Etikett: Natural Resources

Coking Coal Rally Driven by Supply Constraints

VanEck Coking Coal Rally Driven by Supply ConstraintsCoking Coal Rally Driven by Supply Constraints

Overview: VanEck’s natural resources investment strategy spans the breadth of raw materials commodities sectors, and the coal and consumable fuels sub-sector can play an important role. Not least, the global steel industry is dependent on coal. Metallurgical coal is essential to the steel making process with approximately 70% of the steel produced today using coal as a primary raw material. Metallurgic coal is also called “coking” coal because it is used to create coke, an irreplaceable input for steel production. Coking Coal Rally Driven by Supply Constraints

By the end of September, metallurgical coal prices had climbed more than 100% since the beginning of the year.1 The overwhelming driver behind this price recovery has been restriction in supply. In addition to both lower seaborne and domestic supply, inventories are also at multi-year lows. Although our view is that current prices are not likely to hold, we do foresee a continuation of a market environment that will be supportive of higher prices.

What is Metallurgical Coal?

Global steel production depends on coal. Metallurgical coal, or coking coal, is used in the process of making steel, and hence is often referred to as “steel making coal”. Coking coal is heated to about 2,700° F (1,100° C) in a coke oven, forcing out impurities to produce coke. Coke itself is almost pure carbon. Because of its high thermal energy and dearth of impurities, coke is used to convert iron ore into molten iron. This is then used to make a range of steel types.

Global Demand is Solid

Over the past three years, global demand for coking coal has been relatively solid at an annual level of around 990 million tonnes (Mt). China is one of the most important consumers in terms of setting prices, since it accounts for approximately 60%, or 590Mt, of global coking coal demand. It is followed by Japan at 69Mt, India at 49Mt, and South Korea at 40Mt. Demand from the U.S. is for about 21Mt per annum.

China has invested heavily in its steel industry and currently accounts for approximately 55% of the world’s steel production. The net result of this is that domestic Chinese coking coal supply has had to be supplemented by imported, or seaborne coal (Chart A). “Seaborne” refers to coal that is transported internationally overseas by ship, and refers mostly to the coking coal export market.

Chart A: Chinese Seaborne Coking Coal Demand and Steel Production

Yearly in Tonnes: 2000-2016

(click to enlarge)
Source: VanEck, Bloomberg, World Steel Association, Australian Bureau of Statistic, Statistics Canada, and Chinese General Administration of Customs, as of 9/30/16.

Coking Coal Supply: The Seaborne Market and the Domestic Market

The global coking coal market is generally considered as being split between the seaborne (or export market) and the domestically traded market.

The Seaborne Market

The size of the global seaborne coking coal market was approximately 290Mt as of 2015 (Chart B). Despite being a much smaller market than the domestically traded coal market, the seaborne market is actively traded and, therefore, regarded as the price/trend indicator for all contracts.

Australia, the U.S., and Canada are the key suppliers of coking coal to the seaborne market. Seaborne supply reached record levels in 2014 as shown in Chart B. However, supply fell 8% in 2015 as producer profitability decreased, balance sheet quality deteriorated, and capital spending contracted. In 2016, supply has collapsed even more dramatically, and on an annualized basis, 2016 seaborne supply could be as low as 185Mt, or down 37%, a level last seen in 2004.

Chart B: Global Seaborne Coking Coal Supply

Yearly in Tonnes: 2000-2016

(click to enlarge)
Source: VanEck, Bloomberg, Australian Bureau of Statistic, Statistics Canada, Chinese General Administration of Customs, and U.S. Census Bureau, as of 9/30/16.

The U.S. has had the largest impact on the shrinking supply to the seaborne market. Over the past three years, U.S. coking coal exports have fallen consistently, driven by subdued prices, lower margins, and/or restrictive environmental policies (Chart C). U.S. exports peaked at about 70Mt in 2012, but since then they have contracted by nearly 42% and 2016 exports are estimated at 40Mt. The export decline has been particularly pronounced over the past twelve months, a period in which 20Mt in capacity was lost.

