Saudi Aramco Is the WeWork of Energy with Pulled IPO
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
Saudis have been running budget deficits 4 - 5 percent of the GDP year after year. Might hit 7 percent this year.
Cutting spending may not be politically possible because it's buying peace. Official unemployment rate is less than 15% but it's estimated that only less than half of working-age Saudis hold jobs or actively seek work.
Foreign exchange funds provide buffers but their net foreign assets are gradually eaten away if oil price don't recover.
EDIT: Look at this graph of US net imports of oil (etc). The bottom of the graph is zero. We are perhaps months away from being a net exporter. There are caveats, like the fact that the new oil (light) the US produces is not the oil (ie Heavy) that US refineries are optimized for, but this is temporary. Refineries can and will be retooled. Saudi Arabia cannot take the position of the US as primarily a customer (vs competitor) of oil for granted. https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=m...
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=W...
Here is what it looks like now (hit 3.1 million barrles per day in June):
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=M...
And this:
Sept 12: "Booming shale production helped the United States briefly overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's top oil exporter for the first time earlier this year. US exports of crude topped 3 million barrels per day in June, according to the International Energy Agency, pushing its total oil exports to nearly 9 million barrels per day."
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/12/investing/us-oil-exports-saud...
The US controls the global reserve currency, is the world's largest economy, has a $65k GDP per capita, is a massive manufacturing economy (#2 behind China), is by far the world's leading technology economy, and has 2x the wealth of the next closest nation (China). That reserve currency is presently under zero threat from other currencies in terms of being replaced. Why does that matter? It gives the US the ultimate financial weapon for dealing with its federal debt. It's a special position no other nation has.
Currently the US is paying about the same rate for its new debt as Greece and Italy. The Fed can continue to gradually press that lower until the point where the US is issuing zero yield debt as in the case of Japan. That means the US can - fortunately or unfortunately - afford to take on a lot more debt yet. Most likely 2x GDP or more, before there is a serious problem.
If more aggressive debasement becomes necessary, the US owns about 35-38% of all the world's wealth, and has 40% of all the world's millionaires. The US is adding wealth faster than any other nation, and was responsible for adding ~55% of all the world's new millionaires in the prior year. That wealth, along with the massive US income base, represents the Fed's room for debasement to deal with the debt (inflating it away in one form or another). US output per capita is about 2.5x higher than Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia has none of those advantages.
I will leave on the side the political (dictatorship) factor.
I guess that manipulating oil price to hurt Russia and Venezuelan, also took a bite of Saudis wallet.
Not really; Saudi Arabia has the highest quality and cheapest to extract oil sources in the world. They absolutely can afford to manipulate oil prices because they know with absolute certainty that their operational costs will be lower than other countries.
They have trillions of dollars invested globally. Problem is that equity is turning into a suckers' game and they want shareholders to be left holding the bag now that green energy is about to kneecap the oil industry. No thanks!
This is a very simplistic (and incorrect) view of the economic relationship between the United States and S.A.
First, the majority of Saudi oil is sold to Europe and Asia (not the United States) but it has always been denominated in US dollars - regardless of the purchaser. This enormous demand for US dollars in global trade that need not be related to the US at all has been to our great favor.
Second, a tremendous amount of the US dollar surplus that SA generates is immediately recycled back into the hands of US industry - specifically, military industry. SA is a ready buyer of whatever new technologies our military industrial complex produces and we are paid a great sum of money for this military partnership.
You personally may not be sharing in the profits but a tremendous economic benefit is realized by the United States and her technical and military industries.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/09/16/who-buys-sau...
For me it is the political aspect of interfacing with such "Powers". UK, USA, Russia had cause more pain and blood that anyone else in the last few centuries. I cannot forget this. But they have (mostly) cleaned up their act (some less than others).
As for the military industry, allow me to believe in a "Star Trek" humanity than a 'we got bigger-better-badder guns than you' future. Arms race benefit the weapons dealers and the warmongers, not the people who get burned by the napalms.
These are hugely complex discussions that are caused and causing many issues on different domains/areas. It may be too simplistic, but let's end energy dependency, let's make more schools, and education will pave the road for a better future.
They’ve got wealth and they have lots of underemployed and unemployed.
The current iteration is called the Citizen's Account program. But if it were called Saudi Basic Income, Saudi Social Security, or Saudi Protection Net, wouldn't the net impact be the same -- a scaled system of cash payouts for low and middle income citizens to support basic living expenses?
One of the claims UBI-backers make is the fact that giving everyone the same amount of money will be much simpler and require much less bureaucracy than income-based welfare schemes. So, I get my $1k this month, you get your $1k, the homeless guy under the bridge gets his $1k, Bill Gates gets his $1k, etc.
Perhaps what people need is not money but the political power to decide what they want to do with their common wealth (which could be UBI, of course).
I haven't commented on UBI itself at all. I'm simply pointing out that lessons learned in Saudi Arabia hardly carry over anywhere else. Not sure which part is scary.
Stateless refugees are a big problem today, and climate change is going to create a lot more of them. Jewish people were the group left stateless in the nationalist period after WWI, and we all know what happened there. If no country is willing to protect the rights of people whose nations deem them "problematic", UBI won't matter because there is still going to be an underclass that doesn't officially have rights and can be persecuted. You can then just cram all your political opponents into that box and watch fascism happen.
"We'll just give everyone money. Nobody will demand more and the promise of more money won't become the key election issue as governments directly try to buy off their citizens for votes. Nothing can go wrong."
Huh why would you do that!
"AI!"
It's like a comedy but it's not actually funny, just full of clowns.
I for one don't understand how it won't cause mass inflation. Every reason I read for why it won't is usually along the lines of "we did an experiment with 100 people, it turned out great!"
100 people != the population of a country
America already gives away vast sums of money to various people and programs, over $2 trillion annually. UBI is just a way of saying, "here's your share, spend it how you wish".
A pipe dream that doesn't actually reflect human behaviour just the inclinations of some to demand others' things while calling them greedy.
aka, he is proposing to give both impoverished people and billionaires UBI
A car factory in 1950 employed so many people to make X cars. The factory of today employs far less people to make the same amount of stuff. Up until now we've all bought every increasing quantities of stuff so we've been able to absorb that extra productivity.
What happens then if our capacity to consume extra stuff is met? Or what happens when some proportion of the populace is now unemployed due to automation. They're kind of 2 sides to the same coin. Once consumption capacity is met, productivity increases just lead to increasing unemployment.
Of course you could leave them to rot. Or you could distribute the benefits of increased productivity to everyone.
Are we there yet? No, but we're using more resources than we should so we should probably hope that we reach that limit sooner rather than later.
So to answer your question, there wouldn't be extra inflation, because there wouldn't be extra consumption.
Andrew Yang's campaign states he believes that the UBI he is proposing will boost the economy because people will spend it. That's definition of consumption, right? Increased spending?
UBI as suggested can't possibly ever work without being massively inflationary. It is indeed economic nonsense.
There are 3 kinds of people who espouse UBI. The dishonest political swindlers, the misled, and those who would vote for anyone who promises them money.
Wait until you find out how many support UBI and no immigration control.
Manufacturing is just like farming, except delayed. How many people are needed to plant and harvest a huge field?
If this small sample represents the best of their country they are fucked. They are in for some hard times.
there were those who were competent, wanted to be hands-on, and who were clearly very motivated and interested in getting things done. they were the minority. the rest were... shall we say, not workhorses.
He was a good guy and hard worker, despite his and my very different views on some things we could understand / respect each other. He just wanted to be someplace where people worked hard too.
Oh boy here I go ... I am a student at KAUST (their flagship university with an endowment in billions), I would say that the ratio of students who take it seriously vs. the ones who just fool around is 1 out of 10, and I'm being generous. I once called out some guys for partying (drunk maybe?) while at our office space and was basically told (by a mid-level exec. nonetheless) to deal with it or they would kick me out if I kept 'complaining'. No one is accountable for their actions, research quality and personal integrity are mostly an afterthought. If you point out something that is wrong you immediately get ostracized and even get some benefits removed (with some bullshit excuse). This feels like a modern version of the Stanford prison experiment, people endure it mostly because the pay is good but it is pretty clear that this thing is going nowhere. I would honestly have left if it weren't for the great relationship I developed with the professor I work with, but I just want to finish quickly and get out of here.
To the guys running the show (I know they monitor HN as well): you really need to sit down and rethink if this attitude will help you survive in the post-oil era, because I don't think it will ...
Obligatory Syriana clip:
With quick look at their wikipedia page their P/E number with 1.1 trillion valuation is about 10. With 2 trillion it would about 20 which is quite insane if that's what they are asking. It's always these people who have distorted view of reality that seem the most damaging to this world. Worked for Steve Jobs maybe but I think in the end, he had a pretty good perception of the technology market.
Yeah, well. Good luck selling that thing. Can't really be a surprise for them that people aren't jumping out of their pants to buy Aramco stock. I think it would be a hard sell even with the 1.1 trillion valuation. Saudi-owned fossil fuel company. A dream investment.
The green energy revolution is wishful thinking, people really want it to be true and it distorts their expectations.
I also suspect that oil prices will remain low because of fracking and that Aramco is really hedging against that, not green energy.
Saudi deals are effectively backed by US.
And a country like Saudi, whose fortune solely depends on exports, can't bend the rules of trade and contract too much. It is very easy to sanction.
Kashoggi is what killed the project MbS had with this money (the futuristic city NEOM, read about it, that was interesting). MbS had spent a lot of resources painting himself as a progressive reformist, ready to make KSA evolve out of the charia law.
That killing put him back down the scale of dictators. He admit it made his project lose at least 10 years and that it was unsellable right now.
KSA is actively losing its leverage. MbS might not have those ten more years for his project.
The only way we'd realistically be self sufficient would be a WWII type scenario in which EPA regs and emissions control were suspended due to some national security requirement.
Yes, because historically, that's what the US produced. The refining and transport infrastructure takes time to modify and catch up to the new markets, (especially after Warren Buffet and Obama's back room deals to the benefit Union Pacific RR).
California is set up for lighter crude because it has even higher costs and stricter environmental regs than the US standard, but the same premise applies. It's still cheaper for them to import the more expensive light/sweet than to refine heavy/sour from LA or Mexico or Colorado.
1) Saudi produces a range, including primarily heavy / sour, but because they and their Asia customers have lax environmental standards, whatever light / sweet product coming from or through Saudi Arabia tends to be traded to a western country with strict environmental standards. Because of the US (historically) having an excess of heavy, the US could export that heavy in exchange for a lesser amount of light, and still come out ahead after taking into account cost of refining.
2) Fracking produces mostly gas and light crude, yes, but North American production until the most recent boom was mostly the moderate to heavy sour product, (North Alaska, Alberta sands, Gulf of Mexico, pre-shale Texas). The shift is causing the existing infrastructure to be repurposed in sometimes unexpected ways, from pipeline reversals (ho-ho) to underused heavy refining / cracking capacity, to changes in trading partners.
3) Re: fracking limited to US and Canada- That's (mainly) due to cost of extraction taking into account permitting and compliance. It's a result of political policy more than technical ability or what proven reserves are available.
Other countries either: 1) don't need to use new fracking methods, as it's cheaper to use traditional extraction methods, or 2) don't use new fracking methods because they're regulated to the same extent (or more) as traditional extraction methods, which still makes it relatively cost prohibitive. The US and Canada just happen to be in a regulatory "sweet spot" where new-style fracking makes economic sense.
Perhaps, but certain politicians like Elizabeth Warren would like to end that soon.
"On my first day as president, I will sign an executive order that puts a total moratorium on all new fossil fuel leases for drilling offshore and on public lands. And I will ban fracking—everywhere." https://twitter.com/ewarren/status/1170070887887986690
Some analysis: https://www.wsj.com/articles/prospect-of-president-warren-sp... (paywall)
https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/17/business/elizabeth-warren-oil... (not paywall)
A single non elected ruler is going to make decisions on whim not process. As long as there is one unchecked person, you can basically be assured that unpredictability will be the norm.
power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely
There’s no such thing as absolute power in the realm of governance.
There is no such thing as absolute power even in an absolute monarch. Power is paid for in one currency or another.
Mohammad bin Salman must retain the support of the heads of the army, secret police, and such or he will be replaced.
The Dictator's Handbook[0] discusses this topic in detail.
The Rules for Rulers[1] is an 18 minute video that summarizes some of the principles of the book.
International rules are set up so that people have incentives to follow them.
Any leader, elected or not, may decide to nationalize and confiscate assets in his country. There are consequences to that and they are pretty serious.
If you own assets that get confiscated in KSA, depending on how your organization is set up, you can get judges to seize KSA assets in another country.
It does happen: https://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fund-elliott-capital-m...
I know that the Saudi Arabia rich families can be compelled to buy shares - but outside of the country?
But maybe I am silly because I have the similar thoughts about investments in China enterprises. But even that is on a completetly different level.
Doesn’t really answer your question, but it did sound like not everyone was happy with Softbank rounds.
OTOH, it's not just rule of law that might restrain the king. It's not in his best interest to cause a run/devaluation of shares in his kingdom's wealth.. in some senses in the crown. International corporate capitalism 1.0 was long-lived and happened while kings still had power... parliaments or not. It's not impossible Aramco could find some equilibrium.
Anyway, even just internal Saudi money could amount to a lot. A little bit of international billions would help boost their trust. I think it comes down to execution mostly, whether or not it happens.
Couldn't ask for a better time, macro-finance-wise.
I am sure saudi king will not dare to piss off american investors, otherwise arab spring in KSA would have happened already
It’s mostly an aggregation of multiple sources, but they often have their own reports: http://ieefa.org/
It’s energy and finance related, focusing on the economics of energy globally & renewables.
Yes. That's always struck me as the central problem. Outside investors have a claim on Aramco's earnings power, until they don't. Since you don't really get meaningful voting rights, you could end up with a certificate that's comically irrelevant to the way Aramco's governance (and money flows) really work.
Edit: wait, the head of Aramco is now a Softbank director? What on earth is going on there?
If VisionFund 1 goes under, losing $45bn is going to make Masayoshi Son really quite unpopular with the Saudis.
Current cash flow based on current costs, levels of production and royalty/tax payments are largely irrelevant.
Seems risky to me.
So this could (have) be(en) just their way to dump the company for the maximum amount of money while the getting was still good.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/energy/2010/11/10110...
(Confirming in 2010 that we hit peak conventional in 2006.)
It takes years to confirm this kind of data...
And we don't even have access to Saudi oil data, the best we can do is something like this :
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09204...
> Results show OPEC peak oil in 2028 at a production rate of 18.85 Gb/year and ultimate reserves of 1271.24 Gb.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/01/business/saudi-aramco-pro...
Basically, there's going to be a dip in the worldwide demand for oil, and with the permian basin coming online, we can satisfy much of the world's demand for plastics and lubricants. Makes sense that they would try to get a last hurrah out there.
While catchy, that line is neither the title, byline, or even a sentence from the article.
EDIT: Ha! A search for the article shows the original title. So either Bloomberg is feeding clickbait titles purely to Google or they switched it after it went live. New title is "Saudi Aramco Needs to Get Realistic About Its IPO".
I'm guessing it's some sort of long running A/B experiment. They must have great data on how to write attention grabbing headlines.
The attack on saudi oil facilities and tankers, and this sort of whisper campaign, are supposed to put pressure on saudi and drive the price of oil up for Russia and Iran so they can afford more foreign intervention.
please diversify your sources of propaganda