Steel is the world’s second-largest commodity after crude oil. It is 15 times the size of all other metals markets combined in terms of metric tons. Furthermore, it is worth twice their value.
Yet, until recently, it was an industry that saw little use for a futures market. That is primarily because major steel participants enjoyed stable long-term prices for the materials they needed.
Price material volatility
Prices for iron ore and coking coal, two of the essential raw materials for steel production, have become far more volatile in recent years. That volatility has sent price shocks rippling through the supply chain. In turn, it has created volatility in finished steel prices that consumers are desperate to contain.
Enter the major futures exchanges. For over 200 years, the London Metal Exchange (LME) has provided the trade – producers, traders and consumers – the opportunity to hedge their risk across a growing range of base metals.
However, only recently have exchanges such as the LME, the U.S.’s CME and the Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE) in China introduced products allowing the trade to hedge raw material and finished steel price risk.
Over the last year, COVID-19 restrictions have closed showrooms. Furthermore, Brexit has raised the prospect of trading tariffs with Europe. In addition, the government has repeatedly moved the goal posts on the sale of internal combustion engines toward the end of the decade.
A new trade deal with the E.U. allows tariff free access to the U.K.’s largest automotive export market. The announcement of the new deal on Christmas Eve proved a massive relief for the industry, according to Mike Hawes, chief executive of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), an industry body, as quoted in the Financial Times.
However, tariff-free does not mean barrier-free. Additional safety certification and much more onerous paperwork involved in the movement of goods between the U.K. and the E.U. will increase complexity for a U.K. supply chain intimately entwined with the E.U.
New clarity in 2021 for U.K. automotive industry
Nevertheless, the U.K. automotive industry is at least starting 2021 with better clarity than it endured through much of last year.
But one looming crisis the SMMT identified is the incomplete nature of the U.K.’s electric vehicle supply chain.
Specifically, the FT reports, the U.K. is going to need far more battery factories if it is to sustain a switch to electric vehicles in the decade ahead.
In Brazil, historic environmental restrictions and, at least in Q1 2020, heavy rains hampered Vale’s operations. In addition, the miner faced an ongoing impact on its workforce due to the spread of the virus in South America.
Meanwhile, Australia had fewer environmental and pandemic-related challenges.
However, the country has been fighting an ongoing trade war with China. The conflict stems from Australian suggestions that China should investigate and publish details on the cause and early spread of the COVID-19 virus from Wuhan.
Beijing has reacted negatively to those suggestions. In turn, it has applied sanctions on Australian thermal coal and other commodities in a bid to get them to retract the demand.
As a result, China has tried to dissuade purchases from Australia. However, with supply out of Brazil hampered, Australia still secured the lion’s share, amounting to some 60% of Chinese iron ore imports.
It took until Christmas Eve — ahead of the Dec. 31 deadline exit date for both sides to make the final compromises necessary to reach an agreement.
However, to Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s credit, after all of the lies and disinformation around the benefits of leaving the E.U., he did finally get it done. Even the normally neutral and sober Financial Times acknowledges it is but the bare bones of a deal, with much left uncovered and much still to be agreed.
The deal covers goods, exports to the E.U. of which make up just 8% of U.K. GDP. However, the deal leaves out services. According to The Guardian, services account for around 80% of the U.K.’s economic activity and about 50% of its exports by value to the E.U.
There will be a lengthy process of ongoing negotiation around how much access the City of London is allowed to E.U. business. Similarly, there will be discussions regarding what constitutes the required “equivalence” for which the E.U. is looking.
This means the previous passporting agreement allowing automatic access to the E.U. is replaced by so-called equivalence. That is, each side unilaterally permits companies from the other to conduct certain financial activities in its territory.
That’s hardly a stable position. E.U. countries like France and Germany have made no secret of their desire to challenge the U.K.’s historical dominance in financial services post-Brexit.
The oil price is caught between a short-term recovery and the medium-term prospect of peak oil, as countries ramp up programs to decarbonize by switching power generation sources and banning internal combustion engines (ICE).
The oil price has been seesawing between vaccine optimism and pandemic pessimism. Yet, it has managed a gradual recovery from its lows last year to around $50 a barrel now.
Could the coronavirus pandemic bring about more reshoring in the U.S.?
The question is not just of interest in the U.S. By many measures, Europe has been hit as severely by the pandemic. If anything, Europe is even more reliant on global supply chains than the U.S.
The political philosophy that underpinned the Trump administration’s efforts to slow China’s advance — that is, to bring jobs back to the U.S. and “level the playing field” — is also prevalent in Europe. However, in the more fragmented political environment of the E.U., that philosophy is arguably taking longer to come into focus.
Disruption to supply chains due to lockdowns was a relatively short, albeit very sharp, shock.
Automakers temporarily shut down Japanese production lines due to a shortage of parts from China in Q1. Furthermore, there is ongoing chaos at European, particularly U.K., ports due to a host of pandemic-related factors.
Supply chains far and wide have struggled during 2020. These challenges are prompting many to ask: is this the jolt needed to stimulate a great reset?
There has been quite a bit of analyst chatter about the likely impact of China’s return to the steel scrap market next year.
In 2019, the authorities essentially banned steel scrap imports. The move came, in part, because many of the grades were classified as waste. However, of late the rumor is China will be moving to reclassify ferrous scrap as a recyclable resource and could lift the import ban (probably in Q1 2021).
Cut-to-length adders. Width and gauge adders. Coatings. Feel confident in knowing what you should be paying for metal with MetalMiner should-cost models.
Steel scrap imports plunge
According to Platts, China has 184 million tons of EAF steelmaking capacity at the end of 2020. Furthermore, the country will likely have 197 million tons by end of 2021.
