Energy

Highlights ‘Value’ sector profits are in terminal decline. Bank profits are in terminal decline, because private sector credit is now ‘maxed out’, and the intermediation between borrowers and savers can be done more cost-effectively by the blockchain. Oil and gas profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the energy stored in ‘chemical bonds’ of portable fossil fuels, and rely more on the energy of ‘moving electrons’ generated from unportable alternative energy sources. Basic resources profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the ‘physical stuff’ that requires basic resources. As such, structurally overweighting the value-heavy European market versus the growth-heavy US market is a ‘widow maker’ trade. The caveat is that a vicious snapback out of growth into value is possible when a universally accepted treatment for Covid-19 is found. Or if bond yields spike. This would create a burst of outperformance from Europe, but any such snapback would be a brief interruption to the mega downtrend. Fractal trade: Long RUB/CZK. Feature Chart of the WeekValue' Has Underperformed For 12 Years... But The Mega Downtrend Isn't Over I have just returned from a summer holiday, on which I took a clean break from the financial markets. A clean break that is highly recommended for anybody who looks at the markets day in, day out. Nevertheless, I made two market-relevant observations. First, that having to wear a face mask on an aeroplane was an unpleasant experience. Tolerable for a short-haul flight lasting a couple of hours, but something that would be unbearable for the duration of a long-haul flight. Second, that even the most popular bars and restaurants in the most popular places were operating at half capacity. They were fully booked, yet the requirements of physical distancing at the bar, and between tables, meant that their operating capacity and revenues had collapsed. Worse, the owners feared a further hit in the winter when eating and drinking in their outdoors spaces became impossible. The use of face masks and physical distancing cripples any economic activity that requires you to have your (uncovered) mouth and nose in proximity to others. These first-hand experiences simply confirm the message in An Economy Without Mouths Or Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs.1 The use of face masks and physical distancing cripples any economic activity that requires you to have your (uncovered) mouth and nose in proximity to others – like flying, or drinking and eating out. Hence, if governments remove the financial incentives for employers to retain workers while the pandemic is still rampant, expect structural unemployment to rise sharply. In which case, expect bond yields to remain ultra-low, and where possible, go even lower. And expect ‘growth’ sectors to continue outperforming ‘value’ sectors. Explaining Recent Market Action Returning to the financial markets after a break, several things stood out. Apple has become America’s first $2 trillion company, while HSBC’s share price is within a whisker of its 2008 crisis low. This vignette encapsulates that growth sectors – broadly defined as tech and healthcare – have been roaring ahead, while value sectors – broadly defined as banks, oil and gas, and basic resources – have been struggling. Hence, the growth-heavy S&P500 has reached a new all-time high, while the value-heavy FTSE100 and other European indexes are still deeply in the red for 2020 and have recently drifted lower (Chart I-2). The combined effect is that the strong recovery in global stocks has taken a breather. Chart I-2US Market At All-Time High, But European Markets Still Deeply In The Red In turn, the breather in the stock market explains the recent support to the dollar. Significantly, the 2020 evolution of the dollar is a perfect mirror-image of the stock market. Nothing more, nothing less. If the stock market gives back some of its gains, expect the countertrend strengthening in the dollar to continue (Chart I-3). Chart I-3The Dollar Is A Mirror-Image Of The Stock Market Yet the best performing major asset-class in 2020 is not growth equities, nor is it gold. Instead, it is the US 30-year T-bond, which has returned a spectacular 32 percent (Chart I-4). Chart I-4The Best Performing Major Asset-Class Is The 30-Year T-Bond Suddenly, everything becomes crystal clear. If the ultra-long bond has surged, then other ultra-long duration investments must also surge. Within equities, this means that growth sectors, whose profits are skewed to the very distant future, must receive a huge boost to their valuations. Whereas value sectors whose profits are not growing will receive a smaller (or no) valuation boost. In fact, the value sectors have a much bigger structural problem. Not only are their profits not growing. Their profits are in terminal decline. Since 2008, Overweighting Value Has Been A ‘Widow Maker’ In the 34 years through 1975-2008, value trebled relative to growth.2 Albeit, with the occasional vicious countertrend move, such as the dot com bubble. But through 2009-2020, the tables turned. For the past 12 years, value has structurally underperformed growth and given back around half of its 1975-2008 outperformance (Chart of the Week). This means that for the past 12 years ‘proxy’ value versus growth positions have also structurally underperformed. The best example of such a proxy position is overweighting the value-heavy European market or Emerging Markets versus the growth-heavy US market. Since 2008, underweighting the US market has been a ‘widow maker’ trade. A widow maker trade is when you are on the wrong side of a megatrend. A widow maker trade is when you are on the wrong side of a megatrend. It is a widow maker because it can kill your career, or your finances, or both. The big danger is that a widow maker trade can last for decades. As the uptrend in value versus growth lasted more than three decades, there is no reason to suppose that the downtrend cannot also last a very long time. What drove value’s outperformance for 34 years, and what is driving its underperformance for the past 12 years? The simple answer is the structural trend in profits. Until 2008, the profits of banks, oil and gas, and basic resources kept up with, or even beat, the profits of technology and healthcare. This, combined with the higher yield on these value sectors, resulted in the multi-decade 200 percent outperformance of value versus growth. But since 2008, while the profits of technology and healthcare have continued their strong uptrends, the profits of banks, oil and gas, and basic resources have entered major structural downtrends. It is our high conviction view that these declines are terminal, and the reasons are nothing to do with the pandemic (Chart I-5). Chart I-5Value Sector Profits Are In A Major Structural Downtrend Sector Profit Outlooks In One Sentence Each When a sector’s profits flip from a multi-decade uptrend to a multi-decade downtrend, it is almost unheard of for them to reflip into a new uptrend. Essentially, the sector has entered a terminal decline. As strong believers in brevity, we can summarise the reason for the terminal declines in one sentence per sector, as follows: When a sector’s profits flip from a multi-decade uptrend to a multi-decade downtrend, it is almost unheard of for them to reflip into a new uptrend. Bank profits are in terminal decline, because private sector credit is now ‘maxed out’, and the intermediation between borrowers and savers can be done more cost-effectively by the blockchain (Chart I-6). Chart I-6Bank Profits In Terminal Decline Oil and gas profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the energy stored in ‘chemical bonds’ of portable fossil fuels, and rely more on the energy of ‘moving electrons’ generated from unportable alternative energy sources (Chart I-7). Chart I-7Oil And Gas Profits In Terminal Decline Basic resources profits are in terminal decline, because we now rely less on the ‘physical stuff’ that requires basic resources (Chart I-8). Chart I-8Basic Resources Profits In Terminal Decline Conversely: Technology profits can grow, because we now rely more on information, ideas, and advice, and over half of the world’s population is still not connected to the internet (Chart I-9). Chart I-9Technology Profits Continue To Grow Healthcare profits can grow, because as economies (and people) mature, they spend a much greater proportion of their income on healthcare to improve the quality and quantity of life (Chart I-10). Chart I-10Healthcare Profits Continue To Grow Nevertheless, a vicious snapback out of growth into value is possible. Indeed, it is to be expected when a universally accepted treatment for Covid-19 is found. Or if bond yields spike. But any such snapback, even if vicious, will be a brief countertrend rally in a terminal decline. This is because the megatrends driving down value sector profits were already in place long before the pandemic hit. The pandemic just gave the megatrends an extra nudge. This is our high conviction view. Fractal Trading System* This week’s recommended trade is long RUB/CZK, with the profit target and symmetrical stop-loss set at 5 percent. In other trades, the explosive rallies in precious metals reached exhaustion as anticipated by their fragile fractal structures. This has taken our short gold versus lead position into profit. However, short silver was stopped out before its rally eventually ended. The rolling 1 year win ratio now stands at 60 percent. Chart I-11RUB/CZK When the fractal dimension approaches the lower limit after an investment has been in an established trend it is a potential trigger for a liquidity-triggered trend reversal. Therefore, open a countertrend position. The profit target is a one-third reversal of the preceding 13-week move. Apply a symmetrical stop-loss. Close the position at the profit target or stop-loss. Otherwise close the position after 13 weeks. * For more details please see the European Investment Strategy Special Report “Fractals, Liquidity & A Trading Model,” dated  December 11, 2014, available at eis.bcaresearch.com. Dhaval Joshi Chief European Investment Strategist dhaval@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see the European Investment Strategy Weekly Report "An Economy Without Mouths Or Noses Will Lose 10 Percent Of Jobs", dated July 30, 2020 available at eis.bcaresearch.com. 2 In total return terms. Fractal Trading System   Cyclical Recommendations Structural Recommendations Closed Fractal Trades Trades Closed Trades Asset Performance Currency & Bond Equity Sector Country Equity Indicators Bond Yields Chart II-1Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-2Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-3Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields Chart II-4Indicators To Watch - Bond Yields   Interest Rate Chart II-5Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-6Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-7Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations Chart II-8Indicators To Watch - Interest Rate Expectations  

特別レポート

Highlights We expect limited upside to gas prices from current levels as the comeback of US Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) exports will add to an already oversupplied market. In the short term, prices will remain below full-cycle costs. This will limit investment in LNG and the infrastructure required to get it to market in future. European storage will peak below maximum capacity. Gas forwards are pricing a rapid drawdown over the winter. Whether this occurs depends critically on winter demand in the northern hemisphere and a continued recovery in world economic activity. In the US, declining production in the prolific natural-gas shales and rising LNG exports will help balance its domestic gas markets: Rig counts in the Appalachian basin are at multiyear lows, which is weighing on output. Collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is dramatically reducing associated gas output, which represents more than 16% of total gas production. Still, a second wave of COVID-19 that results in another round of widespread lockdowns could send natgas prices back below $2/MMBtu as storage fills. Over the next few months, the balance of risk in natgas markets – especially in the US – remains to the downside, though highly uncertain. We are staying on the sidelines for now.  