マーケット・ブログ

MARKETS
17 March 2020

The Energy Sector—A Holistic View

By J. Gibson Cooper, René Ledis

This year is off to a tumultuous start to say the least, with volatility increasing in commodity markets. Leaving 2019 there was a semblance of stability creeping in that was welcomed by commodity markets. Oil demand growth was still present albeit at a slower pace, OPEC and Russia were continuing to maintain supply cohesion and non-OPEC supply growth was expected. This essentially placed a cap on prices but management teams were still able to lower price decks. Following the 2015/2016 rout, managements made real strides in operating efficiencies (to lower break-even prices), repairing balance sheets, extending out maturities, bolstering liquidity and target managing to within cash flow—essentially providing a runway.

Roll forward to early 2020, we have already had two unforeseen events impacting oil markets in very short order, leaving the market in uncharted territory:

  • A global demand shock due to the coronavirus/COVID-19: starting in China, this has evolved into a broader issue as the virus continues to spread across the world. It now threatens to adversely impact global economic growth and oil demand growth forecasts.

  • A global supply shock due to the breakdown of the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Russia: this has resulted in Saudi Arabia cutting official sales prices, signaling a price war.

The combination of these shocks means the global energy sector is facing a period of lower realized prices, uncertainty, rising leverage and likely shrinkage with the larger, lower cost, better-capitalized companies surviving. What complicates matters are the unknowns around the magnitude and duration of these shocks.

Energy issuers have been particularly impacted by recent market volatility, and not aided by the latest OPEC move. Rating agency commodity price assumptions are in the process of being downgraded, with S&P already acting and taking 2020 Brent/WTI/Henry Hub prices to $40/$35/$2, respectively (from $60/$55/$2.25), taking 2021 Brent/WTI/Henry Hub prices to $50/$45/$2.25 (from $55/$55/$2.50), and taking 2022 and beyond to Brent/WTI/Henry Hub prices to $55/$50/$2.50, (from $55/$55/$2.70). Consequently, ratings downgrades are likely.

Key Issues We Are Focused on in Investment-Grade (IG) Energy

Capital budgets are under scrutiny (again) – Budgets had been managed downward in 2019 versus 2018 and we had seen more downward revisions in 2020 compared with 2019 (but less so than previous cuts). More budgets cuts are likely to reduce the amount of negative free cash flow at prevailing prices.

Capital markets – Unlike the high-yield (HY) market, IG energy issuers have enjoyed more open markets and we have seen managements proactively manage their capital structures. Unfortunately, now, those that did not hit the refinancing window will be left behind. Much refinancing has already occurred, so 2020 looks lighter (excluding larger integrated companies), but focus would turn to those needing financing to fund negative free cash flow and those with maturities in 2021.

M&A – Mergers are always a talking point and we have not seen as many as one would expect to date. With debt financing essentially closed and a weaker equity currency, it will be harder to do and a longer-term investment horizon would be taken by acquirers to make it work. However, the larger players may begin to step in as they need to overcome the disappointing organic reserve replacement they have had to endure.

Rating agencies – Rating agency commodity price assumptions will be downgraded if they have not already been. Rating agencies had been reluctant to upgrade the sector/issuers (with the exception of more one-off situations) despite the self-help management employed over the period since 2014-2016. Ratings downgrades will be a forgone conclusion in the new price environment, particularly in the exploration and production (E&P) sub-segment while midstream companies are likely to experience negative outlooks than outright cuts, initially.

Key Issues We Are Focused on in HY Energy

Liquidity and revolving credit facility access – E&P companies are presently undergoing bank facility “redeterminations,” which occur twice yearly (in spring and fall), whereby lender banks and the E&P company renegotiate credit facility commitments based on the present value of proven reserves. We believe the banks will follow a similar playbook as they did in the 2015/2016 cycle, reducing industry exposure overall and incentivizing deleveraging within specified timeframes. Additionally, we note that banks have been reducing commitments and exposure slowly over the past two years given the volatility in commodity prices, sustained lower price, and general energy risk-reduction practices.

Our base case expectation is for banks to restrict capital further either by 1) reducing advance rates on proved reserves and/or 2) applying lower long-term commodity price assumptions in the present value calculations. However, we note that most “commitment” levels today are well above the “elected” company amount, meaning there is room for banks to optically cut commitments, in some cases quite substantially, without reducing a company’s liquidity. Unrealized hedge gains are also factored into credit facility calculations, and with substantial 2020 hedge positions for most issuers, these gains provide additional cushion in a falling commodity price environment. We do not believe the goal of banks is to force the liquidation of assets into a down market.

Energy capital markets – In contrast to the prior 2015/2016 cycle, we believe external capital is more difficult to source, which could potentially force management teams to make difficult decisions around either restructuring or forcing self-help refinancings to deal with near-term maturities. While secured capacity exists with most issuers, we believe there is very limited appetite for secured offerings at acceptable terms.

Default risk – Our current estimate for 2020 is about 10%, not including “selective defaults” as described by S&P. We do not believe the move in crude oil prices materially increases 2020 defaults at this time. The duration of the downturn is the key variable, but we acknowledge there exists jump-to-default risk in a few, well-identified companies or energy subsectors that were borderline/barely surviving before the crisis. We would expect a large increase in 2021 default rates should the price downturn extend well into 2021.

