How Wallstreet Control Oil

14 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY WINTER 2007
How
Wall Street
Controls Oil
And how OPEC will be the fall guy for $90 oil.
Control over oil markets, once the province of the major
integrated oil companies and then OPEC, may now be
shifting into the hands of Wall Street’s ubiquitous investment
banks. Oil industry experts noted this unwelcome
transition at an early December 2006 OPEC-EU meeting in
Vienna. Producers clearly were not happy to see their ability
to influence prices undermined. EU representatives
were equally unhappy because the changeover might
increase price volatility. Wall Street types, meanwhile, denied responsibility.
It has become clear in 2006 that one of Wall Street’s newest concepts—marketing
commodities as an asset class—has altered world energy markets in a surprising
fashion. In particular, the injection of cash into commodities by passive
investors such as pension funds has created a rich financial incentive to accumulate
inventories. Participants in physical energy markets (both oil and natural
gas) have responded by putting away almost record amounts and building new
storage facilities. The stocks amassed, in turn, have undermined the ability of oil
exporters to control prices. OPEC ministers recognize that under certain circumstances
the accruing stocks could precipitate a sudden, temporary drop in
crude prices similar to the one observed in natural gas last spring.
Philip K. Verleger, Jr., is principal of PKVerleger LLC.
BY PHILIP K. VERLEGER, JR.
THE MAGAZINE OF
INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY
888 16th Street, N.W.
Suite 740
Washington, D.C. 20006
Phone: 202-861-0791
Fax: 202-861-0790
www.international-economy.com
WINTER 2007 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY 15
VERLEGER
At the same time, the stock and price rise threatens
to raise political hackles. Legislators will no doubt
respond this spring with a spate of hearings and perhaps
laws directed at an industry incorrectly accused
of hoarding.
Here I describe the latest development in the
energy market twists and turns of the last three
decades. Its appearance has made the tools traditionally
used to predict oil market fluctuations at least temporarily
obsolete.
A SURPRISING CHANGE
Those who watch oil markets closely were startled last
June as oil prices and inventories simultaneously rose to
unprecedented highs. The price rise itself was not a surprise.
Nor was the stock climb to levels not observed
since the 1998 shock. However, the two events occurring
simultaneously caught the attention of many and
for good reason: historically, high prices have been
associated with low inventories and vice versa.
The surprising parallel increase in stocks and oil
prices can be observed in Figure 1. There I compare
U.S. commercial crude stock levels from January 1986
through December 2006 with the spot price of WTI
[West Texas Intermediate, an oil pricing benchmark],
which trades on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
For presentation purposes, stocks are graphed against
the left vertical axis and prices against the right. One
can note an unusual surge in stocks beginning in
January 2005 that matches the crude price rise from
$45 to $74 per barrel.
The concurrent upsurge in prices and stocks was
unusual by historical standards. In the past, inventories
of oil and other commodities moved countercyclically
with prices. Commercial users of commodities have
always been notoriously parsimonious. Indeed, few
managers will risk tying up working capital to accumulate
additional stocks, and oil companies have previously
been very aggressive in minimizing inventories.
Moreover, no publicly traded company has reported
holding speculative stocks.
On this occasion, however, the stock boost was driven
by a profit motive rather than a speculative one.
Commercial firms were given the chance to gain by
keeping stocks, and they responded by increasing their
holdings.
Wall Street provided the opportunity to benefit
from adding stocks. For the last fifteen years, investment
bankers have touted commodities as an asset class.
In the last two years, the idea gained recognition.
Commodities were sold as an alternative to traditional
bond and stock investments. Building on academic
research at Yale and Wharton, analysts from Goldman
Sachs, Deutsche Bank, Barclays, PIMCO, and other
institutions have circulated papers that demonstrate how
investors achieve useful diversification by allocating a
small portion of their portfolios to commodities. The
diversification occurs because returns from commodities
are negatively correlated with returns on equities
or bonds.
Crude for delivery in 2010 will pass
$90 per barrel.
Oil Storage Problem
Oil can no longer be held in open pits as it was
in the 1930s. It must be kept in tanks or on
ships, and both have a fixed supply. As storage
fills, the prices facility owners charge for it
increase. The boost in storage costs drives down cash
prices. Such an impact occurred in summer 2006
when cash prices in U.S. natural gas markets dropped
by more than 60 percent to $4.50 per million Btu. In
an even more extreme case, in September natural gas
sellers briefly paid buyers in Great Britain to take gas.
(The statement is correct. British firms paid buyers
to take gas because storage was full.) Thus Wall
Street’s commodity asset class innovation has the
potential to destabilize energy markets thoroughly.
