China’s and Uncle Sam’s consumers strike back

High Streets on two different sides of the world defied the gloom in May.  In the US,  that famous retail analyst Mark Twain said, “Talk of the US consumer’s death is greatly exaggerated,” while in China, retail sales rose by a stunning 21.6 per cent.

It is sort of good news.    It is good to know the US consumer is such a robust beast, and it is good to see China consuming goods and services.  For much of this decade the global economy has had this curious duality.  You have got massive spending in countries like the US and UK, and huge savings in other parts of the world.

In fact some economists, Alan Greenspan, for example, or here in Blighty, Roger Bootle, have often talked about the high savings rate in countries such as China as the real force that is influencing economic events.

High savings had to go somewhere, and as a result Western money markets were flooded, this created the credit boom – the unsustainable credit boom.

It has been obvious for some time that we need to spend less and save more in the UK and US, but at the same time there was a question mark over whether the rest of the world could afford for that to happen.

For some time it has been clear we have needed to see China, Japan, and Germany take up the spending baton.   If that could happen, then this decoupling thing could become reality – the world would no longer be quite so reliant on the US. No longer would a slight sniff by Uncle Sam lead to a nasty cold elsewhere.    If the baton really could be passed on in this way, then the credit crunch of 2008 will go down in history as a good thing, the point when the real problems besetting the economy were grappled with.

But here is something a tad more worrying.  In China in May, sales of automobiles rose 32 per cent. 

Sorry, did you catch that? – 32 per cent.  

The price of oil is up there beyond the stratosphere, in the US and UK we are reining in our expenditure on cars, and opting for cheaper, fuel-efficient vehicles.  But in China, sales rose 32 per cent.

Oil will fall in price if consumers curtail their spending – look to make cut backs, look for more efficient alternatives – yet in China, and hold your breath for this statistic,  auto sales rose 32 per cent.

In the US, the jump in retail sales was more modest, but still quite eye-catching.  Sales in May were up by 1 per cent on the month before.  April too saw a 0.4 per cent rise on the previous month.   Now a 1 per cent jump in just one month is quite extraordinary, and certainly not the kind of thing you would normally expect from an economy on the brink of recession.

But remember this – remember, George Dubya kindly writing out all those cheques earlier in the year.  He was at it all night – licking down envelopes, Henry Paulson licking down stamps, and Dick Cheney ran them over to the letterbox. In all, 117 million households were earmarked for the cheques, couples were down for $1,200, and individuals $600.  Come to think of it, with all those cheques, they probably got George Dubya’s father to come and help too

So, what would you do if one morning sitting on the doorstep there was a cheque for $1,200?   Would you use it to pay off a credit card bill?   Would you stick it in a savings account? After all, with this nasty credit crunch you never know what is going to happen; or would you say hang it all – let’s spend it.

Economists had expected US consumers to be more frugal.  In any case, they said, the tax credit would just be enough to compensate US citizens for the soaring price of  gas. So they decided it wouldn’t have an effect – well, they were wrong.

It is a shame the UK government, so strapped for cash, doesn’t have the option of creating that trick.

Mind you, in the US one assumes this rate of growth won’t be maintained – unlike in China – who knows how long it will continue?

With recent evidence suggesting Chinese inflation might be ebbing, it seems there is just a chance China might come to the rescue after all.

Actually, contrary to the theory of decoupling, the world is more connected today than ever before.    China’s main supplier is Japan – followed by South Korea and then Taiwan.  The US is fourth.  So booming Chinese consumption will help Japan more than anyone.  But then, 20 per cent of Japan’s imports are from the US, 12.3 per cent of South Korea’s imports are from the US.

But the surge in auto sales does pose a worry.  As you know, gas is subsidised heavily in China – and so far the evidence is that the government can afford the subsidy.

In the long-term, demand should fall if price rises.  The price of oil is at now at levels that many people just can’t afford.  This is why we have argued it will fall back – eventually.  But as long as demand in China continues to soar, and as long as subsidies mean Chinese consumers don’t feel the full price – this effect will be muted.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Oil: when will the bubble burst?

