我们从小就被教导一套非常具体的原则
一加一等于二。I在E之前，C之后除外。
随着我们年龄增长，这些原则变得更加复杂。
以经济学为例。
供给定律指出，商品的供给量随市场价格上涨而增加，随价格下跌而减少。反之，需求定律指出，商品的被需求量随价格上涨而减少，反之亦然。
这些基本的供需定律是我们确定特定产品价格的基本组成部分。
至少，它本应如此运作。
但如果我告诉你，你从小学习的原则是错误的呢？
随着当今“创新”的金融工具，你所学的大部分知识在现实世界中已不再适用。
尤其是在石油方面。
石油法则
本通讯的长期读者会读过我许多关于commodities manipulation的博客文章。
对于石油而言，价格操纵再明显不过了。
例如，在我的一篇通讯文章《Covert Connection Between Saudi Arabia and Japan》中提到：
……尽管各机构找到了创新方法来解释石油需求下降，但世界从未消耗过更多的石油。
2010年，全球日均消耗量达到创纪录的8740万桶。今年（2014年），预计全球日均消耗量将达到9270万桶的新纪录。
全球石油需求预计仍将攀升至新高。
如果油价真如头条新闻所说，是供需的真实反映，那么它应该反映供需之间的差异。
既然我们知道需求实际上正在增长，那就不可能是油价大幅下跌的原因。
那么这是否意味着是供应问题？世界是否突然增加了40%的石油？显然不是。
所以，不，油价下跌的原因并非供需的因果关系。
原因是操纵。问题是为什么。”
我接着谈论了油价被操纵的地缘政治原因。
这里有一个例子：
“9月11日，Saudi Arabia最终与U.S.达成协议，轰炸Syria。
但为什么？
Saudi Arabia拥有全球18%的已探明石油储量，是最大的石油出口国。
Syria是连接Qatar大型天然气田到Europe的管道路线所在地，天然气通过时可为Saudi Arabia带来数十亿美元的收入，同时削弱Russia在Europe的能源主导地位。
U.S.是否可能在9月11日的会议上说服Saudi Arabia降低油价，以打击Russia，同时刺激American经济？
……2014年10月1日，在U.S.于9月26日根据9月11日协议轰炸Syria后不久，Saudi Arabia宣布将大幅削减对Asian国家的油价，以“竞争”原油市场份额。它还削减了对Europe和United States的油价。”
Saudi Arabia宣布后，油价暴跌至五年多来的最低水平。
Saudi Arabia-U.S.在巧合的9-11日期举行会议后不久，两国就签署了一项协议，向Syria投掷价值数十亿美元的炸弹，这难道是“巧合”吗？几天后，Saudi Arabia又宣布大幅削减其石油价格。
巧合？”
油价操纵还有许多其他因素——以及阴谋——例如对Russia和Iran的地缘政治攻击，这些国家的经济严重依赖石油。Saudi Arabia也在向市场大量供应石油——我猜测这是因为他们正急于用石油换取武器，以发动攻击或加强对Middle East下一个主要大国Iran的防御。
然而，所有关于油价操纵的原因、策略或理论，只有在得到这两个主要参与者：监管机构和Big Banks的允许下，才说得通。
石油如何定价
在任何一天，如果你查看石油的现货价格，你很可能看到的是来自New York的Nymex或London的ICE Futures的报价。这两个机构共同通过West Texas Intermediate (WTI)和North Sea Brent (Brent)的石油期货合约，交易大部分石油，从而形成全球油价基准。
然而，你可能没有看到的是，谁在交易这些石油，以及它是如何被交易的。
直到2006年，油价交易都在合理范围内。但突然之间，我们看到了这些重大的价格波动。为什么？
内容锁定
输入您的电子邮件即可立即获取（免费！）
此特殊内容文章：
立即获取访问权限
\
因为监管机构允许它发生。
以下是来自2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations repor的评论：
“直到最近，U.S.能源期货交易 exclusively 在United States境内的受监管交易所进行，例如NYMEX，这些交易所受到CFTC的广泛监督，包括持续监控以发现和防止价格操纵或欺诈。
然而，近年来，一种外观和结构都与期货合约相似，但在不受监管的OTC电子市场交易的合约出现了巨大的增长。由于它们与期货合约的相似性，它们通常被称为“futures look-alikes。”
futures look-alike contracts与期货合约之间唯一的实际区别在于，look-alikes在不受监管的市场中交易，而期货在受监管的交易所中交易。
大型公司在OTC电子交易所交易能源大宗商品被豁免于CFTC的监管，这是由Enron和其他大型能源交易商在第106届Congress最后几个小时内，应其要求插入《Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000》中的一项条款。
对市场监管的影响是巨大的。
NYMEX交易员，例如，被要求保留所有交易记录，并向CFTC报告大额交易。这些Large Trader Reports (LTR)，与提供价格和交易量信息的每日交易数据一起，是CFTC衡量市场投机程度以及发现、预防和起诉价格操纵的主要工具。
……与在NYMEX进行的交易不同，不受监管的OTC电子交易所的交易员无需保留记录或向CFTC提交Large Trader Reports，这些交易也免于CFTC的日常监管。
与在受监管期货交易所进行的交易不同，在不受监管的OTC电子交易所，投机者持有的合约数量没有限制，交易所本身不监控交易，也不报告每日结束时未平仓合约（”open interest”）的数量。
CFTC监控U.S.能源大宗商品市场的能力进一步受到侵蚀，因为在今年（2006年）1月，CFTC允许Intercontinental Exchange (ICE)，即领先的电子能源交易所运营商，在United States使用其交易终端，在London的ICE futures exchange（称为”ICE Futures”）交易U.S. crude oil futures。
