Energy
Highlights The end game for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Russia and their respective allies is fairly obvious: Remove enough production from the market to draw down storage and make the oil-supply curve, once again, more inelastic. This would allow these states to use forward guidance and small adjustments in production to influence prices, the sine qua non of petro-states desperate to maintain revenues and diversify away from near-complete dependence on hydrocarbon exports. We think the effort will succeed over the short run. Just how durable this pact will be remains to be seen, given oil is, once again, super-abundant. If production discipline breaks down, all bets are off. Energy: Overweight. We are now solidly positioned for backwardation in oil - long Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 WTI and Brent; these positions are up 141.6% and 68.4%, respectively. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks: We are long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017; these positions are up 7.66% on average. Base Metals: Neutral. Workers at Chile's Escondida mine are back on the job, after a 44-day strike. The strike is estimated to have cost BHP Billiton some $1 billion, according to Reuters.1 Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold has rallied by 4.3% since the FOMC raised overnight rates. Our long volatility position - long a Jun/17 put and call spread for $21/oz - is down 30%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The long-awaited and much-anticipated USDA planting intentions report is due out tomorrow. We remain bearish, expecting an early indication stocks-to-use ratios for grains and beans will remain elevated. Feature Chart of the WeekStorage Was Well On Its Way to Drawing##br## Before the Year-End Production Surge KSA and Russia have to make oil supply more inelastic in order to regain some control over where prices go and, consequently, where their revenues go. Their end game is obvious - i.e., remove the excess oil production that pushed inventories to historically high levels - but their execution has been, at best, halting. Prior to KSA and Russia delivering an historic production-management Agreement at the end of last year, oil markets were well on the way to removing the storage overhang by year-end 2017, as any Econ 101 text would have suggested. Low prices following OPEC's market-share war declaration destroyed supply and lifted demand, which was drawing down stocks. This is easily seen in the Chart of the Week showing inventories beginning to head south in mid-2016. Then came the KSA - Russia Agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers to cut output by some 1.8mm b/d. The goal of the deal was to accelerate the drawdown in record high storage levels. Even while the deal was being negotiated, it was apparent some producers in the know were getting a jump on shipping those last barrels out the door before they were obliged to cut. This produced the end-of-year production surge, which swelled global inventories. The year-end surge by OPEC and non-OPEC producers could be expected (Chart 2), but it came at a really bad time for the market, since 1Q17 also was when refiners took units down for maintenance. This is fairly routine, but in some key markets like the U.S. Gulf, the current maintenance season was busier than average, according to the EIA (Chart 3). This left a lot of crude in storage, as product inventories were being drawn. Chart 2Year-End Production Surge ##br##Powered The Storage Build Chart 3Maintenance Season In 1Q17 ##br##Exacerbated The Storage Build Where are we today? Most of the pre-Agreement production and export surge has been absorbed, and inventories in the U.S. are drawing a bit. Floating storage has been drained. But, in an interesting economic twist, OECD storage levels are likely to reach the targeted drawdown of 10% (300mm bbl) by year-end 2017, which is exactly what would have happened absent any action by KSA and Russia at the end of last year. It is difficult to resist reiterating that had nothing been done at the end of last year by KSA and Russia, and the market was left to do its necessary work of removing high-cost production and encouraging increased demand via lower prices, the market would have ended up in the exact same place it now finds itself. Trust But Verify Be that as it may, the really hard work of the KSA - Russia deal now begins. We expect OECD inventories to hit the 10% drawdown target by year end. However, if parties to the deal do not maintain production discipline markets will almost surely take prices lower. This could easily happen if prices start to percolate as we expect in 2Q17, and cash-strapped non-OPEC producers decide to see how far they can push KSA and its Gulf-state allies on their deal. Russia has been slow to deliver on its production commitment, while KSA has over-delivered (Chart 4). The same can be said for their respective allies (Chart 5). We believe markets will remain skittish, until evidence Russia and Iraq also are abiding by the end-2016 Agreement becomes incontrovertible. It is true Russian President Vladimir Putin personally involved himself in this deal, and helped close it on the non-OPEC side, but markets will want proof production actually is falling. Like former U.S. President Ronald Reagan, markets may be willing to trust, but they certainly will want to verify compliance. Chart 4KSA Over-Delivers On Its Cuts, ##br##Russia Is Slow To Deliver Chart 5KSA's Allies Are Delivering, ##br##Russia's Not So Much While not our base case, it is possible Russia and its fellow travelers could decide to risk keeping their production above agreed volumes under the Agreement, in the belief KSA is more in need of keeping prices above $50/bbl or so over the next 18 months, given the Kingdom wants a successful IPO of state-owned Saudi Aramco. Should this occur, markets would correct violently. At the end of the day, such a gamble likely would be ruinous for both, if it provoked KSA to abandon its commitment to keep production below 10mm b/d. Short-term goals - getting OECD storage levels down to five-year averages - would be sacrificed. Importantly, long-term goals we believe are driving KSA and Russia to cooperate in the first place, namely developing a modus operandi for containing U.S. shale-oil output, will become moot, possibly returning the market to the production free-for-all that motivated the KSA - Russia dialogue. The Quest For Relevance Chart 6Odds Favor Backwardated Markets ##br##As the Production Cuts Lead To Physical Deficits Our base case envisions a successful KSA - Russia Agreement in which production discipline is maintained, and the deal produces its desired result - drawing storage down by ~ 300mm bbls. Forward curves then backwardate (Chart 6). This sets the stage for deeper discussions among KSA, Russia and their respective allies re how they can work together going forward to contain U.S. shale-oil production. In effect, the parties to this deal have a choice to make: Either they figure out a way to make room for shale, which has catapulted the U.S. to major-producer status once again, or they leave this to the market. We are fairly confident these discussions already are ongoing, and will be well advanced by year-end. Next week, we will be publishing a theoretical piece on how the KSA - Russia pact could provide a platform that allows