Oil
Executive Summary Euro Natgas Soars; LME Nickel Squeezed Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak's threat to halt shipmentsof natgas on Nord Stream 1 to Europe lifted European gas prices 25% overnight, and will reverberate for years. We make the odds of a cut-off of Russian natgas exports to the EU low but not extremely low. Russia’s war is about the status of Ukraine. Russia needs the EU markets, and the EU needs Russia's gas. However, if Russia follows through on Novak's threat, it would be a major disruption for gas markets in the short term. Over the medium to long term, US shale gas producers, LNG terminal operators and exporters will benefit from new demand. On the import side, China likely benefits most from Russia's need to re-route gas. But this will require substantial infrastructure investment to monetize Russia's gas supplies and as such will take years to realize. Separately, the LME has shut down its nickel markets following an explosive 250% rally over two days that took prices above $100,000/MT. Nickel settled at ~ $80,000/MT before the LME closed the market today for margin calls on shorts squeezed by the surge in prices to make margin calls. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF. We also remain long the XME and PICK ETFs to retain exposure to base metals and bulks.
Executive Summary US Can Do Without Russia's Oil, EU, NATO … Not So Much The US will ban Russian oil imports shortly. This is not as big a deal markets had feared over the weekend, when news of a possible ban of Russian oil and refined products into the US and Europe was telegraphed by US officials, powering prices to $140/bbl.1 The US imported a combined 400k b/d of Russian crude oil and refined products in December 2021, the EIA reports, which accounted for less than 5% of the 8.6mm b/d of imports. Europe is another story. Roughly 60% of Russia's 11.3mm b/d of crude oil and refined-products output goes to OECD Europe, according to the IEA. Russia considers Western sanctions to be on an equal footing with a declaration of war.2 President Putin has threatened a nuclear response if the West interferes with invasion of Ukraine, which could elicit a similar response from the West.3 US shale producers will be highly incentivized to increase output given high prices. Our view continues to include a production increase from core OPEC 2.0 – Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait. We also anticipate a return of 1mm b/d from Iran, following a nuclear deal with the US. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF. Footnotes 1 Please see Crude price jumps on talk of US oil ban as Russia steps up shelling of civilian areas, published by the Financial Times on March 6, 2022. 2 Please see Putin says Western sanctions are akin to declaration of war, published on March 5, 2022. 3 Please see How likely is the use of nuclear weapons by Russia?, published by Chatham House on March 1, 2022. The report notes, " If Russia were to attack Ukraine with nuclear weapons, NATO countries would most likely respond on the grounds that the impact of nuclear weapons crosses borders and affects the countries surrounding Ukraine. NATO could respond either by using conventional forces on Russian strategic assets, or respond in kind using nuclear weapons as it has several options available."
Executive Summary Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage Vladimir Putin has now committed himself to orchestrating a regime change in Kyiv. Anything less would be seen as a defeat for him. Assuming he succeeds, and it is far from obvious that he will, the resulting insurgency will drain Russian resources. Along with continued sanctions, this will lead to a further deterioration in Russian living standards and growing domestic discontent. If Putin concludes that he has no future, the risk is that he will decide that no one else should have a future either. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday Argument. Even if World War III is ultimately averted, markets could experience a freak-out moment over the next few weeks, similar to what happened at the outset of the pandemic. Google searches for nuclear war are already spiking. Despite the risk of nuclear war, it makes sense to stay constructive on stocks over the next 12 months. If an ICBM is heading your way, the size and composition of your portfolio becomes irrelevant. Thus, from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care about it greatly from a personal perspective. Bottom Line: The risk of Armageddon has risen dramatically. Stay bullish on stocks over a 12-month horizon. All In on Sanctions In the criminal justice system, there is a reason why the punishment for armed robbery is lower than for murder. If the punishment were the same, an armed robber would