Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Canada. Show all posts

Sunday, November 15, 2015

The “Bloodbath” in Canada Is Far From Over

By Justin Spittler

The oil price crash continues to claim victims…and many of them are in Canada.The price of oil hovered around $100 for most of last summer. Today, it’s trading for less than $45. Weak oil prices have pummeled huge oil companies. The SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (XOP), which tracks the performance of major U.S. oil producers, has declined 36% over the past year. The Market Vectors Oil Services ETF (OIH), which tracks U.S. oil services companies, has declined 30% since last November. Weak oil prices have even pushed entire countries to the brink. Saudi Arabia, which produces more oil than any country in the world, is on track to post its first budget deficit since 2009 this year. If oil prices stay low, the country could burn through its massive $650 million pile of foreign reserves within five years.

Oil’s collapse is also creating big problems for Canada’s economy.....

Canada is the world’s sixth largest oil producer. Oil makes up 25% of its exports. Last month, The Conference Board of Canada said it expects sales for Canada’s energy sector to fall 22% this year. It also expects the industry to record a net loss of about C$2.1 billion ($1.6 billion) in 2015. That’s a drastic change from last year, when the industry booked a C$6 billion ($4.5 billion) profit.

Major oil firms are slashing spending to cope with low prices. Last month, oil giant Royal Dutch Shell plc (RDS.A) said it would stop construction on an 80,000 barrels per day (bpd) project in western Canada. The company had already abandoned another 200,000 bpd project in northern Canada earlier this year. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers estimates that Canadian oil and gas companies have laid off 36,000 workers since last summer. Most of these layoffs happened in the province of Alberta.

For the past decade, Alberta was Canada’s fastest growing province.....

Its economy exploded, thanks to the booming market for Canadian tar sands. Tar sand is a gooey sand and oil mixture that melts down with heat from burning natural gas. More than half of Canada’s oil production comes from tar sands. In Alberta, they account for 75% of oil production.

Tar sand is generally more expensive to produce than conventional crude oil. Canadian tar sand projects made sense when oil hovered around $100. But many of these projects can’t make money when oil trades for $45/barrel. Last year, Scotiabank (BNS) said the average breakeven point for new Canadian oil sand projects was around $65/barrel. This is why giant oil companies are walking away from projects they’ve spent years and billions of dollars developing.

All these cancelled oil projects are making Alberta’s economy unravel.....

Alberta lost 63,500 jobs from the start of year through August. It hasn’t lost that many jobs during the first eight months of the year since the Great Recession. The decline in oil production is also draining government resources. Last month, Reuters reported that Alberta was on track to post a $4.6 billion budget deficit this year. Economists say it could be another five years before Alberta runs a budget surplus. The crisis isn’t confined to the oil patches either.

A real estate crisis is unfolding in Calgary.....

Calgary is home to 1.2 million people. It’s the largest city in Alberta and the third largest in Canada. On Tuesday, Bloomberg Business reported that Calgary’s property market is starting to crack:
Vacancy is already at a five-year high in Calgary and rents are the lowest since 2006 after thousands of office jobs were cut. In downtown Calgary, the vacancy rate jumped to 14 percent in the third quarter, the highest since 2010 and compared with 5 percent for downtown Toronto, according to CBRE Group Inc. .... That doesn’t include as much as 2 million square feet of so-called "shadow vacancy" or space leased but sitting empty, which would push vacancy to 16 percent, the most since the mid-1980s.
Demand for office space is falling because of massive layoffs in the oil industry. That’s because oil companies didn’t just lay off roughnecks. They also laid off oil traders and middle managers, which means they need a lot less office space. According to Bloomberg Business, a principal at one Calgary real estate office called the situation “a bloodbath” and said “we’re at the highest point of fear and uncertainty now.”

Casey readers know the time to buy is when there’s blood in the streets.....

But it looks like Calgary’s property crisis is just getting started. Bloomberg Business reports that the city has five new office towers in the works. These projects will add about 3.8 million square feet to Calgary’s office market over the next three years. More office space will only put more pressure on rents and occupancy rates. Real estate developers likely planned these projects because they thought Canada’s oil boom would last. It’s that same thinking that made oil companies invest billions of dollars in projects that can’t make money when oil trades for less than $100/barrel.

Doug Casey saw this coming.....

In September, Doug went to Alberta to assess the damage first-hand. E.B. Tucker, editor of The Casey Report, joined Doug on the trip. Doug and E.B. spoke with the locals. They even tried to buy a Ferrari. They shared their experience in the October issue of The Casey Report.

E.B. went on record saying Canada was in for “a major wakeup call.” He still thinks that’s the case. In fact, he thinks the situation is going to get a lot worse.
When we were in Alberta, we heard over and over again "It'll come right back...it always does." It's not coming back. I expect the situation to get worse. And I see the Canadian dollar going much lower.
When that happens, E.B. thinks Canada’s central bank might do something it’s never done before:
Vacancy rates are rising in Canada’s heartland cities. Jobs in Alberta are disappearing. Unemployment is climbing. And there’s still a global oversupply in oil. None of this bodes well for Canada’s economy. Canada’s economy is in a midair stall. The locals certainly didn’t grasp this when we visited Alberta last month. That's usually the case when things are going from bad to a lot worse. If you’re a central banker in Canada looking at the data, there’s only one decision: print.

E.B. says Canada’s central bank will launch its own quantitative easing (QE) program.....

QE is when a central bank creates money and pumps it into the financial system. It’s basically another term for money printing. Since 2008, the Fed has used QE to inject $3.5 trillion into the U.S. financial system. If the Fed’s experience with QE is any indication, money printing wouldn’t help Canada’s “real” economy much. But it would inflate asset prices. That, in turn, would only make Canada’s economy even more fragile. E.B. is confident the situation in Canada will get worse. And he can’t wait to go back to Canada to collect on bets he made during his last visit:
Doug and I made a lot of side bets with business owners during our visit. One of them promised to sell us a Ferrari if things got worse...that's how sure he was that we were wrong. Looks like we'll be headed back to collect on that one.

You can read all about Doug and E.B.’s visit to Alberta by signing up for a risk free trial of The Casey Report. You’ll even discover how to make money off the oil industry, despite the collapse in the price of oil. Click here to learn more.

The article The “Bloodbath” in Canada Is Far From Over was originally published at caseyresearch.com.


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Monday, September 28, 2015

Balloons in Search of Needles

By John Mauldin

I love waterfalls. I’ve seen some of the world’s best, and they always have an impact. The big ones leave me awestruck at nature’s power. It was about 20 years ago that I did a boat trip on the upper Zambezi, ending at Victoria Falls. Such a placid river, full of game and hippopotamuses (and the occasional croc); and then you begin to hear the roar of the falls from miles away.

Unbelievably majestic. From there the Zambezi River turns into a whitewater rafting dream, offering numerous class 5 thrills. Of course, you wouldn’t want to run them without a serious professional at the helm. When you’re looking at an 8 foot high wall of water in front of you that you are going to have to go up (because it’s in the way); well, let’s just say it’s a rush.

If there were rapids like this in the United States, it’s doubtful professional outfits could get enough liability insurance to make a business of running them. In Zimbabwe we just signed a piece of paper. Our guides swore nobody had ever been lost – well, except for a few people who disobeyed the rules and leaped in the water in the calm sections because it was 100° out. That’s where the crocs are.

They promised we wouldn’t run into any in the rapids, which was good. More than a few of us got dumped in the water trying to run the rapids, but they had teams of kayakers who got you out quickly. The canyon below the falls is unbelievable, and below that is the even more impressive Bakota Gorge.

And yes, you then had to walk to the top of the canyon up a switchback trail to get home. I would do it all over again in a heartbeat, but I would spend at least three months training for the hike out. That was most definitely not in the full-disclosure-of-risks one-page piece of paper.


It would be hard to miss an analogy to the stock market. Everything’s peaceful and calm, you’re drinking some fabulous wine, eating some fantastic fresh game and fish, looking at all the beautiful animals as you drift easily with the current. Anybody can steer the boat in a bull market. Until the rapids hit and the bottom falls out.

