Connect with us

Uncategorized

Lower oil prices for longer? The impact on emerging market oil producers

Lower oil prices for longer? The impact on emerging market oil producers

Published

on

By Claudia Calich, Gregory Smith and Eldar Vakhitov

Market expectations of global oil prices have shifted several times already in 2020. The year started with short-lived scenarios of potentially higher prices, as tensions between the USA and Iran dominated the headlines. However, as COVID-19 tragically spread, the virus put a clear dent into expectations about global growth. Curfews and efforts needed to contain the virus’ spread hit both demand and supply. First in China, then globally as the virus spread. Expectations about oil prices softened accordingly, with Brent dropping from $60/bbl in late January to close to $50/bbl in early March. At this point, emerging markets were feeling the pressure of slower growth prospects and weaker sentiment as global stock markets sold-off. But there was a much bigger oil move to come.

Saudi Arabia had over the past two years agreed with Russia, and several other non-OPEC producers, to limit production in order to keep oil prices in a range broadly between $50/bbl and $70/bbl. At an OPEC plus meeting on 06 March, Saudi had hoped to secure agreement from Russia, and other oil producers, to make new commitments to hold back on supply. Saudi Arabia had not wanted to do all the heavy-lifting alone. But Russia decided not to support the cuts, and overnight the landscape shifted 180 degrees. Saudi Arabia gave up on the cuts and pledged lower prices and a greater supply of oil. This sent oil prices tumbling down to the mid-30s when markets opened on 09 March.

Brand new scenarios for oil prices were sketched out for 2020 and 2021 by the markets. They had to gauge not only the potential impacts of COVID-19, but also now an oil price war. One scenario involves Saudi’s move provoking Russia to change its stance and agree on cuts, lifting oil prices in the process. But this was not the prevailing view. Instead the idea that oil prices might remain in the 30s over 2020 dominated market thinking.

Emerging markets tend to feel strain when global oil prices drop. There is a clear impact on the oil producers. Meanwhile, oil-importers might see some balance of payments pressures easing. However, they also tend to face higher costs of borrowing and the effects of weaker market sentiment. Furthermore, oil importers are more likely to be tourist destinations than oil producers. Hence they are braced for lower FX earnings as COVID-19 travel restrictions limit visitor numbers.

For the oil producers a move of this magnitude requires adjustment, with oil prices as much as $20/bbl below the level on which 2020 budgets were calibrated. Countries with large balance sheets, flush with saved financial assets, look stronger than those without such assets. For others with a weaker balance sheet, it is a matter of how long FX reserves will last at different extents of fiscal and external adjustment. Countries with pegged currencies are likely to need more FX reserves, than those who can adjust their exchange rates. We examine four emerging markets and discuss the impacts of potentially lower oil prices.

Ecuador

Ecuador is one of the most vulnerable countries to a decline in oil prices. As a dollarized economy, it does not have the flexibility of the exchange rate as an adjustment valve. Furthermore, although its debt levels are lower that some other oil exporters (Angola for example), it already had a large fiscal deficit even before oil prices collapsed. While the Moreno administration has had good intentions, complex domestic political dynamics ahead of a 2021 election, with the risk of populist policies returning, have made large fiscal adjustments difficult. The IMF has been very supportive thus far, but the new reality of oil prices mean that the programme assumptions will need to be re-calibrated, and future disbursements may not happen under the original schedule or at all. Should oil prices remain in the 30s for an extended period of time, Ecuador will run into a liquidity crisis. In this uncertain environment, any other potential sources of liquidity (upcoming asset sales, additional funding from China, etc) may not materialize. Ecuador has been one of the worst performers over the last week and the bonds are now pricing a very likely re-structuring in the next 12 months. Should that happen, it would be the country’s third in the last 20 years.