It is just getting ridiculous.  Oil closed in on $140 over the weekend.    In fact, reports suggested it saw the biggest one-day hike ever recorded.  More reports have been published predicting oil will reach $200, claims we have reached peak oil are growing, and yet…

As we have argued before, at current prices, oil is unaffordable.   In the short-term, demand for oil is what economists call inelastic.  Demand is not affected by price. 

In the longer-term though, oil is just like everything else.  If price is too high, we find different way of doing things.  We buy fewer SUVs, and in the US, fewer pick up trucks, for example.

Furthermore, when something rises as fast as oil did over the weekend, then we are seeing the hallmarks of a bubble.    Bubbles burst.

Last week we told how across Asia, countries have been lowering oil subsidies – meaning consumers in India, Malaysia and other countries are now paying more for their petrol – this will result in falling demand.

But in China, the subsidies are still in place.  

According to Capital Economics: “China’s retail fuel prices are well below international levels. Consumers pay around 50 per cent more for gasoline in the US than they do in China, but the fiscal costs to China of keeping prices so low are still relatively small.”

In fact, Capital Economics calculates as follows: “If international prices remained at their current levels, and the price for all refined products was kept at the same discount to international prices, the implicit subsidy for the year as a whole would be in the region of $110bn, or 2.8 per cent  of GDP. 

However, the cost to the government is in fact less than that as: “The government has in effect been forcing the oil companies to subsidise their downstream refining, distribution and retail operations using revenue from upstream activities.”

As a result, Capital Economics believes the true cost to the Chinese government of subsiding oil is around 0.5 per cent of GDP.

Now normally, 0.5 per cent of GDP would be too much for most governments to bear.  But in a country that is growing by 10 per cent a year, and in a country that sees inflation as a threat to growth, a subsidy costing half a per cent of GDP is a small price to pay.

It is just that this can not carry on for ever.  China’s state-owned oil companies are losing money, sooner or later they will be unable to subsidise the prices they charge.  Furthermore, if oil does reach $200, then the cost to the Chinese government will be much higher.

The general feeling seems to be that China’s subsidies will stay unchanged until after the Olympics.

But if oil stays at current levels, or does indeed rise further, expect the subsidies to go, eventually. 

Then demand for the black stuff will soon plummet.

Calling the end to bubbles is notoriously difficult.  The bubble probably won’t burst this year, and probably won’t burst next year, but sooner or later it will.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Oil: a bubble or not a bubble?

Some people say it is, others say it isn’t.

Take Michael Waldron from Lehman.   He has authored a report titled “Oil dotcom”.   Ummm wonder what he thinks. 

Then there’s the  OECD chief – this is what he had to say: “The best solution to high oil prices is high prices, that way demand will fall.”

Meanwhile, the road to Damascus is getting busy.  George Soros, the man who consistently earns more than $1bn a year from his speculative activities, told the US Senate yesterday when he talked about commodity speculators creating a bubble in the oil market which could send the US into recession.

It was just one of many sojourns down this road.  In his recent book – which by the way is very heavy going, he talked about a “super bubble”.     Mr Soros believes that markets do not tend to correct, or ever reach any kind of equilibrium, but rather the actions of individuals create extreme volatility – leading to bubbles and crashes.

But in the Senate hearing, Mr Soros was not the most outspoken.     Mark Cooper, director of research for the Consumer Federation of America, said, ”Americans are suffering needlessly due to the financial bubble,” and then went on to blame US regulators.  “Just fire the commissioners and clean the problem up,” he suggested.

Soros, by contrast, reckons speculation is just part of the story. “The bubble is superimposed on an upward trend in oil prices that has a strong foundation in reality,” he said.

So where next for oil? Mark Cooper reckons only around a third of the current price of oil relates to its actual cost, another third relates to the actions of the OPEC cartel and the rest is down to speculation.

“I think that is an exaggeration,” said Soros.

Meanwhile, returning to Michael Waldron, there seems to be a snag with his theory.  While he likens the current activity in the oil market to the dotcom bubble, he says oil could fall to $90.

Now, to be frank, a fall to $90 is not that much.  After all, it broke $90 for the first time ever at the end of January this year, and way before then some were comparing oil to a bubble.

