Oil! It’s a Gas – Grab That Cash With Both Hands And Make a Stash


Shale-gas-7953-1I've been predicting that crude oil prices will eventually drop below $30 per barrel for nearly two years.  When I first started talking about it oil futures were trading on NYMEX at $108.  Everyone thought I was too radical in my predictions.  Even those interested in my reasoning refused to believe that such a drastic adjustment was possible. 

Then, on Friday, September 11, 2015, many industry insiders have received a MarketWatch alert letting them know that Goldman Sachs underbid my forecast, warning that "oil prices could sink to $20 a barrel."  I personally don't pay much attention to big-firm analysts (they are most likely low-balling because they have some shorting game in the works), but a few of my acquaintances thought I should've felt justified.  The only thing I can say is "What took them so long?"

Human myopia doesn't shock me anymore.   However, the level of denial exhibited by those in and around the business of oil and its derivatives borders on blindness.  I mean, it's not like I have some special connections or access to secret information, nor do I spent any time on extensive research.  The same self-evident facts were always right under everyone's noses, not just mine own.        

Look, having been one of the largest importer of oil in the world for decades, the United States used to limit supplies to other regions of the globe by consuming the majority of Saudi, Algerian, and Nigerian output, thus keeping everyone hungry and bidding.  Up to a certain price level it was considered more practical to buy foreign oil than to invest into domestic production by pretty much every branch of US energy and petrochemical sectors.  But as soon as the prices hit an attractive spot, everyone and their mothers started pumping more oil and throw it into the market.  The US production doubled; the same happened in Russia, Iraq, Canada.

Meanwhile on demand side, the oil consumption is slowly (too slow for my taste) diminishes.  Tapping into shale formations made natural gas a cheaper energy alternative.  Furthermore, the idea that switching to renewable energy (solar and wind) may offer a chance of survival seems to take a stronger hold in more reasonable heads worldwide.  Even in our country, in spite of all that protectionist auto lobbying in Washington, vehicular fuel-efficiency finally became a reality.  And those of us who travel to Europe and Japan have seen the itsy-bitsy cars most people had been driving there for the past 25 years. 

More significantly, the economies are weakening all over the globe.  EU is barely holding itself together.  China has finally admitted that the country has "problems,"  which is probably a tight-lipped way of describing a complete disaster.  This means shrinking consumption of everything, but especially of oil and oil-derivative products.   

As I said, it's self-evident.  As far as I was concerned, expecting the downward turn of the oil market was the only sensible conclusion.  But everyone seemed to have gone stupid.  Seriously, what's wrong with people?  You don't need a PhD in Economics to understand this!  What happens when you have a product surplus in the market of diminishing demand? Does the price goes up or down?   

Of course, ever since the oil has become THE most important commodity on the market, it's been associated with that very special cardinal sin – Greed.  (If you search Amazon for books on oil, you will find the word "greed" on at least half of the covers.)  And greed is blinding.  It makes people reckless.  They refuse to consider a possibility that making a profit of $60 per barrel today can turn into a $20 loss tomorrow.

Greed always goes hand in hand with opportunism.  As I said above, higher prices attract more suppliers – it's hard for people to resist the opportunity to make an extra buck, regardless of the consequences.  All considerations of important values, including the planet's survival, are cast away in the pursuit of hot dollars.  They pump more and more.  They create new nightmare technologies like fracking.  They invest billions of dollars into new facilities, raping the Earth and turning household water into flammable liquids.  And then, these blind people have the audacity to look surprised when overproduction manifests itself in rapidly falling prices.

And it's not just oil – prices for every single product on the petrochemical flowchart (kerosene, polypropylene, PVC, polyethylene, etc.) are dictated by the prime material's behavior.  When the prices were high, the greedy piggies cranked up the production capacities of those products as well, with exactly the same result – massive overproduction followed by the drastic price drops.  What was selling at $1500-$1900 per metric ton a year a ago is now sold for $900.  