Over the medium term, global demand for LNG will catch up with supply by 2024, supported by additional coal-to-gas switching and slower supply growth. Feature The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. Global natural gas markets have been severely hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Natgas prices in Asia, Europe, and the US were amongst the worst performing commodities during the crisis (Chart 1). This reflects weak fundamentals – i.e. a significant global supply surplus – which gas markets faced even before the exogenous shock. The mounting probability inventories will fill up to maximum capacity before this coming winter’s heating season has pushed major European and Asian benchmarks below US LNG’s variable costs. This development renders shipments of US gas overseas uneconomical. The cancellation of US cargoes is acting as the primary balancing factor and will allow inventories to stay below full capacity – assuming global economic activity continues to accelerate in 2H20. Henry Hub prices surged by 34% since the beginning of the month on the back of higher gas demand – from warmer-than-normal weather and rebounding global economic activity – depressed US LNG exports, and prolonged maintenance at Australia’s Gorgon plant. Chart 1Global Gas Benchmarks Collapsed In 1H20 Chart 2Relative Prices Will Favor Additional US LNG Exports As storage-related fears abate, LNG economics is turning favorable for cargoes to be delivered in 4Q20 and 1Q21. This will allow exports of US gas to Europe and Asia to resume as regional demand rises. This improvement is already apparent in relative futures curves (Chart 2). Still, we expect only limited price gains from current levels, especially in the US. The resurgence in US LNG exports will add to the global supply surplus and cap the upside. Relative prices will remain below LNG offtakers' (exporters) full-cycle costs, limiting additional investments in LNG projects over the medium term. We expect demand to catch up to supply by 2024. Gas Fundamentals Worsened In 2019 Global gas demand increased by 2% y/y in 2019, led by growth in the US and China as coal-to-gas switching intensified amid the low-price environment (Chart 3). However, this rate of growth is a marked slowdown relative to the average 3.5% y/y growth from 2016-2018. It was also slower than the strong global supply growth – up 3.4% y/y – and LNG export growth – up 12.7% y/y. Chart 3US, China Supported Gas Demand Growth In 2019 The US was the largest contributor to both new gas and LNG supply, accounting for 65% of the world’s incremental gas production (Chart 4). The liquefaction capacity addition from the first wave of investments – i.e. projects that received a final investment decision (FID) before 2017 – is now mostly operational. Chart 4US Dominated Natgas Supply And LNG Growth In 2019 US LNG capacity stands at ~10 Bcf/d and serves as a needed pressure valve to its oversupplied domestic market – a consequence of rapid shale production growth – forcing the excess gas to Europe and Asia. However, the economic slowdown in Asia in 2H19 meant the region could no longer adequately absorb these new volumes. As a result, global gas markets moved to a supply-surplus. Relative gas price spreads began trending downward and moved in favor of exports to Europe over Asia.1 Europe plays a growing role as a market of last resort for global natural gas – particularly US LNG – due to its well-developed storage infrastructure, regasification units, and pipeline networks. Around 80% of LNG exports from newly added terminals were absorbed by European markets, and most of that went into storage. Around 40% of the global natural gas supply increase last year ended up in storage, according to the IEA (Chart 5). Moreover, milder-than-expected weather last year exacerbated these trends and forced global prices to converge closer to Henry Hub. Chart 5European Storage Absorbed ~ 40% Of Global Gas Supply Growth By the end of 2019, gas storage in Europe was drastically higher than its 5-year average for that period (Chart 6). Chart 6Elevated US And Europe Gas Storage European Storage Will Stay Below Capacity-Testing Levels Cargo cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Global gas markets confronted the COVID-19 pandemic from a fragile starting point. The shock reinforced the imbalances that began in 2019 and completely erased US LNG’s competitiveness in European and Asian markets. As demand fell in response to lockdowns – down 2.8% in the US and 7% in Europe y/y in Jan-May by IEA’s reckoning – storage in Europe was projected to reach full capacity by end-August.2 Consequently, in June, natural gas prices plunged to a more than two-decade low to incentivize supply and demand adjustments. Around 100 LNG cargoes from the US were cancelled for delivery in June and July, based on EIA estimates (Chart 7). US LNG supply is now the main balancing factor in global gas markets: It is a high-cost source of supply when delivered to Europe or Asia and is contracted under more flexible agreements facilitating cargo cancellations. Over the short term, the number of vessels cancelled each month is an important indicator of storage availability in Europe. The decision to cancel a cargo is complex but mainly depends on whether the spreads between US Henry Hub (HH) and Dutch Title Transfer Facility (TTF) or Japan Korea Marker (JKM) prices cover the exporter's variable costs. Based on a Cheniere-type contract,3 this implies the spread must be higher than 115% of Henry Hub prices plus shipping and regasification costs (Chart 2). Chart 7US LNG Vessel Cancellations Balance Global Gas Markets The spread failed to cover variable costs for most of 2020 and even moved to a premium – i.e. HH above TTF – in July. Moreover, because most contracts have a 40-day to 70-day notice period for cancellation, the supply of US LNG only reacted to the rapid drop in demand with a lag, aggravating the supply surplus and flooding European inventories. The resulting supply adjustments, combined with stronger-than-expected demand in Europe, have slowed the storage injections rates in August and pushed prices higher.4 Cancellations for September have been markedly lower, a sign of improving – though still oversupplied – fundamentals. Forward curve behavior suggests market participants expect US LNG shut-ins, combined with robust demand recovery in Asia and Europe, to move price spreads above variable costs by November this year (Chart 8). This is mostly a consequence of rising Asian LNG prices. We expect this will incentivize added exports of US LNG over the coming months which will move Henry Hub prices slightly higher over the winter. Chart 8Relative Price Spreads Cover LNG Variable Costs, But Not Total Costs In fact, some cargoes are reportedly already selling their gas in forward Asian markets and taking longer routes or reducing their travel speed to remain at sea for longer and profit from these higher deferred prices.5 Still, the increase in US prices will be limited given that relative prices need to remain wide enough to cover LNG variable costs. While global prices will move up gradually over the winter, we believe their upside is bounded by the supply surplus, especially as US exports normalize. At current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu. On the demand side, low prices will favor additional coal-to-gas switching as economies recover in 2H20 (Chart 9). Current forward TTF prices are signaling deep drawdowns in European storage this winter as demand in the region increases (Chart 10). Chart 9Cheap Gas Favors Coal-To-Gas Switching Chart 10TTF Forwards Signaling Strong Inventory Draws This Winter In Chart 11, we simulated the remaining of the filling season based on previous monthly seasonal injection rates for Europe. This suggests storage remains at risk of being maxed out by October. However, we believe – in agreement with current forward curves – that the pickup in demand from recovering economic activity, coal-to-gas switching, and lower US exports will further diminish injection rates in Aug-Sep-Oct relative to historical rates (Chart 12). This will allow inventory to reach its seasonal peak slightly below capacity-testing levels. Chart 11Euopean Storage Remains A Significant Downside Risk Chart 12Low US LNG Exports, Warmer Weather Drastically Reduced Injections In July Moreover, flows from Europe to Ukraine should continue freeing up capacity in core EU storage facilities (Chart 13).6 Chart 13Filling Ukrainian Storage Acts As A Safety Valve Chart 14Lower US Gas Supply Slows Inventory Builds In the US, the multi-year-low active gas rigs in the Appalachian basin are starting to weigh on production. Moreover, collapsing oil production in major shale-oil basins is bringing associated gas – which is now more than 16% of total gas production – down rapidly (Chart 14). This contributes to the slowdown in domestic storage injection and to the recent Henry Hub price gains. Still, at current storage levels, a resurgence of lockdowns in the US or Europe would have drastic consequences, sending prices back below $2/MMBtu (Chart 15). Consequently, we believe short-term downside risks from lockdowns are too elevated to try to profit from the limited price increase expected this winter. Chart 15Renewed Lockdowns In Europe Would Push Storage to Capacity   Rising US-Russia Competition Keeps Prices Lower For Longer Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs. In 2019, a record volume of liquefaction capacity reached FID globally (Chart 16). By 2025, global LNG capacity is expected to reach ~73Bcf/d, a ~ 15Bcf/d increase from current levels. Despite the COVID-19 shock, most projects under construction in the US remain on track to be completed as previously scheduled in 2020.7 Global gas markets will stay oversupplied over the medium term. This will keep relative prices between the US and Europe/Asia below LNG exports’ full-cycle costs – i.e. below variable costs plus a fixed contracted liquefaction capacity fee estimated at ~$3/MMBtu. Chart 16Record FID Risks Keeping Markets Oversupplied Mounting competition – especially from Russia – in both Europe and Asia will hold down prices over the coming years. In Europe, the completion of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline would add 5.3Bcf/d of cheap Russian gas supply and could keep prices ~ $1/MMBtu lower than otherwise.8 These new volumes would be absorbed by higher European consumption – fueled by low prices – and lower US LNG exports – from weak relative prices. Geopolitics is a major factor driving Russian behavior and hence oversupply: The US and Russia will vie with each other for market share in Europe. As gas markets further liberalize globally, Europe will be increasingly essential for US LNG as its destination of last resort in times of low demand elsewhere. If Russia floods this market with gas, it reduces Europe’s ability to absorb US gas, which will lead to lower Henry Hub prices. It will shut in US supply in times of low demand, making investments there riskier. While US administrations of either party almost always attempt to engage Russia at the beginning of a four-year term, the US foreign policy establishment no longer believes that engagement with Russia is beneficial (Chart 17). This is apparent under the Russia-friendly Trump administration but will be especially relevant if the Democratic Party wins the White House in November. Democrats blame Russia for undermining and ultimately reversing the Obama administration’s policies by betraying the US-Russia diplomatic “reset” and interfering in the 2016 election. Chart 17Russian Geopolitical Risk Set To Increase Even If Trump Re-Elected Hence the US will continue to impose sanctions on Russia and probably on a range of companies involved in Nord Stream 2 and Turkstream. If both pipelines are completed, then Washington will ask Europe to compensate for its Russia dealings in other ways. Meanwhile Russia will use a combination of commercial and strategic measures to woo Germany and the Europeans so that they do not commit to preferential bilateral deals with the United States. Because the US and Russia are engaged in a great power struggle – rather than healthy trade competition – they will attempt to achieve their aims through means other than price and volume. Punitive measures will create volatility by occasionally removing supplies but probably cannot change the backdrop of oversupply. The gist is that US-Russia relations will remain antagonistic and Europe will benefit from the oversupply except during times of surprise sanctions and strategic blows. In China, we expect imports of US LNG to increase. However, rising Russian LNG and pipeline supplies, increasing domestic gas output, and a persistent global oversupply of gas will limit the incentives for Chinese buyers to sign long-term agreements with US exporters at a price above full-cycle costs – i.e. ~ $7/MMBtu.9 The ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. This has large implications for the US gas market, as LNG capacity represents ~ 11% of its domestic supply – based on 1H20 production levels. Low demand growth for its gas in Europe or Asia will keep Henry Hub prices low to limit supply growth from shale gas and limit investment in additional liquefaction capacity. Here too geopolitics will undermine Henry Hub prices: China is strengthening economic ties with its strategic partner, Russia, and the ongoing US-China trade conflict will encourage China to use US LNG imports as a negotiating lever. A Biden administration would approach China differently from the Trump administration but it would still have to face fundamental trade tensions due to China’s mercantilism and the US attempt to contain China’s technological rise. China is crucial for global LNG demand growth, but trade tensions will reignite even under Biden and spill over into China’s demand for US commodities. China has substitutes for American LNG. If trade tensions affect China’s imports of US LNG then they will lead to lower Henry Hub prices and possibly to vessel cancellations, especially if European storage once again proves unable to absorb these exports during the injection season. The Biden administration will not ultimately be China-friendly, looking beyond any diplomatic “reset” in its first year, and thus the risk of China diversifying away from US LNG is real. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. There are currently more than 6Bcf/d of approved, not yet FID, projects in the US. We do not expect much of this capacity to move forward until LNG economics turn favorable and buyers’ willingness to sign long-term contracts comes back. Large projects expected to start closer to 2025 – e.g. Shell’s LNG Canada and Total’s Mozambique LNG – could be delayed to the second half of the decade. On the demand side, persistent low prices will reinforce two ongoing trends. First, this will favor additional coal-to-gas switching in most regions, helping demand to catch up to supply by 2024 and eventually forcing European and Asian prices significantly higher in anticipation of tighter fundamentals. Second, low spot LNG prices in Asia and the availability of flexible supply will accelerate the shift to a merchant/trading market.10 The movement toward shorter and non-indexed-oil contracts continued in 2019, with spot and short term contracts reaching 34% of total LNG flows in 2019, up 32% vs. 2018 (Chart 18). The COVID-19 shock augmented the incentive to switch to non-oil-indexed contracts given the steep discount it created in LNG spot market prices versus oil-indexed contracts. Based on our Brent price forecasts, we expect this divergence to persist in 2021 (Chart 19). Chart 18Shorter, Gas-On-Gas Contracts Will Increase In Asia Chart 19Spot Prices Will Decouple From Oil-Indexed Again In 2021 The convergence in regional prices that began in 2019 is disrupting the standard LNG model based on significant regional price spreads. Low and uniform prices reduce the arbitrage of moving gas overseas. Companies will need to start using sophisticated financial instruments and will increasingly resort to spot and futures markets, like in oil markets.11 Crucially, our expectation that demand will catch up to supply assumes government policies aimed at reducing carbon emissions continue being implemented in major consuming countries. Future gas consumption is a function of economic – i.e. price incentives – and policy variables. A reversal in China’s environmental policies could drastically slow gas demand growth and remains a risk to our view. At present China’s policy setting aims for growth recovery at all costs, but the driver of Xi Jinping’s green policy is the middle class demand for healthier air and environment (Chart 20). Hence the slog to diversify away from coal will resume over the medium and long run. Bottom Line: The large collapse in prices will remain bearish for US LNG over the short term as global gas markets remain firmly oversupplied and storage levels hew dangerously close to maximum capacity. Global natgas prices are moving up, ahead of this winter, but gains will be limited by the persistent oversupply. Relative prices will be capped close to variable costs. These unfavorable conditions for additional investments in LNG projects could create a supply deficit later in the decade. Chart 20China"s Green Policy Is Driven By Its Growing Middle Class   Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com         Footnotes 1     These destination adjustments in response to price incentives are possible because of the flexibility in US long-term LNG agreements. These contracts, for the most part, have no predetermined destination clause. 2     For instance see "NWE gas storage sites could be 'almost' full by end-August: Platts Analytics" published by S&P Global Platts on May 21, 2020. 3    There exists two main types of LNG contracts in the US: (1) Tolling agreements in which the LNG exporter needs to secure the feedgas, transport the gas to the liquefaction facility, and ship it to the buyer. In this model, the LNG operator charges a fixed fee – usually in the range of $2.25 to $3.5/MMBtu, paid regardless of whether they use their contracted LNG space to liquefy the gas. The ownership of the gas remains in the hand of the offtaker. (2) Chienere-type agreements – or a hybrid merchant-tolling structure – in which the LNG operator secures the feedgas and transports it to its liquefaction facilities. It takes ownership of the gas until it is liquefied and sold to the exporter responsible for shipping the gas to the final buyer – the pricing scheme is usually ~115% of Henry Hub gas prices + a fixed liquefaction fee. In the US, the Cove Point, Freeport, Cameron, and Elba terminals mostly use the tolling model, while all of Cheniere’s installations – i.e. Sabine Pass and Corpus Christi – are operating under Cheniere-type models. In our analysis we use the Cheniere-type as it is slightly more flexible and seems more vulnerable to cargo cancellations – subject to a penalty, or fixed fee, to ensure a reliable cash flow to Cheniere. Moreover, it is difficult to estimate how much of the shipping cost are truly variable, some offtakers have long-term shipping contracts to diminish total variable costs. Please see “Steady as She Goes, Part 5 - How Global Prices Drive U.S. LNG Cargo Destinations,” published by RBN Energy on August 1, 2020 for a detailed discussion of LNG exporters’ costs. 4    Maintenance delays at Australia’s Gorgon LNG plant also contributed to the price increase, especially in Asia. Please see "Chevron says expects to restart Train 2 of Gorgon LNG plant in early September" published by reuters.com on July 28, 2020 for more details. 5    Please see "Buyers of U.S. LNG cancel September cargoes but pace slows, sources say," published by reuters.com on July 21, 2020. 6    Since May this year, the Ukrainian storage and gas pipeline managing company UkrTransGaz started offering discounts on transportation fees and other arrangements to incentivize European traders to storage gas at their facilities. Natgas stored by non-resident in customs warehouses with UkrTransGaz are more than four times higher than last year. Please see “European gas storage: backhaul helps open the Ukrainian safety valve,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in May 2020. 7     A few projects reported lockdown-related delays of up to 4 months. 8    Please see "Nord Stream 2 and the battle for gas market share in Europe" published by Wood Mackenzie on July 24, 2020. 9    Please see “No Upside: The U.S. LNG Buildout Faces Price Resistance From China,” published by The Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), July 2020. 10   We highlighted in our October 4, 2018 report titled "US Set To Disrupt Global LNG Market" that the large LNG supply expansion in the US would incentivize consumers to shorten the tenor of oil-indexed contracts, replacing them with hedgeable futures-based contracts. 11    Please see “Covid-19 And The Energy Transition,” published by Oxford Institute For Energy Studies in July 2020. Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights The Beirut blast calls attention to instability in the Shia Crescent. A turbulent push for political change will now ensue in Lebanon. Hezbollah’s and Iran’s political capital in Lebanon will suffer significantly. Lebanon is a red herring, but Iraq is a Black Swan. It is at risk of social unrest contagion. Iran’s financial troubles are weighing on its ability to maintain its sphere of influence. It is adopting a strategy of measured sabotage and deterrence against US interests in Iraq. The double whammy of low oil prices and pandemic is weighing on Saudi Arabia’s finances. Nevertheless it is prioritizing a cooperative relationship with Iraq. Iran could stage a major attack or President Trump’s poor election prospects could force him to “wag the dog.” Massive excess oil capacity will mute the oil market impact of a supply shortfall in Iraq. However, the risk becomes more relevant as demand recovers and markets rebalance in the second half of the year. Stay long Brent crude oil and gold. Feature The August 4 explosion at the Port of Beirut was devastating. It killed more than 220, wounded over 6000, left 300,000 homeless, and damaged buildings as far away as 9km from the site of the explosion. The blast added insult to injury to the country’s already troubled finances. Estimates for the cost of repair range anywhere between $5 billion and $15 billion. Global investors can largely write off the incident as an idiosyncratic shock. Even though emigration is likely to pick up, Lebanon’s population is only a third of Syria’s prior to its civil war. Assuming that a third of Lebanese become displaced abroad – a generous assumption more suitable to Syrian-style civil war than Lebanon’s situation – about 2 million Lebanese will be displaced, half of which will make their way to Europe or elsewhere outside the Middle East. As long as an antagonistic Turkey upholds its agreement with the EU, a mass exodus from Lebanon does not risk an unmanageable migrant crisis for Europe (Chart 1). Political tensions will rise and potentially lead to a populist backlash, given Europe’s battered economy. But Lebanon alone is not enough. The risk is broader Middle Eastern instability, which is a credible risk. Chart 1Middle Eastern Instability Could Fuel European Populism Thus Lebanon in itself is a red herring, but it is a bellwether for further unrest in the Middle East in countries that are not red herrings (Map 1). Map 1Lebanon Is A Red Herring; Iraq And Saudi Arabia Are Relevant A major conflict in Iraq is an underrated risk to global oil supply. The catastrophe calls attention to instability the Shia Crescent – a region in a tug of war between rival sectarian and geopolitical interests. Whereas the 2008 crisis led to the largely Sunni Arab states in the so-called Arab Spring, the 2020 crisis is piling pressure onto already unstable Shia states and regions: Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and possibly eastern Saudi Arabia. Of particular significance is the fate of Iraq. Popular grievances are eerily similar to Lebanon’s. Baghdad is on shaky ground, yet the ramp up in US-Iran tensions going into the November US elections makes the threat of instability in Iraq more acute. As OPEC’s second ranked oil producer, a major conflict in Iraq poses an underrated risk to global oil supply. Supply losses are a tailwind to oil prices when market conditions are tight. However OPEC 2.0’s 8.3mm b/d of voluntary cuts means massive spare capacity is available globally to offset potential losses in Iraq, reducing the potential upside to oil prices. Nevertheless, this risk becomes more relevant as markets tighten on the back of a demand-side recovery, i.e. as balance is restored to the oil market and as excess spare capacity is eliminated. With oil markets likely rebalancing in 3Q20, unrest in Iraq poses an upside risk to our Commodity & Energy Strategy service’s expectation that 2H20 Brent prices will average $44/bbl and 2021 prices will average $65/bbl (Chart 2). Even though gold has already rallied 30% since mid-March, geopolitical risks including US-Iran tensions suggest any near-term selloff is a buying opportunity (Chart 3). The bullish gold narrative – geopolitical risks, falling dollar, and low real interest rates for the foreseeable future – remain intact even as the downturn gives way to a cyclical recovery. We continue to recommend gold on a strategic time horizon. Chart 2Oil Price Rally Remains Intact Chart 3Gold Is Due For A Breather Lebanon’s economic collapse highlights risks to other regional economies tied to the oil dependent Arab economies of the Persian Gulf. As the latter grapple with record low oil prices, production cuts, and the pandemic-induced recession, second-order effects will reverberate throughout the region, hitting economies such as Egypt and Jordan whose economic as well as political structures are intimately intertwined with Gulf Cooperation Council finances and policies. Lebanon’s Collapse Was Inevitable Lebanon was already going through an economic and financial meltdown before the explosion (Chart 4). Aside from the humanitarian loss, the economic impact is also profound. The country – highly dependent on imports of basic goods and suffering from food insecurity – must now contend with the loss of its main port and most of its grain reserves, destroyed in the explosion. As the dust settles, grief is morphing into anger on the streets. Regardless of whether the blast was due to happenstance or malice, the immediate cause was 2,750 tons of ammonium nitrate in storage for six years. The government was warned about the risks of the explosive chemicals at least four times this year – with the latest being on the day of the blast. Chart 4Beirut Port Explosion Accelerated Lebanon’s Collapse Mass protests are already taking place, calling on the government to be held accountable for criminal negligence. A controversial petition to return Lebanon to French mandate has gained more than 60,000 signatures. Prime Minister Hassan Diab’s seven-month-old cabinet has resigned. (It was put in place last year amid an earlier bout of unrest.) Official incompetence and neglect are in fact the best-case explanations for the explosion. Many questions remain unanswered. For instance, what triggered the fire? Israel swiftly denied any connection and offered humanitarian aid, while Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah claimed to know more about the Port of Haifa than about Beirut Port. Early parliamentary elections and the cabinet’s resignation will not appease the protesters. Photos of Nasrallah, President Aoun, Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, and former Prime Minister Saad Hariri were among those hung by protesters in gallows in Martyrs’ Square over the weekend. Berri and Gebran Bassil are known to be the source of the cabinet’s decision-making power.1 They have veto over all decisions, large and small. During the mass protests in October 2019, Nasrallah stated that Hezbollah has two red lines:     Aoun must finish his term, which expires in 2022;     No early elections will be held, i.e. the speaker of the house will not be changed. While early elections have now been promised, these red lines highlight that corruption runs deep in Lebanon and opposition groups face an uphill battle against the establishment. A turbulent push for political change will now ensue. Hezbollah’s and Iran’s political capital in Lebanon will suffer significantly. Another Israeli confrontation with Hezbollah is not the base case but it could occur. Bottom Line: Lebanon is a failed state. As with the Arab Spring, the question is whether popular anger will prove contagious and spread to more market-relevant neighboring countries. The rally in the Israeli shekel in trade weighted terms since mid-March has already started to fizzle and may be tested further as turmoil in Lebanon raises the risk of confrontation. Contagion? In order for a geopolitical event in the Middle East to warrant investors’ attention, it must affect at least two of the following factors : (1) global oil supply, (2) geography of existential significance to a regional power, or (3) sectarian conflict which could lead to contagion. In this context, Lebanon is a red herring, but Iraq is not – therefore investors should watch to see if anything causes destabilization in Iraq. A decline in Iranian funds will weaken Tehran’s sphere of influence. Like Lebanon, Iraq is dominated by a highly corrupt sectarian system that has been plundering the wealth; people are suffering from rising rates of unemployment; and the regime is in the crosshairs of competing foreign agendas (Chart 5). Chart 5Iraqis And Lebanese Suffer Similar Grievances Iraq is in Iran’s sights because it aspires to establish a land bridge to the Mediterranean through a friendly “Shia Crescent” (Map 2). Iran’s modus operandi is to establish a presence in its neighbors’ domestic politics through Iran-backed factions. Map 2Iraq Essential To Iran’s