As an aside, while the large waterfalls are majestic and awe-inspiring, the smaller ones are more hypnotic. I love the sound of falling water. I could listen for hours. The one place I don’t like to see waterfalls is on stock charts. Those leave me awestruck at the market’s power. They do have the power to focus the mind, however, especially when we own the shares that just went over the falls.

The US stock market is having the most turbulent year we’ve seen in a while.  It’s not terrible by historical standards, but we have a full quarter to go. And next week it’ll be October, a month in which the stock market has run into trouble before. With all that in mind, this week I want to take a look at where stocks stand and maybe offer a thought or two about the events that could bring us to the next waterfall.

Not Niagara Falls Yet
Here is how the waterfall looks so far this year. Barely a 10% move peak to trough, and it lasted for just a few days. We see a lot of jostling, followed by the harrowing plunge in August, and then a partial (less than halfway) recovery. Where do we go from here?


Let’s start with the macro view. Back in July I showed you some research that I did with Ed Easterling of Crestmont Research. This was before the China sell-off accelerated into the headlines, so it is very interesting to read again in hindsight. (See “It’s Not Over Till the Fat Lady Goes on a P/E Diet”).

Our view is that we are still in a secular bear market, and have been since the 2000 Tech Wreck. You may find that view surprising, since the benchmarks have roughly tripled since the 2009 low. Our analysis looks at price/earnings ratios to identify when bull and bear markets begin or end. P/E multiples were close to 50 in year 2000. In order for that bear market to end, they needed to drop into the very low double digit or single-digit range, which has been the signal for the end of every long term secular bear cycle for over 100 years. That hasn’t happened during the intervening 15 years.

Can a secular bear market last 15 years? Yes. Some have lasted even longer, like 1966-1981 and 1901-1920. So this one isn’t unprecedented. And please note that the long-term secular cycles can have cyclical movements inside them. Again, we see secular cycles in terms of valuation and the shorter cyclical cycles in terms of price. (Unless this time is different) long-term secular bear market cycles will always end in a period of low valuations.

Currently, P/E ratios (or any other valuation metric you want to use) are not low enough to provide the boost that typically starts a new bull market. They were closer in 2009 than today, but have never dipped into the area that would mark the end of the bear market and the onset of the new bull. We’re still riding the same bear.


What’s taking so long? Our best guess is that stocks were so richly valued at the 2000 peak that it is taking the better part of a generation to work off that excess. In order for this bear to end – and the new bull cycle to begin – valuations need to tumble. That can happen only if prices drop considerably or earnings rise without pulling prices higher.

Obviously, there can be many trading opportunities within a secular bull or bear cycle, but Ed’s research says we have three long-term options from here.
  1. If P/E ratios decline toward 10 or below, we will be near the end of this secular bear. A new bull cycle should follow.
  2. If P/E ratios stay near where they are, we will be in what Ed calls “secular hibernation.” This would mean a lot of sideways price movement, with dividends having to deliver the lion’s share of stock market returns.
  3. If P/E/ ratios rise further, we will go back into the kind of “secular bubble” that created the Tech Wreck. I recall those years vividly, and I would rather not relive them.
Now, combine this market situation with what appears to be a global economic slowdown. China is a big factor, but not the only one. The entire developed world is in slow-growth mode. At some point it will likely dip into recession territory. Canada is already there. I don’t think they will be alone for long. Japan and Europe are weak.

I think the next true move to lower valuations will be a cyclical bear market combined with a recession. Can the stock market hold on to today’s valuations in a recession? Nothing is impossible, but I wouldn’t bet the farm on it, either. I can’t find an example of stock prices and valuations staying in place in the midst of a recession. Prices can fall slowly or they can fall fast, but I feel confident they will do one or the other.

Speaking of Bubbles
Our old friend Robert Shiller popped up last week in a Financial Times interview. Shiller is the father of CAPE, the cyclically adjusted price/earnings multiple, which looks back ten years to account for earnings cyclicality. He is also a Yale professor and a Nobel economics laureate.

Shiller’s CAPE has been saying for several years that stocks are seriously overvalued. In his FT interview, Shiller dropped the “B” word: It looks to me a bit like a bubble again, with essentially a tripling of stock prices since 2009 in just six years and at the same time people losing confidence in the valuation of the market.

When will the bubble burst? Shiller is less helpful there. He said the recent bout of volatility “shows that people are thinking something, worried thoughts. It suggests to me that many people are re-evaluating their exposure to the stock market. I’m not being very helpful about market timing, but I can easily see aftershocks coming.

Now, if you aren’t very confident about timing, it’s arguably better not to use words like bubble and aftershock. You can be sure the media and analysts will jump all over them, just as I’m doing right now.
In any case, Ed Easterling and Bob Shiller reach similar conclusions (though for different reasons). Neither sees a very bullish future, though both are unsure about timing. So when will we know the end is nigh? Sadly, we probably won’t, unless we begin to see signs that a recession is building in the United States.

Balloons in Search of Needles
As the old proverb goes, no one rings a bell at the top. The same applies at the bottom. Let’s imagine the stock market as a whole bunch of balloons. One or two can pop loudly and everyone will jump and then laugh it off. You now have deflated debris hanging from your string. Eventually, enough balloons will pop that the weight of the debris overwhelms the remaining balloons’ ability to keep the string aloft. Then your whole bunch falls down.


The last balloon to pop wasn’t any bigger or smaller than the others; it just happened to be last. In like manner, some kind of catalyst sets off every market collapse. It is usually something that would be survivable by itself. The plunge occurs because of all the previous balloons that bit the dust, but pundits and the media always like to point the finger at the most recent event.

So, if Easterling and Shiller are right, balloons are popping and making investors nervous, but there’s not enough damage yet to drag down the whole bundle. What are some candidates for the last balloon? A Chinese “hard landing” is probably the biggest, most obvious balloon right now. And actually, China is big enough for multiple balloons. Their stock market downturn produced one pop already. Beijing’s currency adjustment may have been another one.

To continue reading this article from Thoughts from the Frontline – a free weekly publication by John Mauldin, renowned financial expert, best selling author, and Chairman of Mauldin Economics – please click here.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Friday, December 5, 2014

Russia and China’s Natural Gas Deals are a Death Knell for Canada’s LNG Ambitions

By Marin Katusa, Chief Energy Investment Strategist

In recent years, a number of Asian companies have been betting that Canada will be able to export cheap liquefied natural gas (LNG) from its west coast. These big international players include PetroChina, Mitsubishi, CNOOC, and, until December 3, Malaysian state owned Petronas.

However, that initial interest is decidedly on the wane. In fact, while the British Columbia LNG Alliance is still hopeful that some of the 18 LNG projects that have been proposed will be realized, it’s now looking less and less likely that any of these Canadian LNG consortia will ever make a final investment decision to forge ahead.

That’s thanks to the Colder War—as I explain in detail in my new book of the same name—and the impetus it’s given Vladimir Putin to open up new markets in Asia.

The huge gas export deals that Russia struck with China in May and October—with an agreed-upon price ranging from $8-10 per million British thermal units (mmBtu)—has likely capped investors’ expectations of Chinese natural gas prices at around $10-11 per mmBtu, a level which would make shipping natural gas from Canada to Asia uneconomic.

At these prices, not even British Columbia’s new Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act—which has halved the post payout tax rate to 3.5% and proposes reducing corporate income tax to 8% from 11%—can make Canadian natural gas globally competitive.

These tax credits are too little, too late, because Canada is years behind Australia, Russia, and Qatar’s gas projects. This means there’s just too much uncertainty about future profit margins to commit the vast amount of capital that will be needed to make Canadian LNG a reality.

Sure, there are huge proven reserves of natural gas in Canada. It’s just been determined that Canada’s Northwest Territories hold 16.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas reserves, 40% more than previous estimates.

But the fact is that Canada will remain a high-cost producer of LNG, and its shipping costs to Asia will be much higher than Russia’s, Australia’s, and Qatar’s. So unless potential buyers in Asia are confident that Henry Hub gas prices will stay below $5, they’re unlikely to commit to long-term contracts for Canadian LNG—or US gas for that matter—because compression and shipping add at least another $6 to the price.