these petro-states - which we are taking the liberty of dubbing OPEC 2.0 - to re-gain a modicum of control over the rate at which U.S. shale-oil resources are developed. In earlier research, we advanced a theory that shale rig counts are highly sensitive not only to the level of prices at the front of the curve, but to the curve shape itself. We were able to demonstrate that contango markets - i.e., prices for promptly delivered crude are less than prices for deferred delivery material - favor shale producers, and, all else equal, incentivize them to hedge forward so as to lock in future revenues that maximize the number of rigs they deploy.2 In backwardated markets, the number of rigs a shale operator is able to deploy is lower, all else equal, which means the revenue they can lock in by hedging forward is lower. This limits the rate at which the resource can be developed. Based on these theoretical results, we believe it is in the interest of the OPEC 2.0 states to keep the WTI forward curve in backwardation, so that, at the margin, the number of rigs deployed to the shales is contained. Our research suggests that the deeper the backwardation, the slower rig counts grow. So, if the ideal price level for KSA is, as has been reported in the media, $60/bbl for Brent, then, in the best of all worlds, the Kingdom, Russia and their respective allies target spot prices at this level and use production, storage and forward guidance to backwardate the WTI curve, which is used by shale producers to hedge.3 Such a strategy has numerous risks, particularly if OPEC 2.0 cannot react quickly enough to keep prices from rising above a level that keeps shale-oil producers restricted to their core production areas. This would allow higher-cost shale reserves to be brought on line, which would raise the likelihood of lower prices, and cost OPEC 2.0 market share.4 Such a strategy also would tempt OPEC 2.0 producers to free ride, raising production at the margin to increase their revenues. This also risks lower prices. Nonetheless, we believe such a strategy could benefit both KSA and Russia and their allies, which is why it likely will at least be considered and attempted.5 KSA would be able to IPO Aramco into a relatively stable higher-price market, which would allow it to invest in additional refinery capacity in Asia and elsewhere, and in alternative-energy resources like solar, to free up oil for export. Russia also is better off keeping prices at a level at which its economy can continue to work on diversifying its exposure away from its heavy dependence on oil and gas exports.6 We will present more of our thinking on this next week. In the meantime, we highly recommend BCA clients read Matt Conlan's article in this week's Energy Sector Strategy entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery."7 This is an excellent analysis of shale-oil economics. Bottom Line: We continue to expect crude and products storage to draw as production cuts become apparent and refiners bring units back up off maintenance. This will backwardate WTI and Brent forward curves. Based on our high level of conviction in this outcome, we added a long Brent Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 Brent position to our recommended trades, along with a similar WTI position. We also are positioned for a rally on drawdowns in inventories as refiners come back from turnarounds over the next few weeks, by being long $50/bbl WTI calls vs. short $55/bbl calls in Jul-Aug-Sep 2017. We continue to expect the U.S. benchmark WTI crude prices to average $55/bbl to 2020 and for WTI prices to trade most of the time between $45/bbl and $65/bbl. For 2018 and beyond, our conviction is lower: The massive capex cuts seen in the industry will place an enormous burden on shale producers and conventional oil producers - chiefly Gulf Arab producers and Russia - to offset natural decline-curve losses and meet increasing demand. For the international benchmark, Brent crude oil, we expect the spread between Brent and WTI prices to average $1.50/bbl (Brent over). Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see "Escondida outcome seen as disaster for BHP as workers return," published by Reuters.com on March 24, 2017. 2 We introduced this line of research in our February 16, 2017, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "North American Oil Pipeline Buildout Complicates Price And Storage Expectations," it is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. We continue to delve into this topic, and will be presenting out latest thinking next week. 3 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters February 28, 2017. Russia's budgeting assumption for 2017 to 2019 is $40/bbl, according to a Bloomberg report from March 24, 2017, entitled "OPEC Be Warned: Russia Prepares for Oil at $40." 4 It is not in KSA's, Russia's or their allies' interests to kill off shale production. The more-than-$1 trillion of capex for projects that would have been developed between 2015 and 2020, and would have translated into some 7mm b/d of oil-equivalent production will not be available to the market beginning later this decade. As we have noted, an enormous burden will be placed on shale production, Gulf OPEC producers and Russia to meet growing demand later this decade. 5 We also would note this would be a boon to long-only commodity index investors, whose returns are driven by roll yields that only exist in backwardated markets. More on that in subsequent research as well. 6 Russia's exports are dominated by oil and gas, while KSA's are dominated by crude oil and, increasingly, refined products. In 2015, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace calculated close to 70% of Russia's economy is dependent on revenue from hydrocarbons - production, trade, investments in non-oil industries funded by oil revenues, and consumption made possible via oil and gas production and sales. We discuss this at length in the September 8, 2016, issue of Commodity & Energy Strategy, in an article entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." 7 Please see Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report entitled "Shale Dynamics: Sensitivities Within Modeling A Shale Recovery," This article was published March 29, 2017, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights EM equity valuations are neutral. Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer some value, but this primarily reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. According to the cyclically-adjusted P/E ratio, EM stocks are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon - longer than two to three years. Corporate profits are much more important than equity valuations in driving share prices in the next 12 months. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months. Maintain a defensive posture and an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM. A new trade: go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones. Feature Chart I-1EM P/E Ratio And EPS There is ongoing debate in the investment community concerning whether emerging markets (EM) equities are or are not cheap, in both absolute terms and relative to developed markets (DM). In this week's report we review various equity valuation indicators and reiterate that EM stocks are neither cheap nor expensive in absolute terms. For example, the average of trailing and forward P/E ratios is slightly above its historical mean (Chart I-1, top panel). Relative to the U.S., EM share prices do offer value, but this reflects elevated valuations within the S&P 500. Despite this, we recommend underweighting EM vs U.S./DM because the cyclical growth dynamics is much better in DM than EM. EM stocks are cheap if one assumes a strong earnings recovery (Chart I-1, bottom panel). If earnings per share (EPS) begin contracting anew, as we expect, then the current rally will be reversed sooner than later. Overall, we continue to recommend a defensive posture for absolute-return investors and maintaining an underweight allocation in EM stocks versus DM for asset allocators. Valuation Perspectives Below we consider several valuation ratios: The equal-sector weighted trailing P/E ratio is 17.7 for EM (Chart I-2). Table I-1 displays equal-sector weighted P/E ratio, price-to-book value ratio and dividend yields for major equity markets globally. This is an apples-to-apples comparison, as it assigns equal weights to each of the 10 MSCI sectors - i.e., it removes sector biases. Chart I-2Equal-Sector Weighted Trailing P/E Ratio Table I-1Equal-Sector Weighted Valuation Ratios Across EM And DM Hence, on a comparable basis, EM equities are only slightly cheaper than DM stocks as is evident in Table I-1. Besides, the composite valuation indicator based on equal-sector weighted trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield indicate that EM stocks are fairly valued (Chart I-3). The cyclically-adjusted P/E (CAPE) ratio. The CAPE ratio is a structural valuation measure, i.e. it matters in the long run. Importantly, it assumes that real (inflation-adjusted) EPS will revert to its historical mean or trend. In short, the CAPE ratio tells us what the P/E ratio would be if EPS were to revert to its historical trend. Chart I-4 illustrates the EM CAPE ratio. If EM EPS in inflation-adjusted U.S. dollar terms reaches its historical time trend, one can safely assume that EM stocks are cheap and currently worth buying. In a nutshell, the current CAPE ratio of 15 assumes that EM EPS should rise by about 30% in nominal U.S. dollar terms over an investor's time horizon. Chart I-3EM Equities Valuations Are Neutral Chart I-4EM CAPE Ratio Given that our time horizon is 12 months, the assumption that EM EPS will surge by about 30% in U.S. dollar terms is in our view ambitious. Therefore, we posit that EM share prices do not offer compelling value at all in the next 12 months. If one's investment horizon were two-to-three years or longer, the assumption that EPS will rise by 30% or more in U.S. dollar terms is much more plausible. In this sense we would concur that EM share prices offer decent value from a longer-term perspective. Our methodology of calculating the CAPE ratio for EM varies from the well-known Robert Shiller's CAPE ratio for the U.S.1 However, even when applying our CAPE methodology to U.S. equities, the resulting ratio is not very different from Shiller's CAPE (Chart I-5). Trimmed-mean equity valuation ratios. Chart 6 illustrates 20% trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/E, price-to-book value, price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yields for the EM equity universe. A 20% trimmed-mean ratio excludes the top 10% and bottom 10% of industry groups, and then calculates the average. All calculations are based on 50 EM industry group data available from MSCI. Why look at trimmed-mean valuation ratios? Because by removing the top and bottom 10% of industry groups, this measure excludes outliers and provides a better perspective on valuation. A few observations are in order: First, according to the trimmed-mean valuation ratios, EM equities are not cheap. The trimmed-mean ratios are close to their historical mean (Chart I-6). Second, the trimmed-mean ratios are well above their market cap ones. This indicates that there are a few industry groups with large market caps that pull EM multiples lower. In other words, market-cap weighted multiples are skewed to the downside by a few large industry groups. There are reasons why some sectors and countries have low or high equity multiples. It makes sense to exclude them. Finally, the composite valuation indicator based on trimmed-mean trailing and forward P/Es, PBV and price-to-cash earnings ratios and dividend yield demonstrates that EM equity valuations are neutral (Chart I-7). Chart I-5U.S. CAPE Ratios Chart I-6EM Stocks Are Close to Fair Value Chart I-7EM Equities Have Neutral Value Bottom Line: EM equities by and large command a neutral valuation. According to the CAPE ratio, EM equities are cheap for investors with a long-term time horizon, say two-to-three years or longer. Profits Hold The Key Valuations are not a good timing tool. For low equity valuations to be realized, i.e., to produce solid price gains, corporate profits should grow. The reverse is also true: for an overvalued market to decline, company earnings should contract, or at least disappoint. When valuations are neutral - as they currently are for the EM equity benchmark - a recovery in EPS should entail higher share prices, while EPS shrinkage should lead to a selloff. EM EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months, given the rally in commodities prices in 2016, amelioration in China's business cycle and the technology sector boom in Asia. However, this moderate and short-lived EPS recovery is already priced in. For the market to rally further, EPS will need to expand beyond the next three to six months. Remarkably, there has been little improvement in EM ex-China domestic demand. Besides, the risk to bank loan growth remains to the downside both in China and EM ex-China. Slower loan growth and the need to recognize and provision for potentially large NPLs will pressure banks' profits in many EM countries. Finally, we expect oil and industrial metals prices to decline considerably over the course of this year. If and as this view plays out, energy and materials stocks will fall. Energy and materials share prices correlate not with their past or current profits but rather with underlying commodities prices. One area where we remain bullish is the technology sector. Even though tech share prices are overbought and could correct in absolute terms in the months ahead, they will continue to outperform the benchmark. Bottom Line: Corporate profits are much more important in driving share prices in the next 12 months than equity valuations. Our outlook for EM EPS is downbeat for the next 12 months or so, even though EPS will continue to recover in the next three to six months. Timing Reversal: Watch Credit Quality Spreads Chart I-8Credit Quality Spreads: ##br##A Correction Or Reversal? Following are some of the indicators we are monitoring to gauge a reversal in EM share prices. EM corporate spreads have widened a notch relative to EM sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, top panel). Similarly, Chinese off-shore corporate spreads have widened versus Chinese sovereign spreads (Chart I-8, middle panel). Credit quality spreads - the gap between B- and BAA-grade corporate bonds - have widened slightly in the U.S. (Chart I-8, bottom panel). These moves are still very small, and do not constitute a definite sign of a major trend reversal. Nevertheless, such widening in credit quality spreads is an important development. If they persist, they will certainly sound the alarm for the reflation