But maybe it is the OECD chief who hit the nail pretty close to its head.  “We can not allow the temporary slowdown in the world economy to distract us from something which is 20, 30 or 40 years from now the most relevant challenge that we have.   We don’t have to choose between saving the planet and not saving the planet.  We have means, we have the knowledge, the skills, we have the resources.  The cost of doing the right thing is a fraction of the cost of inaction.”

Okay, so what has all that got to do with the price of oil?  He was hitting out at those who want oil taxes cut, or subsidies put on. 

For as long as oil stays high, the attractiveness of developing alternative renewable sources of energy grows.   

The irony is this.  If businesses conclude the current hike in oil is a bubble, and will crash sooner or later, they will not commit sufficient resources to developing alternatives and, ironically, oil will stay high.

If people think oil at $120 or more is here to stay, they will put resources into alternatives, and in the longer-run price will fall.

Bubbles are like that.  In the short-term they are self-perpetuating, but in the long-term, bubble mentality leads to lower prices.

It is interesting, but if you look back through history, bubbles have often had a positive impact upon the economy.  The railway boom of the mid-19th century crashed, leading to depression, but the UK was left with a railway infrastructure that underpinned economic prosperity for a hundred years. 

In the US there was a boom in the laying down of telegraph wires, yet in the Crash, AT&T emerged, buying up cheap infrastructure and sowing the seeds for improved communication across the US – helping the economy transform from a developing to a developed country.

Google was able to buy up cheap server technology in the wake of the dotcom crash – even the Dutch tulip bubble left an industry that has lasted for centuries.

If you care about the planet, then the longer oil stays high, the better it will be in the longer-term.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Oil – how much further has it got to go?

We all know oil is expensive.  But is it too expensive – can we afford oil at present levels, and if not, surely it will come crashing down soon, like it has always done in the past?

Maybe the key to this lies in how expensive oil is in comparison to previous levels.  Okay, it reached an all-time high over a year ago, but, after allowing for inflation, it was only last autumn that it passed the levels seen in the early 1980s.

But since then, it has gone on rising, so that today it is around 60 per cent up the 1980s level, even after allowing for inflation.

In the past when oil was so high, demand fell back.  In the US, you may recall, the government responded to one oil shock by reducing the speed limit – something which is still in place today.   We all started to look for more fuel-efficient cars – do you remember that TV ad showing how far a car could go on one gallon of petrol?

Today we are seeing signs of falling demand for SUVs, that’s why in the US the likes of GM and Ford are suffering, and Toyota, which read the signs so ably, is thriving. Mind you, even Toyota is feeling the pressure.  According to this morning’s FT, the Japanese car manufacturer is now considering downgrading its sales forecasts for the US – because even it over-estimated by how much sales of pick up trucks and other bigger vehicles were going to fall.

In the UK, recent data from HM Revenue & Customs on VAT receipts has indicated a year on year fall in the amount of petrol we have been consuming.

But there are reasons to assume we have not yet reached the point when the price of oil is so high, where demands starts to fall quite rapidly.

For one thing, in China, and certain other developing countries, oil is subsidised.  The Chinese consumer is not yet feeling the full cost of the rising price of oil.  The Chinese government is, of course,  because it is footing the bill associated with the subsidies.

It is not good.  When oil is subsidised the market is distorted.  Demand is not allowed to adjust the way it should.  But presumably, there will come a time when the cost of subsidising oil is just too high. At that time, demand, even in China, will start to fall.

But there is an even more significant reason why the price of oil may not yet be ready to begin its descent. 

As Hamish McRae pointed out in the Independent this morning, right now around 6 per cent of world GDP is spent on oil. This is a big increase on the percentage spent in the late 1990s and earlier this decade, but at the end of 1979 the proportion was higher – around 7 per cent of GDP.

But in this morning’s FT, John Authers in his daily video broadcast pointed out that according to data from Societe Generale, after allowing for inflation oil would need to rise to around $190 a barrel before the oil burden – that is to say the price of oil, times the amount consumed divided by GDP – hits the levels seen in the early 1980s.

And that really is a blow – because this data suggests oil might have further to rise before demand begins to fall sufficiently to bring price down.  Indeed, this is precisely what future markets seem to expect.

So the bad news, oil may well have higher to climb yet, it may even break the $200 mark, as some analysts predicted recently.  Furthermore, this run may have some time left in it.   Don’t expect oil to start falling back any time soon.