have a perverse incentive to kill his victim in order to better conceal his crime. The same logic applies, or at least used to apply, to geopolitics: You do not impose maximum sanctions from the get-go because that removes your ability to influence your enemy with the threat of further sanctions. Following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the West chose to go all in on sanctions, levying every type imaginable with the exception of those entailing a big cost to the West (such as cutting off Russian energy exports). Most notably, many Russian banks have been blocked from the SWIFT messaging system while the Russian central bank’s foreign exchange reserves have been frozen. Even FIFA has barred Russia from international competition, just weeks before it was set to participate in the qualifying rounds of the 2022 World Cup. At this point, there is not much more that can be done on the sanctions front. This leaves military intervention as the only avenue available to further pressure Russia. A growing chorus of Western pundits, some of whom could not have picked out Ukraine on a map two weeks ago, have begun clamoring for regime change… this time, in Moscow. As one might imagine, this is not something that sits well with Putin. Last week, he declared that “No matter who tries to stand in our way or … create threats for our country and our people, they must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history.” To ensure there was no uncertainty about what he was talking about, he proceeded to place Russia’s nuclear forces on “special regime of combat duty.” Yes, It’s Possible The Putin regime has used nuclear weapons of a sort in the past. The FSB likely orchestrated the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko with polonium-210 in 2006, leaving traces of the radioactive substance scattered in dozens of places across London. As former US presidential advisor and Putin biographer Fiona Hill said in a recent interview with Politico, “Every time you think, “No, he wouldn’t, would he?” Well, yes, he would.” Admittedly, there is a big difference between dropping polonium into a cup of tea at the Millennium hotel in Mayfair and dropping a 10-megaton nuclear bomb on London or any other major Western city. Still, if Putin feels that he has no future, he may try to take everyone down with him. The collapse in the ruble, and what is sure to be a major plunge of living standards across Russia, could foment internal opposition to Putin. A quiet retirement is not an option for him. Based on the latest exchange rates, Russia’s GDP is smaller than Mexico’s and barely higher than that of Illinois (Chart 1). While denying gas to Europe is a very real threat, it has a limited shelf life. Europe will aggressively build out infrastructure to process LNG imports. Chart 1Russia's Economic Power Has Faded In a few years, the one viable weapon that Russia will have at its disposal is its nuclear arsenal. As Dutch historian Jolle Demmers has said, “It is precisely the decline and contraction of Russian power, coupled with the possession of nuclear weapons and a tormented repressive president, that poses great risks.” Some of the world’s most prominent strategic thinkers flagged these risks before the invasion, but with little effect. The Mother of All Risks In simulated war games, it is generally difficult to get participants to cross the nuclear threshold, but once they do, a full-blown nuclear exchange usually ensues.1 The idea of “limited” nuclear war is a mirage. How high are the odds of such a full-blown war? I must confess that my own feelings on the matter are heavily colored by my writings on existential risk. As I argued in Section XII of my special report, “Life, Death, and Finance in the Cosmic Multiverse,” we are probably greatly understating existential risk, especially when we look prospectively into the future. Although there is a huge margin of error around any estimate, subjectively, we would assign an uncomfortably high 10% chance of a civilization-ending global nuclear war over the next 12 months. These odds place some credence on Brandon Carter’s highly controversial Doomsday argument (See Box 1). A Paradox for Investors For investors, existential risk represents a paradoxical concept. If an ICBM is heading your way, the question of whether you are overweight or underweight stocks would be pretty far down on your list of priorities. And even if you were inclined to think about your portfolio, how would you alter it? In a full-blown global nuclear war, most stocks would go to zero while governments would probably be forced to default or inflate away their debt. Gold might retain some value – provided that you kept it in your physical possession – but even then, you would still have trouble exchanging it for anything