Shell has estimated that its proposed terminal, owned by LNG Canada, will cost $40 billion, not including a $4 billion pipeline. As LNG Canada—whose shareholders include PetroChina, Korea Gas Corp., and Mitsubishi Corp.—admits, it’s not yet sure that the project will be economically viable. Even if it turns out to be, LNG Canada says it won’t make a final investment decision until 2016, after which the facility would take five years to build.

But investors shouldn’t hold their breath. It seems like Korea Gas Corp. has already made up its mind. It’s planning to sell a third of its 15% stake in LNG Canada by the end of this year.

And who can blame it? The industry still doesn’t have clarity on environmental issues, federal taxes, municipal taxes, transfer pricing agreements, or what the First Nations’ cut will be. And these are all major hurdles.

Pipeline permits are also still incomplete. The federal government still hasn’t decided if LNG is a manufacturing or distribution business, which matters because if it rules that it’s a distribution business, permitting is going to be delayed.

And to muddy the picture even further, opposition to gas pipelines and fracking is on the rise in British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada. While fossil fuel projects are under fire from climate alarmists the world over, Canadian environmentalists are also angry that increased tanker traffic through its pristine coastal waters could lead to oil spills.

Canada is now under the sway of radical environmental groups and think tanks like the Pierre Elliot Trudeau Foundation, which take as a given that Canada should shut down its tar sands industry altogether. For these people, there’s no responsible way to build new fossil fuel infrastructure.

Elsewhere, investors might expect money and jobs to do the talking, but Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, which has called for greenhouse gas limits on oil sands, is now leading the conservatives in the polls. (Just out of curiosity, does Trudeau plan on putting a cap on the carbon monoxide concentration from his marijuana agenda? But I digress.) If a liberal government is elected next year, it might adopt a national climate policy that would cripple gas companies and oil companies alike.

Some energy majors are already shying away from Canadian LNG. BG Group announced in October that it’s delaying a decision on its Prince Rupert LNG project until after 2016. And Apache Corp., partnered with Chevron on a Canadian LNG project, is seeking a buyer for its stake.

Not everyone is throwing in the towel. Yet. ExxonMobil—which is in the early planning phase for the West Coast Canada LNG project at Tuck Inlet, located near Prince Rupert in northwestern British Columbia—has just become a member of the British Columbia LNG alliance.

But Petronas was a key player. It was thought that the company would be moving ahead after British Columbia’s Ministry of Environment approved its LNG terminal, along with two pipelines that would feed it.

Instead, Petronas pulled the plug. We can’t know how many things factored into that decision nor whether it’s absolutely final. All the company would say is that projected costs of C$36 billion would need to be reduced before a restart could be considered. (That $36B figure includes Petronas’s 2012 acquisition of Calgary based gas producer Progress Energy Resources Corp., as well as the C$10 billion proposed terminal, a pipeline, and the cost of drilling wells in BC’s northeast.)

This latest blow leaves Canadian LNG development very much in doubt. In fact, most observers believe that Petronas’s move to the sidelines probably sounds the death knell for the industry, at least for the foreseeable future.
For more on how the Colder War is forever changing the energy sector and global finance itself, click here to get your copy of Marin’s New York Times bestselling book. Inside, you’ll discover more on LNG and how this geopolitical chess game between Russia and the West for control of the world’s energy trade will shape this decade and the century to come.



Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!



Friday, October 17, 2014

How to Invest in a Difficult Market

By Casey Research

Many experts hold dim views of the current state of the US economy—but what’s a prudent investor to do to make a profit? Find out what the blue-ribbon faculty of economists and investment pros at the recently concluded Casey Research Fall Summit thought.

Lacy Hunt, senior executive VP of Hoisington Investment Management Company and former chief economist at the Dallas Fed, says the main reason that the global economy continues to falter is that all countries borrow too much and save too little.

“275% total debt to GDP is the critical threshold. Every world economy of importance is above that level and moving higher.” He finds today’s monetary policy “impotent.” The Fed, Bank of England, and Bank of Japan are trying to solve the problem of too much debt by borrowing more, which has short-term benefits, but will be disastrous long term.

Too much borrowing, says Hunt, guarantees that we’ll get more asset bubbles. Because the United States is the least indebted of the three countries, it will continue to outperform Japan and Europe. He predicts that the dollar will rise against other major currencies and that inflation, as well as interest rates, will remain low.

Christian Menegatti, managing director of economic research at Roubini Global Economics, is convinced that we’re at the end of a supercycle and won’t see a normalization of monetary policy for quite some time.
Like Lacy Hunt, Menegatti predicts that global interest rates will stay low. On the positive side, he doesn’t believe that we will see secular stagnation; in other words, a full “Japanification” of the US is unlikely.

The current economic recovery in the US is weaker than that in the 1930s, claims Worth Wray, chief strategist at Mauldin Economics. He says while nominal interest rates are the lowest they've ever been, real rates could go lower.

When the Fed’s QE3 is over, he predicts that growth will weaken and rates will fall further. “Without another dose of stimulus, the US will likely slide into recession.”

Taking a global view, he thinks that China’s slowdown could cause the Australian housing bubble to pop, and that commodity prices will drop over the next few years, which will hurt resource rich countries like Australia, Norway, and Canada.

He recommends to buy U.S. Treasuries and to diversify across asset classes that thrive in different economic environments to strengthen your portfolio against a possible crisis.

Diversification is also the number one tip from the expert panel on “Building a Crisis Proof Portfolio” at the Casey Summit, consisting of Worth Wray and Casey editors Alex Daley, Terry Coxon, Dan Steinhart, and Dennis Miller.

They say a crisis can take one of two forms:
  1. A “standard” crisis, where stocks crash but the financial system remains intact. In that scenario, you want to own US government bonds because they’ll retain their safe-haven properties.
  1. A “reset,” meaning a complete implosion of the global financial system. Government bonds won’t save you from that type of crisis. Instead, you’d want to own real, non-financial assets, such as physical gold and silver, as well as farmland and other real estate.
For “Future Tech You Can Profit from Now,” Alex Daley, chief technology investment strategist at Casey Research, suggests to look for companies that offer game changing benefits or savings and that focus on “where businesses and people spend their time and money,” like OpenTable or Zillow.

Daley recommends three companies with great upside from his Casey Extraordinary Technology portfolio.
He says there’s no need to worry about the broader market if you can find great companies with consistent growth. “Look for 40% revenue growth over the same quarter last year; that’s the magic number.”

To get all of Alex Daley’s stock picks (and those of the other speakers), as well as every single presentation of the Summit, order your 26+-hour Summit Audio Collection now. It’s available in CD and/or MP3 format. Learn more here.

The article How to Invest in a Difficult Market was originally published at casey research


Get our latest FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Friday, September 26, 2014

Are you a "Future Bull"?

By John Mauldin

In a conversation this morning, I remarked how rapidly things change. It was less than 20 years ago that cutting edge tech for listening to music was the cassette tape. We blew right past CDs, and now we all consume music from the cloud on our phones. Boom. Almost overnight.

A lot has changed about the global economy and politics, too. Things that were unthinkable only 10 years ago now seem to be reality. What changes, I wonder, will we be writing about a few years from now that will seem obvious with the advantage of hindsight?

In today’s Outside the Box, my good friend David Hay of Evergreen Capital sends us a letter written from the perspective of a few years in the future. I find myself wishing that some of the more hopeful events he foresees will come true, and my optimistic self actually sees a way through to such an outcome. In that future, I will join David as a bull. But the path that he proposes to take to that more optimistic future is not one that most investors will enjoy, so on the whole it’s a very sobering letter and one that should make all of us think.

Take a break to download our new FREE eBook "Understanding Options".....Just Click Here

I’m back from San Antonio, where I spent four enjoyable days with my friends and participants at the Casey Research Summit. I tried to attend as many of the conference sessions as I could, and I intend to get the “tapes” for some of the ones I missed.

I did a lot of video interviews while in San Antonio, too. And finished up a major documentary. Mauldin Economics will be making all of these available very soon. It’s hard to recommend one interview over another, but Lacy Hunt is just so smart.

And with no further remarks let’s turn it over to David Hay and think about how the next few years will play out. Have a great week.

