Geopolitics
The yellow vest movement is not a coherent force led by a clear leadership. The demands of the group are many: lower taxes, better services, less of the current reforms (specifically in education), and more of other reforms. Despite this lack of clarity, the…
Highlights Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” over the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. Investors should overweight stocks and spread product while underweighting safe government bonds over a 12-month horizon. The U.S. dollar will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. Stronger global growth and a weaker dollar in the back half of the year will benefit EM assets and European stocks. Feature I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been. — Wayne Gretzky How To Be A Good Macro Strategist To paraphrase Gretzky, a mediocre macro strategist draws conclusions based solely on incoming data. A good macro strategist, in contrast, tries to figure out where the data is heading. How can one predict how the economic data will evolve? Examining forward-looking indicators is helpful, but it is not enough. One also has to understand why the data is evolving the way it is. If one knows this, one can then assess whether the forces either hurting or helping growth will diminish, intensify, or remain the same. What Accounts For the Growth Slowdown? There is little mystery as to why global growth slowed in 2018. Chinese credit growth fell steadily over the course of the year, which generated a negative credit impulse. Unlike in the past, China is now the most important driver of global credit flows (Chart 1). Chart 1Global Credit Flows Are Increasingly Driven By China Meanwhile, the global economy was rocked by rising oil prices. Brent rose from $55/bbl on October 5, 2017 to $85/bbl on October 4, 2018. Government bond yields also increased, with the 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rising from 2.05% on September 7, 2017 to 3.23% on October 5, 2018 (Chart 2). Chart 2Rising Oil Prices And Bond Yields Contributed To Slower Global Growth Last Year A mediocre macro strategist draws conclusions based solely on incoming data. A good macro strategist, in contrast, tries to figure out where the data is heading. In an ironic twist, Jay Powell’s ill-timed comment that rates were “a long way” from neutral marked the peak in bond yields. Unfortunately, the subsequent decline in yields was accompanied by a vicious stock market correction and a widening in credit spreads. This led to an overall tightening in financial conditions, which further hurt growth (Chart 3). Chart 3Financial Conditions Tightened In 2018, Especially After Powell's Hawkish Comments The critical point is that all of these negative forces are behind us: Financial conditions have eased significantly over the past two months; oil prices have rebounded, but are still well below their 2018 highs; and as we explain later on, Chinese growth is likely to bottom by the middle of this year. This means that global growth should start to improve over the coming months. The United States: Better News Ahead The latest U.S. economic data has been weak, with this morning’s disappointing ISM manufacturing print being the latest example. The New York Fed’s GDP Nowcast is pointing to annualized growth of 0.9% in the first quarter. While there is no doubt that underlying growth has decelerated, data distortions have probably also contributed to the perceived slowdown. For instance, the dismal December retail sales report reduced the base for consumer spending going into 2019, thus shaving about 0.4 percentage points off Q1 growth. The drop in real personal consumption expenditures (PCE) cut the New York Fed’s Q1 growth estimate by a further 0.15 percentage points. We suspect that much of the weakness in December retail sales and PCE was linked to the government shutdown. The closure caused some of the surveys used to compile these reports to be postponed until January, which is historically the weakest month for retail sales. The Johnson Redbook Index – which covers 80% of the retail sales surveyed by the Department of Commerce – as well as the sales figures from Amazon and Walmart all point to strong spending during the holiday season (Chart 4). Chart 4The December U.S. Retail Sales Report Was Probably A Fluke Fundamentally, U.S. consumers are in good shape (Chart 5). As a share of disposable income, household debt is over 30 percentage points lower than it was in 2007. The savings rate stands at an elevated level, which gives households the wherewithal to increase spending. Job openings hit another record high, while wage growth continues to trend upwards. Fundamentally, U.S. consumers are in good shape. Chart 5U.S. Consumer Fundamentals Are Solid The housing market should improve. Rising mortgage rates weighed on housing last year. However, rates have been declining for several months now, which augurs well for home sales and construction over the next six months (Chart 6). Chart 6Mortgage Rates Will Not Be A Headwind For U.S. Housing Activity Over The Next 6 Months While capex intention surveys have come off their highs, they still point to reasonably solid expansion plans (Chart 7). Rising labor costs