Read the question itself and the question "More Info". It is the lowest closing any day between 14SEP15 and 30DEC15. The question refers to the value printed in this website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.cfm. Today this website is printing 39.39. So the >$40 bin is closed.
I agree with "000". GJP does not make usually make it that complicated and make us jump through that many hoops. Just looking for the resolution from the objective source they cite.
@5060. Its definitely an error. Its now waiting to be told whether that matters or not. According to the eia that was the close as per their link (the question). The fact is eia were wrong.... they transcribed it wrong from thomson reuters who they report from. Sure well get an announcement soon as anyone being pedantic to the exact wording of the q needs to be advised soon. Equally those not adjusting as in fact it didnt happen (that is wti did not close 39,39) need to be advised if the strict wording is being observed.
I do not know, but I will hazard a guess that there is some difference between "spot" (at Cushing) and "prompt futures" (on NYMEX), both of which settle the day of trade for cash and are deliverable at Cushing. I do not know, but something must explain the discrepancy.
Revising >40 back to 10% following @einsteinjs comments, it looks like CLZ15* closing price is indeed given as 39.39 or 40.39 by different sources, like for example:
http://eoddata.com/stockquote/NYMEX/CLZ15.htm
http://www.barchart.com/chart.php?sym=CLZ15&t=BAR&size=M&v=2&g=1&p=I:5&d=L&qb=1&style=technical&template=
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=CLZ15.NYM
* December contract, basis for spot until 11/20
Read the question itself and the question "More Info". It is the lowest closing any day between 14SEP15 and 30DEC15. The question refers to the value printed in this website: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/prices.cfm. Today this website is printing 39.39. So the >$40 bin is closed.
I agree with "000". GJP does not make usually make it that complicated and make us jump through that many hoops. Just looking for the resolution from the objective source they cite.
I read it as "39.39" making the cut.
Thank you, so once the (possibly wrong) number is published, later corrections will not have any influence?
There's nothing wrong about that spot close, that was the market.
@5060. Its definitely an error. Its now waiting to be told whether that matters or not. According to the eia that was the close as per their link (the question). The fact is eia were wrong.... they transcribed it wrong from thomson reuters who they report from. Sure well get an announcement soon as anyone being pedantic to the exact wording of the q needs to be advised soon. Equally those not adjusting as in fact it didnt happen (that is wti did not close 39,39) need to be advised if the strict wording is being observed.
Please give a URL to a reference showing that this was a bad print. Note this is spot, not futures price.
@GJDrew please speak up here, we have need to hear from da judges.
@000. Valid point. I read reuters report of daily change, but will not pretend i triple checked if it was spot or future. Happy to concede.
I do not know, but I will hazard a guess that there is some difference between "spot" (at Cushing) and "prompt futures" (on NYMEX), both of which settle the day of trade for cash and are deliverable at Cushing. I do not know, but something must explain the discrepancy.