Your wishing his crystal ball was clearer analyst,
John Mauldin, Editor

Stay Ahead of the Latest Tech News and Investing Trends...
Each day, you get the three tech news stories with the biggest potential impact.

Future Bull

By David Hay
Twitter: @EvergreenGK

“Money amplifies our tendency to overreact, to swing from exuberance when things are going well to deep depression when they go wrong.”
– Economist and historian Niall Ferguson

Future bull.  Let me admit up front that this EVA has been rolling around in my mind for quite awhile. Its genesis may be directly related to the fact that I’ve been desperately yearning to write a bullish EVA – besides on Canadian REITs or income securities that get trounced by the Fed’s utterances. In other words, I want to return to my normal posture of being bullish on the US stock market.

It wasn’t long ago, like in 2011, that clients were chastising me for believing in what I formerly referred to as “the coiled spring effect.” By this I meant that corporate earnings had been rising for over a decade, and yet, stock prices were much lower than they there were in 1999. Consequently, price/earnings ratios were compressed down to low levels, though certainly not to true bear market troughs. My belief was that stocks were poised for an upside explosion once the inhibiting factors, primarily extreme pessimism on the direction of the country, were removed. I even remember one long-time client dismissing my “Buy America” argument on the grounds that in my profession I had to be bullish (regular EVA readers know that is definitely not the case!).

Well, a funny thing happened to my “coiled spring effect” – namely, it became a reality. Additionally, the upward reaction was much stronger than I envisioned. But what really caught me by surprise was that it played out with virtually no improvement on the “extreme pessimism on the direction of the country” front. Perhaps I’m wrong, but I don’t think there has ever been a rally that has taken stocks to such high valuations (time for my usual qualifier – based on mid-cycle profit margins, not the Fed-inflated ones we have today) concurrent with such pervasive fears America is on the wrong track.

Undoubtedly, the pros among you who just read that last sentence are thinking: “That’s great news! All that pessimism will keep this market running. We’re not even close to the peak.” Not so fast, mon amis (and amies)! We’re not talking market pessimism here. As numerous EVAs have documented, US investors are as heavily exposed to stocks as they have ever been, other than during the late 1990s, when stocks bubbled up to valuations that made 1929 look restrained.

Further, please check out the chart below from still-bullish Ned Davis regarding investment advisor sentiment.  The bearish reading is the lowest since the fateful year of 1987, while bulled-up views are in the excessively optimistic zone.  (See Figure 1.)



It is my contention that there are currently millions of fully-invested skeptics. They aren’t bullish long-term – in fact, they believe the underlying fundamentals are alarming (with the usual perma-bull exceptions) – but they feel compelled by the lack of competitive alternatives to remain at their full equity allocation.

Disturbingly, professional investors are increasingly doing so even with money belonging to retired investors who need both cash flow and stability.

Okay, with all that history out of the way, let’s go the other direction  – into the future, to a time several years from now, when conditions are nearly the polar opposite of where they are today.

The Evergreen Virtual Advisor (EVA)

November, 201???

At long last, reforms! Do you remember back in 2014 when the stock market was as hot as napalm? When it just never went down? When millions believed the Fed could control stock prices by whipping up a trillion here and a trillion there?

Looking back from the vantage of today, it all seems so obvious. We should have known better than to believe that the S&P 500 had years more of appreciation left in it after having already tripled by the fall of 2014 from the 2009 nadir. The warning signs were there. But, before we rehash what went wrong, let’s focus on the upside of what some are calling “The Great Unwind” – the hangover after years and years of the Fed recklessly driving asset prices to unsustainable heights.

First of all, let me start with what I think is the biggest positive of all:  the end of the central banks’ era of omnipotence. While that might sound like a major negative, you may have noticed that with the crutch of binge-printing taken away, our nation’s leaders are finally getting around to implementing reforms that should have been enacted years ago. The history of our country is that we are energized by crises, and the latest is no exception. Our most recent financial convulsions have galvanized a bipartisan coalition to attack an array of long-festering problems that have hobbled our country since the start of the millennium.

Arguably, the most important was the recently enacted tax reform legislation. Skeptics believed the US could never move toward the type of simple tax system that has long been used in countries like Singapore, Hong Kong, and even Estonia. It took the realization by both parties that lower tax rates with almost no deductions would actually produce more revenue. Moreover, the elimination of incalculable and massive “friction costs” for millions of businesses and individuals, trying to adhere to and/or game that beastly labyrinth known as the tax code, is quickly catalyzing real economic growth. This is in contrast to the 2010 to 2014 counterfeit version that rolled off the Fed’s printing press.

By 2014, the US was ranked a lowly 32nd out of 34 countries in terms of tax fairness and efficiency. Yet, now, thanks to last year’s drastic tax reform, US corporations are no longer fleeing in droves to other countries, using such tax dodges as inversions (buying out foreign companies and assuming their country of corporate citizenship to access lower tax rates). They have even begun to repatriate their trillion or so of offshore profits since the formerly onerous tax rate of 35%, the highest in the developed world, has been reduced. And, thanks to the eradication of the aforementioned legalized tax dodges, corporate tax receipts are actually beginning to rise sharply, despite the fact that our economy is in the early stages of recovering from the latest recession.

As we all know, the rationalization of our national business model involves much more than even the essential aspect of tax code simplification. At long last, meaningful tort reform has been enacted. No longer will the rule of lawyers be allowed to dominate the rule of law. The enormous, but insidiously hidden, costs of a subsector of the legal system whose chief mission is to squeeze unjustifiable sums from the private sector is finally being reined in.

Similarly, regulatory overkill is also being addressed by the very entity that created this monster in the first place: the government itself. Absurd, overlapping, and often conflicting directives that hobbled the most essential element of the private sector – small businesses – have been abolished, replaced by a much simpler and unified set of rules.

Even America’s dysfunctional and wasteful healthcare system is being revamped using rational economic solutions, rather than by piling on more incomprehensible rules, requirements, and panels. Consumers can now easily compare prices among service providers thanks to technology as instituted by for-profit providers. Along with significantly improved visibility, they also now have far greater control over how their healthcare dollars are spent.  Medical outlays are now in a decided downtrend.

Incredibly, Congress is actually beginning to behave like a representative of the people rather than an ATM dispensing taxpayer money to the most politically connected. The intense implosions of the multiple bubbles the Fed intentionally inflated triggered a backlash of voter ire toward its legislative enablers. Since then, we’ve seen a dramatic House – and Senate – cleaning. This new “coalition of the thinking” is now following the proven path to recovery that numerous countries – such as Germany, Sweden, and Canada – blazed when their economic and financial systems hit previous roadblocks. As in those nations, moving away from excessive socialism, while simultaneously supporting the business community, rather than vilifying and hindering it, is already beginning to elevate America out of its long stagnation.

Collectively, these sweeping reforms are as dramatic as those seen in the 1980s and promise to unleash a growth boom equally as powerful as the ones that followed those overhauls. Yet, despite these dramatic and highly promising changes, investors remain hunkered down in their bomb shelters.

Fool me once, fool me twice, fool me thrice!  After the third devastating bear market since 1999, investor hostility toward stocks has reached a level unseen since the 1970s. Far too many were lured in by the last up-leg of the great bull market that started in the depths of pessimism in March of 2009. As the market resolutely climbed higher and higher, even beyond the five-year length of most bull cycles, millions of investors succumbed to either greed or complacency.



Indicative of the feverish conditions prevailing then—despite the widely disseminated myth that it was the most hated bull market of all time—headlines like those shown below, and graphics such as the one above, began to dominate the financial press.



Remarkably, at least to me, investors once again ignored warnings from the savviest savants, almost all of whom had waxed cautious about the tech and housing manias: Bob Shiller, Jeremy Grantham, Rob Arnott, John Mauldin, Seth Klarman, and John Hussman. As the esteemed Mohamed El-Erian had prophetically written in June of 2014, “In their efforts to promote growth and jobs, central banks are trading the possibility of immediate economic gains for a growing risk of financial instability later.”

Conversely, Janet Yellen didn’t do her legacy any favors by uttering these words in July, 2014: “Because a resilient financial system can withstand unexpected developments, identification of bubbles is less critical.” At the time, I was pretty sure she would come to regret that statement as much as Ben Bernanke did his equally ill-advised assurances back in 2007 that the problems in sub-prime mortgages were contained. Based on how fragile the “resilient financial system” turned out to be, I’ll say no more.

