Today, we have “lies, fake news and statistics” rather than the old phrase “lies, damned lies and statistics”. But the general principle is still the same. Cynical players simply focus on the numbers that promote their argument, and ignore or challenge everything else.
The easiest way for them to manipulate the statistics is to ignore the wider context and focus on a single “shock, horror” story. So the chart above instead combines 5 “shock, horror” stories, showing quarterly oil production since 2015:
- Iran is in the news following President Trump’s decision to abandon the nuclear agreement, which began in July 2015. OPEC data shows its output has since risen from 2.9mbd in Q2 2015 to 3.8mbd in April – ‘shock, horror’!
- Russia has also been much in the news since joining the OPEC output agreement in November 2016. But in reality, it has done little. Its production was 11mbd in Q3 2016 and was 11.1mbd in April- ‘shock, horror’!
- Saudi Arabia leads OPEC: its production has fallen from 10.6mbd in Q3 2016 to 9.9mbd in April- ‘shock, horror’!
- Venezuela is an OPEC member, but its production decline began long before the OPEC deal. The country’s economic collapse has seen oil output fall from 2.4mbd in Q4 2015 to just 1.5mbd in April- ‘shock, horror’!
- The USA, along with Iran, has been the big winner over the past 2 years. Its output initially fell from 9.5mbd in Q1 2015 to 8.7mbd in Q3 2016, but has since soared by nearly 2mbd to 10.6mbd in April- ‘shock, horror’!
But overall, output in these 5 key countries rose from 35.5mbd in Q1 2015 to 36.9mbd in April. Not much “shock, horror” there over a 3 year period. More a New Normal story of “Winners and Losers”.
So why, you might ask, has the oil price rocketed from $27/bbl in January 2016 to $45/bbl in June last year and $78/bbl last Friday? Its a good question, as there have been no physical shortages reported anywhere in the world to cause prices to nearly treble. The answer lies in the second chart from John Kemp at Reuters:
- It shows combined speculative purchases in futures markets by hedge funds since 2013
- These hit a low of around 200mbbls in January 2016 (2 days supply)
- They then more than trebled to around 700mbbls by December 2016 (7 days supply)
- After halving to around 400mbbls in June 2017, they have now trebled to 1.4mbbls today (14 days supply)
Speculative buying, by definition, isn’t connected with the physical market, as OPEC’s Secretary General noted after meeting the major funds recently: “Several of them had little or no experience or even a basic understanding of how the physical market works.”
This critical point is confirmed by Citi analyst Ed Morse: “There are large investors in energy, and they don’t care about talking to people who deal with fundamentals. They have no interest in it.”
Their concern instead is with movements in currencies or interest rates – or with the shape of the oil futures curve itself. As the head of the $8bn Aspect fund has confirmed:
“The majority of our inputs, the vast majority, are price-driven. And the overwhelming factor we capitalise on is the tendency of crowd behaviour to drive medium-term trends in the market.” (my emphasis).
OIL PRICES ARE NOW AT LEVELS THAT USUALLY LEAD TO RECESSION
The hedge funds have been the real winners from all the “shock, horror” stories. These created the essential changes in “crowd behaviour”, from which they could profit. But now they are leaving the party – and the rest of will suffer the hangover, as the 3rd chart warns:
- Oil prices now represent 3.1% of global GDP, based on latest IMF data and 2018 forecasts
- This level has been linked with a US recession on almost every occasion since 1970
- The only exception was post-2009 when China and the Western central banks ramped up stimulus
- The stimulus simply created a debt-financed bubble
The reason is simple. People only have so much cash to spend. If they have to spend it on gasoline and heating their home, they can’t spend it on all the other things that drive the wider economy. Chemical markets are already confirming that demand destruction is taking place.:
- Companies have completely failed to pass through today’s high energy costs. For example:
- European prices for the major plastic, low density polyethylene, averaged $1767/t in April with Brent at $72/bbl
- They averaged $1763/t in May 2016 when Brent was $47/bbl (based on ICIS pricing data)
Even worse news may be around the corner. Last week saw President Trump decide to withdraw from the Iran deal. His daughter also opened the new US embassy to Jerusalem. Those with long memories are already wondering whether we could now see a return to the geopolitical crisis in summer 2008.