Chart C: U.S. Coking Coal Exports

Quarterly in Tonnes: 2000-2016

(click to enlarge)
Source: VanEck, Bloomberg, and U.S. Energy Information Administration, as of 9/30/16.

The Domestic Market

Domestic coking coal markets have also seen a dramatic reduction in supply. In 2016, China made a fundamental shift and implemented supply-side reforms in the domestic coal industry to curb overcapacity. In short, the reforms reduced the number of statutory working days for coal miners from 330 to 276. By mid-2016, in China, year-on-year production was down 20%, and in the coking coal-rich Shanxi province it was down 25% to 30%. As a result, because of lower supply and relatively solid demand, coking coal inventories in China are currently at multi-year lows.

Our Positive Outlook for Coking Coal

Current physical market conditions remain very tight. We believe that just as low prices have resulted in reduced supply, higher prices should lead to increased supply. At current spot market prices, virtually every tonne of seaborne coking coal will be cash positive.

While we do not expect current prices to hold, we do foresee a strong and supportive market that will keep prices higher than the current contract price (around $92.50 per tonne). This outlook is supported by a number of different factors. In addition to the fact that 70% of deals are executed by coking coal end-users and not traders, some 80% of concluded transactions were in Asia. On top of this, not only are coking coal inventories at coke plants at their lowest levels on record, demand for steel is also expected to remain solid. Taken together, we believe these factors provide a solid base for firm prices going forward.

AUTHORED BY

Charl Malan
Senior Analyst
________________________________________
Senior Analyst for the Natural Resources Equity strategy; specializes in Base and Industrial Metals; also serves on the investment team for the Gold Equity strategy
Investment Management Team member since 2003
Prior to joining VanEck, an equity research sales analyst specializing in South African mining, natural resources, and financial sectors at JPMorgan Chase; actively involved in the merger of BHP Billiton/SAB Miller and unbundling of Iscor Steel/Kumba Resources as well as capital raisings and NYSE listing of Harmony Gold, Gold Fields, and Telkom SA
Previously an equity research analyst and junior portfolio manager at Standard Corporate and Merchant Bank, Asset Management (South Africa); developed and applied various fundamental and quantitative models within the natural resources, mining, and consumer sectors; established an equity research department and managed Standard Corporate and Merchant Bank, Asset Management (Namibia)
Media appearances include ROBTv; quoted in The Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, Forbes, CNBC, and The Financial Times, among others; also featured in mining journals such as miningmx, Mining Journal, and Resource Investor
MBA, University of Stellenbosch (South Africa); Honours in Business Administration, University of Stellenbosch (South Africa); BA, Arts, University of Pretoria (South Africa)

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE

1 Source: Bloomberg. Data as of 9/30/16 is based on the TSIPPCAE Index: Premium Hard Coking Coal Australia Export (FOB East Coast port) USD/tonne. This price index is compiled by The Steel Index Ltd (TSI), and it represents the volume-weighted average of actual transaction price data submitted confidentially online to TSI by companies operating within the relevant supply chain, including buyers and sellers, based on their latest sales and/or purchases within this product category. An index’s performance is not illustrative of a Fund or strategy’s performance. Indices are not securities in which investments can be made.

This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction. You can obtain more specific information on VanEck strategies by visiting Investment Strategies.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the author(s), but not necessarily those of VanEck, and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results or investment advice. Historical performance is not indicative of future results. Current data may differ from data quoted. Any graphs shown herein are for illustrative purposes only. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment portfolios that invest in the asset class(es) mentioned in this post. Hard assets investments are subject to risks associated with natural resources and commodities and events related to these industries. Commodity investments may be subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in a wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk.

