Connect with us
  • tg

Commodities

U.S. equity funds shed $2.1 trillion in the quarter

letizo News

Published

on

The bear market set a record. From April to June, U.S. equity funds’ net assets fell 18.6%, or $2.1 trillion, the largest quarterly loss in history for them.

The bear market in U.S. stocks that began this year continues to break records both in the amount of investor funds evaporating and in the rate at which money is fleeing falling assets. The S&P 500 broad market index lost 16.45% in the second quarter, but assets of funds investing in U.S. stocks appeared to have declined even more.

As reported on Monday, citing data from Refinitiv Lipper Reuters, in the second quarter, there was a record reduction in their net assets – by $2.1 trillion – to $9.2 trillion. This, as the agency notes, is the maximum quarterly loss for such funds in history.

In relative terms, this corresponds to a drop of 18.6%, clearly more than the S&P 500. But although it is called a broad market index, the market itself is much broader, and the real structure of fund ownership and investment is different from any index. In addition to the serious drop in stock prices, the size of assets was also affected by investors taking money out.

According to Refinitiv Lipper, last week was the third week in a row that saw an outflow of money from U.S. equity funds. Generally speaking, there have been longer series of outflows this year. This is entirely unsurprising given that the entire first half of the year was also one of the darkest in history for U.S. stocks.

For the S&P 500, the first six months of 2022 were its worst since 1970, losing 20.6% during that period. For the Dow Jones Industrial Average, down 15.3%, it was its worst start to a year since 1962. For the younger Nasdaq Composite, which appeared only in 1971, it was the weakest first half of the year ever (minus 29.5%).

The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, Inst +, SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust and Vanguard 500 Index Fund, Admiral showed the biggest declines in absolute terms in the second quarter. They lost $77.5 billion, $70.5 billion and $69.3 billion in net assets, respectively.

The rest of the Top 10 funds by falling assets are, of course, among the largest by absolute size and represent such giants as Fidelity, Vanguard, BlackRock and others. And the top 9 places are occupied by index-tracking funds.

Obviously, against the backdrop of a falling market, the ability to track its dynamics as accurately as possible no longer seems as good an idea to everyone as it used to be. This, however, is commonplace and not really related to the type of funds. Back in the 1980s and 90s, studies were conducted to show that the public was constantly hurting itself. 

At that time managers were taking higher commissions than they do now, and these commissions were also higher than at index funds, which gained popularity in recent decades. So their yields were generally supposed to be lower, but they still did show it (and not so small). But in fact, in the long-term, the mass investor got just a small share of it.

The reason was in constant attempts to guess the right moment to buy or sell stocks or other instruments, and also to choose a fund which would be best suited for this. After many attempts people, firstly, just did not guess, and secondly, paid much higher commissions, additionally reducing profitability. As a result, a strategy like “buy and hold” turned out to be an order of magnitude more effective. Now the stock industry has changed noticeably.



Commodities

Natural gas prices outlook for 2025

letizo News

Published

on

Investing.com — The outlook for prices in 2025 remains cautiously optimistic, influenced by a mix of global demand trends, supply-side constraints, and weather-driven uncertainties. 

As per analysts at BofA Securities, U.S. Henry Hub prices are expected to average $3.33/MMBtu for the year, marking a rebound from the low levels seen throughout much of 2024.

Natural gas prices in 2024 were characterized by subdued trading, largely oscillating between $2 and $3/MMBtu, making it the weakest year since the pandemic-induced slump in 2020. 

This price environment persisted despite record domestic demand, which averaged over 78 billion cubic feet per day (Bcf/d), buoyed by increases in power generation needs and continued industrial activity. 

However, warm weather conditions during the 2023–24 winter suppressed residential and commercial heating demand, contributing to the overall price weakness.

Looking ahead, several factors are poised to tighten the natural gas market and elevate prices in 2025. 

A key driver is the anticipated rise in liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports as new facilities, including the Plaquemines and Corpus Christi Stage 3 projects, come online. 

These additions are expected to significantly boost U.S. feedgas demand, adding strain to domestic supply and lifting prices. 

The ongoing growth in exports to Mexico via pipeline, which hit record levels in 2024, further underscores the international pull on U.S. gas.

On the domestic front, production constraints could play a pivotal role in shaping the price trajectory. 

While U.S. dry gas production remains historically robust, averaging around 101 Bcf/d in 2024, capital discipline among exploration and production companies suggests a limited ability to rapidly scale output in response to higher prices. 

Producers have strategically withheld volumes, awaiting a more favorable pricing environment. If supply fails to match the anticipated uptick in demand, analysts warn of potential upward repricing in the market.

Weather patterns remain a wildcard. Forecasts suggest that the 2024–25 winter could be 2°F colder than the previous year, potentially driving an additional 500 Bcf of seasonal demand. 