—P. Verleger
Control over oil markets may now be
shifting into the hands of Wall Street’s
ubiquitous investment banks.
16 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY WINTER 2007
VERLEGER
Many pension fund managers have
been convinced. Between 2004 and
2006, as much as $100 billion may have
been invested in commodities. Figure 2,
taken from a Goldman Sachs presentation,
shows a rough estimate of the cash
input from passive investors. One can
see from the graph that financial institutions
had marketed the idea as early
as 1991. However, one can also note the
idea only took hold in 2004.
Those investing in commodities are
not typical of other commodity market
participants. They are not speculators.
They do not trade frequently, and they
do not sell short. Investors buy a diversified
portfolio of commodities and hold
on to it. Energy commodities, particularly
oil, make up a large portion of the
indexes because energy accounts for a
large share of the economy.
Proponents of commodity investing
recommend full collateralization of
contracts. Although commodity futures
are by definition margined transactions,
commodity investors set aside the contract’s
full value when they buy. Thus
the purchaser of 1,000 barrels of crude
will reserve $60,000 if oil sells at $60
per barrel. The money not used for margin
is invested in a highly liquid instrument
such as a Treasury bill.
The most widely quoted academic
proponents of commodity investment
(Gary Gorton and Geert Rouwenhorst)
do not promise investors returns from
price appreciation. Rather they demonstrate
how a return can be earned as a
result of markets normally being in
“backwardation,” a condition that
occurs when cash prices exceed futures
prices. As they explain,
Keynes and Hicks postulated the
theory of normal backwardation, which states
that the risk premium will, on average, accrue
to the buyers. They envisioned a world in which
producers of commodities seek to hedge the
price risk of their output. For example, a producer
of grain sells grain futures to lock in the
future price of the crops and obtain insurance
against the price risk of grain at harvest time.
Speculators provide this insurance and buy
futures, but they demand a futures price that is
below the spot price expected to prevail at the
maturity of the futures contract. By “backwardating”
the futures price relative to the expected
future spot price, speculators receive a risk premium
from producers for assuming the risk of
future price fluctuations.1
Figure 2 Estimated Growth in Global Commodity Investment
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
Other
GSCI
2006* 2003 2000 1997 1994 1991
Billion Dollars
*End of August 2006
Source: PKVerleger LLC from reports published by Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and
Financial Times.
Figure 1 U.S. Commercial Crude Stocks vs. WTI Spot Price, 1986 to 2006
250
300
350
400
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
WTI Price Crude Stocks
2006 2004 2002 2000 1998 1996 1994 1992 1990 1988 1986
Crude Stocks (million barrels)
Crude Price (dollars per barrel)
Source: U.S. Department of Energy; Platts.
WINTER 2007 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY 17
VERLEGER
For illustration, I show in Figure 3 the forward price
curve of oil on January 1, 2003. At that time, the first future
settled for $31.68 per barrel and the second future at $30.50.
If spot prices remained at $31.68 per barrel, the investor
could count on making $1.18 per barrel in 30 days. Investors
could earn an annual return of almost 60 percent if they
repeated the exercise each month by “rolling” their investment
into the next contract.
Gorton and Rouwenhorst examine data
for a thirty-year period and show that a portfolio
of commodities structured as described
above would earn returns that match those
from bonds and equities. They also show the
returns are negatively correlated, implying
that commodity investments help diversify
portfolios.
INTRODUCING “NORMAL CONTANGO”
The movement of passive investors into
commodities shifted markets from backwardation
to contango, the condition that occurs
when futures prices exceed cash prices.
Quite simply, energy markets today are too
small to accommodate the increased activity
of investors seeking to buy commodities
and still stay in backwardation. Producers
who might sell futures to hedge the risk of a
price decline generally do not do so, having
been counseled by other representatives of
the same investment banks that buyers of
their equities did not want them to hedge.
The consequence of this impasse was
predictable. Futures prices rose relative to
cash prices. As can be seen from Figure 4,
the market shifted from backwardation on
January 1, 2003, to contango by July 2006.
(In Figure 4, the 2003 curve is graphed
against the left vertical axis and the 2006
curve against the right because the price level
in 2006 is roughly double that of 2003.) The
change in the curve’s shape is remarkable.
Usually, markets become more backwardated
as cash prices rise.
Inventory accumulation began once
markets shifted into contango because it
became profitable for commercial firms to
add to stocks. In a contango market, a company
acquiring stocks avoids the risk of a
price decline by hedging. Thus in July an oil
company could acquire incremental oil for
$76 per barrel and simultaneously hedge the
volume by selling futures for $80 per barrel. This transaction—
referred to historically as a “cash and carry”—nets the
company a $4-per-barrel profit whether oil rises to $100 or
falls to $10. Not surprisingly, firms jumped at the opportunity.
