I put a large portion of my portfolio into oil refiners, drillers, svc. companies etc. back in 2005...I love to see $3.75 gas. If you can't beat them, join them.
Oil Co's catch alot of shit. Some is deserved, some not. Bottom line is oil is a dwindling commodity (peak oil). In 5 years, when gas is $7, you guys are gonna gonna be looking back at today as the glory years. Bank it.
Oil Co's catch alot of shit. Some is deserved, some not. Bottom line is oil is a dwindling commodity (peak oil). In 5 years, when gas is $7, you guys are gonna gonna be looking back at today as the glory years. Bank it.
Its comical reading you bitching and moaning about gas prices.
Listening to news and groupspeak, one would be convinced oil companies were first and only to get the highest prices for their products.
Gasoline is still very inexpensive relative to what we pay for other things.
Learn to deal with higher gas/oil prices, for the peak price hasnt been reached.
Last edited:
I have no issues paying higher prices if that is what the market demands.
What I do have issue with is simultaneous price increases from a range of competitors coupled with record profits for all of them. And then I see an oil company CEO get a 400 million dollar retirement package and record bonuses and paychecks for oil executives in general.
I don't see how a $1 per bbl increase turnes into a 15 cent per gallon increase at the pumps.
The obvious question is whether there's some kind of price fixing going on.
If the steadily increasing prices at the pump (and for home heating oil) and record profits for the oil companies are found to be above board, then the market is the culprit and the oil companies are exonerated of all guilt.
Then again.....
Why is it that people find conspiracies in the most unlikely place, yet something that screams conspiracy is ignored?
As I noted in my original post - the Democrats made noise about this very issue when the Republicans were in charge - why aren't they doing something now that they are in charge?
Since this is political manipulation, when is the Drag Queen going to fix it?
Is this another conspiracy? Bush controls price of free market and world wide oil!
Damn, now Europe is going to hate us more then ever, since W is increasing their prices too.
Oil traders are at a loss, they thought they were doing all the buying and selling. Silly Fools.
Is this another conspiracy? Bush controls price of free market and world wide oil!
Damn, now Europe is going to hate us more then ever, since W is increasing their prices too.
Oil traders are at a loss, they thought they were doing all the buying and selling. Silly Fools.
W does not control the price of oil. W does not control the worldwide distribution. W does not control futures traders.
The price of Oil, like all other commodities, is controlled by supply and demand and either real or anticipated changes in either variable.
If government can simply manipulate the price, why isn't anybody fixing the problem or offering solutions. Thus my Nancy P reference.
Now you resort to "red herrings". You're question is very broad. Why don't you be more specific.
Do you believe W manipulates the price of worldwide oil?
Is the US the only country with this capability?
What if Great Britain or Italy or Germany or China or Russia...... wanted to impact the price of oil for their own political purposes, can they do the same?
How do future traders play a role in this? Does W tell them all to sell thus driving down the price?
Do you believe W manipulates the price of worldwide oil?
Is the US the only country with this capability?
What if Great Britain or Italy or Germany or China or Russia...... wanted to impact the price of oil for their own political purposes, can they do the same?
How do future traders play a role in this? Does W tell them all to sell thus driving down the price?
So in 2000 Bush the Oil Man was either
(A) Ignorant and uninformed
(B) Lying and full of shit
Back in 2000, Bush spoke about how it was unacceptable that oil had been "allowed" to reach $32-$34 until Clinton/Gore and that as president he would "jawbone" OPEC into "opening the spigots" to increase downward pressure on the price of oil.
Sounds to me like he was saying he could affect the price. Do you disagree?
It's conceivable that US Oil Companies can bring the price of gas in the US down on a short term basis. This too would involve many players.
There are a number of reasons why I don't believe this happened.
First, while sticking to your question, I think Oil Companies would be smart enough to have interests in both parties thus ensuring their survival. Stated differently, they would never put all their eggs in one basket, especially when that candidate is taking a beating in the polls. So no, Oil Companies would not influence the price for the Republicans.
Second, the reasons I think the prices were decreasing before the election. There is first and foremost an ever increasing demand for oil because of the development of China & India.
Prices also increased before the summer, as they always do, in anticipation of increased travel and worries over a another horrible hurricane season. Well, we traveled less the expected & the hurricane season was extraordinarily mild. Fall & early winter tempatures were also warmer then expected, and the price continued to drop.
Late winter & early spring tempatures were colder then usual, and with the pending summer travel and yet another prediction of a bad hurricane season, the prices increasing again.
I'm no expert on the subject, but that's my story.
