$80 a barrel oil

cartel activity

About a week ago, Saudi Arabia and Russia, two of the three largest oil producers in the world (the US is #1), announced they were discussing the mechanics of restoring half of the 1.8 million barrels of daily output foreign companies have been withholding from the market since 2016.

the objective? 

…to stop the price from advancing above $80.

To be honest, I’m a bit surprised that oil has gotten this high.  But producing countries have held to their cutback pledges to a far greater degree than they have in the past, with the result that the mammoth glut of oil in temporary storage a couple of years ago is mostly gone.  In addition, the economy of Venezuela is melting away, turning down that country’s output of heavy crude favored by US refiners.   Also, the world is worried that unilateral US withdrawal from the Iranian nuclear agreement may mean the loss of 500,000 daily barrels from that source.

On the other hand, short-term demand for oil is relatively inflexible.  Because of this, even small changes in supply or demand can result in large swings in price.   An extra 1% -2% in production drove the price from $100+ to $24 in 2014-15, for example.  The same amount of underproduction caused the current rebound.  So in hindsight, $80 shouldn’t have been so shocking.

Why $80?

Two factors, I think.  There must be significant internal pressure among producing countries to get even a small amount more foreign exchange by cheating on quotas.  Letting everyone get something may make it harder for one rogue nation to break ranks.

More importantly, a $100 price seems to trigger significant global conservation efforts, as well as to shift the search for petroleum substitutes into a higher gear.  So somewhere around $80 may be as good as it gets for producers.  And it leaves some headroom if efforts to hold the price at $80 fail.

the stocks

My guess is that most of the upward move for the oils is over.  I think there’s still some reason to be interested in financially leveraged shale oil producers in the US as they unwind the restrictions their lenders have placed on them.

 

 

 

the fiduciary rule; the UK election

advisers as fiduciaries

The fiduciary rule for retirement assets issued by the Labor Department goes into effect today, despite intense lobbying against it by the brokerage industry.

The rule requires financial advisers involved with retirement assets–with the notable exception of the 403b pension assets of government workers–to put their clients’ interest ahead of their own in dispensing investment advice.

In essence, this means that the financial adviser will no longer be permitted to recommend high-cost products with poor performance records to clients simply because they pay a high commission or that the broker gets an “educational” weekend for two at a beach resort for doing so.

The conceptual defense (such as it is) for such practices, which are still allowed for non-retirement assets, by the way, is that while the client is still not well off, he’s better off than if he had no advice at all.

No wonder Millennials are willing to take a chance on robo advice.

the British election

The British prime minister, Theresa May, called the election held yesterday with the intention of increasing her party’s four-seat majority in Parliament in advance of the first Brexit talks with the rest of the EU.

With one seat not yet decided, the Conservatives have lost 12 seats instead, according to the Financial Times.

As exit polls came out overnight predicting this unfavorable result, both Asian stocks with interests in the UK and sterling weakened.

Interestingly, as I’m writing this an hour before the US open, both sterling and the FTSE 100 are up slightly.  S&P 500 futures, which had also dipped slightly in Asian trading as the UK news broke, are trading two points higher this morning.

To me as an outsider, it looks like UK citizens are having serious second thoughts about Brexit (politicians in Scotland advocating it’s breaking with the rest of the UK lost, as well).  My point, though, is that except in extreme circumstances–like when Republican opposition torpedoed a proposed economic rescue plan in early 2009 and the S&P dropped 7%–politics make little day-to-day difference to stocks.

what about last Wednesday?

That’s the day the S&P 500 took a dramatic 2% plunge, with recent market leaders doing considerably worse than that, right after the index had reached a high of 2400.

Despite closing a hair’s breadth above the lows–normally a bad sign–the market reversed course on Thursday and has been steadily climbing since.  The prior leadership–globally-oriented secular growth areas like technology–has also reasserted itself.

My thoughts:

–generally speaking, the market is proceeding on a post-Trump rally/anti-Trump agenda course.  Emphasis is on companies with global reach rather than domestic focus, and secular change beneficiaries rather than winners from potential government action that have little other appeal

–while trying to figure out whether the market is expensive or cheap in absolute terms is extremely difficult–and acting on such thoughts is to be avoided whenever possible–the valuation of the S&P in general looks stretched to me.  Tech especially so.  This is especially true if corporate tax reform ends up being a non-starter.  My best guess is that the market flattens out rather than goes down.  But as I wrote a second or two ago absolute direction predictions are fraught with peril

–tech is up by 17.0% this year through last Friday, in a market that’s up 6.4%.  Over the past 12 months, tech is up by 35.2% vs. a gain of 16.8% for the S&P.  Rotation into second-line names appears to me to be under way, suggesting I’m not alone in my valuation concerns

–currency movements are important to note:  the € is up by about 10% this year against the $, other major currencies by about half that amount.  Why this is happening is less important, I think, than that it is–because it implies $-oriented investors will continue to favor global names

–the next move?  I think it will eventually be back into Trump-motivated issues.  For right now, though, it’s probably more important to identify and eliminate faltering tech names among our holdings (on the argument that if they can’t perform in the current environment, when will they?).  My biggest worry is that “eventually” may be a long time in coming.