Natural Resources by Van Eck

Oil rig Natural Resources by Van EckNatural 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.

Is Gold’s Slumber Over?

Is Gold’s Slumber Over?

Is Gold’s Slumber Over?

Intro: ”Golden slumbers fill your eyes. Smiles awake you when you rise.”

Gold prices climbed from $1,061 an ounce on January 1, 2016 to $1,263 an ounce (an intraday high) on February 11, a 19% increase in just six weeks. As Paul McCartney sang on Abbey Road’s ”Golden Slumbers,” gold bullion and its devoted investors appeared to be waking from a nearly five-year bear market slumber with well-deserved grins. Since February 11 gold prices have retreated slightly, and have been trading within a range of $1,200 to $1,240 an ounce (at this writing).

The question remains: Is Gold’s Slumber Over?

We think so, although we expect price volatility to continue. Joe Foster explains why.

Renewed Enthusiasm for Gold

It’s pretty clear that financial markets in January helped to remind investors around the globe why perhaps virtually every portfolio should have an allocation to gold, both as a diversifier and a hedge against financial risk. Escalating geopolitical turmoil, currency issues, and slow growth are all potential risks that threaten economic development globally.

Importantly, markets are beginning to take action. Gold shares have been in one of their worst bear markets, but are the best performers this year thus far. As long-term gold investors, we have had a watchful eye out for the first glimmer of a turn in sentiment. Technical trends and fundamental drivers have shown significant improvement. It may be time to polish off the case for gold mining stocks as 2016 might be the year prices reverse course.

Despite our renewed enthusiasm for gold, we believe that bullion prices must not only break through $1,225 an ounce, but also remain above the $1,200 threshold in order to support a definitive breakout. It looks as if the markets will continue to embrace gold in the current environment and perhaps we can look back at the December $1,046 price as the bottom of the gold bear market. We might also look back on the December 16 Federal Reserve (”Fed”) rate increase as the straw that broke the camel’s back, triggering unforeseen risks to the global financial system.

Negative Rates, Loss of Confidence Good for Gold

Most of us don’t need reminding that low and/or negative real interest rates are generally good for gold. That said, it will become increasingly important to watch the global trend toward low, and even negative, interest rates. Negative rates have become more common in the Eurozone and Japan, and there is currently around $600 trillion of government debt around the world with a negative yield. And, while it may seem far-fetched for the U.S., the Fed is telling banks to prepare for the possibility of negative rates. Undeniably, the U.S. economy continues to appear vulnerable and consequently, the market and now the Fed are increasingly adopting a cautious view for 2016.

Gold Bullion Prices versus Real Interest Rates: 1970 to 2015

(Click to enlarge)

Source: Bloomberg, data as of 02/02/16.

Is this the beginning of a loss of confidence in central banks? The banks’ inability to generate normal economic growth or inflation is certainly cause for concern for many investors. As stated by John Mauldin in his popular blog, Thoughts from the Frontline, ”Clearly, QE [quantitative easing] has not worked …. if out-of-control borrowing was the original problem, then QE as a solution is kind of like drinking more whiskey in order to sober up. And if you reduce the earnings of those who are savers so that they are no longer able to spend, the whole purpose of the original project—to foster economic growth—is defeated.” Historically, gold and gold shares have acted as a safe haven during periods of low confidence in the world’s financial systems (a “safe haven” is an investment that is expected to retain its value or even increase its value in times of market turbulence).

Mining Shares Regain Their Mojo

Operating costs at mining companies rose drastically during the recent bull market, seriously impacting profitability. Since the start of this current market downturn, however, some positive changes have taken place in the gold mining industry. We believe that the industry is in the best shape it’s been in for a long time.

The most elementary fundamental support for a positive outlook for gold stocks is the impact of deflation on the cost of labor, material, and services. Costs have been falling since 2012. Global producers have reported that total cash costs for the first nine months of 2015 fell by 7% year-on-year, from a total of $733 an ounce to $680 per ounce.1 Average all-in mining costs are now below $1,000 per ounce. Gold miners have historically benefited in deflationary periods from declining costs of labor and materials. In the 1930s, shares of Homestake Mines (the major gold equity of the time) rose significantly as the company was able to expand profits during this period due to its falling cost structure. Shares of Homestake Mines increased from $65 in 1929 to $544 in 1936.2

These reductions in costs, improvements in efficiency, as well as deep declines in the currencies of commodity-producing countries, have all helped gold companies generate cash flow and maximize profit—restoring the viability of the sector.