and high levels of capacity utilization will induce firms to invest in more capital equipment, which should support business spending. Chart 7U.S. Capex Plans Have Come Off Their Highs, But Remain Solid Government expenditures should also recover. By most estimates, the shutdown shaved one percentage point from Q1 growth. This is likely to be completely reversed in the second quarter. The End Of The Chinese Deleveraging Campaign? The popular narrative about weaker Chinese growth has focused on the trade war. While trade uncertainty undoubtedly hurt growth last year – and has continued to weigh on growth so far this year – most of the weakness in the Chinese economy can be traced to the deleveraging campaign which started in 2017, long before the surge in trade flow angst. Fixed investment spending in China is generally financed through credit markets. Chart 8 shows that the contribution of investment spending to GDP growth has declined in tandem with decelerating credit growth. Most of the weakness in the Chinese economy can be traced to the deleveraging campaign which started in 2017, long before the surge in trade flow angst. Chart 8China: Deleveraging Means Less Investment-Led Growth Chinese credit growth has typically reaccelerated whenever it has dipped towards trend nominal GDP growth. We may have already reached this point (Chart 9). New credit formation came in well above expectations in January. Given possible distortions caused by the timing of the Chinese lunar new year, investors should wait until the February data is released in mid-March before drawing any firm conclusions. Nevertheless, it is starting to look increasingly likely that credit growth has bottomed. The 6-month credit impulse has already surged (Chart 10). The 12-month impulse should also begin moving up provided that month-over-month credit growth simply maintains its recent trend (Chart 11). Chart 9Historically, China Has Scaled Back On Deleveraging When Credit Growth Has Fallen Close To Nominal GDP Growth Chart 10A Rebound In The Chinese 6-Month Credit Impulse Chart 11The 12-Month Impulse Is Set To Turn Up On the trade front, President Trump’s decision to delay the implementation of tariffs on $200 billion in Chinese imports is a step in the right direction. Nevertheless, gauging whether the trade war will continue to de-escalate is extraordinarily difficult. There is no major constituency within the Republican Party campaigning for protectionism. It ultimately boils down to what one man – Trump – wants. Our best guess is that President Trump will try to score a few political points by “declaring victory” – deservedly or not – in his battle with China in order to pivot to more pressing domestic issues such as immigration. However, there can be no assurance of this, which is why China’s leaders are likely to prioritize growth over deleveraging, at least for the time being. They know full well that the only way they can credibly threaten to walk away from the negotiating table is if their economy is humming along. Europe: From Headwinds To Tailwinds? Slower global growth, higher oil prices, and a spike in Italian bonds yields all contributed to the poor performance of the European economy last year. Economic activity was further hampered by a decline in German automobile production following the introduction of more stringent emission standards. The good news is that these headwinds are set to reverse course. Italian bond yields are well off their highs, as are oil prices (Chart 12). German automobile production is recovering (Chart 13). In addition, the European Commission expects the euro area fiscal thrust to reach 0.40% of GDP this year, up from 0.05% of GDP last year (Chart 14). This should add about half a percentage point to growth. Finally, if our expectation that Chinese growth will bottom out by mid-year proves correct, European exports should benefit. If neither the political establishment nor the general public favor Brexit, it will not happen. Chart 12Headwind No More (I): Italian Bond Yields Chart 13Headwind No More (II): German Auto Sector Chart 14The Euro Area Will Benefit From A Modest Amount Of Fiscal Easing This Year Brexit still remains a risk, but a receding one. We have consistently argued that the political establishment on both sides of the British channel will not accept anything resembling a hard Brexit. As was the case with the EU treaty referendums involving Denmark and Ireland in the 1990s, the European political elites will insist on a “No fair! Let’s play again! Best two-out-of-three?” do-overs until they get the result they want. Theresa May’s efforts to cobble together a parliamentary majority that precludes a hard Brexit, along with the Labor Party’s increasing willingness to pursue a second vote, is consistent with our thesis. Fortunately for the “remain” side, public opinion is shifting in favor of staying in the EU (Chart 15). Focusing on the minutiae of various timetables, rules, and regulations is largely a waste of time. If neither the political establishment nor the general public favor Brexit, it will not happen. We are short EUR/GBP, a trade recommendation that has gained 5.2% since we initiated it. We continue to see upside for the pound. Chart 15The ''Remain'' Side Would Likely Win Another Referendum Investment Conclusions Global growth is still slowing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” for the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. We think they will appear in the second quarter, setting the scene for a reacceleration in global growth in the second half of the year, and an accompanying rally in global risk assets. The dollar is a countercyclical currency, meaning that it moves in the opposite direction of the global business cycle (Chart 16). The greenback will strengthen a bit over the next few months, but should start to weaken in the summer as the global economy catches fire. Chart 16The Dollar Is A Countercyclical Currency We sold our put on the EEM ETF for a gain of 104% on Jan 3rd, and are now outright long EM equities. We do not have a strong view on EM versus DM equities at the moment, but expect to shift EM to overweight once we see more confirmatory evidence that Chinese growth is stabilizing. Having rallied since the start of the year, global stocks will likely enter a “dead zone” for the next six-to-eight weeks as investors nervously await the proverbial green shoots to sprout. In conjunction with our expected upgrade on EM assets, we will move European equities to overweight. Stronger global growth will benefit European multinational exporters, while brisker domestic growth should allow the market to price in a few more ECB rate hikes starting in 2020. The latter will lead to a somewhat steeper yield curve which, along with rising demand for credit, should boost financial sector earnings (Chart 17). This will give European bank stocks a welcome boost. Chart 17Stronger Euro Area Credit Growth Will Boost Bank Earnings Japanese equities will also benefit from faster global growth, but domestic demand will suffer from the government’s ill-advised plan to raise the sales tax in October. As such, we do not anticipate upgrading Japanese stocks. We also expect the yen to come under some pressure as the BoJ is forced to maintain its ultra-accommodative monetary policy stance, while bond yields elsewhere move modestly higher. Peter Berezin Chief Global Investment Strategist peterb@bcaresearch.com Strategy & Market Trends* MacroQuant Model And Current Subjective Scores Tactical Trades Strategic Recommendations Closed Trades
Highlights A no-deal Brexit which did not cause pain pour encourager les autres would be the much graver existential threat for the EU. A U.K. parliamentary vote to extend Article 50 by a few months would not be a game changer in itself, because it just delays the day of judgement. The real denouement will only happen when a workable route to a benign Brexit option commands a majority in the U.K. parliament. This is the point at which U.K. exposed risk-assets would outperform sustainably. Investors should then buy: the pound, the FTSE250, FTSE Small Cap, and U.K. homebuilders. Feature Chart of the WeekU.K. Homebuilders Is The Best Equity Sector To Play Brexit The Article 50 process that governs Brexit is fast approaching its two-year time limit, and the question naturally arises as to what will happen when the clock strikes midnight on March 29.1 To answer this question, it is worth stepping back to ask something even more fundamental: what was the purpose of the two-year time limit in the first place? The EU Must Protect The Integrity Of The Union The two-year time limit in Article 50 was designed to disadvantage the exiting country relative to the EU, and this disadvantage has now become abundantly clear. After the two years have run down, a no-deal or ‘cliff edge’ exit would be bad for the EU27, but it would be far worse for the U.K. This balance of power has put the EU27 very much in the driving seat of the Brexit process, and there is no reason to presume that the EU27 will do anything other than prioritise and protect its own interests. For the EU27, the priority right now is to protect the unity and integrity of the Union in the face of a growing existential threat from populists and nationalists. Unfortunately, much of this has been overlooked in the Brexiteer rhetoric, with arguments like "they need to sell us their BMWs and Prosecco". Clearly, frictionless and barrier-less trade is in the economic interests of both parties, but the economic reality is that less than a tenth of EU27 exports go to the U.K. while something approaching half of U.K. exports go to the EU27 (Chart I-2 and Chart I-3). Chart I-2Less Than A Tenth Of EU27 Exports Go To The U.K. ... Chart I-3...While Almost Half Of U.K. Exports Go To the EU27 Brexit is essentially a huge economic gamble in the name of an overarching political aim to ‘take back control’ (Chart I-4). Remember that the case for Brexit largely hinged on the desire to regain political sovereignty: specifically, controlling migration and ending the supremacy of the European Court of Justice. That’s fine, we have no qualms about that. But if the case for Brexit was largely political, it’s a bit rich to presume that the EU27 will not also prioritise its own overarching political aims – even if these political aims come at the cost of a short-term setback to the European economy. Chart I-4U.K. House Prices Have Stagnated Since