 

Natural Resources by Van Eck

Natural Resources by Van Eck

Oil Market’s Shifting Supply and Demand Fundamentals Natural Resources by Van Eck

TOM BUTCHER: Shawn, thus far in 2016, have supply and demand fundamentals in the oil market shifted as you expected them to?

SHAWN REYNOLDS: We believe that there is no doubt that the oil market’s supply and demand fundamentals are coming into place and will tighten through the end of the year. However, we think the timing is unclear in terms of how fast or slow this will happen, but we are likely to see tightening later in the year. The biggest surprise has been the depth of the changes at hand, which have created a sense that tightening might happen quicker than expected; but in our opinion, tightening is certainly going to last for some time.

When we talk about the depth of changes, we refer to the rig counts here in the U.S., which have fallen 78%. That is unprecedented in the time that we have been counting rigs drilling in the U.S., which began in the 1970s. We also look at activity levels and investment levels overseas.

Declining Rig Counts Across the Globe U.S. Count Down 78%

Source: Bloomberg, as of March 2016.

If we look more closely at integrated oil companies and consider that they cut capital investment plans by 25% in 2015, and are expected to cut another 25% in 2016, we again find that there has been no precedent. These developments have never been experienced in the history of the modern oil industry. While things are more or less playing out as we expected, there are certainly some surprises. They may be taking place slowly now, during the first part of the year, but they will likely speed up and endure for some time in terms of upside price correction.

BUTCHER: What might be some of the long-term effects of those capital investment cuts on the integrated oil companies?

Big Oil Projects Postponed or Canceled

REYNOLDS: It has been staggering to observe the reactions from the integrated companies. Obviously, many headlines focus on U.S. oil shale and the rig count reduction of 78%. If you dig into the volumes that are connected with these two major changes taking place, the E&P (exploration and production) companies and the integrated oil companies will not experience equivalent impact. The potential impact on the integrated oil companies will be significantly larger and longer term.

What do these reductions in capital investments entail? They mean big projects being canceled or postponed. If you add it all up, we’re looking at somewhere between 6-13 million barrels a day of projects being postponed or canceled. These projects were slated to take place between 2014 and 2020 and now they are off the shelf until post 2020, if at all.

We are seeing big projects being canceled by individual companies. For example, Petrobras [Brazil’s Petróleo Brasileiro S.A], or Royal Dutch Shell [Netherlands], or Chevron [U.S.], or Total [France]. Every single one of these multi-national companies is canceling major projects. For example, the French company Total has not approved any major projects in 2014 or 2015 and will likely not approve anything in 2016; and it has nothing on the docket for 2017. Royal Dutch Shell hasn’t approved anything since 2013, except for one project in the deepwater Gulf of Mexico.

Integrated Cos. Likely to Suffer Multi-Year Declines in Production

This activity is unprecedented, and we believe it sets up a situation where the oil production of integrated companies, which has grown slowly over the years but is still growing, will begin to decline. We expect a multi-year decline that may not begin until later in 2016 or perhaps early 2017. By late 2017, and certainly for several years thereafter, we are likely to see a very methodical decline in overall supply. This will heavily impact the overall oil market.

BUTCHER: For oil and gas exploration and production companies, what characteristics have enabled the successful ones to survive?

Geology, Technology, and a Healthy Balance Sheet are Critical

REYNOLDS: There are companies that are surviving and thriving. Identifying these strong companies is an important part of our process. We have always looked for a special set of characteristics that allows important and steady structural growth.

What specifically do we look for? We spend time identifying companies with the right acreage and the right geology. That’s something we do every day. We look at individual oil well results, and try to figure out what are the sweet spots for a given location. Sometimes consensus is that everybody knows exactly where the sweet spot is; but if you’re off by a few miles or a few counties, it can make a significant difference in who actually has the best rock. Therefore, we spend a great deal of time looking for the companies with the best rock. That is number one.

