logo

Fun with the Michael Masters report
By: The Mess that Greenspan Made   Monday, May 26, 2008 2:40 PM

Vote for next session
The next market session will close:

Among many other things that Michael Masters might have you believe is that soaring commodity prices are somehow unprecedented in history. The chart below was an integral part of his congressional testimony (.pdf) last week when he asserted that institutional investors "are one of, if not the primary, factors affecting commodities prices today."

Look at those level prices up until the point that institutional investors starting moving money out of stocks and bonds and into commodities.

But didn't commodity prices rise sharply back in the 1970s?

Apparently not - at least not according to the "S&P GSCI Spot Price Commodity Index", an index that is new to me. Investors tracking this index could have put money into commodities in 1974 and had nothing to show for it for almost 20 years.

If, on the other hand, investment money was put into something that tracked the venerable CRB Index, the investment returns would have been much better.

In fact, that move from 1972 to 1980 makes the recent move look a little tame by comparison. Note that the chart above is a year or so old - the CRB currently stands at about 430 which is a little over double the level in 2002.

By comparison, the index more than tripled from 1972 to 1980.

Maybe it's just the index - "spot" GSCI versus CRB - that accounts for such a big discrepancy. Using data from Dr. Craig Israelson's paper The Benefits of Low Correlation, this is what a $10,000 investment in the "non-spot" GSCI would look like since 1970.

That looks like a pretty steady progression over the last 40 years with a big surge over the last decade.

But, as I learned long ago and discussed in "Fun with multi-decade charts", for a single curve going back almost 40 years, you really should use a log scale.

Wow - that's a completely different curve than the first one in this post - the one that was presented to Congress last week as "proof positive" of the undue influence of speculators on commodity prices.

You know, I've got a couple speaking gigs under my belt now, maybe I should see if I can present my data before some Senate panel. Maybe we can talk about Alan Greenspan and fiat money while we're at it.



(3)
 
5/26/2008 4:04:16 PM
GSCI vs. GSCI Spot by Adam White
The GSCI spot index is composed of the spot prices of the 24 commodities in the GSCI. The GSCI index includes the spot index plus "roll yield" which you get from constantly rolling your futures position in backwardation and the interest that you get from your margin. For 30 years commodity prices have not kept up with inflation because the marginal cost of production (long term equilibrium price) has been coming down over time. It does not make sense when talking about commodity prices to include the interest on your margin or the amount you get from your trading strategy. By the way the CRB is also based on futures prices.
Rating: (0) (0)
5/26/2008 4:04:16 PM
GSCI vs. GSCI Spot by Adam White
The GSCI spot index is composed of the spot prices of the 24 commodities in the GSCI. The GSCI index includes the spot index plus "roll yield" which you get from constantly rolling your futures position in backwardation and the interest that you get from your margin. For 30 years commodity prices have not kept up with inflation because the marginal cost of production (long term equilibrium price) has been coming down over time. It does not make sense when talking about commodity prices to include the interest on your margin or the amount you get from your trading strategy. By the way the CRB is also based on futures prices.
Rating: (0) (0)
7/31/2009 9:23:04 AM
by Tom Adams
There is another error in the Masters report.  He calculated China's excess oil demand 2003-2007 at about 1 billion barrels.   But he made a math error, adding up year over year growth.   The actual impact of China's expansion would he the additional barrels due to expansion from 2002.  That figure is 3 billion barrels as I properly calculated from Masters written congressional testimony.   So, inventory expansion was not equal China expansion as Masters claimed.  It was 1/3 China expansion.
Rating: (0) (0)
Post Comment
Name:  
Alert for new comments:
Your email:
Your Website:
Title:
Comments:
   
 
 
 
 
   
 

The above story is the opinion of the author only and it does not reflect iStockAnalyst opinion. Further, the author is not personally advising you regarding the suitability of the story for your investment needs. In no event iStockAnalyst will be liable for any loss or damage including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss or damage, or any loss or damage whatsoever arising from or arising out of, or in connection with the use of this information. Please consult your investment advisor before making any investment decision.
  
Advertisement
Popular Articles
Related Press Releases
  • No Stories Found
Advertisement
Partner Center
Recent Articles by The Mess that Greenspan Made



Subscribe to Email Alerts rss feed or RSS feeds rss feed for articles from more than 500 contributors, press releases, SEC filings and full text news from more than four thousand sources.
Fundamental data is provided by Zacks Investment Research, market data is provided by AlphaTrade. , and Commentary and Press Releases provided by Quotemedia