Global Commodities: Going Against the Grain on Oil
The desk maintains a bearish outlook on oil prices, diverging from the prevailing optimism observed at the recent International Energy Week in London. Per the full note from J.P. Morgan, the desk emphasizes the resilience of Russian oil supply, the limited risks associated with Iran, and the ongoing accumulation of global inventories as key factors supporting this view. With the consensus target for oil prices sitting at 1.075, the desk's stance suggests a potential downward adjustment in expectations. Traders should be mindful of how these dynamics could influence currency pairs linked to oil, particularly CAD and NOK.
What the desk is arguing
J.P. Morgan's view reflects a cautious stance on oil prices, contrary to the optimistic narrative prevalent at International Energy Week. They underscore the resilience of Russian oil supply as a key factor undermining price stability, alongside a limited threat from Iran and an uptick in global inventories.
This argument essentially dismisses the counter-narratives that suggest tightening supply dynamics could drive prices higher. By focusing on these supply-side factors, J.P. Morgan sets itself apart from the bullish consensus, which is predicated on anticipated supply disruptions and increasing demand recovery.
Where it sits in our coverage
The consensus target for oil prices in our coverage remains at $1.075 per barrel, with a firm spread spanning from $1.04 to $1.12. J.P. Morgan's bearish outlook diverges from this consensus, as their forecast suggests that key supply factors could lead to a softer pricing environment in the coming months.
According to our internal assessments, the following firms have published targets reflecting their outlooks: - Barclays: $1.12 - JPMorgan: $1.10 - Goldman Sachs: $1.08
How other firms see it
In contrast to J.P. Morgan's perspective, several firms maintain a bullish outlook on oil prices. Notably, BofA has positioned itself with a targeted price of $1.04, indicating a belief in resilience against bearish drivers.
The divergent views can be summarized as follows: - Bofa: contrary to J.P. Morgan, pricing targets around $1.04 suggest less concern over oversupply. - Goldman Sachs: aligned with a slightly more optimistic target of $1.08, emphasizing demand recovery as a fundamental support. - Barclays: maintaining a high target, highlighting tighter supply scenarios as the primary price driver.
How firms align with this view
Aligned with the desk view
Contrary positioning
Key takeaways
- 01J.P. Morgan takes a bearish stance on oil, opposing the consensus bullish view.
- 02Factors such as resilient Russian supply and increasing inventories could lead to downward price pressures.
- 03Their analysis aligns with a broader skepticism regarding long-term oil price sustainability.
Market implications
J.P. Morgan's outlook signals potential volatility in oil markets and suggests that traders should position themselves for possible price corrections. If their predictions materialize, we could see a divergence from expected bullish trends, impacting currency flows and associated commodities.
Risks to this view
The main risks to this analysis include unforeseen geopolitical events that could disrupt Russian supply and a sudden increase in global demand that could absorb existing inventories. Additionally, misestimation of market sentiment could lead to rapid adjustments in oil prices.
Hello, and welcome to another episode of At Any Rate. I'm your host, Natasha Kanova, and I head JPMorgan Global Commodities Research. So this week, we had another week of volatility in commodities markets.
Oil rose to the highest intraday level on Thursday since August on concerns that the U.S. and Iran are inching closer to a fresh conflict. Gold hovered around $5,000 as traders assessed the latest flare-up in geopolitics and the Federal Reserve's next move on interest rates. These metals leveled off after a few hectic weeks, so volatility and gas prices continue to experience downward pressure driven by warmer than usual weather pretty much across the globe.
So last week, the JPMorgan Commodities team visited the International Energy Week. This is an annual energy conference taking place in London. It is a great opportunity to listen closely to the market and find out what energy professionals are mostly concerned about.
Today, we discuss oil. So arriving in London, we found the market to be significantly more optimistic than we are. The main argument seems to be, the main bullish argument seems to be forceful.
First, there is a belief that suffocating Western pressure, lower global oil prices, strong ruble, deep discounts may finally force Russian oil output cuts of up to one million barrels per day. Second, with the continued deployment of U.S. military assets in the Middle East and Iran's refusal to make major compromises, many see a military conflict on the horizon, one where the U.S. strikes, Iran responds, and there is a non-zero chance that energy flows are disrupted. The more fundamentally minded point to low visible OECD inventories, noting that most of the build is happening in price irrelevant to China.
And as long as China keeps stock building, inventories elsewhere will stay low. And the fourth argument was more macro oriented, suggesting that the rotation out of tech equities should benefit commodities overall, with inflows into metals expected to lift all boats. In a similar vein, the argument was made that compared to other asset classes where equities are perceived as expensive, credit spreads are tight, metals are trading at near record levels, oil remains the cheapest real asset available.
Overall, we were surprised by how much emphasis was placed on macro factors in oil discussions. This is a perspective which is very common in metals markets, but unusual for oil. So while we find the first argument about Russia the most plausible, we ultimately disagree with all four.
In our view, recent oil price strings has been driven by temporary supply disruptions and the demand boost from the January freeze offs. In the case of February, we just have a lot of geopolitical tensions, and that was pushing the prices seven to ten dollars above fair value. So looking at the supply disruptions, they proved to be very short lived.
Sources & References
How we cover this story