Monthly Newsletter - Capital Investments

Transcription

Asset Management Dept. | Monthly Newsletter
Monthly Newsletter
th
January 14 , 2016
“If something cannot go on forever it will stop”-Herbert Stein
“Life is really simple, but we insist on making it complicated”-Confucius
Clues from Recent Asset Classes Behavior
Macro: Heterogeneous Economic Performance Across the Globe
Oil: Unsustainable Low Prices…The Pain Game Continues
MENA: Shifting Fiscal Stance
Introduction
Negative sentiment dominated the start of our investment journey in 2016.
Disappointing economic headlines from China, epitomized by falling Purchasing
Manager Indices (PMIs) figures initiated a domino effect across stock markets from
Shanghai to New York. The spike in volatility intensified further, as geopolitical tensions
between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalated, accompanied by North Korea testing a
hydrogen bomb. As a result, the Dow index had its worst New Year start in 84 years,
plunging by over 6%, while the Shanghai Composite Index and the Saudi Tadawul Index
dove by over 9%.
Asset Management Team:
Wassim Jomaa, CFA
VP, Head of Asset
Management
[email protected]
Samar Miqdadi
Senior Portfolio Manager
[email protected]
Monthly Newsletter  Asset Management Dept.
The challenges and contradictions of 2015 remain almost the same in 2016, and mainly
include policymakers’ headwinds, and a weakening global macro outlook. Starting with
policymakers’ headwinds, divergence at the level of global monetary policy is becoming
the norm leading to a reduction in liquidity, significant capital flight across the globe,
and a surge in volatility.
In the US, the Fed has initiated its tightening cycle by raising its benchmark interest
rates by 25bps last month, although it seems to be heading into a weakening economy.
As a result, investment implications would be dictated by the pace of the Fed’s rate
hike. The US Fed has already deprived the global financial system from its role as an
absorber of global shocks by ending its asset purchase program in December 2014.
Financial developments last year have proved that markets are addicted to central
banks money to generate returns. As a result, a quick withdrawal from an
accommodative monetary mode would lead to cracks along the bond and the ill-shaped
commodity markets. It all comes down to pace, In order to keep borrowing costs at bay
and the supply of USD at healthy levels around the globe, the rate hike needs to be
gradual.
Outside the US, major central banks are adopting unconventional monetary easing
policies, either through Quantitative Easing programs (asset purchases), or through
competitive currency devaluation. The results are mainly a dysfunction in the global
monetary system, as competitive easing outside the US seems to have lost its
effectiveness. In Japan, where the debt to GDP ratio is around 240% with a significant
level of debt maturing in 2016, stimulus by the Bank of Japan disappointed the markets.
In Europe the influx of refugees, the rise of separatist political parties and talks about
Britain’s exit (Brexit) from the EU are curbing the effect of ECB’s monetary stimulus.
Action by the Chinese central bank is the biggest policy-headwind Ex-US, while the Yuan
devaluation is a kind of monetary easing and expansion of money supply, further
depreciation of the Chinese currency looms as the major deflationary risk for the world
economy and for asset prices. In addition, it is the major significant business risk for
Asian companies and multinational corporates generating the bulk of their revenues by
exporting to China. In addition, it would be bearish for commodities as an asset class,
not to mention potential repercussions on Banks in terms of a possible rise in nonperforming loans.
Raed Al Momani
Senior Financial Analyst
[email protected]
Qasem Bilbeisi
Financial Analyst
[email protected]
Mohammad AlZoubi
Financial Analyst
Mohammad.AlZoubi@Capitalinv
.com
For further information and to
discuss
possible
investment
opportunities, please contact:
Asset Management Dept.
Tel: +962 6 5200330
Ext. 494 and 832
[email protected]
This report must be read with the
disclaimer at the end of the
report.
January 14th, 2016
Turning to the macro-economic outlook, IMF chief Christine Lagarde has warned of disappointing