Aspirational ‘Land Bridge’ To The Mediterranean Given the current state of Iran’s economy, it is not far-fetched to envision a significant drop in the funding of its foreign proxies (Chart 6). Historically these funds have followed the ebbs and flows of oil prices. For instance, in 2009, when faced with declining oil prices and US sanctions Iran’s funds to Hezbollah were estimated to have fallen by 40%. This happened again in 2014-16 and is not too different from today. Thus Iraq is at risk of contagion. Iran’s financial troubles are weighing on its ability to maintain its sphere of influence. Syrian fighters have reported paychecks being slashed, Iranian projects in Syria have stalled, and Hezbollah employees report to have missed paychecks and lost other benefits. Tehran’s finances are essential for Hezbollah’s survival.2 Iran’s proxies in Iraq are facing a similar fate.3 Chart 6Iran Suffering Under "Maximum Pressure" Bottom Line: Iraq faces an uptick in social unrest due to the poor living conditions and possible contagion from Lebanon. Meanwhile, Iran-backed groups there face a decline in funds from Tehran, which will send them searching for replacement funds. If Lebanon falters the world can usually ignore it but if Iraq falters the world will have to take notice. Saudi Arabia Prioritizes Revenue Over Growth Beirut’s foreign policy stances in recent years have been seen as appeasing Iran at the expense of Gulf Arab states.4 This trend coincides with a decline in Gulf Cooperation Council financing to Lebanon. Now the collapse in oil prices and pandemic have weighed on Saudi Arabia’s budget, which still depends on the energy sector for most of its revenues despite efforts to diversify. State revenues were down 49% year-on-year in Q2 pulling the budget deficit down to $29 billion (Chart 7). Riyadh is reassessing its priorities. Opting for revenue at the expense of growth, Riyadh has tightened the screws on its citizens. The government has had to pare back some of the benefits Saudis have long been accustomed to. The value-added-tax rate tripled from 5% to 15%, and a bonus cost-of-living allowance of $266 for public sector employees ended. The kingdom also announced plans to reduce spending on major projects by $26 billion – including some of those associated with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s reform agenda, Vision 2030. Chart 7Saudi Arabia Under Pressure From Double Whammy Severe economic turmoil poses a risk to the Saudi social contract in which citizens pledge allegiance to the ruling class in exchange for financial and social guarantees. The risk now is that the fiscal challenges dent Saudi citizens’ pocketbooks and thus impact social and political stability. However, oil prices are recovering to levels consistent with the kingdom’s fiscal breakeven oil price next year. The global economic recovery will begin to support the kingdom’s economy in the second half of this year (Chart 8). This will ease pressure on the budget and hence households. Moreover the slowdown is likely to hit foreign workers hardest and thus hasten the Saudization process. Foreign workers are the lowest hanging fruit and will be the first to find themselves jobless. In that sense the crisis is expediting some of Riyadh’s long-term reform targets. That said, there is still some risk of internal instability or even a palace coup. Tehran could incite sectarian tensions in the kingdom’s Eastern Province where an estimated 30-50% of the population is believed to be Shia. This is relevant given that nearly all Saudi oil production is located there. Chart 8KSA Benefits From EM GDP Growth ... Regarding the possibility of a palace coup, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has spent this year cracking down on potential dissidents. Former Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef and King Salman’s only surviving full-brother Prince Ahmed bin Abdulaziz – both influential and well-liked – were among those detained in March. The kingdom’s contradictory policies – reform through repression – may eventually culminate in an overt political crisis. Though such a crisis may not occur until the time of royal succession. These economic and political challenges may force Saudi Arabia to adopt an inward stance. Its foreign interventions to date have been costly and come with little benefit – judging by the war in Yemen. It is also possible that Saudi Arabia, which is already the third largest defense spender globally, will try to strengthen its position vis-à-vis Iran. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has already stated that the kingdom will pursue a nuclear program if Iran develops a nuclear bomb. This is relevant in today’s context with Iran no longer complying with restrictions to its nuclear program (Table 1). Saudi Arabia, like Iran, claims its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes – in order to generate nuclear power as part of efforts to diversify its economy.5 Table 1Iran No Longer Complying With 2015 Nuclear Deal Still, low oil prices tend to discourage petro states from engaging in conflict (Chart 9). Arab petro states may show restraint, at least until oil markets recover. Chart 9Low Oil Prices Discourage Petro States From Engaging In Conflict Overall weakness in oil-producing economies will hurt various countries that rely on remittances (Chart 10). The downturn will also hurt countries dependent on remittances from petro states in the region such as Egypt and Jordan. Bottom Line: The collapse in oil prices is forcing Saudi Arabia to reconsider its priorities and is expediting some long-term reforms. For now, it is adopting a pro-revenue rather than a pro-growth stance. This is likely to result in a focus inward for the kingdom. The implication is that countries that are leveraged to the petro-economies of the Gulf for remittances, bilateral aid, and capital flows will take a hit. These include Lebanon, Egypt, and Jordan. Chart 10Egypt And Jordan Also Vulnerable To Petro State Weakness Iraq Is The Prize Not unlike Lebanon, Iraq’s political class has been suffering a legitimacy crisis since protests erupted there last October resulting in the resignation of then-Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. However unlike Lebanon, Iraq is a significant geography for global investors. It is a major OPEC producer – second only to Saudi Arabia – accounting for 16% of the cartel’s production last year. The Iraqi oil minister’s first foreign trip was to the Saudi capital. This is not surprising. Iraq not only seeks Saudi leniency in OPEC 2.0 cuts, but also needs financial assistance to develop a natural gas field that will allow it to reduce dependence on Iran. Saudi Arabia also hopes to reduce Iraq’s dependence on Iranian natural gas and coax it into its sphere of influence. When it comes to crude oil, the additional 1mm b/d of voluntary cuts in June announced unilaterally by Saudi Arabia beyond its agreed OPEC 2.0 commitments are also a sign of Saudi willingness to accommodate Iraq and its non-compliance  (Chart 11).6 Saudi Arabia does not want to see Iraq’s newly elected government failing on the back of budgetary strain. In fact, al-Kadhimi is an opportunity for the Saudis. Formerly the director the National Intelligence Service with warm ties to the US, he is a champion of Iraqi sovereignty. Even though Iraq is being forced to compensate for past overproduction of oil in August and September, it was cajoled by the promise of a $500 million “bridging” loan from Saudi Arabia, to be repaid when oil markets recover. While financial assistance shows the kingdom’s commitment to Iraq, more significantly it reflects Riyadh’s desperation to revive oil markets and bring prices closer to its fiscal breakeven oil price amid the still uncertain demand outlook. Chart 11Saudi Arabia Willing To Accommodate Iraq Neither Saudi Arabia’s nor al-Kadhimi’s efforts are guaranteed to succeed in pulling Iraq out of Iran’s sphere. The prime minister received a rude awakening upon his arrest of 14 Kata’ib Hezbollah fighters in June on grounds of a plan to launch a rocket attack on US interest in Baghdad. They were swiftly released, and the case against them dropped. It is hard to curb Iranian influence. For its part, Iran stood behind al-Kadhimi’s nomination despite him being perceived as pro-Western. Tehran needed to avoid an anti-Iranian backlash on the streets of Baghdad if it had stood against him. Instead, Iran’s calculus was that it is in its best interest to swallow the pill and work with the new government at a time when Iraqi anger was targeted against US involvement rather than at Iranian interference. Prior to the US assassination of Qassem al-Suleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis on Iraqi soil, Iraqis were rebelling against Iran’s influence. That being said, Iran will maintain pressure on Iraq through continued attacks on US interests there (Table A1 in Appendix). This is also reflected in the July assassination of top Iraqi security expert Hisham al-Hashimi, who had previously advised the government on how to curb Iranian control. Iran was looking to make it to the US election in November without an escalation in tensions, hoping the US elections will result in a more dovish Democratic Party leadership averse to conflict with Iran. However, recent cyber-attacks on key Iranian infrastructure raise the likelihood that tensions will escalate ahead of the elections. The US is also threatening to maintain maximum sanctions even if the United Nations Security Council disagrees. As always, Iraq will find itself in the crossfire of any deterioration in relations. Bottom Line: Maintaining a cooperative relationship with Iraq aligns with both of Saudi Arabia’s interests there: limiting Iranian interference and supporting global oil markets through supply-side discipline. Iran will maintain pressure on Iraq’s new government through continued attacks on US interests. However, these attacks are supposed to fall short of killing US citizens and giving President Trump a reason to launch air strikes that could give him a patriotic boost in opinion polls. Nevertheless, tensions in the Gulf could escalate if Iran stages a major attack or if President Trump’s poor election prospects force him to “wag the dog.” In that case Iraqi oil supply would be disrupted. Investment Implications The Shia Crescent remains at heightened risk of instability on the back of Iran’s economic deterioration. Massive excess oil capacity will mute the oil market impact of a supply shortfall in Iraq. However, the risk becomes more relevant as demand recovers and markets rebalance in the second half of the year. Given that the Saudi loan will ensure Iraq’s commitment to compensatory production cuts in August and September, supply-side risks are a tailwind to oil prices in H2. The elevated risk of an escalation in US-Iran tensions also favors holding gold. President Trump’s polling has bottomed, yet he remains the underdog in the election – we maintain his odds of winning reelection are 35%. This raises the risk that he adopts a “war president” posture. Iran could become a target as the financial price of confronting Iran is negligible for Trump, whereas a major China confrontation could sink the stock market. The collapse in oil prices and pandemic have weighed on Saudi Arabia’s budget. It has adopted a revenue over growth posture. While this could be a risk to domestic stability, our base case is that it accelerates the kingdom’s long-term reforms. The oil market rout and economic downturn will hurt other countries in the region that are leveraged to Arab petro states – chiefly Egypt and Jordan. Investors should monitor risks to state stability in the coming years. Lebanon’s crisis will incentivize emigration, but given the relatively small size of its population, the major risk to Europe comes from any broader state failures and Middle Eastern instability rather than from Lebanon’s failure alone. If the Democratic Party wins the US election, as expected, then the US-Iran strategic détente will resume and Iran will get a lifeline. But the immediate transition will still be rocky given the Israeli and Saudi desire to exploit Iran’s extreme vulnerability and build leverage with Washington. The COVID-19 crisis heralds another round of Middle Eastern crisis, much as the 2008 crisis led to the Arab Spring. Stay strategically long Brent crude oil and gold. Also, in the wake of yesterday’s 15% pullback in silver, go strategically long silver (XAGUSD), which will continue benefiting from the same structural trends favoring gold but also outperform gold as the global economy recovers, given its greater industrial utility.     Roukaya Ibrahim Editor/Strategist Geopolitical Strategy RoukayaI@bcaresearch.com       Appendix Table A1Iran Adopting Deterrence Strategy In Iraq   Footnotes 1     Berri is of the Hezbollah-allied Amal Movement and has been parliamentary speaker since 1992, while Bassil is President Aoun’s son-in-law and president of the Free Patriotic Movement, which has the most seats in parliament. 2     Hezbollah gains legitimacy at home through its charity work that plugs the gap in services normally provided for by the government. 3    According to a commander of an Iran-backed paramilitary group in Iraq, Iran slashed its monthly funding to the top four militias by nearly half this year. Please see “Coronavirus and sanctions hit Iran’s support of proxies in Iraq,” Reuters, July 2, 2020. 4    Hezbollah has gained control over the foreign policy and Lebanon has recently taken stances that are seen as bowing to Iranian pressure. Lebanon did not attend a March 22, 2018 extraordinary Arab League meeting discussing violations committed by Iran. Prior to that, Beirut did not condemn Iranian attacks on a Saudi diplomatic mission in Tehran. 5    However an undisclosed facility for processing uranium ore in the northeast of the kingdom has recently appeared. 6    This is not unlike the US’s decision to extend sanction waivers by four months, allowing Baghdad to import Iranian energy in order to ensure that the new government of Prime Minister Mustafa al-Kadhimi can stand on its own and is not overly dependent on Iran.