As noted above, both prices and inventories rose.
In theory, companies could acquire oil indefinitely.
Prices could rise and stocks follow. However, at least one
real impediment to this scenario exists: storage. Oil can no
Figure 4 Forward Price Curve for WTI on January 1, 2003
vs. Forward Price Curve on July 19, 2006
20
25
30
35
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
29th 25th 21st 17th 13th 9th 5th 1st
July 2006
January 2003
2003 Curve (dollars per barrel)
2006 Curve (dollars per barrel)
Contract
Source: Source: Platts; NYMEX.
Figure 3 Forward Price Curve for WTI on January 1, 2003
20
25
30
35
Jun-05 Feb-05 Oct-04 Jun-04 Feb-04 Oct-03 Jun-03 Feb-03
Contract Month
Dollars per Barrel
Source: Platts; NYMEX.
Continued on page 60
60 THE INTERNATIONAL ECONOMY WINTER 2007
VERLEGER
longer be held in open pits as it was in the 1930s. It must
be kept in tanks or on ships, and both have a fixed supply.
As storage fills, the prices facility owners charge for it
increase. The boost in storage costs drives down cash
prices. Such an impact occurred in summer 2006 when
cash prices in U.S. natural gas markets dropped by more
than 60 percent to $4.50 per million Btu. In an even more
extreme case, in September natural gas sellers briefly paid
buyers in Great Britain to take gas. (The statement is correct.
British firms paid buyers to take gas because storage
was full.) Thus Wall Street’s commodity asset class
innovation has the potential to destabilize energy markets
thoroughly.
POLICY DILEMMAS
The emergence of high inventories and high prices and
the possibility of a price collapse create dilemmas for
OPEC and policymakers in consuming countries. For
OPEC, the risk is obvious. Lawmakers in consuming
nations seeking to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are
also troubled by the prospect of low prices. Yet, there may
be little they can do to ameliorate the situation.
OPEC’s problem concerns the price level. OPEC can
and has cut oil production to squeeze stocks and raise
prices. In March 1999, Saudi Arabia led the organization
in a program to reduce consumer inventories across the
globe. Between mid-1998 and early 2001, global stocks
shrunk by almost 700 million barrels. When they implemented
this policy, OPEC officials predicted that prices
would rise as stocks declined. Many doubted this, but by
early 2001 prices had tripled from $10 to $30 per barrel.
In early December 2006, Saudi Arabia’s oil minister Ali
Al-Naimi commented that global inventories were rising
again. He fretted that prices might come under pressure.
Other OPEC members stated more explicitly that production
cuts were needed to reduce world stocks by 100
million barrels.
There is a problem with this thinking, however.
OPEC cannot make inventories decline by cutting output.
Areduced oil supply might induce those holding stocks to
sell and take profits. Alternatively, they might decide not
to sell, in which case consumption would have to
decrease. In this second scenario, crude oil prices would
need to increase between 10 and 20 percent to balance
the market. This would bring crude back to the summer
peaks of nearly $80 per barrel.
Of course, a crude price hike is just what those marketing
commodities as assets seek. More investors and
more money would pour into commodity indexes, much
of it into oil. The incentive to hold stocks would
strengthen and inventories might build despite OPEC’s
production cut.
The process will end when storage fills. Then OPEC
will need to reduce output further or risk prices falling
precipitously. We could very well observe a price decline
and OPEC attempts to arrest it. During 2007, I suspect
we will see an oil price surge followed by a rush of cash
into commodities. Forward prices will be bid higher.
Crude for delivery in 2010 will pass $90 per barrel. Stocks
will rise further while Congress and the press accuse oil
companies of hoarding. Then buyers will realize at some
point that they have no place to put the oil and prices will
tumble. The history of commodity market cycles suggests
the decline could be spectacular. Single digit prices are
possible, although probably only for a day or two.
As an EU official said privately, “The market has
been destabilized.” ◆
NOTE
1. Gary Gorton and K. Geert Rouwenhorst, “Facts and
Fantasies about Commodity Futures,” Financial Analysts
Journal 62, No. 2 (March/April 2006), p. 48.
Quite simply, energy markets today
are too small to accommodate the
increased activity of investors seeking
to buy commodities and still stay in
backwardation.
In an even more extreme case, in
September natural gas sellers briefly
paid buyers in Great Britain to take gas.
Continued from page 17