Oil price discussion and analysis

[Smurf1976]

If things are sufficiently certain, or the context is appropriate, the word 'will' is often fine when talking about the future.

That's true but in the case of going to a restaurant, most surrounding circumstances are under our control and the probability of it being cancelled is very low. Not zero, the restaurant could burn down or the chef is ill, but it's unlikely.

There's also no major consequence if it is cancelled. Eat somewhere else, we won't starve, it's a nuisance at most. In contrast someone investing $ whatever based on expected movement in the oil price stands to lose real, actual money if that forecast turns out to be wrong.

There's also a difference in that I'm not posting on a forum somewhere which is being read by people hoping to learn how I chose which restaurant to eat at and so on. If I was doing that however, well I'd be talking about the chef, menu, location, decor, reputation of it, cost and so on so that others could understand how I reached a decision to choose that restaurant and not simply saying I called them and booked a table.

 

[Sdajii]

However, when talking about the POO, 'will' is not appropriate, as you cannot control its price or anything else relevant to oil. You use an example that has no relevance to the issue, viz dinner/girlfriend.

Possibly English is not your first language, in which case the error is understandable.

jog on
duc

I have no control over the sun either, but I still say the sun will rise tomorrow. Your words are irrelevant. Perhaps your IQ is one or two standard deviations below average, in which case your error is understandable.

 

[Sdajii]

That's true but in the case of going to a restaurant, most surrounding circumstances are under our control and the probability of it being cancelled is very low. Not zero, the restaurant could burn down or the chef is ill, but it's unlikely.

There's also no major consequence if it is cancelled. Eat somewhere else, we won't starve, it's a nuisance at most. In contrast someone investing $ whatever based on expected movement in the oil price stands to lose real, actual money if that forecast turns out to be wrong.

There's also a difference in that I'm not posting on a forum somewhere which is being read by people hoping to learn how I chose which restaurant to eat at and so on. If I was doing that however, well I'd be talking about the chef, menu, location, decor, reputation of it, cost and so on so that others could understand how I reached a decision to choose that restaurant and not simply saying I called them and booked a table.

My ability to control something is not generally related to how certain it is. As I said above, I have absolutely no control over the sun or any other heavenly bodies, but I can say the sun will rise tomorrow. I can say the price of oil will indeed fluctuate over time. I can say that peak oil will inevitably occur. I have no control over any of these things, but even you would agree they are certain.

The more we know and the smarter we are, the more sure we can be about our predictions. I think the predictions dependent on our future influence are among those we can't be too certain of. My actions have effectively zero impact on the price of oil. They will do what they will do regardless of any input from me or lack thereof. If we can be sure enough that we will still be alive next week and take someone out to dinner (even this is not a 100% guarantee), then certain things relating to the price of oil, which are obviously far more inevitable, can be said to be 'definite'.

I may be unable to predict when a total solar eclipse will occur. Honestly, I have a complete inability to do it, but astronomers can do it thousands of years in advance with precision literally to the second. They have no ability to influence it, but they can predict it effectively perfectly. Some people are better at predicting some things than others. I can't predict the price of oil to anything resembling the accuracy of astronomers predicting heavenly events, but there are varying degrees to which different people can predict them. The point at which certain people can predict certain things is grey. I would consider it to be healthy to treat the first astronomer who claimed to be able to predict a total solar eclipse with open-minded scepticism, and a reasonable astronomer would accept that until his predictions had turned out to be correct. But, these days I have no hesitation in believing the predictions about total solar eclipses long into the future. Assuming the astronomer was intelligent and entirely sure about his first prediction, I would not berate him until after the prediction had been proven or disproven if he said "the eclipse *will* occur at time x and place y". After time x I would either congratulate or perhaps berate/mock, but not before.

 

[ducati916]

I have no control over the sun either, but I still say the sun will rise tomorrow. Your words are irrelevant. Perhaps your IQ is one or two standard deviations below average, in which case your error is understandable.

Interesting.

Now that it has been demonstrated that your dinner/girlfriend argument was fallacious, you a fortiori advance the 'sun/rising' argument.

This argument is also incorrect in that the causation attributed for the outcome is incorrect. The earth orbits the sun and additionally the earth rotates on its axis eastward. So while the sun does 'appear' in the east, your argument is rendered otiose.

I note also that in your post to Smurf that you [now] adopt Ann's 'fluctuation' theory. This predisposition to plagiarise other peoples ideas and words is unfortunate and invariably weakens your case.

Currently you [seemingly] wish to take credit for and be accorded respect, for nothing more than a lucky guess. There is no evidence yet, that it was anything more. Of course any retrospective evidence carries little to zero weight, so only evidence of the $100 call, if provided prior to the price being reached, would be accorded any weight.

I on the other hand would accord your earlier call of $50 equal weight as I am a very generous chap.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

$49.27.

Confirmation of the megaphone and the dark arts?

jog on
duc

 

[Ann]

$49.27.

Confirmation of the megaphone and the dark arts?

jog on
duc

Sadly no spooky dark arts this time duc....it was turning into a Alphorn sooner than a Megaphone!

The price is still in play, it is sort of doing a snake dance around the 50% Fibonacci line. This can actually strengthen the price at this level, lots and lots of tests. I just checked the 5 minute price and it is still pole dancing the 50% line. Interestingly I noticed this morning Stockcharts have the closing price of $50.20. It is wrong I was watching the closing bell this morning. Just after 2pm NY time it gave up the $50 level. I guess Stockcharts had a hiccup. Pleased to see IC was on top of things.

 

[ducati916]

Sadly no spooky dark arts this time duc....it was turning into a Alphorn sooner than a Megaphone!

The price is still in play, it is sort of doing a snake dance around the 50% Fibonacci line. This can actually strengthen the price at this level, lots and lots of tests. I just checked the 5 minute price and it is still pole dancing the 50% line. Interestingly I noticed this morning Stockcharts have the closing price of $50.20. It is wrong I was watching the closing bell this morning. Just after 2pm NY time it gave up the $50 level. I guess Stockcharts had a hiccup. Pleased to see IC was on top of things.

View attachment 90809

The low was $49.16, currently trading circa $49.24. There is not much volume in the out of hours, so you can't read too much into it.

However what I do set store by is how quickly and easily a trade moves into profit. I had two long trades which made money, but it was a struggle for pennies.

I flipped short, before I knew it I was $1 in profit. That is always a good indication that I am on the right side of the prevailing price action.

Therefore I would not be surprised to see $48 be hit and price head towards $45. What happens then? I guess we'll post analysis closer to and if, it hits.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Looking at this, $40 looks entirely possible. Not much support from this point.



jog on
duc

 

[Darc Knight]

So the consensus is we should delay filling up for as long as possible?

 

[Ann]

So the consensus is we should delay filling up for as long as possible?

This is a bit of a pat-your-head rub-your-tummy exercise DK. Looking at the gold chart in $US for the quarter, it looks like it will fall, if it falls, the Aussie dollar will fall. Even if the Price of Oil stops at around this level petrol will cost us more because of the reduced buying power of the A$.

If the Price of Oil falls and the $A falls we may not see any massive savings. However there are so many variables it is a hard call to make....Although usually petrol goes up over the holiday period so might be a good idea to fill up anyway!

 

[ducati916]

Currently trading at $48.11, with a low at $47.85

It will be interesting to see once the US starts trading whether it retraces, or accelerates.

jog on
duc

 

[Smurf1976]

So the consensus is we should delay filling up for as long as possible?

I filled a tank with No.1 fuel oil. 477 litres of the stuff.

I also filled 3 jerry cans with petrol for mowers etc and filled the car as well.

Managed to do all this pretty much right at the highest price for oil just before it turned down.

OK, so it would only be $100 or so difference but still. I bought the fuel to burn not to speculate on the price though.

 

[ducati916]

Well, we've hit the low I was predicting, so I'm right so far. I'll restate my prediction and say it won't drop further (at least not significantly). I'm fairly sure it won't go below $50 again and if so it won't be by much.

It may linger around here around $50/low 50s for a while, or it may not waste too much time, but again I restate my prediction, it will be $100 or close to it before the end of August. Could be earlier, but won't be later.

Not expecting to be taken seriously until it happens, but I'm posting it all so in hindsight you'll be able to go back and read the posts.

Well it is below $50 again. I'm showing a low of $47.01.

Support at $50 is gone. Support or resistance levels are formed by three psychological variables:

(a) recency bias; and
(b) anchoring; and
(c) disposition effect.

It is (c) that I find interesting and I suffer from it myself. It is the desire to lock-in profits. Traders see a support or resistance level in the chart and as price approaches, they close the trade and take the profit. This [of course] reinforces that level. The more times it holds, the stronger the effect.

However, later, if that level is breached, then the run through that level tends to accelerate. The breach can turn into a new directional trend that has legs to run.

That is, I think, what has happened here. $50 was a support point. It held, for a while, but now it is gone. The move lower is already fast, and I think now [in hindsight] it could move a lot further. There is nothing but air until $40.

Ann put up the Fib at $45. They do have a habit of being accurate, so $45 may provide a pausing point, I'm not sure in the absence of something significant on the fundamental side, that it will hold.



jog on
duc

 

[PZ99]

Brent doing the same. Financial equivalent of underarm bowling.

I have the OOO etf in my stock holdings - happy to add a few more

 

[Sdajii]

Well it is below $50 again. I'm showing a low of $47.01.

Support at $50 is gone. Support or resistance levels are formed by three psychological variables:

(a) recency bias; and
(b) anchoring; and
(c) disposition effect.

It is (c) that I find interesting and I suffer from it myself. It is the desire to lock-in profits. Traders see a support or resistance level in the chart and as price approaches, they close the trade and take the profit. This [of course] reinforces that level. The more times it holds, the stronger the effect.

However, later, if that level is breached, then the run through that level tends to accelerate. The breach can turn into a new directional trend that has legs to run.

That is, I think, what has happened here. $50 was a support point. It held, for a while, but now it is gone. The move lower is already fast, and I think now [in hindsight] it could move a lot further. There is nothing but air until $40.

Ann put up the Fib at $45. They do have a habit of being accurate, so $45 may provide a pausing point, I'm not sure in the absence of something significant on the fundamental side, that it will hold.

View attachment 90815

jog on
duc

I was talking about (and bluntly specified) fundamental support, not technical or sentimental support. The fundamental support and the overall global events and structures in place are what I see as relevant. Technicals and sentiment can throw things this way or that in the short term, but the overall picture is controlled by fundamentals. None of what you say I'm basing my thoughts on are relevant to me, regardless of how important you may think they are, or assume (often correctly) others do.

I didn't expect it to go below $50 again, but I acknowledged it wasn't a particularly unlikely thing, and if it did, I didn't expect it to go too far below. If it goes much below $40 (say, $35 or below $40 for longer than briefly), you can say I was wrong about that, but it's not the big overall picture I have spoken about.

The big statement I made back around $70 on the uptrend which I absolutely stand by as much as before is: WTI oil drop below $52 before the end of February, and that before the end of August we'd see $100 or close to it (you can stake $95 as the goal post for me being right or wrong if you like, since you seem Hell bent on me being wrong).

Technicals/sentiment/unexpected global events may throw it much higher than $100 in the short term, I don't know, no one can predict that sort of thing, but we'll be seeing $100 by my deadline.

 

[ducati916]

This was your initial guess.



Incorrect.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

This was your modified guess:



So I suppose the accuracy of your guess is how the word 'significantly' would be interpreted. The low [so far] is $45.75. That is in my book significantly lower, as I would not [could not] hold a long position with that sort of move against the position when trading [unhedged] a position in futures.

But, from the first guess, the second guess is simply trying to give you wiggle room anyway.

In your last post, you still seem to be trying to preserve your guess as valid. It would be far more honest just to admit that you are wrong.

The whole guess, modified or not, is simply incorrect.


jog on
duc

 

[Sdajii]

This was your modified guess:

View attachment 90833

So I suppose the accuracy of your guess is how the word 'significantly' would be interpreted. The low [so far] is $45.75. That is in my book significantly lower, as I would not [could not] hold a long position with that sort of move against the position when trading [unhedged] a position in futures.

But, from the first guess, the second guess is simply trying to give you wiggle room anyway.

In your last post, you still seem to be trying to preserve your guess as valid. It would be far more honest just to admit that you are wrong.

The whole guess, modified or not, is simply incorrect.


jog on
duc

Good grief, you're a real piece of work. I stated it in various places as 'it will drop to $52' or 'it will drop to the low 50s'

Now it doesn't take a genius to understand that if I say it will drop to $52 I don't mean to say exactly $52. By your reasoning, $52.01 would mean my target wasn't hit, and $51.99 would mean I'd overshot!

It doesn't take a genius to understand what was meant, but because of your apparent mental condition (I'm not sure if it's a form of retardation or a form of borderline HFautism or something else) and your obsession with me prediction, I've tried to explain it in terms you can fathom. It seems it has been insufficient so far, and you seem incapable of ignoring it, so let's go a little further.

If you want to get technical on details for some bizarre reason, for my prediction to be correct, according to the initial and all wordings, the price had to fall to or below $52. I didn't say it would stop at $52 and only someone with a peculiar mental condition or someone being silly would interpret it that way. Because of your tantrums I specified bottom predictions, although these weren't really part of my initial predictions which I am absolutely sure about.

If you want to hold me to my initial predictions inclusive of everything I've said, to be correct, oil must hit $100 by the end of August. And that's not to say it has to stop at $100. I'm not saying it will hit $100 and not a cent more. This would seem to go without saying, but since you couldn't understand it on the lower end, and dragged it out to an absurd extent, I'm making an attempt to be clear on the other end.

Does that all make sense? Do you need any more clarity? Are you capable of making a response without consulting a thesaurus in an attempt to look smart? (yes, I'm joking, some of your posts do appear to be written without a thesaurus being involved, it's okay, I was just being facetious ).

 

[Smurf1976]

Seasonality is something that works until it doesn't but worth noting in that context that there's often a bit of a dip in the oil price between Christmas and New Year.

 

[ducati916]

It is apodictic that your '$50' guess is wrong.

Good grief, you're a real piece of work. I stated it in various places as 'it will drop to $52' or 'it will drop to the low 50s'

Now it doesn't take a genius to understand that if I say it will drop to $52 I don't mean to say exactly $52. By your reasoning, $52.01 would mean my target wasn't hit, and $51.99 would mean I'd overshot!

These are now attempts at diverting attention from the facts.

So your assertion(s) in seriatim:

If you want to get technical on details for some bizarre reason, for my prediction to be correct, according to the initial and all wordings, the price had to fall to or below $52. I didn't say it would stop at $52 and only someone with a peculiar mental condition or someone being silly would interpret it that way. Because of your tantrums I specified bottom predictions, although these weren't really part of my initial predictions which I am absolutely sure about.

Smurf challenged you on the specificity of $50. Also refer to post #1977 [above].



Not $40. Well true it has not reached $40, but it is in the $40s. So did you mean exactly $40, or anything with a "4" before it?

So the next piece of evidence would be this:



Which was responded to in this way:



This rather implies that the line drawn in the sand was $50. Now that we are sitting at circa $46.30 and looking to be heading into the $45s, your guess is simply incorrect.

Now instead of simply accepting that you are wrong...you make excuses. A dangerous trait in someone on a trading forum.

If you want to hold me to my initial predictions inclusive of everything I've said, to be correct, oil must hit $100 by the end of August. And that's not to say it has to stop at $100. I'm not saying it will hit $100 and not a cent more. This would seem to go without saying, but since you couldn't understand it on the lower end, and dragged it out to an absurd extent, I'm making an attempt to be clear on the other end.

I think you have rather missed the point. Your guess is over. It is broken. It is wrong. The second part is irrelevant, because the first part never came to fruition.

jog on
duc