Previously，London的ICE Futures exchange had traded only in European energy commodities-Brent crude oil and United Kingdom natural gas. As a United Kingdom futures market, the ICE Futures exchange is regulated solely by the United Kingdom Financial Services rooority. In 1999, the London exchange obtained the CFTC’s permission to install computer terminals in the United States to permit traders here to trade European energy commodities through that exchange.
Then, in January of this year, ICE Futures in London began trading a futures contract for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil, a type of crude oil that is produced and delivered in the United States. ICE Futures also notified the CFTC that it would be permitting traders in the United States to use ICE terminals in the United States to trade its new WTI contract on the ICE Futures London exchange.
Beginning in April, ICE Futures similarly allowed traders in the United States to trade U.S. gasoline and heating oil futures on the ICE Futures exchange in London. Despite the use by U.S. traders of trading terminals within the United States to trade U.S. oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures contracts, the CFTC has not asserted any jurisdiction over the trading of these contracts.
Persons within the United States seeking to trade key U.S. energy commodities-U.S. crude oil, gasoline, and heating oil futures-now can avoid all U.S. market oversight or reporting requirements by routing their trades through the ICE Futures exchange in London instead of the NYMEX in New York.
As an increasing number of U.S. energy trades occurs on unregulated, OTC electronic exchanges or through foreign exchanges, the CFTC’s large trading reporting system becomes less and less accurate, the trading data becomes less and less useful, and its market oversight program becomes less comprehensive.
The absence of large trader information from the electronic exchanges makes it more difficult for the CFTC to monitor speculative activity and to detect and prevent price manipulation. The absence of this information not only obscures the CFTC’s view of that portion of the energy commodity markets, but it also degrades the quality of information that is reported.
A trader may take a position on an unregulated electronic exchange or on a foreign exchange that is either in addition to or opposite from the positions the trader has taken on the NYMEX, and thereby avoid and distort the large trader reporting system.
Not only can the CFTC be misled by these trading practices, but these trading practices could render the CFTC weekly publication of energy market trading data, intended to be used by the public, as incomplete and misleading.”