Now, your turn to answer my questions posted above.
There are a number of reasons why I don't believe this happened.
First, while sticking to your question, I think Oil Companies would be smart enough to have interests in both parties thus ensuring their survival. Stated differently, they would never put all their eggs in one basket, especially when that candidate is taking a beating in the polls. So no, Oil Companies would not influence the price for the Republicans.
Second, the reasons I think the prices were decreasing before the election. There is first and foremost an ever increasing demand for oil because of the development of China & India.
Prices also increased before the summer, as they always do, in anticipation of increased travel and worries over a another horrible hurricane season. Well, we traveled less the expected & the hurricane season was extraordinarily mild. Fall & early winter tempatures were also warmer then expected, and the price continued to drop.
Late winter & early spring tempatures were colder then usual, and with the pending summer travel and yet another prediction of a bad hurricane season, the prices increasing again.
I'm no expert on the subject, but that's my story.
Now, your turn to answer my questions posted above.
I can only speculate that he talking about negotiations with oil producing countries. If anybody thought this was a cold stone lock, you should not be on a gambling site message board.
Come on KTV, you ever hear of political speak? I'm not defending it. Obviously, he was wrong about that one, eh?
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Gasoline Price Manipulation Before the Elections[/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It sure looks that way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]An article appeared this Saturday in the New York Times pointing to some unusual trading by Goldman Sachs in the gasoline futures market. As Raymond Keller, who spotted the article, points out, "They always hide the good stuff in the low circulation Saturday edition."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What’s Goldman doing?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Here’s how the Times reports it:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Keller provides some insight into the curious timing of this trade:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But some just don't believe these kinds of manipulations go on. I have had some email discussions in recent days with some pretty sophisticated economists who don’t believe Goldman has manipulated the gasoline market. Their argument goes: "I will continue to be an economist and look at the supply and demand issues."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]My reply has been, Goldman Sachs understands supply and demand – and they also understand trading. When you sell-off $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts, you are going to have an impact – as the New York Times story correctly pointed out. That is an awful lot of supply. Further, this type of aggressive selling will result in selling by others who will receive margin calls they can’t meet. And by trend followers, who will suddenly dump gasoline and other commodities. This is, indeed, exactly what is happening. Goldman Sachs didn’t get to be Goldman by not understanding this stuff. Supply and demand can explain this manipulation completely.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]My email correspondents also raise a few other points.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]They ask, "Why would Goldman Sachs trade this way and lose money?" The answer here is that Goldman doesn’t lose money. This is a managed commodity index. Goldman manages the index, but the actual money put up comes from institutions, hedge funds and other unlucky saps that trusted Goldman to manage the commodity index as a hedge against inflation – not to bail out of $6 billion in contracts over a few weeks. The result: Unlucky saps – Major losses. Goldman – Zero losses and their man running the Treasury. Which side of this trade would you want to be on?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But, my email correspondents continue on with one more charge: "Are you trying to tell me that refiners are trying to deplete their inventories and leave themselves with real supply problems in the future? That does not make sense to me." In fact, depleting inventories is exactly what refiners would do. If the price of gasoline is plunging in the futures market, they are going to push out the door as much inventory as they can, to make room for the new cheap gasoline they can buy up on the futures market.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Bottom line, Goldman had to know they were going to plunge gasoline prices short-term with this type of trading. This smells to me like a Paulson operation all the way. He is the ultimate behind the scenes operator if there ever was one, and future biographies of him are very likely to note such.[/FONT]
[FONT=Georgia, Times New Roman, Times, serif][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] by Peter Stojan
by Peter Stojan[/FONT][/FONT]
by Peter Stojan[/FONT][/FONT]
<!-- Copyright 2001-2002, Clickability, Inc. All rights reserved.--> <script language="javascript1.2" src="http://a449.g.akamai.net/7/449/1776/000/button.clickability.com/10/button_1/button.js"> </script> [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
DIGG THIS[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Is Goldman Sachs manipulating the gasoline futures market to push prices down before the November elections?[/FONT]DIGG THIS[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]It sure looks that way.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]An article appeared this Saturday in the New York Times pointing to some unusual trading by Goldman Sachs in the gasoline futures market. As Raymond Keller, who spotted the article, points out, "They always hide the good stuff in the low circulation Saturday edition."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]What’s Goldman doing?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Here’s how the Times reports it:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Politics and worries about oil supplies may have caused gasoline prices to go up at the pump earlier this year, but one big investment bank quietly helped their rapid drop in recent weeks, according to some economists, traders and analysts.