It did surprise me that despite having called out those previous bubbles, as well as several others including the 2008 blow-offs in commodities and Chinese stocks, I received such intense resistance from other professionals and even clients. After awhile, I was getting so much push back I started to feel like the nose of a commercial airliner being readied for take-off.

Ignorance wasn’t bliss. Another aspect of the late stages of the last bull market was how many investment professionals – who should have known better – dismissed Robert Shiller’s namesake P/E. To clarify, Shiller believes (as did Warren Buffett’s mentor, Ben Graham) that the stock market needs to be valued based on normalized earnings, not bottom- or top-of-the cycle profits. Despite the unassailable logic of this approach, a legion of perma-bulls repeatedly sought to discredit Shiller and his valuation methodology. Some even went so far as to deride his process as “Shiller Snake Oil,” notwithstanding Dr. Shiller’s Nobel Prize and, more meaningfully in my view, the fact that he had forewarned of both the tech and housing bubbles – unlike almost all of those throwing stones at him back in 2014.

The main criticism from those who were “hatin’ on” Shiller in 2014 was that his P/E had produced only two buy signals over a 25-year period. This was a valid critique but it missed an essential point: Despite the reality that the stock market from 1990 to 2014 traded at valuations far higher than it had in any previous quarter-century timeframe, the Shiller P/E accurately predicted future returns. In other words, when the Shiller P/E was very elevated – like in the late 1990s, 2007, and 2014 (so far) – stocks went on to generate extremely disappointing future returns (it also did so in decades going all the way back to the 1920s but this was not the era that the Shiller debunkers were criticizing). The graphic on the next page vividly illustrates this fact, even though it was created before the most recent bear market further underscored the danger of ignoring high Shiller P/Es. (See Figure 2.)



It also shocked and dismayed me at the time how many contortions Wall Street strategists, and even money managers, performed in order to dismiss concerns about the extreme variability of earnings. Somehow charts like the one below from Capital Economics were blown-off despite (or, perhaps, because) it so clearly highlighted the tendency of corporate profits to return back down to the long-term trend-line of nominal GDP growth, with stocks closely following. As we all now know, this time wasn’t different. (See Figure 3.)



The legions of market cheerleaders also ignored the heavy reliance on profits from the financial sector, a notoriously unstable source of earnings. This proved to be a disaster in 2007 and, unsurprisingly, was again once the Fed’s “Great Levitation” fell victim to gravitational forces. (See Figure 4.)



Even David Rosenberg, one of the few economists who saw the housing debacle coming, but who briefly flirted with drinking the Fed-spiked bubble-aid in 2014, noted that 60% of earnings growth from 2010 through 2013 came from share buy-backs. He calculated that the market’s “organic” P/E, backing out the influence from share repurchases, was over 20, even prior to normalizing for peak profit margins. Additionally, the reality that corporations buy the most stock at high prices, and the least at low prices, was forgotten – another costly oversight. (See Figure 5, above.)

It was also overlooked during this era of Fed-induced euphoria, that low interest rates – so often cited by bulls as a justification for lofty P/Es – historically coincided with lower earnings multiples. (See Figure 6.)



As Japan and Europe have repeatedly shown over the last two decades, when low interest rates are a function of chronic economic stagnation, P/Es actually contract, not expand. The fact that the latest recession has reduced America’s anemic 1.8% annual growth rate since 2000 to even lower levels is a key reason why stocks have been thrashed over the last couple of years, despite interest rates on the 10-year treasury note falling to 1%.

Another massive mistake was to overlook the strident warning from Evergreen’s favorite valuation metric, the price-to-sales (P/S) ratio. By the summer of 2014, the median stock in the S&P 500 was trading at its highest P/S ratio on record. Sadly, this attracted little attention. (See Figure 7.)



But perhaps the most egregious oversight of all was to forget the theorem from the late, great economist Hyman Minsky who long ago warned that stability breeds instability. As was the case from 2002 through 2007, the exceptionally low volatility of the years leading up to the latest crisis numbed market participants to the steadily rising risks. Even professional investors convinced themselves they could get out in time once conditions became unstable, an arrogance that has been severely punished, as well it should. Alas, we’ve had to learn Dr. Minsky’s lesson the hard way, once again.

But let’s close this EVA by focusing on the stunning opportunity for investors created by the Fed’s latest misadventure…...

Investors, start your engines! It is certainly understandable that US investors are thoroughly disenchanted with the stock market. The fact that the powers-that-be, or at least used-to-be, allowed securities trading to become so heavily dominated by computers was, like the tolerance of the Fed’s asset inflation, inexcusable. The influence of computerized, black box trading was unquestionably a huge factor in the speed-of-light-in-a-vacuum drop in stock prices. Also as feared, many ETFs poured kerosene on the fire as investors became terrified by the nearly overnight erosion in these prices, causing them to sell en masse. The plethora of ETFs holding illiquid underlying securities were particularly crushed, with many simply halting trading for long stretches. Now, instead of rapturous paeans about the wonders of ETF liquidity and low costs, the financial press is full of horror stories about their fundamental flaws (fortunately, higher quality and more liquid ETFs, performed as expected during the worst of the panic).

Further, based on the failure of the Fed’s desperate maneuver to stabilize stocks after their first big break, by launching another $1 trillion QE, this time directly buying US shares, investors have rationally lost faith in the Fed’s ability to make stocks dance to its tune. While QE 4 did cause a sharp counter-trend rally after it was initially launched, the supportive effects soon waned, as we all are now painfully aware. The resumption of the bear market after the Fed’s frantic triage effort was reminiscent of Dorothy, the Tinman, the Lion, and Toto discovering that behind the green curtain was a scared old man instead of The Wizard of Oz.

The extreme negativity by investors toward the stock market today is reflected in the high level of outflows being seen from equity mutual funds, including ETFs. Cash levels are high everywhere as institutional and retail investors, as well as corporations, have become excessively risk averse. This provides the rocket fuel for the next bull market which might just be much closer than almost everyone believes.

Rampant investor pessimism is also being manifested in the drop in the Shiller P/E to the mid-teens from 26 at the peak of the last bull romp.  As a direct result, future returns on stocks are now projected by the aforementioned Jeremy Grantham and John Hussman to be in the low double digits over the next seven to ten years.  Yet, no one seems interested. Even Warren Buffett’s ragingly bullish comments, which were considerably premature, are being attributed to the ramblings of a soon-to-be nonagenarian.

Naturally, I have considerable empathy for Mr. Buffett because, as usual, Evergreen was early to shift into bullish mode. We waited much longer than most people and actually did a fairly commendable job of cutting back into the Fed’s QE4 driven rally, after raising our equity exposure during the initial steep sell-off. But once stocks fell hard after that sugar-high wore off, we were guilty of our typical “premature accumulation syndrome.”

However, we did the same thing way back in October of 2008 when we published our client newsletter, “A Bull is Born” (and wrote a series of “buy the panic” EVAs), only to watch the market slide another 30%.  Yet, buying when almost the entire world was in liquidation mode, much of it forced, in the fall of 2008 proved to be extremely lucrative over the next two years. We are convinced the same will be true following this latest episode of market mayhem.

From a longer-term standpoint, a perspective most investors seem unwilling to take given their still-fresh pain and suffering, conditions look highly encouraging. In addition to the previously described remedies our policy makers are belatedly adopting, many of the key positive trends the bulls used to justify over-the-top valuations for stocks back in 2014 are still in place. Admittedly, the enthusiasm got ahead of reality but the energy renaissance continues apace in the US, despite the well-publicized fracking problems. Re-shoring of manufacturing, which has been slower than the uber-optimists forecast, appears to be now accelerating. Relatedly, robotic adoption is rapidly spreading through the US industrial base, supporting Evergreen’s belief that re-shoring is a reality, not a fantasy. Yet, there’s even more to like.