As I noted in July 2008, the skies over Greece were then “filled with planes” as Israel practised for an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Had the attack gone ahead, Iran would almost certainly have closed the Strait of Hormuz. It is just 21 miles wide (34km) at its narrowest point, and carries 35% of all seaborne oil exports, 17mb/d.
As Mark Twain wisely noted, “history doesn’t repeat itself, but it often rhymes”. Prudent companies and investors need now to look beyond the “market-moving, shock, horror” headlines in today’s oil markets. We must all learn to form our own judgments about the real risks that might lie ahead.
Given the geopolitical factors raised by President Trump’s decision on Iran, I am pausing the current oil forecast.
The post Oil prices flag recession risk as Iranian geopolitical tensions rise appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.
2016 data highlights one startling statistic about the world’s Top 7 auto markets. They are 85% of total world sales and as the chart shows, their overall sales growth since 2007 has been entirely due to China:
China’s sales have risen nearly four-fold since 2007, from 6.3m to 24.2m
Sales in the other 6 markets were exactly the same in 2016 as in 2007, at 43m
This has been very good news for those who were in China. Everyone has seen their sales rise – the car companies, the component suppliers and all the service-based industries that supported this fabulous expansion.
There have also been good opportunities in other parts of the world over the period, but also major risks:
US sales hit a new record in 2016, after a great run since 2009 following GM and Chrysler’s bankruptcy
The 27-member European Union (EU) has done well since 2013, up nearly a quarter to 14.6m, but is still below 2007′s 15.6m. (The market peaked back in 1999, when 14.6m cars were sold to the then 15 EU members)
Japan did well to 2013, but has since fallen to 4.2m; well down on 2004′s peak of 4.8m. (It is back to 1992 levels)
India set a new record at 2.9m in 2016, double 2007′s level, but fell 19% in December as demonetisation impacted
Brazil did well till 2012 when sales hit 2.8m, but are now below 2007′s level at 2m
Russia also soared from 2009, hitting 2.8m in 2012, but has since halved to just 1.4m in 2016
Now global sales are likely heading for a fall. They would already have been much lower without the support of major stimulus measures. Governments have been desperate to keep auto sales rising, due to their impact on jobs:
When China’s sales began to slow in 2015, the sales tax was cut from 10% to 5% for smaller cars with engines below 1.6l – which are mostly produced by Chinese manufacturers. But now China has raised the tax back to 7.5%, leading the manufacturers’ association to forecast sales growth will fall from 21% in 2016 to just 3% in 2017
Europe has seen widespread and continuous discounting. Ford’s European profit was just $259m in 2015: it and Fiat Chrysler made operating margins of less than 1% of sales, and GM continued to lose money. UK sales have relied on $25.8bn ($28bn) of payments since 2011 for insurance mis-selling, as many claimants used their average £3k compensation as a deposit on a car loan. VW’s diesel scandal will also have long-term negative impact, given that over half of all European new car sales have been diesel vehicles for the past decade. Paris, Madrid and Athens have already decided to ban diesel cars completely by 2025.
The USA has seen discounts reach an average $4k in December, up 20% on 2015. Leasing and financing deals have also been critical in maintaining auto sales. Experian data shows 86% of new cars were bought with financing in Q3 2016; the average loan amount is at a record high of $30k, and loan terms average 68 months
Logic therefore suggests the consensus is being extremely optimistic in ignoring today’s increasingly uncertain political background, and assuming global sales will continue to grow in 2017:
China faces political uncertainty ahead of the critical 19th National Party Congress in Q4. President Xi is almost certain to be re-nominated for a second 5-year term, but cannot currently rely on maintaining control of the critical Politburo Standing Committee – China’s main decision-making body.
Europe also faces major political uncertainty, with elections due in The Netherlands, France and Germany – and possibly Italy. In addition, the UK is highly likely to table its decision to leave the EU in the next few weeks.
In the US, every two-term Presidency for 100 years has been followed by recession. President Trump is highly likely to take difficult decisions this year, before next year’s mid-term elections and his own re-election bid in 2020
Another key issue is the impact of falling prices for used cars. Their volumes are already increasing as all the new cars sold in recent years come back for resale. China’s Auto Dealer Association expects used car sales to equal those for new cars by 2020, whilst Barclays has warned that US new car “prime and subprime net loss rates are close to multi-year highs because of softening used car values.”
