Plummeting Oil Prices Could Destroy The Banks That Are Holding Trillions In Commodity Derivatives

Could rapidly falling oil prices trigger a nightmare scenario for the commodity derivatives market?  The big Wall Street banks did not expect plunging home prices to cause a mortgage-backed securities implosion back in 2008, and their models did not anticipate a decline in the price of oil by more than 40 dollars in less than six months this time either.  If the price of oil stays at this level or goes down even more, someone out there is going to have to absorb some absolutely massive losses.  In some cases, the losses will be absorbed by oil producers, but many of the big players in the industry have already locked in high prices for their oil next year through derivatives contracts.  The companies enter into these derivatives contracts for a couple of reasons.  Number one, many lenders do not want to give them any money unless they can show that they have locked in a price for their oil that is higher than the cost of production.  Secondly, derivatives contracts protect the profits of oil producers from dramatic swings in the marketplace.  These dramatic swings rarely happen, but when they do they can be absolutely crippling.  So the oil companies that have locked in high prices for their oil in 2015 and 2016 are feeling pretty good right about now.  But who is on the other end of those contracts?  In many cases, it is the big Wall Street banks, and if the price of oil does not rebound substantially they could be facing absolutely colossal losses.

It has been estimated that the six largest “too big to fail” banks control $3.9 trillion in commodity derivatives contracts.  And a very large chunk of that amount is made up of oil derivatives.

By the middle of next year, we could be facing a situation where many of these oil producers have locked in a price of 90 or 100 dollars a barrel on their oil but the price has fallen to about 50 dollars a barrel.

In such a case, the losses for those on the wrong end of the derivatives contracts would be astronomical.

At this point, some of the biggest players in the shale oil industry have already locked in high prices for most of their oil for the coming year.  The following is an excerpt from a recent article by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard…

US producers have locked in higher prices through derivatives contracts. Noble Energy and Devon Energy have both hedged over three-quarters of their output for 2015. 

Pioneer Natural Resources said it has options through 2016 covering two- thirds of its likely production.

So they are protected to a very large degree.  It is those that are on the losing end of those contracts that are going to get burned.

Of course not all shale oil producers protected themselves.  Those that didn’t are in danger of going under.

For example, Continental Resources cashed out approximately 4 billion dollars in hedges about a month ago in a gamble that oil prices would go back up.  Instead, they just kept falling, so now this company is likely headed for some rough financial times…

Continental Resources (CLR.N), the pioneering U.S. driller that bet big on North Dakota’s Bakken shale patch when its rivals were looking abroad, is once again flying in the face of convention: cashing out some $4 billion worth of hedges in a huge gamble that oil prices will rebound. 

Late on Tuesday, the company run by Harold Hamm, the Oklahoma wildcatter who once sued OPEC, said it had opted to take profits on more than 31 million barrels worth of U.S. and Brent crude oil hedges for 2015 and 2016, plus as much as 8 million barrels’ worth of outstanding positions over the rest of 2014, netting a $433 million extra profit for the fourth quarter. Based on its third quarter production of about 128,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude, its hedges for next year would have covered nearly two-thirds of its oil production.

Oops.

When things are nice and stable, the derivatives marketplace works quite well most of the time.

But when there is a “black swan event” such as a dramatic swing in the price of oil, it can create really big winners and really big losers.

And no matter how complicated these derivatives become, and no matter how many times you transfer risk, you can never make these bets truly safe.  The following is from a recent article by Charles Hugh Smith…

Financialization is always based on the presumption that risk can be cancelled out by hedging bets made with counterparties. This sounds appealing, but as I have noted many times, risk cannot be disappeared, it can only be masked or transferred to others.

Relying on counterparties to pay out cannot make risk vanish; it only masks the risk of default by transferring the risk to counterparties, who then transfer it to still other counterparties, and so on. 

This illusory vanishing act hasn’t made risk disappear: rather, it has set up a line of dominoes waiting for one domino to topple. This one domino will proceed to take down the entire line of financial dominoes. 

The 35% drop in the price of oil is the first domino. All the supposedly safe, low-risk loans and bets placed on oil, made with the supreme confidence that oil would continue to trade in a band around $100/barrel, are now revealed as high-risk.

In recent years, Wall Street has been transformed into the largest casino in the history of the world.

