2/10/2014: That Oil Price Shock: Russia

In a recent Russian Economy briefing (http://trueeconomics.blogspot.ie/2014/09/2992014-russian-economy-briefing-for.html) I highlighted the risk of oil price changes on Russian economy. Here is a chart showing dramatic elevation of these risks:

via @MacrobondF

3/2/2012: Big Bad Speculators & Little Red Riding Hoods

That "Gotcha..." moment, you know... speaking last night at a round table discussion on the future of Europe, I was confronted with a question from the audience and a fellow panelist remarks in the same vein that, roughly speaking, attributed the entire current crisis in Europe to the derivatives markets and speculative investment. More than that, the same were blamed for everything from the environmental disasters to increases in commodity prices. Some parts of the Left just love the idea of finding a "capitalist" (even arch-capitalist - aka speculative) root to every problem - the "Gotcha..." thingy of pseudo intellectualist disdain for facts as much as for 'speculators' and 'markets'.

This of course does not mean that financial instrumentation, speculation or other forces of the financial markets did not contribute to the crisis, but it is a distinct claim from the one made by those proposing that they caused the crisis single-handedly.

By sheer accident, looking through some old research papers, I came across this study from the ECB: Lombardi, Marco J. and Van Robays, Ine, Do Financial Investors Destabilize the Oil Price? (May 20, 2011). ECB Working Paper No. 1346. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1847503

The study looks into the large oil price fluctuations that were observed in the recent years. In particular, the study considers the role of financial activities in the determination of oil prices.

Per study (emphasis is mine):

"The oil futures market has indeed become increasingly liquid, and the activity of agents that do not deal with physical oil, the so-called non-commercials, has greatly increased. This led some to hypothesize that inflows of financial investors in the futures market may have pushed oil prices above the level warranted by fundamental forces of supply and demand, whereas others argue that the impact of financial activity on the oil spot market is negligible or non-existent beyond the very short term."

The paper studies "the importance of financial activity in determining the spot price of oil relative to the role of oil market fundamentals", using a sign-restricted structural VAR model. The model allows the study authors to separate financial activities into two types: stabilizing and destabilizing. This is achieved by postulating a model that links "the oil spot market to the futures market through a no-arbitrage condition", so that:

• Destabilizing financial shock is identified as one that creates "a deviation from the no-arbitrage condition, thereby ...driving oil futures prices away from the levels justified by oil market fundamentals. 
• Stabilizing financial activity is defined as "driven by changes in oil supply and demand-side fundamentals". 

In addition, the econometric framework adopted in the study allows to identify four different types of oil shocks:

• an oil supply shock
• an oil demand shock driven by economic activity 
• an oil-specific demand shock which captures changes in oil demand other than those caused by economic activity, and 
• a destabilizing financial shock (such as a spike in speculative activity).

The results suggest that 

• Financial activity in the futures market can significantly affect oil prices in the spot market, although only in the short run. 
• The destabilizing financial shock (speculation) only explains about 10 percent of the total variability in oil prices.
• Shocks to fundamentals "are clearly more important over our sample. Indeed, looking at specific points in time, the gradual run-up in oil prices between 2002 and the summer of 2008 was mainly driven by a series of stronger-than-expected oil demand shocks on the back of booming economic activity, in combination with an increasingly tight oil supply from mid 2004 on. Strong demand-side growth together with stagnating supply were also the main driving factors behind the surge in oil prices in 2007-mid 2008, and the drop in oil prices in the second half of 2008 can be mainly explained by a substantial fallback in economic activity following the financial crisis and the associated decline in global oil demand. Since the beginning of 2009, rising oil demand on the back of a recovering global economy also drove most of the recovery in oil prices."

However, the study did find that financial investors "did cause oil prices to significantly diverge from the level justified by oil supply and demand at specific points in time. In general, inefficient financial activity in the futures market pushed oil prices about 15 percent above the level justified by (current and expected) oil fundamentals over the period 2000-mid 2008, when the volume of crude oil derivatives traded on NYMEX quintupled. Particularly in 2007-2008, destabilizing financial shocks aggravated the volatility present in the oil market and caused oil prices to respectively over- and undershoot their fundamental values by significant amounts, although oil fundamentals clearly remain more important."

So some speculation is harmful to fundamentals-determined pricing, although the study does not consider the potential benefits from speculation-induced greater liquidity in the markets (which was not the core objective of the study to begin with), but largely, 5-fold increase in speculative activity accounts for just 10 percent of prices variability. 