global growth in 2016, while the World Bank cut its global growth forecast in 2016 by 0.4% to
2.9%. Slowdown in China continues to be the main source of economic weakness globally, while
recovery in Europe and the US appears to be weaker than anticipated.
In a nutshell, the investment journey in 2016 has started on a weak note and is complicated by a
series of contradictions. For instance, if China sells its holdings of US treasuries to stabilize its
currency it may curb the USD appreciation, which in turn may lead to a rise in yields and
commodity prices. However, a rally in the latter would require further growth from China or the
rest of the world. Simultaneously, while low oil prices are a tailwind for private consumption, an
environment of rising rates would warrant some caution.
On the other hand, rising borrowing costs and a weak economic environment will bring credit
and macroeconomic risks into play in a world of reduced liquidity. Companies will face difficulty
in refinancing their debt, thus either leading to defaults, or to postponement of investment
spending which would weaken global economic growth further, especially that credit cycles
always lead business cycles.
We think that actions by policy makers would be the major headwinds facing investors in 2016 as
it is the most uncertain or unpredictable part of the puzzle due to clear miscommunication.
Recent inconsistent messaging from Fed officials and actions by the Chinese central bank are
good examples of that.
We hope that a positive earnings season will help us recover quickly from the pain caused during
the first trading weeks of 2016. As asset managers we always look for opportunities even during
challenging times. In fact some sectors do not have business disruptions and are not even
affected by a worsening macro outlook; we can spot some individual stocks that enjoy the
needed quality criteria of liquidity in addition to compelling valuations, growth, and dividends.
The issue remains more about a falling faith in a twilight markets environment and less about
failing prices. For long term investors, a faith backed investment, based on the criteria
mentioned earlier is advisable while waiting for a catalyst, only if volatility is bearable. For more
short term investors, we will try to illustrate through this newsletter the implications and clues
that could be inferred from various asset classes behavior to determine tactical turning points.
Monthly Newsletter | Asset Management Dept.
2
January 14th, 2016
Clues from Recent Asset Classes Behavior
Probability of Fed Rate Hike (for March 16th
Meeting)
DOLLAR SPOT INDEX
50.76%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100
95
98.52
90
37.60%
85
80
75
Source: Bloomberg, Capital Investments
2015 in general was a year that saw recession fears alternate with hope of better growth as the US
Fed hiked interest rates to prevent potential overheating. Heading into 2016, the probability of a
Fed rate hike in March fell from around 50% to 37.5% recently. Traders are pricing in the next rate
hike to be in June 2016, and thus they are telling the Fed that the US economy is not strong enough
to weather 4 or 5 interest rate hikes in 2016. The pace of interest rate hikes would determine the
strength of USD in 2016, and in this context it is worth to mention that economic data in the US
besides employment is flat or weak.
US Treasury 2 Year Yield, %
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
US Treasury 10 Year Yield, %
0.94
2.50
2.40
2.30
2.20
2.10
2.00
1.90
1.80
1.70
2.14
On the short end of the yield curve, bond traders do not seem to be buying a lot of what the Fed is
selling in terms of potential interest rate hikes. The yield on the 2-year US treasury, fell from its
peak in December to below 1% signaling muted inflationary expectations, and that a slower than
expected growth in the US will lead the Fed to slow the pace of its tightening, leading to a more
flattening yield curve.
On the long end of the curve, a conundrum seems to be under formation, while yield dropped
during the first week of January as investors were seeking asylum in safe haven assets, the
magnitude of the drop and the bounce back in an environment of falling oil prices and low growth
expectations was a bit puzzling. Some commentators, attributed this behavior in long term yields to
large central banks, led by China, which were dumping US treasuries while executing some
currency market intervention. As a result, movements in US 10 year yield would be dictated moving
forward by the Fed policy, actions of large holders such as central banks, along with macro
fundamentals, all of which would raise the volatility in the credit market.
3
January 14th, 2016
High Yield Corporate Bond Yields
Investment Grade Corporate Bond Yields
10.00
3.70
9.00
3.50
9.12
8.00
3.54
3.30
7.00
3.10
6.00
2.90
5.00
2.70
We continue to be cautious and selective in the high yield space, although we think at the current
7% to 9% yield, some opportunities with appropriate credit risk are available, especially that this
segment is sensitive mainly to economic growth rather than interest rates. We think that yields on
investment grade and corporate high yield bonds would be a good barometer to gauge the health
of the global economy, with a particular focus on emerging markets and commodity-linked
securities, as many indebted companies fall into the last categories.
Trillion
China Foreign Exchange Reserves
4.30
Chinese Yuan Spot vs USD
3.98
3.80
3.30
3.33
2.80
2.30
6.70
6.60
6.50
6.40
6.30
6.20
6.10
6.00
6.58
Emerging economies spent the whole of 2015 seesawing in anticipation of a rise in the US interest
rates, but it was the devaluation of the Yuan and the decline in commodity prices that played a big
role in the negative spiral. On one hand, we think that China will seek to calm down the currency
market in an attempt to assure investors and reduce the speed of capital flight outside the country
which is leading to a burn of reserves; due to selling their holdings of US treasuries, this would curb
the appreciation in USD and would lead to spikes in US treasury yields. On the other hand,
defending the exchange rate is indeed monetary tightening in disguise, as it restricts the supply of
the local currency which would limit the growth of the Chinese economy that is struggling to export
its excess industrial capacity, so as to rebalance to a more consumer based economy. Inconsistency
of action by the Chinese central bank in terms of their vision regarding the currency direction
would be the major risk facing asset managers. We foresee a gradual and well communicated
devaluation, owing to the fact that a quick devaluation would hurt Chinese corporates looking to
refinance their USD denominated debt maturing throughout the course of 2016.
4
January 14th, 2016
Gold ($ per Troy Ounce)
1350
1300
1250
1200
1150
1100
1050
1000
VIX (Volatility S&P 500), %
1,094
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
27
Both the Vix index and Gold spiked in response to a surge in market turmoil during the first week of
2016. However, the rise in gold prices was contained due to the lack of vision regarding the USD
and yield directions. Nevertheless, we will be watching gold closely, as any potential weakness in
the USD due to reasons mentioned earlier, including the Chinese central bank selling US treasury,
or the Fed slowing its pace of interest rate hikes would lead to a spike in gold price in contrast to
other industrial metals, which are more supply and demand driven. As such, gold prices would pose
a good leading indicator for our journey in 2016.
2150
S&P 500 Index
2100
2050
2000
1950
1900
1850
1800
1,922
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
Shanghai Stock Exchange Composite Index
3,192
On the back of weak chinese manufacturing data coupled with a devaluation in the Yuan, markets
across the globe plunged in a freefall during the first week of 2016 repeating the nightmare of
August 2015. The negative start for the year has only added to the feeling that something is deeply
wrong and has curbed the “risk-on sentiment” of investors who will be pre-occupied in seeking to
recover the losses of January.
On this front, it is worth to mention that financial history has shown that in 1985 and 1991 when
markets started the year in an ill manner but then ended higher, the US Fed was adopting an easy
monetary policy. For the moment inconsisent Fed officials are still anticipating around four hikes in
2016. On the positive side, policymakers got notice of the situation at the beginning of the year
which may indicate that some changes to policy may occur, so investors can shed away uncertainty
