Tag Archives: investing

As Producers Get Out, You Should Get In: Why I’m Long XLE

Summary WTI crude in the mid-30s is close to the cash operating cost of many high-cost oil producers. As oil trades in the mid-30s, production will be shut in and supply will fall, in theory creating a floor in the price of oil. Continued low oil prices will likely create an underinvestment in oil production, and could create risk to the upside in future oil prices. Investors should consider buying XLE, as it will likely be able to weather the storm, and avoid XOP, as it contains much smaller producers that may not survive. Investors should avoid USO as it is subject to the decay associated with negative roll yield in WTI futures contracts. On December 15th, West Texas Intermediate Crude traded through $35 a barrel. This is close to the variable operating cash cost of many high-cost producers operating out of North America. At these prices, producers potentially stop pumping crude from their wells because it is more expensive to pull it out of the ground than the oil is worth. North American rig counts have already fallen precipitously; at these levels, they are likely set to fall even more. As rig counts fall, supply lessens from this area, and investment in future productive capacity also likely falls. This may set the oil market up for much higher prices in the future, repeating past energy cycles. Investors should consider buying the Energy Select Sector SPDR ETF (NYSEARCA: XLE ), which contains the larger players in the energy sector, to capitalize on this potential for higher oil prices in the future. Investors should avoid buying the SPDR S&P Oil and Gas Exploration and Production ETF (NYSEARCA: XOP ); however, as many of these producers are smaller and may not be able to ride out the storm. Investors should also avoid the United States Oil ETF (NYSEARCA: USO ), as contango will eat away at profits over time. Cash Operating Costs of the Marginal Shale Producer Below is a chart of the estimated cash operating cost of oil production for oil producers globally. “Cash cost” is the variable operating cost of pulling oil out of the ground. These figures are roughly a year old, but are probably still relevant. Note that Canadian oil sands, U.K. producers, and U.S. producers are on the upper end, within a $25-40 barrel cash cost range. As oil prices dip into these levels, independent producers will begin to shut-in production as it stops making economic sense to continue producing. This, in theory, should create a floor on the price of oil, as the price-determining marginal supply from these producers diminishes. Note that as the price dips as low as $30, almost 30% of producers are operating at levels that don’t make sense to continue. (click to enlarge) Source: Morgan Stanley and Business Insider Falling North American Rig Count Rig counts have fallen dramatically since last year as oil has collapsed and oil producers have cut back CAPEX in the face of a deteriorating credit market in the oil and gas sector. New rigs that would be too expensive to operate at low oil prices are not coming online, and old rigs being phased out are not getting replaced. Per Baker Hughes, North American rig counts have collapsed from a high of 2,300 rigs to 883 today, or a decline of 61% in one year. North American Rig Count through Time (click to enlarge) Source: Baker Hughes and Bloomberg Given that many producers have cash costs of oil in the $30-40 range, rig count is likely to decline further with oil breaching $35 a barrel, in my opinion. As rig count falls, the industry as a whole sets itself up for stronger oil in the future. The effect is twofold; supply of oil falls initially, stabilizing prices, but then the ensuing underinvestment in oil infrastructure creates a situation where oil prices could increase dramatically as underinvested producers are less able to quickly increase production in response to higher oil. We could see a repeat of the underinvestment of the late 1990s that led to the boom in oil prices in the mid-2000s. Buy XLE, Avoid XOP and USO Investors should consider XLE, as it contains very large producers such as Exxon Mobil (NYSE: XOM ), Chevron (NYSE: CVX ), and Schlumberger (NYSE: SLB ) that have the ability to weather the storm of lower oil prices for a long time. Investors should avoid XOP, as it contains a higher concentration of smaller capitalization companies that may not be able to survive mid-30s oil for a long time. I could imagine a situation where oil remains in the mid-30s, and XOP continues to tank, as smaller producers come under increasing financial pressure. See below for the breakdown of top holdings of XLE and XOP; note that some of the largest concentrations in XOP are in stocks with market caps of less than 4BN: Source: Bloomberg Investors should also avoid USO, as it is long oil futures contracts, and is therefore subject to the negative roll yields associated with contango. Oil contracts trade for future delivery at specified points in time. Currently, the market is in contango, meaning that contracts further into the future are more expensive than contracts expiring closer to the present. Contango in WTI Crude (click to enlarge) Source: Bloomberg USO owns short-dated contracts, and as those contracts expire, it sells them and buys contracts further into the future. With today’s prices, for example, USO would sell the Jan. 16 expiries at 37.11 and buy the Feb. 16 expiries at 38.27, creating a 37.11/38.27-1= -3.03% yield in just one month. A rough annualization of that yield means that USO is currently losing 36.4% annually! It is better to own the producers themselves who sell their production forward in the futures market than to own a fund exposed to the cost of maintaining a long position in futures, as the price performance between XLE and USO over the past five years has shown. Shorting $1 of USO and buying $1 of XLE, price performance over past five years, excluding dividends: Source: Bloomberg Conclusion Oil in the mid-30s is approaching the cash operating costs of many North American oil producers. As oil falls, they will shut in production, theoretically creating a floor in the price of oil in this range. Underinvestment in oil production in the future due to low oil prices today may also one day contribute to strong future oil prices. Investors looking to take advantage of this potential floor should look to buy XLE, as it contains some of the largest oil-producing companies in the world, and should be able to weather the supply glut in oil, and avoid XOP, as it has smaller producers that may not be able to survive lower oil. Investors should avoid USO as it is subject to negative roll yields associated with contango in WTI futures markets.