Economics 28/11/2009: What if... Carry Trades bite the dust in Dubai

Carry trades, Dubai and the direction of the dollar:

Dubai's impending collapse shows that the epicenter of 'Development on Drugs' model implosion is now finally shifting from the US into Middle East and is risking new wave of contagion into Europe. Most of Dubai development has been financed by petrodollars (domestic and inter-regional), but also via carry trades from Europe (intraregional) with Euro area banks dominating the entire Emirate's landscape in foreign banking. This is bound to have long-reaching impact, with as far on-shore as Irish Nama potentially being possibly saddled with loans cross-linked to Dubai property. Bank of Ireland took part in a $5.5 billion (€3.7bn) syndicated loan facility to Dubai World in June 2008, according to stockbroker Davy. Per report in Irish Times today: "The firm said its initial participation in the facility was $93 million (€62 million) but it is understood that the bank’s debt currently stands at about €50 million."

Am I the only one who noticed that Irish investors, semi-states - e.g Aer Lingus, corporates - see here, even Enterprise Ireland succumbed to Dubai's lure: here - have financed the peak of this bubble?

Oh, and is Nama going to end up holding any of this (more here)? Nama folks are saying they know nothing about the Bad Bank taking on Dubai-related loans... Sure... they would know! And what about cross-linked loans? Developers with dual exposures?


So what does Dubai debacle mean globally?

Start with oil: the only way the Emirates are going to escape a meltdown (with domino effect spreading from Dubai to Abu and so on) is by turning on oil taps. An added incentive here is that while autocratic rulers of the Emirates would not blink twice before saddling Western investors with all debts, the structure of Islamic finance used in Dubai developments implies that although junior debt holders have no explicit guarantees on their debt, Emirates simply will not be able to stomach defaulting on Islamic loans. Oil prices will be under pressure for a long period of time before Dubai's debt mountain is cut to size and this will give support to the weakened dollar on asset demand side of the dollarised carry trades involving commodities.

Bigger question is whether Dubai events might trigger the unwinding of the carry trades. This, of course, depends on the value of UAE currency and the main currency pairs used in the region. In my view, devaluation of massive proportions will be required in the short run, putting pressure on the Euro and, again, aiding the dollar.

Another force acting here will be investor confidence. If Dubai served as an island for divestment out of dollar assets in the region, this island is now fully submerged under financial tsunami. Treasuries are to firm up and dollar alongside these. Ditto for gold.

On a separate note, another net positive (longer term) for the dollar is China. President Obama's visit played out as a play of avoiding the issues of yuan, and yielded absolutely no commitment to revalue Chinese currency. This, strangely enough, implies that once revaluation does take place, it will be much more pronounced and abrupt than if the Chinese authorities were to offer President Obama some concessions this month. Here is why. Absent Chinese commitment to play cooperative game with the US on currency front, Obama Administration will let Europeans put pressure on China through bilateral channels and G20. Europe cannot afford to hold the bag in the global devaluation game as it is exports oriented economy. Developing and emerging economies will fight by imposing capital controls, but EU will have to bring this battle to Chinese shores. Thus, in the long run, the stage is now set for overshooting revaluation of the yuan well above its long-term target and firming up of the dollar.

In the medium term, all this uncertainty about the ultimate rebalancing of the FX markets will be pushing on gold. This is likely to coincide with the emerging markets shocker from Dubai and capital controls impositions, further enhancing demand for the store of value assets such as precious metals. Not to be sensationalist, but if we are at the starting point of Wave II of the crisis (even if it is only a smaller aftermath to the 2008 one), is gold at $1,500-$1,700 oz a possibility?

Just asking...

Economics 24/08/2009: Oil and Gold – an imperfect hedging tango

In the last bout (right before the collapse of the financial markets in Autumn 2008) much of the inflation was driven by the rapidly rising commodities prices. These prices were in turn linked to the price of oil. Thus, one can naturally think of oil as an inflation hedge. In contrast, the traditional inflation risk management instrument – gold – has hardly kept up with oil prices in the short run back in 2008. So there is a natural question that arises in this context – which is a better inflation hedge? Well, for each month in 2008, in year on year (yoy) changes, oil actually beat gold as a counter-inflationary asset. Only this year have gold and crude exchanged places. But this is optics.

First, both gold and oil prices show some serious medium range inter-annual volatility. This volatility is driven by speculative motives, but also by real demand for oil as a storable commodity that is an input into physical economy. So to abstract away from seasonality and active speculative trading, consider both commodities prices in terms of annual averages. Setting 1968 price index for gold and oil to be equal 100, and adjusting for inflation, chart below shows that both commodities are way off their historic highs and that even in 2008 the two commodities were nowhere near their long term maxima when it comes to a cumulative appreciation since 1968.

Pre 1970, average price of gold ranges around $38-39. It peaked in 1980 at $615 and then got stuck in the flat until 2007 when it breached the 1980s high in nominal terms. The average price of gold was $872 in 2008. Similarly, crude peaked at an average price of $91 a barrel last year. But despite nominal appreciation, oil is still way below its inflation-adjusted highs. Ditto for gold. To do this, gold needs to be at nearly $1,610 and oil at $98-100 per barrel. These are steep, but just how steep? Well, for oil this means roughly an 8% appreciation on 2008 annual average. But for gold this implies a whooping 84% appreciation on same benchmark.

Now, in annual terms, average annual inflation since 1968 was 3.6%. Median annual return to gold exceeded CPI by 1%, while oil did the same by 1.7%. So cumulative gain for oil in real terms since 1968 has been around 96.3%, and for gold it was almost a half of that, or 48.9%. Given that oil took a nose dive in 2009 while gold held its ground, long term comparisons suggest that

• Either oil is oversold today and thus has a mean-reverting potential of ca 45% on current prices to ca $105-110 barrel range (chart below shows WTI, $pb)

• Or gold had been under-bought in the historic past and thus has an oil-inflation trend-reverting potential of ca 50-75% on 2008 average annual price (chart below shows gold price in $ per oz, daily close)

I happen to think that both are likely, though in much more moderate terms, with oil heading for $85pb in 2010 and to $95pb over medium term (5 years), while gold heading for $1,050-1,100 range in 2010 and to $1,300 over the medium term. That would imply annualized gains in oil price of roughly 4.8% and in gold price of ca 6.5% before inflation. Thus, assuming a reasonably well-underpinned by the current money creation worldwide inflation averaging ca 3% pa, this would result in oil beating CPI by 1.8% annually, and gold doing the same by ca 3.5% pa. Why?

For two reasons:

1. Oil demand is going to be imperfectly matched to inflation hedging and short term volatility due to supply/demand for physical commodity will be weighing in oil as a hedge instrument in the current environment where investors are relatively jittery about the markets;
2. Gold simply has to catch up with oil over medium term.

One potential downside to this is continued orderly, but nonetheless pronounced disposal of gold holdings by the Central Banks of the more fiscally strained countries and the IMF. Although China and possibly India are likely to start picking up some of the rising supply through ‘private’ or invisible sales from one CB to another, this unwinding of gold reserves will weigh on the markets.

Per short term oil price volatility a recent example is in order. About two weeks ago, the US crude reserves have been reported to have fallen some 8.4mln barrels, prompting a serious spike in oil to $72.5pb. At the same time, gasoline supplies fell by 2.1 million barrels, distillate stocks declined by 700,000 barrels and refinery utilization reached 84% above analysts’ expectations of ca 83% - in a sign of tighter supply.

In medium term (3-5 years horizon) – watch US Oil Fund (USO) for oil.

On gold side, watch the correlation in gold and stocks, with gold tending to max just ahead of stocks lows (note July/August 2008, October 2008, March 2009 and so on in chart above). In my view, we are set for another local maxima to be tested by gold in months before the end of October 2009.

Economics 16/06/2009: Oil & Gas and NTMA's auction

For a longer post with my thoughts on oil and gas prices, scroll down.


NTMA's gamble... per NTMA release today:

On Tuesday 16 June, NTMA offered two bonds in the auction,

• the 3.9% Treasury Bond 2012 and
  
• the 4.6% Treasury Bond 2016.

Actual results are below:
"Total bids were received for €2.397 billion and it was decided to issue a total of €1 billion [as planned]. An amount of €500 million of the 4.6% Treasury Bond 2016 was issued where the total bids received were 2.5 times the amount allocated, while €500 million of the 3.9% Treasury Bond 2012 was also issued where the total bids received were 2.2 times the amount allocated. The 2016 bond was sold at an average yield of 4.755% while the 2012 bond was sold at an average yield of 3.056%."

If you look at the table above, NTMA always preferred issuing €300mln in shorter maturity bonds and €700mln in longer maturity bonds - a 30:70 split. This time around, it appears it had to borrow heavier in shorter maturity range, hence 50:50 split. And this is for 2016 bond as opposed to 2019 bond earlier. Ouch...

Price spreads min-max were also relatively heavy on shorter maturity. Compare the following two screen shots:
June 16th auction: spreads of 19bps on 2016 bond (2.375 pa ) and 16bps on 2012 bond (5.33 pa)
May 119th auction: spreads of 37bps on 2019 bond (3.7 pa) and 5bps on 2014 bond (1 pa).

