Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (85299)	9/18/2008 3:07:28 PM
From: Katelew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

Speculative Position Limits Section 4a(a) of the CEA, 7 USC 6a(a), specifically holds that excessive speculation in a commodity traded for future delivery may cause "sudden or unreasonable fluctuations or unwarranted changes in the price of such commodity." Section 4a(a) provides that, for the purpose of diminishing, eliminating, or preventing such problems, the Commission may impose limits on the amount of speculative trading that may be done or speculative positions that may be held in contracts for future delivery. Most physical delivery and many financial futures and option contracts are subject to speculative position limits. For several markets (corn, oats, wheat, soybeans, soybean oil, soybean meal, and cotton), the limits are determined by the Commission and set out in Federal regulations (CFTC Regulation 150.2, 17 CFR 150.2). The two firms were breaking this rule and risking fines or worse, a rule put in place to avoid trading in a commodity to be overwhelmed or distorted by players who don't have a financial interest in the physical commodity itself. Such players are defined as "speculators". The word "speculator" doesn't imply evil or nefarious intent on their part. It's just a working definition of one of the two groups of participants in the commodities field of trading. Their actions are restricted by the CFTC for the simple reason that the stakes are so high. There's no limit to the role of speculators in the stock market because if the price of a stock runs up or down, generally no real harm ensues. But when the price of a physical commodity runs up, it can have eggregious effects. Since January, 2000 small trucking firms have gone under, airlines are teetering on bankruptcy, and auto manufacturers face declining sales. With regard to agricultural commodities running up in price, people go hungry or even starve to death in third world countries. So with the stakes so high, the CFTC long ago put restrictions on the amount of speculation that can take place by creating "position limits" for each commodity. These limits were/are being exceeded by traders on ICE and in a variety of ways, such as options and synthetic swaps. Please tell me this makes sense to you because I'm giving up on trying to explain. It's not a political issue, but it seems to me you are stubbornly resisting the truth because you see it as one??

To: TimF who wrote (85299)	9/18/2008 9:55:40 PM
From: Cogito	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541957

>>"as just a couple of firms held a large percentage of the contracts" doesn't amount to even an argument for, let alone an authoritative argument for "how speculators were indeed the main cause of that price spike".<< Tim - I'll tell you what. Read the articles in question, and then talk to me about it. It was the articles I referred to as authoritative, not my quick reference to them. And no, I'm not going to find them for you. Sorry. They were posted here on this thread, way back when we were discussing this. Perhaps somebody with more patience and stamina than I can currently muster will find them for you. It's OK with me if you believe speculators had nothing to do with the huge, sudden spike in oil prices, and the even more sudden decline. - Allen