This means, of course, it will continue to exert inflationary pressure.

But, in the past, when oil did fall in price, it did so rapidly.  Remember, not so long ago, oil was a fraction of the current price – less than $20 a barrel.
 
No one is predicting oil will fall that low again – the global economy is just too large – but it will surely fall quite significantly in due course. 

The oil market displays all the hallmarks of a bubble, and remember, when bubbles burst prices tend to fall too low.

The key probably lies with how long it takes for oil to drop, and what happens in the meantime.   If we see a sharp rise in salaries, or if interest rates fall so low that the high price of oil becomes more affordable, or if governments fiddle around with subsidies or taxes, again reducing the cost of oil directly paid for by the consumer, then it will take longer for the price of oil to fall back.  

If, on the other hand, we tighten our belts; if we accept that oil is expensive, and deal with it as best we can – then the inevitable fall will be sooner.

That is why pain now is what is required.  The real inflationary danger from oil lies with the danger that we try to avoid the pain through artificial measures.  And that is what we need to watch out for.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Oil: the blame game begins

The oil debate rumbles on.    Yesterday saw the release of the latest set of minutes from the Bank of England.  The recent inflation report from the Bank made the release of these minutes almost irrelevant.  We already knew it was worried about inflation, but that MPC member David Blanchflower wants to see rates slashed and the minutes just confirmed this – with the voting going 8-1 for rates staying on hold.  

But the really interesting bit was this paragraph:  “Speculative purchases did not seem to be the prime cause of the recent increases in the oil price. More fundamental demand and supply factors had probably been at the root of its steep rise during recent months and there remained considerable uncertainty about the oil price outlook.”

Meanwhile, in the US, oil company bosses were hauled up in front of Congress.

And the Senators roared their displeasure.    Top of the pride was Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill who said, “You have to sense what you’re doing to us – we’re on the precipice here, about to fall into recession…Does it trouble any one of you – the costs you’re imposing on families, on small businesses, on truckers?”

To which the oil chiefs said, “Hey, it’s not our fault, blame the Arabs – oh, and those environmentalists, blame them too… and the Chinese.”

Well, actually, they put it more diplomatically than that.

Robert Malone, who is both chairman and president of BP America Inc., said, “Today’s high prices are linked to the failure both here and abroad to increase supplies, renewables and conservation.”

John Hofmeister, president of Shell. put it this way: “The market is squeezed by exporting nations managing demand for their own interest [that’s the blame the Arabs bit] and other nations subsidizing prices to encourage economic growth [and that’s the Chinese].

Meanwhile, others said that if only they had been allowed to drill in Alaska and the Rocky Mountains, then there would be plenty of supply.

It seems that everyone is looking for someone to blame.

There is now a growing feeling that consumers of oil need to get together and negotiate in one block with OPEC.     And judging by comments we reported on yesterday, that includes the Chinese. 

In truth, though, we are seeing the grindings of an ancient wheel. Take as an example of this wheel the Arctic hares and lynxes.

In his book, Why Most Things Fail, Paul Ormerod told the story of how statisticians in Hudson Bay had observed a regular cycle in the population of these two species.   Further study revealed that when the population of hares in the region was high, the lynx thrived and its populace increased in size rapidly, until the predators were consuming hares faster than their long-eared prey was able to reproduce.  As a result a shortage of hares followed, and a greater effort was required by each lynx to catch its dinner.  In time, mass starvation of the lynx occurred, and its population fell rapidly, the hares then found little impediment to their own struggle for survival, until eventuality the cycle repeated itself.

The mistake these two creatures were making was that they were not seeing the big picture.    Each boom caused the next slowdown because they failed to take into account that the actions of individual hares and lynxes were being duplicated across the entire population.

Throughout the 1990s, oil was cheap – very cheap.   As a result, investment into oil exploration was low.    But, more seriously than that, investment into finding alternatives was low too.    The US buried its head in the sand over global warming – development of solar, wind, wave and tide power was held back.

Forget about fears over climate change, renewables only really hit centre stage when oil rose above $50 or so.

The period of cheap oil encouraged the use of those great big gas guzzlers we see on the roads – the SUVs.