The Brexit Negotiations Started Brexit Is The Litmus Test For Optimality Of The EU A catastrophic no-deal Brexit would undoubtedly hurt the EU27, and be particularly painful for the member states most exposed to U.K. trade, notably Ireland and the Netherlands. But here’s the paradox: a no-deal Brexit which did not cause pain pour encourager les autres would be the much graver existential threat for the EU. If membership of the EU and its institutions is supposedly an optimal economic and political structure for European states, then Brexit is the litmus test for the sub-optimality of exiting, and especially the heavy cost of exiting abruptly. If, after the two-year notice of Article 50, the U.K. abruptly left the EU with negligible disruption and then quickly thrived outside the EU, it would galvanize the European nationalists and populists to emulate a newly confident and resurgent U.K.’s quick and painless divorce. As this could be the death knell of the European project, the paradox is highlighted in our mischievous title: why a catastrophic no-deal might be good… for the EU. Brexit can take three ultimate shapes: The U.K. revokes its intention to withdraw the EU and remains a full member of the Union. A long transition to a new and negotiated trading relationship between the U.K. and the EU27. A sharp cliff-edge in which the U.K. abruptly becomes a third country to the EU27. The U.K. population now clearly favours option 1 – remain – over the two alternatives (Chart I-5). Meanwhile, the U.K. parliament has expressed its opposition, albeit not yet legally binding opposition, to option 3 – the no-deal Brexit. As for the EU27, the best outcome is for the U.K. to revoke its intention to withdraw and thrive within the club; the next best outcome is a long transition to Brexit, during which and after which the U.K. economy underperforms its European peers to illustrate the sub-optimality of exiting. But if Brexit is a cliff-edge, it has to be demonstrably painful. Hence, the EU27 will want to put off the day it has to confront this paradox if there is any chance of avoiding it. Article 50 does allow for this delay. The specific wording of paragraph 3 states: The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period. But a close reading suggests that if there is still a real possibility of finalising a withdrawal agreement, or if withdrawal is an outcome that the State no longer desires, then this would not represent ‘failing’. Meaning that the period of negotiation of a withdrawal agreement could be extended beyond March 29, or indeed Article 50 could be entirely revoked. A Short Delay Is Not A Game Changer, But A Second Referendum Would Be Looking at the desired outcomes of the U.K. population, the U.K. parliament, and the EU27, Brexit should rationally end up as benign options 1 or 2. The trouble is that rational outcomes can be thwarted if there is no mechanism to implement them. Although the U.K. parliament has expressed its desire to avoid a no-deal, it has not yet coalesced a majority around how exactly to avoid the cliff-edge outcome. A parliamentary vote to extend Article 50 by a few months would not be a game changer in itself because it just delays the day of judgement, though a longer extension would be more significant. But if the extension facilitated a second referendum or a general election, then that would be a game changer – as there would be the potential for the U.K. population to overturn the decision to leave. It follows that the real denouement will only happen when a workable route to either of the benign Brexit options 1 or 2 above commands a majority in the U.K. parliament. From the perspective of investors, what this way forward turns out to be – permanent customs union, Common Market 2.0, second referendum, or general election – does not really matter. What matters is that a parliamentary majority exists for a positive course of action that eliminates no-deal rather than just delays it. This would be the point at which the BoE is finally liberated from its emergency policy (Chart I-6 and Chart I-7), pushing up U.K. gilt yields relative to other government bond yields (Chart I-8), and allowing a sustained rally in the pound (Chart I-9). Chart I-6Brexit Has Subdued The BoE... Chart I-7...Despite A Tight U.K. Labour Market Chart I-8Were It Not For Brexit, U.K. Interest Rates Would Be 1 Percent Higher... Chart I-9…And The Pound Would Be At $1.50 In this event, U.K. exposed risk-assets would also outperform. Note that the FTSE100 is not one of these investments. Whenever the pound strengthens, the weaker translation of the FTSE100 companies’ dollar-denominated earnings tends to weigh down this large-cap index (Chart I-10). Instead, investors should focus on: the FTSE250 (Chart I-11) and the FTSE Small Cap, but the best play is the U.K. homebuilders (Chart of the Week). Chart I-10When The Pound Rallies, The FTSE100 Underperforms... Chart I-11...So Prefer The FTSE250 Fractal Trading System* We are pleased to report that long Italy’s MIB versus Eurostoxx600 reached the end of its 3-month holding period very comfortably in profit which is now crystallised. This week, we note that the sharp underperformance of aluminium versus tin is at the limit of tight