Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jan 2011
Markets performance
Units Jan-2011 Mon to
date Index
Vegetable oils
SBO @ CBOT US c/ lb 57.88 0.24% > Market performance
CPO @ BMD MYR / T 3,809.00 0.55%
RBD Olein, FOB, Mly US$ /T 1,285.00 2.59% > Analysis
SBO, FOB, Arge US$ /T 1,280.00 0.79% • Natural Rubber.
Sunoil, Ex NWE € /T 1,485.00 -0.34% • Vegetable oils.
Rapeoil, FOB, Dutch € /T 1,040.00 -4.59%
CPO, cif, Rotterdam € /T 1,300.00 1.17%
CSBO degummed, Ex NWE € /T 1,010.00 -2.23%
> Market visuals
Softs and Plantations • Commodity fundamentals gauge
Sugar 11 @ ICE 33.97 5.76%
• Price charts - Agriculture
USc /lb
Rubber @ TOCOM JPY /kg 466.00 12.42%
• Price charts - Energy
Cocoa @ ICE US$ /T 3,352.00 10.44%
• Indices
Coffee C @ ICE USc /lb 244.80 1.79% • Currency
Tea, Best BP1, Kenya US$ /kg 3.83 2.41% • Macroeconomic gauge
Energy and Metals • Traders positions vs. price
Crude oil @ NYMEX US$ /barrel 92.19 0.89% • Spreads Corner
Gold spot US$ /troy oz 1,331.81 -6.17%
Silver spot US$ /oz 28.03 -9.17%
Copper @ LME US$ /T 9,745.00 1.51%
Aluminum @ LME US$ /T 2,520.00 2.02%
Zinc @ LME US$ /T 2,427.00 -1.10%
Indices
DJIA 11,891.90 2.72%
FTSE 100 5,862.94 -0.63%
Strait times 3,179.72 -0.32%
S&P GSCI 655.27 3.71%
Currencies
US Dollar Index 77.7350 -1.64%
GBP / USD 1.6014 2.66%
EUR / USD 1.3685 2.30%
USD / JPY 82.0700 1.13%
USD / SGD 1.2790 -0.27%
USD / MYR 3.0600 -0.71%
USD / BRL 1.6670 0.46%
Monthly Commodity Market Roundup – Jan 2011
Analysis
Medium term trends in Natural rubber segment
Global natural rubber production, currently estimated at around 10.01 million tons in the year 2010
has increased at an annual average Global Natural Rubber production and demand trends
rate of 4.9% during the past ten year 12% 11
10%
period. A look at the annual 8%
10
production changes suggests that the 6% 9
annual % chg
qty in MMT
4%
production variability has increased in 2% 8
the past ten year period (2000-2010) 0% 7
-2%
compared to the same in the previous -4% 6
decade. Further, the production -6%
5
-8%
growth was strong in the mid 2000 -10% 4
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
and has slowed down in the recent 3-4
year period compared to the YoY prdtn chg (%), LHS YoY conmtn chg (%), LHS
consumption growth, which has Production, RHS Consumption, RHS
Fig-1
increased at a steady pace throughout Source: IRSG, Pacrim research
the period, ignoring those recession driven pull back.
a) Acreage trend World* natural rubber acreage trend and year on year
Natural rubber area in the major change
producers (whose cumulative 11 5%
production share is more than 95% to 10 4%
3%
area in mln.ha
9
the world total) is estimated at 10.06
YoY % chg
8 2%
million ha, which has increased at an 1%
7
annual average rate of 2.8% during the 0%
6 -1%
last five year period (2005 to 2010). 5 -2%
However the tapped area growth has 4 -3%
lagged behind the total area growth 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
during the period. The tapped area in Total area Tapped area
total area YoY chg (%) tapped area YoY chg (%)
2010 is estimated at 7.016 million ha So urce: A NRP C & P acrim research
(70% of the total area) and has * Wo rld area refers to acreage in major producers who se pro ductio n co ntributio n is
mo re than 95% to to tal. Fig-2
increased at an annual rate of 1.18%
during the same period.