Saudi Arabia

Saudi Arabia’s economy is dominated by oil production. As its riyal has been pegged to the US dollar for decades at the same rate, the government is unlikely to adjust it. But the Saudi Arabia Monetary Authority has amassed a huge amount of reserves, worth close to $500 billion in 2019 (62 percent of GDP). Oil averaging $40/bbl in 2020 could double Saudi Arabia’s fiscal deficit if budget plans are not cut and put the external account under pressure as the current account breakeven oil price is around $50/bbl. Saudi Arabia is a low cost oil producer and its accumulated buffer will help it to weather the storm and maintain its peg. But in the absence of exchange rate adjustment, FX reserves could halve if oil prices remained low until the end of 2021.

Nigeria

Nigeria, along with Angola, faces the largest potential adjustment in the African eurobond space. The Central bank of Nigeria (CBN) has kept the Naira pegged to the US dollar since the last devaluations in 2016 and 2017. The exchange-rate stability has been welcome in 2018 and 2019, enticing foreign investor demand for Nigerian short-term domestic debt. But the big drop in oil prices might put too much pressure on FX reserves—that had already been falling steadily since June 2019—if the CBN tried to maintain the currency status quo. The option of devaluation, in response to lower oil prices, is available to the authorities in 2020 as a means of adjustment. Meanwhile the government has stated its intention to re-work the 2020 budget which was based on $57/bbl.

Russia

Russia’s progress towards economic diversification has been limited in recent years, but an impressive fiscal adjustment has been implemented. The breakeven oil price for the budget fell dramatically to about $45/bbl in 2019 (from $110/bbl in 2013). A budgetary rule has kept discipline, ensuring oil revenues above $42/bbl have accumulated in the National Welfare Fund. This oil fund has reached $170bn (10% of GDP). Government debt is also very low at close to 15% of GDP. Furthermore, in contrast to most oil exporters, Russia has opted for a flexible exchange regime which provides an important avenue of adjustment to lower oil prices. Moves in the Ruble, plus FX reserves worth 18 months’ of import cover, underpin Russia’s resilience which already passed tests when it brushed-off increased US sanctions in 2018.

If Saudi Arabia’s plan is to pressure Russia into a new agreement for oil production cuts, a glance at Russia’s balance sheet suggests it might take a long time, and might end up hurting Saudi Arabia more. In any case, the greatest pressures of lower prices in 2020 would fall on the higher cost oil producers, many of which are in the US.

If a scenario of oil under $40/bbl plays out in 2020, the landscape for the EMBI diversified index oil producers will change massively. The inclusion of the GCC countries in 2019 has shifted the index’s weighting to oil producers from just under 30 percent in 2018 to 37 percent in 2020. If oil prices stick at current levels, 2020 budgets will need to be torn up and redrawn. The necessary adjustment will be substantial, with the countries with better balance sheets and adjustment tools much better placed to weather the storm of lower oil prices, all while grappling with the global impacts of COVID-19.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

February Employment Situation

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000…

Published

on

By Paul Gomme and Peter Rupert

The establishment data from the BLS showed a 275,000 increase in payroll employment for February, outpacing the 230,000 average over the previous 12 months. The payroll data for January and December were revised down by a total of 167,000. The private sector added 223,000 new jobs, the largest gain since May of last year.

Temporary help services employment continues a steep decline after a sharp post-pandemic rise.

Average hours of work increased from 34.2 to 34.3. The increase, along with the 223,000 private employment increase led to a hefty increase in total hours of 5.6% at an annualized rate, also the largest increase since May of last year.

The establishment report, once again, beat “expectations;” the WSJ survey of economists was 198,000. Other than the downward revisions, mentioned above, another bit of negative news was a smallish increase in wage growth, from $34.52 to $34.57.