liquidity which has previously signalled a trend-reversal. Hence, the recommended trade is long aluminium versus tin. Set a profit target of 6.5 percent with a symmetrical stop-loss. For any investment, excessive trend following and groupthink can reach a natural point of instability, at which point the established trend is highly likely to break down with or without an external catalyst. An early warning sign is the investment’s fractal dimension approaching its natural lower bound. Encouragingly, this trigger has consistently identified countertrend moves of various magnitudes across all asset classes. Chart I-12 The post-June 9, 2016 fractal trading model rules are: When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. Use the position size multiple to control risk. The position size will be smaller for more risky positions. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com Dhaval Joshi, Senior Vice President Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnote 1 Midnight British Summer Time Fractal Trading System Recommendations Asset Allocation Equity Regional and Country Allocation Equity Sector Allocation Bond and Interest Rate Allocation Currency and Other Allocation Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations
Political economy – i.e., the interplay between critical nation states’ policies and markets – often trumps straightforward supply-demand analysis in oil. This is because policy decisions affect production and consumption, along with global trade. These decisions, in turn, determine constraints states – central and tangential – confront in pursuit of their interests. Presently, U.S. policies toward Venezuela and Iran dominate oil supply considerations, while Sino – U.S. trade tensions and their effect on EM consumption dominate the demand side. In this month’s balances assessment, we revised some of our supply-side assumptions to include the high probability U.S. waivers on Iranian export sanctions will have to be extended until Venezuela stabilizes. OPEC 2.0 appears to be flexible -- positioning for either an extension of waivers, or sanctions. This keeps our baseline oil-supply assumptions fairly steady this year as the coalition adjusts to changes in Venezuela’s output. Adjustments could be volatile, however. On the demand side, we continue to expect growth of 1.49mm b/d this year and 1.57mm b/d in 2020. Steadier production and unchanged demand assumptions lower our price forecasts slightly to $75/bbl and $80/bbl this year and next for Brent, with WTI trading $7.0/bbl and $3.25/bbl below those levels, respectively (Chart of the Week). Chart of the WeekExpect OPEC 2.0 To Smooth Venezuelan Production Losses In 2019 Highlights Energy: Overweight. Nigeria’s elections, scheduled for this past weekend, were unexpectedly postponed until Saturday. Political leaders urged Nigerians to “refrain from civil disorder and remain peaceful, patriotic and united to ensure that no force or conspiracy derail our democratic development.”1 Nigeria produces ~ 1.7mm b/d of oil. Base Metals/Bulks: Neutral. Estimated LMEX, CME, SHFE and bonded Chinese warehouse copper inventories are down 29.8% y/y, which will continue to be supportive of prices. Precious Metals: Neutral. Palladium is trading ~ $111/oz over gold, as concerns over supply deficits persist. The last time this occurred was on November, 2002. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Chinese buyers are believed to have cancelled as much as 1.25mm bushels of soybean purchases last week, according to feedandgrain.com. Feature The analytical framework informing global political economy provides a useful augmentation to our standard supply-demand analysis, particularly now, when U.S. policy continues to play a pivotal role in the evolution of oil fundamentals. In particular, we believe the near-term evolution of oil prices hinges on how events in Venezuela play out, following the imposition of U.S. trade and financial sanctions directed against the state-owned PDVSA oil company and the Maduro regime. The evolution of the U.S.’s PDVSA sanctions will directly determine whether waivers on Iranian export sanctions granted by the Trump administration in November are extended when they expire in May.2 These tightly linked evolutions, in turn, will drive OPEC 2.0 production policy, and whether its production-cutting agreement is extended beyond its June 2019 termination. As we discussed recently, we see OPEC 2.0 building its flexibility to adjust quickly to either an extension of the waivers on Iranian sanctions, or to accommodate the termination of these sanctions at the end of May. Given the state of the market, which we discuss below, we believe waivers on Iranian export sanctions almost surely will be extended when they expire in May. Global Oil Markets Are Tightening Our supply assumptions are driven by our assessment that global spare capacity of just over 2.5mm b/d could accommodate the loss of Venezuelan oil exports with little difficulty (in a matter of months), aside from a further tightening at the margin in the heavy-sour crude oil market (Chart of the Week and Table 1). In fact, the loss of up to 1mm b/d or more of Iranian exports – versus the ~ 800k b/d we now expect if waivers are