As evident in the Fig-2, the lower World Natural Rubber acreage (total and tapped area)
growth in the tapped area vs. total distribution
area indicates that much of the 4000 20%
CAGR, 2010 to 2005
3500 15%
increase in the recent period is in new 3000
10%
in '000 ha
2500
plantations which shall take time 2000 5%
1500 0%
before they could begin their active 1000
500 -5%
economic production cycle. 0 -10%
Indonesia
Thailand
India
Malaysia
China
Srilanka
Cambodia
Vietnam
Philippines
Indonesia tops the list in both total Source: ANRPC, FAO, Pacrim research Fig-3
and tapped area categories followed by Thailand and Malaysia. The cumulative area in these countries
is estimated at 7.23 million ha, which accounts for 72% of the global area. The cumulative growth from
these countries is estimated at 1.43% and 0.57% in the total and tapped area segments respectively,
and the growth has lagged behind the world averages. Although area in Thailand has witnessed above
world average growth, negative growth in Malaysia and muted growth in Indonesia dragged the
cumulative figures behind the global total.
b) Production distribution
Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia, which cumulatively account for 2/3rd of the global natural rubber
production continued to
NR production share and five year growth across major countries
dominate the production
scenario. However, owing to 35% 20%
Indonesia
India
Malaysia
China
Sri Lanka
Cambodia
Vietnam
Philippines
period (2005 – 2010) has
actually declined at an annual Fig-4
Source: ANRPC, Pacrim research
rate of 3%, while remained
subdued at 0.9% in Thailand. The production in the No: 2 producer, Indonesia has increased at a
decent rate of 4.6% that exceeded the world average growth of 2.49%. Among the other producers,
Vietnam stood out of the crowd. Vietnam production has increased at an annual rate of 9% during the
past five year period reaching 750 thousand tons in year 2010, which augmented its production share
from 5.4% to 7.35% during the period. Sri Lankan production during the same period grew at an annual
rate of 7.31% and achieved 148 thousand tons in the year 2010.
Table-1: Natural rubber production changes in 2010 and forecast for the year 2011, qty in ‘000 tons.
2009 2010 % change Forecast for % change
2011
Estimate Current Dec over 2010 over 2009
in Aug estimate Aug
Further, it would be a while before market could find any increase in supplies owing to production
seasonality. The seasonal production cycle in the major producers suggests that the first 4-5 month
period of the calendar year tend to be lean production months and major increases could only be
observed in the peak production periods. All this suggests that the current scenario of limited supply
availability could continue given the current consumption pace, unless the process of demand
rationing or demand substitution is set in aftermath to the recent sharp run up in the prices levels.
60
to 9.39 million tons on recessionary pull back 0%
55
and slump in global automobile industry. -5% Automobile production (mln units), RHS
50
Natural rubber demand closely tracks the YoY NR conmptn chg (%), LHS
-10%
automobile segment performance (Fig-5), as it YoY % auto chg (%), LHS 45
a) Natural rubber consumption rose in the year 2010 following the uptick in automobile sales
A bunch of economy supportive measures Table-2: Automobile sales in year 2010 vs. year
2009 in major countries. Sales in mln. units.
implemented in the years 2009 and 2010 has helped 2010 2009 %
in boosting up the automobile production and sales in change
US, China and other major countries. China continued China 18.06 13.64 32.4%
its lead as the world largest automobile market with US 11.59 10.43 11.1%
EU-27 13.96 14.59 -4.3%
an estimated sales of over 18.06 million units in the Japan (till
year 2010, up by 32.37% over the previous year. Sales Oct2010) 4.34 3.80 14.3%
Source: JAMA, Reuters, ACEA and Pacrim research
-3- Pacific Rim Plantation Services Pte Ltd
Monthly Commodity Market Roundup – Jan 2011
in US have increased by 11% to 11.58 million units in 2010. But for the disappointing sales in EU zone,
the automobile segment has broadly recovered in CY 2010 from the previous year slump. The changes
in the other major markets are illustrated in the Table-2. Improved auto sales helped the rubber
consumption bounce back in 2010 over 2009 at major nations as illustrated in the Fig-6.
The rubber consumption demand from China, the world’s largest consumer which accounts for around
30% of global natural rubber demand Natural rubber consumptions in major countries
continued to increase at a rapid pace 2008 2009 2010 chg 2010 over '09 chg 2009 over '08
following the booming tire industry at 3500 15%
The consumption in the other major consumers excluding Japan too has increased, at a faster rate in
2010 compared to the previous year growth as illustrated in Fig-6. This has helped the global natural
rubber consumption to bounce back to the pre-recession levels in year 2010, which is currently
estimated at 10.2 million tons.