Technology Should be Part of the Company’s DNA

Number two is technology. The shale phenomenon in the U.S. is all about evolutionary technology and taking it step-by-step, tweaking small aspects of the technology in order to increase reserve bases, increase production rates, lower costs, and raise returns. We are always looking for companies that incorporate this process as part of its DNA or culture, and not something they’re just pulling off the shelf to try because it worked for someone else. It is the scientific culture at the heart of a company that is key in making shale production economic and taking it to the next step in terms of adding unexpected amounts of reserves.

Balance Sheet Strength Fosters Innovation

Number three is does the company have the balance sheet, the financial wherewithal to try different ideas? Obviously, if you are squeezed on your cash flow or your balance sheet is stretched, you are not willing or able to try different technologies or methods. You are not likely to risk trying something different and potentially see it fail, only to end up with a dry hole. That kind of outcome is really unacceptable, especially in this environment. But if you do have a strong balance sheet, you’re willing to try something new. We have always looked for this profile, and it is especially important in this environment. Last summer, balance sheets became even more critical, not only in terms of flexibility and the ability to try new technologies, but also in terms of simple survival. Can the company survive tough times when the price of oil is low?

The three characteristics we have always considered are the acid base or the geology, technology, and the balance sheet. This approach has paid dividends during this downturn and certainly in the early part of this year.

BUTCHER: Thank you.

by Shawn Reynolds, Portfolio Manager

Reynolds has more than 30 years of experience covering the energy sector. Before his career in finance, Reynolds worked as an exploration geologist and earned degrees in geology and engineering.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE
This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction. You can obtain more specific information on VanEck strategies by visiting Investment Strategies.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the speaker(s) and are current as of the posting date. Commentaries are general in nature and should not be construed as investment advice. Opinions are subject to change with market conditions. All performance information is historical and is not a guarantee of future results.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment portfolios that invest in the asset class(es) mentioned in this post and video. You can lose money by investing in a commodities fund. Any investment in a commodities fund should be part of an overall investment program, not a complete program. Commodities are assets that have tangible properties, such as oil, metals, and agriculture. Commodities and commodity-linked derivatives may be affected by overall market movements and other factors that affect the value of a particular industry or commodity, such as weather, disease, embargoes or political or regulatory developments. The value of a commodity-linked derivative is generally based on price movements of a commodity, a commodity futures contract, a commodity index or other economic variables based on the commodity markets. Derivatives use leverage, which may exaggerate a loss. A commodities fund is subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk. The use of commodity-linked derivatives such as swaps, commodity-linked structured notes and futures entails substantial risks, including risk of loss of a significant portion of their principal value, lack of a secondary market, increased volatility, correlation risk, liquidity risk, interest-rate risk, market risk, credit risk, valuation risk and tax risk. Gains and losses from speculative positions in derivatives may be much greater than the derivative’s cost. At any time, the risk of loss of any individual security held by a commodities fund could be significantly higher than 50% of the security’s value. Investment in commodity markets may not be suitable for all investors. A commodity fund’s investment in commodity-linked derivative instruments may subject the fund to greater volatility than investment in traditional securities.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of any investment strategy carefully before investing. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Van Eck Securities Corporation.

Commodities Show Signs of Recovery

Commodities Show Signs of Recovery

Commodities Show Signs of Recovery

Morris: ”We have seen commodities prices stabilize and some very encouraging signs…. We believe this is the kind of action that could set the stage for a longer term positive cycle.”

Morris follows up on his November 2015 video on commodities, with this fresh look at the commodities landscape.

Prices Stabilize in First Quarter

TOM BUTCHER: The last three to four years have been challenging for commodities but it appears that prices have stabilized. Is that right?

ROLAND MORRIS: It is certainly starting to look like that. In the first quarter of 2016, we have seen prices stabilize and some very encouraging signs. We have also seen some recovery in commodity currencies. Gold bottomed in December 2015 and it is now up about 20% off that low [period from 12/17/15 to 3/22/16]. We had copper bottom in January and it is now about 17% off its low [period from 01/15/16 to 3/22/16]. Crude oil bottomed in February and it is up about 16% for the year [YTD as of 3/22/16]. We have seen what appears to be a base-building over the past two quarters. This is very encouraging. We believe it is the kind of action that could set the stage for a longer term positive cycle. Last year in 2015 we experienced what was a false start, but this year it feels more like this could be the real thing.

Confidence Improves as China Fears Lessen

BUTCHER: Going into 2016 there was major concern about the outlook for China. Has that been ongoing?

MORRIS: I think that is one of the factors that contributed to what appears to be improving price trends in commodities. When you look back to the beginning of this year to January, we experienced a major decline in China’s stock market and its currency. This caused tremendous fear among investors that the worst case scenario was about to play out in China and that would have been a hard landing and possibly a forced currency devaluation because of capital flight. Since then things have calmed down a great deal. In February, capital outflows from China slowed markedly. I believe this is one of the key reasons we are seeing some restored confidence in commodities right now.

Fed’s Softening on Rates Helps Commodities

BUTCHER: Are there any other factors that have helped improve the outlook for commodities?

MORRIS: I believe another important factor in commodities’ recent strength has been the shift by the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed). The Fed indicated at its March meeting that it viewed current global financial developments as negative and it felt it needed to defer its proposed tightening program. That set the stage for some weakness in the U.S. dollar. The strengthening dollar trend had been one of the major headwinds facing commodities over the past three years. I think investors are starting to believe that the Fed will not be aggressive in raising rates and this has put a cap on the U.S. dollar’s appreciation, which has been very helpful for commodities.

BUTCHER: Can you provide me additional details about stabilization across the commodity spectrum?

MORRIS: We started making the following argument late last summer. We have felt that because of the reduction in capex (capital expenditure) across a number of commodities sectors and curtailment of investment, particularly in energy and industrial metals, investors have underappreciated the supply response. This is what we consider the fundamental story. Combined with improvements in some of these macro factors, this is what supports our point of view that this is the beginning of a new, positive cycle for commodities. It is against this backdrop, i.e., the reduction in supply, that we consider when looking out over the next two to five years.

Why this Period is Different from a Year Ago

BUTCHER: Do you think this is one of the distinguishing features between now and the situation back at the beginning of 2015?

MORRIS: Last year we certainly had some encouraging signs at the beginning of the second quarter, including appreciating price trends when crude oil went from $40 per barrel to $60 per barrel. Unfortunately that just petered out as the year progressed. I think the difference this time is the duration. We like to talk about fixing low prices, which requires a period of time to take hold. I think what is different now is we are a whole year further into the cycle and those capex cancellations from reduced investment may bring down supply significantly. From my perspective, the reason this may not be a false start is that we’ve had a longer period of low prices and it is both low prices and their duration that I believe help form a base.

BUTCHER: Have you had any interesting questions crop up in recent meetings with investment clients?

Interest in Commodities is on the Upswing

MORRIS: Yes. Just recently a client asked me what I think about our investments at VanEck in natural resources, including gold, etc. The client inquired how those investments might work in the event of a major negative geopolitical event. I had not been asked that question before. When you think about it, gold investments have the potential to provide protection in an unsafe environment. Additionally, natural resources by themselves can be considered a safety in a volatile investment climate because they are hard assets. The client’s question was interesting and I do think natural resources and gold in particular can do well in a tough environment.

BUTCHER: Have you been seeing any change in investor sentiment?