and focus on micro fundamentals of companies. In this context, it is worth mentioning that the
Chinese authorities have abolished the “circuit breaker” which was aimed at stopping trading when
markets fall by 7% as it seemed to be amplifying panic rather than restoring stability. At the same
time, major shareholders can sell only up to 1% of outstading shares and must disclose their intent
15 days prior to sale. On the other hand, the central bank injected around USD 29bn into the
banking system, the most in a year, and intervened in the currency market to stabilize the Yuan. As
5
January 14th, 2016
for the US Fed, we expect in contrast to history, that the January 2016 meeting to be as important
as the last meeting of December 2015 for investors to get some clues.
Macro: Heterogeneous Economic Performance Across the Globe
Caixin China Manufacturing PMI SA
Caixin China Services PMI Business Activity SA
51
50
49
48.2
48
47
46
45
55
54
53
52
51
50
49
48
50.2
*PMI figures above 50 indicate economic expansion, below 50 indicate economic contraction
Major economic headwinds continue to come from China, despite the recent improvement in trade
data, both the manufacturing and services PMIs for the country point for further slowdown in the
economy, which would warrant further stimulus measures to stabilize the economic activity. As
China rebalances from an investment and an export driven economy to one based on services,
more volatility is to be expected during the transition, and less of a lift for the rest of the world, in
particular commodity exporter countries. Stability in China is highly needed because further
hiccups in the Chinese economy would be significantly contagious to the rest of the world through
currency, trade, and credit markets.
Manufacturing PMI's
Services PMI's
54.0
53.0
52.0
51.0
50.0
49.0
48.0
53.2
50.9
48.2
EU
Global
US
62.0
60.0
58.0
56.0
54.0
52.0
50.0
48.0
55.3
54.2
53.1
Global
US
EU
*PMI figures above 50 indicate economic expansion, below 50 indicate economic contraction
It is worth noticing that the deceleration in PMI figures outside China is not very significant, this
indicates that there is still some grease to run in the global economy. However, looking at the
recent history, and given all the stimulus that was taking place over the past few years, expansion
in PMIs was slow. As such, the outlook does not look so encouraging given that the Fed is
tightening and China is decelerating. Hence, we reiterate on our theme all over this newsletter,
that policy makers should coordinate their action in a world of integrated economnies and financial
markets, in order to boost consumer confidence and smooth the transition, either at the level of
monetary policy or economic model, to allow asset managers to be able to identify an investment
oasis in the middle of these moving sands.
6
January 14th, 2016
Purchasing Managers Indices (PMI) (2014-2015):
Feb Mar Apr
Gl oba l Ma nufa cturi ng
51.9 51.7 51.0
Gl oba l Servi ces
54.1 55.2 54.8
Gl oba l Compos i te
53.9 54.8 54.2
US Ma nufa cturi ng
52.9 51.5 51.5
US Servi ces
56.9 56.5 57.8
US Ma nuf. New Orders
52.5 51.8 53.5
EU Ma nufa cturi ng
51.0 52.2 52.0
EU Servi ces
53.7 54.2 54.1
EU Compos i te
53.3 54.0 53.9
Chi na Ma nufa cturi ng
49.9 50.1 50.1
Chi na Servi ces
53.9 53.7 53.4
Chi na Ma nuf. New Orders 50.4 50.2 50.2
May
51.3
54.0
53.6
52.8
55.7
55.8
52.2
53.8
53.6
50.2
53.2
50.6
Jun
51.0
53.6
53.1
53.5
56.0
56.0
52.5
54.4
54.2
50.2
53.8
50.1
Jul
51.1
54.1
53.7
52.7
60.3
56.5
52.4
54.0
53.9
50.0
53.9
49.9
Aug
50.7
54.6
53.9
51.1
59.0
51.7
52.3
54.4
54.3
49.7
53.4
49.7
Sep
50.7
53.3
52.8
50.2
56.9
50.1
52.0
53.7
53.6
49.8
53.4
50.2
Oct
51.3
53.5
53.1
50.1
59.1
52.9
52.3
54.1
53.9
49.8
53.1
50.3
Nov
51.2
53.9
53.6
48.6
55.9
48.9
52.8
54.2
54.2
49.6
53.6
49.8
Dec
50.9
53.1
52.9
48.2
55.3
49.2
53.2
54.2
54.3
49.7
54.4
50.2
* PMI reading above 50 indicates economy expansion
* Red points displayed within the lines above indicate highest point in the range
* Figures in green indicate acceleration from previous month, while red indicate deceleration
Oil: Unsustainable Low Prices…The Pain Game Continues
Baker Hughes United States Crude Oil Rotary
Rig Count Data
700
650
600
DOE EIA US Crude Oil Production (MBPD)
10,000
9,500
9,000
Expected decline in US
oil production -600k
Barrels in 2016
8,500
550
8,000