of value if nothing of value were available to purchase. This means that from a purely financial perspective, you should largely ignore existential risk, even if you do care greatly about it from a personal perspective. What, then, can we say about the current market environment? I touched on many of the key issues in Monday’s Special Alert, in which we tactically downgraded global equities from overweight to neutral. I encourage readers to consult that report for our latest market views. In the remainder of today’s report, allow me to elaborate on a couple of key themes. A Freak-Out Moment Is Coming Chart 2Nuclear Worries Take Center Stage The market today reminds me of early 2020. We wrote a report on February 21 of that year entitled “Markets Too Complacent About The Coronavirus,” in which we noted that a full-blown pandemic “could lead to 20 million deaths worldwide,” and that “This would likely trigger a global downturn as deep as the Great Recession of 2008/09, with the only consolation being that the recovery would be much more rapid than the one following the financial crisis.” Many saw that report as alarmist, just as they saw our subsequent decision to upgrade stocks in March as cavalier. Even if you knew in February 2020 that the S&P 500 would reach an all-time high later that year, you should have still shorted equities aggressively on a tactical basis. I feel the same way about the present. Google searches for nuclear war are spiking (Chart 2). A freak-out moment is coming, which will present a good buying opportunity for investors. Just to be on the safe side, I picked up a couple of bottles of Potassium Iodide earlier this week. When I checked the pharmacy again yesterday, all the bottles were sold out. They are now being hawked on Amazon for ten times the regular price. From Cold War to Hot Economy? The spike in commodity prices – especially energy prices – will have a negative near-term impact on global growth, while also limiting the ability of central banks to slow the pace of planned rate hikes (Chart 3). In general, inflation expectations and oil prices move together (Chart 4). Chart 3Central Banks: Caught Between A Rock And A Hard Place Chart 4Inflation Expectations And Oil Prices Go Hand-In-Hand Assuming the geopolitical situation stabilizes in a few months, oil prices should come down. The forward curve for oil is heavily backwardated now: The spot price for Brent is $111/bbl while the December 2022 price is $93/bbl (Chart 5). BCA’s commodity strategists expect the price of Brent oil to fall to $88/bbl by year-end. The decline in energy prices should provide some relief to global growth and risk assets in the back half of the year, which is one reason we are more constructive on equities over a 12-month horizon than a 3-month horizon. Looking out beyond the next year or two, the new cold war will lead to higher, not lower, interest rates. Increased spending on defense and alternative energy sources will prop up aggregate demand, especially in Europe where the need to diversify away from Russian gas is greatest. As Chart 6 shows, capex in the euro area cratered following the euro debt crisis. Capital spending via the Recovery Fund and other sources will rise significantly over the next few years. Chart 5The Brent Curve Is Heavily Backwardated Chart 6European Capex Is Poised To Increase In addition, the shift to a multipolar world will expedite the retreat from globalization. Rising globalization was an important force restraining inflation – and interest rates – over the past few decades. Lastly, the ever-present danger of war could prompt households to reduce savings. It does not make sense to save for a rainy day if that day never arrives. Lower savings implies a higher equilibrium rate of interest. As we discussed in our recent report entitled “A Two-Stage Fed Tightening Cycle,” after raising rates modesty this year, the Fed will resume hiking rates towards the end of 2023 or in 2024, as it becomes clear that the neutral rate in nominal terms is closer to 3%-to-4% rather than the 2% that the market assumes. The secular bull market in equities will likely end at that point. In summary, equity investors should be somewhat cautious over the next three months, more optimistic over a 12-month horizon, but more cautious again over a longer-term horizon of 2-to-5 years. Box 1The Doomsday Argument In A Nutshell Peter Berezin Chief Global Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 For example, an article from the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation discusses a Reagan administration war game called “Proud Prophet,” an exercise the Americans hatched to test the theory of limited nuclear strikes. The result of this exercise was that the “Soviet Union perceived even a low-yield nuclear strike as an attack, and responded with a massive missile salvo.” Global Investment Strategy View Matrix Special Trade Recommendations Current MacroQuant Model Scores