MORRIS: Overall I think clients have been more receptive. We have spent considerable time over the past few months meeting with institutional clients as well as other types of investors. My sense is that investors are starting to believe that now might be the time to consider either increasing natural resource investments or looking at them for the first time. I think this is partially because price trends have obviously improved in the first quarter. I also think most investors believe the Fed is unlikely to become aggressive with monetary tightening. We feel the Fed is more worried about the global growth environment and consequently it will probably keep the U.S. dollar contained. I think investors are starting to recognize that without the headwind of an appreciating U.S. dollar, natural resources may appear more attractive.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE

This content is published in the United States for residents of specified countries. Investors are subject to securities and tax regulations within their applicable jurisdictions that are not addressed on this content. Nothing in this content should be considered a solicitation to buy or an offer to sell shares of any investment in any jurisdiction where the offer or solicitation would be unlawful under the securities laws of such jurisdiction, nor is it intended as investment, tax, financial, or legal advice. Investors should seek such professional advice for their particular situation and jurisdiction. You can obtain specific information on VanEck strategies by visiting Investment Strategies.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the speaker and are current as of the video’s posting date. Video commentaries are general in nature and should not be construed as investment advice. Opinions are subject to change with market conditions. All performance information is historical and is not a guarantee of future results. For more information about Van Eck Funds, Market Vectors ETFs or fund performance, visit vaneck.com. Any discussion of specific securities mentioned in the video commentaries is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. Fund holdings will vary. All indices mentioned are measures of common market sectors and performance. It is not possible to invest directly in an index. Information on holdings, performance and indices can be found at vaneck.com.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment products that invest in the asset class(es) included in this video.

You can lose money by investing in a commodities fund. Any investment in a commodities fund should be part of an overall investment program, not a complete program. Commodities are assets that have tangible properties, such as oil, metals, and agriculture. Commodities and commodity-linked derivatives may be affected by overall market movements and other factors that affect the value of a particular industry or commodity, such as weather, disease, embargoes or political or regulatory developments. The value of a commodity-linked derivative is generally based on price movements of a commodity, a commodity futures contract, a commodity index or other economic variables based on the commodity markets. Derivatives use leverage, which may exaggerate a loss. A commodities fund is subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk. The use of commodity-linked derivatives such as swaps, commodity-linked structured notes and futures entails substantial risks, including risk of loss of a significant portion of their principal value, lack of a secondary market, increased volatility, correlation risk, liquidity risk, interest-rate risk, market risk, credit risk, valuation risk and tax risk. Gains and losses from speculative positions in derivatives may be much greater than the derivative’s cost. At any time, the risk of loss of any individual security held by a commodities fund could be significantly higher than 50% of the security’s value. Investment in commodity markets may not be suitable for all investors. A commodity fund’s investment in commodity-linked derivative instruments may subject the fund to greater volatility than investment in traditional securities.

Investing involves risk, including possible loss of principal. An investor should carefully consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the investment company before investing. Call 800.826.2333 or click below to obtain a prospectus and summary prospectus which contain this and other information. Please read the prospectus and summary prospectus carefully before investing.

No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of Van Eck Securities Corporation. © Van Eck Securities Corporation.

by Roland Morris, Portfolio Manager and Strategist
Roland Morris is a veteran of commodities investing with more than 35 years of experience. Morris is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for commodity investing at VanEck, and is a member of both the commodities and hard assets investment teams. Read full bio.

A Tale of Two Oil Camps

A Tale of Two Oil Camps

A Tale of Two Oil Camps by Shawn Reynolds, Portfolio ManagerHard Assets Investment Team

Download the complete report

After attending a prominent industry conference and meeting with the management teams of a number of oil exploration and production (E&P) companies, Shawn Reynolds shares his observations on the general sentiment of market participants in the report A Tale of Two Oil Camps.

Early this year, I attended the Goldman Sachs Global Energy Conference in Miami, Florida. A great deal can happen in just a few weeks, but it still may be worth briefly giving some thoughts both on the conference and subsequent visits with a number of the leading E&P companies in Texas.

The Goldman conference is usually very well attended by nearly all constituents and can often provide a good barometer of trends, and perhaps most importantly, sentiment. Generally, in our view, there were two discrete camps among the attendees: the “haves” and the “have nots”.