This is changing. A couple of years ago, if you drove around in a 4-by-4 it  said this about you: that you were rich and successful. But now attitudes seem to be changing, and the perception of 4-by-4 is changing.   The likes of Jeremy Clarkson with their enthusiasm for burning rubber and noisy engines, seem a little passé.

In the US this change of attitude has manifested itself in the success of Toyota and the decline of GM, Ford and Chrysler.

When economists look at historical trends they often seem to forget how new things are.  Sure we can trace the price of oil back over 100 years now, but actually the world has changed so much over that period, that it seems unlikely there are many lessons to be drawn today on how oil behaved in the past.

The current pressures that are pushing up the price of oil are different to those that were in place in the 1970s.

But human nature and the laws of economics do not change.  Oil at $130 a barrel is simply unaffordable.   Countries which subsidise their oil will soon find this is just too expensive.

The only way oil will remain at current levels will be if the global supply of money expands and inflation soars – globally.

And the jury is still out on whether that is a real fear.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Oil bubbles up to $130

To you and me it will soon be summertime, but for oil analysts it’s got another name: the driving season.

It is that time of the year when Americans jump into their massive road wagons, fill up the tank with petrol and hit the road, drinking up gas as hundreds of miles of tarmac disappear behind them. At least that is how it used to be.

As a result, this is a time of the year when oil often goes up in price.         Oil is like that, it follows the seasons. There’s the driving season, and then the hurricane season, then things tend to go quiet, providing that there isn’t a war against terror season, until the following year.

But of late, oil has been no respecter of these conventions.    One day it seems to go up in price for no better reason than  it’s Monday, and then the following day it rises because, well, because it was Tuesday.

Yesterday it was one of those Tuesday-driven oil hikes – but it was enough: enough to push oil all the way up to $129 a barrel, yet another all-time high.    But here is the real worry: today is Wednesday, will those mid-week blues send oil over the $130 mark for the first time ever?

Well, actually, additional reasons were given for the latest hike.    The latest news came from OPEC, when it said it was not planning any supplementary meeting to discuss rising oil output, so that means the next meeting won’t be until September. 

But then the other day, Saudi Arabia said it was upping output by 300,000 barrels a day – but even then the price went up.

It seems that if the news is good oil goes up in price, if it is bad it goes up too. 

The Chinese earthquake has also been cited as a reason for oil going up, as damage to local hydro-electricity energy plants will lead to a shortage of home-grown energy.

Yesterday also saw the revelation of the news that the US was now importing less oil than before. According to the US Department of Energy, US oil imports as a percentage of total consumption are expected to fall from 60 to 50 per cent by 2015, before then rising to 54 per cent in 2030.

So the US is trying its hardest to break its addiction to oil, and as it emerges that it is having some success, oil shoots up in price.   Does that remind you of anything?

Of course, a raft of reports have been published predicting oil will rise.  One moment headlines are made with a prediction of oil at $146, then it’s $150, and now the latest is saying $200 a barrel.  

No doubt these stories are right, and oil has got much further to rise in the SHORT-RUN.  

The oil bandwagon is getting busy too.  Yesterday, Norman Baker, the Liberal Democrats’ shadow transport secretary slammed government transport policy because it was based on the assumption oil will be trading at half the current price at the end of the next decade.  “It is absurd to assume that the price of oil will be $70 a barrel in 2020. Nobody outside the government thinks that will be the case,” he said.

Clearly, then, the Lib Dems are experts on commodities – it will be interesting to get their view on the FTSE 100 in 2020.

Right now, oil is far too expensive.  People just can’t afford it.    Alternatives will be found, fuel-efficient cars will become ever more popular, true renewable energy (not that bio-fuel nonsense) – solar, wind, wave and tide – will become more efficient.

If oil is anything like $200 in 2020 – in current prices that is, then we will have messed up energy policy big time.  

oil
 

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Does price really matter?

Yesterday we got our fingers rapped.

It is a commonly held view that demand for food, energy and houses does not change with price.  Or, as an economist would say, “Price elasticity of demand for food and energy is inelastic.”

But we said that,  “In the longer-run, demand for food and oil, and houses, is elastic after all. And for food and oil, so is supply.” 

