SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Chispas who wrote (1497)3/8/2004 12:55:15 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Global Energy War Looms

MARCH 07, 2004 22:41
by Seung-Jin Kim Hyung-June Park ( sarafina@donga.com lovesong@donga.com)

As China consumes more and more oil, a silent energy war has broken out on a full scale. China’s thirst for oil is now to the point that a direct pipeline between China and Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest, simply won’t quench it.

The U.S. and Japan, the number 1 and number 2 energy consumers of the world respectively, are on alert as the more oil China wants, the less they can take. This shortage would hurt their economies.


Large energy consumers have begun to woo producers in order to gain an upper hand in the competition. Oil market watchers opined, “The energy issue will become an important aspect of national security.”

Energy War Triggered by China—

China, which exported oil as late as 1992, has become a net importer starting in 1993. Currently, it is the second largest oil consumer of the world. China is the world’s second largest by imported volume and the third largest by consumption growth rate. China’s growth rate in oil consumption is six times as large as the international average.

In 2002, on average, China consumed 19.7 million barrels daily. Apart from its daily production of 7.69 million barrels, if China consumes all of Saudi Arabia’s average daily production of 10.15 million barrels via a direct pipeline, it won’t meet the Chinese daily demand for oil.

If China’s economy grows by six percent annually until 2030, its demand for fossil fuel will rise to 2.4 billion tons from 850 million tons in 1999. A ton of fossil fuel is equivalent to 7.33 barrels of oil. China is projected to import 570 million tons of oil and 140 million tons of natural oil annually

In 21 out of China’s 31 provinces, autonomous regions and municipalities, the supply of energy is running short. The National Energy Regulatory Commission of China said, “The production capacity of some regions has reached the ceiling.”

China versus the U.S.--

China is putting all efforts into securing a supply of energy from across the world. In January, China and Saudi Arabia entered into a contract to jointly explore and produce natural gas. China and Saudi Arabia’s state-owned Aramco formed a $3 billion petroleum chemical joint venture. All these moves make the U.S. uneasy as it depends on two key allies in the region, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, for control of the Middle East. Some signs suggest that Saudi Arabia and China are developing a weapons-for-oil deal.

A government-sponsored energy policy group in the U.S. estimated that the U.S.’s dependence on foreign oil, which rose to 50 percent in 2003 from 30 percent in 1985, will reach 70 percent by 2020.

This is why the U.S. sees China’s search for stable energy sources as a challenge to its world hegemony. >b>Along with the conflict over trade, military rivalry, and the space development race, the competition over energy will be an important axis of the U.S-China competition over international dominance. It explains why China does not support the war in Iraq.

China versus Japan—

Japan, which has little natural resources to turn to, is probably facing an impending energy crisis.

Last year, Mitsui and Co. said it would buy 10.7 percent in the world’s largest natural gas project from a British developer. It prompted PetroChina, China`s state-owned oil company, to urgently negotiate with the British and they successfully appropriated some of the share the Japanese wanted.

In September of last year, Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi said Japan would offer $1 billion in aid to Africa and cancel $3 billion in debt African countries owed to Japan. Chinese president Hu Jintao, while on his visit to Gabon and Algeria, promised to cancel $1.3 billion that 31 African countries owed to China. China signed a supply agreement for oil with Gabon and it entered into a contract to jointly explore and produce oil and gas with Egypt.

China’s wooing of Africa still continues. It sent a group of military advisers and about 1,000 soldiers to Africa last year.

Late last year when China and Russia entered into a preliminary agreement to build a pipeline linking oilfields in Angarsk, near Lake Baikal in Siberia, to Daqing, Heilongjiang province, Japan attempted to reverse that decision by promising to foot the bills of $5 billion in construction costs for the pipeline and $10 billion in exploration costs. Russia has yet to announce its final decision, but it is increasingly likely to route the pipeline to Nahotka, Japan.

english.donga.com



To: Chispas who wrote (1497)3/8/2004 1:16:34 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
PPI -Where is it?
John Succo
The U.S. Bureau of Labor failed to release the PPI in February and there are rumors that they will not release it in March either. They claim problems in calculations, specifically in classifying certain items.

The government has been putting out these numbers for how many years? All of a sudden, are we to believe that there is some strange difficulty in reporting this very important number?

Given the seriousness of this situation and without any credible reason given for the missed release, we are forced into logical deduction. One explanation is that the number might show a problem in the inflation of commodity prices, a problem that we all “feel” is real, despite the mangled CPI numbers reported (we have commented many times that when these numbers are looked at closely, they don’t reflect reality).

We do know that the PPI data is more straightforward and observable and, therefore, may be harder to manipulate than the CPI. Maybe that is why the government will not and cannot release it, at least in its current form. Perhaps a problem in calculation means that an “adjustment” would require changing the entire time series going back years to make it plausible.

A high PPI number, in conjunction with the passive CPI numbers that have been released, would be very bad indeed for the government’s bullish economic case. It would indicate a very rare instance where companies are having difficulty passing through higher costs of production to customers. This is called stagflation.

Where are all the bond vigilantes, the financial media, and just plain old people like you and me that should be up in arms, demanding the release of a number?

Let us just see the numbers and let us make our own decisions. That is what our government is supposed to do.



