By Andrea
I’m sure we’ve all noticed that gas prices have dropped quite a bit in the last few months, but there hasn’t been nearly as much fuss about that as there was when prices were going up. It’s not a big mystery as to WHY there hasn’t been more attention paid to it - the media loves to scare the crap out of you so you’ll keep watching, we have an election coming up, and there’s this bailout thing going on that I’m trying to ignore.
But no really, why have prices come down? Here is a six month chart from Gas Buddy:

Gas prices peaked in the US right around mid-July and then started a strong trend downward, with a little spike around September 15-16 (Hurricane Ike) that couldn’t be sustained. US prices have dropped from an average of $4.12/gallon to about $3.54/gallon, 14%, in two and a half months.
Why?
As usual, there is no simple reason and I’m not going to try to claim one, and it bears reminding that even with this decline,the price a year ago at the beginning of October was $2.75/gallon.
Still, I’m intrigued. Certainly a decrease in demand as people reduce consumption is a factor, but I’m still not convinced that consumer will power is strong enough to sustain more than a temporary drop in price and demand hasn’t dropped anywhere near 14%, so that’s not it. Perhaps there is a bit of currency impact here - the dollar has been strengthening recently, which makes imports less expensive, but that wouldn’t account for the drop entirely either. Political factors are always in play, but I don’t think anyone feels like we’re in a decelerating tension cycle with the saber rattling we seem to hear about constantly with Iran.
And with that, I’d like to introduce you to the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000.
If you recall Trading Places (”My God! The Dukes are going to corner the entire frozen orange juice market!”), commodities are raw materials like oranges, oil, pork bellies, corn, wheat and such. The commodities market is used to hedge future price fluctuations and is absolutely essential for farmers and other producers in order to reduce their risk of doing business, but it’s also a place for investors and speculators.
“Futures” lock in a price in the … future. Think of it as insurance.
If, for example, you are a cotton farmer, you can sell futures contracts that lock in the price you will receive when a cotton crop is harvested in, say, six months. This helps you figure out your expenses and also protects you from instabilities in the market, thus providing incentive for you to keep growing cotton. It also provides assurance for the purchasers of your cotton - textile manufacturers, for example - who can accurately predict their price of raw materials in the future.
Investors (speculators) can also get into the game, though. Let’s say that I’m an investor and have reason to believe that China, a huge cotton producer, is going to be plagued by massive crop failures in the next few months. If I’m right, the price of cotton will skyrocket and if I can buy that futures contract from the cotton farmer and then turn around and sell my cotton on the open market in six months (or sell the contract before expiration, which is more likely in the case of an investor), I’m going to make a fortune! If I’m wrong and China has a bumper crop, I’ll lose money when I sell my contract.
Either way, the farmer still receives the same price at the end of six months.
So, the commodities market covers broad markets of basically identical goods, but at some point the financial market decided that what was good for the farmer was good for the securities investor and started selling futures on stock. Unfortunately, since you can’t directly compare, say, Walmart and Target as “identical” goods, what this created was a whole new type of market for futures, and a whole new regulatory black hole. Who was in charge of oversight in this case - the SEC, which oversees securities the securities industry, or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which oversees the futures market? The resulting debate could not be resolved and stock futures were banned in the United States, but not in Europe, where they were popular. Since Americans can’t stand to be left out of a party, the Commodity Futures Moderization Act of 2000 was introduced to resolve the issue and allow securities to be traded on the futures market.
There are two aspects of this Act that are pertinent to us today.
One is that it specifically exempted regulatory oversight when it came to their credit default swaps. Go watch the news - any news, any time of day - to see what came from this.
The other is that it created what is called the “Enron Loophole,” which oddly enough, was closed in late June of 2008, right before prices started dropping.
The Enron Loophole, from the Congressional Research Service (bold mine):
The CFMA added a new Section 2(h) to the Commodity Exchange Act, exempting two classes of transactions from most CFTC regulation. First, bilateral contracts between “eligible contract participants” that are not executed on a trading facility are exempt from the Commodity Exchange Act, except for certain anti-fraud and manipulation provisions (Note: banks, investment firms and insurance companies). Second, contracts in exempt commodities between “eligible commercial entities” that are executed on an “electronic trading facility” are also exempt from most provisions of the Commodity Exchange Act. Substantial volumes of trading in energy contracts avail themselves of each of these exemptions.
What does this mean, really? In a nutshell, it means that traders could manipulate the market.
As a silly and very simplified analogy that nevertheless provides a great visual, I invite you to the world of Facebook and specifically an application called “Friends for Sale.” On it, you can be bought and sold by other Facebook members. I don’t remember who invited me to join it several months ago, but I did for some reason. I totally don’t get the appeal (it’s creepy, really) but will admit that I check in sometimes to see how much I’m “worth.” It’s amusing, but more importantly, take a look at how (or why, rather) my “value” has increased:

