Murkiness in the NYMEX Pits As the Banks Hoard Oil

"Morgan Stanley hired an oil tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from the contango, two shipbrokers said in reports earlier today."

There is a sharp contango in the near months in the NYMEX oil pit, and it will get sharper as the attempts to suppress the price near term, most likely to punish Russia, Venezuela and Iran, falter. Then it will flatten as market adjusts prices to normalcy.

Let's see if Bloomberg gives us a more coherent update. But its funny that Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, and probably other banks are buying oil now to store in tankers and deliver later when the paper chase falters. Nice use of the bailout money. Why lend when you can speculate on market inefficiency which you help to create?

Bloomberg
Goldman Sees ‘Swift, Violent’ Oil Rally Later in Year
By Grant Smith

Jan. 19 (Bloomberg) -- Goldman Sachs Group Inc. commodity analyst Jeffrey Currie said he expects a “swift and violent rebound” in energy prices in the second half of the year.

Oil prices may have reached their lowest point already, after falling to $32.40 in mid-December, and are expected to rise to $65 by the end of this year, the analyst said. There is scope for a “new bull market” in oil, Currie said. (The December '09 futures are trading around there already - Jesse)

World oil demand is likely to fall by about 1.6 million barrels a day this year, the Goldman analyst said today at a conference in London. That’s bigger than the reduction expected by the International Energy Agency, which last week forecast a decrease of about 500,000 barrels a day, or 0.6 percent, this year.

A recent tactic of using supertankers to store crude oil to take advantage of higher prices later this year is “difficult” to profit from and is “near the end of this process” anyway, the Goldman analyst said. (We can only use the NYMEX 'front month' to punish Iran, Venezuela, and Russia for so long - Jesse)

New York crude futures for delivery in December, trading near $56 a barrel, currently cost some $15 a barrel more than March futures, a market situation known as contango, where prices are higher for later delivery. (This is poorly worded at best - Jesse)

The contango is likely to flatten as supply cuts by OPEC and other producers take effect, reducing the availability of oil for immediate delivery, Currie said. (Contango is when the future months are higher in price. This is the case for the futures. But December delivery, according to this article, is in backwardation, where true 'spot' is higher than paper prices, and a sure sign of price manipulation. - Jesse)

The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries started another round of supply cutbacks at the start of this month. The group’s compliance with its overall efforts to cut production will probably peak at 75 percent, or a reduction of about 3 million barrels a day out of an announced aim of 4.2 million barrels a day, Goldman Sachs said.

In several steps, 10 OPEC members have pledged to reduce production to 24.845 million barrels a day, a cut of 4.2 million barrels a day from September’s level.

Morgan Stanley hired an oil tanker to store crude oil in the Gulf of Mexico, joining Citigroup Inc. and Royal Dutch Shell Plc in trying to profit from the contango, two shipbrokers said in reports earlier today.

West Texas Intermediate Benchmark Diverging Widely from World Oil Prices

If there indeed is a glut of oil in the US at a bottleneck, as NYMEX appears to contend, then world prices should diverge, and more oil would be flowing to other venues.

Interestingly enough, there is also a huge difference in price between the February contract at 36.51 for WTI and the March contract at 42.57.

So let's see how this short term oil glut in Oklahoma gets squared away. Sure to be interesting. It would be a shame if the NYMEX loses some of its credibility as a price discovery mechanism.


Reuters
Signs of shift away from WTI
By Javier Blas in London
January 18 2009

Oil traders are quietly pricing some of their deals away from the West Texas Intermediate contract, traditionally the world’s most important oil benchmark, as it is being distorted by record inventories at its landlocked delivery point.

The move is a setback for the benchmark that since the launch of the Nymex WTI futures in the early 1980s has dominated physical and financial oil markets.

The surge in oil inventories in Cushing, Oklahoma, where WTI is delivered into America’s pipeline system, has depressed its value not only against other global benchmarks, such as Brent, but also against other domestic US crudes.

Julius Walker, an oil market analyst at the International Energy Agency in Paris, said there was “anecdotal evidence” of traders moving away from WTI and “doing deals based on other US oil benchmarks”.

The IEA monthly report said Brent was now “arguably more reflective of global oil market sentiment”. However, Bob Levin, managing director of market research at Nymex said that the WTI contract was performing “transparently”, reflecting a “loss in oil demand and sharply rising inventories”.

“WTI is better reflecting global oil fundamentals than Brent,” Mr Levin said. “The oil industry has not abandoned the WTI contract and it has confidence in it.”

Nevertheless, traders in London, New York and Houston confirmed a small number of transactions away from WTI after its price plunged last week to record discounts against other global and domestic benchmarks. The traders cautioned that the move could reverse if the WTI situation normalised. Lawrence Eagles, at JPMorgan, said any move away from WTI would face “strong resistance as none of the other US benchmarks have the price transparency of an exchange market”.