But a reader took exception:

“I don’t know about the author but my long-term plans always include somewhere to live and something to eat! – one of the first things that you are taught in economics is supply and demand and price elasticity – most professors use the example of food as an inelastic commodity. I would be interested to know on what basis the supply of this and of houses are seen by the author as ‘elastic’.”

This is an important point, because the idea that in the long-term demand does fluctuate with price for these items  is crucial to our belief that the price of food and oil will fall eventually, and in the process create the seeds for the next economic boom.

First, take the example of food.    The reaction to high food prices in the West will come in three stages.
Stage 1: More and more of us will stop buying those expensive pre-packed meals. 

Stage 2:  We will waste less, and start looking at ways of making better use of natural ingredients.    This change is already manifesting itself in two ways.  Firstly, there has been growing media interest in old-fashioned type cooking methods – you know, when we try and get the food to stretch further. 

Secondly, we have recently noticed attention being focused on waste.  Suddenly, media reports have focused, for example, on the positive benefits of plastic, namely that it reduces waste.

Stage 3: That bit of land at the bottom of the garden is used as a vegetable patch, and the food grown becomes available to eat.

Not everyone will follow all of these three stages, but that is not the point.  If some people do, the results will be less demand for food in the shops.

A similar argument used to apply to oil.  Back in the mid 1970s, as price went up demand stayed the same; we were told that demand for oil was price inelastic.   Then we saw the US speed limit reduced, and a move towards more-fuel-efficient cars.

It is happening again.  Perhaps the single biggest reason why Toyota is doing so well at the expense of GM, Ford and Chrysler is that it correctly foresaw the demand for greater fuel efficiency.

As for house prices, here there are two reasons.

Firstly, no matter how much we need somewhere to live we can not pay more than we can afford.    If price rises too high, we will opt to live in a smaller home, or younger people will live with their parents for longer.

Secondly, as Capital Economics recently showed, and as told here on April 24, many homes in the UK are under-occupied.  Apparently, according to the Survey of English Housing, no less than 47 per cent of existing owner-occupier dwellings – that’s 6.8 million homes – are under-occupied.  Tellingly, however, only 18 per cent of private rented properties are under-occupied.

This would suggest there is plenty of slack in the system, and when price reaches a level that is unaffordable, people will just reconsider their living arrangements.

That is why we think house prices will fall, and probably overshoot on the way down.    Oil has already risen too high, although speculation may force it to go even higher, but it will fall eventually, probably to at least half its current level. It may even fall too far, and for a while be too cheap, given economic fundamentals.  The same may well apply to food.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Are golden days set to return?

Gold has been rising again of late.  It recently broke back though $900 an ounce, after flirting with the $830s a week or so ago.

It is not surprising.  Inflation is back in the news, and in times of trouble investors don’t let it be, instead they often plump for gold.

But there’s more.  The long-run average for the price of gold in ounces to oil in dollar per barrel is 16.  Right now the ratio is around 7, ergo the price of gold is set to shoot up.

Some have been predicting an imminent rise in the price of oil to $200, so if that is right, and the gold oil ratio returns to its historical average, gold should hit $3,200 an ounce.

Tempting isn’t it?

Just remember, gold may always glisten, but don’t be fooled into thinking it is set to glisten more than normal.

This is what Capital Economics have to say on the matter: “Gold bulls understandably like to include the period between the mid 1980s and the end of the last decade when the ratio was relatively high. But this was a period when oil prices were flat or falling, which rather undermines the argument about inflation-hedging. If we focus instead on the more recent period of sharply rising oil prices, the average gold to oil price ratio since 2002 is around 10. And if anything, this ratio seems be trending downwards, not upwards.

“What about the 1970s? The ratio of gold to oil actually fell for several years after the oil price shocks in both 1973 and 1979 (and not just for the short periods that might be dismissed as a temporary underperformance). What’s more, this was during two periods of much higher inflation than we are seeing or likely to see soon despite the undeniable upside risks.

“Finally, the assumption of a reliable long-run relationship between the price of gold and the price of oil is fundamentally flawed. There may be many good reasons why the relative price will change over time: in particular, rapidly developing economies need more oil, but they do not necessarily require more gold.”