However, should warmer-than-expected temperatures materialize, the opposite effect could dampen price gains. Historically, colder winters have correlated with significant price spikes, reflecting the market’s sensitivity to heating demand.

The structural shift in the U.S. power generation mix also supports a bullish case for natural gas. Ongoing retirements of coal-fired power plants, coupled with the rise of renewable energy, have entrenched natural gas as a critical bridge fuel. 

Even as wind and solar capacity expand, natural gas is expected to fill gaps in generation during periods of low renewable output, further solidifying its role in the energy transition.

Continue Reading

Commodities

Citi simulates an increase of global oil prices to $120/bbl. Here’s what happens

letizo News

Published

on

Investing.cm — Citi Research has simulated the effects of a hypothetical oil price surge to $120 per barrel, a scenario reflecting potential geopolitical tensions, particularly in the Middle East. 

As per Citi, such a price hike would result in a major but temporary economic disruption, with global output losses peaking at around 0.4% relative to the baseline forecast. 

While the impact diminishes over time as oil prices gradually normalize, the economic ripples are uneven across regions, flagging varying levels of resilience and policy responses.

The simulated price increase triggers a contraction in global economic output, primarily driven by higher energy costs reducing disposable incomes and corporate profit margins. 

The global output loss, though substantial at the onset, is projected to stabilize between 0.3% and 0.4% before fading as oil prices return to baseline forecasts.

The United States shows a more muted immediate output loss compared to the Euro Area or China. 

This disparity is partly attributed to the U.S.’s status as a leading oil producer, which cushions the domestic economy through wealth effects, such as stock market boosts from energy sector gains. 

However, the U.S. advantage is short-lived; tighter monetary policies to counteract inflation lead to delayed negative impacts on output.

Headline inflation globally is expected to spike by approximately two percentage points, with the U.S. experiencing a slightly more pronounced increase. 

The relatively lower taxation of energy products in the U.S. amplifies the pass-through of oil price shocks to consumers compared to Europe, where higher energy taxes buffer the direct impact.

Central bank responses diverge across regions. In the U.S., where inflation impacts are more acute, the Federal Reserve’s reaction function—based on the Taylor rule—leads to an initial tightening of monetary policy. This contrasts with more subdued policy changes in the Euro Area and China, where central banks are less aggressive in responding to the transient inflation spike.

Citi’s analysts frame this scenario within the context of ongoing geopolitical volatility, particularly in the Middle East. The model assumes a supply disruption of 2-3 million barrels per day over several months, underscoring the precariousness of energy markets to geopolitical shocks.

The report flags several broader implications. For policymakers, the challenge lies in balancing short-term inflation control with the need to cushion economic output. 

For businesses and consumers, a price hike of this magnitude underscores the importance of energy cost management and diversification strategies. 

Finally, the analysts  cautions that the simulation’s results may understate risks if structural changes, such as the U.S.’s evolving role as an energy exporter, are not fully captured in the model.

While the simulation reflects a temporary shock, its findings reinforce the need for resilience in energy policies and monetary frameworks. Whether or not such a scenario materializes, Citi’s analysis provides a window into the complex interplay of economics, energy, and geopolitics in shaping global economic outcomes.

Continue Reading

Commodities

Gold prices rise, set for strong weekly gains on Russia-Ukraine jitters

letizo News

Published

on

Investing.com

© 2007-2024 Fusion Media Limited. All Rights Reserved.

Risk Disclosure: Trading in financial instruments and/or cryptocurrencies involves high risks including the risk of losing some, or all, of your investment amount, and may not be suitable for all investors. Prices of cryptocurrencies are extremely volatile and may be affected by external factors such as financial, regulatory or political events. Trading on margin increases the financial risks.
Before deciding to trade in financial instrument or cryptocurrencies you should be fully informed of the risks and costs associated with trading the financial markets, carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite, and seek professional advice where needed.
Fusion Media would like to remind you that the data contained in this website is not necessarily real-time nor accurate. The data and prices on the website are not necessarily provided by any market or exchange, but may be provided by market makers, and so prices may not be accurate and may differ from the actual price at any given market, meaning prices are indicative and not appropriate for trading purposes. Fusion Media and any provider of the data contained in this website will not accept liability for any loss or damage as a result of your trading, or your reliance on the information contained within this website.
It is prohibited to use, store, reproduce, display, modify, transmit or distribute the data contained in this website without the explicit prior written permission of Fusion Media and/or the data provider. All intellectual property rights are reserved by the providers and/or the exchange providing the data contained in this website.
Fusion Media may be compensated by the advertisers that appear on the website, based on your interaction with the advertisements or advertisers.

Continue Reading

Trending

©2021-2024 Letizo All Rights Reserved