Again, NTMA are doing excellent work here, but it is a tough job...



Natural Gas - upward?

Natural-gas prices have been lagging oil prices over the recent months despite the fact that gas drilling and production are on decline worldwide. This has been noted by some Irish analysts, most notably – Davy, whose June 15 quick daily note must be credited for spotting the trend first in the Irish market.

Per Davy note (Caren Crowley): “The ratio of the US oil price to gas price is reaching record highs. A reversion to more normal levels requires the oil price to pull back or the gas price to rally. With the oil price looking unstoppable, it is all up to the gas price, but it is an uphill battle.” There is not much of a real in-depth analysis in the Davy note, so here are some of my thoughts on the issue.

First some short-term facts:

US gas prices have fallen 34% in 6 months to June 2009 and 72% off 2008 peak. In part, this is driven by demand declines. But, as Davy note states, supply capacity has been catching up on downward trajectory: “the number of rigs exploring for, and producing, gas has fallen 56% since September 2008 when it peaked at 1,606, and is at its lowest level since 2002.” This is yet to translate into actual supply cuts as “US gas inventories are abnormally high and are 22% above their five-year average.”

In early April, US natural gas inventories stood at 1,650bn cubic feet in the week ended and steady, equivalent to 300 bn cf above 5 year average and 400bn above year before. Chart 1 below (courtesy of Energy Information Administration) shows that this abnormal situation has gone worse since then with gas inventories breaching the 5-year min-max range for the first time since May 2007.
Now, 25%-30% of US gas production comes from relatively young wells (drilled in the last 12 months). A significant cull of drilling rigs operating today will, therefore, translate into higher demand for imports in winter 2009-2010. The number of running (producing) rigs was down to 1,039 in the week of April 1, 2009, according to Baker Hughes (BHI) - down 49% from the 2,031 level seen in mid-September 2008 -- the highest since 1980.

Chart 2 shows the same over the longer period, with clear signs of seasonality and a rising trend in inventories over time.
One noticeable feature here is that volatility below the trend has been declining throughout the April 2003-April 2006. Afterward, the maximal depletions of gas reserves have steadily increased through April 2008, before once again starting to decline in late 2008 through April 2009. The rate of the later decline has been so far consistent with the rate of decline in 2003-2006 period. This is exactly identical to the 4 years falling, 3 years rising and 1 year falling cycle in 1996-2002.

Another feature is the lack of similar cyclicality at the maximum surplus inventories level, in other words – in peaks above the trend (dashed line). In fact, the trend here is identical (in slope) to the average trend line. Furthermore, when it comes to surplus inventories deviations, current historically high levels (for November 2008) are actually below the maximal inventories trend.

The two facts together suggest that high inventories are not being driven by excessively high supply of gas (which would be consistent with abnormally low minimal inventories in around April trough and abnormally high maximal inventories in and around late Autumn).

Yet another interesting feature of the data is captured in Chart 3, which clearly shows that in recent months, weekly growth rate in inventories has not fallen substantially for positive growth rates, while the rate of natural gas inventories depletion (the negative range) has declined.


Given that this already accounts for seasonality and the weather effects have not been dramatically out of line, what’s going on? The answer is: twin effects of demand changes and equity markets trends are driving prices of oil, while only demand changes have been instrumental in determining the price of natural gas to date. And this is about to change...

On the demand side, power gen accounts for 58% of all US gas demand and this has been falling – 6-8% down so far in 2009. It is also important to note that gas-based electricity generation in the US is concentrated in the Western Pacific states and Northern Atlantic Board states – all of which have seen serious economic pressures on demand side.

But these fundamentals do not really explain the historic trend in gas prices. Futures prices for natural gas have now hit their lowest levels since 2002. Recent pricing below $4 per million British-thermal-unit on the NYMEX, down from $9 mbtu in Q1 2008.

Again, supply-demand analysis does not explain this. Fundamentals analysis focuses on abnormally cold weather in early 2008, which pushed spot prices up and resulted in higher levels of exploration activity. Production capacity increased, but demand collapsed. Fine theory, except, recall prices are down more than 50%, although US Energy Department expects natural-gas consumption to decline by only 1.3% in 2009.