简而言之，现在任何人都可以进行投机，并避免被标记为非法价格。投机交易越多，通过真实供需进行的“真实”价格发现就越少。
考虑到这一点，你现在可以看到Big Banks是如何控制并垄断石油市场的。
报告续：
……在过去几年里，大型金融机构、对冲基金、养老基金和其他投资基金已向能源大宗商品市场投入数十亿美元……试图利用价格变化或对冲价格变化。
由于这些额外投资大部分来自不将大宗商品作为其业务一部分的金融机构和投资基金，因此被Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)定义为“speculation”。
……报告显示，在过去几年里，一些投机者通过能源大宗商品交易获得了数千万甚至数亿美元的利润。
这种投机交易既发生在受监管的New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX)上，也发生在over-the-counter (OTC) markets。
投机者大量购买原油期货合约，实际上创造了对石油的额外需求，以与对实物石油即时交付的额外需求推高现货市场价格相同的方式，推高了未来交付石油的价格。
就市场而言，投机者购买期货合约所产生的对一桶石油的需求，与炼油商或其他石油使用者购买期货合约所产生的对一桶石油的需求一样真实。
尽管难以量化投机对价格的影响，但有大量证据表明，当前市场中的大量投机活动已显著推高了价格。
几位分析师估计，投机性购买石油期货已使当前原油价格每桶增加20-25美元，从而将油价从每桶50美元推高至约70美元。”
全球最大的银行，如Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, Citigroup, JP Morgan，现在也是最大的能源交易商；它们不仅参与石油交易，还资助众多交易石油的对冲基金。
知道了将油价推高是多么容易，同样的反向策略也可以用来压低油价。
只需要一些媒体编造的“报告”告诉我们Saudi Arabia正在向市场大量供应石油，OPEC正在降低价格，或者China正在放缓，油价就会崩溃。
交易员随后会做空石油，启动algo-traders，并立即进一步压低油价。石油消费实际上正在增长的事实，真的不再重要了。
实际上，油价并非由供需——或OPEC、Russia、China——决定，而是由交易它的Western金融机构决定。
原因是操纵，问题是为什么？
通过我过去的通讯文章《Secrets of Bank Involvement in Oil Revealed》：
“多年来，我一直在谈论银行如何掌控我们的文明。
……随着油价下跌，全球经济开始感受到痛苦，在整个金融行业引发了一股巨大的恐慌浪潮。这是因为上次油价如此下跌——不到六个月内下跌超过US$40——是在2008年金融危机期间。
……让我们看看能源市场，以获得更好的视角。
能源行业约占high-yield bond market的17-18%，价值约$2 trillion。
在过去几年里，能源生产商通过新债券和贷款筹集了超过惊人的half a trillion dollars，借贷成本几乎为零——这得益于Fed。
这种low-borrowing cost environment，加上deregulation，一直是每个能源生产商的“金鹅”。然而，由于这种easy money，能源生产商的杠杆率比以往任何时候都高；它们在油价高得多的情况下进行杠杆操作。
但随着油价突然急剧下跌，许多这些能源生产商现在面临严重的破产风险。
Goldman Sachs最近的一份报告显示，未来石油项目近$1 trillion的投资面临风险。
……难怪过去六个月能源生产商的借贷成本飙升。
……许多公司已经濒临default，甚至无法支付贷款利息。
……如果油价继续保持在低位，许多生产商将难以履行其债务义务——这意味着其中许多公司可能拖欠贷款。仅此一项就将引发一场金融和企业破坏浪潮。更不用说North America地区数十万个工作岗位的流失了。”
你可能会想，“如果油价下跌正在引发一场金融灾难，为什么银行还要压低油价呢？难道他们自己不会蒙受损失吗？”
好问题。但银行从不亏损。我的信中继续写道：
“如果你控制着世界的reserve currency，但由于devaluation和来自其他国家的competition（参见When Nations Unite Against the West: The BRICS Development Bank），你正在慢慢失去这种status，你会怎么做来保护自己？
你购买assets。因为real hard assets可以保护你免受monetary inflation的影响。
既然银行现在持有Fed创纪录数量的highly leveraged paper，他们为什么不利用这些paper购买hard assets呢？
银行家可能greedy，但他们不stupid。
The price of hard physical assets is the true representation of inflation.
