barrels a day is in Saudi Arabia. So a dislocation of Saudi supplies couldn't be made up by another oil producer. To cover any shortfall, the world would have to resort to the use of strategic stocks of oil held by the 26 industrial country members of the International Energy Agency, as happened after last year's hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico.