Earlier this year, the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil slumped into negative territory for the first time in history. Oil traded at a negative $37.63. Today, that same barrel of oil is changing hands at $47.48. What changed?

 

More than any other sector, the coronavirus has had a devastating impact on the global oil and gas industry. Declining consumer demand in the first quarter of the year in combination with high levels of energy production threatened to exceed worldwide oil storage capacity. OPEC plus, the oil cartel, took action on April 12 by cutting oil production by 9.7 million barrels per day, but by then it was too late. By April 20-22, you couldn't give away a barrel of oil and prices responded in kind.

 

By the end of the first quarter, more than 40 U.S. oil producers collectively wrote down $48 billion worth of assets, which was the largest quarterly adjustment since 2015. The losses were so bad that many investors sold banking stocks, concerned that several banks with energy loans outstanding might go under as a result. None of that happened, largely due to the quick action by our central bank's guaranteed loan program, and a huge slug of government fiscal spending.

 

Fast forward to today, where the revival in energy prices is somewhat remarkable given the present surge of COVID-19 cases. In my opinion, the oil price increase is all about the expected return to our pre-pandemic way of life. The hope is that as the coronavirus vaccines do their job, we will see an increase in worldwide demand for transportation, which is the principal driver of oil prices. 

 

The re-opening of the global economy will lead to higher consumption of diesel and natural gas as industrial businesses ramp up to full production. There should also be an upsurge in demand for refined energy products that are used in just about every industry.

 

In the short-term, I believe the continued price rise in oil will be dependent on what OPEC plus decides to do with production. As of last week, the cartel and its outside members agreed to gradually increase oil production by no more than 500,000/bbl. per day starting from January 2021. Here in the U.S. (where we are considered to be the world's main marginal producer) both our small and large oil companies have curtailed production and plugged wells.

 

There are other reasons that demand for oil may outpace supply. Unlike some industries, you can't just turn on the spigot and produce more oil and gas. There is a lead time involved in the process. A result of the economic downturn, nearly every oil company has had to cut investment spending this year. That meant a reduction in the development of proven reserves, which in the short-term doesn't matter much, but if demand picks up it could become a supply issue next year.

 

Companies upstream from these producers, the drilling and exploration contactors, as well as oil service companies, have been cutting back as well to stay solvent. Currently, oilfield activity is down 5 percent, the lowest in a decade. To reverse direction, this industry requires time. And a lot of it. All of the above could create an on-going imbalance in supply and demand leading to further price hikes.

 

In addition, the trend towards renewable energy sources has finally caught the attention of the largest oil corporations. Both politically, as well as from a long-term profit motive, alternative energy is attracting more investment. It is siphoning off the cash that had originally been ear-marked for traditional energy production. That trend seems to be firmly in place. Government incentives to do even more investing in the future may well reduce the investment spending necessary to increase the supply of oil and gas. This could all result in a perfect storm of higher oil prices next year.

 

Looking at the stock market, while energy stocks in general have enjoyed double-digit price rises over the last month, the energy sector overall is still down 32.9 percent so far this year, compared to the S&P 500 Index gain of 15.3 percent. My bet is that energy equities continue to close the gap in performance through 2021 as the price of oil climbs.

 

Bill Schmick is the founding partner of Onota Partners, Inc., in the Berkshires. His forecasts and opinions are purely his own and do not necessarily represent the views of Onota Partners Inc. (OPI). None of his commentary is or should be considered investment advice. Direct your inquiries to Bill at 1-413-347-2401 or email him at bill@schmicksretiredinvestor.com.

Investors should know better by now. Stimulus talks have been going on since July 2020, but politicians in the capital appear to be stuck on the same old issues. Unfortunately, the deadline for a 2020 compromise bill is less than three weeks away.

 

It is anyone's guess whether the nation's economic and pandemic plight will win over partisan politics. It hasn't so far. The financial markets are not taking kindly to failure at this point. The all-time highs we have been enjoying for the last two weeks have been built on investors' near certainty that at least $900 billion in new Federal stimulus money would be forthcoming shortly.

 

Those funds were supposed to help bridge the gap in both human suffering and economic growth between now and the time the coronavirus vaccines will be readily available throughout the nation. Normally, when such an important binary event is in the offing, we would expect an 11th-hour deal to be struck. Should this time be any different?