extended until December – could also be accommodated by OPEC 2.0’s spare capacity, given the rebuilding of this potential output on the back of OPEC production cuts, which have the effect of increasing spare capacity (Chart 2).3 Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply – Demand Balances (MMb/d) (Base Case Balances) However, should this combination of events be realized, an unplanned outage similar to the one that removed ~ 1mm b/d of Canadian production due to wildfires in the summer of 2016, with Venezuela production falling toward 650k b/d and Iranian exports even partially constrained, could move the oil market perilously close to the limits of global spare capacity, which now stands just over 2.5mm b/d, based on the EIA’s reckoning. This would increase the risk of dramatically higher prices, simply because the flex in the system would approach zero. Iranian Waivers Hinge On Venezuela The manner in which U.S. sanctions against PDVSA and the Maduro regime evolve – in particular, whether regime change is affected – will determine whether waivers on the oil-export sanctions the U.S. re-imposed on Iran last November are extended beyond their end-May terminal point. In turn, this will affect OPEC 2.0’s production policies, particularly after its production-cutting agreement expires in June. In our current model of OPEC 2.0 production, we now expect its 2019 production to continue to decline in 1H19, to drain the overhang resulting from the ramp-up member states undertook in preparation for U.S. sanctions against Iran. This policy was substantially reversed with the last-minute granting of waivers to eight importing countries by the Trump administration prior to sanctions kicking in in November. This led to a sharp sell-off in crude oil prices in 4Q18, as market participants re-calibrated the supply side of global balances. In 2H19, our base case assumes OPEC 2.0’s production rises by ~ 900mm b/d (December vs. July 2019 level), to smooth out the loss of Venezuelan output as it falls to 650k b/d by the end of this year from just under 1.1mm b/d now. The goal of this policy is to quickly drain global inventories to levels comfortably below the five-year average (in 1H19), and then to keep Brent prices in the $75/bbl to $80/bbl range over 2H19 – end-2020 (Chart 3). We expect core OPEC 2.0 countries, led by KSA, core GCC states and Russia production to rise by more than 500k b/d in 2H19 (vs. 1H19 levels), to maintain inventories at desired levels and prices in the $75/bbl to $80/bbl range. Chart 3Core OPEC And Non-OPEC Output Will Rise To Offset Venezuelan Losses To this end, we assume core OPEC 2.0’s production rises in 2020 to 33.52mm b/d from 32.98mm b/d in 2019, led by a ~ 200k b/d increase from KSA – which takes its output to ~ 10.4mm b/d from ~ 10.2mm b/d in 2019. We expect Russian production to rise to 11.7mm b/d from ~ 11.5mm b/d in 2019. Additional output hikes come from core OPEC and other non-OPEC producers (Chart 4, Table 1). Chart 4OPEC 2.0's Goal: Quickly Reduce Inventories In 1H19 We do not try to forecast how the sanctions against PDVSA and the Maduro government play out – i.e., whether the incumbent government survives, or whether a peaceful or violent regime change occurs. If Venezuela were to descend into civil war, or were to experience a violent revolution, the outcome would be unpredictable and the rebuilding of that economy – regardless of who emerges to take control of the state – would require years. Likewise, if President Maduro and the military leaders supporting him were to quietly decamp, it still would require years to rebuild that country’s oil industry and economy.4 We view the odds of a confrontation between the U.S. and Venezuela’s benefactors/creditors as extremely low. We believe the U.S. would revive the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, and that Russia and China most likely would concede Venezuela is within the U.S.’s sphere of influence, as neither intend to project the force and maintain the supply lines such a confrontation would require.5 Because the resolution of the political uncertainty in Venezuela is unsure and the outcome unknowable – particularly when unplanned outages represent such a non-trivial risk to global supply at the margin – we strongly believe waivers granted on U.S. sanctions against Iranian oil exports will be extended at least by 90 to 180 days when they expire at the end of May. As we discuss above, global spare capacity is insufficient to cover the loss of Venezuelan and Iranian output, and still have the flexibility required to meet a large unplanned outage over the course of this year or next. For this reason, Iranian sanctions will not be immediately re-imposed following the termination of U.S. waivers on exports from that state; importers most likely will be increasing their liftings of Iranian crude, in line with the extension of the waivers we expect over the course of 2H19 (Chart 5). Oil Demand Continues To Hold Up We continue to expect global oil demand to grow by 1.49mm b/d this year and 1.57mm b/d in 2020, led as always by strong EM demand growth, with China and India at the forefront (Table 1). DM demand growth is expected to slow this year, but put in a respectable