Most of the time the big banks are very careful to make sure that they come out on top, but this time their house of cards may come toppling down on top of them.

If you think that this is good news, you should keep in mind that if they collapse it virtually guarantees a full-blown economic meltdown.  The following is an extended excerpt from one of my previous articles…

For those looking forward to the day when these mammoth banks will collapse, you need to keep in mind that when they do go down the entire system is going to utterly fall apart.

At this point our economic system is so completely dependent on these banks that there is no way that it can function without them.

It is like a patient with an extremely advanced case of cancer.

Doctors can try to kill the cancer, but it is almost inevitable that the patient will die in the process.
The same thing could be said about our relationship with the “too big to fail” banks.  If they fail, so do the rest of us.

We were told that something would be done about the “too big to fail” problem after the last crisis, but it never happened.

In fact, as I have written about previously, the “too big to fail” banks have collectively gotten 37 percent larger since the last recession.

At this point, the five largest banks in the country account for 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks control 67 percent of all banking assets.

If those banks were to disappear tomorrow, we would not have much of an economy left.

Our entire economy is based on the flow of credit.  And all of that debt comes from the banks.  That is why it has been so dangerous for us to become so deeply dependent on them.  Without their loans, the entire country could soon resemble White Flint Mall near Washington D.C….

It was once a hubbub of activity, where shoppers would snap up seasonal steals and teens would hang out to ‘look cool’. 

But now White Flint Mall in Bethesda, Maryland – which opened its doors in March 1977 – looks like a modern-day mausoleum with just two tenants remaining. 

Photographs taken inside the 874,000-square-foot complex show spotless faux marble floors, empty escalators and stationary elevators. 

Only a couple of cars can be seen in the parking lot, where well-tended shrubbery appears to be the only thing alive.

I keep on saying it, and I will keep on saying it until it happens.  We are heading for a derivatives crisis unlike anything that we have ever seen.  It is going to make the financial meltdown of 2008 look like a walk in the park.

Our politicians promised that they would do something about the “too big to fail” banks and the out of control gambling on Wall Street, but they didn’t.

Now a day of reckoning is rapidly approaching, and it is going to horrify the entire planet.

Source

Read More

5 Complete Lies About America's New $18 Trillion Debt Level

On October 22, 1981, the government of the United States of America accumulated an astounding $1 TRILLION in debt.

At that point, it had taken the country 74,984 days (more than 205 years) to accumulate its first trillion in debt.

It would take less than five years to accumulate its second trillion.

And as the US government just hit $18 trillion in debt on Friday afternoon, it has taken a measly 403 days to accumulate its most recent trillion.

There’s so much misinformation and propaganda about this; let’s examine some of the biggest lies out there about the US debt:

1) “They can get it under control.”

What a massive lie. Politicians have been saying for decades that they’re going to cut spending and get the debt under control.

FACT: The last time the US debt actually decreased from one fiscal year to the next was back in 1957 during the EISENHOWER administration.

FACT: For the last several years, the US government has been spending roughly 90% of its ENTIRE tax revenue just to pay for mandatory entitlement programs and interest on the debt.

This leaves almost nothing for practically everything else we think of as government.

2) “The debt doesn’t matter because we owe it to ourselves.”

This is probably the biggest lie of all. Two of the Social Security trust funds alone (OASI and DI) own $2.72 trillion of US debt.

The federal government owes this money to current and future beneficiaries of those trust funds, i.e. EVERY SINGLE US CITIZEN ALIVE.

I fail to see the silver lining here. How is it somehow ‘better’ if the government defaults on its citizens as opposed to, say, banks?

3) “They can always ‘selectively default’ on the debt”

Another lie. People think that the US government can pick and choose who it pays.

They could make a bing stink about China, for example, and then choose to default on the $2 trillion in debt that’s owed to the Chinese.

Nice try. But this would rock global financial markets and destroy whatever tiny shred of credibility the US still has.

Others have suggested that the government could selectively default on the Federal Reserve (which owns $2.46 trillion of US debt).

Again, possible. But given that the Fed (the issuer of the US dollar) would become immediately insolvent, the resulting currency crisis would be completely disastrous.

4) “It’s the NET debt that’s important”

Analysts often pay attention to a country’s “net debt” instead of its gross debt. If you have a million bucks in debt, and a million bucks in cash, then your ‘net debt’ is zero. It washes out.

