China Beating the US in the Global Oil Game

A very interesting article at Money Morning about how China is beating the United States in the global oil game. (Actually, The Economist tackled the larger issue of China's thirst for natural resources and how they're going about getting them, particularly in Africa, in a noteworthy special report back in March.) Below are some of the article's highlights:

While this deal, on its face, appears to be just another global oil-services contract, it’s actually a very significant development in the hunt for long-term energy supplies. In fact, it actually demonstrates that – when it comes to nailing down those long-term oil supplies – China is an expert, and is playing a very deep game. And the outcome of that game will certainly have substantial long-term implications for consumers and investors both here in the United States, and in markets abroad. Here’s why:

• With estimated reserves of 115 billion barrels, Iraq is tied with Iran for the world’s No. 2 position, trailing Saudi Arabia, which has estimated reserves of 264 billion barrels, according to estimates from the Energy Information Administration.
  
• In a country where electricity is in short supply, the oil produced from the Ahdab Oil Field will help fuel a planned power plant that would be one of the largest in Iraq. By helping Iraq with this key initiative, China can expect to gain a solid foothold in one of the most oil-rich nations in the world, analysts say.
  
• At the end of the day, the deal clearly highlights something that most U.S. investors haven’t focused on yet – namely that the eventual winners in this game may not be such well-known giants as Chevron Corp. (CVX), ExxonMobil Corp. (XOM), or other household names. Deals like this one and the host of others that are undoubtedly close behind suggest that tomorrow’s winners may have names most English-speaking investors can’t pronounce, since they’ll be distinctly Arabic or Chinese in nature.

...

While China won’t participate in the profits from the oil it helps pump, it is shrewd enough to realize there will be long-term benefits. Analysts who see the bigger picture here agree with our view.

“There are some political profits for China,” Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, a former Iraqi oil minister, told The Times. “They need access to Iraq, and when they need oil, at least the Iraqi people will feel that China has done something for them.”

...

By invading Iraq, the United States dealt China’s central planning commission an embarrassing wakeup call when the second Gulf War summarily wiped out China’s oil interests in Iraq.

When that happened, China’s central planners realized two things:

• The status quo in the global oil game had changed.
  
• And China’s double-digit economic miracle could not be sustained with only a few oil suppliers.

What China fears most is that there will not be enough oil to go around in the very near future and that a U.S.-dominated supply chain could effectively “strangle” China’s growth.

So, it has done what the United States and other great powers have done at other times in history and gone on a buying spree from Darfur to Peru that’s turned heads and ruffled feathers all across the world.

What’s been especially frustrating for hapless Western leaders who do not understand that their actions caused this in the first place, is that China’s not afraid to do business with rogue nations like Iran, Sudan and Burma. It has even gotten chummy with Venezuela and Russia – much to the consternation of our present administration.

It’s a virtual certainty that China will maintain this policy going forward. My contacts in China and Africa have told me point blank that China’s leaders “don’t care about human rights or nukes or hostile governments. What matters is anyone who provides oil to China no matter what the rest of the world thinks.”

So, in as much as the U.S. media has dismissed this deal as only one in a long string of recent Chinese oil purchases, it’s arguably the most important deal yet. The reason: It suggests that China will go to extraordinary lengths to obtain the oil it wants and needs.

To add to its stable of captive oil suppliers, China will pay far more money, endure limitless criticism for ignoring human-rights issues and endure harsher business conditions than our companies can or will undertake. While U.S. firms must worry about sanctions, bad publicity or simply security, China worries about one thing, and one thing only – getting oil.

HT: Informed Comment

The Economic Version of "Final Destination 3"

There is someone, walking behind you
Turn around, look at me
There is someone, watching your footsteps
Turn around, look at me
One more post on economics (for now), this time an unusual look at housing prices. The New York Times produced a graph of Robert Shiller's American housing price index, which shows what prices have been like from 1890 through 2006. For example, if a standard house cost $100,000 in 1890 (in 2006 dollars), a similar home would have sold for $199,000 in 2006. What's interesting, though, is that someone has taken Shiller's data and transformed it into a roller-coaster ride using Atari's RollerCoaster Tycoon (R)3 software. (Be sure to look at the bottom right corner to view the year.)