Highlights The implementation of an oil-price hedging strategy by Russia’s government – consisting of put buying a la Mexico’s strategy for putting a floor under government revenues – would force us to re-consider our bullish view. On the one hand, systematically hedging forward revenues when deferred prices met the government’s budget threshold – currently $42.40/bbl for Urals crude oil – would tangibly increase Russia’s impact on forward price discovery.  This could become one of the tools available to OPEC 2.0 that allow it to influence the shape of the forward curve, perhaps supporting a backwardation benefiting member states.  On the other, hedging government revenues could free Russia and its oil companies from supporting the OPEC 2.0 framework, thus returning the swing-producer responsibilities for balancing the market to OPEC. Significant obstacles stand in the way of implementing a hedging program by the Russian government.  Hedging even volumes in futures could overwhelm the supply of liquidity in these markets, particularly in the deferred contracts: Average daily Brent volumes are ~ 700mm b/d for the entire market.1 Feature OPEC 2.0’s mostly successful production management scheme is a key factor driving our bullish view of oil. The coalition led by KSA and Russia is keeping output constrained while global demand recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. This will tighten global supply-demand balances and reduce inventories (Chart of the Week). This dynamic drives our expectation that prices will remain around current levels for 2H20 – at ~ $44/bbl for Brent – and, based on our modeling, push prices to $65/bbl on average next year. At the end of the day, OPEC 2.0 is a quasi-cartel operating under a Declaration of Cooperation signed by the original cartel and non-OPEC producers led by Russia in late 2016 and renewed and expanded periodically since then. Without this cooperation, it is highly doubtful oil prices would have recovered from the demand-destruction visited upon the market by the COVID-19 pandemic as quickly as they have. Chart of the WeekOPEC 2.0 Production Discipline Underpins Our Bullish Oil View Nor is it likely the inventory overhang dogging markets since the end of the 2014-16 market-share war launched by KSA, then compounded by waivers on Iranian oil-export sanctions in November 2018 by the US, could have been addressed as effectively as they were prior to the pandemic’s arrival. In all likelihood, a punishing continuation of low prices would have been required to destroy enough production globally – in OPEC and ex-OPEC – into 2017 for prices to finally recover. OPEC 2.0’s Days Numbered? We have long argued the OPEC 2.0 framework benefitted Russia and KSA more than unrestrained production, which, left unchecked, would keep prices closer to $30/bbl than $70/bbl. The leadership of Russia’s oil sector has been a reluctant participant in the coalition’s production-management scheme. This was apparent in every meeting of OPEC 2.0 up to an including it March 2020 meeting in Vienna, where an extension of the coalition’s production cut advanced by KSA was nixed by Russia. A brief market-share war followed just as the COVID-19 pandemic started advancing beyond China’s borders, resulting in lockdowns and unprecedented demand destruction. OPEC 2.0 was then reconstituted, and the production cuts it agreed have restored balance to the market. However, this balance is tentative. On the demand side, a second wave of the pandemic is spreading, and with it the risk widespread lockdowns again are mandated. This would lead to another round of demand destruction if the scale of the lockdowns approached that of the first wave seen in 1H20. This is not our base case, but it is a risk we have been highlighting repeatedly in our reports. We find KSA’s GDP increases ~ 1% when EM oil consumption goes up by one percent, while Russia’s GPD increases by ~ 0.5%. On the supply side, we have long argued the OPEC 2.0 framework benefitted Russia and KSA more than unrestrained production, which, left unchecked, would keep prices closer to $30/bbl than $70/bbl.2 In the current arrangement, KSA and Russia are able to grow their GDPs as they see fit, with KSA apparently targeting EM sales, which will grow as those economies grow, and Russia apparently pursuing a strategy that centers on making its barrels available to trading markets and EM buyers (Charts 2A and 2B).3 Chart 2AKSA Benefits From EM GDP Growth ... Chart 2B... As Does Russia This arrangement can endure as long as the OPEC 2.0 members' revenues – particularly those of its leadership – are at risk from uncontrolled production – e.g., another market-share war. A New Game? If, however, one or both of OPEC 2.0's leaders is able to hedge its revenue, the game changes. If it is Russia, as President Putin has suggested, and the government is able to hedge the ~ 40% or so of the federal budget covered by oil and gas revenues, the game changes profoundly (Chart 3). The only motive for Russia to participate in the OPEC 2.0 framework is to keep prices from collapsing below the level assumed for budgeting purposes. This is $42.40/bbl for Urals, the benchmark Russian crude traded in global markets (Chart 4). At present, OPEC 2.0 production discipline is contributing to holding prices just above this level, as member states calibrate their output consistent with the recovery in global demand. Chart 3Russia's Budget Relies Heavily On Oil & Gas Revenues Chart 4OPEC 2.0 Cuts Contribute To Stronger Urals Crude Price Of course, if Russia were able to hedge the oil and gas revenues funding its budget, this production discipline would not be needed in the short term – it could produce at will knowing there is a floor under revenue. Crude-oil futures and options markets cannot handle the volume Russia likely would require to fully hedge the oil and gas revenues funding its budget. That’s a big IF, however. The demand destruction caused by the COVID-19 pandemic in the first five months of this year was responsible for the loss of up to 25% of Russia’s oil, gas and coal exports, which translated into a 50% loss of export revenues and a 25% decline in budget as prices and volumes fell, according to the Carnegie Moscow Center.4 Russia’s GDP is expected to fall by 6% this year, according to the World Bank, in the wake of the pandemic.5 Crude-oil futures and options markets cannot handle the volume Russia likely would require to fully hedge the oil and gas revenues funding its budget. Brent futures and options open interest on the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) total 3.34 billion barrels on July 21, 2020 (Chart 5). This is spread across the whole term structure. Worthwhile considering that just 1mm b/d of production hedged for 1 year = 365mm bbls = ~ 11% of total Brent open interest. Such a large concentration of open interest accounted for by one entity – even if it is a bona fide government – would, perforce, raise regulators concerns over market manipulation.6 Chart 5Russia's Hedging Volumes Likely Would Swamp Futures Markets Broadening OPEC 2.0’s Tool Kit The successful implementation of a hedging strategy by Russia would force us to re-consider our bullish oil view. Even though we view the likelihood Russia’s government will adopt a full revenue hedging program to be low, we think the argument that it – and KSA – could hedge discrete exposures over time makes sense. These markets exist to process information via trading activities. If there are discrete exposures Russia hedges that keep Brent forward curves backwardated, for example, this would affect the hedging economics of US shale producers protecting their revenues one to three years into the future (Chart 6). Hedging in future while keeping production in the prompt-delivery months in line with OPEC 2.0 quotas would support a backwardation. Prices in the deferred part of the curve would be lower than at the front, which would produce less revenue for hedgers, while higher prices in the front of the curve would redound to OPEC 2.0 member states’ benefit, whose term contracts and spot sales typically reference spot prices. Chart 6Discrete Hedging Could Support Backwardation This would tangibly increase Russia’s impact on forward price discovery. Indeed, hedging could become one of the tools available to OPEC 2.0 that allow it to influence the economics of oil production by US shale producers, among others. Bottom Line: The successful implementation of a hedging strategy by Russia would force us to re-consider our bullish oil view – there would be little or no need for the Russian government to demand its producers adhere to an OPEC 2.0 production quota if the government is able to hedge its revenue. (Whether those producers choose to hedge is another matter entirely.) We do not give a high probability to the Russian government adopting a Mexico-style hedging program to put a floor under its budget revenues. We cannot dismiss the possibility that discrete exposures could be hedged to support a backwardated forward curve structure going forward, however.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Brent prices have been remarkably steady at ~ $43/bbl in July, balancing expectations of a sustained global economic recovery and the risk of a second wave of lockdowns. Rising COVID-19 cases in the US pose a risk to oil demand as the US still represents ~ 20% of global demand. Brent futures spreads – 1ST vs. 12th – moved from -$1.38/bbl to -$3.29/bbl, suggesting the pace of drawdowns in inventories slowed in recent weeks. Nonetheless, we continue to expect a persistent supply deficit in 2H20 and 2021, pushing prices above $60/bbl next year.7 Base Metals: Neutral Base metals are mostly flat since last week after moving up 23% since March. A continuation of recent trends is largely dependent on China’s economic outlook as it represents ~ 50% of global BM demand. The IMF expects China’s GDP to reach its pre-crisis level somewhere this quarter and to resume trend growth afterward (Chart 7). Monetary policy needs to remain accommodative for such a recovery to occur. Historically, policymakers in China have favored easy monetary policy for at least three quarters following a crisis. This implies the accommodative stance should be maintained until year-end, supporting metals’ prices.8 Precious Metals: Neutral We are putting a stop-loss of $1,850/oz on our long gold recommendation at tonight’s close (Chart 8). We remain constructive on the gold market, but believe the market is out over its skis presently, as investors have realized central banks globally likely will not move to raise rates this year, or perhaps even next year. The Fed, in particular, has been consistently signaling its intent to remain accommodative in its effort to reflate the US economy.9 Ags/Softs:  Underweight The USDA this week reported 72% of the corn crop was in good to excellent condition for the week ended July 26 in the 19 states accounting for 91% of the crop last year. For beans, 72% of the crop was reported in good to excellent condition, up sharply from last year’s level of 54% in the 18 states accounting for 96% of the crop. Chart 7 Chart 8   Footnotes 1     Russia came close to setting up an oil-hedging program in 2009, following the collapse of oil prices during the Global Financial Crisis (GFC). Please see Russia considers oil price hedges modeled on Mexico’s system published by worldoil.com July 22, 2020. 2     See, e.g., How Long Will The Oil-Price Rout Last?, which we published March 9, 2020. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 3    In previous research, we found KSA real GDP (in 2010 constant USD published by the World Bank) benefits more than Russia when EM GDP growth expands, while Russia benefits more from increases in Brent prices. For this report we updated that analysis and looked only at EM oil consumption, while including lagged USD and Brent crude oil prices as common regressors. We find KSA’s GDP increases ~ 1% when EM oil consumption goes up by one percent, while Russia’s GPD increases by ~ 0.5%. Please see our earlier research report entitled Sussing Out OPEC 2.0's Production Cuts, U.S. Waivers On Iran Sanctions, which we published on April 11, 2019, when KSA and Russia again were contesting the necessity of production cuts. 4    Please see The Oil Price Crash: Will the Kremlin’s Policies Change?, by Tatiana Mitrova, which was published by the Carnegie Moscow Center July 8, 2020. Russia presently exports ~ 5mm b/d of oil, which is down from earlier levels of ~ 5.5mm b/d due to the OPEC 2.0 cuts it is observing. We do not have the disposition of revenue sources funding Russia’s budget (primarily oil and gas), and therefore cannot calculate the precise hedging volume Russia’s government would need to cover to provide a floor for all of its fiscal obligations. 5    Please see Recession and Growth under the Shadow of a Pandemic published by the Bank July 6, 2020. 6    Russia’s central bank came out against the hedging proposal, citing the lack of liquidity available for large-scale programs. Please see Russia central bank opposes using wealth fund to hedge oil revenues, governor says published by uk.reuters.com July 24, 2020. 7     Please see Balance Of Oil-Price Risk Remains To The Upside, which we published last week. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 8    Please see Chinese Stocks: Stay Invested published by BCA Research’s China Investment Strategy July 22, 2020. It is available at cis.bcaresearch.com. 9    Please see What A Weaker US Dollar Means For Global Bond Investors published by BCA Research’s Global Fixed Income Strategy July 28, 2020.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in Summary of Closed Trades

Highlights The EU’s €750 billion fiscal package, along with another round of US stimulus likely exceeding $1 trillion, will support global oil demand. On the supply side, OPEC 2.0’s production discipline likely holds, and US shale output will remain depressed. These fundamentals, along with a weakening USD, will continue to support Brent prices, which are up 129% from their lows in April. China’s record-setting crude-oil-import surge during the COVID-19 pandemic – averaging 12.7mm b/d in 1H20, up 28.5% y/y – is at risk of slowing in 2H20, as domestic storage fills. Supply-side risks are acute: Massive OPEC 2.0 spare capacity – which could exceed 6mm b/d into 2021 – will tempt producers eager to monetize these to boost revenue. On the demand side, COVID-19 infection rates are surging in the US. Progress on vaccines notwithstanding, politically intolerable public-health risks in big consuming markets could usher in demand-crushing lockdowns again. Economic policy uncertainty remains elevated globally, but the balance of risks continues to favor the upside: We expect 2H20 Brent prices to average $44/bbl, and 2021 prices to average $65/bbl, unchanged from last month’s forecast. Feature We are marginally lifting our forecast of average 2020 Brent prices to $43/bbl, with 2H20 expected to average $44/bbl, and $65/bbl next year, unchanged from June. Marginal improvements to preliminary supply and demand estimates earlier in the COVID-19 pandemic support the thesis that fundamentals will not derail the massive oil-price rally that lifted Brent 129% from its April 21 low of $19.30/bbl. A weakening US dollar, and the expectation this trend will continue, also is supportive to commodities in general, oil in particular. As a result, we are marginally lifting our forecast of average 2020 Brent prices to $43/bbl, with 2H20 expected to average $44/bbl, and $65/bbl next year, unchanged from June (Chart of the Week). The three principal oil-market data providers – the US EIA, IEA and OPEC – raised demand estimates at the margin for 1H20, particularly for 2Q20, the nadir for global oil consumption. The EIA’s estimate for 2Q20 demand shows an upward revision of 550k b/d from last month’s estimate. On the supply side, the EIA estimates global output fell -8.1mm b/d in 2Q20, a -300k b/d downward revision vs. its estimate from last month (Chart 2). Chart of the WeekOil Price Rally Remains Intact Chart 2OPEC 2.0, US Shale Production Cuts Deepen We continue to expect the drawdown in storage levels to flatten – and then backwardate – the forward curves for Brent and WTI. After accounting for this better-than-expected fundamental performance, we now expect global supply to fall 5.9mm b/d in 2020 and to increase 4.2mm b/d in 2021. On the demand side, we now expect 2020 demand to fall 8.1mm b/d vs. 8.9mm b/d last month, and for 2021 demand to rise 7.8mm b/d vs 8.5mm b/d in June (Chart 3). This will keep the physical deficit we’ve been forecasting for 2H20 and 2021 in place, allowing OECD storage to fall to 3,026mm barrels by year-end and to 2,766mm barrels by the end of next year (Chart 4). Chart 3Supply-Demand Balances Tighten ... Chart 4... Leading To Deeper Storage Draws ... We continue to expect the drawdown in storage levels to flatten – and then backwardate – the forward curves for Brent and WTI (Chart 5). One caveat, though: We are watching floating storage levels closely, particularly in Asia: The current structure of the Brent forwards does not support carrying floating inventory, but it’s been slow moving lower (Chart 6). This could reflect a slowing in China’s crude-oil import surge, which hit record levels in May and June. Chart 5... And More Backwardation In Brent And WTI Forwards ... Chart 6… Even As Floating Storage In Asia Remains Elevated China’s Crude-Import Binge Ending? There is a non-trivial risk China’s crude-buying binge during the COVID-19 pandemic, which supported prices during the brief Saudi-Russian market-share war in March and the collapse in global demand in 2Q20, may have run its course (Chart 7).1 At the depths of the global pandemic in 2Q20, China’s year-on-year (y/y) crude imports surged 15%. According to Reuters, China’s crude oil imports totaled 12.9mm b/d in June, a record level for the second month in a row.2 Much of this was converted to refined products – chiefly gasoline and diesel fuel – as China’s demand recovered from the global pandemic (Chart 8). China’s 208 refineries can process 22.3mm b/d of crude, according to the Baker Institute at Rice University in Houston.3 Refinery runs in June were estimated at just over 14mm b/d by Reuters. Chart 7China's Crude Import Binge Stalls Chart 8China's Refiners Lift Runs As Imports Surge A reduction in China’s crude imports would force barrels to either remain on the water until refiners find a need for it, or demand for refined products increases in the region. China imports its oil into 59 port facilities, which can process ~ 16mm b/d. Storage is comprised of 74 crude oil facilities holding ~ 706mm barrels, and 213 refined-product facilities with capacity to hold ~ 357mm barrels of products (Map 1). By Reuters’s count, ~ 2mm b/d of crude went into storage in the January-May period, while close to 2.8mm b/d was stored in June. Official storage data is a state secret, so it is not possible to determine whether China’s crude and product storage is full. However, if crude oil imports remain subdued – and floating storage in Asia remains elevated – we would surmise the Chinese storage facilities are close to full. Additionally, any sharp and sustained increase in refined product exports would indicate storage is brimming. Map 1Baker Institute China Oil Map A reduction in China’s crude imports would force barrels to either remain on the water until refiners find a need for it, or demand for refined products increases in the region. We expect the latter condition to obtain, in line with our expectation of a global recovery in demand, even though China remains out of sync with the rest of the world presently. China was the first state to confront the pandemic and first to emerge out of it; its trading partners still are in various stages of recovery (Chart 9). Chart 9China's Demand Recovery Likely Will Be Choppy OPEC 2.0’s Remains Sensitive To Demand Fluctuations OPEC 2.0’s leaders – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – also managed to secure additional “compensation” cuts from members that have missed their targets in previous months. The asynchronous recovery in global oil demand poses a unique problem for OPEC 2.0 this year and next. OPEC 2.0 will be easing production curtailments to 7.7mm b/d beginning in August from 9.6mm b/d in July, on the advice of its Joint Ministerial Monitoring Committee (JMMC). This is a decision that will be closely monitored, amid rising concern over the speed of demand recovery in the US and EM economies, due to mounting COVID-19 cases (Chart 10). The surge in US infections relative to its trading partners is of particular concern, given the size of US oil demand (Chart 11). In 2H20, we expect US demand will account for close to 20% of global demand, much the same level it was prior to the pandemic (Table 1). Chart 10COVID-19 Infections Surge In The US Chart 11US COVID-19 Infections Are A Risk To Global Commodity Demand Table 1BCA Global Oil Supply - Demand Balances (MMb/d, Base Case Balances) OPEC 2.0’s leaders – the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) and Russia – also managed to secure additional “compensation” cuts from members that have missed their targets in previous months, bringing the actual increase in production closer to 1-1.5mm b/d. Together, Iraq, Nigeria, Kazakhstan, and Angola, over-produced versus their May and June targets by ~ 760k b/d. In our balances estimates, as is our normal practice, we haircut these estimates and use a lower compliance level that those stated in the official OPEC 2.0 agreement. In the case of these producers, we assume they will compensate for ~ 70% of their overproduction, bringing the adjusted cuts to ~ 8.3mm b/d. This should be sufficient to maintain the current supply deficit in oil markets that continues to support Brent prices above $40/bbl. However, the reliance on laggards’ extra cuts to balance markets adds instability. There is a lot of supply on the sidelines from the OPEC 2.0 cuts and the restart of the Neutral Zone shared by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The JMMC is continually assessing supply-demand balances and remains focused on making sure the totality of the cuts does not fall on a small group of countries. It reiterated its position that “achieving 100% conformity from all participating Countries is not only fair, but vital for the ongoing rebalancing efforts and to help deliver long term oil market stability.” In June, OPEC 2.0’s overall compliance was 107% – mostly reflecting over-compliance from KSA, the UAE, and Kuwait.4 There is a lot of supply on the sidelines from the OPEC 2.0 cuts and the restart of the Neutral Zone shared by Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The US EIA estimates that within the original OPEC cartel spare capacity will average close to 6mm b/d this year, the first time since 2002 that it has exceeded 5mm b/d. On top of this, there’s the looming downside risk of a new Iran deal if Democrats win the White House and Congress in US elections in November, and a possible restart of Libyan exports this year. Watch The DUCs In The US With WTI prices averaging $41/bbl so far in July, we continue to expect part of previously shut-in US production to come back on line in July, August and September. Nonetheless, the negative effect of the multi-year low rig count will be felt heavily in 4Q20 and 1Q21 and will push production lower. The rig count appears to be bottoming but is not expected to increase meaningfully until WTI prices move closer to $45-50/bbl. On average it takes somewhere between 9-12 months for the signal from higher prices to result in new oil production flowing to market in the US. As the rig count moves back up in 2021, its effect on production will be apparent only in late-2021. However, the massive inventory of drilled-but-uncompleted (DUC) wells in the main US tight-oil basins will provide a source of cheaper new supply, if WTI prices remain above $40/bbl. DUCs are 30-40% cheaper to complete compared to drilling a new well from start. We expect DUCs completion will begin adding to US crude output in 1Q21, and that this will continue to be a source of supply beyond 2021. Bottom line: Global economic policy uncertainty remains elevated, albeit off its recent highs (Chart 12). We expect this uncertainty to continue to wane, which will allow the USD to continue to weaken. This will spur global oil demand, and will augment the fiscal and monetary stimulus to the COVID-19 pandemic undertaken globally. Chart 12Global Policy Uncertainty Remains High, Which Could Support USD Demand Nonetheless, the global recovery remains out of sync, which complicates OPEC 2.0’s production management, and markets’ estimation of supply-demand balances. Uneven success in combating the pandemic keeps the risk of lockdowns on the radar in the US. Policy is driving oil production at present, and, given the temptation to monetize spare capacity, the supply side remains a risk to prices. We continue to see upside risk dominating the evolution of prices and are maintaining our expectation Brent prices will average $44/bbl in 2H20 – lifting the overall 2020 average to $43/bbl – and $65/bbl next year. Our expectation WTI will trade $2-$4/bbl below Brent also remains intact.   Robert P. Ryan Chief Commodity & Energy Strategist rryan@bcaresearch.com Hugo Bélanger Associate Editor Commodity & Energy Strategy HugoB@bcaresearch.com Fernando Crupi Research Associate Commodity & Energy Strategy FernandoC@bcaresearch.com     Commodities Round-Up Energy: Overweight Canadian oil production averaged 4.6mm b/d in 2Q20 vs. 5.5mm b/d in 2Q19, based on EIA estimates. The lack of demand from US refiners – crude imports from Canada fell by 420k b/d y/y during the quarter – and close to maxed-out local storage facilities pushed prices below cash costs, forcing the shut-ins of more than 1mm b/d of crude production. Canadian energy companies started releasing their 2Q20 earnings this week and analysts expect the results to be one of the worst ever recorded, reflecting the extent of the pain producers felt during the COVID-19 shock. Base Metals: Neutral High-grade iron ore prices (65% Fe) were trading above $120/MT this week, on the back of forward guidance from the commodity’s top exporter, Brazilian miner Vale, which suggested exports will be lower than had been previously estimated this year, according to Fastmarkets MB, a sister service of BCA Research. This is in line with an Australian Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources analysis in June, which noted, “The COVID-19 pandemic appears to have affected both sides of the iron ore market: demand disruptions have run up against supply problems localised in Brazil, where COVID-19-related lockdowns have derailed efforts to recover from shutdowns in the wake of the Brumadinho tailings dam collapse” (Chart 13). Precious Metals: Neutral Our long silver position is up 17.5% since it was recommended July 2. We are placing a stop-loss on the position at $21/oz, our earlier target, given the metal was trading ~ $22/oz as we went to press. The factors supporting gold prices – chiefly low real rates in the US, a weakening dollar and global monetary accommodation, also support silver prices. However, silver also will benefit from the recovery in industrial activity and incomes we anticipate in the wake of global fiscal and monetary stimulus, which will drive demand for consumer products (Chart 14). Ags/Softs:  Underweight Lumber prices have more than doubled since April lows. The uncertainty brought by the COVID-19 health emergency altered the perception of future housing demand and, by extension, lumber demand, to the point that mills responded by substantially decreasing capacity utilization rates. However, in the wake of global monetary and fiscal stimulus, housing weathered the storm better than expected. Furthermore, a surge in DIY projects from individuals working from home at a time of reduced supply contributed to the current state of market shortage. Chart 13Lower Supply Supports Iron Ore Prices Chart 14Silver Favored Over Gold         Footnotes 1     In our reckoning, a non-trivial risk is something greater than Russian roulette odds – i.e., a 1-in-6 chance of an event occuring. Re the ever-so-brief Saudi-Russian market-share war, please see KSA, Russia Will Be Forced To Quit Market-Share War, which we published March 19, 2020. It is available at ces.bcaresearch.com. 2     Please see COLUMN-China's record crude oil storage flies under the radar: Russell published by reuters.com July 20, 2020. 3    The Baker Institute’s Open-Source Mapping of China's Oil Infrastructure was last updated in March 2020. The map is “a beta version and is likely missing some pieces of existing infrastructure. The challenge of China’s geographic expanse — it is roughly the same area as the U.S. Lower 48 — is compounded by a lack of transparency on the part of China’s government,” according to the Baker Institute. 4    In our supply-side estimates, we used IEA estimates of cuts for June this month. This doesn’t change the overall estimate of cuts from our earlier analysis; however, it slightly changes how the 9.7mm b/d was split between OPEC 2.0 members. the official eased cuts are 7.7mm b/d from 9.7mm b/d in May-June-July, but it actually is closer to 8.3mm b/d accounting for the compensation from the countries mentioned above.   Investment Views and Themes Recommendations Strategic Recommendations Tactical Trades Trade Recommendation Performance In 2020 Q2 Commodity Prices and Plays Reference Table Trades Closed in 2020 Summary of Closed Trades