In theory, the only logical response should be to seize the output.  Yet, it's not easy to hit the breaks.  When in the fourth quarter of 2014 oil prices sharply adjusted from $93 to $45 per barrel, one CEO of a petrochemical trading company asked me, "Why those Russians and OPEC aren't doing anything to stop it?"  And I had to explain to her that for Russians oil is like payroll wages for an ordinary person – they need continuous oil income for sustenance.  They will not stop pumping no matter what.  What else can we possibly expect from a dictatorship where a handful of usurpers hold national property for personal gain?  And OPEC?  The cartel's members refused to cut their oil productions for an opposite reason: They are already so rich, they cannot be hurt by falling prices.  On the other hand, impoverishing the competition will benefit them in the long run.

Here in the States, though, we still have some shreds of the free-market economy left: shrinking markets and overflowing storage capacities inevitably result in industrial contraction.    So far 50% of rigs got decommissioned; research and investments are halted, over 200,000 workers have been laid off.

(Insider tidbit:  The other day, in casual banter over lunch, my commercial insurance broker told me that one of her Chinese clients is currently buying oil rigs and related equipment out of the US bankruptcy courts at about 15 cents on a dollar and shipping it to the homeland for resale.  Way to enrich our foreign creditors, you guys!)   

For the sake of clarity let me fiscally connect the sharp price drops to shutdowns and layoffs.  Let's say your product's market price was $1800 per unit, but it's now $900.  Even if you are a very shrewd business person capable to quickly adjust your costs to the changing market, avoid operating losses, and maintain your healthy 10% gross margin, in absolute dollars you are now making only $90 gross profit per unit instead of $180.  In other words, you have only 50% of cash available to pay salaries, benefits, rents, leases, bank interests, etc. – all those overhead items that have either fixed or increasing values.

And so, the steady stream of insiders' news that comes to me is not surprising at all: Nippon is closing their propylene unit, and Formosa shutting down its Delaware productions, and Exxon is halting their alcohol output, and Sterling Chemicals is running on the negative cash flow, etc., etc.     

Meanwhile, our state economists continue telling us that everything is okay and will be even better.  Well, I'm saying that it's only going to get worse (especially if voters will be fooled by phony, skin-deep feminism or silly, unattainable promises).  And you don't even have to take my "radical" word for it  – listen to you trusted "friends," the Goldman Sachs's analysts.

Why Do I Stay Subscribed to Quora Digest?


Quora LogoThe truth is I have no idea why I receive Quora Digest emails.  I don't recall subscribing to the feed.  Of course, nowadays one can passively "accept" electronic deliveries of bullshit by failing to unclick some hidden option box.  I am certain, however, that  I'm not registered on Quora website.  I wouldn't.   

Quora, as in plural of Quorum – in the same way as Data is plural of Datum. It is basically a blogging hub masked as a Q&A platform: one registered person posts a question and all other registered contributors are invited to answer.  Strictly speaking, this unrestricted invitation to participate clashes with the name, which refers to "select groups."  Maybe the founders confused it with fora (the Latin plural of forum).  I don't know and I don't care: The whole concept reminds me of Coffee Talk with Linda Richman, when Mike Myers would get "all verklempt" and invite us to talk amongst ourselves by providing a discussion topic.        

Moreover, many things about Quora simply creep me out.  For instance, Quora's T&C state that contributors retain the copyright to their content.  Well, it's great that they threw that in, however, the enforcement appears to be highly problematic.  Questions posted to the site are open for editing by everyone.  This includes official editors and all registered users.  Users can also submit unlimited number of suggestions for editing the responses.  Therefore, the possibilities for modifications of the original material are endless.  The apparent absence of a solution for the copyright sharing basically nullifies the notion of IP protection.

It's weird that the site demands its users to register with their real names instead of handles and go through email verification.  It's not that I think people should hide, but they must remember that Quoara automatically releases users' names to the search engines.  We don't know whether the site gets some sort of fees in return, but it wouldn't surprise me if they do.  Just like it wouldn't surprise me if they intend to sell the subscribers' lists to other marketers as well.  But these are just my speculations.  In the absence of a clear mission statement, that's the only thing one can do – guess.  