At the conference, the haves were those who have been involved in the energy/natural resources space – whether short or long term – and have been burned. The have nots were those who have not been involved, and have not yet determined whether this is the right time, or not, to invest.

Among the haves, the sentiment was overwhelmingly negative, indeed more negative then I have ever seen in my over 30 years following the industry. These haves numbered not only investors, but also senior industry executives and investment bankers. On the other hand, the have nots, those who have not been invested or involved in the industry, are clearly very interested to know, and are doing their work to determine, whether now is the time to invest.

At the end of the day, however, both camps are, essentially, asking the same big questions: When does the cycle turn? And what is different this time?

The short and quick answer, and this was very clear from the meetings with the E&P companies throughout Texas the week following the conference, is that, at current prices, this industry, on a global basis, just does not work. It is not survivable. At these prices, it’s likely that almost every barrel of oil being produced in the world outside the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) is generating negative returns and many are cash negative. If we stay at these prices even for a couple more weeks, we are going to see a screeching halt to activity. And that, in and of itself, will start to help solve the current oversupply situation.

It was obvious from my discussions with them that the E&P companies, too, are split into two camps. Also haves and have nots, but of a different hue this time: the haves who have it to survive, the have nots who don’t, and may not. Unfortunately, there is a very small camp of haves, and a very large camp of have nots.

The haves are characterized by having acreage/assets in the best areas or the “core of the core”, being able to drill economically at these prices, and, more importantly, having had the very good foresight to fix their balance sheets, either by issuing equity, or restraining capital expenditure, or cutting back on operating expenses. Or, indeed, all three of these.

These are the companies that are expected to be able to survive and, maybe, even thrive through this period. The rest of the industry is going to continue to struggle and many are facing survivability. This will come to a head in the spring when we will see a lot of the banks start to go through a re-determination of the revolving lines they have out to certain oil companies.

People have been asking whether, on the mergers & acquistions (M&A) front, we’re now going to see the large integrated companies come swooping in and picking up all these smaller players. Very unlikely in our view. It is an exceptionally important issue to a major that any deal it does is accretive either to earnings or to cash flow, and most critically, not dilutive to dividends. With an E&P company trading at 24x earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) and 100x earnings, or even having negative earnings, with many having capital investment requirements exceeding cash flow, any such deal is not going to be accretive and may diminish the ability to maintain and grow dividends. While not unheard of, it is uncommon for the integrated majors to acquire an independent E&P company. Nevertheless, given the extremely weak reserve replacement record of most of the integrated majors (most less than 100%), potential targets for such a deal could be some of the U.S. unconventional shale oil players that have significant unbooked resource potential. However, this also highlights the degenerative state that many of the major oil producers of the world face, i.e. they are producing more oil than they are able to replace on an annual basis – a situation that ultimately puts them in the category of the have nots.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of VanEck and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time.

THIS MATERIAL MAY ONLY BE PROVIDED TO YOU BY VANECK AND IS FOR YOUR PERSONAL USE ONLY AND MUST NOT BE PASSED ON TO THIRD PARTIES WITHOUT THE PRIOR EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF VANECK. IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED THIS MATERIAL FROM VANECK, YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT YOU HAVE RECEIVED IT FROM A NON-AUTHORIZED SOURCE THAT DID NOT ACT ON BEHALF OF VANECK AND THAT ANY REVIEW, USE, DISSEMINATION, DISCLOSURE, OR COPYING OF THIS MATERIAL IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED.

Information contained in this presentation is for information purposes only and should not be construed as an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, product, or service sponsored by VanEck or its affiliates. This material does not constitute an offer to sell or solicitation to buy any security, including shares of any fund. An offer or solicitation will be made only through the fund’s official offering document and will be subject to the terms and conditions contained therein.