特別レポート

Highlights IG Energy: Investors should overweight Energy bonds within an overweight allocation to investment grade corporate bonds overall. Within IG Energy, the Independent sub-sector should perform best, and we recommend avoiding the higher-rated Integrated space. HY Energy: Investors should overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, investors should focus their exposure on the Independent sub-sector, while avoiding the distressed Oil Field Services space. Feature This week we present part 2 of our two-part Special Report on Energy bonds. Last week’s report showed how to develop a model for Energy bond excess returns (both investment grade and high-yield) based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price.1 This week, we delve deeper into the characteristics of both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes to better understand how both are likely to trade in the coming months. Chart 1High-Yield Energy Bond Returns Have Bottomed Chart 2Energy Index Sub-Sector Composition* In this week’s deep dive, we don’t limit ourselves to an examination of the overall Energy index. We also consider the outlooks for its five main sub-sectors: Integrated: Major oil firms that are present along the entire supply chain – from exploration and production all the way down to refined products for consumers. Independent: Exploration & production firms. Oil Field Services: Support services for the Independent sector – notably drilling. Midstream: Transportation (pipelines), storage and marketing of crude oil. Refining Chart 2 shows the share of each sub-sector in both the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. Midstream (46%) and Integrated (31%) are the largest sub-sectors in the investment grade index. Independent (48%) and Midstream (36%) are the heavyweights in the high-yield space. Investment Grade Energy Risk Profile Overall, investment grade Energy bonds are highly cyclical. That is, they tend to outperform the corporate benchmark during periods of spread tightening and underperform during periods of spread widening. This cyclical behavior is due to Energy’s lower credit rating compared to the Bloomberg Barclays Corporate index. Sixty five percent of Energy’s market cap carries a Baa rating compared to 59% for the overall index (Chart 3). The sector’s cyclical nature is confirmed by its duration-times-spread (DTS) ratio,2 which is well above 1.0 (Chart 4A). Interestingly, Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014-2016 oil price crash. Prior to that, Energy mostly tracked the corporate index’s performance and only slightly underperformed the benchmark during the 2008/09 financial crisis. More recently, Energy underperformed the corporate index dramatically when spreads widened in March, but has outperformed by 936 bps since spreads peaked on March 23 (Chart 4A, panel 3). Energy has only been a highly cyclical sector since the 2014- 2016 oil price crash. Turning to the sub-sectors, the Integrated sub-sector immediately stands out as the only one with a higher average credit rating than the corporate benchmark. Ninety-two percent of Integrated issuers are rated A or Aa (Chart 3). The presence of the global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon Mobil and BP) is what gives the sub-sector its higher average credit quality and makes it the only defensive Energy sub-sector. Notice that Integrated even proved resilient during the 2014-16 Energy bond turmoil (Chart 4B). The remaining four sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all have lower average credit ratings than the corporate index (Chart 3) and all trade cyclically relative to the benchmark with Independent (Chart 4C) and Oil Field Services (Chart 4D) being more cyclical than Midstream (Chart 4E) and Refining (Chart 4F). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. This is likely due the fact that Independent (aka Exploration & Production) firms are more dependent on the level of oil prices, and typically require a certain minimum oil price to support capital spending and growth. Meanwhile, crude oil is an input for Refining firms and lower oil prices can boost margins, helping offset some of the negative impact from growth downturns. Chart 3Investment Grade Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 4AIG Energy Risk Profile Chart 4BIG Integrated Risk Profile Chart 4CIG Independent Risk Profile Chart 4DIG Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 4EIG Midstream Risk Profile Chart 4FIG Refining Risk Profile   Valuation In terms of value, we find that the Energy sector offers a spread advantage relative to the corporate index and its equivalently-rated (Baa) benchmark (Table 1). This advantage holds up after we control for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread. The four cyclical sub-sectors (Independent, Oil Field Services, Midstream and Refining) all also look cheap, whether or not we control for duration differences. Integrated, the sole defensive sub-sector, is roughly fairly valued compared to the equivalently-rated (Aa) benchmark. Table 1IG Energy Valuation Balance Sheet Health The par value of outstanding investment grade Energy debt jumped sharply as oil prices plunged in 2014. But the sector has barely issued any debt since the 2014-16 collapse. Instead, Energy firms have relied on capital spending reductions, asset sales, equity issuance and dividend cuts to raise cash. This shift toward austerity explains why Energy’s weight in the index fell from 11% in 2015 to 8% today (Chart 5A). The median Energy firm’s net debt-to-EBITDA consequently improved between 2017 and 2019, but has once again started to rise as earnings have struggled in recent quarters (Chart 5A, bottom panel). At the issuer level, 15 out of the investment grade index’s 56 Energy issuers currently have a negative ratings outlook from Moody’s (Appendix A). Of the 23 Energy sector ratings that Moody’s has reviewed in 2020, 12 have been affirmed with a stable outlook and 11 were assigned negative outlooks. At the sub-sector level, Integrated debt growth lagged that of the corporate index during the last recovery (Chart 5B). Though the sub-sector has an average credit rating of Aa, most issuers carry negative ratings outlooks, including four of the five global oil majors (Total SA, Royal Dutch Shell, Exxon Mobil and BP). Interestingly, Independent trades more cyclically than Midstream and Refining, despite having a greater concentration of high-rated issuers. The outstanding par value of investment grade Independent debt had been stagnant since 2015, it then plunged this year as three sizeable issuers were downgraded from investment grade to high-yield (Chart 5C). EQT Corp, Occidental Petroleum and Apache Corp were all downgraded during the past few months. They currently account for 21% of the high-yield Energy index’s market cap. Encouragingly, only two of the 16 remaining investment grade Independent issuers currently have negative ratings outlooks. The situation is less favorable for Oil Field Services. This sub-sector’s outstanding debt has remained low since the 2014-16 collapse (Chart 5D), but four of the six investment grade Oil Field Services issuers have negative ratings outlooks. Midstream (Chart 5E) and Refining (Chart 5F) both continued to grow their outstanding debt levels throughout the entirety of the last recovery, including during the 2014-16 period. At present, only three of the 23 investment grade Midstream issuers have negative ratings outlooks, while two of the four Refining issuers have negative outlooks. Chart 5AIG Energy Debt Growth Chart 5BIG Integrated Debt Growth Chart 5CIG Independent Debt Growth Chart 5DIG Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 5EIG Midstream Debt Growth Chart 5FIG Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions As per last week’s report, we recommend that investors overweight Energy bonds within their investment grade corporate bond allocations. This recommendation stems from our view that corporate bond spreads will tighten during the next 12 months and that the oil price will rise. As such, we want to favor cyclical investment grade bond sectors that will outperform during periods of spread tightening. With that in mind, we would advise investors to focus their investment grade Energy allocations on the most cyclical sub-sector: Independent. Not only does the Independent sub-sector have the highest DTS ratio of the five sub-sectors, but its weakest credits have already been purged from the index and further downgrades are less likely. Oil Field Services offer less spread pick-up than Independent, and also have a higher proportion of issuers with negative ratings outlooks.  By similar logic, we would avoid the Integrated sub-sector. This sub-sector trades defensively relative to the corporate benchmark and a high proportion of its issuers have negative ratings outlooks. High-Yield Energy Bonds Risk Profile On average, the High-Yield Energy index and the overall High-Yield corporate index have very similar credit ratings. However, the Energy sector has a more barbelled credit rating distribution with a greater proportion of Ba-rated securities (64% versus 55%) and a greater proportion of Ca-C rated issuers (8% versus 1%) (Chart 6). Chart 6High-Yield Credit Rating Distributions* Chart 7AHY Energy Risk Profile It is likely some combination of the larger presence of very low-rated credits and increased oil price volatility that has caused the sector to trade cyclically versus the junk benchmark since 2014 (Chart 7A). Notice that Energy outperformed the junk index during the 2008 sell off, but has since turned cyclical, underperforming in both the 2015/16 and 2020 risk-off episodes. At the sub-sector level, there is currently only one high-yield rated Integrated issuer (Cenovus Energy Inc., Ba-rated, negative outlook). Based on their DTS ratios, the Independent and Oil Field Services sub-sectors are the most cyclical (Charts 7B & 7C). This is because the lower-rated (Caa & below) issuers are concentrated in the these spaces. This is particularly true for Oil Field Services where 41% of the sub-sector’s market cap is rated Caa or below. The Midstream sub-sector also trades cyclically relative to the junk benchmark, but with somewhat less volatility than Independent and Oil Field Services, as evidenced by its DTS ratio of 1.2 (Chart 7D). Refining has traded like a cyclical sector so far this year, but that may not continue now that its DTS ratio has fallen close to 1.0 (Chart 7E). Chart 7BHY Independent Risk Profile Chart 7CHY Oil Field Services Risk Profile Chart 7DHY Midstream Risk Profile Chart 7EHY Refining Risk Profile   Valuation The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Ba-rated issuers (Table 2). Adjusting for duration differences by looking at the 12-month breakeven spread makes Energy look even more attractive. Energy spreads need to widen by 189 bps during the next 12 months to underperform duration-matched Treasuries. This compares to 93 bps for other Ba-rated issuers and 150 bps for the overall junk index. Table 2HY Energy Valuation Four of the five Energy sub-sectors (Integrated being the exception) also offer attractive value relative to the overall index and their equivalently-rated benchmarks. This remains true after adjusting for duration differences. Balance Sheet Health The high-yield Energy sector has added much more debt than the overall junk index since 2010 (Chart 8A). But of greater concern is that Moody’s has already changed its ratings outlook from stable to negative for 58 Energy issuers since the start of the year. Meanwhile, only 17 high-yield Energy issuers have seen their ratings outlooks confirmed as stable in 2020. Nevertheless, we take some comfort knowing that the Energy sector should benefit from having a large number of issuers able to take advantage of the Federal Reserve’s Main Street Lending facilities. As a reminder, to be eligible for the Main Street facilities issuers must have fewer than 15000 employees or less than $5 billion in 2019 revenue. They must also be able to keep their Debt-to-EBITDA ratios below 6.0, including any new debt added through the Main Street programs. The Energy sector offers a significant spread advantage over the High-Yield index and also relative to other Barated issuers. Of the 61 US high-yield Energy issuers with available data (we exclude 23 foreign issuers that won’t have access to US programs), we estimate that at least 48 are eligible to receive support from the Main Street facilities (Appendix B). This not only includes 15 out of 20 B-rated issuers, but also 12 out of 15 Caa-rated issuers and 4 out of 7 issuers rated below Caa. This broad access is the result of deleveraging that has occurred since the 2014-16 bust (Chart 8A, bottom panel) and it should go a long way toward limiting defaults in the Energy