500
7,500
Lookback on 2015
In 2015 the assumptions were that a
rebalancing process has started off in the oil
market, which would lead to self- correction.
This started off by a pickup in demand, and a
fall in US rig count, coupled with a decline in oil
production outside OPEC. However, OPEC
chaired by Saudi Arabia was pumping around
1.5mln barrel per day above their agreed
quota of 30mln barrel; this exacerbated the
glut and contributed to the upsurge in
inventory, not to mention that the weather
was warmer during the winter season due to
the El Nino phenomenon which added to the
lower demand for heating oil. On a separate
note, Strong USD and Yuan devaluation are a
negative drag on oil performance that would
continue onto 2016.
2016 Journey
In 2016, the expected comeback of Iran to the oil
market with around 350k-500k barrel per day of
extra production, is implying a bearish sentiment
over the first few months of the year. Other
factors to watch would be the level of inventory
worldwide, as running out of inventory storage
space is bearish. On the other hand, we need to
watch the potential fall in US oil production,
which would be supportive for prices along with
a growing demand; Moreover, current low oil
prices are not sustainable; they cause losses and
defaults for companies, deficits in oil exporting
countries and possibly riots. In addition, they are
not feasible to invest in new production capacity
which may lead to a cap on the world production
capacity for the near future.
7
January 14th, 2016
63
58
53
The recent sharp rise in prices (25% in three days)
relates to two refinery shutdowns in Canada and
Nigeria, along with news that OPEC is concerned by
the oil price drop and is willing to talk with other
producers; Presidents Putin of Russia and Maduro of
Venezuela to hold talks about stability of oil markets;
prominent investors and billionaires are buying into
energy stocks
Brent Crude Oil Prices (USD/Bbl)
48
43
38
31
33
28
The Iran Nuclear Deal and potential of stabilization in Libya raised
expectations of increased supply in the medium term horizon which
would amplify the oil glut. It is claimed that Iran has around 17mln
barrels of oil in sea. However according to Iran oil minister, they need
USD 100bn in investment and around 3 years of investment to restore
production back to levels of 5 years ago
This was coupled by turmoil in China and rising fear of potential
economic slowdown not to mention surging USD and the high
production by OPEC led by Saudi Arabia and Iraq
While Saudi Arabia is fighting for market share, it signaled that it will
reduce production by the end of summer and will hike its selling prices
for September. At current pricing levels we think that oil glut is priced
in despite the noise and volatility
Decline in rig count in the US coupled with a fall
in production and rising demand, along with
media reports that OPEC and non OPEC
producers led by Russia and KSA are willing
finally to talk business and elevate prices
According to IEA “Oil's price collapse is closing
down high-cost production from Eagle Ford in
Texas to Russia and the North Sea, which may
result in the loss next year of half a million
barrels a day - the biggest decline in 24 years”
From a seasonal perspective, the US refinery
maintenance season will end by mid -October
which would raise demand for oil, in addition,
European refineries announced that they have
postponed maintenance till next year.
Geopolitical tensions and Russia‘s intervention
in Syria provided support to oil prices
OPEC MEETING DEC 4TH 2015
OPEC did not agree on any production level and
preferred to see the effect of the return of Iran
to market early next year once the sanctions
are lifted.
OPEC will not come at the rescue of the market
unless non-OPEC producers join efforts
On the positive side OPEC said that they could
meet again before its regularly scheduled
meeting in June 2016
Low oil prices to influence both demand and
supply especially that at these levels supply is
not sustainable. The question would be how
long would the pain last.
Starting January 2016: Oil accelerated its
slump with the start of the new year as a bad
Chinese Caixin PMI was announced, which
raised concerns about global economic growth
and demand for commodities in general; this
was accompanied by political tensions between