Highlighting the price disconnection with the global market, WTI, which usually trades at a premium of $1-$2 a barrel to Brent, last week plunged to an all-time discount of $11.73. The detachment hit the US market too, where Light Louisiana Sweet, jumped to a $9.50 premium, the highest in 18 years.

Brent ended last week at $46.18 a barrel, well above WTI at $36.

Walter Lukken, outgoing chairman of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, told the FT the regulator was following “very closely” the WTI disconnection.

This is not the first time WTI has diverged from other benchmarks, but the discrepancy is far more severe this time.

Royal Bank of Scotland to Report $37 Billion in Losses and Goodwill Writedowns

RBS
RBS to unveil up to $37 billion of losses
By Adrian Croft
18/01/09

LONDON (Reuters) - Royal Bank of Scotland will unveil up to 25 billion pounds ($37.30 billion) of losses for 2008 on Monday due to bad debts and writing off goodwill on its acquisition of ABN AMRO, a British newspaper said on Monday.

RBS will say it incurred about 7 billion pounds of losses in 2008 and that it is taking a goodwill writedown of between 15 billion and 20 billion pounds, The Daily Telegraph reported, calling it the "biggest loss in UK history."

RBS declined to comment on the report.

Britain is set to throw its banks another multi-billion pound lifeline on Monday by allowing them to insure against steep losses and guaranteeing their debt to stop the credit crunch pushing the economy into a deep slump.

The British government will swap up to 5 billion pounds of preference shares in Royal Bank of Scotland for ordinary shares, increasing its stake in the British bankL, a person familiar with the matter said on Sunday.

The move aims to remove pressure on RBS -- whose shares fell 13 percent on Friday -- to pay 12 percent annual interest on the preference shares.

The government owns 58 percent of RBS after buying 15 billion pounds of ordinary shares last November. The stake could rise to near 70 percent if all the preference shares are converted. RBS again declined to comment.

RBS, once Britain's second-biggest bank, was left short of capital as a result of hefty write-offs against debt-backed securities. The 2007 acquisition of parts of Dutch rival ABN AMRO put further strain on its capital reserves.

The Fed is Monetizing Debt and Inflating the Money Supply

Here are the latest figures on the growth of the various money supply measures.

See Money Supply: A Primer for a review of measures and their differences.

The charts indicate that the growth in the money supply is due to a significant monetization of debt by the Fed in expanding its balance sheet and deficit spending by the Treasury, rather than organic growth from credit expansion from commercial sources and economic activity. The negative GDP figures confirm this.

You could imagine this as a tug of war if you wish. On one side is the deflationary force of bad debt and falling aggregate demand. On the other is the Treasury, the Fed, and the Congress, using the triple threat of deficit spending, monetization of debt, and stimulus programs. The limits of the power of the Feds are the value of the dollar and the acceptability of Treasury debt.

There is no lack of debt that can be monetized. To think otherwise is fantasy. But there are limitations about how much the dollar can bear, which is why the banks and moneyed interests have shoved their way to the front of the line, and are gorging themselves now with a little help from their friends in the Treasury and the Fed. When the time comes they intend to throw the public agenda under the bus. Its an old script, many times performed with minor enhancements.

If the current trend continues, it will have an inflationary effect on certain financial assets and commodities, and a negative impact on the dollar. There are lags in the appearance of this, but it will come.

Because the Dollar Index (DX) is an outmoded and artificial measure of dollar strength, containing nothing to account for the Chinese renminbi for example, it may not be a true reflection of the progress of this inflation. Time will tell.

A similar case might be made for certain strategic commodities, gold and oil, which are the instrument of government policy. Although it is much less important, silver may be one of the first commodities to break out because the government maintains no significant physical inventory of it as it does for gold and oil.

The huge short interest in silver may be an ignored scandal on the order of the Madoff Ponzi fund, not in dollar magnitude, but likely in terms of regulatory lapse and deep capture.



M1 has become a much less useful measure of the money supply these days because of changes in banking rules and technology. However, M1 is a good intermediate measure of the impact of the growth in the Fed's balance sheet as it feeds through the system.





Growth in MZM frequently results in financial asset expansion once it gains traction.



The US Dollar does not generally react well to aggressive growth in MZM.



The growth of credit, organic growth from economic activity, is sluggish.



The growth in the Monetary Base due to Fed inflationary activity has been nothing short of spectacular, without equal in US monetary history. This makes all Money Multiplier measures that use the AMB in the denominator meaningless for now.



The spike in Treasury settlement failures is one measure of the stress in the financial system. It seems to be quieter now, after spiking in response to seizures in the bonds trading. We will maintain a watch on this.