GLOBAL ECONOMICS AND POLITICS
Leo Haviland provides clients with original, provocative, cutting-edge fundamental supply/demand and technical research on major financial marketplaces and trends. He also offers independent consulting and risk management advice.
Haviland’s expertise is macro. He focuses on the intertwining of equity, debt, currency, and commodity arenas, including the political players, regulatory approaches, social factors, and rhetoric that affect them. In a changing and dynamic global economy, Haviland’s mission remains constant – to give timely, value-added marketplace insights and foresights.
Leo Haviland has three decades of experience in the Wall Street trading environment. He has worked for Goldman Sachs, Sempra Energy Trading, and other institutions. In his research and sales career in stock, interest rate, foreign exchange, and commodity battlefields, he has dealt with numerous and diverse financial institutions and individuals. Haviland is a graduate of the University of Chicago (Phi Beta Kappa) and the Cornell Law School.
Subscribe to Leo Haviland’s BLOG to receive updates and new marketplace essays.
“Just Dropped In (To See What Condition My Condition Was In)”, a Mickey Newbury song performed by Kenny Rogers
With the passage of time following 2007-09’s global economic disaster, memories regarding the accompanying bloody bear trend in America’s stock marketplace benchmarks such as the S+P 500 gradually yet significantly faded. As the S+P 500 ascended, and especially as it advanced to and sustained record highs, widespread sermons declared that we should “buy the dip”. This aligned with the venerable proverb regarding the reasonableness of buying and holding United States stocks for the “long run”. What constitutes a “dip” or the “long run” is debatable, a matter of subjective perspective (opinion). How substantial a drop from some key elevation justifies buying? Is it one percent, five percent, ten percent, or twenty percent or greater? Is the long run one year, five years, or ten or more?
Of course since the S+P 500’s major bottom on 3/6/09 at 667, a few bloody stock price slides in that signpost (and “related” global equity yardsticks) terrified stock “investors” and their allies, including central banks such as the Federal Reserve, American politicians, and the financial media. Yet as the S+P 500 achieved a record height quite recently with 1/22/20’s 3338 (2/5/20’s level matched this), such advice definitely looked excellent to many stock owners and observers! Besides, as they have numerous times over the past eleven years, won’t beloved central bank physicians such as the Federal Reserve Board (under the guise of fulfilling their mandate), European Central Bank, the Bank of England, China’s central bank, and the Bank of Japan rescue stocks and generate rallies in them? Not only soothing rhetoric, but also yield repression and quantitative easing (money printing) remain antidotes for stock price drops, right? And politicians might assist via new tax cuts, boosts in infrastructure spending, or similar schemes. Thus the majority of US stock marketplace players have focused more on the rewards of owning than the dangers of doing so. Substantial complacency reigns regarding the potential for noteworthy American and other stock marketplace price declines.
The recent emergence within China of a deadly coronavirus and its spread elsewhere around the globe helped to push US and other equities downhill. Whether this medical problem will injure the S+P 500 and other global stocks significantly (and for a sustained period of time) remains uncertain. Government actions to prevent the spread of the virus will tend to hamper economic growth. Fearful consumers and nervous corporations may slow their spending. The wider the reach and the longer the persistence of the ailment, the greater the economic damage. And economic (financial) weapons such as money printing and yield repression available to the Fed and its friends obviously do not halt epidemics or cure diseases (or fears of them).Though the S+P 500 descended to 3215 on 1/31/20, the index recovered, touching 3338 again on 2/5/20.
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
Critical Conditions and Economic Turning Points (2-5-20)
In “Street Fighting Man”, The Rolling Stones sing:
“Everywhere I hear the sound of marching, charging feet, boy
‘Cause summer’s here and the time is right for fighting in the street, boy”.
OVERVIEW AND CONCLUSION
The continued determination of leading OPEC members (such as Saudi Arabia) and some key non-OPEC oil producing nations (such as Russia) to subdue their crude oil output will underpin petroleum prices. The Saudis and their allies will not readily sacrifice their long-sought production restraint agreement achieved with several important non-OPEC exporters in late 2016. Assuming supply discipline by key producers and moderate global economic growth, supply/demand estimates indicate that OECD (advanced nations such as the United States) industry inventories by the end of calendar 2018 will have declined to around “normal” levels in days coverage terms.
Even gigantic producers such as Saudi Arabia and Russia (for political as well as economic reasons) need to generate at least moderate income. Given its planned sale of shares in Aramco via an initial public offering, does Saudi Arabia want a renewed collapse in petroleum prices to $40 Brent/North Sea or less? Given its need for revenues, global political ambitions, and signs of domestic unrest, does Russia want petroleum prices to plummet sharply?
Other political worries help to bolster oil prices. Some (as usual) relate to the Middle East. North Korea’s nuclear program captures headlines. What if Venezuelan political turmoil results in a supply interruption?
However, current OECD petroleum industry inventories remain far above average. Even by end calendar 2017, they probably will be several days above normal. And end calendar 2018 obviously is a long time from now. Compliance with the OPEC/non-OPEC output guidelines by several individual countries has not been universal. And going forward, production discipline should not be taken for granted. Will Iraq and Iran moderate their production? What if Nigerian or Libyan production increases? Also, the net noncommercial position in the petroleum complex, which played a very important part in the explosive oil bull move in oil that began in first quarter 2016, is still quite high and vulnerable to liquidation.
History reveals that petroleum price levels and trends intertwine with currency, interest rate, stock and other commodity marketplaces (particularly base and precious metals) in a variety of ways. The current interrelationship between petroleum and these other arenas probably warns that it will be difficult for petroleum prices to sustain advances much above their first quarter 2017 highs.
Using NYMEX crude oil (nearest futures continuation) as a benchmark, petroleum prices for the next several months likely will stay in a broad range. Major support exists at around $38.00/$42.00. Significant resistance exists between $52.00/$55.25.
However, assuming ordinary international economic growth, what if OPEC/non-OPEC production discipline continues for the next year and a half (or marketplace faith increases that such restraint will persist)? In this scenario, if (and this “if” is a very important if) no sustained significant weakness in global stock marketplaces (and intertwining/confirming patterns in the US dollar, interest rates, and metals) develops, then NYMEX crude oil prices probably will attack the $60.75/$65.00 range.
FOLLOW THE LINK BELOW to download this article as a PDF file.
The Oil Battlefield- Evolution, Relationships, and Prices (4-10-17)