在過去的18個月中，佈倫特原油的價格從每桶115美元跌至35美元。油價驟減產生的影響是巨大的：高收益債券和國債的差額漸漸增大，美國通脹預期大幅縮水，週期性股票表現弱於防禦性股票。
在下跌初期，市場一致認為油價下跌會刺激經濟增長。消費者會省下錢，公司的成本會降低，最終受損的只有能源公司。但時間快進至2016年，市場共識已經完全颠覆了。現在這個時候，大多數投資者都認為油價下跌不是好事，油價失去支撐說明全球石油需求正在減少。瑞士信貸的全球證券策略師不同意這一觀點。
瑞士信貸分析家表示，油價下跌的原因是供應過剩，而不是需求下降。國際能源署稱，2015年的石油需求創下了五年新高。而且石油價格和制造業指數毫無關系。如果是全球需求量導致了油價下跌，那麼該指數也會隨之移動。
油價下跌的原因就一目了然了。在過去的18個月中，能源公司大幅削減運營成本和資金支出促使全球經濟增長1.4%，美國經濟增長1%。但瑞士信貸證券策略師認為最糟糕的時候已經過去了。還有美國消費者的問題，他們沒有大肆揮霍省下的油錢。去年一年，美國家庭一共省下了1000億美元，但是賬單顯示，他們省下的汽油錢只有550億美元，這說明除了油錢，他們還有別的省錢渠道。瑞士信貸認為美國消費者的做法會和20世紀80年代一樣，在他們適應了油價短暫下跌之前，會繼續推遲消費。瑞士信貸策略師認為，個人儲蓄率會從5.5%跌至4%，促使消費上漲1.6%。低油價給全球經濟帶來的增長將在0.8%至1.4%之間。
怎樣改變週遭的悲觀情緒？石油的價格水平只是一個開始，瑞士信貸認為油價將穩定在每桶40美元附近，這在短時間内就能達到。在過去的18個月中，沙特阿拉伯已經放棄了生產調解者的角色。2月16日，沙特、卡塔爾、爾羅斯以及委内瑞拉都削減了石油產量，將產量維持在一月的水平。面對著非OPEC國家的石油產量增加，沙特一直試圖維持市場份額，並阻止美國能源獨立。新協議使得沙特進一步增加石油產量難上加難。
為什麼要達成協議？瑞士信貸證券策略師認為，全球油價在35美元至50美元之間時，沙特的利潤最高。這個價位既能給高成本的美國制造商帶來壓力，又足以緩解沙特的政府財政壓力。沙特雖然債務極少（GDP的7%），外匯儲備也很充足（GDP的84%），經濟增長較為強勢（2015年為3.4%），但今年的預算赤字卻高達13.5%。
穩定油價是一回事，但是大幅反彈使投資者對風險資產再度看漲又是另外一回事。瑞士信貸分析師認為，在未來的兩三年内，油價很難恢複到50美元以上。這是有歷史證據的，1960年的平均油價就是45美元。
那麼在能源方面能找到投資者的轉機嗎？美國低成本頁岩油制造商和歐洲銀行已經為穩定油價做好了準備。哪怕油價只上漲一點點，也會降低能源企業貸款的風險，增加債券收益，降低信用利差。這些對銀行來說都是好事。
但現在還不是買入綜合油氣公司股票的時機。雖然石油公司可能會出售資產或借債來發放分紅，但是市場對增加債務、出售資產的公司是不友善的。而那些降低分紅的公司，如：美國康諾和埃尼集團的表現皆差於同業公司。綜合石油公司的生產成本較高，所受的壓力與油價下跌的幅度不成比例。最後，運營和資金花銷中容易削減的部分已經削減完畢，若想進一步降低成本，就要割舍部分長遠利益了。能源大公司的複蘇之路仍在一團迷霧之中。
Oil Prices: Where Will They Go From Here?
Over the last 18 months, the price of a barrel of Brent crude has dropped from $115 to $35. And the effects of that steep decline have rippled far and wide: spreads between high-yield bonds and Treasuries have opened up; U.S. inflation expectations have plummeted, and cyclical stocks have handily underperformed defensive ones.
