Xcel Energy: Wind power subsidies benefit developers, not utilities nor consumers
Excel Energy, the biggest wind energy producer in America, says that it may not sign up for more wind energy because the subsidies extended as part of the bill that saved 99% of Americans from income tax increases inclluded some $40 billion in pork for developers of wind power farms and their suppliers like General Electric.
The wind production tax credit (PTC) disguises the cost of wind energy and exacerbates the costs of other types of enery sources, Excel's lobbyist said in a statement reported by The Foundry blog, which is part of the Heritage Network..
Excel has raised rates to pay for its "clean energy" investments in Colorado and Minnesota. Many of its wind farms are around our farm in SW Minnesota. That it isn't likely to buy more towers is another reason for us to not put towers on our farm. I've been agaisnt the towers because they're ugly, noisy and likely to be eyesores for decades after they wear out and cease to produce energy. Most important, we don't like being part of an uneconomic enterprise subsidized at the rate of $8.5 billion $10 billion a year by consumers and taxpayers for no good reasons.
The Hidden Costs of Wind Energy; Why the full cost of wind generation is unlikely to match the cost of natural gas, coal or nuclear generation, By American Tradition Institute.
The hidden costs of wind power, by Institute for Energy Research.
Top wind utility: Wind subsidy benefits industry, not consumers, by Lachlan Markay, The Foundry blog.
Wind turbines 'Only lasting for half as long as previously thought,' by Energy Tribune.
The Democratic war on science, by Steven Hayward at Powerline blog.
Science must be seen to bridge the political divide; Scientists in the United States are often perceived as a Democratic interest grouip. For science's sake this has to change, by Daniel Sarewitz @ http://www.nature.com.
Agriculture • Farming • Congress 112th • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Taxes • Permalink
How farmers can get more folks up to date on agriculture
Sec. of Agriculture Tom Vilsack, a former governor of Iowa, warns that if rural America, or farmers, don't become more like other Moocher Nation Democrats, they'll lose even more influence in Washington, according to the left-leaning Associated Press story pubished on Politico.com. My comment on the story:
As the owner of a farm, I know that farmers are a big part of the Moocher Nation. We get our crop subsidies, government money to improve our land and nice tax credits for all kinds of things like having kids and getting home mortgages.
At the same time, the mostly Red States that gave the GOP control of the House are more rural than most Blue states. So farm states still have some clout.
The problem is that folks like Sen. Grassley (R-IA), a corn and beans farmer, defends and advocates Moocher Nation ag subsidies like ethanol, which are a huge indirect tax on urban American and rural America alike. Ethanol and wind power scams and ag subsidy programs, which is a lot of members of Congress are responding to voters demands that ethanol and wind power programs be cut from the Federal budget.
Now, the federal money and ethanol money is nice to have and hard to give up.
That farmers work for every penny is described in a wonderful book, Farm, a year in the life of an American farmer, by Richard Rhodes.
Agribusinesses should distribute Rhodes' book to every high school and college English teacher in the country and offer free copies to teachers who want to assign it to their students. And farmers should make sure that English and lit teachers in their high schools and community colleges assign the book to every student.
At the same time, the book should be distributed in lots of 10 to every Congressional office and all of the employees of the USDA, EPA and Commerce Dept. Those folks are readers. Give them a good read.
Econ books have used the grain markets to demonstrate the principles of supply and demand. The agribusiness world should encourage this and promote more ag econ teaching in community colleges and colleges.
Too see how high tech and complicated farming is, check out Iowa State University's curriculum for its ag majors.
Meanwhile, the Sec. of Agriculture is just unhappy that his wife lost her run for Congress in Iowa and that farmers put aside their personal financial interests and voted for their country and Romney, not for Divider-in-Chief Obama.
Maybe the farm bill would have a better chance if it didn't include so much spending on food stamps, which help too many of the near poor as the truly poor buy more junk food and bankrupt the country.