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the G.S.C.I., said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"They started unwinding their positions, and those other longs also rushed to the door at the same time," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. The August announcement by Goldman Sachs caught some traders by surprise. The firm said in early June that it planned to roll its positions in the harbor contract into another futures contract, the reformulated gasoline blendstock, which is replacing the harbor contract at the end of the year because of changes to laws about gasoline additives. Later in June, Goldman said it had rolled a third of its gasoline holdings into the reformulated contracts but would make further announcements as to whether the remainder would be rolled over. Then in August, the bank said it would not roll over any more positions into gasoline and would redistribute the weighting into other petroleum products...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some traders speculated that Goldman might have been concerned about the liquidity of the reformulated contract and whether other traders would embrace it because there were so few contracts outstanding. The open interest, or number of futures contracts taken out, has increased ninefold in the reformulated contract since then.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]A sell-off of more than $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts? Let’s put it this way, a $6 billion trade is not decided on at the lower levels of the firm.[/FONT][FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the G.S.C.I., said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]"They started unwinding their positions, and those other longs also rushed to the door at the same time," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. The August announcement by Goldman Sachs caught some traders by surprise. The firm said in early June that it planned to roll its positions in the harbor contract into another futures contract, the reformulated gasoline blendstock, which is replacing the harbor contract at the end of the year because of changes to laws about gasoline additives. Later in June, Goldman said it had rolled a third of its gasoline holdings into the reformulated contracts but would make further announcements as to whether the remainder would be rolled over. Then in August, the bank said it would not roll over any more positions into gasoline and would redistribute the weighting into other petroleum products...[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Some traders speculated that Goldman might have been concerned about the liquidity of the reformulated contract and whether other traders would embrace it because there were so few contracts outstanding. The open interest, or number of futures contracts taken out, has increased ninefold in the reformulated contract since then.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Keller provides some insight into the curious timing of this trade:[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]President George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Paulson to the position on June 28, 2006 and he was sworn into office on July 10, 2006. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. So what does Goldman do just weeks after Paulson is sworn in as Treasury Secretary? It announces a subtle move that drives down gasoline prices, short-term. Nice move, coming just months before the election.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif] Now it may be hard to swallow for some that market manipulations go on, but they do at all levels. Penny stock promoters cook up their schemes, and power players have their schemes. In traders jargon, it’s called painting the tape. Indeed, the Washington Post has revealed that the government has formed something that is casually known as the Plunge Protection Team. PPT is supposed to jump in and buy stocks when things are unruly. Ronald Reagan formed the PPT when he signed Executive Order 12631. It’s just another way of painting the tape (Using your tax money, or newly printed Federal Reserve dollars, of course). Goldman is a member of the secretive PPT.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But some just don't believe these kinds of manipulations go on. I have had some email discussions in recent days with some pretty sophisticated economists who don’t believe Goldman has manipulated the gasoline market. Their argument goes: "I will continue to be an economist and look at the supply and demand issues."[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]My reply has been, Goldman Sachs understands supply and demand – and they also understand trading. When you sell-off $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts, you are going to have an impact – as the New York Times story correctly pointed out. That is an awful lot of supply. Further, this type of aggressive selling will result in selling by others who will receive margin calls they can’t meet. And by trend followers, who will suddenly dump gasoline and other commodities. This is, indeed, exactly what is happening. Goldman Sachs didn’t get to be Goldman by not understanding this stuff. Supply and demand can explain this manipulation completely.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]My email correspondents also raise a few other points.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]They ask, "Why would Goldman Sachs trade this way and lose money?" The answer here is that Goldman doesn’t lose money. This is a managed commodity index. Goldman manages the index, but the actual money put up comes from institutions, hedge funds and other unlucky saps that trusted Goldman to manage the commodity index as a hedge against inflation – not to bail out of $6 billion in contracts over a few weeks. The result: Unlucky saps – Major losses. Goldman – Zero losses and their man running the Treasury. Which side of this trade would you want to be on?[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]But, my email correspondents continue on with one more charge: "Are you trying to tell me that refiners are trying to deplete their inventories and leave themselves with real supply problems in the future? That does not make sense to me." In fact, depleting inventories is exactly what refiners would do. If the price of gasoline is plunging in the futures market, they are going to push out the door as much inventory as they can, to make room for the new cheap gasoline they can buy up on the futures market.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Bottom line, Goldman had to know they were going to plunge gasoline prices short-term with this type of trading. This smells to me like a Paulson operation all the way. He is the ultimate behind the scenes operator if there ever was one, and future biographies of him are very likely to note such.[/FONT]