To Summarize
Steady and robust increase in consumption demand amid the highly varying annual production
volumes resulted in more deficit years (Fig-8)
Global Natural Rubber Surplus / deficit trend
during the period 2000 to 2010 compared to
0.40 11
the previous decade, which has resulted in
surplus / deficit in mln.T
0.20 10
significant stock erosion. 9
qty in MMT
0.00
8
-0.20
7
As illustrated in the Table-3, significant stock -0.40
6
reduction has already taken place, where in the -0.60 5
ending stocks were squeezed to around 1.6 -0.80 4
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
million tons by the year 2009 and would have
further declined to 1.41 million tons by the end Surplus / Deficit Production, RHS Consumption, RHS
Fig-8
of year 2010 on the supply and demand Source: IRSG, Pacrim research
mismatch. In relative terms, the stocks have declined to just 1.6 months of usage in 2010 from 2.1 in
the previous year and around three and half months of usage prevailing in the beginning of the decade.
As illustrated in the table, supplies will have to increase at a much faster rate in the coming period
even to meet a normal growth scenario and avert further stock reduction. We could witness another
year of stock reduction if production increases at the normal rate of 5% and consumption rises at the
previous year rate of 8%. But for the technical pull backs on profit booking liquidation, this is a major
supportive factor for the prices in the medium to long run, and the status quo could continue till the
margin of comfort (stocks) increases considerably.
Soybean oil
One of the strongest La Nina events on record has unfolded in the current year 2010 and severely
impacted the global oilseed production Table:1- Soybean area, yield and production
prospects. The La Nina linked drier weather estimates in major producers
2009/10 2010/11 Chg in
pattern in Brazil and Argentina has %
increased the uncertainty over soybean World Area, mln. ha 102.0 103.1 1.1%
crop size from these major producers. US 30.9 31.0 0.3%
Although production in Brazil has largely Brazil 23.5 24.3 3.2%
stabilized aftermath to initial hiccups, the Argentina 18.6 18.6 0.0%
size of Argentina output is still under dark. total
area
as % to global soybean 72% 72%
The hot and dry climate during the crop 2551 2479
Yield in Kgs/ha -2.8%
growing period has reduced the yield 2958 2922
US -1.2%
expectations, which is currently projected at Brazil 2936 2784 -5.2%
2715 Kgs per ha, down by 7.3% from the Argentina 2930 2715 -7.3%
previous season level. Accordingly, its World production, mln.T 260.1 255.5 -1.8%
soybean production is currently expected at US 91.4 90.6 -0.9%
50.5 million tons, short of 4 million tons Brazil 69.0 67.5 -2.2%
Argentina 54.5 50.5 -7.3%
from the previous season harvest. At the
total as % to global soybean 83% 82%
aggregate level, the world soybean production
production for the year 2010/11 is expected
at 255.5 million tons, down by 1.8% from the previous year level despite an increase in the area by
1.1%. The harvested area, yield and production in the top three producers are summarized in Table-1.
US soybean weekly export shipment trends, in million tons
While the production growth was
muted, soybean demand has remained 45
Projected exp for 2010-11 at 43.27 mt
robust as reflected by the firm export 40
accumulated exp in mt
during the same period in previous year. Total commitments have reached 86.27% of the projected MY
exports (43.27 million tons) compared to the previous year same period level of 84%. China remained
as the top destination whose MY 2010/11 imports are currently projected at 57 million tons, an
increase of almost 6.6 million tons over the previous year level. Factors like burgeoning demand at the
domestic front for protein meals and vegetable oils, improving crush margins and the traders push to
adequately stock the beans following the uncertainty on South American crop size has kept the
Chinese demand on strong note, although the sustenance of the same will be crucial in the coming
period for the prices to maintain the current momentum.
Mean while, the soybean crush demand in US has fallen behind the previous year level after a good
start. The cumulative crush in the
US monthly SBO and SBM stocks historical trend
first four months of the current
marketing year is estimated at
O-02
O-03
O-04
O-05
O-06
O-07
O-08
O-09
O-10
stocks are above the five year
average level for this time of the SBO stocks, bln lbs, LHS Soymeal stocks, '000 short tons, RHS
year. Although the demand for bean Source: US Census and Pacrim research Fig-10
oil is expected to rise in bio fuel
production aftermath to the reinstatement of the US bio-diesel blender’s credit, much would depend
upon the extent of consumption revival.