performance, as well. EM commodity demand growth generally has been trending down at a slow and constant pace since the beginning of 2018, as we discussed last week when we presented our new Global Industrial Activity (GIA) index. The index indicates demand is not as stellar as it was during the synchronized global upturn of 2017, but that it also is not as bad as sentiment and expectations would indicate.6 Pulling It All Together On balance, we expect the combination of stronger OPEC 2.0 output, plus an 800k b/d increase in U.S. shale-oil production, which lifts total U.S. crude-oil output from 12.42mm b/d to 13.49mm b/d next year, is enough to keep Brent prices close to $80/bbl next year, vs. the $75/bbl we expect this year (Chart 6). We revised our expectation for WTI slightly, and now expect it to trade ~ $7.0/bbl under Brent this year and at a $3.75/bbl discount next year. Chart 6Balanced Oil Market Expected This Year and Next ... The OPEC 2.0 production discipline and lower U.S. shale-oil output, coupled with strong – not stellar – demand growth combine to allow OECD commercial oil inventories (crude and products) to resume drawing and to fall comfortably below OPEC 2.0’s 2010 – 2014 five-year average target (Chart 7). This will be supportive of the Brent backwardation trade we recommended on January 3, 2019 which now is up 265.5%, as of Tuesday’s close. Chart 7... And Oil Inventories Resume Falling Bottom Line: We revised our supply estimates, and now expect OPEC 2.0 to cover lost Venezuelan output arising from the imposition of U.S. sanctions on PDVSA and the continued deterioration of that state’s oil industry. Because global spare capacity cannot handle the loss of Venezuelan and Iranian oil exports at the same time and still cover a large unplanned outage, we expect the waivers on U.S. sanctions of Iranian oil exports to be extended for up to 180 days following their termination at the end of May. We expect Brent crude oil prices to average $75/bbl this year and $80/bbl next year as oil markets balance. We expect WTI to trade ~ $7.0/bbl below Brent this year, and $3.25/bbl under in 2020. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger, Senior Analyst Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see “Nigeria Election 2019: Appeal For Calm After Shock Delay,” published February 16, 2019, by bbc.com. 2 OPEC 2.0 is the name we coined for the producer coalition of OPEC states, led by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), and non-OPEC states led by Russia, which recently agreed to cut production by ~ 1.2mm b/d to drain commercial oil inventories and re-balance markets globally. OPEC 2.0’s market monitoring committee meets in April to assess the production-cutting deal it reached in November, which is set to expire in June. The full coalition meets in May to set policy going forward. This is just ahead of the expiration of U.S. waivers on Iranian oil exports. For a discussion of OPEC 2.0’s production optionality, please see “OPEC Starts Cutting Oil Output; Demand Fears Are Overdone,” published by BCA Research’s Commodity & Energy Strategy January 24, 2019. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 We are watching the evolution of the partial closure of the offshore Safaniya field in KSA about two weeks ago closely. With 1mm b/d capacity, this is the world’s largest offshore producing field; no updates have been provided by KSA this week. 4 Please see “What Next For Venezuela,” by Anne Kreuger published by project-syndicate.org on February 15, 2019 for a discussion. 5 We note here that Gazprombank, the Russian bank, froze PDVSA’s accounts over the weekend to avoid running afoul of U.S. sanctions against the company. Please see “Russia’s Gazprombank decided to freeze PDVSA accounts – source,” published by reuters.com February 17, 2019. See also “What Comes Next For Venezuela’s Oil Industry,” published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies February 12, 2019, which details how U.S. sanctions amount to the equivalent of a full-on embargo by forcing payment for Venezuelan oil to be deposited in accounts that cannot be accessed by the government or PDVSA. 6 We discuss our global demand outlook in last week’s Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, in an article entitled “Oil, Copper Demand Worries Are Overdone.” It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 4Q18 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2019 Summary of Trades Closed in
The latest news flow is mildly positive for the odds of getting a framework deal sometime this year. President Trump visited the Chinese negotiators in Washington, while President Xi reciprocated with the American negotiators in Beijing. Trump has signaled…
The first concern is the unemployment rate. Even the official unemployment rate is rising despite the fast clip of economic growth and the pro-growth reforms. A leaked government statistical report suggests that unemployment has indeed gone up and labor…
The target set for the “Make in India” initiative is unrealistic. In fact, the manufacturing sector’s contribution to GDP has slightly come down in recent years. Economists blame the demonetization drive and the chaotic, complicated and unclear roll out of…