Agriculture • Farming • Books • Education • Marketing and Sales • Promotions • Permalink
Emily Lambert’s “The Futures, the rise of the speculator. . .” is disappointing
During the 60s and 70s I wrote hundreds of stories and weekly columns about the futures markets, the Chicago Board of Trade, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Chicago Options Exchange and several of the characters mentioned in "The Futures, the rise of the speculator and the origins of the world's biggest markets," by Emilly Lambert, a Chicago-based reporter for Forbes.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Books • Speculation • Permalink
Futures speculators give Ken Buck 62% chance of beating Michael Bennet
Speculators on Intrade’s political futures markets are giving Ken Buck a 62.1% chance of beating Michael Bennet on Nov. 2. The Buck to win market is fairly liquid by Intrade standards with the 62.1% bid only about 8 points below the 70% ask price. In the Bennet to win market, the bid is 25.1%, or 14 points below the 39.1% ask price. If Buck wins, the bid price goes to 100%, a nice 38-point gain. At the same time, if Buck wins, the bid price goes to zero, a 25-point loss. Buy both and you stand to make a 14-point profit. If Bennet wins, his futures market gives you almost a 75-point profit as it goes to 100, and the Buck market costs you 62 points. So you stand to make 13 points if Bennet wins and you buy both Buck and Bennet-to-win-contracts. I think Buck has about a 53% chance to win, but I’m not going fight or trade this market. There is no trade in the Colorado Governors markets. LINK: Go to www.Intrade.com. Click on Politics, click on 2010 U.S. Senate Races and click on Colorado (Incumbent: Michael Bennet - D).
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Colorado • Politics • Polls • Permalink
Intrade futures traders: Scott Brown 85.5% chance, Martha Coakley 17.5%
I live blogged Intrade until heavy traffic made it inaccessible at about 6 p.m., when polls closed in Massachusetts:
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Colorado • Politics • Read More
Bill Ritter wants to cut tax credits in an election year recession
Governor Bill Ritter is proposing to eliminate both useless and useful tax credits in an effort to balance Colorado’s state budget. These tax moves appear to be the least dangerous ones he can propose during a recessionary election year. Impact graphs from Joe Hanel:
Agriculture • Farming • Colorado • Budget • Economics • Taxes • Read More
Institutional commodity index speculators distort wheat futures markets, Senate panel reports
Large institutional specualtors that only buy indexes tied to wheat futures contracts on the Chicago Board of Trade and other exchanges distort the futures markets so that they ruin the price-hedging effectiveness of the futures contracts for farmers and food manufactures who use the markets to hedge their price risks, according to a report issued by the U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommitte on Investigations. The CBOT is owned by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME).
Simply put, pension funds and hedge funds that only buy and never short the futures markets have increased the cost of foodstuffs for the whole world, and similar speculation has increased the cost of energy and probably the costs of metals and other commodities.
Call this the Jim Rogers effect, because his mutual funds and book, Hot Commodities (Random House, 2004, 252 pp.), convinced the institutional investors that they could hedge against inflation buy buying commodities.
From the 174-pp. report’s executive summary:
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Speculation • Read More
Bernanke’s warning to Congress about deficits causes selling of gold
Is adult supervision coming to Washington?
Today’s markets acted like they were worried that Congress would listen to Fed Chair Ben Bernanke’s warning that budget deficits were going too high.
In effect, Bernanke was trying to reassure the markets that a surge in inflation is not around the corner because the Fed won’t let it happen, and he’s warning Congress to watch that spending.
His warning could be bad news for health care reformers, who want to add a budget-busting health insurance reform bill to the economic mix.
So gold prices, which have been on a tear recently, dropped to $964. The next support levels are at about $950, $920 and below $800, if speculators really think they’ve over hedged against inflation. Traders buy gold as protection against inflation.
At the same time, the dollar, which has been sinking in the face of inflationary expectations, rose Wednesday. The charts say the buck could drop another 10%, but it may be due for an upward correction after recent declines.
These things are so hard to predict in these still relatively volatile markets and uncertain geopolitical times.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Economy • Permalink
Commodity mutual funds and ETFs plunge; are fund managers doing their jobs?
Most mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETFs) tied to the commodity futures markets or invested in companies that make and process commodities are down sharply with the commodities and stocks they track and own.
Investors have a right to ask, don’t the professional money managers who run these funds and ETFs have any trading skills? If they don’t, why are they messing with the volatile commodities markets? Don’t they know how to do anything but buy and hold, which is a disastrous policy in the futures and stock markets?