Problem is, the US government doesn’t have any cash. The Treasury Department opened its business day on Friday morning with just $71.9 billion in cash, or just 0.39% of its total debt level.

Apple has more money than that.

5) “They can fix it by raising taxes”

No they can’t. Just look at the numbers. Since the end of World War II, US government tax revenue has consistently been roughly 17% of GDP.

They can raise tax rates, but it doesn’t move the needle in terms of revenue as a percentage of GDP.
In other words, the government’s ‘slice of the pie’ is pretty consistent.

You’d think with this obvious data that, rather than try to increase tax rates (ineffective), they’d do everything they can to help make a bigger pie.

Or better yet, just leave everyone the hell alone so we’re free to bake as much as we can.

But no. They have to regulate every aspect of people’s existence: How you are allowed to educate your children. What you can/cannot put in your body. How much interest you are entitled to receive on your savings.

All of this costs time, money, and efficiency. So do never-ending wars. The bombs. The drones. The airstrikes.

This isn’t about any single person or President. The problem is with the system itself.

History shows that every leading superpower from the past almost invariably fell to the same fate.
Great powers often feel that their wealth and success entitles them to spend recklessly and wage endless, arrogant wars. The Romans. The Ottoman Empire. The British.

History may not repeat but it certainly rhymes. And the lesson here is very clear: debt weakens a nation. It weakens a society.

Generations that will not even be born for decades will inherit these debts by complete accident of birth.

And the people in charge of the system have backed themselves into a corner where there is no way out other than to default– either on their creditors (creating a global financial crisis), the central bank (creating a currency crisis), or on the citizens themselves (creating an epic social crisis).

Bottom line: this is not a consequence-free environment. And while you can’t fix the debt problem, you can certainly reduce your own exposure to what happens next.

Source

Read More

Reuters Discovers the Great Convergence of Global Stock Market Stimulation

Stock markets set to take off as Europe, Asia abandon austerity ... The Great Divergence is a term coined by economic historians to explain the sudden acceleration of growth and technology in Europe from the 16th century onward, while other civilizations such as China, India, Japan and Persia remained in their pre-modern state. This phrase has recently acquired a very different meaning, however, more relevant to global economic and financial conditions today ... Far more important than a likely difference next year of a quarter or half a percentage point between short-term interest rates on both sides of the Atlantic, though, is the convergence of economic philosophies and objectives for the first time since the 2008 economic crisis. In the past two months, Japan, Europe and China all moved toward further aggressive monetary stimulus and reversed previous commitments to fiscal austerity. – Reuters 

Dominant Social Theme: Stock markets are value-based environments that go up when economies rev. 

Free-Market Analysis: This Reuters article states clearly what we've been pointed out in our Wall Street Party meme: It's not just a US phenomenon. 

 We noted this as quantitative easing began several years ago in the US. The EU, too, was stimulating European economies at the time as best it could, especially Southern European ones. China meanwhile printed massive amounts of money to counteract the 2008 crisis, and then continued to do so even after officials said monetary policy had turned less aggressive. 

Eventually Japan joined in with Abenomics, which was a form of the same Keynesian economics being applied in the US and Europe. Thus, the world's major economies for the most part were harmonized, and that harmony was constructed around printing billions and trillions of dollars. 

Reuters has now observed the same phenomenon. 

The important trends today, especially after October policy changes in Japan and Europe, are not divergence but convergence. 

This Great Convergence of macroeconomic policies between the United States and the rest of the world will drive financial markets and dominate business conditions in the year ahead. It is not yet reflected, however, in asset prices or market trends. Investors continue to obsess about the tiny gap that may or may not open up between U.S. and European policies sometime next year, when the Fed starts gently raising interest rates. 

Though it is true that these global policy shifts coincided with the end of the Fed's quantitative-easing program, this accident of timing does not imply that the United States is diverging from Europe and Asia. What is really happening is that Europe and Asia are finally — and reluctantly — following Washington's road map out of the Great Recession. 

In the eurozone, Britain and China, hawkish central bankers have been silenced and monetary policy has been reset for full-scale stimulus — most recently by the European Central Bank, which has belatedly accepted the principle of U.S.-style quantitative easing. In Japan, where money-printing presses were already running at full throttle, they have speeded up even more. 