space. The Independent sub-sector’s weight in the index jumped sharply this year, the result of adding three sizeable fallen angels (Chart 8B). Importantly, 24 out of the 28 US Independent issuers appear eligible for Fed support. In contrast, the Oil Field Services sector is in distress. Its weight in the index has been declining for more than a year (Chart 8C), and a large proportion of its issuers are concentrated in lower credit tiers. However, we estimate that out of 19 issuers with available data, 13 are eligible for the Fed’s Main Street Lending facilities. Both Midstream and Refining have high concentrations of Ba-rated issuers and neither has aggressively grown its presence in the index during the past decade (Charts 8D & 8E), though Midstream’s index weight did jump this year. The high credit quality of both indexes means that most issuers will have access to the Main Street facilities, though three of the five Refining issuers are not US based. Chart 8AHY Energy Debt Growth Chart 8BHY Independent Debt GrowthChart 8CHY Oil Field Services Debt Growth Chart 8DHY Midstream Debt Growth Chart 8EHY Refining Debt Growth   Investment Conclusions The conclusion from the model we presented in last week’s report was that high-yield Energy should outperform the junk index during the next 12 months, assuming that overall junk spreads tighten and the oil price rises. However, we remain concerned that, despite the nascent economic recovery, some low-rated Energy names will go bust during the next few months, weighing on index returns. The pattern from the 2014-16 default cycle argues that our concerns may be overblown. In February 2016, high-yield Energy started to outperform the overall junk index slightly after the trough in oil prices and eleven months before the peak in the 12-month trailing default rate (Chart 1 on page 1). If oil prices are indeed already past their cyclical trough, then it may already be a good time to bottom-fish in the high-yield Energy space. The fact that the bulk of high-yield Energy issuers are eligible for support through the Main Street lending facilities tips the scales, and we recommend that investors overweight high-yield Energy relative to the overall junk index. In particular, we think investors should focus on the Independent sub-sector where value is very attractive and most issuers can tap the Fed for help if needed. We would, however, avoid the Oil Field Services sector where the bulk of Energy defaults are likely to come from. Midstream and Refining should perform well, but are less cyclical and less attractively valued than the Independent sub-sector. Jeremie Peloso Senior Analyst jeremiep@bcaresearch.com Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com   Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Special Report, “The Outlook For Energy Bonds Part 1: A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns”, dated July 14, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007.   Appendix A Investment Grade Energy Issuers Appendix B High-Yield Energy Issuers  

特別レポート

Highlights Energy Bond Model: This report presents models for both investment grade and high-yield Energy bond excess returns. The models are based on overall corporate bond index spreads and the oil price. They can be used to generate Energy bond excess return forecasts for investment horizons up to 12 months. IG Energy Bonds: Our model suggests that investment grade Energy bond excess returns will be strong during the next 12 months under likely economic scenarios. We recommend an overweight allocation to investment grade Energy bonds.  HY Energy Bonds: Our models imply positive excess return outcomes for high-yield Energy bonds, but we remain concerned about near-term default risk for lower-rated issuers. We advise a cautious (neutral) allocation for now. Part 2 of this Special Report, to be published next week, will dig further into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis. Feature Table 1Energy Bond Excess Return* Scenarios (12-Month Investment Horizon) During the past couple of months we’ve published several reports that take more detailed looks at specific industry groups within both the investment grade and high-yield corporate bond markets. So far, we’ve published reports on: Banks1 Healthcare & Pharmaceuticals2 Technology3 This week and next week, we continue our series with a deep dive into Energy bonds that is split between two Special Reports. This week’s report develops a model for Energy bond excess returns based on overall corporate bond index excess returns and the oil price. In next week’s report, we look more deeply into the characteristics of the investment grade and high-yield Energy indexes. We also consider the outlooks for the five sub-categories of Energy debt: Independent, Integrated, Oil Field Services, Refining and Midstream. A Model Of Energy Bond Excess Returns A good starting point for modeling the excess returns of any corporate bond sector is to combine the sector’s Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) ratio with the excess returns of the overall corporate bond index.4 Please note that “excess returns” refers to returns relative to a duration-matched position in Treasury securities. The DTS-only model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Considering only a sector’s DTS ratio, we can define the following model for monthly investment grade Energy excess returns: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP Where: EXSENRG = Monthly investment grade Energy excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) = The investment grade Energy sector’s DTS ratio EXSCORP = Monthly investment grade corporate index excess returns versus duration-matched Treasuries For example, the current DTS for the investment grade Energy sector is 18. The DTS for the overall corporate index is 12. This means that the DTS ratio for the Energy sector is 18/12 = 1.5. According to our simple model, we would expect Energy sector excess returns to be 1.5 times corporate index excess returns in any given month. It turns out that our simple model performs quite well. Chart 1 shows monthly investment grade Energy sector excess returns versus our model’s prediction. Our sample period spans from 1997 to the present. Specifically, we find that our model explains 86% of the variance in monthly investment grade Energy excess returns. Chart 1Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: DTS-Only Model** The simple (DTS-only) model’s performance is admirable, but we can do slightly better if we also incorporate the oil price. Chart 2 shows a statistically significant relationship between the residual from the DTS-only model and the monthly change in the Brent crude oil price. Chart 2Residual From DTS-Only Model* Versus Oil Price Combining the models shown in Charts 1 and 2, we get a model for investment grade Energy monthly excess returns based on both corporate index excess returns and the oil price: EXSENRG = (DTSENRG / DTSCORP) * EXSCORP + (376.84 * ∆ ln Oil) – 1.0587 Where excess returns are measured in basis points and (∆ ln Oil) = the monthly change in the natural logarithm of the Brent crude oil price. Chart 3 shows the historical performance of this complete model. Note that the model now explains 91% of the historical variance of investment grade Energy excess returns, 5% more than the initial DTS-only model. Chart 3Investment Grade Energy Monthly Excess Returns*: Complete Model (DTS & Oil)** Robustness Checks We performed the same analysis for 3-month, 6-month and 12-month excess returns and found very consistent results (Table 2). The oil price adds significant explanatory power to the model in each case, but the bulk of variation in investment grade Energy excess returns is determined by trends in the overall corporate index spread. Table 2Investment Grade Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) We also find consistent results when looking at high-yield Energy returns (Table 3). Once again, the bulk of excess return variation is explained by multiplying the DTS ratio and the benchmark index’s excess returns. The oil price also adds a statistically significant amount of extra explanatory power. Table 3High-Yield Energy Excess Returns*: Model Results Using Different Return Frequencies (1997 - Present) One final observation is that oil explains a greater proportion of the variation in Energy sector excess returns if we limit our sample period to the past few years. Specifically, we re-ran the monthly iterations of both the investment grade and high-yield models from July 2014 to present. We found that the DTS component of the model explains the same amount of excess return variation as it did for the full sample. However, we also found that the oil price has a much greater impact if the sample is limited to the past six years (Table 4). Table 41-Month Excess Return* Models: Full Sample (1997 - Present) Versus Recent Sample (2014 - Present) Energy Excess Return Scenarios Finally, using our 12-month excess return models for investment grade and high-yield Energy, we can project likely outcomes for Energy excess returns versus Treasuries for the next 12 months. All we have to do is assume different outcomes for the overall benchmark index spread (either the investment grade or High-Yield index, depending on the model) and the oil price.5 The results of this scenario analysis are shown in Table 1. Starting with investment grade Energy, we see that all scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. This is true even in a scenario where the oil price falls by $20 during the next year. Our model also suggests that a $10-$20 increase in the oil price during the next 12 months will keep Energy excess returns positive, even in a modest “risk off” scenario where the corporate index spread widens by 25 bps. All scenarios where the investment grade corporate index spread tightens lead to positive Energy excess returns. The story is similar in high-yield, though returns are much more variable. For example, high-yield Energy is projected to lose money relative to Treasuries in a scenario where the junk index spread tightens 50 bps and the oil price falls by $20. There are no scenarios where benchmark index spread tightening coincides with negative Energy excess returns in the investment grade model. Chart 4Watch For Falling Inventories In terms of likely scenarios for the next 12 months, we anticipate further spread tightening for corporate bonds rated Ba & above. But we also view B-rated and lower spreads as too tight given the default outlook for the next 12 months and the fact that these lower-rated issuers usually can’t access the Fed’s emergency lending facilities.6 With that in mind, we would confidently bet on investment grade index spread tightening during the next 12 months, but can envision high-yield spread widening driven by the lower credit tiers. On oil, our Commodity & Energy Strategy service forecasts an average Brent crude oil price of $65 in 2021, a sizeable increase relative to the current price of $43.27.7 Our strategists expect a significant supply contraction in the second quarter of this year that will cause the oil market to enter a physical deficit in the second half of 2020. Investors can look for falling storage levels in the coming months to confirm whether that forecast is playing out (Chart 4). Escalating tensions between the US and Iran pose an additional near-term upside risk to oil prices. This risk increased during the past few weeks as a string of mysterious explosions struck several Iranian military and economic facilities.8 However, with major oil producers now operating significantly below capacity, any net impact on oil prices from a supply disruption in the Persian Gulf would likely be short-lived. Investment Conclusions All in all, our bullish outlook for both investment grade corporate bond spreads and the oil price makes us inclined to overweight investment grade Energy bonds on a 12-month horizon. Within high-yield, our model also suggests that we should have a bullish bias toward Energy, but we remain concerned about default risk for lower-rated (B & below) Energy issuers during the next few months. We will dig into the high-yield Energy index on an issuer-by-issuer basis in Part 2 of this report, to be published next week. For now, we advise a more cautious stance toward high-yield Energy.   Ryan Swift US Bond Strategist rswift@bcaresearch.com Footnotes 1 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Negative Oil, The Zero Lower Bound And The Fisher Equation”, dated April 28, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 2 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Assessing Healthcare & Pharma Bonds In A Pandemic”, dated June 9, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 3 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “Take A Look At High-Yield Technology Bonds”, dated June 23, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 4 Duration-Times-Spread (DTS) is a simple measure that is highly correlated with excess return volatility for corporate bonds. The DTS ratio is the ratio of a sector’s DTS to that of the benchmark index. It can be thought of like the beta of a stock. A DTS ratio above 1.0 signals that the sector is cyclical (or “high beta”), a DTS ratio below 1.0 signals that the sector is defensive or (“low beta”). For more details on the DTS measure please see: Arik Ben Dor, Lev Dynkin, Jay Hyman, Patrick Houweling, Erik van Leeuwen & Olaf Penninga, “DTS (Duration-Times-Spread)”, Journal of Portfolio Management 33(2), January 2007. 5 We translate changes in benchmark index spread into 12-month excess returns using the formula: excess return = option-adjusted spread – (duration * change in option-adjusted spread) 6 Please see US Bond Strategy Weekly Report, “No Holding Back”, dated June 16, 2020, available at usbs.bcaresearch.com 7 Please see Commodity & Energy Strategy Weekly Report, “Low Vol, High Uncertainty Keeps Oil-Price Rally On Tenterhooks”, dated June 18, 2020, available at ces.bcaresearch.com 8 Please see Geopolitical Strategy Special Alert, “Cyber-Rattling In The Middle East”, dated July 10, 2020, available at gps.bcaresearch.com