trade. Interestingly, this is the first time a simultaneous widening in credit quality spreads has occurred since the risk assets rally began in early 2016. Bottom Line: Major equity market selloffs will occur when lower quality credit begins to persistently underperform better quality credit. There have been budding signs of quality spread widening that are worth being monitored. Identifying Relative Value Within the EM equity universe, valuation ratios differ greatly. For example, banks trade at a trailing P/E of 9.7, while consumer staple stocks trade at 24.8. Table I-2 portrays the trailing P/E ratio and its historical mean as well as 12-month forward EPS growth and the forward P/E ratio for each sector - as well as average of trailing and forward P/E ratios. Table I-3 shows the same valuation measures but for EM countries. Table I-2Stock Valuation Snapshot: EM Sectors Table I-3Equity Valuation Snapshot: EM Countries It is difficult to draw any definitive conclusions from these tables. On a general level, a simplistic approach to investing based on trailing and forward P/E ratios would not have produced great outcomes in EM in recent years. When analyzing EM stock valuations, we prefer to use the trailing rather than forward P/E ratio because historically, EM forward EPS have had a very poor record forecasting actual EPS. One of our favorite ways to identify relative value is to compare the PBV ratio and return on equity (RoE) across countries/sectors. Chart I-9 plots RoE on the X-axis and the PBV ratio on the Y axis. Countries and sectors located in the bottom right corner (at the low end of the shaded area) have a low PBV ratio compared to their RoE. In contrast, in the north-west side of the distribution (at the upper end of the shaded zone), these have an elevated PBV ratio, taking into account their RoE. Chart I-9Searching For Relative Value Among countries, Korea, Russia, Hungary, the Czech Republic and China appear cheap, while Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Colombia, Malaysia and Poland are on the expensive side. Chart I-10EMS's Recommended ##br##Equity Portfolio Performance Concerning equity sectors, utilities and financials/banks are cheap, yet consumer staples and consumer discretionary, health care, telecom and materials appear expensive in relative terms. Our recommended country equity allocation is based on a qualitative assessment of many variables including but not limited to valuation. Chart I-10 displays the performance of our fully invested EM Equity Portfolio Model versus the EM benchmark. Our overweights presently include: Korea, Taiwan, India, China, Thailand, Russia and central Europe. Our underweights are Brazil, Turkey, Indonesia, Malaysia and Peru. We are neutral on Mexico, Chile, Colombia, South Africa and the Philippines. The lists of our country allocation and other equity investment recommendations are presented each week at the end of our reports. Arthur Budaghyan, Senior Vice President Emerging Markets Strategy arthurb@bcaresearch.com Bet On Russia's Non-Compliance With OPEC Odds of Russia's compliance with the OPEC agreement to cut oil output by 300k b/d in the next two months are low. This poses downside risk to oil prices. Russia has so far done only 120k b/d cuts. Hence, in the next two months it should reduce its output by 180k b/d which amounts to 1.6% of the nation's oil output. One way to bet on Russia's non-compliance, regardless the direction of oil prices, is to go long Russian energy stocks / short global energy ones (Chart II-1). There are a number of political, economic and financial motives why Russia might care less about lower oil prices than Saudi Arabia in the next 12-18 months or so. As a result, Russia might not cut as much as it is expected by the OPEC agreement. Russia is able to increase oil production due to a cheaper ruble and technology advances. BCA's Energy Sector Strategy team has been highlighting that there have been concerted efforts by Russia's largest producers to employ horizontal drilling and multi-zone hydraulic fracturing in Western Siberia.2 These have stemmed declines from those aging fields and allowed production to rise (Chart II-2). Chart II-1Long Russia Energy / ##br##Short Global Energy Stocks Chart II-2Russian Oil ##br##Production Will Increase Russia will not shy away from being opportunistic and increase its market share when it can ramp up oil production. A rising global oil market share will allow Russian companies to outperform their global peers regardless the direction of oil prices. There are major cyclical divergences between Russian and Saudi economies. Russia's economy is gradually picking up while there is less certainty about Saudi's growth recovery. The reason is that Russia has allowed the ruble to depreciate and act as a shock absorber. Meanwhile, Saudis have stuck to the currency peg. Oil prices are down by 27% from their top in rubles and 55% in Saudi riyals (Chart II-3). This has reflated Russia's fiscal revenues and the economy, while Saudi Arabia is still struggling with the consequences of low oil prices. On the fiscal front, Russia went through a notable fiscal squeeze and its budget deficit is projected to be 3.2% of GDP in 2017 (Chart II-4). In contrast, the Saudi Arabian fiscal deficit in 2016 reached an outstanding 17% of GDP, accounting for the drawdown in reserves by our estimates.3 Chart II-3Ruble's Depreciation ##br##In 2014-15 Made a Difference Chart II-4Fiscal Deficit: Small In ##br##Russia & Large In Saudi More importantly, Russia's federal budget for 2017 was constructed on the oil price assumption of $40/bbl. The 2017 Saudi budget assumes oil price of $50/bbl.4 Therefore, Russia would not mind if oil prices drop toward or slightly below $40 in the second half of this year. Therefore, Saudis care much more about sustaining oil prices at a higher level than Russians do. Finally, Rosneft has already conducted its IPO while Aramco's IPO has not taken place yet. As such, the need for higher oil prices is much greater in Saudi Arabia - to justify a higher value of their oil giant - than in Russia. Bottom Line: Odds are considerable that Russia will not comply with the OPEC deal and this could cause oil prices to selloff more. Regardless of direction of oil prices, we expect the Russian energy sector to outperform their global peers due to Russia's rising market share in the global oil market. Go long Russian energy stocks / short global ones. Stephan Gabillard, Research Analyst stephang@bcaresearch.com 1 For more detailed discussion on our methodology of CAPE, please refer to January 20, 2016 Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled "EM Equity Valuations: A CAPE Model", available at ems. bcaresearch.com 2 Please refer to the Energy Sector Strategy Weekly Report titled, "Russian Oil Production: Surpassing Expectation", dated December 14, 2016, available at nrg.bcaresearch.com 3 Please refer to the Emerging Markets Strategy Special Report titled, "Saudi Arabia: Short-Term Gain, Long-Term Pain", dated February 1, 2017, available at ems.bcaresearch.com 4 https://mof.gov.sa/en/budget2017/Documents/The_National_Budget.pdf Equity Recommendations Fixed-Income, Credit And Currency Recommendations
Highlights Global fundamentals - supply, demand and inventories - will support oil prices generally, and will remain bullish for the evolution toward backwardated forward curves, even as the Fed's interest-rate normalization policy supports the USD's broad trade-weighted index (TWI). This will cause the oil-USD divergence noted in earlier research to persist.1 Energy: Overweight. We are once again long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI, after the resting order placed on March 9/17 was elected on March 13/17 at -$0.12/bbl. Our oil-balances modeling indicates storage will draw throughout the rest of this year and next. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper prices remain subdued despite strikes at Peru's Cerro Verde and Chile's Escondida mines. Meanwhile, export-license talks continue in Indonesia at the Grasberg mine. When a market fails to rally on supportive news, it normally is a bearish indicator. An unexpected surge in LME copper stocks partly offset supply-side concerns. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold will remain weak, as markets discount the timing and size of further rate hikes. We remain long volatility, with our long-put/long-call spread combination in June, recommended on February 23/17, up 29.5%. Ags/Softs: Underweight. Indications of higher output of corn and beans in South America from the USDA, and a well-supported USD keep us bearish. Lower planting intentions - to be reported at month-end - could support corn. Feature Markets got a rare "two-fer" yesterday. The first, a long-anticipated bullish oil inventory report from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). The second, a fully priced follow-through on the Fed's recent forward guidance in the form of a 25bp hike in overnight rates, which, while important to oil markets, will continue to be secondary to the fundamental adjustments that will be reflected in subsequent EIA reports. Not unexpectedly, U.S. commercial oil inventories drew hard last week - more than 8mm bbl (including SPR), with crude stocks accounting for 1.1 mm bbl - following weeks of builds, which forced many a long from the market. The balance of the draws will shift to crude within the next month, as U.S. refiners come back off performing routine maintenance. With the year-end surge from OPEC's Gulf producers now fully absorbed, we expect to see a sustained draw in OECD storage this year. This will force inventories toward the five-year average levels sought by OPEC and non-OPEC producers in their production-cutting agreement last year (Chart of the Week). In our balances model, we have global supply up 0.5 mm b/d in 2017 yoy and demand up 1.5 mm b/d on average. For 2018, we have supply up 1.5 mm b/d on average vs. 2017, and demand up 1.6 mm b/d. This will produce the draws in OECD inventories anticipated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia when they led the negotiations between OPEC and non-OPEC oil-producing states that will produce these supply deficits (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekOil Markets Will Tighten This Year And Next Chart 2OECD Inventories Will Draw Sharply The Fed - And The USD - Still Matter, But Not As Much The 25bp hike in overnight rates was perhaps the most strongly telegraphed messaging from FOMC members in post-GFC history. If nothing else, the Fed is unambiguously signaling its intent to normalize interest-rate policy, which, all else equal, will be supportive of the USD's TWI. We do not believe the Fed is intent on raising real rates, which will somewhat temper the rates normalization policy of the Fed. This will allow the synchronized global growth we now see - along with a synchronized increase in global inflation rates - to continue, and will prevent an overly strong USD from crimping demand ex-U.S. - particularly in the EM markets. Indeed, we continue to expect strong growth in EM oil demand, which we proxy by non-OECD oil consumption (Chart 3). Therefore, while the evolution of the USD will remain important to the evolution of oil prices, we do not expect it to dominate that evolution as it has post-GFC to the end of 1Q16. As can be seen in Chart 4, which shows Brent prices as a function of the USD TWI, this relationship has weakened some, after fundamentals - chiefly supply destruction and demand growth - reacted to the lower prices brought on by the market-share war declared by OPEC in November 2014. Chart 3EM Growth Will Drive Oil Demand Chart 4USD Will Not Dominate Oil-Price Evolution However, we do not expect this relationship to break down entirely: Indeed, it has been remarkably durable since 2000, when oil prices - like the USD - became random-walking economic variables (Chart 5).2 We do think the market is in a transition phase - chiefly from being over-supplied to tighter, given the physical deficits we expect - with price levels capable of following a more stable path with less volatility. This will translate into even greater volatility in the forward curves for oil prices, which we believe will become more backwardated as markets finally get evidence storage is drawing (Charts 6). We continue to expect WTI prices to trade between $45 and $65/bbl, with a central tendency of $55/bbl this year and next. Chart 5Expect The USD To Be Less Determinant ##br##For Oil Prices Chart 6We Continue To Expect Backwardation ##br##In Oil Forwards Back In The Backwardation Trade We are once again long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI, after the resting order placed on March 9/17 was elected on March 13/17 at -$0.12/bbl. We are including a stop-loss on this recommendation of -$0.36/bbl (i.e., the Dec/17 vs. Dec/18 spread goes into a -$0.48/bbl contango), given this is a strategic recommendation and we are willing to incur larger losses given our high-conviction view of the evolution of the WTI forward curve. As the above analysis indicates, we strongly expect storage to draw throughout the rest of this year and next. This will produce backwardated markets - prompt-delivery prices exceed deferred-delivery prices - and tighten markets globally. We recently exited the exact same trade on February 23/17, when we entered it at -$0.11/bbl (in contango), and exited at +$0.96/bbl, for a gain of +$1.07/bbl (972.7%). This is evidence of the volatility we continue to expect as the forward curve transitions to a backwardated structure. Bottom Line: The oil market is performing as we expect, with supply cuts in the face of strong demand growth producing a physical deficit. This will lead to a backwardation in the forward curves for WTI and Brent, which we are capitalizing on by re-establishing our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI position. While the USD will continue to exert an influence on oil prices, we continue to believe this will be secondary to the evolution of prices. Fundamentals will drive price discovery going forward. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, "Days Of Oil Future's Past: Mean-Reversion," dated March 2, 2017, and "Fed's Pre-Emptive Hike Will Hit Gold, Not Oil," dated March 9, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see "Days Of Oil Future's Past: Mean-Reversion," published March 2, 2017, referenced above. In that article we examine the evolution of oil prices from a mean-reverting series to a difference-stationary series. We considered the possibility the KSA - Russia production agreement could deepen, allowing these states to exert more control over the evolution of prices. This is not foregone, by any means, but it is useful to consider the implications of supply contracting as a result of their detente, and the return of a more inelastic supply curve. In such a market, small adjustments to the supply side can have profound effects on prices - assuming demand remains inelastic - and allow these states to regain a measure of control over oil market fundamentals. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016
