the undercover economist
columns
- Bailouts Are Inevitable, Even Desirable
Stop complaining about the "moral hazard" problem and enjoy the rescue.
Tim Harford
posted Oct. 4, 2008 - Burn Her!
Why it's dangerous to be a witch in a recession.
Tim Harford
posted Sept. 20, 2008 - Why Houses Cost More in Summer
An economics mystery has finally been solved.
Tim Harford
posted Sept. 6, 2008 - The Fruits of Their Labors
An amazing economics experiment and how it got field workers to pick a lot more strawberries.
Tim Harford
posted Aug. 23, 2008 - The Wisdom of Crowds?
A single economic forecast is usually wrong. But groups of economic forecasts are often just as mistaken. Why?
Tim Harford
posted Aug. 9, 2008 - Search for more the undercover economist articles
- Subscribe to the the undercover economist RSS feed
- View our complete the undercover economist archive
The World Needs More SpeculatorsStop demonizing the investors who are betting heavily on oil prices.
By Tim HarfordPosted Saturday, July 12, 2008, at 7:27 AM ET
When the economy is in turmoil, no one is demonized more than the speculator. First, we are told, speculators have driven up the price of oil, condemning us to expensive heating and driving. Then, they have driven down the price of bank shares, dealing vicious blows to the nation's noblest banks. All of this, we are supposed to believe, is immensely profitable and highly destabilizing.
With one exception—I'll come to it—I am not persuaded. I struggle to understand how speculation is supposed to be both profitable and destabilizing all at once. Profitable speculation requires buying low and selling high. Destabilizing speculation requires the opposite: short-selling shares in a trough, thus deepening the trough, and betting that frothy shares will become frothier. In other words, destabilizing speculation means selling low and buying high. If that is a recipe for profit, I am missing something.
Profitable speculators, in contrast, are veritable philanthropists. When they think oil is going to become more expensive, they buy and hoard oil, or they buy oil futures, encouraging others to buy and hoard. This raises oil prices when they are relatively cheap and lowers them when they are relatively expensive.
True, when speculators make mistakes, that is destabilizing. But in the case of oil prices, it's hard to see that speculators are playing much of a role. For one thing, inventories don't seem to be rising. If the inventory data are correct, consumers were burning all that $135 oil.
For another, speculation and prices don't seem to be closely correlated. BP's recent Statistical Review of World Energy points out that while few speculators have been betting on a spike in the price of heating oil, its price has soared even more rapidly than the crude-oil price. More striking, speculators have been betting that natural-gas prices will slump. Natural-gas prices haven't.
If the intellectual case against speculators is weak, one can always fall back on the emotional one. Short sellers are a particularly easy target: Their hope that prices will fall hardly seems constructive. It is not much of a stretch to move from abhorrence at the idea of short selling to the implausible conclusion that it is the short sellers who are dragging down prices. As the great investment writer Fred Schwed Jr. commented, "Only the thoughtful ask, 'What is happening to us?' The popular cry is, 'Who is doing this to us?' and its satisfying sequel—'Just let me get my hands on him!' "
In some rare cases, the short seller really is the one causing the problem. For example, it might be possible to sell a retail bank's shares short; start unfounded rumors about the bank's liquidity; and cause a run on the bank, making the rumors self-justifying, destroying a valuable asset, and earning money in the bargain. We should never feel comfortable about short sellers who also (independently of their short-selling) possess the power to destroy—be they rumormongers, board members, or just a sportsman backing himself to lose.
This is the exception I mentioned earlier. But I can't help feeling that the "sell short, start rumor, make a killing" strategy is more easily planned than executed.
No, the world needs more speculators, especially of the short-selling variety. There is nothing inherently wonderful about inflated prices, but it is not easy to bet that prices will fall. More short sellers in the dot-com bubble of the late 1990s, and the housing bubbles of the past few years, would have added a welcome dose of stability and sanity. Alas, there were not enough of them—and the only people complaining about them at the time were their impoverished families.
feedback | about us | help | advertise | newsletters | mobile
User Agreement and Privacy Policy | All rights reserved
- Today's Headlines
- Historical Archives: A Jest For You
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 15:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: Hay Thieves Strike Again
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:00:00 -0400 - Historical Archives: John Jacob Astor Out Looking For Beaver
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:00:00 -0400 - » More from the Onion
PostPartisan: The DebateRobinson | Punch, Counterpunch
Gerson: Two McCain SuccessesKing: Straight Out of a SitcomMeyerson: Old John
- Dionne: Who Is John McCain, Really?
- Ignatius: In Praise of Complete Sentences
- Parker: Wake Me When the Debate Starts
- Editorial: Their Pre-Meltdown Mind-Set
- Today's Headlines
- Economic Crisis: Europe's Response
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:43:06 GMT - What America's Smartest Women Say About Sarah Palin
Fri, 10 Oct 2008 00:46:41 GMT - Personal Finance: Conservative Investing
Thu, 09 Oct 2008 19:53:19 GMT - » More from Newsweek
- Today's Headlines
- An Obama-Palin Ticket
Thu, 9 October 2008 18:16:56 GMT - Love the Player, Hate the GM
Thu, 9 October 2008 21:10:07 GMT - Schooling McCain on the Man Code
Thu, 9 October 2008 20:03:04 GMT - » More from The Root

the undercover economist