Therefore, if you control these hard assets in large quantities, you could also control their price.
This, in turn, means you can maintain control of your currency against monetary inflation.
And that is exactly what the banks have done.
真正的世界强权
上个月，U.S. Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations发布了一份403页的报告，详细阐述了Wall Street最大的银行，如Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley和JP Morgan，如何获得了大量commodities, food和energy resources的所有权。
报告指出，“目前银行对critical raw materials, power generation和food supply的参与程度在U.S.历史上似乎是unprecedented。”
例如：
……直到最近，Morgan Stanley控制着超过55 million barrels的oil storage capacity, 100 oil tankers和6,000 miles的pipeline。JPMorgan建立的copper inventory曾达到$2.7 billion的峰值，一度包括至少213,000 metric tons的copper，占全球主要copper trading exchange，即LME可用physical copper的nearly 60%。
In 2012, Goldman owned 1.5 million metric tons of aluminum worth $3 billion, about 25% of the entire U.S. annual consumption. Goldman also owned warehouses which, in 2014, controlled 85% of the LME aluminum storage business in the United States.” – Wall Street Bank Involvement with Physical Commodities, United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
从pipelines到power plants，从agriculture到jet fuel，这些too-big-to-fail banks已经amassed——并可能manipulated the prices——of some of the world’s most important resources。
上述例子清楚地表明，Big Banks通过“wide range of risky physical commodity activities which included, at times, producing, transporting, storing, processing, supplying, or trading energy, industrial metals, or agricultural commodities”，对我们的大宗商品拥有多大的影响力。
凭借Federal Reserve几乎unlimited supply的cheap capital，Big Banks已远不止是lenders和facilitators。它们已成为direct commerce competitors with an unfair monetary advantage: free money from the Fed。
当然，这并非他们唯一的advantage。
根据报告，Big Banks正在engaging in risky activities (such as ownership in power plants and coal mining)，mixing banking and commerce，affecting prices，and gaining significant trading advantages。
Just think about how easily it would be for JP Morgan to manipulate the price of copper when they – at one point – controlled 60% of the available physical copper on the world’s premier copper trading exchange, the LME。
How easy would it be for Goldman to control the price of aluminum when they owned warehouses – at one point – that controlled 85% of the LME aluminum storage business in the United States?
And if they could so easily control such vast quantities of hard assets, how easy would it be for them to profit from going either short or long on these commodities?
永远的赢家
但如果出于某种原因，银行家的赌注没有成功，他们仍然不会输。
那是因为这些银行持有数万亿美元的FDIC insured deposits。
In other words, if any of the banks’ pipelines rupture, power plants explode, oil tankers spill, or coal mines collapse, taxpayers may once again be on the hook for yet another too-big-to-fail bailout。
如果你认为政府或Fed在2008年之后不会再允许这种情况发生，那你就错了。
通过Guardian：
“In a small provision in the budget bill, Congress agreed to allow banks to house their trading of swaps and derivatives alongside customer deposits, which are insured by the federal government against losses.
The budget move repeals a portion of the Dodd-Frank financial reform act and, some say, lays the groundwork for future bailouts of banks who make irresponsibly risky trades.”