Now, I didn’t do a darned thing in that time - didn’t even know it was happening, but my value nearly tripled in three days because these two people just kept flipping it back and forth. They didn’t care that they had to pay more each time because they earned something off of each trade. Apparently I did too, but I don’t know what I’m going to do with all that fake cash.
Cool, huh? Except, not so much when the commodity in question is something we all depend on so heavily.
So let’s meet some of the players in this Commodity Futures Modernization Act, shall we?

Former Representative (Democrat and Republican) and Former Senator (Republican) Phil Gramm, Texas - This would be the same Gramm of Gramm-Leach-Bliley, which overturned Glass-Steagall and which I have commented on several times in the past. Senator Gramm is a Republican from Texas who has been linked as an economic advisor to John McCain and serves as Vice Chairman of UBS bankbased in Switzerland, which (by the way) happened to dump millions in “toxic debt” just today to buyers who were apparently invisible to everyone else. Or perhaps only became visible after the Senate vote last night, which is my bet.
Senator Gramm’s wife, Wendy, is also of interest. From Wikipedia (bold mine):
Wendy Lee Gramm … received a B.A. degree in economics from Wellesley College in 1966 and a Ph. D. in economics from Northwestern University in 1971. In her role at the Mercatus Center, Gramm generally called for deregulation of the energy industry. Previously, Gramm held several positions in the Reagan Administration, including heading the Commodity Futures Trading Commission from 1988 to 1993. After a lobbying campaign from Enron, the CFTC exempted it from regulation in trading of energy derivatives. Subsequently, Gramm resigned from the CFTC and took a seat on the Enron Board of Directors and served on its Audit Committee.

Former Representative Jim Leach, Republican, Iowa - What do you know, another Gramm-Leach-Bliley reference. Leach is a complicated cat and I’ll admit I don’t cringe with disgust like I do when I hear the name Gramm, but he’s still on the hook for this one. And I’ll go so far as to say that I’m suspicious of an Iowa legislator when it comes to allowing oil prices to skyrocket, thus maybe encouraging some kind of alternative based maybe on … corn?
Note: Leach is definitely not on the McCain side of the fence, having publicly endorsed Obama, mostly for international relations reasons.

Former Representative Tom Blilely, Jr, Republican, Virginia - No way! Hat trick! Gramm-Leach-Blilely is entirely covered in the Commodity Futures Modernization Act sponsorship! Cute bow tie, though.
All Republican sponsors. Hmm.
I went and looked up the Commodity Futures Modernization Act roll call, just to see how McCain and Biden voted on it - it was actually rolled into a larger appropriations bill, but for the record, Biden voted against and McCain voted for it. And as an aside, Biden also voted against Gramm-Leach-Blilely and McCain voted for Gramm-Leach-Blilely.
So. Y’all know I try to not be too political and I don’t discount the role Democrats have played in this debacle, but if you’re looking at energy prices, I think it’s fair to at least take a peek at this Act and wonder if the demise of its Enron Loophole and coinciding gas price drops isn’t at least slightly interesting. And similarly, when you look at mortgage bailouts, look at the votes there as well.
This post is included in the October 6th Carnival of Personal Finance - if you’d like some more fun reading on a variety of personal finance topics, please be sure to visit Girls Just Want to Have Funds!