Nanotechnology and solar power innovators continue to provide breathtaking breakthroughs. Today, nanotech is becoming as ubiquitous as the microprocessor was a decade ago. Meanwhile, solar power, thanks to miniaturization advances similar to Moore’s Law, has achieved “grid parity,” or even lower, in over a dozen US states. Power is becoming increasingly cheap and abundant and that’s terrific news for humanity.

Finally, and perhaps most significantly, we are far closer to achieving that wondrous, if slightly scary, state known as “singularity.” As most us now know, this means that humans are becoming one with computers.

The proliferation of wearables has essentially elevated the intelligence of anyone who can afford to spend $150 for an iWatch or Google Glass, to the level of a supercomputer. We now take for granted being able to whisper a few instructions into our watches, like Dick Tracy, and have all the information of the Cloud at our disposal. (It may soon be feasible to actually have a computer implanted into our brains, possibly even curing Alzheimer’s.) Clearly, the implications for productivity are nearly limitless. Already, we are beginning to see this in the data and we believe we are in the very early innings of a true revolution – with no apologies to gloomsters like Northwestern University’s Robert Gordon who believed, and still do, that the era of radical innovation ended long ago.

One of the biggest challenges a professional investor faces is the tyranny of current prices. When they are relentlessly rising, as they were back in 2013 and 2014, clients extrapolate those indefinitely, and, for a long time, they are right to do so. The same thing happens on the downside in periods such as we are in right now.  But rising markets always turn down and falling ones always turn up. Those are unquestionable facts. We are getting closer to the point where this bear goes back into its cave for a nice long nap while a powerful young bull is ready to bust out of the pen it’s been cooped up in for what seems like an eternity. Get out your checkbook – it’s time to bet on the bull!

Back to the here and now. A wise man once said that if you are going to predict that something will happen, don’t be so foolish as to say when it will happen. You may have noticed, I’ve followed that advice, perhaps to an irritating degree, mainly because I truly have no clue when our current bull market, already so long in the horns, will succumb.

It also goes without saying, but I will anyway, that the sequence and details of future financial events are almost certain to be dramatically different than what I’ve suggested in this EVA edition. However, I believe the broad outline is likely to be roughly along these lines, including my exceedingly optimistic long-term outlook for America.

It dawned on me as I wrote the section about tax, tort, healthcare, and regulatory reforms that many readers were probably thinking: “Not in my lifetime – and I’m only 50!” First, of all, let me say that I’m jealous you’re just 50. Second, it is highly unlikely stocks will remain in a long-term bull market, or even continue to hover at such generous valuations, unless our country makes some truly dramatic changes. It can’t remain business as usual, persistently avoiding essential reforms, relying almost totally on the Fed.

Believe me, I will be a bull again, and likely a very lonely one at that. But it’s going to take a combination of lower valuations and a serious makeover of how this country operates. We can do it and I’m convinced we will do it. Hopefully, I’ll be able to convince some of you the next time fear is on the rampage.


Like Outside the Box?
Sign up today and get each new issue delivered free to your inbox.


It's your opportunity to get the news John Mauldin thinks matters most to your finances.

Important Disclosures

The article Outside the Box: Future Bull was originally published at mauldineconomics.com.


Make sure to get our FREE eBook "Understanding Options"....Just Click Here!

Wednesday, September 18, 2013

The Next Bakken?

Just a few days ago, a hastily assembled team including Chief Energy Investment Strategist Marin Katusa and Casey Research Managing Director David Galland were preparing to fly to a secret location. A location where a small oil company is about to drill the first oil well into what appears to be a massive new oil bonanza.

But at the last minute, the oil company's lawyers canceled the trip and imposed a total communication blackout. They did so out of concern that regulators would think having the Casey Research team on site gave Casey Energy Report subscribers an unfair advantage.

While disappointed that the site visit was canceled, the Casey energy team has already extensively researched the company and are now free to tell their subscribers about it.

And that's why I'm writing to you today: the Casey energy analysts believe this company may have as much or even more potential than those companies that made billions in the now legendary Bakken formation.

To put that assertion into perspective, let me tell you a little bit about the Bakken. In case you're unfamiliar with it, it's a monster oil and gas deposit covering almost 15,000 square miles across North Dakota, Montana, and Alberta, Canada.

The latest US Geological Survey estimates that the Bakken contains upwards of 7.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil - and that is considered on the low end of the range. An executive of a company deeply involved in the Bakken recently estimated that the basin will ultimately yield 20 billion barrels.

And those who discovered the Bakken's tremendous potential ahead of the crowd are now very well off indeed....When It Rains, It Pours... Cash

Until 2005, the Bakken had been largely written off as uneconomic. Then leapfrogging advances in horizontal drilling technologies changed everything, triggering a land rush that made multimillionaires out of landowners and explorers.

Take Harold Hamm, for example. The founder and CEO of Continental Resources (CRL), Hamm, as Forbes magazine puts it, "is responsible for cracking the code of the Bakken."

In 2007, the same year that Continental was listed on the NYSE, the company was the first to complete lateral, multi-stage drilling over 1,280 acres in North Dakota.

One year later, Hamm was the first to demonstrate that the Three Forks formation, which was initially believed to be part of the Bakken, was a separate reservoir and might hold more oil than the Bakken itself.

The rest, as they say, is history. Hamm is now worth $11.3 billion, which makes him the 90th richest person on the planet.

But it's not just the wildcatters themselves that rake in the big money: Early bird investors in Continental Resources made gains of up to 459% within 14 months after the company's NYSE listing. And those who held on were looking at gains of 549% when CRL's stock peaked in February 2012.

In other words, had you trusted in Hamm's genius when he started out drilling in the Bakken, an investment of just $10,000 would have turned into $64,900 for you.

There's no question about it: The use of new technologies to unlock the Bakken, the Eagle Ford Shale, and other huge oil deposits previously considered uneconomic has been a game changer for North American energy supplies.

And you could be the beneficiary of the next Bakken-type windfall....The Next Bakken - But Even Better?

As I said before, the Casey energy analysts believe that the small company they've uncovered could be the next Continental Resources, sitting on unimaginable riches.

Over the last year this little company has quietly assembled a 2-million-acre concession in a region whose geological conditions for the production of oil and gas are actually far more promising than those in the Bakken.

And about one week from now, these resources could finally be proven to be in place. You can imagine what that could do to the company's share price.

The company's top executives appear to have a similar vision: Many of them have personally invested millions of dollars to fund the company and its current drill program.

In July, one director of the company, who is also the CEO of a major Canadian oil player, bought 200,000 shares at the market – bringing his holdings of the company's stock to a total of 1,235,237 shares.

I think his optimism is well placed, considering that the company's management includes seasoned Bakken veterans who not only recognize the potential of the "new Bakken," but also have the skills to get the oil out of the ground.

If the initial well now being drilled meets management's expectations, this small-cap company will be on the fast track for explosive shareholder returns, potentially for years on end. Be There When the Truth Is Unveiled - for a Chance at Staggering Returns

Best of all, so far only a handful of research firms have been paying attention to this virtually unknown company. Therefore, we are uniquely positioned to take advantage of the news released once the well data have been compiled.

In fact, within minutes of the company breaking the silence imposed by its lawyers, Casey’s analysts will be standing by to share their on the spot analysis with subscribers to the Casey Energy Report....even if it's the middle of the night.

To be fair, though, I have to remind you that this is a speculation, not a slam dunk investment. Drilling is always a risky business, so we have to keep our enthusiasm in check until the first well is completed and the initial flow data are logged.

If, however, the initial well test confirms that the company is sitting on the "next Bakken," the investment returns from its 2 million acre concession should be nothing less than spectacular. And the odds for that happening are excellent. Be Ready: Initial Drilling Results Are Expected on or Around Monday, September 16

Until the company has completed its flow tests and made a public announcement, Casey can't share any details about the company, or even the country where the next potential Bakken is located.

But once the company issues its own press release, everyone who is an active subscriber to the Casey Energy Report will receive our alert with an up-to-the-minute analysis and specific recommendation on how to invest.

In addition, to ensure that Energy Report readers get the full picture of this exciting new play, the Casey Energy team is now preparing a comprehensive report about the "next Bakken" and the small-cap company already supremely positioned to profit from it.

While no one can say exactly when the drill will reach the pay zone and the subsequent well flow test will be completed, the last estimate provided by the company before the lawyers instituted the communications blackout was mid September.