The problem with this video, though, is that it stops short of what's happened in the past two years. Back in late May, The Economist, which I do read (apparently this is a political joke now), produced a graph that shows this past year's plunge. To give an idea of what the end of the roller-coaster ride should look like, one wit at Angry Bear suggested the following video:



HT: Angry Bear

The Economist: Bernanke's Bind

An important article in this week's Economist. As I had first pointed out a couple weeks ago on my new blog, part of the reason for the rising inflation in commodity prices, such as oil and rice has been due to the combination of dollar-denominated commodity prices and a weakening U.S. dollar; i.e., as the dollar weakens against other currencies, this causes the prices for commodities to rise in order to maintain value. (For you non-Econogeeks out there, this is what is known as "purchasing power parity." A McDonald's Big Mac here in Singapore is the same as a Big Mac in the U.S., and the exchange rate between the Singapore and U.S. dollars should be such that you would pay the same amount for the same product (the Big Mac) regardless of what currency you're using.)

The other major problem is that, as interest rates keep going down (as they did again last week), the real value of the interest rate goes into negative territory. The real interest rate is (essentially) the nominal interest rate minus the rate of inflation. With this negative real interest rate, commodity producers such as farmers, miners, oilers, etc., have more incentive not to sell their products, even though this hurts them in the short-term by not bringing in revenue. As a a result, the amount of supply is lowered, which, in turn, raises prices.

There is another problem mentioned in the final paragraph below; however, the primary argument remains that the Federal Reserve must take some share of the blame for rising commodity prices, whether it's oil or agricultural products, due to their continued lowering of interest rates. This argument suggests, then, that commodity prices might not begin to drop until the U.S. dollar starts to strengthen.

An excerpt from the article:

But oil—and other commodities—are the crux of the problem. In the past, economic weakness in America has usually pushed the price of oil and other commodities down. That relationship has weakened thanks to demand growth in big commodity-intensive emerging economies. But the recent surprise is that commodity prices have soared even as America’s economy has stalled and forecasts for global growth have been trimmed as well. Supply shocks are clearly part of the problem. But the fact that prices have soared across so many commodities suggests a common cause.

Could the culprit be the Fed? Advocates of this idea point to two channels. First, by slashing real interest rates, the Fed has encouraged speculation in commodities by reducing the cost of holding inventories. Second, by pushing down the dollar, Fed looseness is pushing up the price of dollar-denominated commodities.

Jeff Frankel, a Harvard economist, has long argued that low real interest rates lead to higher commodity prices. When real rates fall, he points out, commodity producers have more incentive to keep their asset—whether crude oil, gold or grain—in the ground or in a silo, than to sell today. Speculators, in turn, have more incentive to shift into commodities. There is no doubt that commodities have become an increasingly popular investment category—in fact they bear many of the hallmarks of a speculative bubble. But inventories for many commodities, particularly grains, are unusually low.

What about the dollar link? Chakib Khelil, president of the Organisation of Petroleum-Exporting Countries, argued this week that oil could reach $200 a barrel largely because the market was being driven by the dollar’s slide. Movements in the euro/dollar exchange rate and the price of oil have become extremely close (see chart). An analysis by Jens Nordvig and Jeffrey Currie of Goldman Sachs shows that the correlation between weekly changes in the oil price and the euro/dollar exchange rate has risen from 1% between 1999 and 2004 to 52% in the past six months.

That link is partly a matter of accounting. If the dollar falls, the dollar price of a commodity must rise for its overall price—in terms of a basket of global currencies—to remain stable. But commodity prices have risen even when priced in non-dollar currencies. And the correlation between changes in the price of oil and the euro/dollar exchange rate has risen even when oil is priced in a basket of currencies, such as the IMF’s special drawing rights.

So is the weaker dollar driving oil prices up or are high oil prices driving the dollar down? The Goldman analysts argue the latter because oil exporters import more from Europe than America and hold less of their oil revenues in dollars. A second factor lies with central banks. Because the Fed focuses on “core” inflation (which excludes food and fuel), whereas the ECB targets overall inflation, America’s central bank runs a looser policy in response to higher oil prices, thus pushing the dollar down.