Highlights The Fed's evident desire to lift its policy rate next week - presumably to get out ahead of inflation that has yet to show up in its preferred gauge - will weigh on gold. Oil ... not so much. This is because fundamentals once again are asserting themselves in the evolution of oil prices, something that has been evident even before markets balanced last year. Gold, meanwhile, remains exquisitely sensitive to Fed policy expectations and their effects on the USD and real rates, as with other currencies. Energy: Overweight. We are looking to re-establish our long WTI Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 spread if it trades in contango again, i.e., if Dec/17 is less than Dec/18. We believe the combination of OPEC and non-OPEC adherence to their production Agreement will remain high, and demand likely will remain stout. Base Metals: Neutral. Spot copper is down ~ $0.10/lb on COMEX over the past week. We expect transitory supply issues in Chile and Indonesia to be resolved, and reflationary stimulus in China to wane going into the 19th National Congress of the Communist Party in the autumn, and, with it, copper demand. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. Gold is weakening as the Fed's March meeting approaches next week, given the overwhelming expectation for a 25bp rate hike. We remain long volatility, expecting fiscal-policy uncertainty in the U.S. to be resolved over the next few months, and Fed policy drivers to become more focused. Ags/Softs: Underweight. We are not expecting significant changes in the USDA's estimates of stocks globally, and therefore remain underweight. Feature The choreographed messaging of voting and non-voting FOMC members asserting the need for a policy-rate hike over the past two weeks succeeded in pushing markets' expectations for such action to 88.6% as of Tuesday's close, up from 44.6% at the end of February. This despite the fact that the Fed's preferred inflation gauge - core PCE - has yet to show any sign of pushing up and thru the Fed's target of 2% growth yoy (Chart of the Week). Nor, for that matter, has core PCE shown any tendency to remain above 2% yoy growth over the past two decades (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekThe Fed's Preferred Inflation ##br##Gauge Still Quiescent Chart 2Core PCE Has Been ##br##Quiescent For Decades Between mid-December 2016 and the end of last month, gold prices rallied ~11.3% largely on the expectation the Fed would not raise rates until at least June, and, even then, would be constrained by uncertainty over what Congress and the Trump Administration would offer up in terms of fiscal policy later this year. Now, with the Fed succeeding in raising the market's expectation of a March rate hike, gold markets are left to re-calibrate the number of hikes to expect this year, and the likely implications for the USD and real rates. We believe the Fed will execute three rate hikes this year, but this will be highly dependent on how markets react to the now fully priced-in hike markets expect next week. Synchronized Growth, Inflation And Feedback Loops It is likely the Fed feels confident accelerating its rates normalization because, for the first time since the Global Financial crisis, we are getting a globally synchronized recovery in GDP. All else equal, this will give the U.S. central bank a bit of headroom to experiment with an earlier-than-expected rate hike. This synchronized growth also will provide a positive backdrop for commodity demand this year and next (Chart 3). The possibility of highly stimulative - or even just moderately stimulative - fiscal policy in the U.S. at a time when the economy is apparently at or close to full employment, will be positive for aggregate demand, and could be inflationary if its principal result is to lift real wages in the U.S. In addition to synchronized growth, we also are seeing evidence of synchronized inflation in the largest economies in the world (Chart 4). Chart 3Synchronized Global Growth ##br##Could Embolden The Fed Chart 4Synchronized Inflation Globally ##br##Likely Caught The Fed's Attention This synchronized growth and inflation is, we believe, important to the Fed, in that its effects constitute something of a global feedback loop. As we have noted in earlier research, the Fed is much more sensitive to how its policy actions affect other economies, given the deepening of global supply chains over the past two decades or so. Equally, policymakers are well aware the evolution of monetary policy and economic growth in other economies affects the U.S. growth and policy variables important to the Fed.1 Absent a policy shock in the U.S., Europe or China, the backdrop for EM growth should remain positive for at least 2017, even with reflationary stimulus waning in China, a left-tail risk to commodity prices that we identified in last week's publication.2 We expect the Fed's policy normalization to be tempered by continued monetary accommodation globally, which will be supportive of growth at the margin. This will keep global oil demand growth on track to average 1.50 - 1.60mm b/d this year and next, and, importantly for inflation and inflation expectations, keep EM oil demand growing. The income elasticity of per-capita oil consumption in EM economies typically is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in EM incomes is associated with a 1% increase in EM oil demand.3 EM growth accounts for close to 85% of the growth we expect in global oil demand this year. This is important, given EM oil demand, which we proxy with the U.S. EIA's non-OECD oil consumption time series, to be a common factor that explains the evolution of the CPI series shown above (Chart 5). EM oil demand is able to explain the synchronization of inflation in the three largest economies in the world is because incremental growth is occurring in the EM economies, and this is driving global growth. We continue to expect high compliance in the OPEC - non-OPEC production deal negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia at the end of last year, which will, against the backdrop of continued global growth, cause inventories to fall and for markets to backwardate. We believe last week's increase in U.S. crude oil inventories to be the last big build, and expect the decline to begin later this month. On average vessels leaving the Persian Gulf destined for the U.S. have a 45- to 50-day sailing period depending on multiple factors such route, weather and sea conditions. Therefore, the recent increase in U.S. crude oil inventories can be linked to the arrival of the final fleet of vessels in concert with the pre-OPEC agreement production surge undertaken by the GCC. Evidence of this phenomenon is apparent in the ~500k b/d increase in U.S. crude oil imports (374k b/d coming from Iraq) over the prior week. We expect OECD oil stocks to start declining this month and fall some 300mm bbl before the end of 2017. This supply-demand dynamic will continue to dominate financial-market influences on oil prices, as we argued in last week's publication (Chart 6).4 Gold, on the other hand, will continue to take its cue from Fed policy and policy expectations, particularly as regards expectations for the USD, which should strengthen at the margin, given the Fed's new-found hawkishness, and real rates, which also should strengthen (Chart 7). Chart 5EM Oil Demand Continues##br## To Drive Inflation Chart 6IF KSA And Russia Can ##br##Coordinate Production... Chart 7Gold Will Continue To Take##br## Its Cue From Fed Policy Bottom Line: Oil prices will continue to be dominated by supply-demand-inventory fundamentals, with monetary policy effects on the evolution of prices taking a secondary role. Gold prices will continue to take their cue from Fed policy and policy expectations. We look to re-establish our long Dec/17 WTI vs. short Dec/18 WTI spread if it trades thru flat (i.e., $0.00/bbl). Given our gold view, we remain long volatility via the put spreads and call spreads we recommended February 23 - i.e., long Jun/17 $1,200/oz puts vs. short $1,150/oz puts, and long $1,275/oz calls vs. short $1,325/oz calls. The position was up 15% as of Tuesday's close. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Reports "Global Inflation and Commodity Markets," dated August 11, 2016, and "Memo To The Fed: EM Oil, Metals Demand Key To U.S. Inflation," dated August 4, 2016, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Gold's Known Unknowns, And Fat Tails," dated February 23, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3 Oil consumption frequently is employed to approximate EM income growth, given the income elasticity of demand for oil is ~ 1.0, meaning a 1% increase in income (GDP) produces an increase in demand for oil of approximately 1.0%. The OECD notes, "Non-OECD countries are found to have a higher income elasticity of oil demand than OECD countries. On average across countries, a one per cent rise in real GDP pushes up oil demand by half a per cent in OECD countries over the medium to long run, whereas the figure is closer to unity for most non-OECD countries." Please see "The Price of Oil - Will It Start Rising Again?" OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 1031, p. 6 (2013). 4 Please see BCA Research's Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report "Days Of Oil Future's Past: Mean Reversion," dated March 2, 2017, available at ces.bcaresearch.com. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in
Energy services shares have pulled back as oil prices have marked time over the last few weeks, but in the background, the conditions to sustain a rally are falling into place. The growth in total OECD oil stocks has rolled over decisively, and a continued supply/demand rebalancing should occur given that world oil production growth has slipped to nil courtesy of OPEC output cuts. The bond market has increased confidence that oil prices will not tumble anew, as reflected in the sharp narrowing in energy corporate bond spreads. Many companies have used the recovery in oil prices to refinance and bolster balance sheets, underscoring that the financial means to boost exploration exist. With energy services pricing power trying to make an early exit from deflation on only a small boost to the global rig count, there is scope for the attractively valued S&P oil & gas field services index to surprise on the upside. We have this at high-conviction overweight. The ticker symbols for the stocks in the S&P oil & gas field services index are: BLBG: S5ENRE - SLB, HAL, BHI, NOV, FTI, HP, RIG.
Highlights Crude-oil fundamentals stand out among commodities because of the active efforts by critical producers to rein in supply since the end of last year. This can be seen in even-higher compliance with the production accord - a supply shock in many ways - negotiated by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia: Last month, Reuters estimated 94% compliance on the 1.2mm b/d in cuts pledged by OPEC states. We expect compliance to remain high, which will strengthen the divergence between oil prices and the USD, as markets look toward the upcoming summer driving season in the Northern Hemisphere. Active supply management and robust demand growth wrought by lower prices could continue to overwhelm a strong USD's influence on oil prices, if this Agreement becomes a durable modus operandi for KSA and Russia going forward. We give a high probability to this outcome, even as the Fed leans into its interest-rate normalization. Energy: Overweight. This past Thursday, we closed our long WTI Dec/17 vs. short Dec/18 backwardation spread at +$0.96/bbl (Dec/17 over); it was initiated February 9 at -$0.11/bbl (Dec/17 under), resulting in a 972.7% gain. We also closed our Dec/19 short WTI vs. long Brent spread, elected February 6 at +$0.07/bbl (WTI over) at -$1.17/bbl (WTI under), for a gain of 1,771.4%. Base Metals: Neutral. Any demand uptick for base metals' coming from U.S. fiscal stimulus will not hit markets until 2H18 at the earliest. We remain neutral. Precious Metals: Neutral. Based on last week's analysis, we are tactically long a Jun/17 gold put spread (long the $1200/oz put vs. short the $1150/oz puts) and call spread (long the $1275/oz call vs. short the $1325/oz calls) at a net debit of $21/oz. Ags/Softs: Underweight. The USDA expects continued demand from China to keep soybeans relatively well bid versus corn and wheat in the 2017/18 crop year. Total planted area for these crops is expected to be the lowest since 2011, keeping ending stocks flat to lower. Feature Prior to the end of the 1990s, crude-oil prices were, to use one of the most popular catch-phrases in finance, mean-reverting: The price of crude oil imported to the U.S. averaged just over $19/bbl from Mar/83, when WTI futures began trading, to 1999 (Chart of the Week). This meant WTI traded at ~ $20/bbl on average over that period. Prices were volatile, but pretty much returned to $20ish/bbl, which allowed traders to take a view on how soon prices would revert to their mean. Whenever prices were too far removed from that level, markets expected producers - OPEC mostly - to adjust output to meet current and expected demand conditions. Since roughly 2000 - maybe a little earlier - oil prices have followed a random walk.1 During this time, oil prices have been negatively correlated with the broad trade-weighted index (TWI) for the USD. One striking characteristic of oil prices and the USD TWI during this time is both followed random walks, which "like the walk of a drunken sailor, wanders indefinitely far, listing with the wind," to borrow Paul Samuelson's well-turned metaphor (Chart 2).2 Chart of the WeekOil's Past As Prelude: ##br##A Return To Mean Reversion? Chart 2Oil Prices And The USD Followed ##br##A Common Long-term Trend Until 1Q16 We believe this was caused by OPEC's decision to become a price-taker at the end of the 1990s - shortly after Dec/98 or thereabouts - after years of unsuccessfully trying to manage oil prices via production adjustments. After the price of oil imports in the U.S. dropped below $10/bbl (nominal), it appears the Cartel took the decision to respond to prices set by market forces (supply, demand, inventories and exchange rates), and to abandon its price-management efforts. The long-term correlation between oil and the USD was due to the fact that while oil prices and the USD followed random walks, they followed a common long-term trend as they wandered indefinitely about. This held up to the end of 1Q16, when a