Based on Casey’s own analysis of the processes involved, they anticipate the company will be ready to release news on or about Monday, September 16. Of course, due to the nature of any drill program, this is only an estimate.

Regardless, once the testing is completed and the company issues its public press release, Casey Energy Report subscribers will immediately receive an Alert with our analysis - and their special report on the next Bakken.

Of course, it would be massively unfair (and poor business ethics) to release this information to non paying subscribers.

Not to worry, though. If you subscribe today, you can still participate in the earliest phase of what could become a flood of investment into the "next Bakken." Make a Bundle or Pay Nothing for Your Subscription

How much does it cost to get in on what could be the next Bakken? Thousands of subscribers to the Casey Energy Report pay $248 per quarter, an amount that may seem high to some.

However, that they were prepared to send an executive team to the secret well site - involving international flights and almost 11 hours in a car - should make it clear just how much potential we believe this investment has for our subscribers. If they're right, the potential returns will make the cost of your subscription pale by comparison.

But what if they're wrong, and the first well is a bust? What then?

It's simple: thanks to Casey’s 3-month, no-questions-asked, 100% money-back guarantee, if you don't make a bundle off this exciting new play within the first three months of your subscription, simply drop them an email and they'll promptly return every penny you paid.

It's a completely straightforward proposition that works entirely in your favor.

Of course, they're pretty confident you won't cancel your subscription.

Because they believe that they are about to make a lot of money on this stock, and that it will continue to provide exceptional returns for years (or until it is taken over by a larger company hungry for the 2-million-acre concession it has assembled on the next Bakken – and if that happens, it'll be just as good for us).

In a May 2010 interview broadcast on Business News Network, Chief Investment Strategist Marin Katusa spoke about Africa Oil, another early Casey energy pick. In that interview, he said, "This stock has a realistic potential to give you 10 to 15, even 20, times your money."

He was right: Africa Oil handed early investors a profit of over 1,200%.

In a recent email, Marin wrote, "Since that interview on Africa Oil, I have never made a similar forecast about a company, but I have no reservations saying that this new company easily has as much or more potential."

You do not want to miss out on this opportunity.

Getting in on the ground floor is as simple and easy as clicking here to sign up for the Casey Energy Report now.

Remember, Casey’s ironclad 100% money back guarantee means you've got nothing to lose to give the Casey Energy Report a try. With the drill turning and their energy team hard at work preparing its comprehensive report on the "next Bakken," now is definitely the time to act.

Sincerely,

Ray @ The Crude Oil Trader

P.S. It's important to highlight that members of the Casey Research team own shares in investment funds that have invested capital in this firm back from the time it was just an idea. That the company appears to have made good use of its capital to build its position on this potentially huge new oil play is all to the good and the only reason we are bringing this stock to the attention of our readers. To avoid a conflict of interest, Casey’s corporate policies (correctly) require them to provide advance notice to subscribers before they sell, which we don't see happening until the company has unlocked its full potential and its shares are trading at many multiples of where they are now.

If you, too, want to join in on this early stage play, be sure to sign up today - or at the latest before Monday, September 16. And don't forget: you either make a bundle or you simply cancel within 3 months for your money back. Even after three months, you can still cancel anytime and receive a prorated refund.

Don't miss this rare opportunity to get in on the ground floor.

Here again is the secure link to join Casey Energy Report.




Wednesday, April 17, 2013

January 2013 Crude Oil Export to China was a Rare Event

The United States exported 9,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) of foreign- rigin crude oil to China in January 2013, according to data EIA released on March 28. Many media outlets picked up this information, noting that the United States had not exported crude oil to China since 2005. However, the United States does export small amounts of crude oil on a regular basis, mostly to Canada, which is not shown on the graph. From 2003 to 2012, the United States exported an average of 35,000 bbl/d of crude oil — 98% of those exports were delivered to Canada. By comparison, in January 2013, the United States imported nearly 8 million barrels per day, while producing about 7 million barrels per day.


Graph of crude oil exports by destination, as explained in the article text


To export crude oil, a company must obtain a license from the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), which is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce, and which relies on the Code of Federal Regulations Title 15 Part 754.2. According to the regulations, "BIS will approve applications to export crude oil for the following kinds of transactions if BIS determines that the export is consistent with the specific requirements pertinent to that export:"

*    From Alaska's Cook Inlet
*   To Canada for consumption or use therein
*   In connection with refining or exchange of Strategic Petroleum Reserve oil
*   Of up to an average of 25,000 bbl/d of California heavy crude oil
*   That are consistent with findings made by the president under an applicable statute
*   Of foreign-origin crude oil where, based on written documentation satisfactory to BIS, the exporter can demonstrate that the oil is not of U.S. origin and has not been commingled with oil of U.S. origin


As noted above, the vast majority of U.S. crude exports go to Canada. Most of the other exports of crude oil are those that fall into the last category, exports of foreign-origin crude, imported into the United States but not comingled with U.S., origin crude oil. These exports typically occur because the owner of the imported crude oil cannot process or resell it in the United States. The license allows the imported crude to be exported.

EIA does not collect data on crude oil (or petroleum product) exports, but rather publishes data collected by the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census data show that since 2003, there have been only a handful of crude oil exports from the United States to a country other than Canada. These exports include small volumes to China, Costa Rica, France, South Korea and Mexico.

The 9,000 bbl/d of oil that the United States exported to China in January 2013 was a rare event. For confidentiality reasons, the U.S. Census Bureau is not allowed to publish specifics about particular shipments, but data available from the U.S. Census Bureau indicate this crude oil was not listed as a domestic export, implying that the crude oil was foreign-origin crude oil that was imported into the United States and then exported from the United States to China.

The 2 Energy Sectors You Should Invest in This Year

Tuesday, July 24, 2012

After Keystone Pipeline Failure, Canada Running to China for Crude Oil Deals

After 1949 when the Communists defeated the Nationalists for control of China, the mournful refrain from Washington, D.C. was “Who Lost China?” This arrogant display of superpower Cold War finger pointing ended with a number of careers destroyed and an unfair smear on the U.S. State Department that in some ways has never been entirely eradicated.

In today’s highly charged political climate, it will come as no surprise when some U.S. politicians come down hard on the Obama Administration for what will no doubt be described as driving Canada’s energy sector into the arms of China:

Cnooc Ltd. (883)’s $15.1 billion cash takeover bid for Nexen Inc. (NXY) signals a Canadian shift toward China and away from the U.S. as the nation’s traditional oil and natural gas partner and main export market.

Canada’s oil sands reserves, the third-largest recoverable crude deposits in the world, were developed in part by U.S. money as companies such as California’s Richfield Oil Corp. brought technology to extract bitumen from boreal peat bogs half a century ago. Now, for the first time, a Chinese company will own and operate oil sands crude production as well as Nexen’s shale gas assets in British Columbia, along with leases in other parts of the world.

Chinese oil producers have turned more frequently to Canada after political opposition in the U.S. derailed Cnooc’s $18.5 billion bid for Unocal Corp. in 2005, and after TransCanada Corp. (TRP)’s Keystone XL pipeline route south to Texas was blocked by President Barack Obama’s administration last year. 

The Nexen deal is important for two reasons. First, it potentially represents some absolution for CNOOC, which is best known in foreign investment circles as the company which botched the 2005 U.S. UNOCAL takeover, not taking into account American politics and the need for a public relations strategy. As the Nexen deal will require regulatory approval in several jurisdictions, we will see what lessons CNOOC has learned from the failed UNOCAL bid.

Second, as Bloomberg points out, the deal represents a further shift by Canada away from the U.S. towards China. Another deal involving Sinopec and Talisman Energy was announced yesterday as well, and there have been other recent transactions, including CNOOC’s takeover of Nexen partner Opti Canada.

Why is this happening? Read the entire article > "After Keystone, Canada Running to China for Oil Deals"

Get our Free Trading Videos, Lessons and eBook today!