The Wall Street Journal reports here on the sharp price declines that investors in commodity funds have suffered in recent weeks. Hedge funds that trade futures contracts, on the other hand, reportedly actually made money last month by shorting commodities futures contracts. “Directional Trading [hedge] funds advanced by +0.51% on average, led by Futures managers who capitalized on declining commodity values.”
Look at these charts for some commodity mutual funds and exchange traded funds. The mutual funds are actively managed by people who are supposed to know how to time markets and short commodities and stocks as well as buy them. Exchange traded funds are tied to indexes that track commodities or stocks. It is up to the speculator to know when to buy and sell index-based ETFs, because their managers are not in the business of timing the markets.
It seems clear that the portfolio managers for the mutual funds had plenty of time to see that their speculative buys of most commodities started to fail back in July. But they apparently don’t have any rules that tell them when to sell. They apparently don’t know how to admit they are wrong about their bets and get out while they still have a chance to preserve capital. And they must not know how to short commodities and stocks, or their bylaws don’t let them go short. You can’t win in the commodities trading games unless you know how to go short and spread as well as buy futures contracts and options on those contracts.
Same goes for main street speculators who buy commodity funds tied to gold, currencies, agricultural futures contracts and agribusiness stocks. You have to know how to cut your losses so you can play another day.
I’m betting (speculating) that many individual speculators made the right calls on their mutual funds and ETFs that are tied to commodity futures and stocks. Portfolio managers running commodity mutual funds and most other stock mutual funds clearly didn’t.
And, yet, they continue to collect their fees. Why?
Commodities, stocks tied to commodities and the funds that are tied to those futures markets and trade futures aren’t investments. They’re purely speculative trading vehicles.
Yet, they’re being promoted as asset diversification tools for investors with long-term investment goals. To me, nothing related to commodities or the futures or other derivative markets should be marketed as investment tools or as investments.
I don’t own any of these funds or ETFs. Although I wrote stories and columns about the futures markets for 12 years, I don’t trade them because they are too volatile and risky for me.
Search the Web for “commodity funds” to see lists of mutual funds that focus on commodities.
For educational purposes only. Investigate before you speculate.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Mutual Funds • Commodity Funds • Speculation • Permalink
Mortgage backed securities futures markets unlikely to attract traders
Why haven’t the Chicago Board of Trade or Chicago Mercantile Exchange introduced markets in mortgage backed securities? Both exchanges are owned by CME Group (CME).
Here are some of the challenges I see.
First, a futures contract must call for the delivery of a standardized and gradable commodity, like No. 2 soft wheat, or a financial instrument, like U. S. treasury bonds.
There is nothing standardized about an MBS. If you’ve seen one MBS, you’ve seen one MBS. Bill Gross of Pimco claims this can be fixed relatively easily.
But then a futures contract has to be affordable. A 5,000-bushel corn futures contract trades for about $5.60 and is worth about $28,000. Speculators put down margins of 5% to 10% or a little bit more, depending on price and volatility, on futures contracts. This is affordable for most small speculators.
Mortgages, of course, range from under $100,000 to over $1 million. What would the contract size be?
Then there is the problem of regional diversity in home values and housing markets. This makes it difficult to have a large enough market for each of some 300 major metropolitan areas to provide the liquidity speculators and hedgers (banks, insurers, institutional speculators) need. There could be a national market for a standardized, high quality MBS and then regional markets could be traded at a discount, or basis, from the futures market.
But that seems awfully complex.
The idea needs more discussion and research.
House votes to crack down on institutional oil and agricultural commodities speculators
The U.S. House of Representatives last week passed the Commodity Markets Transparency and Accountability Act of 2008 (CMTAA), which will crack down on institutional speculators and sovereign wealth funds that have helped distort oil and agricultural commodities prices. Whether the bill, H.R. 6604, will get through the Senate and a House-Senate conference committee before Congress adjourns next week for the elections remains to be seen. The bill authorizes the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which regulates the futures markets, to require institutional speculators in energy and ag futures markets to produce monthy position reports. The CFTC also will set position limits on the number of contracts institutional speculators and swaps dealers on Wall Street may have in the market at any one time. Thus, the House bought the recommendations in the Masters and White report on how institutional index fund speculators are distorting the futures markets, not the bureaucratic dodge produced by the CTFC a couple of weeks ago. I blogged about the two reports here and here. It is not clear why the act applies only to energy and agricultural commodities and not the metals and other markets not regulated by the Securities and Exchange Commission. In addition to expanding the CTFC’s long-time mission of protecting speculators, producers and consumers with appropriate regulations of energy and ag futures markets, the House bill requires the CTFC to produce several reports on how speculators affect pricing in futures markets around the world. Those reports are due over the next two years. H.R. 6604 looks like a sensible and clean bill. There are no earmarks and only the institutional speculators and their brokers are opposing it. They have been profiting from the chaos they’ve created in the futures markets and don’t want the party to end.