massive sell-off in risky-asset markets globally took oil prices below $30/bbl (Chart 3).3 This came on the heels of a price collapse brought about by OPEC's Nov/14 decision to launch a market-share war. By no means did this high correlation mean oil and the USD were always moving in lock step. The collapse in oil prices at the end of the last century led to a production-cutting agreement among OPEC states, Norway and Mexico, which lifted U.S. import prices from less than $10/bbl at the end of 1998 to $30/bbl by Nov/00. Likewise, export disruptions in Venezuela in 2002 - 2003 and, to a lesser extent, hurricane losses in the U.S. Gulf in 2005 sharply curtailed supply and lifted oil prices above what could have been expected given the USD's level at the time, as the Chart of the Week shows.4 End Of Oil's Random Walk? The price collapse of 1Q16 marked the bottom of the price move begun a few months prior to the Nov/14 market-share war declaration. The subsequent divergence between oil prices and the USD since then has been remarkable (Chart 4). The market-share strategy, which essentially allowed Cartel members to produce full-out and grab as much market share as possible, was engineered by KSA, and, we believe, initially was directed at undermining Iran's efforts to restore oil production lost to nuclear-related sanctions. From time to time, it also appeared OPEC was trying to retard the continued growth of shale-oil production in the U.S., which, by 2014, was increasing at an annual rate of more than 1mm b/d, enough to replace the entire output of Libya. Chart 3Close-up Of USD vs. ##br##Brent Divergence Chart 4The Divergence Between ##br##Oil Prices And The USD Is Remarkable This strategy was a complete failure. The price collapse that ensued brought KSA and Russia - both highly dependent on oil revenues - to the brink of financial ruin, compelling them to find a way to work together.5 After several false starts in 2016, they succeeded late in the year with a negotiated production cut. OPEC pledged to reduce output by as much as 1.2mm b/d, and non-OPEC producers agreed to cut output by close to 600k b/d, half of which is expected to come from Russia. Recent tallies by Reuters indicate 94% of the cuts from OPEC states that signed on to the deal have actually been realized.6 Should KSA and Russia find a way to coordinate their and their allies' production in a way that maintains the backwardation we expect later this year - the result of production cuts (Chart 5), and robust demand growth (Chart 6) - we could see oil prices become mean-reverting once again. Chart 5If KSA And Russia Can ##br##Coordinate Production ... Chart 6... And Demand Continues To Grow, ##br##The Oil-Price Backwardation Could Persist This likely requires the forward curves for WTI and Brent to remain backwardated, so as to moderate the growth in shale production, and for prices to remain between $55/bbl and $65/bbl, so as not to set off another shale boom. Gulf sources have indicated KSA prefers prices this year of ~ $60/bbl, which, we believe would allow it to keep some control over the rate at which shale production revives.7 Chart 7Supply Destruction And Robust Growth ##br##Rallied Oil Despite A Strong USD Investment Implications We are not calling for a return to mean-reversion in oil prices just yet. We are, however, highlighting the possibility for such a sea-change in the market if all the supply-side pieces fall into place - i.e., KSA, Russia and their respective allies find a way to work together to moderate U.S. shale-oil production. That said, we will be watching closely to see whether the KSA - Russia Agreement becomes a durable modus operandi in the oil market, particularly as regards the management of inventories and production in the market generally. If these states are able to keep prices ~ $60/bbl, and gain some control over the forward curve's slope - i.e., literally manage their production for backwardation - then there is a chance oil prices could once again become mean-reverting. In a mean-reverting world with backwardated oil prices, commodity-index exposure is favored, since investors would, once again, earn positive roll yields as the indices are rebalanced monthly in the underlying futures markets. Bottom Line: The persistent negative correlation between oil prices and the USD broke down following the global asset sell-off in 1Q16. Since then, the combination of supply destruction and robust demand growth has allowed oil prices to rally despite a strong USD (Chart 7). If KSA and Russia can continue to cooperate in their production-management deal - i.e., find a way to manage production so that prices remain closer to $60/bbl than not - and Brent and WTI forward curves backwardate, markets could once again become mean-reverting. In such a world, commodity-index exposures are favored - particularly those heavy on crude-oil and refined-products price exposure - for their positive roll yield. Robert P. Ryan, Senior Vice President Commodity & Energy Strategy rryan@bcaresearch.com 1 Technically, oil prices have been I(1) variables (integrated of order 1) since about 2000, meaning they are mean-reverting in first differences (e.g., today's price minus yesterday's price). Please see Geman, Helyette (2007), "Mean Reversion Versus Random Walk in Oil and Natural Gas Prices," pp. 219 - 228, in Advances in Mathematical Finance. Haidar, Imad and Rodney C. Wolff (2011) obtained similar results, reporting crude prices were mean-reverting from Jan/86 - Jan/98, then random-walking since then; please see pp. 3 - 4 of "Forecasting Crude Oil Price (revisited)," presented at the 30th USAEE/IAEE North American Conference in Washington, D.C., during October 2011. Our own research corroborates these results - we find WTI and Brent were mean-reverting from Mar/83, when WTI futures started trading, to Mar/98; and were random-walking I(1) variables after that. 2 Please see Samuelson, Paul A. (1965), "Proof That Properly Anticipated Prices Fluctuate Randomly," in Industrial Management Review, 6:2. 3 This is to say, these variables were cointegrated, and could be expressed in a linear combination using an error-correction model. 4 Our colleague, Mathieu Savary, who runs BCA Research's Foreign Exchange Strategy, addressed these oil-USD divergences in "Party Like It's 1999," published November 25, 2016. It is available at fes.bcareseach.com. 5 We discuss this at length in the feature article of Commodity & Energy Strategy published September 8, 2016, entitled "Ignore The KSA - Russia Production Pact, Focus Instead On Their Need For Cash." Both states were burning through cash reserves, and were trying tap foreign markets for additional funds by selling interests in their most valuable holdings - via the IPO of, and via the sale of just under 20% of Rosneft held by the Russian government. Russia placed its Rosneft shares late last year with Glencore and Qatar's sovereign wealth fund, while KSA is expected to IPO Aramco in late 2018. 6 Please see "OPEC compliance with oil curbs rises to 94 percent in February: Reuters survey," published by the news service online February 28, 2017. 7 Please see "Exclusive: Saudi Arabia wants oil prices to rise to around $60 in 2017 - sources," published by Reuters online February 28, 2016. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Tactical Trades Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed In 2017 Summary of Trades Closed in 2016