In reality, the fact that Adam D'Angelo (CEO) doesn't seem to be interested in generating revenues makes me very suspicious of his actual intentions and motivations.  It seems only logical to suggest that they are spying on the contributors, studying their interests, behavioral patterns, and tastes in preparation for eventual commercialization of the site.  Or is it something even more sinister?  How the hell did they get a $900 million third-round valuation?  What sort of potential revenue this number is based on? 

As I said, it's creepy.  I don't even open Quora Digest emails.  But I'm not unsubscribing either – because of the subject line, which always shows the top question of the day.  I don't want to give up the opportunity to glance at it.  Most of the time, what I see reeks of laziness.  I mean, we live in the Internet age – go on Wikipedia or just google this banal crap!  But once in a while some amazing shit pops up. 

The other day I read: "How can you maximize your happiness in life?"  Wow!  Is this person for real?  60,000 antelopes just died in Kazakhstan for unknown reason and half of Europe is covered in water and mud, but this human is not only happy, he wants to bring the bliss to the next level!  Even crazier, he expects to receive constructive instructions from his fellow Quora members?!  Well, good luck with that!

Actually, it's not this kind of oddities that keep me looking.  I am more interested in patterns and trends.  For instance, recently I've noticed an increase in frequency of the questions concerning material self-sufficiency and economic survival.  Well, it's surprising that people on Quora don't talk about their inability to support themselves all the time.  I'm guessing that most of them consider bringing it up under their real names in front of the strangers embarrassing.  Nevertheless, the number of such queries is apparently spiking. 

Below are three questions I found to be most typical; with my brief comments (remember: I'm not subscribed, so I don't know the answers that followed; I can only provide my own):

1.  "What kind of salary guarantees comfortable living in NYC?"  What a terribly formulated question!  It should've come with a separate note explaining what "comfortable" means to the inquirer.  Cause, what's comfortable to a person fresh out of Idaho who has never spent more than $100 on a pair of shoes and considers a $350 Michael Kors bag a chic statement may mean financial misery to someone with a different background. 

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the questioner is single and actually meant comfortable, but not extravagant, i.e. a good one-bedroom apartment in Manhattan with no roommates; year-round pleasant climate control; full range of cable and streaming entertainments; cell and land phones; a car kept in a garage; designer coffee in a favorite shop; going out for drinks at least once a week; eat out twice a week; cooking with high quality ingredients; good cheese, wine, and fruit in the fridge; mid-range ($800-$1500) outfits; 2-3 new pairs of $500 shoes a year; one new $2000-$3000 bag a year, at least one annual vacation; a play and a concert once in a while.  And the answer is – $250K annual salary should do it, assuming the drinking is actually limited to once a week. 

And you thought that those who made $250K a year are rich?!  Not in this town, baby!

2.  "At Facebook and Google, why are many new CS graduates offered 120K+ with a 30-120K signing bonus while those with a few years experience are offered a baseline salary with no bonus?"  Well, the direct answer to this question is simple: Computer Science, in a sense, is like Medicine and Pharmacology – they continuously undergo major changes and developments.  I mean, double-entry bookkeeping was created 600 years ago and it will remain fundamental as long as accounting records will be needed on this planet.  On the other hand, today's standard surgical techniques were experimental only 5 years ago.  It happens even faster in high-tech where innovations occur pretty much on a monthly basis. 

While doctors never stop studying and researching, most (not all) computer engineers and programmers are not as motivated to stay on top of the game.  Those in training are taught the most up-to-date techniques and methods; they are subjected to the most recent trends.  And that's what Facebooks and Googles want – the newest and the freshest; in order to keep ahead of the rat race.  So, it's not about whether you graduated this year or five years ago – it's the set of skills you put on your resume.  Veteran coders who can match the knacks with 22-year-olds can demand pretty much the same level of compensation. 