M&A – Stronger HY energy companies will likely pivot to scale up defensively with BB rated peers or seek out IG E&Ps looking to avoid downgrades to below-IG. In both cases, we believe mergers can materially reduce cash costs per barrel. Weaker single B combinations can make financial sense but are difficult to do given change of control provisions in debt securities and lack of existing equity values.

Rating agencies – We expect a repeat of 2015/2016 as rating agencies move quickly to match their commodity price assumptions to the curve likely resulting in multiple-notch downgrades for all issuers. We believe the agencies will be particularly harsh on E&P companies, in contrast to midstream companies that are likely to be given more time to develop deleveraging strategies (e.g., dividend cuts, asset sales, etc.).

This continues to be a very fluid situation and there remain many unknowns given macro and geopolitical headwinds. We remain vigilant of the ever-changing dynamics and will keep you posted on our views as new developments arise.

投資一任契約および金融商品に係る手数料(消費税を含む):
投資一任契約の場合は運用財産の額に対して、年率1.0%(抜き)を上限とする運用手数料を、運用戦略ごとに定めております。また、別途運用成果に応じてお支払いいただく手数料(成功報酬)を設定する場合があります。その料率は、運用成果の評価方法や固定報酬率の設定方法により変動しますので、手数料の金額や計算方法をこの書面に記載することはできません。投資信託の場合は投資信託ごとに信託報酬が定められておりますので、目論見書または投資信託約款でご確認下さい。
有価証券の売買又はデリバティブ取引の売買手数料を運用財産の中からお支払い頂きます。投資信託に投資する場合は信託報酬、管理報酬等の手数料が必要となります。これらの手数料には多様な料率が設定されているためこの書面に記載することはできません。デリバティブ取引を利用する場合、運用財産から委託証拠金その他の保証金を預託する場合がありますが、デリバティブ取引の額がそれらの額を上回る可能性があります。その額や計算方法はこの書面に記載することはできません。投資一任契約に基づき、または金融商品において、運用財産の運用を行った結果、金利、通貨の価格、金融商品市場における相場その他の指標に係る変動により、損失が生ずるおそれがあります。損失の額が、運用財産から預託された委託証拠金その他の保証金の額を上回る恐れがあります。個別交渉により、一部のお客様とより低い料率で投資一任契約を締結する場合があります。
© Western Asset Management Company Ltd 2020. 当資料の著作権は、ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント株式会社およびその関連会社(以下「ウエスタン・アセット」という)に帰属するものであり、ウエスタン・アセットの顧客、その投資コンサルタント及びその他の当社が意図した受取人のみを対象として作成されたものです。第三者への提供はお断りいたします。当資料の内容は、秘密情報及び専有情報としてお取り扱い下さい。無断で当資料のコピーを作成することや転載することを禁じます。
過去の実績は将来の投資成果を保証するものではありません。当資料は情報の提供のみを目的としており、作成日におけるウエスタン・アセットの意見を反映したものです。ウエスタン・アセットは、ここに提供した情報が正確なものであるものと信じておりますが、それを保証するものではありません。当資料に記載の意見は、特定の有価証券の売買のオファーや勧誘を目的としたものではなく、事前の予告なく変更されることがあります。当資料に書かれた内容は、投資助言ではありません。ウエスタン・アセットの役職員及び顧客は、当資料記載の有価証券を保有している可能性があります。当資料は、お客様の投資目的、経済状況或いは要望を考慮することなく作成されたものです。お客様は、当資料に基づいて投資判断をされる前に、お客様の投資目的、経済状況或いは要望に照らして、それが適切であるかどうかご検討されることをお勧めいたします。お客様の居住国において適用される法律や規制を理解し、それらを考慮する責任はお客様にあります。
ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント・カンパニーDTVM(Distribuidora de Títulos e Valores Mobiliários)リミターダ(ブラジル、サンパウロ拠点)はブラジル証券取引委員会(CVM)とブラジル中央銀行(Bacen)により認可、規制を受けます。ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント・カンパニー・ピーティーワイ・リミテッド (ABN 41 117 767 923) (オーストラリア、メルボルン拠点)はオーストラリアの金融サービスライセンス303160を保有。ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント・カンパニー・ピーティーイー・リミテッド(シンガポール拠点)は、キャピタル・マーケット・サービス(CMS)ライセンス(Co. Reg. No. 200007692R) を保有し、シンガポール通貨監督庁に監督されています。ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント株式会社(日本拠点)は金融商品取引業者として登録、日本のFSAの規制を受けます。ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント・カンパニー・リミテッド(英国、ロンドン拠点)は英金融行動監視機構(FCA)により認可、規制を受けます。当資料は英国および欧州経済領域(EEA)加盟国においては、FCAまたはMiFID IIに定義された「プロフェッショナルな顧客」のみを対象とした宣伝目的に使用されるものです。
ウエスタン・アセット・マネジメント株式会社について
業務の種類: 金融商品取引業者(投資運用業、投資助言・代理業、第二種金融商品取引業)
登録番号: 関東財務局長(金商)第427号
加入協会: 一般社団法人日本投資顧問業協会(会員番号 011-01319)
一般社団法人投資信託協会

-->