Iran and Saudi Arabia that dampened the
prospects of reaching an agreement within
OPEC to try and raise or stabilize oil prices.
According to Wood Mackenzie USD 380bn in
Capex in the oil and gas industry were
cancelled since 2014, including USD 170bn that
was planned between 2016-2020, this shows
that investments in new capacity at such low
prices is limited.
8
January 14th, 2016
MENA: Shifting Fiscal Stance
Geopolitical actions and policymakers economic measures continue to dominate the scene in the
MENA region. Tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia escalated at the beginning of the year and
culminated by cutting diplomatic ties. On a separate note, it was the season of government
budgets across the GCC which came in line with analysts expectations in terms of spending
rationalization and reforms which included the removal of fuel, electricity, and water subsidies
across the board and in Saudi Arabia in particular. Despite the announcement of the budgets,
analysts and market participants are looking for more clues regarding the news of a potential IPO
of Saudi Aramco (the larget national oil company in the world) or for some of it downstream
subsidiaries, and more importantly investors are waiting for the announcement of the strategy of
national economic transformation, expected at the end of January in Saudi Arabia and pioneered
by the Deputy Crown Prince to get a better guidance on the next economic phase in the country.
Meanwhile, we are including for your benefit the impact of subsidy removal on major listed
companies in Saudi Arabia with a main focus on petrochemical, cements and key companies such
as Al Marai. We opted to list the impact as announced by the companies themselves. For instance,
should the government allow cement companies to raise prices or export excess inventories this
would change the landscape in the industry. In the case of petrochemicals, we should differentiate
between companies paying a fixed price and those paying a variable price for their feedstocks not
to mention the level of end product prices.
Energy price changes
Feedstock
Methane (Natural Gas)
Ethane
Propane
Butane
Unit
Old Price
New Price
% Change
USD/mmbtu
USD/mmbtu
USD/Ton
USD/Ton
0.75
0.75
28% discount to Japanese Naphtha
28% discount to Japanese Naphtha
1.25
1.75
20% discount to Japanese Propane
20% discount to Japanese Butane
133.3%
66.67%
11%
11%
Residential Electricity tariffs changes
Consumption Category
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
9001-10000
> 10000
Unit
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
Old Price
12
12
15
20
22
24
26
New Price
20
20
30
30
30
30
30
% Change
66%
66%
100%
50%
36%
25%
15%
Old Price
20
20
20
20
26
26
26
New Price
24
24
24
24
30
30
30
% Change
20%
20%
20%
20%
15%
15%
15%
Commercial Electricity tariffs changes
Consumption Category
4001-5000
5001-6000
6001-7000
7001-8000
8001-9000
9001-10000
> 10000
Unit
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
1 Halalah per KWH
9
January 14th, 2016
Net Income
2014
Net Income Trailing 12
Months
Subsidy Impact
Arabian
645.4
592.2
40 million
Northern
200
193.1
34 million
Yamama
670.8
614.1
60 million
Yanbu
801.9
790.6
45 million
Hail
147.1
124.4
24 million
Qassim
563.6
586.4
47 million
Saudi
1,074.10
1,033.80
68 million
Najran
243.2
265.9
29 million
Eastern
373
323.1
43 million
1,045.40
983.9
50 million
City
221.8
230.5
15 - 20 million
Tabuk
137.6
97.6
21 million
Al Jouf
60.5
60.5
35 million
Sipchem
606.2
394.7
120 million
Tasnee
1,070.50
-575.9
190 million
Yansab
2,477.70
1,432.00
6.5% increase in costs
933.3
757
Company
Cement Companies
Southern
Petrochemical Companies
SIIG
Sahara
140 - 180 million
3.0% increase in Costs (on Natural gas and
electricity)
1.5% increase in costs (on Natural Gas and
electricity)
385.4
166.3
751
767.1
Sabic
23,347.10
20,065.30
5% increase in costs
Safco
3,174.00
2,531.10
8% increase in costs
Petrorabigh
681.4
52.3
300 million
Chemanol
32.2
32.2
30 million
Nama
-112.5
-94.6
12.5 million
Alujain
167.4
144.1
10 - 40 million
Kayan
-44.7
-607.1
1.0% increase in costs
Petrochem
774.5
920.9
50 million
Maaden
1,357.30
986.8
120 million
Spimaco
316.9
457.5
6 million
Al Marai
1,674.30
1,860.00
500 million
107.2
127
100 - 110 million
Advanced
Other Companies
Nadec
10
January 14th, 2016
Major Indices
MENA
Abu Dhabi
Bahrain
Dubai