According to BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy service, global oil markets were tight before the invasion of Ukraine. Now, with the trade-flow shifts that we are already seeing, the team expects inventories will be drawn further to cover…
Executive Summary Wars Don’t Usually Affect Markets For Long We expect the war in Ukraine to stay within its borders, and therefore to have little impact on global growth. Markets will be volatile, but we recommend allocators stay invested – with some moderate hedges in place. The Fed won’t tighten as fast as markets expect, and US long rates will not rise much further this year. So, within fixed-income, we raise government bonds to neutral. Flat rates remove a positive for the Financials equity sector, which we lower to neutral. The oil price will fall back to $85 by the second half, as Saudi and others increase supply. We reduce our recommendation for Canadian equities and the CAD. Recommendation Changes Bottom Line: Stay invested in risk assets, but have some hedges. We shift from Financials to the defensive-growth IT sector, raise our weight in UK equities, and suggest long positions in cash, CHF and JPY. Recommended Allocation The war in Ukraine is likely to have only a limited impact on markets beyond the short term. As disturbing as the human tragedy is, Russia’s aims are limited to regime change in Kyiv. The European Union and US face restraints on how draconian sanctions against Russia can be, balking (so far at least) at blocking imports of Russian energy to the EU, given how much this would hurt the economy. The risk of the conflict spreading beyond Ukraine’s borders is low, limited perhaps to cyberattacks on Western targets. A Russian attack on a NATO member, such as Poland or one of the Baltic states, is extraordinarily unlikely – though Moldova and Georgia (not NATO members) might be more vulnerable at some point in the future. For more detailed analysis, please read the two reports on the Ukraine situation by our Geopolitical Service that we have made available to all BCA Research subscribers.1 Asset allocators need to look at these events dispassionately. Markets are likely to remain volatile over the coming months, as events in Ukraine unfold. But the lesson of most major conflicts is that they typically do not have a long-lasting impact on asset performance (Chart 1). There is little chance that the Ukraine war will significantly dent global growth. The only exception would be if the oil price were to rise much further to, say, $120 a barrel as some are forecasting. Certainly, in the past, a jump in the oil price has often been associated with recessions – even though the causality is unclear (Chart 2). But BCA’s Energy strategists expect to see an increase in oil supply by Saudi Arabia and Gulf states which will bring Brent crude back to $85 by the second half (from $98 now). Chart 1Wars Don't Usually Affect Markets For Long Chart 2But A Jump In Oil Prices Would Meanwhile, global growth remains robust, with all major economies expected to continue to grow well above trend this year, supported by robust consumption and capex (Chart 3). And sentiment towards equities has turned very pessimistic since the start of the year, with indicators such the US Association of Individual Investors’ weekly survey at its most bearish level since 2008 (Chart 4). These sort of sentiment levels have typically pointed to a rebound in risk assets. Chart 4Sentiment Is At Rock-Bottom Chart 3Economic Growth Still Above Trend Our advice now would be to stay invested, but with some moderate safe-haven hedges in place – largely as we have recommended since late last year. We continue to recommend an overweight in cash, but will look to allocate this to risk assets when it becomes clearer how the situation in Ukraine will pan out. The trajectory of markets over the rest of this year still largely comes down to what the Fed and other central banks will do. The hawkish turn by the Fed in December has been the driver of markets in the past two months, with the result that none of the major asset classes have produced positive returns year to-date – only inflation hedges such as commodities and gold (Chart 5). Chart 5Most Asset Classes Are Down Year-To-Date The futures market is pricing the Fed to raise rates seven times over the next 12 months, the fastest rate of predicted tightening since the early 2000s (Chart 6). We think that is a little excessive. Inflation, as we have argued previously, is likely to fade over the coming quarters, as the supply response to strong consumer demand for manufactured goods brings down the price of cars, semiconductors, shipping and other major items. The Fed may well start in March with the intention of raising rates by 25bps every meeting, but the slowing of inflation we expect, and the tightening of financial conditions already under way (Chart 7), make it unlikely that it will continue at that pace. And remember that Fed policy will need to be even more hawkish than the market is currently pricing in for it to have an incrementally negative impact on risk assets. Chart 6Market Believes Fed Will Hike Fast Chart 7Financial Conditions Have Already Tightened There are certainly risks to this scenario. The forward yield curve is pointing to inversion one year ahead, something which normally presages recession over the following 1-3 years (Chart 8). Higher prices are starting to hurt consumer confidence, though there is a big disparity between the two main US indicators (Chart 9). Chart 8Will Yield Curve Invert Within A Year? Chart 9Inflation May Be Hurting Consumer Confidence What all this boils down to is how high a level of interest rates the economy is able to withstand. The futures markets imply that, in most countries, central banks will raise rates aggressively this year, but then be forced to stop or even cut rates after that because their actions cause an economic slowdown (Table 1). Our view is that the terminal rate is much higher than what is priced by markets and projected by central banks: In the US perhaps 3-4% in nominal terms.2 Even with seven Fed hikes over the next year, the policy rate would therefore remain well below neutral – an environment in which historically equities have outperformed bonds (Chart 10). Table 1Central Banks Will Hike Aggressively – But Then Stop Soon Chart 10Even In A Year, Rates Will Be Well Below Neutral One final comment: On long-term returns. As a result of the recent moderate equity correction, strong earnings growth, and higher long-term rates, the outlook is somewhat rosier than when we published our most recent report on Return Assumptions in May 2021 – though admittedly forward long-term returns are still likely to be lower than over the past 20 years (Table 2). This is not, then, a time to turn defensive. Table 2Long-Term Return Outlook No Longer Looks So Gloomy Fixed Income: In the short-term, government bonds look oversold (Chart 11). With inflation set to peak and the Fed likely to be less hawkish than the market has priced in, we do not see the 10-year US Treasury yield rising more than another 25 basis points or so above its current level this year. Accordingly, we are changing our duration call from underweight to neutral, and raise our recommendation for government bonds within the (still underweight) fixed-income bucket to neutral. For more cautious investors, a slight increase in government bond holdings might be warranted. Within credit, investment-grade bonds still offer little pickup, despite the moderate rise in spreads this year (from 92 to 121 in the US, for example), and so we lower this asset class to underweight. We continue to prefer high-yield bonds, which in the US now imply a jump in the default rate from 1.2% over the past 12 months to 4.5% over the coming year (Chart 12). As long as the economy grows in line with our expectations, that is very unlikely. Chart 11Government Bonds Look Oversold Chart 12Will Defaults Really Jump This Much? Equities: With the economy continuing to grow above-trend, global earnings should remain robust. This will not be a classic year for equity returns, but we expect them to do better than bonds. We continue to prefer US over European equities. As was seen in the aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, US stocks are more defensive, and European growth will continue to be under threat from higher energy prices (Chart 13). We also move our recommended portfolio a little in the defensive direction by going overweight UK equities (which have a particularly high weight in defensive growth sectors, such as a 13 point overweight in Consumer Staples); we fund this by lowering Canadian equities to underweight, given their close linkage with oil (Chart 14), and the vulnerability of the Canadian housing market to rising rates. We remain underweight EM, but Chinese stocks (which were very oversold in late 2021) have been a relative safe haven as China started to stimulate, and so we continue with our neutral position for now. Chart 13Higher Energy Prices Threaten Europe Chart 14Canadian Stocks Move With The Oil Price Chart 15Financials Not So Attractive If Rates Don't Rise Our view that long-term rates have limited upside this year makes us more cautious on Financials stocks, which are closely correlated with rates, and so we cut this sector to neutral (Chart 15). A period of slowing growth points towards a preference for defensive growth, and so we