回想我过去的信中提到，Fed希望让你沉浸在他们的dollars中。如果再次需要bailout，那么Fed将再次成为lender of last resort，而Americans将pile on the debt it owes to the Fed。
难怪报告中实际指出，Fed是银行这种sprawl的facilitator：
“Without the complementary orders and letters issued by the Federal Reserve, many of those physical commodity activities would not otherwise have been permissible ‘financial’ activities under federal banking law. By issuing those complementary orders, the Federal Reserve directly facilitated the expansion of financial holding companies into new physical commodity activities.”
Big Banks在oil business中冒着tons of cash lending和facilitating的风险。但in reality他们什么风险都没有。他们从Fed那里获得free money，而且由于他们不应该directly involved in natural resources，他们通过other ways获得control。
Remember, the big banks – and ultimately the Fed who controls them – are the ones who truly control the world. Their monetary actions are the cause of many of the world’s issues and have been used for many years to maintain control of other nations and the world’s resources.
但他们不能simply go into a country, put troops on the ground and take over. No, that would be inhumane。
那么他们怎么做呢？
通过我过去的通讯文章《The Real Reason for War in Syria》：
“Currency manipulation allows developed countries to print and lend to other developing countries at will.
A rich nation might go into a developing nation and lend them millions of dollars to build bridges, schools, housing, and expand their military efforts. The rich nation convinces the developing nation that by borrowing money, their nation will grow and prosper.
However, these deals are often negotiated at a very specific and hefty cost; the lending nation might demand resources or military and political access. Of course, developing nations often take the loans, but never really have the chance to pay it back.
When the developing nations realize they can’t pay back the loans, they’re at the mercy of the lending nations.
The trick here is that the lending nations can print as much money as they want, and in turn, control the resources of developing nations. In other words, the loans come at a hefty cost to the borrower, but at no cost to the lender.”
这又把我们带回了石油。
我们知道，油价暴跌给许多与石油相关的debt facilities带来了沉重负担。我们也知道，big banks在该sector都拥有heavily leveraged。
如果是这样，为什么big banks如此calm？
答案很简单。
资产抵押贷款
大多数与石油相关的贷款都是通过asset-backed loans，或reserve-based financing完成的。
这意味着贷款由underlying asset本身提供担保：the oil reserves。
那么，如果贷款go south，你猜谁最终会得到石油？
根据Reuters的数据，JP Morgan是U.S.资产排名第一的银行。尽管其energy exposure assumed at only 1.6 percent of total loans，该银行可能拥有高达$750 million的reserves！
通过Reuters：
“If oil reaches $30 a barrel – and here we are – and stayed there for, call it, 18 months, you could expect to see (JPMorgan’s) reserve builds of up to $750 million.”
No wonder the banks aren’t worried about a oil financial contagion – especially not Jamie Dimon, JP Morgan’s Chairman, CEO and President:
……Remember, these are asset-backed loans, so a bankruptcy doesn’t necessarily mean your loan is bad.” – Jamie Dimon
As oil collapses and defaults arise, the banks have not only traded dollars for assets on the cheap, but gained massive oil reserves for pennies on the dollar to back the underlying contracts of the oil that they so heavily trade.
The argument to this would be that many emerging markets have laws in place that prevent their national resources from being turned over to foreign entities in the case of corporate defaults.
Which, of course, the U.S. and its banks have already prepared for.
通过我的通讯文章《How to Seize Assets Without War:
……If the Fed raises interest rates, many emerging market economies will suffer the consequence of debt defaults. Which, historically means that asset fire sales – often commodity-based assets such as oil and gas – are next.
Historically, if you wanted to seize the assets of another country, you would have to go to war and fight for territory. But today, there are other less bloody ways to do that.
Take, for example, Petrobras – a semi-public Brazilian multinational energy corporation.