Egypt
Jordan
Kuwait
Lebanon
Morocco
Oman
Palestine
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Tunisia
S&P Pan Arab Composite
Dow Jones MENA
Americas
Dow Jones Industrial
S&P 500
NASDAQ Composite
S&P/Toronto Composite
Europe
EURO Stoxx 50
S&P Europe 350 Index
FTSE 100 Index/ London
FTSE MIB Index/ Italy
DAX Index/ Germany
ASIA/Pacific
NIKKEI 225/ Japan
S&P/ASX 200/ Australia
BRIC
Brazil/ Bovespa
Russia/ RTS
India/ Bombay Sensitive
China/ Shanghai Composite
Hong Kong/ Hang Seng
Dec. 2014
Status as of end
Dec. 2015
4,528.93
1,426.57
3,774.00
8,926.58
2,165.46
6,535.72
1,170.26
9,620.11
6,343.22
502.79
12,285.78
8,333.30
5,089.99
795.11
599.89
4,307.26
1,215.89
3,151.00
7,006.01
2,136.32
5,615.12
1,169.52
8,925.71
5,406.22
532.73
10,429.36
6,911.76
5,042.16
658.55
497.94
1.67%
-1.35%
-1.66%
10.22%
7.15%
-3.23%
0.17%
-1.84%
-2.55%
2.39%
3.36%
-4.53%
1.85%
-1.60%
-1.19%
-4.89%
-14.77%
-16.51%
-21.52%
-1.35%
-14.09%
-0.06%
-7.22%
-14.77%
5.95%
-15.11%
-17.06%
-0.94%
-17.17%
-16.99%
17,823.07
2,058.90
4,736.05
14,632.44
17,425.03
2,043.94
5,007.41
13,009.95
-1.66%
-1.75%
-1.98%
-3.41%
-2.23%
-0.73%
5.73%
-11.09%
3,146.43
1,401.41
6,566.09
19,011.96
9,805.55
3,267.52
1,474.06
6,242.32
21,418.37
10,743.01
-6.81%
-5.40%
-1.79%
-5.72%
-5.62%
3.85%
5.18%
-4.93%
12.66%
9.56%
17,450.77
5,411.02
19,033.71
5,295.90
-3.61%
2.50%
9.07%
-2.13%
50,007.41
790.71
27,499.42
3,234.68
23,605.04
43,349.96
757.04
26,117.54
3,539.18
21,914.40
-3.92%
-10.63%
-0.11%
2.72%
-0.37%
-13.31%
-4.26%
-5.03%
9.41%
-7.16%
Dec. 2015
Performance
YTD (31 Dec. 2015)
11
January 14th, 2016
Description
Closing Prices as of end
Dec. 2014
Dec. 2015
Commodities (in USD)
Brent Spot (Barrel)
WTI Cushing Spot (Barrel)
Natural Gas NYMEX (MMBtu)
Gold Spot (OZ)
Silver Spot (OZ)
Copper LME Spot (MT)
Iron Ore Spot Price 62% USD (MT)
Corn CBOT Active Month (Bushel)
Wheat CBOT Active Month (Bushel)
Soybean CBOT Active Month (Bushel)
Rough Rice Futures (USD/cwt)
Currencies Spot Exchange Rates Against US Dollar
Euro
GBP
CAD
Yen
CNY
Dec. 2015
Performance
YTD (31 Dec. 2015)
55.76
53.27
3.53
1,185
15.70
6,368
69.30
4.29
6.19
10.14
11.63
35.75
37.04
2.34
1,061
13.86
4,706
43.40
3.59
4.70
8.64
11.84
-16.51%
-11.07%
2.05%
-0.31%
-1.62%
2.32%
0.23%
-3.63%
-1.16%
-2.15%
-2.75%
-35.89%
-30.47%
-33.80%
-10.42%
-11.75%
-26.10%
-37.37%
-16.42%
-24.07%
-14.77%
1.76%
1.2098
1.5577
0.8605
0.0084
0.1611
1.0862
1.4736
0.7227
0.0083
0.1540
2.81%
-2.13%
-3.43%
2.38%
-1.48%
-10.22%
-5.40%
-16.01%
-0.47%
-4.42%
12
January 14th, 2016
Capital Investments
Asset Management Dept.
Tel: +962 6 5200330
Ext. 494 & 832
[email protected]
Disclaimer
The information and opinions contained in this document have been compiled in good faith from sources believed to be reliable. Capital
Investments makes no warranty as to the accuracy and completeness of the information contained herein. All opinions and estimates
included in this report constitute and reflect our independent judgment as of the date published on the report and are subject to change
without notice. Capital Investments accepts no liability whatsoever for any loss of any kind arising out of the use of all or any part of this
report. Capital Investments and its related companies may have performed or seek to perform any financial or advisory services for the
companies mentioned in this report. Capital Investments, its funds, or its employees may from time to time take positions or effect
transactions in the securities issued by the companies mentioned in this report .This document may not be reproduced in any form without
the expressed written permission of Capital Investments. The opinions contained within the report are based upon publicly available
information at the time of publication and are subject to change without notice. Prior to investing, investors should seek independent
financial, tax and legal advice.
13

Monthly Newsletter - Capital Investments

Transcription

Similar documents

I`m helping to end MS by participating in the 2016 Jayman BUILT MS

The Board of Directors of Qatar Fuel (WOQOD) is pleased to invite

5 `S` Training Program at ABV-IIITM, Gwalior on 21.07.2016

4 star ALOE HOTEL, PAPHOS

2016 MW Alliance Raffle - Manitowish Waters Alliance LTD

HERE - Perfect Shots Photography

2016 Sponsorship Prospectus

Annonce S1

CREATEng

BAND-tastic! Georgia 2016 Flyer_Layout 1