Then there is the growing impact of taxi services such as Uber and Did, and the rise of car-sharing business models and self-driving cars. Most Americans, after all, waste a week of their lives in traffic jams each year, and many auto manufacturers are now introducing more service-driven business models as BMW have argued:
“Our core business in the ’70s was selling cars; in the ’80s, late ’70s came the great innovation of leasing and financing. Now you can pay per use of a car. It’s like the music industry. You used to have to buy an album, now you can pay per play.”
It is not yet clear how bad the downturn will be. But it would seem prudent to plan for at least a 5% global decline this year, given today’s rising levels of uncertainty and global interest rates. It will be too late to panic later in the year, once the detail of the downturn has become more obvious.
The chemical industry is the best leading indicator that we have for the global economy. It has an excellent correlation with IMF data, and also benefits from the fact it has no “political bias”. It simply tells us what is happening in real-time in the world’s 3rd largest industry.
Sadly, the news is not good.
As the chart shows, based on the latest American Chemistry Council data, Capacity Utilisation (CU%) fell to just 78.4% in October. This is only just above the lowest reading ever seen, of 77% at the bottom of the sub-prime crisis in March 2009. The pattern is also worryingly familiar:
Then the CU% peaked in May 2007 at 95.1%, before declining to 88% by October 2008, and collapsing to 77%
This time, the CU% peaked at 80.7% in December 2015 and has been falling ever since, month by month
Given that the industry is normally around 8 – 12 months ahead of the wider economy, due to its early position in the supply chain, this means it is highly likely that the global economy will move into recession during 2017
Of course, nobody ever wants to forecast recession. And there are always plenty of reasons why something might be “different this time”. But it would certainly seem prudent for companies and investors to develop a Recession Scenario for their business for 2017. given the track record of the CU% indicator.
Indeed, there are a number of reasons to suggest that any recession might be severe. Bill White, the only central banker to warn of the subprime crisis, warned in January that “the world faces wave of epic debt defaults“, and then added in September that:
“The global situation we face today is arguably more fraught with danger than was the case when the crisis first began. By encouraging still more credit and debt expansion, monetary policy has ‘‘dug the hole deeper.’’…In practice, ultraeasy policy has not stimulated aggregate demand to the degree expected but has had other unexpected consequences. Not least, it poses a threat to financial stability and to potential growth going forward….the fundamental problem is not inadequate liquidity but excessive debt and possible insolvencies. The policy stakes are now very high.”
When White spoke, the implications of the UK’s Brexit vote were still only just beginning to be recognised
Since then, US President-elect Donald Trump has announced his 100-Day Plan to reshape America’s world role
Major uncertainty is building in Europe with Italy’s referendum plus Dutch, French and German elections
India’s economy is weakening as the currency reforms have taken 86% of its cash out of circulation
Plus, there are ever-present risks from China’s housing bubble, and the potential for a trade war with the USA
Of course, many of the same people who said that Brexit would never happen, and that Trump would never win, are now lining up to tell us everything will still be the same in the end. But they should really have very little credibility.
What many investors also seem to be forgetting is that Trump has been a long-time CEO. And new CEOs normally write-off everything in their first year of office. This gives them the double bonus of being able to (a) blame the previous CEO and (b) then take credit for any improvement.
As Trump would no doubt like a second term of office from 2021, he has every incentive to “clear the decks” in 2017.
The chemical industry is the best leading indicator for the global economy, and it is flagging major warning signs about the outlook for 2017. As the chart above shows, based on American Chemistry Council (ACC) data:
Since 2009, Capacity Utilisation (CU%) has never returned to the 91.3% averaged between 1987 – 2008
It hit an all-time low at 77.7% in March 2009 after the financial crisis began
Despite $27tn of global stimulus lending since then, it was back at 78.8% in September
Even more worrying is that it has seen a steady decline for the past year, from 81.3% in September 2015
And as the ACC warn:
“Growth in the industry has been nearly flat most of the year thus far”.