Risk Asset Update: Vast Majority Agonize Since The S&P 500’s August Lows

The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors is proving detrimental, what’s left? Weren’t lower oil prices supposed to act like a “tax cut” for U.S. households? If families spend less at the gas pump, then they will spend more of their dollars at the mall. At least that’s what mainstream media cheerleaders like CNBC’s Jim Cramer have insisted throughout the year. In contrast, the S&P SPDR Retail Index (NYSEARCA: XRT ) demonstrates that investors are not particularly impressed by the prospects of American retailers. The current price for the exchange-traded fund tracker is lower than the price during the summertime stock market correction. What’s more, XRT is trading 14% below its 2015 high. Well, okay. Maybe consumers are pocketing some of their gasoline savings. Maybe they’re choosing to pay down some of their debts. No matter. Lower energy costs surely must boost bottom line profits of transportation companies – truckers, airlines, shippers, railways. Maybe not. The iShares DJ Transportation Average ETF (NYSEARCA: IYT ) shows that investors see big troubles for American transportation corporations. The current price on IYT is near a 52-week low and sits approximately 10% below a long-term 200-day trendline. Equally troubling, IYT is trading near the lows of the August-September sell-off and it remains down 16.5% year-to-date. The fact that lower energy prices are not providing the anticipated windfall to economic sectors that should benefit from lower oil prices continues to confound analysts and economists alike. For one thing, most of them have completely missed the cons of of commodity price depreciation; that is, gains for commodity users would be offset by losses for the producers (e.g., energy, materials, natural resources, etc.). Second, if the losses by the producers become bad enough, the number of resources-dependent exporters crimping global world product (GWP) can play into the notion of worldwide recessionary pressures. In other words, the U.S. is not an island; the well-being of the global economy matters more for risk taking in market-based securities than a simplistic assessment of oil savings benefiting retailers and/or transporters. Just how bad do resource-dependent exporters have it? The second largest non-OPEC provider of oil to the world is Canada. The iShares MSCI Canada ETF (NYSEARCA: EWC ) is in a bear market with price depreciation in the realm of 32%. Myopic S&P 500 bulls dismiss the bear market in energy stocks and energy-dependent producers like Canada. Yet the problems extend far beyond the oil patch. There is a 46% bearish decline across the entire commodity complex via the GreenHaven Continuous Commodity Index ETF (NYSEARCA: GCC ) due to weakening demand for “stuff” in the developing world and a surge in the U.S. dollar. When China, the world’s second largest economy and the world’s largest trader of goods witnesses year-over-year import declines of 18.8%, something’s not quite right. Rapidly falling oil and commodity prices have hampered energy stocks, materials stocks and resources-dependent exporting countries. Yet investor trepidation has spread to other risk assets as well. The demise of appetite for high yield bonds in the SPDR Barclays High Yield Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: JNK ) has been blamed on everything from energy company debt woes to the collapse of the mutual fund, Third Avenue Focused Credit. However, an in-depth look at the high yield bond space shows that “Ex-Energy” high yield bonds have been diverging from the S&P 500 throughout the year . In other words, people want out of junk bonds because they are lowering their overall risk profile, not simply because of the asset class association with the beleaguered energy sector. It is worth noting, then, that a wide range of risk assets are trading at prices that are in the same shape or in worse shape as they were back when the S&P 500 hit 52-week lows (1867). Energy stocks, retail stocks, transportation stocks, oil exporting countries, high yield bonds, commodities – each of these asset types are struggling mightily. And that’s not all. The iShares MSCI ACWI ex-U.S. Index ETF (NASDAQ: ACWX ) is more or less constrained. Small-cap U.S. stocks via the iShares Russell 2000 ETF (NYSEARCA: IWM ) are timid. In fact, both ACWX and IWM are below respective long-term moving averages and both are more than 10% off 52-week peaks set back in the first half of the year. If risking one’s capital in non-U.S. stocks, small-cap U.S. stocks, high yield bonds, foreign bonds commodities, and a wide range of U.S. sectors (e.g., energy, materials, utilities, retail, transports, etc.) is proving detrimental, what’s left? Large-caps via the S&P 500 and the NASDAQ . Even here, though, some of the leadership in biotech names have yet to recover former glory. The SPDR Biotech ETF (NYSEARCA: XBI ) trades lower today that it did when the S&P 500 hit its 1867 bottom; it is 25% off its 2015 pinnacle and well below its long-term trendline. In sum, leadership across risk assets is so narrow, risking one’s capital in anything other than the large-cap indexes may not be worth it. Indeed, one may wish to keep in mind that while the S&P 500 has been resilient in 2015, it has remained below its May record (2134) for close to seven months. More resilient? Long-term treasury bonds in the face of a Fed that intends to hike overnight lending rates. The iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (NYSEARCA: TLT ) is 5% higher than it was in the heat of July. For Gary’s latest podcast, click here . Disclosure: Gary Gordon, MS, CFP is the president of Pacific Park Financial, Inc., a Registered Investment Adviser with the SEC. Gary Gordon, Pacific Park Financial, Inc, and/or its clients may hold positions in the ETFs, mutual funds, and/or any investment asset mentioned above. The commentary does not constitute individualized investment advice. The opinions offered herein are not personalized recommendations to buy, sell or hold securities. At times, issuers of exchange-traded products compensate Pacific Park Financial, Inc. or its subsidiaries for advertising at the ETF Expert web site. ETF Expert content is created independently of any advertising relationships.