Another reason to suspect that the Fed is more than a bit player is that American interest-rate decisions have a disproportionate effect on global monetary conditions. Some emerging economies still peg their currencies to the dollar; many others have been reluctant to let their exchange rates rise enough to make up for the dollar’s decline. As a result, monetary conditions in many emerging markets remain too loose. This fuels domestic demand, pushing up pressure on prices, particularly of commodities. All of which suggests that the Fed’s decisions are propagated widely through the dollar.

Originally posted at Dunner's.

The Economist: Gender Gulf

The April 10th edition of The Economist has an article about the problems Muslim women in the Middle East and the banking/financial services industries have in meeting each other. Much of this problem is due to gender segregation, but another problem is that many of these companies haven't thought about the benefits of targeting their marketing toward women and the practical ramifications of being able to market directly to these women; for example, hiring women who are able to meet clients and customers without needing a husband or other male relative to chaperone. I also like how the one company mentioned in the article, Forsa, avoid the "pink-ribboning." Unfortunately, this type of cosmetic change to a company's marketing scheme is all too common and is very superficial. "Oh, look! My credit card has a picture of a rose on it. I'll bank with you." Yeah, right.

But many women still avoid face-to-face meetings with unrelated men. That makes the male-dominated world of banking particularly hard to penetrate.

There are ways of getting round the problem. Saudi retail banks have set up segregated branches that only women can enter. “Ladies' banks” are also cropping up in the UAE. Segregation is a controversial issue, but the facilities at least allow women to manage their finances independently of prying fathers, brothers or husbands. Rising divorce rates give added motivation for women to hide away some money, skeptical of the help they will get from mostly male judges.

Increasingly, wealth managers are also realizing that women in the Gulf region are sitting on fortunes in cash, land and even jewelery. According to Amanda McCrystal of Bramdiva, a London-based wealth-consultation service for women, a few years ago there was a boom in online share-trading by women in the Gulf, since they could do it from the privacy of home. Many were singed by a regional crash in 2006. Some will not return; many of those who do may seek professional advice.

Sandy Shaw, who heads Middle Eastern operations at Coutts, a private bank based in London, says about a quarter of her clients are female, and are keen to keep control of their affairs, especially to ensure that their estates will pass to their children when they die. Aware of this, a small number of Western female bankers now travel regularly to the Gulf to hold meetings with female clients. Again, one of the attractions is privacy; they can visit a Saudi woman at home without her husband present, which a male banker normally could not do. Women may require different products from men, too. In Saudi Arabia and Qatar, for example, they have more of an appetite for lower-risk, capital-protected investments. But this is likely to change as they become more experienced investors, says Ms Shaw.

In the UAE, Dubai World, a government holding company, has set up Forsa, an investment company run by women for women. Its staff scorn what they call “pink-ribboning”: superficial changes to market products to women, like making a credit card pink. Across the region, more such firms would be helpful. This is not only because women need opportunities to work. The finance industry needs them, too: it is growing so fast that it is struggling to recruit and retain staff.

The message has sunk in in Bahrain, where a third of finance-sector employees are female, and in Kuwait, where, including property, the figure rises to 40%. Some employers there say they find female bankers work harder than men. Yet in Saudi Arabia, official statistics indicate that just 5% of Saudis working in finance and property are female. And across the region, it remains hard for female businesswomen to get loans, especially if they are not from prominent families. Even in Bahrain, where nearly one-third of businesses are registered by women, “sometimes women can only get a business license in their husband's name, especially if they have less capital,” says Aamina Awan, who is researching female entrepreneurship in the region.

The Three

I'm a fan of The Economist and, although I don't get the chance to buy and read it every week, I do like a lot of its content. If I were to create my own magazine, I'd try to model it somewhat on The Economist. In the meantime, these are the three articles in this week's edition that you should take the time to read.

The Long Hangover - America's economy is in recession. Don't expect a quick recovery.

Tightening Belts - As commodity prices rocket and America's economy sickens, food companies and retailers are racing to adapt.

Spring Postponed - The hopes kindled by the saffron revolution have faded fast.