The second chart highlights the position in the G7 countries, responsible for nearly half of global GDP, over the past 12 months. It shows the change in chemical production, using a 3 month average:
Canada, the smallest G7 economy, has been stable due to its strong export position, at 6%
Japan has also been stable at 4%, with its trade balance gaining from the yen’s weakness since September 2012
France has declined from 5.4% to 3.4%, despite benefiting from the euro’s weakness
Italy has been broadly stable, also benefiting from the euro’s decline, at 2.1%
The USA, the world’s largest economy, has fallen steadily from 2.2% to just 0.5%
Germany, Europe’s largest economy, has seen production fall from 2.4% to a negative 0.2% over the past year
The UK, the world’s 4th largest economy, has fallen from 3.4% to a negative 2.9%
This adds to the disappointing picture in the BRIC economies, which account for over a fifth of the global economy, as I discussed on Friday. Brazil has been negative for the past 12 months: Russia has collapsed from 15% to 5%; India has been the best performer, being stable at around 4.5%; China has slowed further from 4% to 3%.
The industry is generally around 6 months ahead of the global economy, because of its early position in the supply chain. Thus in 2008, it was clear from around March that the world was heading into a major downturn. The Bear Stearns collapse was effectively the “canary in the coalmine”. My view remains that the Brexit vote at the end of June marked a similar tipping point, as I warned on 27 June. And as I noted then:
“The global economy is in far worse shape today than in 2008, due to the debt created by the world’s major central banks.”
As in 2008, of course, most commentators are still convinced that everything in the garden is rosy.
I fear, however, that soon they will once again be excusing their mistake, by telling anyone who will listen that “nobody could have seen this downturn coming”. The reason for their mistake, as in 2008, will simply be that they were looking in the wrong place, by focusing on the positive signals from financial markets. But these lost their key role of price discovery long ago, due to the vast wave of liquidity provided by stimulus programmes.
Unless we see a rapid recovery in the next few weeks, prudent companies and investors would be well advised to heed the clear warning from chemical markets that global recession is just around the corner.
Will 2014 turn out to be a repeat of 2008 for the US economy?
6 years ago, after all, not a single mainstream forecaster – including the IMF and World Bank – was forecasting a recession. Even in September 2008, the consensus was still confident about the economic outlook. Yet the National Bureau for Economic Research later confirmed the official start of the recession as being December 2007.
Interestingly, a number of the same people who were wary of the outlook in 2008 are equally wary today. Thus Nobel Prize-winner Robert Shiller warned last week:
“I am definitely concerned. When was [the cyclically adjusted P/E ratio or CAPE] higher than it is now? I can tell you: 1929, 2000 and 2007. … We don’t know what it’s going to do. There could be a massive crash, like we saw in 2000 and 2007, the last two times it looked like this. But I don’t know. … One thing though, I don’t know how many people look at plots of the market. If you just look at a plot of one of the major averages in the U.S., you’ll see what look like three peaks – 2000, 2007 and now – it just looks to me like a peak. I’m not saying it is. I would think that there are people thinking that way – it’s gone way up since 2009. It’s likely to turn down again, just like it did the last two times.”
And, of course, there is the fact that Q1 GDP was a negative 2.9%. Of course, all the professional optimists immediately told us that this was just due to bad weather, and we would see an immediate and sustained recovery. They may turn out to be right, of course. But it seems many forecasts are now quietly being revised down..
The Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the central bankers’ bank) has also warned explicitly of the dangers for the global economy:
“Obviously, market participants are pricing in hardly any risks….Financial markets are euphoric, but progress in strengthening banks’ balance sheets has been uneven and private debt keeps growing. Macroeconomic policy has little room for manoeuvre to deal with any untoward surprises that might be sprung, including a normal recession.”
The BIS issued similar warnings in July 2007 and July 2008 which were, as now, mostly ignored.
The key issue is complacency. Markets believe that central banks would never again make the mistake of allowing a Lehman Brothers to go bankrupt. Therefore they believe that it is perfectly safe to chase stock prices higher and higher. As the above chart of the IeC Boom/Gloom Index shows:
- The US S&P 500 Index is making new highs month by month, despite bad news on the real economy (red line)
- The key is the liquidity programmes from the US, Europe and Japan, which provide free cash to investors
- But the Index itself seems likely to have peaked in March (blue column)
It is also not hard to identify a catalyst for a future panic as investors insist on continuing to wear their rose-tinted spectacles. They seem totally unaware of the massive potential downside that could be inflicted on an over-leveraged global economy by the unwinding now underway of China’s ‘collateral trade’.