Technicals and Leverage

Gold share valuations are at multi-decade lows and currently have technical support. The current bear market that began in late 2011 has eclipsed the duration of the average bear market since 1970 by five months, and prices are nearly 75% off their five-year highs.3 However, price levels have begun to turn and gold shares have outpaced gold thus far in 2016.

Many investors use gold stocks to gain leveraged exposure to gold in a rising gold price environment. It’s all about potential earnings leverage; as the gold price increases, the change in a company’s profitability can outpace the change in the gold price. We’ve just come off a one-month period during which the expected outperformance of gold stocks relative to gold did not materialize, but we do not expect this trend to continue. Gold shares should offer their highest leverage to gold when the price is close to the cost of production, as is now the case. So, unless costs increase at the same time as the price of gold (as in 2011 and 2012), it makes sense that equities should outperform gold during rising gold prices as has been the case over the last several years.

Gold Equities: Leveraged Exposure to Gold

(Click to enlarge)

Source: Bloomberg data as of 2/9/16.

For a deeper analysis, please take a look at our presentation, The Case for Gold in 2016.

by Joe Foster, Portfolio Manager and Strategist

With more than 30 years of gold industry experience, Foster began his gold career as a boots on the ground geologist, evaluating mining exploration and development projects. Foster is Portfolio Manager and Strategist for the Gold and Precious Metals strategy.

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURE

1Source: GFMS, Thomson Reuters. Data as of September 30, 2015.

2Source: Casey Research.

3Source: Bloomberg, ICE Benchmark Administration Ltd, World Gold Council. Data as of January 2016.

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.

Please note that the information herein represents the opinion of the portfolio manager and these opinions may change at any time and from time to time. 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. Current market conditions may not continue. Non-VanEck proprietary information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but not guaranteed. No part of this material may be reproduced in any form, or referred to in any other publication, without express written permission of VanEck.

Commentaries are general in nature and should not be construed as investment advice. Any discussion of specific securities is neither an offer to sell nor a solicitation to buy these securities. Fund holdings will vary. Any indices mentioned are historical measures of common market sectors and performance. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Gold-related investments are subject to risks associated with precious metals, market risk, industry concentration, inflation, foreign securities, frequent trading, short-sales, leverage, and non-diversification.

Please note that Van Eck Securities Corporation offers investment products that invest in the asset class(es) included in this commentary. Please call 800.826.2333 or visit vaneck.com for a free prospectus and summary prospectus of such funds. An investor should consider investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of the investment company carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus contain this and other information. Please read the prospectus and summary prospectus carefully before investing.

Betalar Du för mycket för Dina obligationer, använd en ETF

Betalar Du för mycket för Dina obligationer, använd en ETF

Betalar Du för mycket för Dina obligationer, använd en ETF. På första sidan på gårdagens Wall Street Journal kunde vi ta del av den artikel som heter Muni Bond Costs Hit Investors in Wallet, som visar att den som köpt amerikanska kommunobligationer i december betalade en spread (se förklaring längre ned) på 1,73 procent jämfört med 0,87 procent för företagsobligationer.

Market Vectors (vars ETFer bland annat distribueras av Van Eck Securities Corporation) var snabba att utnyttja detta och gick ut med ett mail som sade att Market Vectors Intermediate Municipal Index ETF (ITM) har handlats till en genomsnittlig spread på mellan 0,06 och 0,21 procent under de senaste tolv månaderna. (Källa NYSE Arca Vision)

Market Vectors erbjuder i dag inte mindre än sju (7) börshandlade fonder som investerar i de amerikanska kommunobligationerna, det stora utbudet beror på olika inriktningar i fråga om löptider och kreditexponering.

”Spread” är skillnaden i volymvägda genomsnittliga köp-och sälj för alla utförda order mindre än 10 000 andelar. Betalar Du för mycket för Dina obligationer, använd en ETF så får Du behålla mer av kapitalet, spreaden är den högsta transaktionskostnaden, men och med att denna är en dold kostnad som inte redovisas på någon avräkningsnota tenderar de flesta, till och med professionella placerare, att glömma bort denna.