Los especuladores no causaron la burbuja del petróleo, según la OCDE
Resume The Economist en un artículo un informe extenso de la OCDE sobre el particular.
To many, that oil went from $65 a barrel in June 2007 to $145 in July 2008, and back down to $31 in December of the same year, is proof the price was not being set by supply and demand. Academics who have proclaimed on the issue come down on both sides of the argument. A recent report from the OECD analyses the literature, applies its own statistical tests and finds investors not guilty.
commodities without futures markets (apples, edible beans) or futures markets where index funds did not get involved (milk, rice) also saw price rises during 2006-08. Nor was there any correlation between the size of index funds in particular commodities and the price rise for those raw materials.
After analysing data on both prices and individual holdings from America’s Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the OECD study found that there was “no convincing evidence that positions held by index traders…impact market returns”; indeed, the OECD reckons that larger positions led to lower market volatility.
Véase este post donde mencionaba el asunto. Lo de que no fueron los especuladores los responsables de la burbuja del petróleo ya fue adelantado por el Observatorio de Coyuntura del IJM. Léase su nota de prensa: La banca central, y no la especulación, provocó la burbuja del petróleo durante el verano de 2008.
What is a Bubble? 17. Brunnermeier (2008, p.578) defines a bubble as, “…asset prices that exceed an asset’s fundamental value because current owners believe that they can resell the asset at an even higher price in the future.” While this definition is slightly different from some of the more classical references (see O’Hara, 2008), it is largely consistent with popular notions. That is, a bubble is characterized by two elements. First, prices are “inexplicable based on fundamentals” (Garber, 2000, p. 4). Second, the trading motive itself is unrelated to fundamental values, as market participants believe they can always sell to a greater fool. The end result is the classic market action identified (ex post) as “…an upward price movement over an extended range that then implodes” (Kindleberger, 1996, p. 13). A mi esto me suena de un tipo llamado Rallo. T Tiene una semejanza con las críticas de los progres diciendo que este sistema caótico es un sistema de ponzi. Bueno pues acertaron, la pena es que ha sido de coña, como siempre que dicen algo coherente.
Bueno, la definición de burbuja que se sostiene ahí no creo que sea extraña. Parte de la izquierda que denuncia el "sistema capitalista" per se y que lleva anunciando su fracaso desde hace décadas, parece que se siente vindicada por la crisis, y por los efectos del sistema intervencionista que tenemos. "Aciertan" pero por motivos equivocados...