Anna B Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh dear... It was in July 2010, it was the Anthony Ward hedge fund, and they didn't buy "the entire harvest" at rock bottom prices, they bought 7% at market prices over a period of many months. At which point - the world price of cocoa fell and fell considerably for some months afterwards. That's not cornering the market, that's looking at where prices are likley to go and buying a series of long dated options. In short, that's just how the market is supposed to work. Cocoa growers get a guaranteed price for their beans, and the market makers get to make, or lose money depending on how good they are at working out where the market is likely to go. That's certainly not how it was reported in the Economist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 That's certainly not how it was reported in the Economist. So? Appeal to authority - especially when that authority is demonstrably wrong does nothing to prove or validate an argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 Here's an interesting article on how the oil market works using 'dark inventory' to manipulate prices. After reading that and noting the date of the article, it would appear that his predictions weren't too far off the mark - read all about it! ................. or here if you're not an ft user! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 Oh dear... It was in July 2010, it was the Anthony Ward hedge fund, and they didn't buy "the entire harvest" at rock bottom prices, they bought 7% at market prices over a period of many months. At which point - the world price of cocoa fell and fell considerably for some months afterwards. That's not cornering the market, that's looking at where prices are likley to go and buying a series of long dated options. In short, that's just how the market is supposed to work. Cocoa growers get a guaranteed price for their beans, and the market makers get to make, or lose money depending on how good they are at working out where the market is likely to go. I would disagree. That is not how the market is supposed to work. It is how it is currently being allowed to work. And where food and other vital resources are concerned it is wrong. As stated earlier in the thread trade in many foodstuffs and other vital commodities has been deregulated in the past couple of decades. It has gone from being a situation where trades (derivatives type trades yes, e.g. futures) between registered buyers/sellers to an open deregulated competitive market. A lofty goal perhaps for the more liberal minded but we are not talking here about gizmos and widgets. This is about the production of food. And the use of food production for speculative gain by what were previously non-interested parties (i.e. banks and hedge funds). We could be talking about farmers going out of business or prices being pushed so high or made so volatile that food security is greatly reduced. This article isn't bad. It kind of describes some of the issues quite well: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/deacc636-c1b5-11e0-acb3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz20zyERDQK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 I As stated earlier in the thread trade in many foodstuffs and other vital commodities has been deregulated in the past couple of decades. No It Hasn't Please stop repeating this indefensible position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 No It Hasn't Please stop repeating this indefensible position. i thought you was out of here :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted July 18, 2012 Author Share Posted July 18, 2012 No It Hasn't Please stop repeating this indefensible position. It's worth repeating and it is completely defendable http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices--and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1045180/how_goldman_sachs_started_the_food_speculation_frenzy.html Happy reading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
green Posted July 18, 2012 Share Posted July 18, 2012 It's worth repeating and it is completely defendable http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/the-real-hunger-games-how-banks-gamble-on-food-prices--and-the-poor-lose-out-7606263.html http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/1045180/how_goldman_sachs_started_the_food_speculation_frenzy.html Happy reading Great links. Thankyou. You will like this one... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/13/business/sisters-of-st-francis-the-quiet-shareholder-activists.html?pagewanted=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.