Following the increase in demand expectations from food and industrial usage segments, the global
soybean oil demand is projected to rise by 9.17% over the year to 41.80 million tons. Higher
consumption growth relative to production growth could drag down the year ending stocks to 2.8
million tons from the previous year level of 3.04 million tons.
Palm oil
World palm oil production for the year 2010/11 (Oct/Sep) is currently forecasted at 47.91 million tons,
up by 3 million tons over the previous year. Majority of the increase is expected to come from the
largest palm oil producer, Indonesia whose output in 2010/11 is forecasted to touch 23 million tons
from 21 million tons observed in the previous year. An expansion in the mature palm oil acreage in
Indonesia by 350 thousand hectares could facilitate the production growth besides improvement in
productivity. The production in the second largest producer, Malaysia is forecast to expand by 837
thousand tons owing to limited increase in plantation area. Cumulatively, the global palm oil
production is projected to increase at an annual rate of 6.91%. On the other hand, the global palm oil
demand is projected to increase at faster pace over the year by 7.73% to 48.15 million tons in 2010/11
following the expected growth in food use and industrial use segments.
Mismatch in the palm oil production and consumption growth is expected to result in stocks decline for
the second consecutive year. World palm oil MY 2010/11 year ending stocks are currently projected at
4.21 million tons, down by over 18% from the previous year stock level of 5.14 million tons. In relative
terms, the stocks to use could fall to 8.7%, the lowest in the past 30 year history.
At aggregate level, the ending stocks of eight major vegetable oils at global front is expected to decline
to 10.22 million tons in the Vegetable oil stocks to use ratio drill down
current MY from the previous 6% 14%
year level of 12.75 million tons.
Other factors
Some of the other fundamental factors that shall drive the vegetable oil prices are - a) Escalating geo-
political tensions in the middle-east region and its probable impact on the agricultural trade, b) Macro
economic developments at the global front, c) The movements in US dollar, which is expected to
strengthen in a flight to safety move. US dollar Index has weakened during the last 2-3 weeks period
after making a failed attempt to take out the 2 month high of 81.40 for the second time., c) Crude oil
whose trading was broadly confined to the price range of US$ 86 per barrel to US$ 93 per barrel in the
past four month period.
Market Visuals
Commodities fundamental gauge
Global Palm oil Stocks to use vs. Price World Soybean oil Stocks to use vs. Price
all veg oil stocks to use Palmoil stocks to use
all veg oil stocks to use Soybn oil stocks to use
25% Annual avg price Price max 5000
18% Annual avg price Price max 80
Price min 4500
16% Price min 70
20% 4000
14%
60
stocks to use (%)
3500
price in USc/lb
15% 3000 50
10%
2500 40
10% 2000 8%
30
1500 6%
5% 1000 20
4%
500 2% 10
0% 0 0% 0
1980/81 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06 10/11
1973/74 80/81 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06 10/11
World Soybean Stocks to use vs. Price World soybean meal stocks to use vs. price
stocks to use ratio Annual avg price
30% Annual avg price Price max Price min 1800 8% Price max Price min 500
1600 450
7%
25% Stocks to use 400
6%
350
20% 1200
5% 300
1000
15% 4% 250
800
3% 200
10% 600
150
2%
400 100
5%
200 1%
50
0% 0 0% 0
1973/74 79/80 84/85 89/90 94/95 99/00 04/05 10/11 1973/74 79/80 84/85 89/90 94/95 99/00 04/05 10/11
World Corn Stocks to use vs. Price World Wheat Stocks to use vs. Price
Stocks to use Annual avg price Stocks to use Annual avg price
50% Price max Price min 800 40% Price max Price min 1400
45% 700 35% 1200
40%
600 30%
35% 1000
stocks to use (%)
stocks to use (%)
World Sugar Stocks to use vs. Price World Cotton Stocks to use vs. Price
Stocks to use Annual avg price Stocks to use Annual avg price