To: Chispas who wrote (1497)3/8/2004 1:22:39 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Haim and Mish debate the PPI
Message 19891654



To: Chispas who wrote (1497)3/8/2004 1:35:26 PM
From: mishedlo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 116555
 
Brian Reynolds on Treasuries

Whew! That was a "fun" week we had last week. Hopefully, everyone was able to catch their breath over the weekend, because the next few weeks promise to be very interesting.

When we recapped and interpreted Friday's action, the S&P was up at the top of its recent range, but unable to put in a new closing high, indicating that the correction may have longer to go in the short run. We have no idea whether the short run is a day or a few weeks; we had written that we thought it would take days for the 10-year Treasury to break below 3.93% if we got a soft payroll number, and it only took a minute. But, in the long run, we were getting some more stimulus on Friday from both Treasury buying (acting through mortgage refinancings) and from corporate bond buying (as those spreads only widened a little in the midst of the Treasury rally), and we are on the cusp of a lot more potential stimulus from refis should Treasury yields move just a little lower. As we've noted numerous times in the past, the only time when we've had both groups applying stimulus simultaneously in the last 5 years was last summer, which eventually led to significantly higher equity prices.

This move in Treasuries is starting to feel very much like the rally that occurred last May. There are a few different wrinkles, though, that are worth noting. The first is that there is a chance that mortgage investors may not suffer as much from having to buy Treasuries in a rising market to hedge themselves as they did last year. That is because, as we noted on Friday, that the rapidity of Friday's drop in bond yields brought in asset allocators who were selling Treasuries to buy stocks. That may have allowed mortgage investors to buy a significant amount of Treasuries Friday afternoon without further price damage. A look at the intra-day action of the swap market (USSP10 on Bloomberg), which is the first cousin of the Treasury market and an alternative vehicle for mortgage hedging, indicates that may be the case. If we were still running a mortgage portfolio (which is something we did in a former life), we would have been buying every Treasury-like product we could have in case other mortgage investors caused this move to feed on itself.

While there is a chance that mortgage investors may have bought enough Treasuries to hedge themselves, our experience is that there is always someone who didn't get the word that the boat is leaving the dock. They then plunge into the water in an attempt to catch up, and their ripples can have a big impact. So, it is likely that someone didn't hear "Last ferry for Hoboken, now boarding!" last week and finds themselves not hedged as much as they should be. That means we'll need to keep an eye to see how Treasuries behave in the weeks ahead when the asset allocation buying subsides to see if mortgage related buying of Treasuries takes over.

Another wrinkle is that this rally is more fundamentally based. We noted in the days leading up to the payroll number that sentiment toward bonds, especially in the Fed Funds futures markets, was very negative, and the payroll number was a big disappointment (we were quoted on this in this morning's Tracking the Numbers column on Page C3 of the Wall St. Journal. This is in contrast to last year, when investors were expecting a Fed ease, and silly rumors of the Fed buying Treasuries prompted strong buying by buyers other than traditional fixed income managers.
[That is the key paragraph - sentiment towards bonds is hideous and likely wrong - Mish]

The fundamental reason for the move in Treasury buying, in our opinion, gives it more strength. It also raises the possibility that, if we get more weak economic numbers this month, that those rumors of Fed buying will resurface, even though we feel we are far from the point where the Fed would consider that.

The other thing to note is the relatively good performance of corporates on Friday. That afternoon, we wrote that investment-grade issues looked as if they had widened 2-4 basis points, though trading was thin. We thought that would have been a good performance, because corporates are less liquid than Treasuries and thus normally lag them on big days. On a rally day like that, investment-grade spreads would normally be expected to widen 5-10 basis points.

However, corporates did even better than we thought. Investment-grade spreads only rose 1-2 basis points, and junk only 10 (it would have been expected to rise 15-20 on a day like Friday), only reversing the tightening they had put in during the week as Treasury yields rose into the payroll number. So, corporate yields were down on Friday, and if spreads can hold in here, or even recover, then that would be a big positive for equity prices.



To: Chispas who wrote (1497)3/8/2004 1:42:10 PM
From: mishedlo  Respond to of 116555
 
Snip from Brodsky
Minyanville

I get a bit nervous when I start seeing stocks like Ask Jeeves (ASKJ:NASD) up 45% in one day. I mean when people start to buy Natus Medical (BABY: NASD) because its ticker is BABY just because Mamma.com (MAMA: NASD) is breaking out, red flags go off in my head.

Our human emotion element wants to jump up and down and scream that the big bull is back! But seriously, look at what’s been going on in the NDX for two months. Look at a chart of the Dow Transportation index, which has been stalling. These are not bullish charts. Could they breakout? Sure, but the action is not bullish. When we start focusing on Mamma.com to lead our trading style, something is a bit off.

So before I go committing myself to being heavily invested on the long side, I think that it is better to trade lightly at these levels and wait for a confirmed breakout. Just look at the RSI on the S&P! We traded at new 52-week highs (although we did not close there) and the RSI is closer to its low then to its high. That is an unhealthy divergence in my opinion.

There are a lot of divergences at these current levels. Another one is the fact that the BKX (banks) has been breaking out to new 52-week highs and the overall market has not. How many times have we said that this sector is a market leader? The fact that it is breaking out and the overall market is not sends up another red flag in my mind.

In conclusion, there are a lot of divergences within the markets and if we were to breakdown, we would all look back and say, “Man! How did I not see the writing on the wall!?!?” That being said, I will be trading in and out of positions and certainly not take the market for granted at these levels (i.e. counting on the “bull” to bail me out of bad longs). Good Luck!