But what interests me the most in this inquiry is its fiscal aspect.  There is no way the $120K/year new hires of Facebook and Google will be able to enjoy the comforts similar to those listed in point 1.  These companies operate largely in San Francisco Bay area, which, according to my observations of exactly 2 years ago, is even less affordable than NYC.  Of course, high-tech nerds of both sexes go to work in khakis and polo shirts and don't carry Prada bags to the office.  On the other hand, they buy more electronic devices than any other human and their coffee is far more expensive.  So, some corners will need to be cut.  

Obviously their lower-compensated older co-workers have even harder time (hence, the exasperation and the bitterness).  Let's hope that they are smart enough to share expenses with their partners/spouses and don't plan on having any kids.

3.  "I'm unemployed, broke, balding, living with my parents, about to turn 30, friendless, depressed, and miserable.  How can I possibly turn it around?"

Ah, and here we come to the reality of the vast majority.  This boy probably forgot to mention that he has a degree(s) in Liberal Arts and no practical skills.  The horde of young people in similar situations is ever-expanding.  They are so far removed from the idea of "comfortable" living that a $120K salary seems just as fantastic to them as a $3 million book advance or a $20 million per movie compensation package.

They were brought up on the illusion that in this Land of Opportunities they have the freedom of pursuing their interests in humanities and, "as long as they work hard," their "rightful" place in the economic system is guaranteed.  They failed to realize that this clinically dead ideal has been kept on life support by the tuition-hungry education institutions for years.  They probably still don't know that the economic system in question has been deformed and became unrecognizable, just like the sociopolitical structures, environmental conditions, and human relationships.

I can just imagine the answers elicited by this question.  They probably fell into two categories: the ones from the peers ("Dude, you are totally fucked!" or "I hear you, bro!") and the ones from the middle-aged politically correct deniers of reality ("It's okay, things will get better" or "There is nothing wrong with being bold").    

As for me, only a few years ago I would've still tried to be motivational and push my entrepreneurial agenda, urging this person to crystallize his aptitudes into a small business idea and work hard on making it happen for himself.  I used to say that if misplaced children of my peers went into landscaping, housekeeping, and maintenance businesses, it would've solved both the employment and the immigration problems in one sweep.  But now we operate under the most severe government interference in the small-business matters (minimum wages, Obamacare tolls, US Treasury restrictions on borrowing, etc.) and the number of illegal immigrants became unmanageable.  So, giving such an advice would be adding insult to injury.  All I can say is – you are totally fucked, dude!                            

Quote of the Week: No Retirement in Your Future


  George-Burns_article_story_large"Retirement at sixty-five is ridiculous.  When I was sixty-five I still had pimples."

           George Burns

           1896 – 1996

 The Frustrated CFO's CommentAt this point, the best my generation can do is to look for humor in our situation.

The Wealth of the Nation: Observation #3


Rambo BillboardJust like every other New Yorker, I have experienced the rush of LIE's giant billboard ads coming at me on the way out of and into the Midtown Tunnel on numerous occasions.  You cannot really avoid the experience – there are just too many possibilities that can draw you that way: JFK, LaGuardia, US Open at Flushing Meadows, its next-door neighbors the Mets, your relatives in Queens, your suburban friends with their Near Long Island homes, and maybe even rich acquaintances with summer residences in the Hamptons.  Hey, it's possible you just like sitting in traffic for hours.  Whatever is the reason, the majority of people who live in or visit NYC have been exposed to the visual calls of various brands, upcoming movies, TV seasons' premiers, etc. strategically positioned on that particular spot between the boroughs.

Liberal extremists and snooty hipsters unconditionally reject all forms of commercial publicity as the front-end of consumerism (yet, they all support it by the sheer fact of having facebook accounts and iPhones).  But I'm no hypocrite – I don't simplistically dismiss advertising and even consumerism itself as evil.  In full honesty: quality objects are quite necessary in my life for aesthetic, utilitarian, vain, and psycho-therapeutic reasons.  Quality being an operative word, of course.  Unfortunately, the majority of contemporary promotions target general public that cannot afford quality anymore.  And it has been reflected on the ever-changing billboards.

