From: Peter C. McCluskey (pcm@rahul.net)
Date: Sat Feb 20 1999 - 18:44:13 MST
mark@unicorn.com (mark@unicorn.com) writes:
>Peter C. McCluskey [pcm@rahul.net] wrote:
>>Oil futures and other futures contracts provide as good an estimate as any
>>of the risks of major disruptions. The oil futures market is saying quite
>>clearly that there is no problem.
>
>The problem with trusting futures markets for predicting the future is that
>you implicitly assume they have all the neccesary information; if they don't,
I assume they reflect more information than any other publicly available
indication of oil prices. Would you care to suggest a better way of making
predictions?
>Also, I've read that there's at least one contract out there for more than
>a hundred tons of gold in December at around 30% more than current rates.
>That's a pretty big bet someone's making on gold price increases over
>the next few months. Don't have a URL handy.
Either the contract was made when gold was near $400/oz., or it was
made by someone who was too stupid to buy at the market price. Futures
prices at Friday's close said:
Oct 99 293.10
Dec 99 294.90
Feb 00 296.10
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Peter McCluskey | Critmail (http://crit.org/critmail.html): http://www.rahul.net/pcm | Accept nothing less to archive your mailing list
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:06 MST