Friday, June 22, 2012

North American Spot Crude Oil Benchmarks Likely Diverging Due to Bottlenecks

Gold and Silver on the Verge of Something Spectacular

West Texas Intermediate at Cushing, Oklahoma (WTI Cushing), a light, sweet crude grade, is North America's most closely observed crude oil price benchmark and the underlying commodity of the NYMEX crude futures contract. Until 2008, all North American crude grades broadly tracked fluctuations in WTI Cushing prices and were clustered within about $8 per barrel of the WTI Cushing price. Pricing differences between crude grades were largely explained by the different quality characteristics of the crude oil in each location and transportation costs to Cushing, the delivery point of the NYMEX contract.

Since 2008, however, the price differences between WTI Cushing and other North American crude oil benchmarks have increased sharply (see chart below). In addition to WTI, other crude grades have emerged as alternative benchmarks. In particular, the Argus Sour Crude Price Index (ASCI), a weighted average of prices for several offshore Gulf of Mexico sour crude grades, has become the benchmark or reference used for assessing the price of several imported grades sold on a long-term contract basis, including Saudi Arabian and Kuwaiti crude grades.

graph of spot crude price minus spot WTI (Cushing, OK) crude oil prices, January 1, 2005 - June 19, 2012, as described in the article text

Transportation constraints in the wake of rising production from inland fields in Canada, North Dakota, and Texas are one of the main drivers of the growing price discrepancy between crude grades since 2008. Limited pipeline capacity has made it difficult to bring crude oil out of the center of the continent, lowering all the affected benchmarks compared to prices outside the area. But within the constrained area, prices have also diverged from each other, reflecting local transmission bottlenecks within the larger constrained area. For example, crude oil benchmarks for the Bakken, Western Canada, and West Texas Sour (Midland, Texas) have traded at a discount to WTI Cushing. Rising production in the Bakken and West Texas have exacerbated these price differences. Outside the constrained areas, benchmarks like Louisiana Light Sweet, Alaska North Slope, and Mars Blend in the Gulf of Mexico reflect premiums to WTI Cushing, sometimes significant.

The phrase "transportation constraints" refers to a broad range of logistic issues, with inadequate pipeline capacity being the most common issue. However, EIA is not aware of any crude oil production capacity being shut in because of a lack of capacity to move the oil. In the short term, production surges and/or pipeline shutdowns force oil producers to compete with each other for more expensive transport options: rail and then truck. In the longer term, additional transportation capacity (rail and pipeline) is likely to be built, which should lower the cost of transporting the oil to markets.

Some North American crude oil benchmark locations are identified in the map below.

map of select crude oil price points in North America, as described in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration. 


Gold Still at Risk of a Large Downward Move Before the Rally

Thursday, May 3, 2012

Apache Reports Strong First Quarter Results as Record Production Leverages Higher Oil Prices

Online Crude Oil Trading, Free demo account, Free Bonus....Starting with only $100 outlay!

Apache Corporation (ticker APA) reported record worldwide production in the first quarter of 2012 as the company benefitted from higher prices for oil and natural gas liquids and its balanced approach helped it weather the continuing deterioration of North American natural gas prices. Daily production increased 7 percent over the same period the prior year, adjusted for dispositions.

Worldwide production was 769,000 barrels of oil equivalent (boe) per day, compared with 732,000 boe per day the same period the year before. Last year's total included 11,000 boe per day from certain assets in Canada and East Texas that were sold in the second half of 2011. U.S. liquids production reached 148,000 barrels per day, representing an 11 percent increase over first quarter 2011 results, as global liquids production rose 6 percent over the same period.

Apache reported earnings of $778 million, or $2.00 per diluted share, for the three month period ending March 31, 2012, reflecting the impact of a $390 million non cash, after tax reduction in the carrying value of its oil and gas properties in Canada stemming from lower North American natural gas prices. For the same period last year, Apache reported earnings of $1.1 billion, or $2.86 per diluted share.....Read the entire report at ApacheCorp.com

Get our FREE E-mini Trading Video & More LIVE Personal Training TODAY!

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Refinery Utilization Rates React to Economics in 2011

The divergence of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent crude oil prices in 2011 affected refinery utilization in the United States, particularly in the East Coast (PADD 1) and Midwest (PADD 2) regions. Historically, refineries in these districts operated at 80-90% of their capacity. Changes in refining economics last year contributed to real contrasts in refinery utilization in some of the PADDs (see Overview chart).


graph of Average monthly refinery gross inputs and operable capacity, 2005 and 2011, as described in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Refinery Utilization and Capacity.

 Some key findings by PADD include:
  • PADD 1. East Coast refining typically relies on imports of crude oil based on the Brent crude price, which, on average, increased to a $16-per-barrel premium over WTI spot prices in 2011. As a result, two East Coast refineries idled capacity due to poor economics, while another is considering selling or shutting down. PADD 1 utilization averaged only 68% of operable capacity in 2011, which includes the idle capacity of closed refineries. This utilization rate reflects both the drop in East Coast refining capacity and lower crude oil inputs.
  • PADD 2. Midwest refineries benefitted from supplies of less expensive crude oil coming from Canada and increased production in the Bakken formation. Thus, PADD 2 refineries averaged about 91% utilization in 2011, even with increased refining capacity. As a result, PADD 2 average crude oil inputs of nearly 3.4 million barrels per day were at the highest level since 2000.
  • PADD 3. Gulf Coast (PADD 3) continued capacity expansions as refineries upgraded infrastructure to maximize yields. Growing oil production in Texas and the Midwest contributed to increased inputs. The Gulf Coast refineries were able to use different types of crude oil to maximize production. Refineries in this region used cheaper sources of crude compared to the rest of the country.
  • PADDs 4 and 5. Refinery closures, outages, and a lack of access to less expensive crude oil reduced inputs in 2011 to refineries in PADDs 4 and 5 and helped drive down utilization rates.
 

Friday, March 16, 2012

U.S. Natural Gas Net Imports at Lowest Levels Since 1992

The preliminary estimate of U.S. natural gas average daily net imports—imports minus exports—was just over 5 billion cubic feet per day (Bcfd) in 2011, which was the lowest level since 1992 (see chart above). Net import declines are due to both lower imports and higher exports; U.S. net imports of natural gas peaked in August 2007 at 10 Bcfd, and have fallen markedly since.

graph of U.S. annual average natural gas net imports, 1973-2011, as described in the article text

Imports
The United States imports natural gas via pipelines from Canada and Mexico, and from tanker deliveries to liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. Some key points include:
  • The vast majority of U.S. natural gas imports arrive via pipeline from Canada (see chart below). Significant increases in U.S. natural gas production have led to decreased U.S. demand for Canadian natural gas. Imports from Canada for 2011 were significantly below the previous five-year range, and have been lower for much of 2012 so far (some of this decline, however, can be attributed to warmer-than-usual weather across much of the United States).
  • LNG is the other main source of imported natural gas, however average daily deliveries from U.S. LNG terminals from January 1, 2012 through March 15, 2012 averaged 0.6 Bcf/d, down about 44% from a comparable period in 2011. Higher natural gas prices in competing markets abroad are attracting "spot" LNG cargoes that can be delivered under flexible pricing terms. LNG imports through U.S. terminals peaked in 2007 at over 2.1 Bcfd.
  • U.S. natural gas imports from Mexico are negligible, totaling just 2.7 Bcf, or about 7.3 million cubic feet per day in 2011. Imports from Mexico enter primarily through southern Texas and southeastern California.
graph of U.S. daily net natural gas imports from Canada, as described in the article text


Exports
U.S. exports of natural gas are up over the past decade. Some key factors underpinning the growth in exports are:
  • Domestic natural gas production is growing, primarily from shale gas formations. Some of this production is being shipped on pipelines into Canada and Mexico (see chart below).
  • Much of the growth in natural gas exports to Canada is due to increased deliveries on U.S. pipelines to natural gas storage facilities in Ontario.
  • Exports to Mexico reached a high in 2011, averaging almost 1.4 Bcfd for the year, exceeding the previous high of 1.1 Bcfd in 2004.
graph of Montly average U.S. natural gas exports, January 1990 - December 2011, as described in the article text
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Natural Gas Monthly, Table 4 - U.S. Natural Gas Imports and Exports.

Check out our latest Video, Market Analysis and Forecast for the Dollar, Crude Oil, Gold, Silver, and the SP500