Early on in the decline, the consensus opinion was that lower oil prices would serve as a catalyst for global economic growth. Consumers would save at the pump, companies would enjoy lower energy costs, and the only folks left holding the bag would be the energy companies (and energy-exporting countries) themselves. Fast-forward to 2016, however, and the consensus has been flipped on its head. At this point, most investors have come to see the continued weakness in the price of oil as a bad thing, and the lack of price support as an indication that global demand (for oil, and for anything else) is weak. Credit Suisse’s global equity strategists do not share that view.
Low oil prices, say the bank’s strategists, are the result of oversupply, not a lack of demand. Not only has the International Energy Agency stated that demand likely hit a five-year high in 2015, but oil prices have decoupled from the ISM Manufacturing Index, a key indicator of industrial activity. If oil prices were simply a reflection of global demand, the two would be moving together.
Still, it’s easy to understand where the consensus comes from. Dramatic cuts to energy companies’ operating and capital expenditures over the last 18 months have taken 1.4 percentage points off of global growth and 1 percent from U.S. growth. But Credit Suisse’s equity strategists believe the worst of these cuts are over. And then there’s the issue of U.S. consumers, who have been slow to spend their gasoline-savings windfall. Households saved a total of some $100 billion over the past year, despite seeing their bills for gasoline and motor fuels drop $55 billion, which means they not only banked their savings from low gas and oil prices, they saved even more on top of that. Credit Suisse believes that American consumers will do as they did in the 1980s, holding off on spending until they became comfortable that the oil price decline wasn’t temporary. The bank’s strategists think the personal savings ratio will drop from 5.5 percent to 4 percent this year, driving consumption up 1.6 percent. Ultimately, low oil prices should boost global growth by between 0.8 and 1.4 percentage points.
What’s it going to take to turn the pessimists around? A leveling in the price of oil would be a start, and Credit Suisse believes a stabilization around $40 per barrel is, in fact, in the offing. Saudi Arabia, which had abandoned its traditional role as swing producer over the last 18 months, cut a deal February 16 with Qatar, Russia, and Venezuela to freeze production at January levels. The Kingdom has been trying to maintain market share in the face of rising non-OPEC production and keep the U.S. from achieving energy independence, which could conceivably jeopardize the superpower’s military and political support. The new accord makes further production increases from the Kingdom unlikely. (U.S. shale oil production is relatively high cost, and if a prolonged period of low prices forces some American exploration and production companies out of business, the U.S. will naturally have to rely more on oil imported from Saudi Arabia.)
Why make a deal now? Credit Suisse’s equity strategists believe that global oil prices above $35 and below $50 are in Saudi Arabia’s best interests – low enough to put pressure on high-cost American producers, but high enough to alleviate the mounting fiscal pressure on the Saudi government. Though it has little debt (7 percent of GDP), healthy foreign exchange reserves (84 percent of GDP), and relatively strong economic growth (3.4 percent in 2015), the Kingdom’s budget deficit is expected to reach 13.5 percent this year, despite a 20 percent reduction in government spending.
Stabilization in oil prices is one thing, but a sharp rebound that would turn investors bullish again on risky assets is quite another. Credit Suisse’s equity strategists doubt oil prices will rise much above $50 over the next two to three years. That would be in keeping with historical norms, as the average price of oil since 1960 is just $45.
So is there an energy angle for investors looking to play the turn? Low-cost U.S. shale producers and European banks are well positioned in the case of any stabilization. Even a slight rise in oil prices reduces the risk associated with loans to energy companies and tends to push bond yields higher and reduce credit spreads, both of which are good for banks.
But it’s not yet time to buy integrated oil and gas companies, despite their rock-bottom valuations, in large part because the median free cash flow yield among oil majors is just 1.7 percent. While oil companies would likely sell assets or issue new debt to avoid cutting or suspending dividends, the market is no longer rewarding companies that add to teir debt loads, and assets are selling for bargain prices in the current environment. Meanwhile, companies that have actually cut dividends, such as Conoco Phillips and ENI, have underperformed their peers. Integrated oil companies also have relatively high production costs and would suffer disproportionately from any further price declines. Finally, the easy cuts to operating and capital expenditures have already been made, and any further reductions will likely start to cut into firms’ long-term growth potential. For the largest energy companies, the path to recovery isn’t yet clear.
本文翻譯由兄弟財經提供
文章來源：https://www.thefinancialist.com/oil-prices-where-will-they-go-from-here/#sthash.P7LMwOQw.dpuf