raise our recommended weight in the IT sector to overweight from neutral. It is tempting to think of this sector as being composed of ridiculously overvalued speculative internet names, but it is in fact dominated by established hardware and software titans with deep competitive moats (Table 3). While the sector is not exactly cheap, its risk premium over bonds is quite reasonable by historical standards (Chart 16). Table 3Tech Sector Is Not Made Up Of Speculative Stocks Chart 16Tech Is Not Unreasonably Priced Chart 17Relative Rates Suggest Some Upward Pressure On USD Currencies: A neutral position on the US dollar still makes sense. Short-term rates are likely to rise somewhat faster in the US, relative to expectations, than in Europe or Japan (Chart 17). Nevertheless, the USD is expensive, and long-dollar is a consensus trade – reasons why the dollar has risen by less than 1% year-to-date on a trade-weighted basis, despite all the higher rate expectations and geopolitical shocks. Investors looking for hedges against downside risk might look to the Japanese yen, which is particularly cheap, and the Swiss franc. By contrast, the Canadian dollar, like Canadian equities, is closely linked to the oil price and a fallback in the Brent price would be negative; we move underweight. We also raise the CNY to neutral, since it may become a safe haven currency in the current geopolitical situation, though the Chinese authorities won’t let it rise too much since that would slow the economy. Commodities: China’s stimulus remains somewhat halfhearted (Chart 18). Although the credit and fiscal impulse has bottomed, we expect to see it rebound only moderately, with just minor cuts in interest rates and the reserve ratio. This will stabilize Chinese growth, but not cause a boom as in 2020, 2016 or 2013. The rise in industrial commodities prices, therefore, is likely to be limited from here. For oil, as mentioned above, we expect to see Brent crude return to around $85 by the second half, as new supply comes onto the market. Gold has done well, as expected, in the face of a major geopolitical event. But it is expensive by historical standards, vulnerable to a rise in real (as opposed to nominal rates) as inflation eases (Chart 19), and faces cryptocurrencies as a rival. We keep our neutral, as a hedge against the tail-risk of much higher inflation, but would not chase the price at this level. Chart 18China's Stimulus Isn't Enough To Help Metals Prices Chart 19Rising Real Rates Are Negative For Gold Garry Evans, Senior Vice President Global Asset Allocation garry@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Reports, “Russia Takes Ukraine: What Next?” dated February 24, 2022, and "From Nixon-Mao To Putin-Xi," dated February 25, 2022. 2 Please see Global Investment Strategy, “The New Neutral” dated January 14, 2022. Recommended Asset Allocation Model Portfolio (USD Terms)
Executive Summary Risk Premium Abates, But Does Not Disappear The risk premium in crude oil and natural gas prices is abating, and we expect that to continue. In the immediate aftermath of Russia's invasion, Brent crude oil traded close to $105/bbl on Thursday. At the urging of China's Xi Jinping, Russian President Vladimir Putin suggested he is prepared to enter negotiations with Ukraine in Minsk to discuss the latter's neutrality. Whether Ukraine is amenable to negotiations framed in this manner remains to be seen. Nothing has changed in supply-demand balances for oil or natgas. Markets are tight, and more supply is needed. In this highly fluid situation, we project Brent crude oil will average $100.00/bbl in 1Q22; $90.30/bbl in 2Q22; $85.00/bbl in 3Q22; and $85.00/bbl in 4Q22 (see Chart). Our estimate for 2023 Brent averages $85.00/bbl. Upside risk dominates in the near term. We expect the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Kuwait, the only members of OPEC 2.0 with the capacity to increase and sustain higher production, to lift output by 1.75mm b/d. The Iran nuclear deal likely gets a boost from the Russian invasion, which will hasten the return of ~ 1.0mm b/d of production in 2H22, perhaps sooner. We also expect the US, and possibly the OECD, to release strategic petroleum reserves, but, as typically is the case, this will have a fleeting impact on markets and pricing. These supply increases will return prices closer to our base case forecast, which we raise slightly to $85/bbl from 2H22 to end-2023. If we fail to see an increase in core-OPEC production, or the US shales, or if Iranian barrels are not returned to export markets, oil prices have a good chance of moving to $140/bbl, as can be seen in the accompanying Chart. Bottom Line: We remain long commodity-index exposure (S&P GSCI and the COMT ETF), along with equity exposure to oil and gas producers via the XOP ETF.