... The upshot is that every advanced economy is now following broadly the same macroeconomic policies as the United States: maximal monetary stimulus combined with fiscal neutrality and the suspension of counterproductive budget rules. 

Assuming that Europe and Japan continue to pursue with conviction these Washington-style expansionary policies, they should eventually achieve similar results — gradual improvements in employment and financial conditions, powered by faster economic growth. This trend was confirmed in the United States again this week by the upward revision of 3rd-quarter gross domestic product growth to 3.9 percent. 

While agreeing with the thrust of the Reuters article, we "diverge" when it comes to this last paragraph. Whatever so-called improvements are generated by monetary stimulation will be neither longlasting nor fundamental. 

Instead, like the tech boom of the 1990s or the low-end mortgage boom of the early 2000s, the gains made economically or in stock averages will surely, eventually, be given back, at least in large part. The mainstream media will begin to debate about various bubbles and then the discussion will proceed, futilely as always, to who is to blame. 

The kind of bubble economy that is present around the world today is extremely wasteful and prone to destructive consolidations of power and wealth. Printing more money can certainly stimulate industry but the stimulation will generate products and services that will be seen sooner or later as in part unnecessary or over-expanded. 

This is, of course, a description of the modern business cycle itself. Over-printing money causes tremendous booms and busts and we've seen two of them occur in the past 15 years, first in 2001 and then in 2008. 

We've also predicted that the current harmonizing of countries and monetary policy will eventually create an extraordinary financial disaster ... though not yet. But the Wall Street Party we've been writing about is going to lapse at some point and when it does the unraveling could be significant indeed. 

In the meantime, this sort of harmonization may well drive markets around the world to new heights. Monetary stimulation's main impact, in fact, is usually on securitized assets. The Reuters article recognizes this possibility: 

Stock markets around the world would start to perform better than Wall Street if investors became convinced that Europe, Japan and China were as committed as Washington is to expansionary policies. The first signs of this sentiment shift could be detected in Japan, after Abe's reflationary measures in late October, and in China, after the surprise monetary easing last week. If ECB President Mario Draghi can convince investors that he has political support for aggressive monetary stimulus, European equities could also start to outperform. 

This is all fairly transparent, is it not? We're supposed to believe that stock markets are indicators of prosperity but the current upturn is an orchestrated one that began in the US with low rates and regulatory revisions that supported investor activity, especially when it came to IPOs. 

Now the orchestration is spreading around the world and a new meme is being developed: The current market upsurge is just beginning. 

This is a typical VESTS conundrum. Does one trust one's eyes and ears when it comes to this ongoing market upsurge or does one accept that those who are orchestrating this rise are in control of it, at least for the near term? 

We've suggested that fighting the trend may be futile, for now at least, if one wants to participate in profits that continue to be made. Prudent hedging, diversification and a concentration on certain equities and IPOs may be one way to play this equity surge ... bearing in mind that the market is at heights that can precipitate a significant downturn. 

But what we see in terms of memes and market manipulation leads us to suspect that there are immensely powerful forces committed to continued market gains. The real question is not whether this bias exists but for how long it can play out. 

Higher averages need not lull the senses. Instead, if you wish, approach the market in a prudent way. A disciplined strategy is called for and a commitment to participate within the context of an "exit" plan. 

Conclusion But this market could continue it seems for another year or two, or perhaps longer, hard as that is to fathom. And then again, well ... perhaps it won't. But the meme that is being constructed seems to focus on the longer term. That's something to consider within a larger VESTS construct. 

Source

Read More

Guess What Happened The Last Time The Price Of Oil Crashed Like This?…

There has only been one other time in history when the price of oil has crashed by more than 40 dollars in less than 6 months.  The last time this happened was during the second half of 2008, and the beginning of that oil price crash preceded the great financial collapse that happened later that year by several months.  Well, now it is happening again, but this time the stakes are even higher.  When the price of oil falls dramatically, that is a sign that economic activity is slowing down.  It can also have a tremendously destabilizing affect on financial markets.  As you will read about below, energy companies now account for approximately 20 percent of the junk bond market.  And a junk bond implosion is usually a signal that a major stock market crash is on the way.  So if you are looking for a “canary in the coal mine”, keep your eye on the performance of energy junk bonds.  If they begin to collapse, that is a sign that all hell is about to break loose on Wall Street.

It would be difficult to overstate the importance of the shale oil boom to the U.S. economy.  Thanks to this boom, the United States has become the largest oil producer on the entire planet.

