where did they dump the oil?

http://www.econbrows..._price_manip.html

[...]

The CFTC complaint alleges that between January 8 and January 18 of 2008, oil traders Nicholas Wildgoose and James Dyer entered into forward contracts to buy 4.6 million barrels of oil for physical delivery in February, an amount that represented 66% of their beginning-of-month estimate of the total physical Cushing market. Between January 3 and January 16, the pair is alleged to have also bought about 13,600 February futures contracts (equivalent to 13.6 million barrels of oil) and sold the same number of March futures contracts. The claim is that by creating the appearance of temporarily tighter conditions in the physical market, the February futures price would rise relative to the March and the traders would profit as they closed out their futures positions between January 16 and January 22.

The graph below plots the prices of the February and March NYMEX futures contracts during the month of January 2008. Note that the CFTC is not alleging that these actions were a cause of rising oil prices-- in fact, the price of oil was falling during this period. Rather, the allegation is that these actions resulted in an increase in the spread between the February and March futures price, that is, in the absence of these actions, the February price would have fallen more and the March price would have fallen less.

The CFTC complaint alleges that Wildgoose and Dyer subsequently acquired by January 25 a net short position in March futures and long position in April futures equivalent to 12.2 million barrels. The allegation is that this was done in anticipation of suddenly selling off on the last possible day (Jan 25) all 4.6 million barrels of the physical oil previously accumulated; I gather that the allegation is that this was achieved by finding somebody currently holding rights to delivery of an equivalent volume in March who was willing to swap and take delivery instead in February, provided that the offered February price was sufficiently low. The effect of such a huge last-day sale would have been to depress the February physical price as the market discovered that the apparent big demand for oil just wasn't there. Although Wildgoose and Dyer would of course have taken a big loss on their physical contracts (by virtue of having bought at the artificially higher prices that their bids created and then selling at the artificially lower prices that their sales induced), the CFTC alleges that they more than made up for these losses with bigger profits on the corresponding futures transactions. The CFTC complaint alleges that the pair lost $15 million on the physical transactions but gained $50 million on futures transactions, profiting first by the increase in the February-March spread induced by creating the impression of an unusually tight February physical market, and then later profiting by the decrease in the March-April spread by surprising the market with much more physical oil available for delivery than people had been assuming.

[...]

The lumps and diversions in the graphs certainly look suspicious.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #343,014 by beepster 5/25/11 9:05:59 AM Reply	where did they dump the oil? that would be a big slick. And also doesn't seem that it could have been that dominant a position if they could sell it all in a day. Sure, understanding today's complex world of the future is a little like having bees live in your head. But...there they are.
Post #343,017 by folkert 5/25/11 11:09:42 AM Reply	Since this has come out... and has been known about it coming... Wow, prices at the pump have dropped $0.40 cents around here. $0.40. Now everyone can start using the SUVs and trucks they have again! $3.80 around here now and still expected to drop. I have a sneaking suspicion they were at it again.
Post #343,018 by jake123 5/25/11 11:12:57 AM Reply	I think part of the point of the scheme was that their shorting of the market meant that they could take a big beating on their futures and still make a lot of money... with their short on, they wanted to see the price drop precipitously. Also, (this is for you box) this is a case of a paper created shortage and glut, not an actual shortage or glut beyond what physical inventory's actually there. I mean, it's not like this has caused the price of gas to fall a whole lot, now has it? That makes sense when you think about it, because the actual physical amount of oil changed by not one drop as a result of this market manipulation.
Post #343,021 by boxley 5/25/11 11:52:07 AM Reply	we are awash in landed oil so much so that OPEC is cutting production yet the price is high. Market manipulation/speculation is the cause. Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 55 years. meep
Post #343,068 by Another Scott 5/26/11 10:51:01 PM Reply	James Hamilton explains. http://www.econbrows..._price_manip.html [...] The CFTC complaint alleges that between January 8 and January 18 of 2008, oil traders Nicholas Wildgoose and James Dyer entered into forward contracts to buy 4.6 million barrels of oil for physical delivery in February, an amount that represented 66% of their beginning-of-month estimate of the total physical Cushing market. Between January 3 and January 16, the pair is alleged to have also bought about 13,600 February futures contracts (equivalent to 13.6 million barrels of oil) and sold the same number of March futures contracts. The claim is that by creating the appearance of temporarily tighter conditions in the physical market, the February futures price would rise relative to the March and the traders would profit as they closed out their futures positions between January 16 and January 22. The graph below plots the prices of the February and March NYMEX futures contracts during the month of January 2008. Note that the CFTC is not alleging that these actions were a cause of rising oil prices-- in fact, the price of oil was falling during this period. Rather, the allegation is that these actions resulted in an increase in the spread between the February and March futures price, that is, in the absence of these actions, the February price would have fallen more and the March price would have fallen less. The CFTC complaint alleges that Wildgoose and Dyer subsequently acquired by January 25 a net short position in March futures and long position in April futures equivalent to 12.2 million barrels. The allegation is that this was done in anticipation of suddenly selling off on the last possible day (Jan 25) all 4.6 million barrels of the physical oil previously accumulated; I gather that the allegation is that this was achieved by finding somebody currently holding rights to delivery of an equivalent volume in March who was willing to swap and take delivery instead in February, provided that the offered February price was sufficiently low. The effect of such a huge last-day sale would have been to depress the February physical price as the market discovered that the apparent big demand for oil just wasn't there. Although Wildgoose and Dyer would of course have taken a big loss on their physical contracts (by virtue of having bought at the artificially higher prices that their bids created and then selling at the artificially lower prices that their sales induced), the CFTC alleges that they more than made up for these losses with bigger profits on the corresponding futures transactions. The CFTC complaint alleges that the pair lost $15 million on the physical transactions but gained $50 million on futures transactions, profiting first by the increase in the February-March spread induced by creating the impression of an unusually tight February physical market, and then later profiting by the decrease in the March-April spread by surprising the market with much more physical oil available for delivery than people had been assuming. [...] The lumps and diversions in the graphs certainly look suspicious. Cheers, Scott.

Welcome to IWETHEY!