 

In addition, there is another piece of legislation that also needs to be passed. The one-week Federal budget extension is also in play and without it the nation would experience another government shutdown. Delay allows both parties to garner all the media coverage possible. It is the consummate blame game and political theatre at its best (or worst). But what if a stimulus deal doesn't happen? Or the government does shut down?

 

In all likelihood, the stock market will decline, but any sell-off would probably be limited. I give a government shutdown a low probability, but a new stimulus bill could be a toss-up. I suspect more aid is being held hostage at this point by Georgia's run-off senatorial elections on Jan. 5. Both parties are attempting to influence voters' preference before the elections. The stimulus bill appears to be the trump card and will happen if one side or the other feels its passage gives them a winning hand. What happens after the elections could also be important for the stock market.

 

If the Democrats win (and thus take command of both houses of Congress), most equity strategists are expecting a knee-jerk decline, as Wall Street starts to discount a potential increase in corporate taxes (as Biden has promised during his election campaign). 

 

That tax risk might be partially off-set by expectations that the Democrats will want to spend a whole lot more in stimulus than under a Republican-controlled Senate. If the GOP wins the Senate race in Georgia, Wall Street believes tax increases and a large stimulus package are probably both off the table. If that sounds too neat and tidy, it probably is. 

 

My own take is that neither party will have a functional majority in the Senate, and maybe even in the House, no matter who wins in Georgia. As a result, I am not expecting anything "big" to get done on either taxes or stimulus. In the meantime, any downside volatility created by all this political noise would give investors the opportunity to buy stocks at lower prices. Why buy? As I have explained many times in the past, the key to the economy and further gains in the stock market have always hinged on beating the coronavirus.

 

It is simple really; while all of this political drama plays out, the new COVID-19 vaccines should continue to be distributed. More businesses should re-open as a result, and the economy should right itself on its own over time. As it does, the stock market should begin to discount an even stronger rate of economic growth in 2021. If so, we will be off to the races. 

 

That gives you the broad-brush strokes of what I am expecting in the financial markets over the course of next year. There will most likely be potholes along the way. The vaccine distribution, for example, will probably not go as smoothly as most expect. We are already getting reports of some serious side effects from some patients after receiving the second dose of Pfizer's vaccine. 

 

If the two parties somehow re-learn the art of compromise (something that I believe has been the secret of America's strength and success since its founding), then we should expect even higher gains in next year's U.S. market. If not, I advise looking elsewhere for better performance.

 

During the past few weeks of this presidency, both the Trump administration and Congress have levied additional sanctions against the People's Republic of China. Financial markets and U.S. corporations have largely ignored those efforts; here's why.

 

Investors have learned over the past four years that tough talk on trade tariffs, blacklisting and other threats were largely ineffectual in curtailing the world's second largest economy. The facts are that U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods have been a failure. Our trade deficit with China is higher now than it was before the trade wars.

 

China's trade gap with the U.S. was 43 percent bigger in September, for example, than when Donald Trump took office. The surplus overall is 18.86 percent higher than a year ago and the trade gap between the two nations is on track to exceed $600 billion by the end of this year. That would be the highest since 2008.

 

The only difference investors could see in all this expended energy is that U.S. corporations (and consumers) have had to pay more for some imported Chinese goods. Aside from that, our farmers lost billions of dollars and had to be compensated by additional tax dollars for losing market share to Brazil and other nations in certain agricultural products like soybeans.

 

Last week, on the financial front, the delisting of Chinese companies under the House passage of the Holding Foreign Companies Accountable Act, looks good on paper, but not so much once you read the fine print.  The act would require U.S. regulators to review the audit books of all U.S.-listed Chinese companies. If they refuse or fail to come into compliance under U.S. acceptable accounting standards, they will face delisting.

 

Conveniently, the bill's authors failed to mention that U.S.-listed Chinese companies are already audited by the largest U.S. accounting firms. The "Big Four" accounting firms (PWC, Deloitte, Ernst & Young, and KPMG) apply the same standards in auditing these Chinese companies as they do in auditing companies in the U.S. and Europe, as well as their clients around the rest of the world.

 

In addition, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), which is charged with enforcing the act, has already made quite a bit of progress in developing a workable framework that would solve these issues. The SEC proposes having Chinese companies listed in the U.S. audited and reviewed by firms located in jurisdiction that are accessible to U.S. regulators.

 

The China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) appears to have no problem with that solution or the act. The CSRC already assumes that Chinese companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges follow U.S. laws and regulations for financial reporting and information disclosure. From Chinas' point of view, anything that can help regulate and identify the few bad apples among thousands of listed Chinese companies is a welcome addition to their own regulatory efforts.

 

For Wall Street, the delisting threat may, at most, create some minor short-term sentiment that could pressure Chinese stocks, but there is simply too much at stake to see a wholesale delisting of Chinese stocks. There is almost $2 trillion of U.S. money invested in Chinese equities today. Companies such as Alibaba, Baidu and JD.com have become as familiar to Americans as IBM and delisting the lot would throw the financial markets into chaos.

 

The U.S. strategy of blacklisting certain other Chinese companies such as telecom giant, Huawei, plus dozens of other companies, has done as much harm as good to the U.S. and its corporations. Our semiconductor sector, for example, has experienced severe supply dislocations and costly business interruptions because of the Huawei crackdown.  

 

Dozens of other firms that the Commerce Department has added to its "entity list" have caused unexpected repercussions as well. Many of these Chinese firms are accused of either helping to spy on China's minority population, the Uighurs, or of having ties to China's military. Many of them are customers of our own technology and cloud-based computing firms. Some U.S firms may have had joint ventures with these companies or garnered a substantial portion of business from these companies.

 

From my perspective, the incoming Biden Administration gives the U.S. a chance to re-examine the direction our country has taken in answering the "threat of China." If Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe was right when he said last week that "the People's Republic of China poses the greatest threat to America today," then we better up our game in ways that may not make great headlines, but instead protect our interests far more effectively than they have in the past.

 

The first week of December saw all three major averages climb to minor new highs. The trigger was more good news on the delivery timetable of the coronavirus vaccines. The expected speedy distribution of the first batch of wonder drugs encouraged investors, even while the number of COVID-19 deaths and cases nationwide continued to skyrocket.

 

In addition, a new dose of hopeium has infected investors on the stimulus front. The Democrats $2.2 trillion proposal has gone nowhere since July, thanks to the Republican-controlled Senate. The Democrats then reduced their price tag in an effort to forge a compromise before the election, but the Republicans refused to spend more than their initial $500 billion offer.

 

The House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, have dropped their offer once again this week. It now matches a new bipartisan proposal of $900 billion that could forge a compromise bill during the next two weeks. Friday's November non-farm payroll report may have clinched the deal.

 

Job gains were much worse than expected with U.S. employers adding 245,000 jobs versus 465,000 jobs that were anticipated. December's data could see the job gains disappear altogether. That might jeopardize the outcome of the January 5th run-off senate elections in red state Georgia for Republicans.  

 

I see politics at play. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while suddenly finding "fiscal responsibility" after four years of unbridled deficit spending, has been steadfast in his refusal to compromise on his $500 billion stimulus package. This is despite the pleas of the vast majority of governors, and state legislatures from both parties, for help from the federal government. Before the elections, even our lame-duck president had pleaded with the Senate to pass at least a $2 trillion stimulus package to no avail.

 

The Democrats' new willingness to compromise further can be credited to President-elect Biden, who indicated to his party leaders that some relief for the nation is better than no relief. This week's labor report places McConnell between a rock and a hard place. If he goes along with too much stimulus, he will risk the ire of conservative voters in Georgia. On the other hand, too little stimulus, and he will galvanize more Democrats to come out and vote in an already tight race.

 

The betting at present is that a deal will get done but investors have been burnt several times before in this stimulus sweepstakes. Regardless of the bickering, the clock is ticking, the COVID-19 deaths are mounting, and the cold weather has arrived. But I suspect the markets will continue to ignore the gathering storm clouds unless a real darkness descends, and investors get spooked.   

 

As most American investors continue to focus on the U.S. stock market, a number of other equity markets are notching up some great gains. Emerging markets, which are typically resource-heavy nations, are enjoying both the benefit of a declining dollar, as well as price increases in natural resources.