Agriculture • Farming • Futures Markets • Colorado • Energy • Speculation • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Permalink
Gold’s new price objective $1,120
Gold posted a record one-day jump of $83.31, or 10.9% to $868.43 an ounce, and its new price objective on its point and figure chart is $1,120.
But while gold suddenly looks bullish on some daily and point and figure charts, it is still trading below its 50-day and 200-day moving averages on its daily charts, which means it looks bearish to some market technicians.
Gold still is bearish on its weekly chart. A gallery of gold charts is here.
Speculators rushed into gold today in a so-called flight to hard assets from stocks, especially the financials, which are plunging.
There are several ways to play the gold trade. Speculators can trade exchange traded funds (ETFs) such as GLD and GDX. Or they can buy gold mining stocks such as NEM, ABX and PAAS. Charts for these equities are here. Click on a chart to see a gallery of charts.
I don’t own gold or gold equities.
For educational purposes only. Investigate before you speculate.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Speculation • Technical Analysis • Stocks • Permalink
Oil crashes through bearish point and figure price objective; speculators run for cover
Heavy speculative selling today sent oil futures plunging through their $96 bearish price objective on point and figure charts to $95.69, and in post market trading, oil futures neared $94 a barrel. The last time oil traded as low as $94 was last March. A year ago, oil traded around $75. The next support level appears to be around $85 a barrel. A gallery of charts is here. Charts for gold, the dollar and exchange traded funds that track the major stock indexes are here. Click on a chart to get a gallery of charts. Play with the charts’ settings. Only the dollar looks mildly bullish, and it’s correcting. I don’t own any of these commodities or ETFs. For educational purposes only. Investigate before you speculate.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Colorado • Energy • Speculation • Technical Analysis • Stocks • Permalink
Commodity Futures Trading Commission protects institutional oil index speculators
The Commodity Futures Trading Commission today proved that it intends to protect pension funds, endowments, mutual funds and other commodity futures index speculators and their Wall Street brokers from advocates of strong limitations on their ability to distort the oil, corn, wheat, soybean and other futures markets. In a long awaited 71-page report to Congress, the CFTC basically asked for more staff to study the problem of institutional speculation in the futures markets. The report is here. The CFTC’s report shows
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Colorado • Energy • Mutual Funds • Commodity Funds • Speculation • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Read More
Speculators drove oil futures up last summer; now they’re sellers
A new report on speculation in the oil futures markets commissioned by Democrats in the Senate fingers hedge funds, index funds, pension funds and other institutional speculators as the culprits behind recent wild swings in oil futures prices. The Commodity Futures Trading Commission will issue it’s report on speculation in the futures markets tomorrow.
The Wall Street Journal’s story about the report is here.
The Senate report released by a few senators today confirms what I’ve been saying for months, but it is controversial because its principal writer is a hedge fund manager whose investments have been affected by the runup in oil prices to $147 a barrel last July. At the moment, oil is trading in the $102 range.
What gives the report credibility, however, is that the author of the report, Michael Masters, president of the Masters Capital Management hedge fund, is a trader and knows the players better than any ivory tower economists or lobbyists for the futures exchanges and their members.
The question still is, what will Congress and the CFTC do to curb institutional speculators?
Bloomberg reports that the CFTC may require brokers like Goldman Sachs (GS), Morgan Stanley (MS), Merrill Lynch (MER) and others to “disclose their energy futures positions connected to the unregulated swaps market, according to people familiar with the discussions.”
The 58-page report is here.
Agriculture • Futures Markets • Speculation • Stocks • Energy Stocks • Permalink