……Brazil is in one of the worst debt positions in the world with much of its debt denominated in US dollars。
Earlier this year (2015), Petrobras announced that it is attempting to sell $58 billion of assets – an unprecedented number in the oil industry。
Guess who will likely be leading the sale of Petrobras assets? Yup, American banks。
通过Reuters:
……JPMorgan would be tasked with wooing the largest number of bidders possible for the assets and then structure the sales。”
As history has shown, emerging market fire sales due to debt defaults are often won by the US or its allies. Thus far, it appears the Petrobras fire sale may be headed that way。
通过WSJ:
“Brazilian state-run oil company Petróleo Brasileiro SA said Tuesday (September 22, 2015) it is closing a deal to sell natural-gas distribution assets to a local subsidiary of Japan’s Mitsui & Co.”
The combination of monetary policy and commodities manipulation allows Western banks and allies to accumulate hard assets at the expense of emerging markets. And this has been exactly the plan since day one.
As the Fed hints of raising rates, financial risks among emerging markets will continue to build. This will trigger a reappraisal of sovereign and corporate risks leading to big swings in capital flows。”
Not only are many of the big banks’ practices protected by government and Fed policies, but they’re also protected by the underlying asset itself. If things go south, the bank could end up owning a lot of oil reserves.
难怪他们不担心。
And since the banks ultimately control the price of oil anyway, it could easily bring the price back up when they’re ready.
Controlling the price of oil gives U.S. and its banks many advantages。
For example, the U.S. could tell the Iranians, the Saudis, or other OPEC nations, whose economies heavily rely on oil, “Hey, if you want higher oil prices, we can make that happen. But first, you have to do this…”
You see how much control the U.S., and its big banks, actually have?
At least, for now anyway。
Don’t think for one second that nations around the world don’t understand this。
Just ask Venezuela, and many of the other countries that have succumbed to the power of the U.S. Many of these countries are now turning to China because they feel they have been screwed。
世界格局的转变
The diversification away from the U.S. dollar is the first step in the uprising against the U.S. by other nations。
As the power of the U.S. dollar diminishes, through international currency swaps and loans, other trading platforms that control the price of commodities (such as the new 上海石油交易所) will become more prominent in global trade; thus, bringing some price equilibrium back to the market。
And this is happening much faster than you expect。
通过Xinhuanet：
“Chinese President Xi Jinping returned home Sunday after wrapping up a historic trip to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Iran with a broad consensus and 52 cooperation agreements set to deepen Beijing’s constructive engagement with the struggling yet promising region。
During Xi’s trip, China upgraded its relationship with both Saudi Arabia and Iran to a comprehensive strategic partnership and vowed to work together with Egypt to add more values to their comprehensive strategic partnership。
Regional organizations, including the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC) and the Arab League (AL), also applauded Xi’s visit and voiced their readiness to cement mutual trust and broaden win-win cooperation with China。
AL Secretary General Nabil al-Arabi said China has always stood with the developing world, adding that the Arab world is willing to work closely with China in political, economic as well as other sectors for mutual benefit。
The Belt and Road Initiative, an ambitious vision Xi put forward in 2013 to boost inter-connectivity and common development along the ancient land and maritime Silk Roads, has gained more support and popularity during Xi’s trip。
……Xi and leaders of the three nations agreed to align their countries’ development blueprints and pursue mutually beneficial cooperation under the framework of the Belt and Road Initiative, which comprises the Silk Road Economic Belt and the 21st Century Maritime Silk Road。
The initiative, reiterated the Chinese president, is by no means China’s solo, but a symphony of all countries along the routes, including half of the OIC members。
During Xi’s stay in Saudi Arabia, China, and the GCC resumed their free trade talks and “substantively concluded in principle the negotiations on trade in goods.” A comprehensive deal will be made within this year。”
In other words, the big power players in the Middle East – who produce the majority of the world’s oil – are now moving closer to cooperation with China, and away from the U.S。
As this progresses, it means the role of the U.S. dollar, and its value in world trade, will diminish。
And the big banks, which hold trillions of dollars in U.S. assets, aren’t concerned。
They’d much rather own the underlying assets。
寻求真相，
Ivan Lo
The Equedia Letter
