Tracker sectoriel matières premières / Goldman Sachs commodity index

indice matières premières / Goldman Sachs commodity index

cette fois ci , il s'agit du gazoline et du fameux indicateur de GS , le Goldman Sachs commodity index qui est très suivi par les investisseurs , voir utilisé comme tracker sectoriel pour les matiéres premières ..

GS a réduit la pondération du gazoline /unleaded gaz, dans cet index de 8.45% à 2.30%
.... avec les conséquences que je vous laisse deviner !

c'est AUSSI un moyen facile de manipuler un segment de marché boursier, et quand on s'appelle GS, on n'hésite pas à mettre la pression, exactement là et quand on le souhaite



*********************

.Submitted by cpowell on 11:41AM ET Saturday,
September 23, 2006. Section: Daily Dispatches

From The King Report
By William J. King
Friday, September 22, 2006

http://www.mramseyking.com/thekingreport.html

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, Section C, there
is a very interesting item in the article headlined
"Some Investors Lose Their Zest For Commodities."
he article notes that over that past few months,
commodity funds have been liquidating commodity
holdings. But here's the stunner: "Consider the
Goldman Sachs commodity index, one of the most
popular vehicles for betting on raw materials. In
July, Goldman Sachs tweaked the index's content by
cutting its exposure to gasoline. Investors tracking
the index had to adjust their portfolios accordingly
-- which sent gasoline futures prices tumbling."

Prior to Goldman's revision of the Goldman Sachs
Commodity Index in July, unleaded gas accounted for
8.45% (dollar weighting) of the GSCI.

http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/Abacus-commodity-index-Goldman-Sachs....

Now unleaded gas is only 2.30%.

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/gsci/#economic

This means that commodity funds had to sell 73%
of their gasoline futures to conform to the
reformulated GSCI.

But it wasn't only commodity funds that were forced
to sell. Goldman's decision to lower the weighting
of unleaded gasoline in its commodity index and NOT
to roll any portion of the GSCI attributable to
New York Harbor unleaded gasoline created problems
for arbitrageurs and commercial traders as well.

Here is the Goldman press release:

"On July 12, 2006 Goldman, Sachs & Co. announced
that, for the roll occurring in September 2006 (the
September Roll) in relation to the Goldman Sachs
Commodity Index (GSCI) futures contract expiring
in October 2006, it would roll the existing portion
of the GSCI that is attributable to the Reformulated
Gasoline Blendstock for Oxygen Blending (RB) futures
contract on the New York Mercantile Exchange but
would not roll any portion of the GSCI that is
attributable to the New York Harbor Unleaded Gasoline
contract (HU) contract into the RB contract."

http://www2.goldmansachs.com/gsci/articles/gsci_060816194642.html

Goldman's changes probably induced arbs, commercial
hedgers, and other traders to sell September and
October unleaded gasoline future contracts to
avoid possible (settlement, delivery, etc.) problems.

September futures expired in August; October contracts
expire September 29. So unleaded gasoline prices
collapsed in August and September.

* * *

Some Investors Lose Their Zest for Commodities

Natural-Gas Debacle at Amaranth
May Signal Broad Price Declines;
'Most Were Just Speculators'

By Gregory Zuckerman and Henny Sender
The Wall Street Journal
Thursday, September 21, 2006

On the heels of natural-gas losses at Amaranth Advisors and other hedge funds and a tumble in numerous commodities, some investors are selling such holdings in a shift that could send prices lower if it turns into a rush for the exits.

After long shying away from oil, natural gas, metals and other raw materials, investors of all stripes -- hedge funds, pension plans, endowments and individual investors -- have become enamored with commodity investing. These investors, including short-term speculators, have become key in various markets, sometimes driving prices more than industrial customers who buy the materials to make things or sell services.

How these Johnny-come-lately investors react now "will have an effect on users, commercial producers, as well as investors," says Howard Simons, a strategist at Chicago-based Bianco Research. "The flood of money that's come in is out of scale to anything in the past, and most were just speculators."

There are 68 commodity-oriented hedge funds, up from 29 just three years ago, according to Hedge Fund Research Inc. Those figures don't include the growing number of managed-futures funds and so-called multistrategy hedge funds, like Amaranth, that also deal in commodities.

As for pension funds, "until 2003, there wasn't a whole heck of a lot of interest in commodities," says Neil Rue, principal at Pension Consulting Alliance Inc. in Los Angeles. "But commodities are becoming a major asset class and investments in the area have multiplied since 2003. It wasn't 10% or 5% a year, but much more than that." Mr. Rue cautioned pension-plan clients to be wary of commodities.

Much as they did with tech-oriented investments shortly before they tanked in 2000, individual investors also have rushed into commodities, via stocks of commodity-related companies and mutual funds that specialize in such investments. There are 48 mutual funds that invest in commodities and related shares managing $56 billion, up from 34 funds with less than $10 billion three years ago, according to fund tracker Morningstar Inc. The Commodity Real Return fund of Allianz AG's Pacific Investment Management Co. has grown to more than $12.2 billion, from $8 billion about a year ago.

The 13th-largest holder of gold in the world isn't a central bank but an exchange-traded fund, a type of security that trades like a stock and tracks the price of an underlying investment class. StreetracksGold Trust, the largest gold ETF, has assets of $7.5 billion, up from $2.7 billion a year ago, mostly from new investments.

For evidence of these investors' influence, consider the Goldman Sachs commodity index, one of the most popular vehicles for betting on raw materials. In July, Goldman Sachs tweaked the index's content by cutting its exposure to gasoline. Investors tracking the index had to adjust their portfolios accordingly -- which sent gasoline futures prices tumbling.

Some investors entered these markets because they saw a long-term undersupply of a range of commodities, including oil, as economic growth in China and India increased demand. But others were less interested in such fundamentals and shifted in simply because commodities prices had gone up in recent years, hoping to catch the next wave. Low interest rates made it possible for hedge funds to borrow at attractive rates and invest in almost anything.

Lead illustrates the impact: It's basically industrial waste, the unloved byproduct of processing copper and gold. But prices for lead -- mostly used in batteries, primarily for vehicles -- have more than doubled in the past five years, even though stockpiles are high.

Now there are signs that some of that "hot" money is exiting the market.

"Large speculators began to liquidate gold and silver," wrote Mary Ann Bartels, a Merrill Lynch analyst, in a report this week. "But there are no signs of panic that accompany a bottom."

The gold ETF has seen little new money in the past month. "The luster is off this sector, people are suddenly realizing that gold-fund returns will not be as good as they've been," says Jeff Tjornehoj, an analyst at mutual fund tracker Lipper.

Merrill Lynch's research suggests that hedge funds that speculate in oil have been doing some selling lately, but many actually added to their natural-gas positions while keeping their heating-oil positions unchanged. Oil futures dipped below $60 a barrel during yesterday's trading session and closed at $60.46, down $1.20.

The Pimco commodity fund is seeing little new investments lately, in part because it's down almost 7% this year, though it also hasn't seen much in the way of withdrawals, says portfolio manager John Brynjolfsson, calling fund flows "relatively steady and uneventful."

A fall in commodities prices might not be all bad news. Though a rush for the exits could cause pain for commodities investors, an additional decline in the cost of energy and industrial metals could give a shot in the arm to the global economy. And money moved out of commodities could shift into the stock market, sending shares higher.

The end of this month could be key. Many commodity-oriented hedge funds let investors withdraw money monthly or quarterly, so if losses persist, there may be big withdrawals. That could cause more carnage in the hedge-fund world.

Amaranth's woes were caused by bad bets that natural-gas prices would rebound. Yesterday, natural-gas futures continued reacting to a large selloff of positions by Amaranth. October natural-gas futures on the New York Mercantile Exchange dropped 7.5 cents to settle at $4.93 per million British thermal units. November gas futures settled 18 cents down at $6.02/MMBtu, December futures dropped 22.1 cents to $7.66/MMBtu and January fell 23.6 cents to $8.20/MMBtu.

Tain c'est carrément caricatural là, ces gens là sont vraiment dangereux...