But let’s assume the 16 ratio is right, and over the long-term gold and oil will head towards that ratio.  Oil would need to fall to $61 for the current price of gold to be right.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

A bubble near you

It’s a new paradigm now – “this time it’s different.”    That’s the cry you will hear.  Well, be warned, it rarely is.

And this is both good news and, depending on your point of view, bad news.

It’s good news because the price of oil and then, in time, food, will eventually fall in price, and economic recovery will be back on.  It’s bad news, depending on your point of view, because house prices will fall too.  It is just that some will be celebrating over that.

Price is down to demand and supply.    But sometimes demand gets distorted by our own exuberance.

There was a time when house buying was a smart financial move.    Back in the 1970s, the real rate of interest, that’s interest rate minus inflation, was actually negative.  So it made sense to borrow.

Back then it made sense to get as big a mortgage as you possibly could, because chances were your salary would go up every year, but your mortgage would stay the same. With that in mind, consider this: in 1975, inflation was 24.5 per cent. 

The trouble is, that principle no longer applies.  Thanks to the modest wage inflation we experience today, our mortgages don’t get cheaper liked they used to.

But instead of fretting over long-term affordability, we got caught up in the wonder of ever-rising house prices. 

Buy-to-let investors added to the mad dash, while others saw their home as their pension. 

It was great wasn’t it?  It was what economist Roger Bootle calls “money for nothing.”

We had become leveraged investors. But this is a dangerous thing to be.  Leveraged investing became popular in 1929 too, but when the stock market burst that year, the pain was made much, much worse because investors who thought they had borrowed their way to stock market riches, found that actually they had borrowed their way to illusion built upon mirrors that were just as capable of magnifying losses as they were profits.

But don’t worry, this time it is different.  Sure, house prices to income are at an all-time high, but that’s not what matters.  It’s affordability that counts. 

There were two snags with that argument.   

First of all affordability changes.    Interest rates change.  If house prices are at an all-time high relative to earnings, and then all of a sudden inflation soars and rates shoot up, then the housing market becomes dangerously exposed.

The idea that low inflation was here for good was always suspect. And Investment and Business News first warned of this danger four years ago.

Secondly, it is debatable that affordability has improved anyway. The low inflation of recent years might make borrowing cheaper at the outset, but over 25 years it could become more expensive.  As a result, it seemed as if the UK housing market was a ticking bomb – just waiting for the first crisis to set it off.    We have been warning of this danger for four years too.

So, okay, houses might not be more affordable in the long-term, over a 25 year mortgage, for example, but at least they are cheaper in the short-term, say the bulls, and after all, as Keynes once said, “in the long-run we are dead.” 

But, even the argument houses are more affordable in the short-term is open to debate.  Most statistics comparing affordability today with the past look only at the rate of interest.  They do not take into account the cost of actually repaying the amount borrowed.

In 2007, one report warned that the lack of housing supply could lead to average house prices hitting 10 times average income.  But think about that.  Assume for the sake of simplicity that tax takes up 50 per cent of average income.  If a house is priced at 10 times average income, in order to repay a 100 per cent mortgage, the borrower would have to forego 50 per cent of net income every year for 20 years.   (And that is with a zero interest rate.)

When you take into account the cost of repaying a mortgage, the idea that house prices could possibly continue rising in a sustainable way was always ludicrous.

Also, up until a few years ago, tax relief was available on mortgages.  Remember MIRAS?    This is no longer available.  Take into account MIRAS, and it seems likely that by 2007 affordability was almost as badly stretched as the early 1990s – and that is without taking into account the longer term risks and costs mentioned above. 

House prices were too high; people were buying, others were investing for no better reason than that prices had risen the week, before, therefore it was assumed they would rise next week. 

The housing market had disaster written all over it for some time, and when the dust settles the regulator needs to look long and hard at all those reports, some published by respectable bodies, talking up house prices.  The media too, especially the BBC and Channel 4, should come under the spotlight.  

But the good news, just as the housing market is not immune to the fact that markets always correct, neither are the markets for oil and food.

Sure, oil has risen to levels that a year ago were considered unthinkable, and the media talk about the end of cheap food.  Sure, in part prices are rising because demand is rising. 

China and India want more oil.  Their consumers want more meat.

Meat is not efficient – livestock needs to be fed. It would be much easier if the land used to grow food for livestock, was used to grow food for us instead.  How selfish of the Chinese and Indians to want a Western type of diet.