The totals are up from 175 million ton at the end of 2019, when scrap imports had plunged to just 180,000 tons due to the ban.
Domestic steel scrap production has been on the rise, generating some 240 million tons in 2019. As such, the 2014-18 average annual imports figure can be seen as minuscule by comparison.
But while they may be small, they are not insignificant.
Normally, imports rise and fall relative to the premium arbitrage of domestic prices over world prices. Currently, domestic steel scrap prices in China are said to be about $60/mt or Yuan 400/mt over Southeast Asian seaborne scrap prices on like-for-like grades (when freight and taxes are included).
Should imports be relaxed, there is, therefore, the potential to suck in considerable imports.
Platts suggests this would not top the record 13.7 million tons imported in 2009. Some, however, disagree, saying it could reach 20 million tons.
Recognizing the direction of flow and going with it is certainly a good survival tactic, particularly with respect to diesel engines.
So the move by European truck makers to tackle the challenge of a continent-wide commitment to decarburization should be seen as a refreshing attempt to mold the narrative and future landscape rather than refusing to acknowledge the direction of travel.
Diesel engines, electric vehicles and lower emissions
The European Union has plans to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by the end of the decade.
Transport will play a big part in that.
Automotive car manufacturers, driven by challenging targets, have and continue to invest billions to develop viable electric vehicles. In some cases, they are also exploring alternatives such as fuel cells.
However, the truck industry has so far concentrated on producing ever more fuel-efficient, lower-emission diesel engines.
Daimler, Scania, Man, Volvo, Daf, Iveco and Ford have signed a pledge to phase out traditional combustion engines and focus on hydrogen, battery technology and clean fuels.
The report says the industry will spend between €50 billion and €100 billion on new technologies to achieve this goal. First, they plan on introducing biofuels, which have a carbon capture and storage component. Having already taken CO2 out of the atmosphere, they are said to be more carbon neutral than fossil fuels. However, they will migrate over the next twenty years to hydrogen fuel cells and batteries — or, likely, a combination of both depending on how technologies and investment in infrastructure develops.
Under the coordination of the E.U. carmakers’ association ACEA, they are working with the German-funded Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research to consider the best technologies and approaches to follow – and, no doubt, where to lobby for state support to aid the process.
Carbon tax disincentive
One key area already identified is a higher carbon tax in the E.U. The industry says that to realistically incentivize investment they have to disincentivize the advantages currently enjoyed by internal combustion engine (ICE) systems. “If politicians continue to subsidize fossil fuels, it will be very difficult for us, we need to change the behavior of our customers, and of our customers’ customers,” Scania chief executive Henrik Henriksson told the Financial Times.
It goes without saying that, in the meantime, the customer is going to end up paying for this. A higher carbon tax will be borne by the trucking industry and its users, not by truck manufacturers.
As costs rise for ICE engine systems (e.g., diesel), the industry will find demand will fall for ICE engines. In turn, demand will rise for EV or fuel cell alternatives. Of course, that will only happen if they are deemed viable in terms of range, reliability and speed of refueling.
As a trucker observed to me the other day, “I covered 250,000 miles in the last three years, if I went electric it would currently take me six years because I would spend half my time sitting in truck stops recharging!”
That’s why many believe the future for heavy transport will be hydrogen fuel cells with battery back-up or support.
However, two challenges need to be resolved.
The first is an adequate infrastructure of refuelling stations, at least on major roads and motorways.
The other is the development of clean energy electrolysis splitting water. Currently, most hydrogen comes from natural gas making it essentially a fossil fuel.
Still, as we have seen with auto EVs, first technology needs to be developed. Then, costs have to be reduced. Gradually, the most viable solutions emerge.
At least Europe’s truck makers are trying to coordinate investment and agree on a common direction — that’s an encouraging sign.
When Jim O’Neill, former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former U.K. treasury minister, posts his thoughts on what 2021 may bring for equities, commodities and the dollar, it is worth taking a few minutes to listen.
Few economists have his level of both academic and practical experience in global financial markets. Over the decades, he has been proved more right than wrong.
The premise of his post is simple: will 2021 prove to be a bull or a bear market?
Spoiler alert: he believes it will be a bull. However, he says it won’t be with the same trajectory as the recovery in 2020 has seen.
To the downside, he sees risks from a slow rollout of vaccines. After huge hype, the vaccines have raised expectations of an early end to the pandemic.
Countries that have struggled to cope with testing and tracing, such as the U.K., may struggle to roll out an effective vaccination program. Organizationally, the two are not so very different in their challenges.
Aluminum buyers will have read a recent announcement in Bloomberg with a sense of panic, if not déjà vu, as the specter of Rusal sanctions reportedly looms again.
“Aluminum Surges on Concern U.S. May Reapply Rusal Sanctions” ran the headline, reminding buyers of the chaos that ensued in 2018. At that time, the Trump administration applied sanctions against Oleg Deripaska, owner of En+ and, therefore, Rusal Aluminium. The decision effectively banned Rusal metal from the U.S. market. Furthermore, it banned, by extension, metal from any suppliers of product based on Rusal primary metal – much of Europe and parts of Asia.
By way of context, Rusal is the largest aluminum producer in the world outside of China. The company accounts for some 6% of global supply.
The firm is the largest supplier in Europe and still retains the position of being in the top five to the U.S. market.
Back in 2018, when Rusal stood on the outside looking into the Western world’s metal markets. Physical delivery premiums, particularly the Midwest Premium, skyrocketed to nearly $500 per metric ton. (Although, it has to be said, the Midwest Premium was already somewhat elevated before the Rusal sanctions by earlier, more Chinese-focused tariff action.)
There appears to be a number of factors at play this time around.