35% Price max Price min 70 70% Price max Price min 180
140
25% 50 50%
stocks to use (%)
price in USc/lb
120
20% 40 40%
100
15% 30 30%
80
10% 20 20%
60
5% 10 10% 40
0% 0 0% 20
1973/74 80/81 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06 10/11 1973/74 80/81 85/86 90/91 95/96 00/01 05/06 10/11
Average, Min and Max prices in yr 2011 are Jan 01, 2011 to till date statistics, Source: USDA and Pacrim research
4000 65
60
3500
55
3000 50
45
2500
40
2000 35
30
1500
25
1000 20
15
40 EMA 200 EMA 500 40 EMA 200 EMA
15 EMA 15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Soybean futures @ CBOT, weekly continuous Sugar No:11 futures at ICE, weekly continuous
SOYBEANS COMPOSITE Continuous (1,395.25, 1,413.50, 1,394.50, 1,413.00, +15.0000) SUGAR 11 ICE Continuous (34.1000, 34.1000, 32.5900, 33.9700, +0.03000)
1700
35
1600
1500 30
1400
1300 25
1200
1100 20
1000
15
900
800
10
700
600 5
500
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Rubber Rss3 futures at TOCOM, weekly continuous Corn futures @ CBOT, weekly continuous
RUBBER CONTI 6 MONTH (470.600, 475.700, 459.400, 467.400, -1.70001) 500 CORN COMPOSITE Continuous (642.250, 659.500, 642.250, 659.500, +15.5000) 800
750
450
700
400 650
600
350
550
300 500
450
250
400
200 350
150 300
250
100
200
40 EMA 200 EMA 50 15 EMA 40 EMA 200 EMA 150
15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Wheat futures @ CBOT, weekly continuous Cotton futures @ ICE, weekly continuous
WHEAT COMPOSITE Continuous (824.000, 847.750, 823.000, 840.750, +15.0000) 1400 COTTON NO 2 ICE Continuous (165.890, 168.750, 165.460, 168.440, +3.69000) 180
1300 170
160
1200
150
1100 140
1000 130
900 120
110
800
100
700 90
600 80
70
500
60
400 50
300 40
30
15 EMA 40 EMA 200 EMA 200 15 EMA
40 EMA 200 EMA 20
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
110 12
100 11
10
90
9
80
8
70
7
60
6
50
5
40 4
30 3
20 2
15 EMA 40 EMA 200 EMA 10 40 EMA 200 EMA 1
15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
400
300 5
40 EMA 200 EMA 200 40 EMA 200 EMA
15 EMA 15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Copper at LME, 3M forward, weekly, US$ /T Zinc at LME, 3M forward, weekly, US$/T
3MT COPPER USD (9,660.00, 9,770.00, 9,655.00, 9,745.00, +215.000) 3MT ZINC DLR (2,348.00, 2,428.00, 2,348.00, 2,427.00, +73.0000)
10000
9500 4500
9000
8500 4000
8000
7500 3500
7000
6500 3000
6000
5500
2500
5000
4500
4000 2000
3500
3000 1500
2500
2000 1000
1500
40 EMA 200 EMA 1000
40 EMA 200 EMA 500
15 EMA 15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Aluminium at LME, 3M forward, weekly, US$ /T Lead at LME, 3M forward, weekly, US$/T
3MT ALUMINIUM $ (2,485.00, 2,521.00, 2,485.00, 2,520.00, +48.0000) 3500 3MT LEAD DLR (2,460.00, 2,510.00, 2,460.00, 2,510.00, +72.5000)
4000
3500
3000
3000
2500 2500
2000
2000
1500
1000
1500
500
40 EMA 200 EMA 40 EMA 200 EMA
15 EMA 15 EMA
Stoc,9 Stoc,9
50 50
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
6500
3500
6000
3000
5500
5000 2500
4500
2000
4000
1500
3500
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Source: Reuters and Pacrim research
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
50 50
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Line, QUS10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 3.4335 Yield Line, QEU10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 3.213 Yield
SMA, QUS10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 2.9898 SMA, QEU10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 2.653
7
4.5
6
4
5
3.5
4
3
3
.1234 2.5
.123
StochS, QUS10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 76.936 Value
StochS, QUS10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 76.019 StochS, QEU10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 92.741 Value
30 StochS, QEU10YT=RR, 06/02/2011, 90.188
.123 .123
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
Macroeconomic gauge
Unemployment rate in US, UK, EURO ZONE, Germany and JPY (%) Industrial production index (manufacturing) in US, GBP and JPY
Germany Value Value
