Tag Archives: Commodity Markets

Fact check: Biden’s midterms message includes false and misleading claims


Washington
CNN
 — 

President Joe Biden has been back on the campaign trail, traveling in October and early November to deliver his pitch for electing Democrats in the midterm elections on Tuesday.

Biden’s pitch has included claims that are false, misleading or lacking important context. (As always, we take no position on the accuracy of his subjective arguments.) Here is a fact-check look at nine of his recent statements.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment for this article.

Biden said at a Democratic fundraiser in Pennsylvania last week: “On our watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are going to get the biggest increase in their Social Security checks they’ve gotten.” He has also touted the 2023 increase in Social Security payments at other recent events.

But Biden’s boasts leave out such critical context that they are highly misleading. He hasn’t explained that the increase in Social Security payments for 2023, 8.7%, is unusually big simply because the inflation rate has been unusually big. A law passed in the 1970s says that Social Security payments must be increased by the same percentage that a certain measure of inflation has increased. It’s called a cost-of-living adjustment.

The White House deleted a Tuesday tweet that delivered an especially triumphant version of Biden’s boast, and press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre acknowledged Wednesday that the tweet was lacking “context.” You can read a more detailed fact check here.

Biden said at a Democratic rally in Florida on Tuesday: “And on my watch, for the first time in 10 years, seniors are getting an increase in their Social Security checks.”

The claim that the 2023 increase to Social Security payments is the first in 10 years is false. In reality, there has been a cost-of-living increase every year from 2017 onward. There was also an increase every year from 2012 through 2015 before the payment level was kept flat in 2016 because of a lack of inflation.

The context around this Biden remark in Florida suggests he might have botched his repeat campaign line about Social Security payments increasing at the same time as Medicare premiums are declining. Regardless of his intentions, though, he was wrong.

Biden repeatedly suggested in speeches in October and early November that a new law he signed in August, the Inflation Reduction Act, will stop the practice of successful corporations paying no federal corporate income tax. Biden made the claim explicitly in a tweet last week: “Let me give you the facts. In 2020, 55 corporations made $40 billion. And they paid zero in federal taxes. My Inflation Reduction Act puts an end to this.”

But “puts an end to this” is an exaggeration. The Inflation Reduction Act will reduce the number of companies on the list of non-payers, but the law will not eliminate the list entirely.

That’s because the law’s new 15% alternative corporate minimum tax, on the “book income” companies report to investors, only applies to companies with at least $1 billion in average annual income. (There are lots of nuances; you can read more specifics here.) According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the think tank that in 2021 published the list of 55 large and profitable companies that avoided paying any federal income tax in their previous fiscal year, only 14 of these 55 companies reported having US pre-tax income of at least $1 billion in that year.

In other words, there will clearly still be some large and profitable corporations paying no federal income tax even after the minimum tax takes effect in 2023. The exact number is not yet known.

Matthew Gardner, a senior fellow at the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, said in a Thursday email that the new tax is “an important step forward from the status quo” and that it will raise substantial revenue, but he also said: “I wouldn’t want to assert that the minimum tax will end the phenomenon of zero-tax profitable corporations. A more accurate phrasing would be to say that the minimum tax will *help* ensure that *the most profitable* corporations pay at least some federal income tax.”

Biden said at the Tuesday rally in Florida: “Look, you know, you can hear it from Republicans, ‘My God, that big-spending Democrat Biden. Man, he’s taken us in debt.’ Well, guess what? I reduced the federal deficit this year by $1 trillion $400 billion. One trillion 400 billion dollars. The most in all American history. No one has ever reduced the debt that much. We cut the federal debt in half.”

Biden offered a similar narrative at a Thursday rally in New Mexico, this time saying, “We cut the federal debt in half. A fact.”

There are two significant problems here.

First: Biden conflated the debt and the deficit, which are two different things. It’s not true that Biden has “cut the federal debt in half”; the federal debt (total borrowing plus interest owed) has continued to rise under Biden, exceeding $31 trillion for the first time this October. Rather, it’s the federal deficit – the annual difference between spending and revenue – that was cut in half between fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2022.

Second, it’s highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for even the reduction in the deficit. Biden doesn’t mention that the primary reason the deficit plummeted in fiscal years 2021 and 2022 was that it had skyrocketed to a record high in 2020 because of emergency pandemic relief spending. It then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned.

Dan White, senior director of economic research at Moody’s Analytics – an economics firm whose assessments Biden has repeatedly cited during his presidency – told CNN’s Matt Egan in October: “On net, the policies of the administration have increased the deficit, not reduced it.” The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an advocacy group, says the administration’s own actions have significantly worsened the deficit picture. (David Kelly, chief global strategist at JPMorgan Funds, told Egan that the Biden administration does deserve credit for the economic recovery that has boosted tax revenues.)

Biden said at the Florida rally on Tuesday: “Unemployment is down from 6.5 to 3.5%, the lowest in 50 years.” He said at the New Mexico rally on Thursday: “Unemployment rate is 3.5% – the lowest it’s been in 50 years.”

But Biden didn’t acknowledge that September’s 3.5% unemployment rate was actually a tie for the lowest in 50 years – a tie, specifically, with three months of Trump’s administration, in late 2019 and early 2020. Since Biden uses these campaign speeches to favorably compare his own record to Trump’s record, that omission is significant.

The unemployment rate rose to 3.7% in October; that number was revealed on Friday, after these Biden comments. The rate was 6.4% in January 2021, the month Biden took office.

During an on-camera discussion conducted by progressive organization NowThis News and published online in late October, Biden told young activists that they “probably are aware, I just signed a law” on student debt forgiveness that is being challenged by Republicans. He added: “It’s passed. I got it passed by a vote or two, and it’s in effect.”

Biden’s claims are false.

He created his student debt forgiveness initiative through executive action, not through legislation, so he didn’t sign a law and didn’t get it passed by any margin. Since Republicans opposed to the initiative, including those challenging the initiative in court, have called it unlawful precisely because it wasn’t passed by Congress, the distinction between a law and an executive action is a highly pertinent fact here.

A White House official told CNN that Biden was referring to the Inflation Reduction Act, the law narrowly passed by the Senate in August; the official said the Inflation Reduction Act created “room for other crucial programs” by bringing down the deficit. But Biden certainly did not make it clear that he was talking about anything other than the student debt initiative.

Biden correctly noted on various occasions in October that gas prices have declined substantially since their June 2022 peak – though, as always, it’s important to note that presidents have a limited impact on gas prices. But in an economic speech in New York last week, Biden said, “Today, the most common price of gas in America is $3.39 – down from over $5 when I took office.”

Biden’s claim that the most common gas price when he took office was more than $5 is not even close to accurate. The most common price for a gallon of regular gas on the day he was inaugurated, January 20, 2021, was $2.39, according to data provided to CNN by Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis at GasBuddy. In other words, Biden made it sound like gas prices had fallen significantly during his presidency when they had actually increased significantly.