And US gas prices are linked to global gas prices – which are facing significant pressure on the Russian supply side. How? In two ways:

Short-term pressure is rising due to delays in pumping annual storage reserves in Ukraine – a technical issue that can derail gas supplies to Europe. Basically, the principle here is a simple one. To run gas pipe between Russia and Western Europe (the pipe transiting Ukraine), Soviets built a pressure maintenance system that requires intermediate storage facilities (positioned on Ukraine’s territory out of the Soviets’ consideration for ‘balanced regional development’ and owned by Ukraine) to be filled to capacity. This ensures that if Ukraine’s own gas purchases start depleting the pipe flow, the flow can be topped up with reserves of gas. Ukraine is broke and has no cash to pay for this gas – which it will own once it is pumped into storage. Russians are telling Ukrainians that they can’t give them a $2bn loan for gas and are offering to split the loan between Russia and the EU. EU is refusing. So we have stalemate. Now things are getting even more complicated because Ukraine also owes Russians further $3bn worth of cash for gas supplied to the Ukrainian consumers. In short – if gas is not pumped into storage tanks within the next 2 months, there will be serious risk of disruption of gas supplies to Europe in fall/winter 2009-2010. This in turn will lead to price increases for gas globally.

Long-term pressure is also rising due to Russian gas production now shifting to the Eastern Siberian plains. Completion of the new pipeline to service China and Japan is a sign of this. The problem here is that unlike Western Siberian plains, Eastern Siberian plains have smaller gas fields, fewer developed fields and geology that is much more challenging (shale, smaller reservoirs, more complex folds and more broken folds) that the near-perfect sands of Western Siberia. Again, this signals an upside to gas prices in the longer term (I will write about this in few days in more details).

So in the nutshell, future supply constraints are daunting. And these should be working in both short term and long term in the future... Again, supply is not the main driver for the abnormal situation of falling gas prices and rising inventories.


So what is? One word answer is ‘oil and gas price correlations with equity markets’. In my view, it is a speculative buying of oil as a hedge against inflation and the ‘blue chip’ low risk commodity that is driving a wedge between oil prices and gas prices and simultaneously driving closer oil prices and equity prices.

A series of charts below illustrate this point.



Chart above shows relatively coincident long-run trends in DJIA and Oil prices that are not replicated in gas prices. This is confirmed in the scatter plot below. Here, strong correlations in oil and gas prices against DJIA occur over significantly different slope relations. If 100 points increase in DJIA index leads to a $1.4 increase in the price of oil, the same change in DJIA index is associated with a $0.16 rise in the price of gas. While at parity this appears to be a movement in favour of oil, given current conditions in the market (the extremely high negative correlation between price of oil and price of gas and extremely low price of natural gas) any changes in the stock markets valuations should, based on fundamentals, drive prices of gas closer to the price of oil. Expressed in current price percentage terms, table 1 below the chart shows these historically-justified price responses.

Chart below illustrates what I mean by extreme correlations
Notice that current correlation is:
(a) within the range of -0.75-1;
(b) the change in correlation between peak of June 2008 (+99.3) to today (-88.1) is the highest on record for downward adjustment.
Chart above shows the replay of the oil and gas prices correlation in line with the broad equity markets. Here, while correlation between DJIA and oil prices stands at +0.78 and remains in the positive territory since September 2008, the correlation between DJIA and gas prices is at -0.57 and has moved into negative territory in May 2009.

This is interesting, because the structure of gas prices to date contrasts the findings of the recent research on links between oil and gas prices. Jose A. Villar (Energy Information Administration) and Frederick L. Joutz (Department of Economics, The George Washington University) paper The Relationship Between Crude Oil and Natural Gas Prices, prepared for Energy Information Administration, Office of Oil and Gas in October 2006, shows that there exist “a cointegrating relationship relating [natural gas] prices [and] the WTI and trend capturing the relative demand and supply effects over the 1989-through-2005 period. The dynamics of the relationship suggest a 1-month temporary shock to the WTI of 20 percent has a 5-percent contemporaneous impact on natural gas prices, but is dissipated to 2 percent in 2 months. A permanent shock of 20 percent in the WTI leads to a 16 percent increase in the [gas] price 1 year out all else equal.”

So the lags structure implies that a temporary shock to oil price should be followed by a delayed shock to gas prices 12 months after and that the magnitude of changes in gas prices is roughly 80% of the magnitude of shock to oil price.

Clearly, as table above and charts illustrate, this relationship is currently being reversed, suggesting two emerging short- and medium-term trends:

1. fundamentals (firming demand/falling supply) trends indicating significant room for gas prices increases in the range closely linked, but shallower (at 70-80%) than those in oil prices. This implies trend price for gas of ca $8-8.25 per thousand cubic feet of gas;
2. short-run dynamics trends, indicating a ca 6% upside to gas price relative to oil price in the next 3-6 months, implying a price range of $6.8-6.9 per thousand cubic feet.

Short of a W-shaped global recession risk, there is little downside pressure on gas prices in the medium term in my view.