But, right now, price is too high.  Plain and simple. 

This was always going to mean one of two things.  Firstly, producers invest more in finding alternative technology, renewable energy, for example. At the same time,    more land will be allocated for food, farmers will invest more in technology, productivity will rise.

In China, the pig population, decimated by blue ear disease, but in any case on the wane as pig rearing was given less priority, will grow.

And just as output rises, demand will fall, because that’s what happens when economies slow down. With that, the price of oil and commodities will drop.

Economists talk about price elasticity of demand and price elasticity of supply.      If  demand or supply are inelastic, they do not alter that much with price.  Price goes up, demand and supply barely change. 

But in the longer run, demand for food and oil, and houses, is elastic after all.   And for food and oil, so is supply. 

That is why bubbles always burst.

It is just the way it is.

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit

Could oil pass $200, or will it fall to Earth?

Oil hit yet another all-time high yesterday, but could it come a-tumbling down?    There are reasons to think it may, and this is why:

Goldman Sachs put the cat amongst the pigeons yesterday when it warned oil could hit $200 a barrel within two years.  But another analyst, at Citigroup Inc, said oil could just as easily fall to $40. 

So who is right?  Well, maybe both.

Just before the cat sat down to its meal of pigeon, Arjun Murti, at Goldman Sachs, talked about  a “super spike,” in the price of oil.  But that word spike implies sharp rises before, and a big fall afterwards.  And that is precisely what Mr Murti meant.  He was saying that at $200 or so a barrel, demand for oil would fall rapidly, forcing the price down.

There are good underlying economic factors behind the rising price of oil, but some of the factors that have pushed it up are decidedly dodgy.       Demand is rising faster than supply – that’s the reason that makes sense.  But oil is also being pushed thanks to speculation, lack of refinery infrastructure and of course fears relating to terrorism.

Others argue there is another reason for the high price. Until a few years ago, oil was much, much lower in price – less than $20, and at that level investment was low.     These same people suggest that in time, with oil at $100 plus, this will change. 

This is the stuff natural business cycles are made of.   It really lies with the lemming behaviour of oil producers.     Oil is high in price so they all rush in, spend money on exploration, until supply exceeds demand.

The thing is though, this time producers seem to be wise to that, which is why OPEC has been reluctant to allow output to rise.       It does not want to see a repeat of the age old cycle – and when producers act in unison, presumably they can take measures to stop the cycle.

But that argument is based on the belief that demand for oil is unaffected by price – it’s what’s called elasticity of demand.  In the short-term, demand for oil is inelastic.  It does not seem to matter what the price is, demand is the same.     It was like that in the 1970s too.

But eventually, demand for oil did fall.  The speed limit in the US was reduced to 50 miles per hour, cars became more fuel-efficient, and then price fell.

In the long term, it appears the demand for oil is elastic, after all.

If oil really does reach $200, then the implications for the global economy will be serious, very serious.    Global recession may well be the result – demand will fall, price will plummet, and the next economic cycle will begin.

Then again, this does rather suggest global economic growth in the future may be constrained by the supply of oil.  That limitation in supply will always get in the way of too many years of growth.

That is until alternatives to oil are found. The short-term fix is no fix at all. Bio-fuel as it currently stands is a no-starter – it is inefficient, and its development has led to disturbing rises in the price of food.

But there are other alternatives, and the longer oil is priced north of $100 the quicker these alternatives will be developed.

The search for renewable energy has been held back by a flaw in the way the free markets operate.     It only makes sense for price to be determined by demand and supply when producers bear the full cost of supply.  

With pollution, producers do not pay the full cost of supply – the cost is instead paid by everyone, and, therefore, the price mechanism is inefficient.  Economic theory says the answer is a tax on oil – but, as Gordon Brown will tell you, this is controversial.

The development of  renewable forms of energy has surely been held back because producers of fossil fuels do not pay the full cost of production and governments lack the mettle, or even the understanding, to tax accordingly.

But, for as long as oil is priced north of $100 these alternatives will be developed – and that is why oil will fall right back down again – eventually.
oil

Bookmark this article: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • blogmarks
  • BlogMemes
  • Reddit