Yes, the U.S. now actually produces more oil than either Saudi Arabia or Russia.  This “revolution” has resulted in the creation of  millions of jobs since the last recession, and it has been one of the key factors that has kept the percentage of Americans that are employed fairly stable.

Unfortunately, the shale oil boom is coming to an abrupt end.  As a recent Vox article discussed, OPEC has essentially declared a price war on U.S. shale oil producers…

For all intents and purposes, OPEC is now engaged in a “price war” with the United States. What that means is that it’s very cheap to pump oil out of places like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. But it’s more expensive to extract oil from shale formations in places like Texas and North Dakota. So as the price of oil keeps falling, some US producers may become unprofitable and go out of business. The result? Oil prices will stabilize and OPEC maintains its market share.

If the price of oil stays at this level or continues falling, we will see a significant number of U.S. shale oil companies go out of business and large numbers of jobs will be lost.  The Saudis know how to play hardball, and they are absolutely ruthless.  In fact, we have seen this kind of scenario happen before…

Robert McNally, a White House adviser to former President George W. Bush and president of the Rapidan Group energy consultancy, told Reuters that Saudi Arabia “will accept a price decline necessary to sweat whatever supply cuts are needed to balance the market out of the US shale oil sector.” Even legendary oil man T. Boone Pickens believes Saudi Arabia is in a stand-off with US drillers and frackers to “see how the shale boys are going to stand up to a cheaper price.” This has happened once before. By the mid-1980’s, as oil output from Alaska’s North Slope and the North Sea came on line (combined production of around 5-6 million barrels a day), OPEC set off a price war to compete for market share. As a result, the price of oil sank from around $40 to just under $10 a barrel by 1986.

But the energy sector has been one of the only bright spots for the U.S. economy in recent years.  If this sector starts collapsing, it is going to have a dramatic negative impact on our economic outlook.  For example, just consider the following numbers from a recent Business Insider article…

Specifically, if prices get too low, then energy companies won’t be able to cover the cost of production in the US. This spending by energy companies, also known as capital expenditures, is responsible for a lot of jobs. 

“The Energy sector accounts for roughly one-third of S&P 500 capex and nearly 25% of combined capex and R&D spending,” Goldman Sachs’ Amanda Sneider writes.

Even more troubling is what this could mean for the financial markets.

As I mentioned above, energy companies now account for close to 20 percent of the entire junk bond market.  As those companies start to fail and those bonds start to go bad, that is going to hit our major banks really hard…

Everyone could suffer if the collapse triggers a wave of defaults through the high-yield debt market, and in turn, hits stocks. The first to fall: the banks that were last hit by the housing crisis. 

Why could that happen? 

Well, energy companies make up anywhere from 15 to 20 percent of all U.S. junk debt, according to various sources.

It would be hard to overstate the seriousness of what the markets could potentially be facing.

One analyst summed it up to CNBC this way…

“This is the one thing I’ve seen over and over again,” said Larry McDonald, head of U.S strategy at Newedge USA’s macro group. “When high yield underperforms equity, a major credit event occurs. It’s the canary in the coal mine.“

The last time junk bonds collapsed, a major stock market crash followed fairly rapidly.
And those that were hardest hit were the big Wall Street banks…

During the last high-yield collapse, which centered around debt tied to the housing sector, Citigroup lost 63 percent of its value in the following 60 days, Kensho shows. Bank of America was cut in half.

I understand that some of this information is too technical for a lot of people, but the bottom line is this…

Watch junk bonds.  When they start crashing it is a sign that a major stock market collapse is right at the door.

At this point, even the mainstream media is warning about this.  Just consider the following excerpt from a recent CNN article…

That swing away from junk bonds often happens shortly before stock market downturns. 

“High yield does provide useful sell signals to equity investors,” Barclays analysts concluded in a recent report. 

Barclays combed through the past dozen years of data. The warning signal they found is a 30% or greater increase in the spread between Treasuries and junk bonds before a dip.

If you have been waiting for the next major financial collapse, what you have just read in this article indicates that it is now closer than it has ever been.

Over the coming weeks, keep your eye on the price of oil, keep your eye on the junk bond market and keep your eye on the big banks.

Trouble is brewing, and nobody is quite sure exactly what comes next.

Source

Read More