Hard assets investments are subject to risks associated with natural resources and commodities and events related to these industries. Commodity investments may be subject to the risks associated with its investments in commodity-linked derivatives, risks of investing in a wholly owned subsidiary, risk of tracking error, risks of aggressive investment techniques, leverage risk, derivatives risks, counterparty risks, non-diversification risk, credit risk, concentration risk and market risk.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the author, and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time, and portfolio managers of other investment strategies may take an opposite opinion than those stated herein. Not intended to be a forecast of future events, a guarantee of future results, or investment advice. Current market conditions may not continue.

The information herein reflects prevailing market conditions and our judgments as of the date of this document, which are subject to change. In preparing this document, we have relied upon and assumed, without independent verification, the accuracy and completeness of all information available from public sources. Opinions and estimates may be changed without notice and involve a number of assumptions that may not prove valid. There is no guarantee that any forecasts or opinions in this material will be realized. Past performance is not a guarantee or a reliable indicator of future results. All investments contain risk and may lose value. This information should not be construed as investment advice. This information should not be construed as sales or marketing material or an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument, product, or service sponsored by Van Eck Associates Corporation or its affiliates.

© VanEck. All rights reserved.

Van Eck Securities Corporation, Distributor, 666 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017, vaneck.com, 800.826.2333.

Dags för en återhämtning på råvarumarknaden?

Dags för en återhämtning på råvarumarknaden?

Tror Du att det är Dags för en återhämtning på råvarumarknaden? I sådant fall kan det vara värt att titta på den börshandlade fonden som heter Market Vectors Natural Resources ETF (NYSEArca: HAP). Genom att köpa andelar i HAP kan inverterare kapitalisera på en eventuell vändning på råvarumarknaden, något som många anser bör komma nu efter det att råvarupriserna har fallit under fem år i rad.

Historien visar att en uppåtgående cykel i pris är oundvikligt säger Jan van Eck, VD för Van Eck Global. Om vi bortser från det faktum att grunderna i allmänhet kan stödja en vändning, om detta är en traditionell handelscykel – och det är en stor varning – investerare kan fortsätta att undra när förödelse kommer att sluta. Vi tror att det kan vara rimligen snart,

Enligt Van Eck kan råvarupriserna komma att bottna ut under det andra kvartalet 2016. Tidigare råvarunedgångar har varat i ungefär ett och ett halvt år, och vi är bara ungefär ett år in i den nuvarande nedåtgående trenden. Tittar vi på oljepriset så ser vi att den råolja som heter West Texas Intermediate nu handlas till rekordlåga nivåer. Priscykler varar normalt 15 månader, och den nuvarande oljenedgången är 15 månader gammal. Dessutom visar historien att nedgången tenderar att testas vid ett prisfall på 50 procent, och att det är sällan som oljepriserna faller mer än så.

Market Vectors Natural Resource ETF kan alltså vara ett bra sätt för investerare att dra nytta av en vändning på råvarumarknaden. Så skulle till exempel en uppgång i oljepriset gynna HAP kraftigt eftersom denna börshandlade fond har allokerat 41,8 procent av sitt kapital mot aktier i energisektorn. En potentiell investerare bör emellertid ha i åtanke att HAP följer utvecklingen av ett index som består av globala råvaruaktier. Detta index, Rogers-Van Eck Natural Resources Index, har utvecklats i samarbete med råvarugurun Jim Rogers och spårar företag som producerar eller distribuerar råvarurelaterade produkter och tjänster. Dessutom ger det underliggande indexet placerarna en exponering mot vatten och förnybar energi.

Van Eck är normalt sett en bottom-up investerare som arbetar med fundamenta. Det betyder att förvaltarna på Van Eck fokuserar sin uppmärksamhet på de företag som kan ge aktieägarna en positiv avkastning oavsett marknadsläge. Marknadsrisken kommer alltså fortfarande finnas kvar, men Van Eck fokuserar på företag med ledningsgrupper som har potential att skapa mervärde.