I would read no announcement as no announcement. I.e. if status quo was pump what you want, that's still the status quo. It says "leaving members to continue". "to continue" means no change.
@000: What is or was "pumped" is not the issue. The so-called "ceiling" is the issue, and the conference failed to resolve an agreed upon ceiling. It is truism that "no decision" is itself "a decision."
@redacted. As to make a change requires a unanimous vote, lack of agreement means no change could be enacted. Only if they all agreed could they make a change. Iran have said always they will pump what they want.... ceiling or no.
@clinton: OK. Answer me this: What's the OPEC production ceiling now?
The question was never about production volumes. The question is about the so-called, now non-existent, ceiling. What once existed, no longer exists. Sounds like a change to me. But w/e, it is done. Next.
@redacted, I'm voting 0% based on the idea that the opposite of "announce any changes" is "not announce any changes". If I'm wrong I'll take a hit on my already poor Brier score. I'm willing to gamble!
@000: I understand. One could hardly expect you to forecast anything other than what you truly believe to be the case. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, you truly believe that OPEC did not announce any change in production quota (ceiling) today. I can only ask you the same question I asked @clinton: If you grant the ceiling was 30 mbpd before, what is it now? To my mind, the relevant "specific configuration" of reality (the ceiling), has changed, Within the context of the environment, the announcement was quite plain: the (symbolic) ceiling no longer exists. But again, one can only forecast what one believes to be the case.
@redacted, I was not thinking you actually wanted me to answer until i saw the follow up on 000. In my opinion, the OPEC quota / ceiling / guidance is stuck at 30mbpd. As we debated before this mtg we see the ceiling differently. I see the ceiling as to effect a price, who is in and what they can actually produce is not what the ceiling is about to me. Simply as we all understand when OPEC decide price needs to go lower they raise the ceiling, when they want the price to come down they lower the price. The ceiling is not a function of the production capability of OPEC. This we have agreed on before. But with market share vs price being the current issue of the day, this was always the dilemma i wrestled with, as we debated: how the majority by production (SA/Iran) who want lower prices for maintaining / gaining market share had different agendas to the majority by member who wanted higher prices for balancing home affairs. In this case I couldnt see how they could agree, and hence I forecast they would not move the ceiling (up or down) to both parties dissatisfaction. The indonesia issue, caused me some concern not because i thought their production mattered, but as we discussed that iran/sa would use it as excse to raise the number for "accounitng purposes". The fact that the ceiling is to guide price in my mind meant this was fuzzy logic..... The next mtg will obviously be a q soon enough and what they will do. That may well be the official announcement of the end of the quota / ceiling system for guidance. Iran once sanctions are lifted are going to go full out. Then whatever number would have been picked would have been immediately irrelevant. The countries who need the price to rise are going to go nuts, and say what the heck is the point of guidance. In this regard I still remain on hold with the WTI price in the timeframe of that q, if they pushed out the timeframe to when Iran open the q, I see it tanking soon after...... so long answer over. Short answer the current ceiling is 30mbpd which is as irrelevant now as it was 2 days ago when they overproduced. However, it is my view it will become much more irrelevant once iran get sanctions lifted. then its a case of what will they say at the next mtg? As ever, right or wrong, that is my judgment.
@clinton: OK, so you truly believe the ceiling remains 30 mbpd? Here we need to look to the underlying mechanism that creates the "specific configuration" of reality (the ceiling). The mechanism is an agreement (or, consensus) of members. The mechanism failed, thus the configuration never obtained. That the mechanism failed is not unprecedented: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/press_room/2092.htm There is no supplemental default or back up mechanism behind this which reverts to the previous number. The mechanism failed, there is no number. (That the "ceiling" is now independent of actual production may make it a little more difficult to see, but perhaps the notion that they will be seeking to establish some number come again next meeting might help to recognize that the number which the mechanism would have generated, had it worked, did not obtain. Or, at the risk of truly adding confusion, perhaps you could think of it as some commentators seek to understand it: it's gone, but we can imagine it in a virtual sense as floating with real production. But in any case, it is gone; not 30, not 31.5, not even zero, just gone.)
@redacted. I know we disagree on this. In the extreme case all members bar one want to stay put at 30, one wants to raise/lower or vice versa. At vote time, do we agree to raise/lower? no say everyone bar one. Do we agree to stay at the same? No says the one. Mtg announcement we cannot agree on what the number should be. That does not mean the existing number of 30 is not the number or that there is no longer a number. It means at this mtg they could not agree that the number should be the same or lower/higher. The delegates who want higher/lower declare such... The mechanism as I understood it, worked exactly as intended, without agreement to either stay or raise or lower, then it is required to be unchanged (to disatisfaction of majority or minority in given scenario). I dont see anyone changing their production up or down after this mtg. This is the problem with the system as iran raised beforehand, given it is not a majority system but a unanimous system. I see potential to move to majority system in OPEC to avoid break up. I am not saying this is satisfactory to anybody, just what it is...... or what I perceive it to be at least for now. As I wrote on your forecast when the raise was initially falsely announced, I was personally stunned that a unanimous decision to raise had been agreed. Short answer: The outcome of not agreeing thereby not be able to change the ceiling as it needs to be unanimous was my understanding of the mechanism. As such, the mechanism worked as I understood it
OPEC fails to agree production ceiling
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-meeting-idUSKBN0TM30B20151204
“We have no ceiling now.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/opec-meeting-ends-with-no-production-cuts-1449248892
"failed to agree on an overall crude output ceiling"
http://www.platts.com/latest-news/oil/vienna/opec-fails-to-agree-crude-output-ceiling-to-meet-21568484
"We cannot put a number now"
http://m.apa.az/en/news/235976
"sheds symbolic output ceiling" ... "abandoning an official output ceiling"
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/12/04/opec-to-keep-pumping-crude/#36898101=0
"Ceilingless" ... "The ceiling of 30 million barrels a day, in place since 2011 and now abandoned"
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-04/opec-unity-shattered-as-saudi-led-policy-leads-to-no-limits-ihs9xu51
I beg to differ with some. If they have eliminated, or failed to agree upon, a so-called ceiling; that would indeed be a change.
Aw shoot. Really regretting jumping in on this question...
I wonder if it's not an official statement from OPEC, will this still count?
EDIT: wrote my comment before you edited and included second link, so my comment only refers to WSJ article.
I would read no announcement as no announcement. I.e. if status quo was pump what you want, that's still the status quo. It says "leaving members to continue". "to continue" means no change.
@000: What is or was "pumped" is not the issue. The so-called "ceiling" is the issue, and the conference failed to resolve an agreed upon ceiling. It is truism that "no decision" is itself "a decision."
@redacted. As to make a change requires a unanimous vote, lack of agreement means no change could be enacted. Only if they all agreed could they make a change. Iran have said always they will pump what they want.... ceiling or no.
@clinton: OK. Answer me this: What's the OPEC production ceiling now?
The question was never about production volumes. The question is about the so-called, now non-existent, ceiling. What once existed, no longer exists. Sounds like a change to me. But w/e, it is done. Next.
@redacted, I'm voting 0% based on the idea that the opposite of "announce any changes" is "not announce any changes". If I'm wrong I'll take a hit on my already poor Brier score. I'm willing to gamble!
@000: I understand. One could hardly expect you to forecast anything other than what you truly believe to be the case. At the risk of putting words in your mouth, you truly believe that OPEC did not announce any change in production quota (ceiling) today. I can only ask you the same question I asked @clinton: If you grant the ceiling was 30 mbpd before, what is it now? To my mind, the relevant "specific configuration" of reality (the ceiling), has changed, Within the context of the environment, the announcement was quite plain: the (symbolic) ceiling no longer exists. But again, one can only forecast what one believes to be the case.
@redacted, I was not thinking you actually wanted me to answer until i saw the follow up on 000. In my opinion, the OPEC quota / ceiling / guidance is stuck at 30mbpd. As we debated before this mtg we see the ceiling differently. I see the ceiling as to effect a price, who is in and what they can actually produce is not what the ceiling is about to me. Simply as we all understand when OPEC decide price needs to go lower they raise the ceiling, when they want the price to come down they lower the price. The ceiling is not a function of the production capability of OPEC. This we have agreed on before. But with market share vs price being the current issue of the day, this was always the dilemma i wrestled with, as we debated: how the majority by production (SA/Iran) who want lower prices for maintaining / gaining market share had different agendas to the majority by member who wanted higher prices for balancing home affairs. In this case I couldnt see how they could agree, and hence I forecast they would not move the ceiling (up or down) to both parties dissatisfaction. The indonesia issue, caused me some concern not because i thought their production mattered, but as we discussed that iran/sa would use it as excse to raise the number for "accounitng purposes". The fact that the ceiling is to guide price in my mind meant this was fuzzy logic..... The next mtg will obviously be a q soon enough and what they will do. That may well be the official announcement of the end of the quota / ceiling system for guidance. Iran once sanctions are lifted are going to go full out. Then whatever number would have been picked would have been immediately irrelevant. The countries who need the price to rise are going to go nuts, and say what the heck is the point of guidance. In this regard I still remain on hold with the WTI price in the timeframe of that q, if they pushed out the timeframe to when Iran open the q, I see it tanking soon after...... so long answer over. Short answer the current ceiling is 30mbpd which is as irrelevant now as it was 2 days ago when they overproduced. However, it is my view it will become much more irrelevant once iran get sanctions lifted. then its a case of what will they say at the next mtg? As ever, right or wrong, that is my judgment.
@clinton: OK, so you truly believe the ceiling remains 30 mbpd? Here we need to look to the underlying mechanism that creates the "specific configuration" of reality (the ceiling). The mechanism is an agreement (or, consensus) of members. The mechanism failed, thus the configuration never obtained. That the mechanism failed is not unprecedented: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/press_room/2092.htm There is no supplemental default or back up mechanism behind this which reverts to the previous number. The mechanism failed, there is no number. (That the "ceiling" is now independent of actual production may make it a little more difficult to see, but perhaps the notion that they will be seeking to establish some number come again next meeting might help to recognize that the number which the mechanism would have generated, had it worked, did not obtain. Or, at the risk of truly adding confusion, perhaps you could think of it as some commentators seek to understand it: it's gone, but we can imagine it in a virtual sense as floating with real production. But in any case, it is gone; not 30, not 31.5, not even zero, just gone.)
@redacted. I know we disagree on this. In the extreme case all members bar one want to stay put at 30, one wants to raise/lower or vice versa. At vote time, do we agree to raise/lower? no say everyone bar one. Do we agree to stay at the same? No says the one. Mtg announcement we cannot agree on what the number should be. That does not mean the existing number of 30 is not the number or that there is no longer a number. It means at this mtg they could not agree that the number should be the same or lower/higher. The delegates who want higher/lower declare such... The mechanism as I understood it, worked exactly as intended, without agreement to either stay or raise or lower, then it is required to be unchanged (to disatisfaction of majority or minority in given scenario). I dont see anyone changing their production up or down after this mtg. This is the problem with the system as iran raised beforehand, given it is not a majority system but a unanimous system. I see potential to move to majority system in OPEC to avoid break up. I am not saying this is satisfactory to anybody, just what it is...... or what I perceive it to be at least for now. As I wrote on your forecast when the raise was initially falsely announced, I was personally stunned that a unanimous decision to raise had been agreed. Short answer: The outcome of not agreeing thereby not be able to change the ceiling as it needs to be unanimous was my understanding of the mechanism. As such, the mechanism worked as I understood it