The reason is they have completely failed to understand that China has abruptly changed economic course under its new leadership. President Xi and Premier Li know only too well that disaster could follow if they continue with the old policies of stimulus-led growth. Thus on a tour of central China last week, premier Li brushed aside concerns from senior province governors that:
“The aluminum, coal and steel sectors are still suffering heavy losses. … Lending rates, especially for smaller businesses, have grown by at least 20% on average,” and that ”footwear and textile exporters are struggling with weak foreign demand”.
This is a major development in the world’s second largest economy. But nobody talks about it, or its possible consequences.
Maybe Shiller is wrong to be worried. Maybe the BIS is also wrong. But they were right before when everyone else was wrong. And if they are right again, then as the BIS has also warned, central banks now “have little room for manoeuvre to deal with any untoward surprise”.
WEEKLY MARKET ROUND-UP
The blog’s weekly round-up of Benchmark price movements since January 2014 is below, with ICIS pricing comments:
PTA China, flat 0%. “Buying interest for higher-priced cargoes were curbed by prevailing weak downstream demand”
US$: yen, down 3%
Brent crude oil, up 2%
Benzene, Europe, up 6%. “Several players in Europe are uncertain whether prices are sustainable at current levels”
Naphtha Europe, up 6%. “Europe is structurally long on naphtha and has to export to petrochemical markets in Asia and the gasoline sector in the US”
S&P 500 stock market index, up 8%
HDPE US export, up 7%. “International buyers are not interested in building inventory at high prices”
Milton Friedman received a Nobel Prize for economics in 1976, partly on the basis of his analysis that ‘inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomenon’. It sounds an appealing insight, but of course it is wrong. The reason is that it confuses cause and effect.
The above chart presents a different view, highlighting the true cause of inflation as being a surplus of demand relative to supply. In turn, this explains why we now face the prospect of deflation:
- Logic suggests that the true cause of inflation must be excess demand compared to potential supply
- This is what began to happen as the BabyBoomers began to create increased demand as they grew up
- Supply was, of course, limited due to the effect of World War 2 and the small size of the inter-War generation
- This growth can be seen in the blue columns, as the Boomers grew up and began to reach their Wealth Creator years (25-54 years)
- Thus whilst nominal GDP was rising all the time (red line), so were inflation and interest rates on the US Treasury 10 Year bond (black)
It is of course quite understandable that Friedman should have come to his conclusion, and that the Nobel Committee should award their Prize. Historical data on births was extremely limited at that point, even in the wealthy G7 economies. As the blog found when writing chapter 1 of Boom, Gloom and the New Normal, annual reporting of Italian data only began in 1921 and US data itself only in 1909.
Equally, whilst it is now commonplace to describe the US Boomer period as being from 1946-1964, nobody realised it at the time. Web research suggests the word was only first used in this context as late as 1977. Certainly the blog’s 1973 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) does not reference the word, whilst the online OED gives no reference for first use.
Clearly one cannot blame Friedman, or the Nobel committee, for failing to recognise the critical importance of something of which nobody was then aware. However, with the advantage of hindsight, we can now easily see that demographics was the critical reason for the rise in inflation that Friedman observed. Similarly, the chart shows how the story has developed since then:
- The good news was that the average US Boomer (born 1955) reached their Wealth Creator years in 1980
- Unsurprisingly at this point, inflation began to fall as supply caught up with demand
- The Wealth Creator wave then came to its full force, as Boomers from across the Western world reached this period of their lives
- It created an unique period of constant growth over 25 years, and introduced the concept of globalisation
- But then, due to the miracle of increased life expectancy, the Boomers didn’t simply die as their ancestors had usually done
- Western life expectancy, just 46 years in 1900, and still only 66 in 1950, has now reached around 80 years
- This New Old 55+ generation has never been alive in such numbers before, and will soon be 40%+ of Western adult populations
Unfortunately, misled by Friedman’s analysis, policymakers have assumed for the past decade that monetary policy can restore growth and inflation. Firstly they boosted the US subprime boom, and since 2009 they have spent vast sums (nearly half of global GDP) in a fruitless effort to turn back the demographic tide.
But any rational and impartial observer can see they are wrong, and that we are instead entering a New Normal. What this will mean for the economy is unknown, as there is no precedent to guide us.
Equally, it is only now, thanks to books like ‘Boom, Gloom and the New Normal’, that the link between demographics and economic performance is becoming clear for the first time. Until recently, most people thought of older people as simply being a market for health care and walking sticks. Like Friedman, they had simply not realised the now increasingly obvious fact, that demographics drive demand.