In other recent remarks, Biden has discussed the state of gas prices in relation to the summer peak of more than $5 per gallon, not in relation to when he took office. Regardless, the comment last week was the second this fall in which Biden inaccurately described the price of gas – both times in a way that made it sound more impressive.

You can read a longer fact check here.

Biden has revived a claim that was debunked more than 20 months ago by The Washington Post and then CNN. At least twice in October, he boasted that he traveled 17,000 miles with Chinese leader Xi Jinping.

“I’ve spent more time with Xi Jinping of China than any world leader has, when I was Vice President all the way through to now. Over 78 hours with him alone. Eight – nine of those hours on the phone and the others in person, traveling 17,000 miles with him around the world, in China and the United States,” he told a Democratic gathering in Oregon in mid-October.

Biden made the number even bigger during a speech on student debt in New Mexico on Thursday, saying, “I traveled 17-, 18,000 miles with him.”

The claim is false. Biden has not traveled anywhere close to 17,000 miles with Xi, though they have indeed spent lots of time together. Washington Post fact-checker Glenn Kessler noted in 2021 that the two men often did not even travel parallel routes to their gatherings, let alone physically travel together. The only apparent way to get Biden’s mileage past 17,000, Kessler found, is to add the length of his flight journeys between Washington and Beijing, during which, obviously, Xi was not with him.

A White House official told CNN in early 2021 that Biden was adding up his “total travel back and forth” for meetings with Xi. But that is very different than traveling “with” Xi as Biden keeps saying, especially in the context of a boast about how well he knows Xi – and Biden has had more than enough time to make his language more precise.

Biden claimed at the Thursday rally in New Mexico that under Trump, Republicans passed a $2 trillion tax cut that “affected only the top 1% of the American public.”

Biden correctly said in various October remarks that the Trump tax cut law was particularly beneficial to the wealthy, but he went too far here. It’s not true that the Trump policy “only” affected the top 1%.

The Tax Policy Center think tank found in early 2018 that Trump’s law “will reduce individual income taxes on average for all income groups and in all states.” The think tank estimated that “between 60 and 76 percent of taxpayers in every state will receive a tax cut.” And in April 2019, tax-preparation company H&R Block said two-thirds of its returning customers had indeed paid less in tax that year than they did the year prior, The New York Times reported in an article headlined “Face It: You (Probably) Got a Tax Cut.”

The Tax Policy Center did find in early 2018 that people at the top would get by far the biggest benefits from Trump’s law. Specifically, the think tank found that the top 1% of earners would get an average 3.4% increase in after-tax 2018 income – versus an average 1.6% income increase for people in the middle quintile, an average 1.2% income increase for people in the quintile below that and just an average 0.4% income increase for people in the lowest quintile. The think tank also found that the top 1% of earners would get more than 20% of the income benefits from the law, a bigger share than the bottom 60% of earners combined.

The distribution could get even more skewed after 2025, when the law’s individual tax cuts will expire if not extended by Congress and the president. If there is no extension – and, therefore, the law’s permanent corporate tax cut remains in place without the individual tax cuts – the Tax Policy Center has estimated that, in 2027, the top 1% will get 83% of the benefits from the law.

But that’s a possibility about the future. Biden claimed, in the past tense, that the law “affected” only the top 1%. That’s inaccurate.

This wasn’t the first time Biden overstated his point about the Trump tax cuts. The Washington Post fact-checked him in 2019, for example, when he claimed “all of it” went to the ultra-rich and corporations.



Read original article here

Russia Says It Will Rejoin Ukraine Grain-Export Deal

Russia said it would rejoin a deal allowing for the safe passage of Ukrainian grain, ending days of uncertainty over future shipments and feeding some criticism at home that Moscow had capitulated in the standoff.

Over the weekend, Russia suspended its involvement in an agreement with the United Nations and Turkey that was struck in July and allowed for the safe passage of grain exports from war-torn Ukrainian ports through the Black Sea to world markets. Russian authorities had said a maritime corridor used to facilitate the grain shipments had been used in an attack on Russia-occupied Crimea. Moscow threatened to board ships that left without its permission.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said early Wednesday it had received written guarantees from Kyiv that Ukraine wouldn’t use the corridor to attack Russian forces and that those were sufficient to rejoin the deal. President

Vladimir Putin

later Wednesday said that Russia reserved the right to pull out of the deal, but that it wouldn’t interfere in any future grain shipments from Ukraine directly to Turkey.

The justification provided by the Defense Ministry triggered derision in Moscow, where commentators have openly criticized Russia’s execution of the war in Ukraine. Senior military officials have at times drawn fire from pro-Kremlin military bloggers for losing ground to Ukraine’s army in recent months and for other moves these critics have called tactical or strategic mistakes. Russian officials have also had to defend themselves against criticism they have bungled a recent mobilization of reinforcements across the country.

“We trust Kyiv that the grain deal will not be used for military purposes. Brilliant,” wrote political commentator

Pavel Danilin,

director of the Center for Political Analysis, a pro-Kremlin Moscow-based think tank, questioning the logic of trusting Ukraine.

After Russia said over the weekend that it was suspending its participation in the deal, ships continued to pull in and out of Ukraine, navigating through a maritime corridor established to safeguard the trade. Moscow then threatened it would intercept ships that disembarked without permission, but Russia’s navy didn’t stop any vessels.

The relatively smooth operation, despite Russia’s suspension, was taken by some critics as a sign Moscow was powerless to upset the trade, even if it wanted to.

“The Kremlin itself simply fell into a trap from which it did not know how to get out,”

Tatiana Stanovaya,

founder of R.Politik, an independent political-analysis firm founded in Moscow, wrote on Telegram.

An oil refinery in Sicily, owned by Russia’s second largest oil and gas giant Lukoil, acts as a pass-through for Russian crude, which ultimately makes its way to the U.S. as gasoline and other refined oil products. Photo Illustration: Laura Kammermann

Among shipping and insurance executives, though, Russia’s suspension was threatening to dry up underwriting for voyages. Insurers were pulling policies and refusing to write new ones without Russia’s participation in the deal.

“You can’t get insurance with Russia out of the agreement,” said

Nikolas Tsakos,

president and chief executive of U.S.-listed, Greece-based Tsakos Energy Navigation Ltd. Shipowners said insurers have resumed offering cover.

The grain standoff came as Russia faces setbacks on the battlefield and far from it. Ukrainian forces have taken back swaths of terrain that Russian forces had occupied in the early days of the invasion. Meanwhile, Russia’s economic leverage over Europe, in the form of its once-prodigious sales of natural gas, has recently waned—at least temporarily. European buyers have pivoted from Russian supplies, while Moscow cut back sharply on its sales to Europe.

Still, the continent has managed in recent months to sock away enough gas in storage that analysts believe will help it avoid the sort of shortages and rationings many Western officials just a few months ago had been bracing to endure. That new comfort could be short-lived, analysts say, if there is a colder-than-expected winter or infrastructure problems that further disrupt supplies.

