Annonce

Réduire
Aucune annonce.

Oil and Stocks Advance Further

Réduire
X
 
  • Filtre
  • Heure
  • Afficher
Tout nettoyer
nouveaux messages

  • Oil and Stocks Advance Further

    Oil and stocks seem to have bottomed as I suggested last month. Since that March 16th post, stocks are up another 8%, a scorchingly hot run on an annualized basis. Since March 6th the S&P is up over 21%. Meanwhile the price of oil has risen almost 35% since February 18th, not quite two months ago.
    More Gains to Come
    I continue to expect further gains for both stocks and oil - and eventually for natural gas - but each is a different case. I see stock market gains as a bounce back from an oversold condition caused by the great banking collapse and subsequent recession. More stock price recovery will come before the market is fairly priced for a mildly resurgent economy that most economists now predict for 2010. Businesses are writing off 2009, throwing all their problems into this year’s P&L. Earnings will be awful. But that sets up 2010 for pleasant surprises.
    In the short term there may be - should be - almost surely will be - market pullbacks. For that reason I am keeping a substantial amount of powder dry - about 35%. But Thursday’s Wells Fargo earnings announcement was a wake-up call to the market that the banking sector has pulled out of its free fall. Goldman’s coming equity sale and subsequent repayment of their TARP funds should build more optimism for the whole market. So I’d guess any market declines will be limited and not a serious test of the lows of last November.
    Of course we will get more bad economic news. G.M. and Chrysler have to complete their dance of death and banks face huge loan losses going forward, especially in commercial real estate. But it seems increasingly clear that the old rule of thumb, “don’t fight the Fed” is still operational. The fact that credit is currently still very tight is actually a positive because you know that it has to become looser over time. The Fed will win. That will be good for the economy and for stocks. Even the downsizing, de-leveraging, and cost-containment of the U.S. auto industry is a longer-term positive for auto profitability and therefore for the economy.
    The level of GDP that can be achieved in the recovery will not compare with the fluffy economy of 2007-2008 that depended on vast financial engineering and consumers borrowing to spend instead of saving. I doubt that world is coming back. Nonetheless, in two or three years we might see more robust growth. When that happens the velocity of money will start to expand and the Fed will need to stop easing. Interest rates will start rising and at that point stocks could be in for a rough correction or even worse if inflation worries begin to gain traction. Oil prices may also be rising rapidly at that point, as discussed below. None of that would be great for the stock market. So even if we have a fairly benign stock market for the next 12 - 18 months I doubt stocks will travel back to their previously high levels. In fact stock prices may not reach fall-2007 levels for quite a long time, but that is another discussion.
    Right now the economy is a long time away from growing robustly. That scenario seems like a 2011 problem, not one for 2010 - and certainly not a problem in 2009. So on balance there should be more stock market gains I’d guess (and let’s remember all of this is only one man’s best guess) lasting for perhaps as long as the next eighteen months. A rising stock market would also help the economy’s recovery. Eee gads! Not a positive feedback loop!
    Oil and Gas
    In terms of oil, I see a mild near-term price recovery. In fact, in the very near term oil prices could well turn down and even test recent lows because there is still a huge amount of global spare capacity for oil production no matter how much temporary tightening might come to above-ground inventories. But whether or not a serious a re-test of recent low oil prices happens, I’d be surprised if oil is not above $75 in a year as stronger demand and lower non-OPEC supplies work off the current spare capacity glut. I suspect 2010 may well see an “equilibrium” oil price around $70 - $90. In that price range drilling will be profitable again but OECD consumers will not feel they are being raped. In 2011 and beyond, as discussed below, I believe oil prices will continue on to new highs.
    Natural gas is too low at $4 to be sustainable. Inventories are now high and new LNG capacity is threatening to bring in cheap Qatari supplies. But gas wells deplete very rapidly and many drilling rigs have been mothballed until prices are higher. So at some point in the not too distant future I suspect we’ll see the truth of the old trader’s adage, “the cure for low prices is low prices.” In other words, after a long enough period of low natural gas prices supply will diminish enough to bring prices higher. And even demand may respond to low prices to some extent.
    The Car/Oil Cycle
    I’ve long believed that there is an oil-related basis for the global car-sales cycle we are seeing. Of course the obvious reason U.S. car sales are down over 40% from 16 million to 9 million is the recession . But I would argue that car sales began turning down well before the financial crisis hit and that weak car sales has been an important cause of our economic pain - not just a result of it.
    What started the car sales cycle heading down, I believe, was a new and important motivation for people not to buy cars - the fact that car technology is in a significant and rapid transition phase that is related to the growing shortage of oil. Consumers are well aware that a “next generation” car is in the process of coming to market. They’ve known that since oil began selling for over $100 a barrel. They may not have known if the next generation car would be an electric vehicle or a hybrid or a plug-in hybrid. But they damn well knew that in a few years it’s likely that whatever car they buy might now will be fairly obsolete. That knowledge has to be a significant damper to car sales.
    Well, now we can pretty much see how the cycle of new car technology is going to play out. The winning technology will clearly be the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (PHEV). It will probably have some sort of lithium battery although other and newer battery technologies could well become dominant before too long. But consumers are not hung up so much on just what battery will be in the car (though they should care more). Consumers are more focused on the simple fact that the next generation car will be much more dependent on electrons for propulsion and less dependent on oil than any car they can buy today. That is a sea change. As long as they perceive that the “real deal” next generation car is not yet for sale, they will hold off buying cars in great volume.
    The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill

  • #2
    Now it’s becoming clear that a serious number of PHEV’s will make their entry in 2010 - 2011 and that by 2012 there will very likely be a wide enough selection of PHEV’s that consumers can be fairly confident that “the future is now”. Not every car they buy in 2012 will be a PHEV, nor will sufficient PHEV production volume will be available in showrooms in 2012 to satisfy potential consumer demand. In fact, the car industry will have trouble ramping up its PHEV capacity sufficiently to keep up with consumer demand if I’m right about oil prices becoming much higher in 2011. And if oil prices keep rising, as I suspect they will, no matter how hard the industry tries, it will fail to produce enough PHEV’s in 2012 - 2015 to satisfy demand.
    There are several reasons why consumer demand for next-generation PHEV’s will become overwhelming in two to three years. One is that the recession will be over and with economic growth will come a lot of catch-up demand for new cars. Secondly, the technology will be dazzling. It will feature great performance characteristics and mind-blowing gas mileage - in the 100 mpg+ range depending of daily driving distance.
    But the final reason why PHEV demand will explode is that by 2011, oil prices will again be over $100 and heading north. It just so happens that, as I wrote last month, the recent rapid increase in spare oil capacity will have worked itself down to a shortage position by some point in the 2011 - 2013 time frame. (My analysis of the oil supply/demand flows that back up that statement is here.) That time frame coincides exactly with the other two factors that will drive PHEV sales - the economic cycle and the availability of product.
    An *********-Driven Second Recession?
    My recent writings referenced above - last month’s newsletter and my oil spare capacity analysis - included discussions of the possibility that the next oil supply crunch could cause OECD economies in particular to fall back into recession. I won’t repeat the thought process here but I will add two follow-on ideas. First, as mentioned above, the oil price could well stay in some equilibrium price in the range (say, $70 - $90) for some fairly extended period - maybe a year or so. I call it an “equilibrium price” because it would be high enough to motivate new drilling activities and for consumers to buy into the new PHEV technologies but not be so high as to cause OECD economies to be pushed back into recession.
    My second thought on future oil prices stems from my supply/demand analysis referenced above. If extreme supply shortfalls in the period of 2013 - 2016 elevate oil prices there will be substantial efforts by automobile consumers and producers and by government to push next generation high-mpg cars into the fleet. But the number of such cars that could be manufactured for U.S. consumption will be limited due to battery shortages to perhaps 1 - 3 million per year - not enough to make a significant dent in America’s 250-million car fleet. That’s one reason Hirsch’s 2005 analysis forecasted a 20-year time requirement for the world to mitigate peak oil.
    There may also be enlightened efforts to transition some truck fleets to natural gas. But again, it would require well over a decade for natural gas powered trucks to make a major impact on truck fleet fuel economy. No foreseeable natural gas program would have a major impact by 2015.
    So for those reasons I tend to think there could be a great deal of global economic angst generated in a few years by another oil shortage. It will start to be seen in 2011 and will be in full flower by 2013. At the same time, those are the years when the U.S. national debt level could become alarmingly large, perhaps igniting inflationary fears and possibly even a flight away from the dollar. On both of those accounts, it would seem like owning oil - the physical commodity -might be a wise investment choice. (One way is to buy the ETF “USO”.) Whether oil-related equities will fare as well as the commodity is a much harder - probably impossible - question to fathom from this perspective in time.
    Instead of worrying about the 2013 - 2015 outlook for oil stocks, at this point I would simply focus on the more near term “sweet spot” of nascent economic recovery and equilibrium oil pricing in the $70 - $90 range that seems likely through 2010. Those gentle winds should propel both oil and stocks - especially oil stocks - a good deal higher than they are now. Slow and gentle uptrends for oil and other commodities will not be alarming. Let’s hold on to that thought and - if I’m right - enjoy the ride.
    Politics
    Here’s a cartoon from 1933, a wonderful reminder from Barry Ritholtz of how history sometimes does more than rhyme - it actually repeats itself:

    I heard these same fears of a U.S. spending program gone amuck at Passover from a relative who is a big Republican at the national level. He actually repeated the old Republican shibboleth that “only WWII got us out of the depression.” Of course the facts are a bit different. FDR’s spending programs succeeded in reducing unemployment from 25% in 1933 to near single digits in 1937 - that is, until FDR reversed course in 1937, increased taxes and reduced spending to bring down the budget deficit - and the economy turned back down. (For details see Krugman’s The Return of Depression Economics and the Crisis of 2008.) So a Keynsian solution to depression was demonstrated to work - it’s just that FDR pulled out of it too soon.
    It is astounding to me the number of big issues on which Republican philosophy has been dead wrong in recent history: against Keynsian solutions to economic depression (1930’s and repeating the mistake in 2008-9), against Social Security; against Medicare; against the U.S. entering WWII, against the 1960s civil rights protections for African-Americans, against tobacco reform and class-action lawsuits that were the only way to stop big-tobacco from rapidly killing Americans, against equal rights in the workplace for women. And now against reforming our medical care system that has clearly been proven to be inefficient (in terms of life expectancy where the U.S. ranks 32nd in the world) and wildly too expensive.
    What have Republicans been for? Any sort of military spending, invading Iraq, ending the separation of banking from casino-style risk-taking (Glass-Steagal) in 1999 (Phil Gramm’s brainchild) which put us on the road to the current economic shock, letting the SEC go on vacation from 2001 - 2008, government incompetence at nearly all levels under Bush 43, divorcing science from government decision making including taking no action on climate change or oil dependency, making the tax code so unfair that only the wealthy were able to increase their per capita inflation adjusted income during the most recent years of economic expansion, a “war on drugs” that has only made drugs cheaper and more abundant and criminal gangs vastly wealthy, and finally - insuring the freedom of any gun dealer to sell military-quality assault rifles to nearly anyone.
    Not to say that the Dems are always brilliant or right-minded. Plenty of Dems oppose good things for bad reasons, like Harry Reid being against mining reform because the Nevada mining companies own him or Chuck Schumer being against tax reform for LBO firms (they get their incentive comp. taxed at 15% while their secretaries pay 25% on their salaries) because Wall Street owns him. But at least on the really big issues the Dems generally seem to have a sense of fairness and common sense. Frankly, I was not a partisan until recent years, generally voting for the “best woman”. But now? I’ve come to think today’s Republican party is the enemy our country’s best interests. I wish it were not so.
    The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.” Winston Churchill

    Commentaire

    Chargement...
    X