The household survey shows that the labor force increased 150,000, a drop in employment of 184,000 and an increase in the number of unemployed persons of 334,000. The labor force participation rate held steady at 62.5, the employment to population ratio decreased from 60.2 to 60.1 and the unemployment rate increased from 3.66 to 3.86. Remember that the unemployment rate is the number of unemployed relative to the labor force (the number employed plus the number unemployed). Consequently, the unemployment rate can go up if the number of unemployed rises holding fixed the labor force, or if the labor force shrinks holding the number unemployed unchanged. An increase in the unemployment rate is not necessarily a bad thing: it may reflect a strong labor market drawing “marginally attached” individuals from outside the labor force. Indeed, there was a 96,000 decline in those workers.

Earlier in the week, the BLS announced JOLTS (Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey) data for January. There isn’t much to report here as the job openings changed little at 8.9 million, the number of hires and total separations were little changed at 5.7 million and 5.3 million, respectively.

As has been the case for the last couple of years, the number of job openings remains higher than the number of unemployed persons.

Also earlier in the week the BLS announced that productivity increased 3.2% in the 4th quarter with output rising 3.5% and hours of work rising 0.3%.

The bottom line is that the labor market continues its surprisingly (to some) strong performance, once again proving stronger than many had expected. This strength makes it difficult to justify any interest rate cuts soon, particularly given the recent inflation spike.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mortgage rates fall as labor market normalizes

Jobless claims show an expanding economy. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

Published

on

Everyone was waiting to see if this week’s jobs report would send mortgage rates higher, which is what happened last month. Instead, the 10-year yield had a muted response after the headline number beat estimates, but we have negative job revisions from previous months. The Federal Reserve’s fear of wage growth spiraling out of control hasn’t materialized for over two years now and the unemployment rate ticked up to 3.9%. For now, we can say the labor market isn’t tight anymore, but it’s also not breaking.

The key labor data line in this expansion is the weekly jobless claims report. Jobless claims show an expanding economy that has not lost jobs yet. We will only be in a recession once jobless claims exceed 323,000 on a four-week moving average.

From the Fed: In the week ended March 2, initial claims for unemployment insurance benefits were flat, at 217,000. The four-week moving average declined slightly by 750, to 212,250


Below is an explanation of how we got here with the labor market, which all started during COVID-19.

1. I wrote the COVID-19 recovery model on April 7, 2020, and retired it on Dec. 9, 2020. By that time, the upfront recovery phase was done, and I needed to model out when we would get the jobs lost back.

2. Early in the labor market recovery, when we saw weaker job reports, I doubled and tripled down on my assertion that job openings would get to 10 million in this recovery. Job openings rose as high as to 12 million and are currently over 9 million. Even with the massive miss on a job report in May 2021, I didn’t waver.

Currently, the jobs openings, quit percentage and hires data are below pre-COVID-19 levels, which means the labor market isn’t as tight as it once was, and this is why the employment cost index has been slowing data to move along the quits percentage.  

2-US_Job_Quits_Rate-1-2

3. I wrote that we should get back all the jobs lost to COVID-19 by September of 2022. At the time this would be a speedy labor market recovery, and it happened on schedule, too

Total employment data

4. This is the key one for right now: If COVID-19 hadn’t happened, we would have between 157 million and 159 million jobs today, which would have been in line with the job growth rate in February 2020. Today, we are at 157,808,000. This is important because job growth should be cooling down now. We are more in line with where the labor market should be when averaging 140K-165K monthly. So for now, the fact that we aren’t trending between 140K-165K means we still have a bit more recovery kick left before we get down to those levels. 




From BLS: Total nonfarm payroll employment rose by 275,000 in February, and the unemployment rate increased to 3.9 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Job gains occurred in health care, in government, in food services and drinking places, in social assistance, and in transportation and warehousing.

Here are the jobs that were created and lost in the previous month:

IMG_5092

In this jobs report, the unemployment rate for education levels looks like this:

  • Less than a high school diploma: 6.1%
  • High school graduate and no college: 4.2%
  • Some college or associate degree: 3.1%
  • Bachelor’s degree or higher: 2.2%
IMG_5093_320f22

Today’s report has continued the trend of the labor data beating my expectations, only because I am looking for the jobs data to slow down to a level of 140K-165K, which hasn’t happened yet. I wouldn’t categorize the labor market as being tight anymore because of the quits ratio and the hires data in the job openings report. This also shows itself in the employment cost index as well. These are key data lines for the Fed and the reason we are going to see three rate cuts this year.

Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January…

Published

on

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In History: Record 1.2 Million Immigrant Jobs Added In One Month

Last month we though that the January jobs report was the "most ridiculous in recent history" but, boy, were we wrong because this morning the Biden department of goalseeked propaganda (aka BLS) published the February jobs report, and holy crap was that something else. Even Goebbels would blush. 

What happened? Let's take a closer look.

On the surface, it was (almost) another blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected, or rather just one bank out of 76 expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in February the US unexpectedly added 275K jobs, with just one research analyst (from Dai-Ichi Research) expecting a higher number.

Some context: after last month's record 4-sigma beat, today's print was "only" 3 sigma higher than estimates. Needless to say, two multiple sigma beats in a row used to only happen in the USSR... and now in the US, apparently.

Before we go any further, a quick note on what last month we said was "the most ridiculous jobs report in recent history": it appears the BLS read our comments and decided to stop beclowing itself. It did that by slashing last month's ridiculous print by over a third, and revising what was originally reported as a massive 353K beat to just 229K,  a 124K revision, which was the biggest one-month negative revision in two years!

Of course, that does not mean that this month's jobs print won't be revised lower: it will be, and not just that month but every other month until the November election because that's the only tool left in the Biden admin's box: pretend the economic and jobs are strong, then revise them sharply lower the next month, something we pointed out first last summer and which has not failed to disappoint once.

To be fair, not every aspect of the jobs report was stellar (after all, the BLS had to give it some vague credibility). Take the unemployment rate, after flatlining between 3.4% and 3.8% for two years - and thus denying expectations from Sahm's Rule that a recession may have already started - in February the unemployment rate unexpectedly jumped to 3.9%, the highest since February 2022 (with Black unemployment spiking by 0.3% to 5.6%, an indicator which the Biden admin will quickly slam as widespread economic racism or something).

And then there were average hourly earnings, which after surging 0.6% MoM in January (since revised to 0.5%) and spooking markets that wage growth is so hot, the Fed will have no choice but to delay cuts, in February the number tumbled to just 0.1%, the lowest in two years...

... for one simple reason: last month's average wage surge had nothing to do with actual wages, and everything to do with the BLS estimate of hours worked (which is the denominator in the average wage calculation) which last month tumbled to just 34.1 (we were led to believe) the lowest since the covid pandemic...

... but has since been revised higher while the February print rose even more, to 34.3, hence why the latest average wage data was once again a product not of wages going up, but of how long Americans worked in any weekly period, in this case higher from 34.1 to 34.3, an increase which has a major impact on the average calculation.

While the above data points were examples of some latent weakness in the latest report, perhaps meant to give it a sheen of veracity, it was everything else in the report that was a problem starting with the BLS's latest choice of seasonal adjustments (after last month's wholesale revision), which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the monthly change in BLS and ADP payrolls shows. The trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

But it's more than just the Biden admin hanging its "success" on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge... such as the growing unprecedented divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) survey and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 275K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped for the third straight month (and 4 in the past 5), this time by 184K (from 161.152K to 160.968K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has not budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There's more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of "new jobs" has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in February 2024, the US had 132.9 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that's great... until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 921K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.941 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the new jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there's even more, because now that the primary season is over and we enter the heart of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in February, the number of native-born workers tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 2.4 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 3 months (only the covid crash was worse)!

The offset? A record 1.2 million foreign-born (read immigrants, both legal and illegal but mostly illegal) workers added in February!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 6 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers...

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

... but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since June 2018!

This is a huge issue - especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the southwest border...

... and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened - i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why Biden's handlers will do everything in their power to insure there is no official recession before November... and why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get even more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden Fri, 03/08/2024 - 13:30

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending