在过去的18个月中，布伦特原油的价格从每桶115美元跌至35美元。油价骤减产生的影响是巨大的：高收益债券和国债的差额渐渐增大，美国通胀预期大幅缩水，周期性股票表现弱于防御性股票。
在下跌初期，市场一致认为油价下跌会刺激经济增长。消费者会省下钱，公司的成本会降低，最终受损的只有能源公司。但时间快进至2016年，市场共识已经完全颠覆了。现在这个时候，大多数投资者都认为油价下跌不是好事，油价失去支撑说明全球石油需求正在减少。瑞士信贷的全球证券策略师不同意这一观点。
瑞士信贷分析家表示，油价下跌的原因是供应过剩，而不是需求下降。国际能源署称，2015年的石油需求创下了五年新高。而且石油价格和制造业指数毫无关系。如果是全球需求量导致了油价下跌，那么该指数也会随之移动。
油价下跌的原因就一目了然了。在过去的18个月中，能源公司大幅削减运营成本和资金支出促使全球经济增长1.4%，美国经济增长1%。但瑞士信贷证券策略师认为最糟糕的时候已经过去了。还有美国消费者的问题，他们没有大肆挥霍省下的油钱。去年一年，美国家庭一共省下了1000亿美元，但是账单显示，他们省下的汽油钱只有550亿美元，这说明除了油钱，他们还有别的省钱渠道。瑞士信贷认为美国消费者的做法会和20世纪80年代一样，在他们适应了油价短暂下跌之前，会继续推迟消费。瑞士信贷策略师认为，个人储蓄率会从5.5%跌至4%，促使消费上涨1.6%。低油价给全球经济带来的增长将在0.8%至1.4%之间。
怎样改变周遭的悲观情绪？石油的价格水平只是一个开始，瑞士信贷认为油价将稳定在每桶40美元附近，这在短时间内就能达到。在过去的18个月中，沙特阿拉伯已经放弃了生产调解者的角色。2月16日，沙特、卡塔尔、尔罗斯以及委内瑞拉都削减了石油产量，将产量维持在一月的水平。面对着非 OPEC 国家的石油产量增加，沙特一直试图维持市场份额，并阻止美国能源独立。新协议使得沙特进一步增加石油产量难上加难。
为什么要达成协议？瑞士信贷证券策略师认为，全球油价在35美元至50美元之间时，沙特的利润最高。这个价位既能给高成本的美国制造商带来压力，又足以缓解沙特的政府财政压力。沙特虽然债务极少（GDP 的7%），外汇储备也很充足（GDP 的84%），经济增长较为强势（2015年为3.4%），但今年的预算赤字却高达13.5%。
稳定油价是一回事，但是大幅反弹使投资者对风险资产再度看涨又是另外一回事。瑞士信贷分析师认为，在未来的两三年内，油价很难恢复到50美元以上。这是有历史证据的，1960年的平均油价就是45美元。
那么在能源方面能找到投资者的转机吗？美国低成本页岩油制造商和欧洲银行已经为稳定油价做好了准备。哪怕油价只上涨一点点，也会降低能源企业贷款的风险，增加债券收益，降低信用利差。这些对银行来说都是好事。
但现在还不是买入综合油气公司股票的时机。虽然石油公司可能会出售资产或借债来发放分红，但是市场对增加债务、出售资产的公司是不友善的。而那些降低分红的公司，如：美国康诺和埃尼集团的表现皆差于同业公司。综合石油公司的生产成本较高，所受的压力与油价下跌的幅度不成比例。最后，运营和资金花销中容易削减的部分已经削减完毕，若想进一步降低成本，就要割舍部分长远利益了。能源大公司的复苏之路仍在一团迷雾之中。
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.
本文翻译由兄弟财经提供
文章来源：