Il faudrait boycotter tout ce qu'ils vendent, ne pas les utiliser du tout ..."kick rêvent"

pour info , voici la nouvelle composition de GSCI, l'indice matières premières de Goldman Sachs
http://www2.goldmansachs.com/client_services/trading_capital_markets/commodities/commodities_index/

je n'ai pas pigé pourquoi la pondération des métaux précieux augmente de la sorte d'un tableau à l'autre, + tu descends et + ça pèse lourd... et tout est daté du 22/9/06.

Alors ok, dans celui moins pondéré en énergie,

que le poids des autres composantes augmente mécaniquement, ça je pige +++, mais à part ça, j'avoue...

ya plusieurs indices , Sandro .. celui dont on parle est le 1er tableau : GSCI ( table 1 ) et le plus utilisé .. et tient compte de leur derniere modif sur unleaded gaz ( ramené de 8.45% à 2.31 %

les autres sont GSRE - table 4 ,GSLE table 5 etc etc ..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig7/stojan1.html



manipulation des cours du gasoil avant les élections US de Novembre

Gasoline Price Manipulation Before the Elections
by Peter Stojan

Is Goldman Sachs manipulating the gasoline futures market to push prices down before the November elections?

It sure looks that way.

An article appeared this Saturday in the New York Times pointing to some unusual trading by Goldman Sachs in the gasoline futures market. As Raymond Keller, who spotted the article, points out, "They always hide the good stuff in the low circulation Saturday edition."

What’s Goldman doing?

Here’s how the Times reports it:

Politics and worries about oil supplies may have caused gasoline prices to go up at the pump earlier this year, but one big investment bank quietly helped their rapid drop in recent weeks, according to some economists, traders and analysts.

Goldman Sachs, which runs the largest commodity index, the G.S.C.I., said in early August that it was reducing the index’s weighting in gasoline futures significantly. The announcement did not make big headlines, but it has reverberated through the markets in the weeks since and some other investors who had been betting that gasoline would rise followed suit on their weightings.

"They started unwinding their positions, and those other longs also rushed to the door at the same time," said Lawrence J. Goldstein, president of the Petroleum Industry Research Foundation. The August announcement by Goldman Sachs caught some traders by surprise. The firm said in early June that it planned to roll its positions in the harbor contract into another futures contract, the reformulated gasoline blendstock, which is replacing the harbor contract at the end of the year because of changes to laws about gasoline additives. Later in June, Goldman said it had rolled a third of its gasoline holdings into the reformulated contracts but would make further announcements as to whether the remainder would be rolled over. Then in August, the bank said it would not roll over any more positions into gasoline and would redistribute the weighting into other petroleum products...

Some traders speculated that Goldman might have been concerned about the liquidity of the reformulated contract and whether other traders would embrace it because there were so few contracts outstanding. The open interest, or number of futures contracts taken out, has increased ninefold in the reformulated contract since then.

Unleaded gasoline made up 8.72 percent of Goldman’s commodity index as of June 30, but it is just 2.3 percent now, representing a sell-off of more than $6 billion in futures contract weighting.

A sell-off of more than $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts? Let’s put it this way, a $6 billion trade is not decided on at the lower levels of the firm.

Keller provides some insight into the curious timing of this trade:

President George W. Bush nominated Henry M. Paulson, Jr. to be the 74th Secretary of the Treasury on June 19, 2006. The United States Senate unanimously confirmed Paulson to the position on June 28, 2006 and he was sworn into office on July 10, 2006. Before coming to Treasury, Paulson was Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Goldman Sachs. So what does Goldman do just weeks after Paulson is sworn in as Treasury Secretary? It announces a subtle move that drives down gasoline prices, short-term. Nice move, coming just months before the election.

Now it may be hard to swallow for some that market manipulations go on, but they do at all levels. Penny stock promoters cook up their schemes, and power players have their schemes. In traders jargon, it’s called painting the tape. Indeed, the Washington Post has revealed that the government has formed something that is casually known as the Plunge Protection Team. PPT is supposed to jump in and buy stocks when things are unruly. Ronald Reagan formed the PPT when he signed Executive Order 12631. It’s just another way of painting the tape (Using your tax money, or newly printed Federal Reserve dollars, of course). Goldman is a member of the secretive PPT.

But some just don't believe these kinds of manipulations go on. I have had some email discussions in recent days with some pretty sophisticated economists who don’t believe Goldman has manipulated the gasoline market. Their argument goes: "I will continue to be an economist and look at the supply and demand issues."