Line, QaUSUNR/A, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 9.4 Line, QaGBMFG/CA, (Base Year=2006)(S1, S2), 30/11/2010, 92.4 JPY
Line, QaJPUNR/A, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 4.9 Line, QaUSMFG/CA, (Base Year=2007)(S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 91.986
Line, QaXZUNR/A, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 10 Line, QaJPIPMAN/A, (Base Year=2005)(S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 94.6
10 GBP
Line, QaGBUEMPYT/A, (S1, S2), 31/10/2010, 7.9 EUR 100
Line, QaDEUNR/A, (S1, S2), 31/01/2011, 7.4
9 95
8
90
USD 7
USA 85
UK JPY
6
80
5
75
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
Automobile sales in US and China US survey indexes, ISM mgf and services, CB consumer confidence
Value Value Value
Line, QaCNDSLSAUT, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 1.667M Line, QaUSNPMI/A, (S1, S2), 31/01/2011, 60.8
Line, QaUSVHLS, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 1.14M Line, QaUSNMFGPMI, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 57.1 ISM manufacturing
1.4M
120 Line, QaUSCONCF/A, (Base Year=1985)(S1, S2), 31/01/2011, 60.6 55
1.2M
100
50
USA 1M
80
800,000 ISM services 45
600,000 60
40
400,000 CB Consumer confidence, LHS
40
China 200,000 35
2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010
1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
Key interest rates, in % Consumer price inflation (YoY), %
Price Value
Line, QJPPRIME=, 28/02/2011, 1.5 PctCng, QaUSCPI/A, (Base Year=1982)(S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 1.394
Line, QGBPRIME=, 28/02/2011, 0.5 INR Line, QaCNCPIYY, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 4.586
Line, QaJPCPINY, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 0 INR
Line, QECBMRO=ECBF, 28/02/2011, 1 15
12 PctCng, QaGBCPI, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 3.73
Line, QUSPRIME=, 28/02/2011, 3.25
Line, QaXZCPIALL, (S1, S2), 31/01/2011, 2.4
Line, QaINPLR, (S1, S2), 31/01/2011, 9 Line, QaINCPINET, (S1, S2), 31/12/2010, 9.701 12
Line, QaCNLENR1Y, (S1, S2), 28/02/2011, 5.81 10
US 9
8
CNY CNY
6
6
UK
GBP EU16 3
4
EUR US
2 0
JPY JPY
.12 .123
1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
1600 100 70
200
'000 lots
'000 lots
0 1000
-50 40
-100 800
-100 30
600
-200
400 -150 20
-300 -200 10
200
-400 0 -250 0
J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D-
06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10
'000 lots
-100 20 0 80
-200
15 60
-300 -100
10 40
-400
-200
5 20
-500
-600 0 -300 0
J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D- M- J- S- D-
06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10 06 06 06 07 07 07 07 08 08 08 08 09 09 09 09 10 10 10 10
40
1100
100 350
20
300
'000 lots
'000 lots
900 0
0 250
-20
200
700 -40
-100
150
-60 100
-200 500
-80 50
Legend
Spreads corner
PME vs. ULSD CPO vs. PFAD
100
.12 .12
Line, QPME-CIFARA, 27/01/2011, 1,278 Price Line, QPALM-MYFOB-P1, 31/01/2011, 1,245.10 Price
Line, QULSD10-C-NWE, 02/02/2011, 878 USD Line, QPFAD-MYFOB-P1, 31/01/2011, 1,030 USD
T
T
800
400 600
.12 400
.12
Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Coconut oil vs Palm kernel oil CPO CIF vs. CPKO CIF
1,000
1,000
500
500
.12
.12
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
1990 2000 2010 1990 2000 2010
Ratio, QSc1, 06/02/2011, 2@1.27 Value Ratio, QWc1, 06/02/2011, 1@2.11 Value
SMA, Ratio(QSc1, QCc1), 06/02/2011, 2@4.24 USc SMA, Ratio(QWc1, QCc1), 06/02/2011, 1@4.21 USc
Bsh Bsh
3 1@7
2@4
1@4
2
1@1
1/8 1/8
900
600
600
400
300
1/8 1/8
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
1990 2000 2010 [Delayed] 1990 2000 2010 [Delayed]
Disclaimer: The research presented in this document is based on the information obtained from sources
we believe to be reliable, but we do not make any representation or warranty nor accept any responsibility
or liability as to its accuracy, completeness or correctness. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as
a recommendation to buy or sell cash commodities, commodity futures or options on futures.