Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

“ The upcoming May contract’s expiry means traders are shifting their positions to June as they try to avoid taking deliveries of cargoes because of the lack of space to store them. That has opened up an unprecedented discount of more than $10 between the two nearest contracts.

This situation—in which the price of the June contract is far above that of the May one—apparently delights in the name “super contango.” People put a price on oil—they think it has value and want to own it at that value—but they also put a price on not having it now, and the latter price is quite high relative to the former. Conceivably, in theory, the latter price (what you’d pay to not have oil now) could exceed the former (what you’d pay to have oil eventually), leading to negative spot prices. We’re getting there:

There are signs of weakness everywhere. Buyers in Texas are offering as little as $2 a barrel for some oil streams, raising the possibility that producers may soon have to pay to have crude taken off their hands.

In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a thing, if you’d have to pay them to take the thing, you just don’t make it. Oil is a little weird—it is hard to shut in and then restart an oil well, and there are all sorts of weird cartels and game theory involved in oil pricing and production—but the other thing going on here is that a global pandemic is pretty weird for commodity prices. The price of oil is not approaching zero because nobody needs oil; you can look into the future—or at futures prices—and see that, in fact, there is demand for oil. But right now, with the world economy closed, people need much less oil than they’ve got. If you have a thing that lots of people want, but that no one wants right now, it is hard to put a normal price on it.” today’s money stuff newsletter by Matt Levine

https://www.bloomberg.com/amp/opinion/articles/2020-04-20/th...?



> In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a thing, if you’d have to pay them to take the thing, you just don’t make it.

I think it's more that when something consistently has a negative price we reframe it as a positive one. Garbage has a "negative price", but we normally call it a landfill fee. Some kinds of grad school have "negative tuition" but we call it a stipend.

It's things switching signs that breaks this way of talking.


> In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a thing, if you’d have to pay them to take the thing, you just don’t make it. Oil is a little weird—it is hard to shut in and then restart an oil well

Same as negative electricity spot prices, really. Hard to stop and restart a nuclear power plant.


> In ordinary economics, things do not have negative prices: If nobody wants a thing, if you’d have to pay them to take the thing, you just don’t make it. Oil is a little weird—it is hard to shut in and then restart an oil well

They could always just burn the oil.


How would they do that? Power plants and generators need a load, cars and other transport needs somewhere to go and something to carry, and other infrastructure to burn fuel at any sort of scale just doesn't really exist except at the wells themselves. Flaring infrastructure was designed to burn large amounts of unprofitable gasses coming up with the oil and to prevent dangerous pressure build up, not waste tons of unrefined petroleum. Beyond the added pollution it's a huge safety risk that could destroy a bunch of wells.



> People put a price on oil—they think it has value and want to own it at that value—but they also put a price on not having it now, and the latter price is quite high relative to the former.

The price knows where it is because where it isn't.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: