|

CAN YOU PROFIT FROM THE
RICE SHORTAGE?
by George
Kleinman
Editor, Commodities
Trends
April 28, 2008
How do we know when
irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values?--Alan
Greenspan, 1996
Rice was in the limelight
this past week. Costco and Sam’s Club limited the amount
of rice customers could buy because of the irrational exuberance of its
rice customers. The rice chart below (this is a fairly thin market
that’s not too actively traded in the futures) looks like an
accelerated rocket ride to the moon. Historically, these kinds of moves
always seem to end poorly.
July Rice Futures

Source: Commodity.com
Viewing the rice chart
evoked memories of another recent price movement that also exhibited
parabolic (straight up) tendencies.
Today I’ll share with
you the remarkable story of a virtually impossible market move that
theoretically returned 5,000 percent on margin in just three months.
Even the sleaziest of investment scam artists wouldn’t promise returns
of this magnitude; after all, these numbers sound ridiculous.
But this
theoretical--and seemingly impossible--move was a reality. What’s even
more remarkable is that this phenomenal 20,000 percent return annualized
isn’t even being measured from the theoretical bottom to top. Before
it began, the market in question had already doubled in price. Plus,
like rice, this move took place in a market that isn’t generally known
for big moves at the fairly low volume US futures exchange, the
Minneapolis Grain Exchange (MGE).
This is the story of
one of the most incredible price moves in the history of markets. I
lived through this with two clients; one was on the right side of the
move, and one wasn’t. The client on the right side watched his account
grow by seven figures, and the guy on the wrong side watched his account
decrease by a similar amount.
This is a story of
greed, stubbornness and vision. Looking back, the market signaled all
that anyone needed to see--both fundamentally and technically--to be on
the right side of it. It looked easy to profit. But, then again, it’s
never easy, and hindsight is always 20/20. By reviewing what happened
here, we can learn how to effectively trade markets like this in the
future.
This is the remarkable
story of the Minneapolis wheat market of 2007-08.
There are three major
varieties of wheat traded on US exchanges. The most plentiful variety is
hard winter wheat, traded in Kansas City. This type of wheat is used for
bread and grown in a number of states, primarily Kansas, Texas and
Oklahoma.
The Chicago variety is
soft winter wheat used for cakes and pastries, grown in areas such as
Missouri and Illinois. The spring variety that’s traded at the MGE is
primarily grown in North Dakota but also South Dakota, Montana and
Minnesota. Unlike the winter varieties, as its name implies, spring
wheat is planted in the spring and harvested in late summer. It’s a
premium, higher-protein variety used in baked goods such as bagels,
French bread and hard rolls.
In 2007, the world
experienced wheat production problems because of devastating heat stress
in Europe, Australia, Russia and the Black Sea region. The result: Wheat
prices rose dramatically over the second half of the year.
In early June, the
Minneapolis wheat futures formed a bottom as the market broke above
$5.50 per bushel. The chart below shows the clear breakout and sharp
rally up to $9. The move from $5.50 to $9 was dramatic in itself, the
equivalent of a $17,500 move for just one 5,000 bushel contract.
Minneapolis Wheat 2007
Source: Commodity.com
High prices generally
lead to increased production and lower prices. However, in the US, the
winter wheat crop (planted that fall for a summer harvest) was poor, and
the winter crop protein content was low. This put additional pressure on
the spring wheat crop to replenish the supplies of high protein wheat.
But wheat farmers in
North Dakota and Minnesota, lured by the biofuels promise of potentially
higher corn and soybean prices, planted more of those crops while
reducing their spring wheat acres. The growing weather that summer in
the Dakotas was less than ideal, resulting in a short crop. This
combination of events combined to create the lowest level of world wheat
supplies in more than 60 years.
In 2007-08, the global
supply of wheat as a percentage of usage was just 18 percent, the lowest
number since World War II. This scenario created an even greater demand
for the already short Minneapolis variety; in other words, it was a
perfect market storm. Smaller supplies and greater demand resulted in
not just a sharp gain in the Minneapolis futures prices, but Minneapolis
spring wheat also gained dramatically in relation to the already high
prices for the Chicago and Kansas City varieties.
Although millers can
substitute different wheat varieties for many applications, spring wheat
is required to blend higher protein bread types, and it’s the variety
most prized by the Japanese (who import most of their spring wheat from
the US).
Prices continued rising
into early 2008, reaching the all-time high of $11 per bushel in
January. During February, the Japanese entered the marketplace with a
tender looking for 80,000 tons of spring wheat. Even though prices were
at all-time highs (with every economic incentive for farmers to clean
out their bins), the Japanese only received offers for 50,000 tons.
This was a wake-up call
to wheat traders who started believing the US was completely sold out of
spring wheat with six full months until the next crop even became
available. The result was a classic buying panic. Prices soared in a
parabolic move higher, reaching a truly incredible price of $24 per
bushel by the end of February.
March 2008
Minneapolis Wheat

Source: Commodity.com
It’s tough to put
these numbers in their proper perspective, but let’s try.
Up until 2007, the
all-time high price for Minneapolis wheat was $7.23 per bushel, touched
briefly in May 1996. In that year, just a few months later when the new
crop became available, the price was back below $4 per bushel. For seven
years following, wheat prices weren’t able to trade above the
$4-per-bushel level. For the majority of those years, it was rare to see
a $1-per-bushel move for an entire year. In contrast, the price of
spring wheat moved more than $4 per bushel in just one week in February
2008.
In late 2007, the
margin to trade one contract of spring wheat on the MGE was $1,350, an
all-time high. As the market moved higher, the exchange eventually
raised margins to $7,150 per contract.
What do these numbers
mean in real dollars? A futures contract for Minneapolis wheat is a
standard size: 5,000 bushels. Therefore, every penny-per-bushel movement
in price is equivalent to a $50 profit or loss per contract traded.
Margin in futures is
like a good faith deposit and is returned to the trader when he or she
exits, plus any profits or minus any losses. So a limit move of 30 cents
returns the equivalent of $1,500 per contract to the trader on the right
side and removes this amount from the player on the wrong side. If the
market moves more than this number, the additional margin money is added
to the account of the winner and must be posted by the loser to his or
her account.
At the beginning of
this year, the March contract was trading at the all-time high price of
$10 per bushel. This was up from $5 per bushel in early 2006. The market
had already doubled, and one contract returned the equivalent of $25,000
on this $5 move. The move from $10 to $24 represents an additional
$70,000 profit or loss for just one contract in just a few months. The
$5 move Feb. 28 alone equaled $25,000 on just a single contract;
that’s $70,000 on a $1,350 margin deposit for one contract, equivalent
to 5,185 percent in only three months.
Imagine being on the
wrong side of this move, thinking prices were just too high. Anyone who
thinks he or she has deep enough pockets to ride out any move should
heed the words of the great economist John Maynard Keynes: “The market
can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
In the real world,
folks across the globe paid more for a premium loaf of bread or a Kaiser
roll (both requiring high protein wheat). That brings up the question:
Who benefits from a price move like this?
Other than the traders
on the right side of the market, you can feel good for those farmers who
held onto some of their production from the 2007 crop and sold in the
upper double digits; these guys were big winners. However, there
weren’t many because the nature of a market like this is that the
great majority of farmers sold out their wheat inventories months
before. Why not take that $10 per bushel in January, the highest price
ever seen in history to that date? That’s why there was a dearth of
spring wheat in the first quarter of 2007.
This price move in
Minneapolis wheat was unprecedented and wouldn’t happen in the days of
a smaller population, fewer hedge funds and pit-traded (versus
electronic) markets. To cope with the volatility, the MGE put into place
a new limit policy. Price limits for nearly 100 years were restricted to
20 cents per bushel per day. Today limits can expand from 30 cents to 60
cents, then to 90 cents and all the way up to $1.35 based on a formula
contingent on how the market traded the day before. In the spot month,
prices can move anywhere.
At the price peak,
grain merchandisers were scouring five states in search of spring wheat.
But there was none to be found. The price for a bushel of spring wheat
would match demand. However, the day the world supposedly ran out of
spring wheat was actually the day the highs were reached. In 1928, the
great trader W.D. Gann made the following observation:
The
history of the world shows that there never has been a time when there
was a great demand for anything, whether it be a product of the mine,
factory or farm, that sooner or later a supply in excess of that demand
did not develop. This is but a natural law.
The March contract that
traded as high as $24 per bushel expired at $17. Today prices are closer
to $11 per bushel, even though not one additional bushel of spring wheat
has grown since last year. In fact, farmers are just now planting this
year’s spring wheat crop. In the end, it wasn’t a question of
supplies increasing. Rather, we now know demand was totally satiated.
Some bakers switched to
lower protein wheat. Some consumers balked at paying $1 for one bagel,
but the real reason prices came off was because the Japanese and others
paid up until their demand was satiated. These buyers were afraid they
would run out, so they went on a panic-buying streak and effectively
bought their entire needs for the year in February. This action created
the parabola and the high price.
Some millers are still
working through $20 wheat today. When the panic buying dried up, the
move back down began.
There are three major
lessons a trader can learn from this.
1. Never fight the adage
“the trend is your friend.” This is especially true during major
uptrends. Who could have forecast oil at $119 per barrel a few months
ago? Top picking this one has been expensive for the short seller.
2. It’s not the news
but how the market reacts to the news that’s important. Certainly
it’s the news that sets the public perception, but you must be alert
for divergences between the news and market action. It all has to do
with expectation versus reality.
Look for the divergence
between what’s happening and what people think is supposed to happen.
When the big turn comes, the general public will always be looking the
wrong way. There are certain ways to analyze reactions to news (or even
a lack of news).
- Moves of importance
invariably tend to begin before there’s any news to justify the
initial price move. Once the move is underway, the emerging
fundamentals will slowly come to light. A big rally (decline) on no
news is almost always very bullish (bearish).
- It’s generally not
good practice to buy after a lot of very bullish news or sell after
an extremely bearish report because both good and bad news are often
already discounted in price.
3. Markets like this
nearly always seem to top out in the same way. When close to the end of
a major move, markets become wild. Volume is huge, activity is feverish
and erratic, and the imagination of most traders blossoms. If you’ve
had the vision to ride the trend to this point, your payday has come.
However, in extreme
markets, men and women of reason lose all sense of proportion. They
start to believe the propaganda that the world has literally run out of
this or that, but it never happens. In the late 1970s, the Hunt
Brothers ran silver from $5 an ounce to more than $50. They felt it
would go up forever but forgot at some price Grandma’s silver
candlesticks come out of the cupboard and drop into the smelter.
The richest men in the
world (at that time) lost all sense of reason and proportion--and $2
billion in the process. Rice traders: Take heed, and remember what Gann
told us. “The history of the world has shown that there has never been
a time when there was a great demand for anything that a supply in
excess of demand didn’t develop.”
Good trading, and good
luck.

© 2008 George Kleinman
Editorial Archive

KCI Communications, Inc.
1750 Old Meadow Road, Suite 301
McLean, VA 22101
703-394-4931
phone 703-905-8100 fax Email
Risk
Disclaimer
Futures and futures options can entail a high degree of risk and are not
appropriate for all investors. Commodities Trends is strictly
the opinion of its writer. Use it as a valuable tool, not the "Holy
Grail." Any actions taken by readers are for their own account and
risk. Information is obtained from sources believed reliable, but is in
no way guaranteed. The author may have positions in the markets
mentioned including at times positions contrary to the advice quoted
herein. Opinions, market data and recommendations are subject to change
at any time. Past Results Are Not Necessarily Indicative of Future
Results.
Hypothetical
Performance
Hypothetical performance results have many inherent limitations, some of
which are described below. No representation is being made that any
account will or is likely to achieve profits or losses similar to those
shown. In fact, there are frequently sharp differences between
hypothetical performance results and the actual results subsequently
achieved by any particular trading program. One of the limitations of
hypothetical performance results is that they are generally prepared
with the benefit of hindsight. In addition, hypothetical trading does
not involve financial risk, and no hypothetical trading record can
completely account for the impact of financial risk in actual trading.
For example, the ability to withstand losses or to adhere to a
particular trading program in spite of trading losses are material
points which can also adversely affect actual trading results. There are
numerous other factors related to the markets in general or to the
implementation of any specific trading program which cannot be fully
accounted for in the preparation of hypothetical performance results and
all of which can adversely affect actual trading results.
|