 

My attention is also focused on equities in Southeast Asian nations such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Indonesia and Thailand may be next year's story. These economies are recovering quickly, thanks to a concerted effort to combat the spread of the coronavirus. Even China, despite the continued bashing from the U.S., is pulling ahead of us on most fronts and enjoying the benefits. I expect that next year we will see those markets continue to do well, and in some cases, outperform the U.S. stock market.

 

On the home front, investor sentiment continues to be frothy. The technical charts and other variables I look at indicate a building of overbought conditions as well. In the short-term, the certainty of a stimulus deal could be worth another 100 points or so on the S&P 500 Index before we get another pullback. What could cause a decline? The coronavirus numbers might finally freak out even the most bullish of traders or it could be some other excuse. If so, it won't be a devastating sell-off (more like 3-5 percent), but it could arrive just in time for the winter holidays.   

.

In the meantime, I expect the cyclical and natural resource trades to continue, while technology takes a back seat. I would also look to add some precious metals to my portfolio during these next few weeks, if gold, silver, palladium, and platinum continue to fall. And for those speculators with a stomach for risk, Bitcoin also looks interesting to me on a pullback.

 

After a three-year hiatus, cryptocurrencies have returned and are attracting the attention of investors. Will this time be any different?

 

Readers may recall the Bitcoin craze that sent the largest digital currency to an all-time high of $20,000 in 2017 and spawned numerous copy-cat cryptos like Ethereum and Litecoin.

 

You may also remember that all of them came crashing back to earth and ignominy where they have languished, unloved, until this year.

 

This week, Bitcoin hit a new three-year record of $19, 857. If that is news to you, there is a reason for that. After the last buying frenzy and subsequent crash, the financial media has taken a more cautious approach in touting cryptocurrencies. Until recently, Bitcoin has barely been mentioned in the press.

 

Another big difference is the number of new Bitcoin. More and more companies, many of them traditional financial institutions, are taking an interest in using and trading Bitcoin, and other digital currencies such as Ethereum and Litecoin. JPMorgan Chase & Co., as well as several other Wall Street firms, have expressed more than a passing interest in owning and trading these currencies.

 

In addition, more and more firms are accepting Bitcoin as payment. As of mid-year 2020, more than 160 companies allow their customers to pay with Bitcoin, including such heavy hitters as PayPal, Microsoft, AT&T, and Shopify. And it is no longer just the retail investor and "hot money" guys who are buying and selling crypto. A growing number of institutional investors are dipping their toes into the arena in search of better returns. Simply parking their spare cash in a money market fund (where it earns next to nothing) is not an option for many.

 

In one recent famous incident, a public company in business intelligence, MicroStrategy Inc., announced in July a new strategy in which it would invest its substantial excess cash into various assets instead of low-yielding money market funds. They chose Bitcoin as one of those alternative assets.

 

At last count, the company held 38,250 Bitcoin with an aggregate cost basis of $425 million. It is worth more than $730 million today. As a result, many traders have used the company's stock as a proxy to play Bitcoin. The share price has often tracked the price of Bitcoin rather than the fortunes of the company's main business. Other investors are identifying listed companies with any exposure to cryptocurrencies. In some cases, traders are bidding up their stock prices by more than 100 percent.

 

The same thing happened on the last go-around with cryptos. So why is this time any different? Aside from the big bets that respected investors like Paul Tudor Jones and Stan Druckenmiller and other institutional players are making, the overall environment has changed.

 

Most risky assets are already at record highs. Low interest rates provide little to no return and, according to the Fed, will remain that way for the foreseeable future. Then there is the U.S. dollar, which is dropping like a rock, making lower lows almost very day. 

 

Does that mean cryptocurrencies are somehow a better bet than they were three years ago? No. I expect the volatility that easily cut Bitcoin in half in a matter of weeks could happen again tomorrow. The digital currency markets, while maturing, are nowhere near stable, and won't be for a long, long time. It is not a market for the faint of heart. Over Thanksgiving and into Black Friday, for example, Bitcoin dropped more than 10 percent in 36 hours. It bounced back by Monday, but you catch my drift.

 

As for me, I have added cryptocurrencies to investments I will now follow daily, because I do believe that this asset class will become more meaningful over time. If you are itching to purchase, my advice is to wait for a pullback, which should come somewhere between $20,000-$25,000 Bitcoin. I would except a 20-30 percent decline, so wait for it!