Over the years I've experienced a broad spectrum of reactions to the images coming into my view on LIE.  At worst, they've ranged from "Who the hell is this ad for?  Billionaires?" to "God, that's just cheap and ugly!"  And at best, I have been pleasantly surprised by the resurrection of a high quality classic (Longines); awed by the first digital installation (FreshDirect); excited by the success of a small business (7 for All Mankind – unfortunately, they sold out to a global conglomerate VF within a couple of years); inspired by the social changes we have witnessed (Queer As Folk).    

Sadly, in the last couple of years my reaction range narrowed to one very intense sliver of irritation, but at least the billboards were largely occupied as recently as four months ago.  Imagine my surprise last weekend when I saw that less than 50% of the boards were actually covered by promo bills.  I don't think I've ever seen them like that.              

No, wait!  There was a period back in, I believe, 2012 when a lot of ads had to be taken down and boards dismantled due to the strict enforcement of the billboard laws related to the size and distance requirements.  But it is safe to assume that both the space owners and advertisers overcame the regulation hurdles, since, as I said, I just recently saw practically all billboards occupied.

So, that's not it.  What then?  Two things, really – the national impoverishment and the incurable social-media degeneracy.

You see, the billboards are not cheap.  It's not Super Bowl prices ($4.5 million for a 30-second spot this year), but still – an LIE billboard rents for about $30K per month.  And that's at the time when every single company that targets the consumer market with its goods or services MUST make room in their advertising budgets for GoogleAds (which also owns YouTube), iAds, facebook, Twitter, etc.  

Multiply that consideration by the wavering consumer confidence (I don't care what the "official" numbers are showing) compounded with the dwindling buying power and you come to the point when even the companies selling the highest volumes of consumer goods have to start making tough choices: whether to allocate $300K per year to a physical spot with a maximum of 210,000 possible views a day (LIE's 2014 auto throughput) or to a virtual spot tied to some viral YouTube video that generates 5 million views in 5 days. 

The empty spots along the expressway testify to the choices the companies are making.  It's totally opportunistic, of course.  Moreover, from my POV it's also totally short-sighted – there are so many existing and potential problems with online advertising, I intend to write a separate post on the subject.  It is possible that we are yet to see the times when advertisers will be fighting for the physical publicity spaces.  But for now, more and more billboards along the highways and on the City's buildings will go empty. 

I have a feeling that even the famous and fabulous digital screens at one of the most visited places in the world (50 million visitors a year), Times Square, may end up going dark at some point.  After all, nowadays the tourists and locals alike are mostly looking down at their electronic devices, not up.  So, it would be only fiscally prudent for the consumer-oriented companies to spend $1M-$4M a year (2015 rates) some place else.

And I find it very telling that the most gigantic (the whole block, 77 feet tall by 323 feet long, 20 pixels big) and the most expensive ($2.5 million for EVERY 4 WEEKS) LED advertising screen was taken by the company that makes billions on online advertising – Google.  They can actually afford it easily. 

Of course, the blank billboards are good news for graffiti artists like Rambo – more real estate for them! There is a poetic justice in that: the promotion of consumerism gets replaced by the guerrilla art.  Historically, the explosion of street art always went hand-in-hand with the economic downfalls.  That's why in the past it frequently (and expediently) turned into Prop Art – going from philosophical expressionism straight into political activism.  People should remember that as a valuable lesson in social science. 

In my opinion, it's not accidental that the crumbling of our ecological and socioeconomic environments coincides with the aesthetic degradation we are experiencing right now – when people bow to false idols and nepotistic, masturbatory garbage is passed as the "contemporary art" by the pushers from auction houses and big-name galleries.  I can only hope that real artists will fulfill their soul-changing mission and force people to look away from their little crack-emitting handheld displays and up at something awesome and powerful.