My reply has been, Goldman Sachs understands supply and demand – and they also understand trading. When you sell-off $6 billion in gasoline futures contracts, you are going to have an impact – as the New York Times story correctly pointed out. That is an awful lot of supply. Further, this type of aggressive selling will result in selling by others who will receive margin calls they can’t meet. And by trend followers, who will suddenly dump gasoline and other commodities. This is, indeed, exactly what is happening. Goldman Sachs didn’t get to be Goldman by not understanding this stuff. Supply and demand can explain this manipulation completely.

My email correspondents also raise a few other points.

They ask, "Why would Goldman Sachs trade this way and lose money?" The answer here is that Goldman doesn’t lose money. This is a managed commodity index. Goldman manages the index, but the actual money put up comes from institutions, hedge funds and other unlucky saps that trusted Goldman to manage the commodity index as a hedge against inflation – not to bail out of $6 billion in contracts over a few weeks. The result: Unlucky saps – Major losses. Goldman – Zero losses and their man running the Treasury. Which side of this trade would you want to be on?

But, my email correspondents continue on with one more charge: "Are you trying to tell me that refiners are trying to deplete their inventories and leave themselves with real supply problems in the future? That does not make sense to me." In fact, depleting inventories is exactly what refiners would do. If the price of gasoline is plunging in the futures market, they are going to push out the door as much inventory as they can, to make room for the new cheap gasoline they can buy up on the futures market.

Bottom line, Goldman had to know they were going to plunge gasoline prices short-term with this type of trading. This smells to me like a Paulson operation all the way. He is the ultimate behind the scenes operator if there ever was one, and future biographies of him are very likely to note such.

October 7, 2006

nouvelles pondérations du tracker matières premières de goldman Sachs





de nouveaux changements importants à prévoir dans cet indice ( DJ AIGCI) et notamment la baisse de la pondération de l' or qui passerait de 10.8% à 7.9%, la pondération de l' argent métal restant inchangé
pétrole et cuivre augmentant leurs poids dans cet indice


et voici ce qu'on attend de ce changement de pondération:
877 millions de $ de vente d'or .. c'est en tout cas ce que nous dit le très prévenant analyste de JPM



*********************

Citation :

In financial terms, we expect the rebalancing to have the greatest impact in gold, COMEX copper, crude oil, gold, and live cattle. We estimate that the rebalancing of the two indices is expected to result in $877 million of selling in gold, $699 million of buying in COMEX copper, $528 million of selling in live cattle, and $523 million of buying in crude oil

et y'en a encore pour douter des manipulations sur les marchés de l'or et de l'argent?



http://ftalphaville.ft.com/blog/2009/01/05/50769/beware-commodity-index-rebalancing-ahead/

GS qui en connait pourtant long sur son ancien indice matières premières , ne profite pas de l'appel à vendre l'or lancé à l'occasion du remaniement de l'indice .. en tout cas sur le tocom, où il reste obstinamment net long

voir les très interessantes remarques d'Adrian Douglas sur www.lemetropolecafe.com

Bill,
In the January 7 session on the TOCOM Goldman Sachs ADDED 15 short contracts which leaves them NET LONG 626 contracts. Despite the wild gyrations in gold GS maintains a net long position. The sell off in gold is reportedly due to rebalancing of Commodity indices…one of which is the Goldman Sachs Commodity Index (GSCI)…now clearly no one knows better about the rebalancing of the GSCI than Goldman Sachs and they would through their connections know a lot about the rebalancing of the DJ-AIGCI. It is very revealing that GS at least on TOCOM is remaining net long. What this tells me is that the short term gain to be had from shorting gold in the sell-off is a Bear Trap. GS is NOT playing along. The purportedly well-connected (to the cartel) Dennis Gartman is NOT playing along. Either this is a well executed ruse or this is a short trade for those who have a death wish. Considering that GS has spent 3 years getting down from 52 tonnes net short to 0.6 tonnes net long and is not at all tempted to throw away that hard work for a quick short trade I suspect it is the latter. When major Bear’s won’t come out of hibernation I think it is a sign that spring could be here real soon! Stay tuned.
Cheers
Adrian