Russia’s grain-deal suspension threatened to increase economic pressure on Ukraine, which relied on agriculture for about 10% of its gross domestic product before the war, Western and Ukrainian officials said. The Russian shutdown also imperiled food supplies for millions of people in poorer countries that import Ukrainian wheat.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had bottled up those grain exports, sending global prices soaring. The U.N.-brokered deal moderated those prices, but also appeared to give Moscow outsize leverage on markets. As Mr. Putin threatened in recent weeks to leave the deal, Western officials accused him of using food as a weapon.

A U.N. official prepares to inspect in Istanbul a ship from Ukraine loaded with grain.



Photo:

yasin akgul/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Ismini Palla,

a spokeswoman for the U.N. at a coordination center in Istanbul that is charged with overseeing the deal, said Wednesday’s pause in shipping, which had been anticipated before Russia’s decision to rejoin the deal, was intended “to provide time for planning and discussions for the next movement of vessels.”

Ukraine shipped nearly 10 million tons of corn, wheat, sunflower oil and other products through the deal’s maritime corridor between August and October, helping to return the country’s exports to prewar levels. More than 100 large bulk ships are involved in the trade.

Russia stopped cooperating with the agreement after it accused Ukraine of using the corridor to attack Russian forces over the weekend. The U.N. said no military vessels are allowed to approach the corridor, which is closely monitored using satellite data.

In threatening to abandon the deal in recent months, Russia had complained that not enough of Ukraine’s grain was going to poor countries and said Western sanctions had slowed Russian food and fertilizer exports. U.S. and European Union officials say the sanctions don’t apply to food products. The U.N. said the measures have created obstacles to financing, insuring, shipping and paying for Russian products.

Russian shipping executives said vessel arrivals at Russian export ports had fallen by 20% over the past two months, with the majority of ships shifting to move Ukrainian cargoes.

U.N. Secretary-General

António Guterres

praised Russia’s renewed participation in the deal. Mr. Guterres “continues his engagement with all actors towards the renewal and full implementation of the Initiative, and he also remains committed to removing the remaining obstacles to the exports of Russian food and fertilizer,” his spokesman,

Stéphane Dujarric,

said.

Russia’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday that thanks to the U.N. and Turkey, “it was possible to obtain the necessary written guarantees from Ukraine” that it wouldn’t use the maritime corridor and Ukrainian ports for combat operations against Russia. Russia “considers that the guarantees received at the moment appear to be sufficient and resumes the implementation of the agreement,” it said.

Write to Jared Malsin at jared.malsin@wsj.com, Ann M. Simmons at ann.simmons@wsj.com and Costas Paris at costas.paris@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

Russia Moves to Pull Out of Ukraine Grain Deal After Blasts Hit Crimean Port

Russia said Saturday that it would suspend participation in the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports, in response to an attack on the occupied Black Sea port of Sevastopol that it blamed on the government of Ukraine.

The Defense Ministry said in a statement published on Telegram that ships of the Black Sea Fleet and civilian ships involved in ensuring the security of the so-called grain corridor had come under attack. As a result, “the Russian side suspends participation in the implementation of agreements on the export of agricultural products from Ukrainian ports,” the statement said.

The move threatens to derail the United Nations brokered deal that unblocks Ukraine’s vital grain exports through the Black Sea, which is critical to addressing a global hunger crisis and comes a day after U.N. chief

António Guterres

urged Russia and Ukraine to renew the agreement, which is officially set to expire on Nov. 19.

Officials from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the U.N. signed the grain agreement in July, freeing millions of tons of food products that had been bottled up in the country since the Russian invasion began in February.

The agreement is one of the few diplomatic breakthroughs of the war and helped to bring the global price of wheat down to prewar levels, helping to ease a global hunger crisis that resulted in part from the conflict. Ukraine provided about 10% of the world’s wheat before Russia invaded.

If shipments of Ukrainian grain are halted, the suspension will likely drive up the global price of wheat, corn and other vital food products.

But Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that Ukraine’s armed forces used “the cover of a humanitarian corridor” to launch massive air and sea strikes and as a result Moscow “cannot guarantee the safety of civilian dry cargo ships participating in the Black Sea Initiative and suspends its implementation from today for an indefinite period.” It said appropriate instructions have been given to Russian representatives at the Joint Coordination Center in Istanbul, which controls the transportation of Ukrainian food.

A Turkish official said Turkey hasn’t been officially notified of Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the deal. Turkish President Recep

Tayyip Erdogan

helped broker the deal.

Oleksandr Kubrakov,

Ukraine’s minister of infrastructure, said his country will continue supplying grains around the world. “The world should not be held hostage to Russia’s whims, hunger cannot be a weapon,” he said in a Tweet.

Russia’s decision to suspend it is also a major blow to Ukraine’s globally important agriculture industry, which returned to a nearly prewar level of grain exports earlier this month, largely due to the deal. Since the agreement was signed, Ukraine exported 9.2 million tons of food products through a safe corridor in the Black Sea, according to the United Nations.

Russian President

Vladimir Putin

has threatened to abandon the deal in recent months, arguing that not enough of Ukraine’s wheat was going to poorer nations and that not enough Russian food and fertilizers were being exported due to sanctions. Around one-quarter of the food shipped through the deal went to low-income countries, according to the U.N. Ukraine also has shipped wheat to crisis-stricken nations including Somalia, Afghanistan and Yemen under the agreement.

Stéphane Dujarric,

a spokesman for the U.N. secretary-general, on Saturday said, “We’ve seen the reports from the Russian Federation regarding the suspension of their participation in the Black Sea Grain Initiative following an attack on the Russian Black Sea Fleet. We are in touch with the Russian authorities on this matter.”

“It is vital that all parties refrain from any action that would imperil the Black Sea Grain Initiative which is a critical humanitarian effort that is clearly having a positive impact on access to food for millions of people around the world,” said Mr. Dujarric.

In Luch, a village near the Kherson front line, a resident plays with her dog in the basement where she has been living during the war.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

Volunteers distribute humanitarian aid in the village.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

When asked about how Russia’s decision would affect the operation of the grain corridor, a representative of the Joint Coordination Center referred to Mr. Dujarric’s statement.

Ukraine’s foreign minister said in a tweet, “We have warned of Russia’s plans to ruin the Black Sea Grain Initiative. Now Moscow uses a false pretext to block the grain corridor which ensures food security for millions of people. I call on all states to demand Russia to stop its hunger games and recommit to its obligations.”

A worker at a Ukrainian power plant repairs equipment damaged in a missile strike.



Photo:

sergei supinsky/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

The remains of a house in the southern village of Luch, which has suffered frequent shelling.



Photo:

Virginie NGUYEN HOANG for the Wa

Ukraine President

Volodymyr Zelensky

accused Russia earlier this month of deliberately slowing the passage of vessels through the corridor, creating a backlog of more than 170 vessels waiting to transit. The corridor’s capacity is limited by the number of inspectors from Russia, Turkey, Ukraine and the U.N. who must check each ship as it enters and exits the Black Sea.

Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Lt. Gen. Igor Konashenkov said nine aerial drones and seven maritime drones were involved in Saturday’s attack. He said the air attacks were repelled, but a sea minesweeper, the Ivan Golubets, sustained minor damage, as did some defensive infrastructure in Yuzhnaya Bay, one of the harbor bays in Sevastopol.

“You could hear explosions coming in from the sea,” said Yevgeni Babalin, a dockworker at the Port of Sevastopol. “There are fears that the Admiral Makarov was hit by an underwater drone.They shot at it from the ship and from a helicopter.”

The Admiral Makarov, a frigate, replaced the Moskva as the Black Sea Fleet’s flagship after the latter was attacked earlier this year.

A broker in Odessa who arranges cargoes from Sevastopol to the Middle East said the situation at the port was tense with residents asked to stay inside by Russian authorities.

Mikhail Razvozhayev, the Russian-installed governor of Sevastopol, wrote on his Telegram messaging channel that the attack had caused minimal damage to civilian infrastructure but city services were put on alert. He appealed to residents of the city not to publicize videos or information of the attack that could aid Ukrainian forces “to understand how the defense of our city is built.”

Ukrainian officials haven’t claimed responsibility for previous blasts in Crimea, including a drone strike on the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet in August, but rejoiced and vowed to reclaim the peninsula annexed by Russia in 2014.

Crimea has served as a rear base for Moscow’s military occupation of a swath of territory in southern Ukraine, where Kyiv’s forces are now seeking to dislodge Russian forces from part of the Kherson region.

Gen. Sergei Surovikin, the recently appointed commander of Russian troops in Ukraine, has acknowledged that the position in Kherson is challenging and that “difficult decisions” might be called for, without elaborating.

Russian-installed officials in Kherson began telling residents to leave the city earlier this month in what they said was preparation for a Ukrainian assault.

Kirill Stremousov,

deputy head of the Kherson region’s Russian-installed administration on Friday said the evacuation of civilians was complete.

Meanwhile, the Russian Defense Ministry spokesman accused the British Navy on Saturday of being responsible for sabotaging Nord Stream pipelines in late September. Western governments have found that explosions rocked Nord Stream and a parallel pair of pipelines, Nord Stream 2. Investigations are continuing. Some German officials have said they are working under the assumption that Russia was behind the blasts.

The U.K. Defense Ministry said in a tweet on Saturday: “To detract from their disastrous handling of the illegal invasion of Ukraine, the Russian Ministry of Defence is resorting to peddling false claims of an epic scale. This invented story, says more about arguments going on inside the Russian Government than it does about the west.”

Write to Ann M. Simmons at ann.simmons@wsj.com, Jared Malsin at jared.malsin@wsj.com and Isabel Coles at isabel.coles@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8



Read original article here

America and Saudi Arabia are locked in a bitter battle over oil. The stakes are massive


New York
CNN Business
 — 

The relationship between the United States and Saudi Arabia is one of the most important on the planet. And lately, it’s also been one of the most awkward.

Angry officials in Washington vowed “consequences” after Saudi-led OPEC sharply cut oil production earlier this month, driving up pump prices just weeks before the midterm elections.

US lawmakers are threatening steps that were unthinkable not long ago, including banning weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and unleashing the Justice Department to file a lawsuit against the country and other OPEC members for collusion.

Riyadh has been caught off guard by the thirst for revenge from US politicians. And Saudi officials are hinting at payback – including dumping US debt – that could have huge ripple effects in financial markets and the real economy.

Neither side is even trying to hide the tension. After a top Saudi official suggested the kingdom has decided to be the more mature party, a top White House official responded by saying, “It’s not like some high school romance here.”

What happens next is critical.

If this decades-old relationship devolves into a full-blown break-up, there could be enormous consequences for the world economy, not to mention international security.

“This is a new low. We have seen a degradation in the US-Saudi relationship for years but this is the worst it’s been,” said Clayton Allen, director at the Eurasia Group.

The spat is linked to one of the biggest sore spots among voters during the Biden era: Inflation and high gas prices.

After trying and failing to persuade OPEC to ramp up oil production, President Joe Biden reversed his 2020 campaign promise to make Saudi Arabia a “pariah” over its human rights record. Biden visited Saudi Arabia over the summer and even fist-bumped Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

US officials thought they reached a secret deal with Saudi Arabia to finally boost supply of oil through the end of the year, The New York Times reported this week.

They were wrong.

OPEC and its allies, known as OPEC+, responded by increasing oil production by a measly 100,000 barrels per day – the smallest increase in its history. The move was widely viewed as a “slap in the face” of the Biden administration.

What came next was worse.

In early October, OPEC+ announced plans to slash oil production by 2 million barrels per day – a move that briefly drove up oil and gasoline prices at a time of high inflation and infuriated US politicians.

“Neither side seems to understand each other,” Allen said. “Riyadh underestimated the severity of the US backlash. And the US assumed we had an unspoken agreement.”

Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency, described the move as “unprecedented” and “unfortunate” in an interview with CNN International on Thursday.

“When the global economy was on the brink of a global recession, they decided to push the prices up,” Birol said.

The tensions haven’t eased, and officials from both sides have sharpened their criticism of each other in recent days. In one telling episode, a top Saudi minister went from defending Biden’s energy strategy to slamming it.

During the OPEC+ press conference in early October, Saudi Energy Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman seemed to praise Biden’s decision to release unprecedented amount of emergency oil reserves from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

“I wouldn’t call it a distortion. Actually, it was done in the right time,” Prince Abdulaziz told reporters. “If it didn’t happen, I’m sure that things might be different than what it is today.”

Flash forward three weeks, and that same Saudi minister sang a very different tune.

“People are depleting their emergency stocks, had depleted it, used it as a mechanism to manipulate markets while its profound purpose was to mitigate a shortage of supply,” Prince Abdulaziz said during a conference in Saudi Arabia this week. “However, it is my profound duty to make it clear to the world that losing emergency stock may become painful in the months to come.”

The criticism is noteworthy, especially given that OPEC openly manipulates markets in many ways by withholding supply to support prices.

The risk is that the tension devolves into a tit-for-tat cycle of retaliation that undermines global economic stability, or whatever economic stability there is at the moment.

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have stepped up their calls to enact NOPEC (No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels) legislation that would empower the Justice Department to go after OPEC nations on antitrust grounds. Although NOPEC isn’t new, it seems more possible now than at any point in recent memory. Eurasia Group pegs a 30% chance of NOPEC enactment and a 45% chance of a watered-down version of the bill.

“You can’t overstate how upset a huge number of lawmakers are,” said Allen.

Lawmakers aren’t only upset, they realize OPEC is not exactly endearing itself to voters.

“This is popular. American sentiment is anti-Saudi. This now has domestic political utility for American politicians. That’s where we are now,” said Karen Young, senior research scholar at Columbia University’s Center on Global Energy Policy. “NOPEC would be harder to veto than in the past.”

Saudi Arabia could respond to penalties from Washington with drastic steps of their own, ratcheting up the conflict further.

Saudi officials have privately warned that the kingdom could sell US Treasury bonds if Congress passes NOPEC, The Wall Street Journal reported this week, citing people familiar with the matter.

At a minimum, dumping US debt would create uncertainty in markets at an already-perilous moment. A fire sale would drive up Treasury rates, destabilizing markets and raising borrowing costs for families and businesses.

And of course, Saudi Arabia’s own holdings would be damaged in such a fire sale.

Saudi Arabia is sitting on roughly $119 billion of US debt, according to Treasury Department data, making it the world’s 16th largest holder of Treasuries.

Another risk is that Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC+, could remove further supply from world oil markets – or at least refuse to respond to future price spikes as the West continues to crack down on Russia.

Further curbs on OPEC supply would lift gasoline prices and worsen inflation, raising already-high recession risks.

All of this explains why a full-blown breakdown in relations between the United States and Saudi Arabia may be the last thing the fragile economy needs right now.

Read original article here

America’s emergency oil stockpile is at a 38-year low but it’s still got firepower left


New York
CNN Business
 — 

Presidents don’t have magic wands to make inflation disappear. But they do have a powerful tool that can help ease the pain of high gas prices: The Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

More than any of his predecessors, President Joe Biden has aggressively leaned on this emergency oil stockpile to knock down the high pump prices that voters despise.

The SPR is a series of underground storage caverns holding vast amounts of crude oil that can be released during wars, hurricanes or other break-the-glass moments. And Biden has not been shy about doing just that, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine in February.

The amount of oil in the SPR is down by roughly a third — 36% to be exact — since Biden took office in January 2021. That has left this emergency oil stockpile at its lowest point since June 1984 — a time when both the US economy and energy demand was significantly smaller than today.

And Biden is not done yet. The president plans to announce the sale of another 15 million barrels from the SPR on Wednesday, a senior administration official said Tuesday evening.

Biden has made clear to his advisers that he is prepared to authorize future releases to balance the oil market, if necessary.

Importantly, this latest sale to be announced Wednesday is not entirely new. It’s part of the previously announced plan to release 180 million barrels of oil over six months. That record-setting emergency release, detailed in late March, was running a bit behind schedule. It now appears the administration will reach its 180 million target, it will just take longer than expected.

The SPR headlines are rattling an energy market already on edge over a potential recession. US oil prices dropped 3% to $82.82 on Tuesday, returning to levels last seen before rumors swirled regarding OPEC+’s controversial production cuts. Analysts pinned the blame for the selloff on the SPR news.

This oil price selloff alone should help keep a lid on gasoline prices, which analysts say were already heading lower without Biden taking further action.

Although it’s hard to pin down precisely how much of an impact the SPR release has had on prices, oil industry veterans tell CNN that Biden’s strategy has been effective, helping to cushion the blow for not only the war in Ukraine but lackluster supply from both OPEC+ and US oil producers.

“Kudos to them. They’ve done a tremendous job achieving their goal of trying to get energy prices lower,” said Michael Tran, managing director of global energy strategy at RBC Capital Markets.

Gas prices aren’t cheap — a gallon of regular fetched an average of $3.87 nationally on Tuesday — but they are well below the record high of $5.02 set in June.

“It has been effective, so far,” said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis at the Oil Price Information Service, who noted that oil prices have not taken out the all-time highs set in 2008. “You have to credit the SPR for that. The administration is laser-focused on gasoline.”

Kloza said he thinks there is a better than 50/50 chance that gas prices drop back down to their recent low of $3.67 a gallon. But rather than crediting US policy, Kloza cited market forces, recession fears and the reopening of refineries sidelined by maintenance.

“I don’t think they need to do anything until 2023. The market is doing most of the work for the White House,” Kloza said. “I think gasoline is destined to go lower.”

It’s not lost on oil market observers that this latest announcement of SPR sales is occurring just weeks before voters head to the polls before the critical midterm elections.

“Given that we are only weeks away from midterm election and the OPEC cut, the Biden administration is trying to ensure that energy prices are not top of mind,” said Andy Lipow, president of consulting firm Lipow Oil Associates.

But Lipow noted frustration in the oil industry that despite complaints about high energy prices, the SPR releases have “done nothing to encourage additional oil production.”

Not only that, but the aggressive emergency releases from Biden have diminished the SPR, potentially limiting the government’s ability to respond to future shocks.

The reserve is not a bottomless pit of oil. It’s more of a rainy-day fund and each release leaves less oil for the next crisis, whatever and whenever that might be.

That’s why the administration plans to detail efforts to refill the emergency reserve, laying out an important marker for market participants given the scale of the federal action over the course of the last six months.

Biden will announce that the administration intends to repurchase crude oil for the emergency reserve when prices are at or below between $67 and $72 per barrel.

The senior official said this will serve as “an important signal for producers” by helping to “moderate and stabilize” prices, not only when they are going high but when they are low.

The plan also serves the purpose of countering criticism about the unprecedented scale of Biden’s reserve releases, one that officials said underscores the administration’s intent to refill when market conditions make it most advantageous.

“We view the SPR is an incredibly important national security asset and we want to make sure that it serves its purpose well into the future,” the official said, noting that it is still the largest reserve in the world.

Despite recent emergency sales, the SPR still holds more than 400 million barrels of oil, considerable firepower that could be used in the coming months to respond to disruptions caused by the war in Ukraine.

“400 million barrels is a lot of barrels,” the official said.

Kloza, the OPIS analyst, said he’s not concerned by the shrinking SPR in part because more so than decades ago, the United States and Canada have the ability to sharply ramp up production, if needed (and if incentivized by higher prices).

“Sometimes reserves become archaic,” Kloza said. “I wouldn’t worry about it until it drops quite a bit lower.”

– CNN’s Alison Kosik contributed to this report

Read original article here

White House plans on announcing additional oil reserve sales in wake of OPEC+ cut



CNN
 — 

President Joe Biden on Wednesday will announce the sale of an additional 15 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve in December, a senior administration official said, as his administration seeks to counter market pressures created by the OPEC+ decision to cut oil production targets just three weeks from the midterm elections.

The announcement of the sale is the latest step in the White House’s unprecedented plan to balance global markets and dampen soaring gas prices. It marks an extension of the six-month program that was designed to provide a bridge for domestic producers to ramp up their own production as the global market faced spasms in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, even as the release is composed of barrels earmarked in his March announcement.

That action, which has rolled out in regular sales over the last several months, combined with global economic concerns to help drive gas prices down for nearly three months straight.

“The price of gas is still too high, and we need to keep working to bring it down,” Biden said at an event in Los Angeles last week, adding that he planned to announce additional actions in the coming days.

The planned action would fulfill the administration’s announcement in March to release a historic 180 million barrels from the SPR over a six-month period to counter soaring energy prices triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The action, which has rolled out in regular sales over the last several months, combined with global economic concerns to help drive gas prices down for nearly three months straight.

Biden has also made clear to his advisers that if the conditions merit, he is prepared to authorize future releases to balance the market. The President, the official said, directed his energy and economic teams to be prepared to authorize “significant additional sales in coming months” if the global market conditions require it.

The President on Wednesday will also detail the administration’s plan to refill the emergency reserve, which is now at its lowest level in nearly 40 years, laying out an important marker for market participants, given the scale of the federal action over the course of the last six months.

Biden will announce that the administration intends to repurchase crude oil for the emergency reserve when prices are at or below between $67 and $72 per barrel.

“We think that’s an important signal for producers that the SPR will be part of helping to helping to moderate and stabilize price flows – not only when prices are going high but when prices are going low,” the official said.

As part of this, the administration will also be finalizing a rule to permit the US government to enter into fixed price contracts with suppliers through a competitive bid process, which will facilitate the future repurchasing of crude.

The plan also serves the purpose of countering any criticism about the unprecedented scale of Biden’s reserve releases, one that officials said underscores the administration’s intent to refill when market conditions make it most advantageous.

“This administration is very committed – and we’re going to reiterate this commitment – to replenishing the SPR,” the official said. “We view the SPR is an incredibly important national security asset and we want to make sure that it serves its purpose well into the future.”

The official noted that the reserve, which has roughly 400 million barrels, is still the largest in the world and that the US remains positioned to deal with any crisis or challenges that would require its use.

“It’s important to understand and underscore, 400 million barrels is a lot of barrels,” the official said.

US officials strategically slowed the size of sales as the six-month program neared its deadline in an effort to ease the market transition until the decision by OPEC+, which set off furious pushback from US officials and an intensive effort inside the administration to produce options to counter any resulting increase in gas prices.

That included additional releases from the reserve, and officials have closely eyed Biden’s ability to trigger new releases within the bounds of the initial program as Election Day looms.

This headline and story have been updated with additional developments Tuesday.

Read original article here

Biden has a big oil problem. Here’s what you need to know about the recent OPEC+ decision.

A version of this story appeared in CNN’s What Matters newsletter. To get it in your inbox, sign up for free here.


Washington
CNN
 — 

With just weeks to go until the November midterms, four letters are haunting President Joe Biden and the Democrats: OPEC.

Last week, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies, led by Saudi Arabia and Russia, said that it will slash oil production by 2 million barrels per day, the biggest cut since the start of the pandemic, in a move that threatens to push gasoline prices higher just weeks before US midterm elections.

The group announced the production cut following its first meeting in person since March 2020. The reduction is equivalent to about 2% of global oil demand.

The Biden administration criticized the decision in a statement, calling it “shortsighted” and saying that it’s harmful to some countries already struggling with elevated energy prices the most.

The production cuts will start in November. OPEC+, which combines OPEC countries and allies such as Russia, will meet again in December.

For one perspective on the OPEC+ decision and to better understand how it affects everyone, we turned to Hossein Askari, who teaches international business at The George Washington University.

Our conversation, conducted over the phone and lightly edited for flow and brevity, is below.

WHAT MATTERS: Can you walk us through this recent OPEC decision? What’s happening exactly?

ASKARI: So when the war in Ukraine started, sorry to tell your audience, but the United States was not very well prepared in what it was going to do. It sanctioned Russia for this and for that. And so the price of oil started going up. And at the same time, the United States actually put sanctions on Russian oil, not on gas, on oil. And so there was less Russian oil in the Western markets.

Russia actually started selling its oil more and more to China and to India and cutting its prices to those countries. So they would buy Russian oil, but there was a shortage of oil.

Another reason why the shortage had developed was America basically sanctions like a mad cowboy, if I may say that. It has sanctioned Venezuela for many years.

But Saudi Arabia, with the new effective ruler who’s known as MBS, he has cozied up to Putin. And so when President Biden went and saw him a few months back and kind of asked him to increase oil production – I’m sorry to say this, I have to throw in this bit of politics – I think America really shamed itself by doing that.

Of course, MBS did not respond positively. But now he, in fact, has gone over the top. He has agreed within OPEC – and of course he’s the main spokesman in OPEC with Russia – that they will cut back.

WHAT MATTERS: What does the OPEC decision mean for the average American?

ASKARI: From where we are now, crude oil prices by the end of the year, my guess, maximum, they’ll go up by $5 a barrel. Now, a lot of people think they’re gonna go up more than that. I don’t believe that, because I think the world economy is going to grow less and I think that we are going to see some Venezuelan oil come on the market, and I think we may see some deals made so some more Iranian oil may come on the market.

For gasoline, I think Americans can see maybe prices going up from where they are today, if nothing else happens, by about another 30 to 50 cents a gallon.

However, there is also another problem for Americans that is home heating oil, and that can also go up. So for the average American, they’re going to pay, no matter what, something more per gallon of gasoline at the pump. And I think there’s going to be more of an impact, actually, on the fuel oil that they heat their houses with. So it’s gonna put on the squeeze on the average American. There’s no two ways about it.

WHAT MATTERS: What should the US do now?

ASKARI: I think the United States should be much, much tougher with Saudi Arabia because we have bent over backward to accommodate them in every way. And we have looked the other way with what they’ve done. And now it’s the time to be tough. They’ve been tough with us. I think the President of the United States should be tough with Saudi Arabia.

WHAT MATTERS: What else can the US do in terms of helping with oil prices in the immediate term?

ASKARI: I think undoubtedly this administration has very bad rapport with US oil companies and energy companies. I think that there should be more behind-the scenes cooperation with the oil companies and the administration because you really need them now to cooperate.

I know a lot of people don’t believe in fracking, but maybe it’s time to do some more fracking. Maybe it’s time to increase output. They can increase output elsewhere too. I think that would be extremely, extremely helpful.

And I think the US oil companies – and I’m not a backer of oil companies, please don’t misunderstand – but I think they feel that the administration basically just wants to drive them out business.

WHAT MATTERS: Anything else you’d like to add?

ASKARI: Some people think that OPEC decisions are purely economic. Some people think purely political. It has always been both, especially for Saudi Arabia.

It is really Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates driving OPEC’s decision. I think Americans should understand it’s not the other members, it’s not Nigeria or Iran. I feel Americans should understand who are our friends and who are not our friends.

Read original article here

OPEC announces big cut in oil production despite US pressure


London
CNN Business
 — 

OPEC+ said Wednesday that it will slash oil production by 2 million barrels per day, the biggest cut since the start of the pandemic, in a move that threatens to push gasoline prices higher just weeks before US midterm elections.

The group of major oil producers, which includes Saudi Arabia and Russia, announced the production cut following its first meeting in person since March 2020. The reduction is equivalent to about 2% of global oil demand.

The price of Brent crude oil rose 1.5% to more than $93 a barrel on the news, adding to gains this week ahead of the gathering of oil ministers. US oil was up 1.7% at $88.

The Biden administration criticized the OPEC+ decision in a statement on Wednesday, calling it “shortsighted” and saying that it will hurt low and middle-income countries already struggling with elevated energy prices the most.

The production cuts will start in November, and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its allies will meet again in December.

In a statement, the group said the decision to cut production was made “in light of the uncertainty that surrounds the global economic and oil market outlooks.”

Global oil prices, which soared in the first half of the year, have since dropped sharply on fears that a global recession will depress demand. Brent crude is down 20% since the end of June. The global benchmark hit a peak of $139 a barrel in March after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

OPEC and its allies, which control more than 40% of global oil production, are hoping to preempt a drop in demand for their barrels from a sharp economic slowdown in China, the United States and Europe.

Western sanctions on Russian oil are also muddying the waters. Russia’s production has held up better than predicted, with supply being diverted to China and India. But the United States and Europe are now working on ways to implement a G7 agreement to cap the price of Russian crude exports to third countries.

The oil cartel came under intense pressure from the White House ahead of its meeting in Vienna as President Biden tried to secure lower energy prices for US consumers. Senior Biden administration officials were lobbying their counterparts in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) to vote against cutting oil production, according to officials.

The prospect of a production cut was framed as a “total disaster” in draft talking points circulated by the White House to the Treasury Department on Monday, which CNN obtained. “It’s important everyone is aware of just how high the stakes are,” one US official said.

With just a month to go before the critical midterm elections, US gasoline prices have begun to creep up again, posing a political risk the White House is desperately trying to avoid.

Rising oil prices could mean inflation remains higher for longer, and add to pressure on the Federal Reserve to hike interest rates even more aggressively.

But the impact of Wednesday’s cut, while a bullish signal for oil prices, may be limited as many smaller OPEC producers were struggling to meet previous production targets.

“An announced cut of any volume is unlikely to be fully implemented by all countries, as the group already lags 3 million barrels per day behind its stated production ceiling,” Rystad Energy analyst Jorge Leon said in a note.

Rystad Energy estimates that the global oil market will be oversupplied between now and the end of the year, dampening the effect of production cuts on prices.

— Alex Marquardt, Natasha Bertrand, Phil Mattingly, Mark Thompson and Betsy Klein contributed to this report.

Read original article here

EU Likely to Approve G-7 Cap on Russian Oil Price in Two Steps

BERLIN—The European Union has advanced work on a price cap for Russian oil under an approach that keeps the U.S.-led effort on track but holds off on final approval.

EU member states have agreed on a two-stage approach to the international price cap on Russian oil, which is being developed within the Group of Seven industrial economies. Member states signed off on the legislation needed to implement the measures on Wednesday morning but will hold off approving it until the rest of the G-7 is ready, diplomats and officials said.

The price-cap decision is part of an eighth package of sanctions against Russia over the invasion of Ukraine. The measures will come into effect Thursday morning.

The EU approach reflects concern among some member states about the proposal, which would place a maximum price on what can be paid for Russian seaborne oil. Hesitation is greatest in EU members with large shipping sectors, including Greece, Cyprus and Malta.

The emerging EU approach means the price-cap proposal remains on track to enter into force, but raises fresh questions about how quickly it can be implemented.

Washington has pushed the international oil-price cap as a way of minimizing the Kremlin’s revenue from foreign oil sales without inflating oil prices by preventing oil sales to Asia and Africa. The idea is to set a maximum price at which shippers from G-7 countries may legally transport Russian oil to countries in Asia and Africa. The plan would also permit those companies to buy insurance for Russian oil cargoes, a critical aspect of the shipping industry. The G-7 hopes other countries will join the system.

The G-7 still must agree on the details of the price cap, including the price at which to set the cap, its precise implementation methods and how many other countries they need to join the G-7 in launching the cap. U.S. lawmakers are advocating increasing penalties for foreign buyers who don’t abide by the price cap.

U.S. officials have been flexible about how the other G-7 countries decide to implement the cap.

The EU formally backed the measure at the G-7, but European officials have repeatedly raised concerns about how the mechanism would function and its effectiveness in crimping Russia’s oil revenues.

Greece, Malta and Cyprus have raised concerns that banning EU companies from carrying Russian oil that is sold at rates above the price cap could hurt their economies. They fear losing business to countries that stay outside the mechanism, and they have also raised concerns that some G-7 countries may not enforce the price cap as rigorously as the EU, diplomats said.

At a meeting Tuesday evening, EU ambassadors agreed on a proposal under which they could agree on the legislation, but only formally approve the mechanism at a later date if the other G-7 countries have cleared the way to implement the cap system.

That means the 27 EU member states will need to revisit the three central elements of the price cap proposal. First they would need to sign off an exemption into the June sanctions package that banned EU companies from providing insurance on Russian oil transport after Dec. 5. They would also need to implement a ban on EU shippers transporting Russian oil priced above the cap, and then they would need to sign off on the G-7’s price cap.

The European Union proposed a ban on Russian crude within six months; Moscow and Kyiv accused each other of breaking a cease-fire in Mariupol. Photo: Julien Warnand/Shutterstock

To assuage the concerns of Malta, the ambassadors agreed Tuesday to carry out an impact assessment of the oil price cap mechanism when it enters into force. That will take into account the price cap’s “expected results, international adherence to and informal alignment with the price cap scheme” of non-G-7 countries, according to diplomats. It would also assess its potential impact on the EU.

The European Commission, the EU’s executive body, last week proposed to lay the legal basis for the price cap mechanism as part of a new package of sanctions it was placing on Russia in response to the Kremlin’s claim that it was annexing four regions of Ukraine.

Those sanctions would place an import ban on €7 billion, equivalent to about $7 billion, of Russian sales to the EU and would ban the export to Russia of a number of goods that can be used by its military in the war in Ukraine.

It will also target around three dozen people and companies involved in the latest annexations by Russia of Ukrainian regions.

The EU’s backing for the price cap is critical because the bloc plays a critical role in both the shipping industry and in shipping insurance sector. Sanctions must be approved by all 27 member states.

Under a sanctions package passed in June, the EU agreed to place an oil embargo on Russian seaborne oil by Dec. 5 and, on the same date, ban the provision of services, including shipping insurance, for Russian oil sold outside the bloc. The insurance measure could have choked off oil supplies to Asia and Africa, pushing oil prices higher.

EU diplomats have said that if the G-7 price cap is fully ready and detailed well in advance of Dec. 5, then they can come back and sign off the measures. If the G-7 mechanism is only finalized a few days before the December deadline—or isn’t in place until after it—some member states may demand a transition period to fully implement the measure.

Only Australia has pledged to join the G-7 system. European and U.S. officials say it is unlikely that India, China and some other top buyers of Russian oil will formally participate. Still, U.S. officials hope that by agreeing the price cap, they will at least drive down the price that other countries are willing to pay for Russian oil.

Write to Laurence Norman at laurence.norman@wsj.com

Copyright ©2022 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8

Read original article here

He nailed three big S&P 500 moves this year. Here’s where this strategist sees stocks headed next, with beaten down names to buy.

A Wall Street hat trick may not be on the cards, with stocks in the red for Wednesday.

A two-day rally was never a guaranteed exit out of the bear woods anyway, as some say signs of a durable bottom are still missing.

Enter our call of the day, from the chief market technician at TheoTrade, Jeffrey Bierman, who has made a string of prescient calls on what has been a roller coaster year for the index thus far. He’s also a professor of finance at Loyola University Chicago and DePaul University.

Bierman, who uses quant and fundamental analysis to determine market direction, sees the S&P 500
SPX,
-1.62%
finishing the year between 4,000 and 4,200, maybe around 4,135. “Fourth-quarter seasonality favors bulls following a weak third quarter.  Not to mention most stocks are priced for no growth,” he told MarketWatch in a Monday interview.

In December 2021, he forecast the S&P 500 might see a 20% decline within six months, toward 3,900 — it hit 3,930 in early May. In June, he forecast a rally and recovery to 4,300 — the index hit 4,315 by mid-August.

Speaking to MarketWatch on Aug. 25, Bierman saw a retest of around 3,600 for the index, citing an often rough September for stocks. It closed out last month at a new 2022 low of 3,585.

“I think we’re going to end up for the quarter. [The market is] deeply oversold and some stocks are completely mispriced in terms of their valuation metrics,” said Bierman, who is looking squarely at retail and technology sectors.

“The valuations on half the chip stocks are trading below a multiple of seven. I’ve never seen that ever…but what that means is when the semiconductor sector comes back, the multiple expansion is gonna be like a volcanic eruption to the upside,” he said of the sector known for its boom/bust cycles.

For example, he owns Intel
INTC,
-2.53%,
which hit a five-year low on Friday. Eventually, the company that has invested $20 billion in a new U.S. plant will come roaring back alongside rivals like Advanced Micro
AMD,
-4.65%.
“People will look back on this and go ‘Oh, my God, I can’t believe Intel was at five times earnings,’ which is insanity for this stock.”

For the S&P 500 as a whole next twelve months price/earnings is currently 16.13 times, so Intel’s would be less than half of the broader index, according to FactSet

As for retail, he’s been looking at Urban Outfitters
URBN,
-1.06%,
Macy’s
M,
-1.94%
and Nordstrom
JWN,
-0.67%,
all places where millennials don’t shop, but the middle class does, with the all-important holiday shopping period dead ahead.

“There are 100,000 people being hired to work part time at these companies, and their margins are not coming down at all,” with no markdowns and decent sales, he said, noting those companies are being priced at a multiple of 5 times forward earnings.

“It means that you don’t think that Macy’s can put together for the Christmas quarter a comparative quarter, year over year of greater than 5%? If you don’t then don’t buy it, but I do,” said Bierman. “That’s why I’m willing to stick my neck out and buy these things. I bought Abercrombie & Fitch
ANF,
-3.78%
at 10 times earnings…I’ve never seen it that low.”

For those who aren’t comfortable picking stocks, he says they can still get exposure through exchange-traded funds, such as SPDR S&P Retail
XRT,
-2.58%
or the Technology Select Sector SPDR ETF
XLK,
-1.70%.

Bierman adds that investors need to be careful not to be overly concentrated in the top stocks, given “10 stocks accounted for 45% of the Nasdaq and the fact that 25% of the S&P almost accounted for about 50% of the S&P movement.”

“Everbody’s concentrated in 10 stocks that can still fall another 30% or 40%, like Apple and Microsoft. The idea of concentration risk is that everybody owns Apple, everybody owns Amazon,” he said.

And that could force the hand of passive and active managers heavily invested in those big names, driving a 10% drop for markets that “washes away all other stocks.”

The markets

Stocks
DJIA,
-1.21%

SPX,
-1.62%

COMP,
-2.19%
are in the red, and bond yields
TMUBMUSD10Y,
3.783%

TMUBMUSD02Y,
4.199%
are up, along with the dollar
DXYN,
.
Silver
SI00,
-5.00%
is retracing some of this week’s big gains, and bitcoin
BTCUSD,
-2.62%
is also off, trading at just over $20,000. Hong Kong stocks
HSI,
+5.90%
surged 6% in a catch-up move following a holiday. New Zealand’s central bank hiked rates a half point, the fifth increase in a row.

The buzz

Oil prices
CL.1,
-0.02%

BRN00,
+0.28%
are flat as OPEC+ reportedly agreed to cut oil production by 2 million barrels a day. Some say don’t be too impressed by any output reduction.

Amazon
AMZN,
-2.34%
will reportedly freeze corporate hires in its retail business for the remainder of 2022.

Mortgage applications fell to the lowest pace in 25 years in the latest week.

The ADP private-sector payrolls report showed 208,000 jobs added in September. The trade deficit narrowed, which should be good news for third-quarter GDP. The Institute for Supply Management’s services index is due at 10 a.m. Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will also speak.

Expect the spotlight to stay on Twitter
TWTR,
-2.53%
after Tesla
TSLA,
-5.16%
CEO Elon Musk committed to the $44 billion deal. But will it feel like a win once he owns it?

Plus: Elon Musk’s legal battle with Twitter may be over, but his war with the SEC continues

EU countries agreed to impose new sanctions on Russia after the illegal annexation of four Ukraine regions. Those moves will include an expected price cap on Russian oil.

South Korea’s missile fired in response to North Korea’s weapon launch over Japan, crashed and burned.

Best of the web

Russians fleeing Putin’s mobilization are finding haven in poor, remote countries.

Consumers are throwing away perfectly good food because of ‘best before’ labels.

The CEO of an election software company has been arrested on accusations of ID theft.

Top tickers

These were the top-searched tickers on MarketWatch as of 6 a.m. Eastern:

Ticker Security name
TSLA,
-5.16%
Tesla
GME,
-7.59%
GameStop
AMC,
-9.56%
AMC Entertainment
TWTR,
-2.53%
Twitter
NIO,
-5.92%
NIO
AAPL,
-1.77%
Apple
APE,
-8.40%
AMC Entertainment preferred shares
BBBY,
-8.52%
Bed Bath & Beyond
AMZN,
-2.34%
Amazon
DWAC,
-0.64%
Digital World Acquisition Corp.
The chart

More market-bottom talk:


Twitter

Random reads

All about the investment manager who caught Yankees’ superstar Aaron Judge’s record-breaking home run.

An iPhone in a 162-year old painting? The internet is stumped.

Need to Know starts early and is updated until the opening bell, but sign up here to get it delivered once to your email box. The emailed version will be sent out at about 7:30 a.m. Eastern.

Listen to the Best New Ideas in Money podcast with MarketWatch reporter Charles Passy and economist Stephanie Kelton

Read original article here