Future Returns: Investing In the Soaring Energy Sector

Energy has transitioned from the worst- to best-performing sector in a matter of months. How long is it likely to outperform? And which companies are most promising for investors?

Serious difficulties for the energy sector began in April 2020. Demand screeched to a halt under pandemic lockdowns, and the futures prices on the global benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) cratered to negative territory for the first time. The per-barrel price plummeted from US$18 to negative US$37 due to oversupply as Covid-19 crippled industry and mobility around the globe.

But the sector came roaring back to life late last year on positive vaccine news and surged through this year’s first quarter, as successful vaccine rollouts enabled relaxation of Covid-19 restrictions and economic activity rekindled.

In the first quarter, many big oil companies banked a profit for the first time since the pandemic began. Meanwhile, investors have been soundly rewarded. Through last week, the energy sector was up 35% this year compared to 9.5% for the S&P 500.

Bull or Bear?

Sam Halpert, Philadelphia-based chief investment officer at Macquarie Investment Management who oversees the firm’s natural resources equity strategy, views the recent outperformance as a cyclical bull market in the context of a secular bear market for the sector.

“The bull market could last two or three years, but there are still long-term issues around hydrocarbon and the energy transition that will impact the sector,” Halpert says.

The energy sector was under pressure even prior to the pandemic as investors were increasingly hesitant to commit capital as an inevitable transition from fossil fuels to greener choices loomed.

Lack of capital flowing into energy companies focused on shale technology is a hindrance to oil production. “Investors have not been willing to finance shale, there’s been a decrease in investment and production,” Halpert says. “Production was 11 million barrels a day last week, and we peaked at 13.1 million barrels a day in March 2020.”

Pressure on the sector isn’t likely to let up. In fact, the transition from the U.S.’s reliance on fossil fuels to low-carbon energy alternatives has renewed political momentum under President Joseph Biden, who supports policies that elevate greener alternatives and aims for the U.S. to have a 100% clean energy economy and net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

Investors’ decline in interest in energy has been steady and notable. In 1980, the sector accounted for almost 30% of the index. By 2019 the percentage was 5.3% and this it slipped to 2.33%.

While energy will clearly be impacted over the long term by fundamental changes, “there are a lot of companies that can benefit during the transition and are changing the way they do things,” Halpert says. “They’re becoming more environmentally friendly or changing business slightly to areas that have more growth, and the market is rewarding that.”

Consolidation Boom

Some of the best opportunities are among companies that are not only accommodating environmental factors in the way they do business, but that are sound enough to be gobbling up smaller players in what has been a highly fragmented industry.

The consolidation has been rapid: For example, in late 2019, Parsley Energy of Midland, Texas, acquired Denver-based Jagged Peak. Since then, Parsley was acquired by Pioneer Natural Resources of Irving, Texas, which in May completed the acquisition of Midland, Texas-based DoublePoint Energy.

A central region for the consolidation boom is the Permian Basin, a 75,000-square-mile region from West Texas to Southeastern New Mexico. With rich oil reserves discovered some dozen years ago, it now accounts for more than one-third of oil production in the U.S. Just two years ago the Permian Basin unseated Saudi Arabia’s Ghawar oilfield as the biggest producer in the world.

“There have been too many players, many with marginal acreage or fields they’re developing,” says Geoffrey King, senior vice president and portfolio manager at Macquarie. As investor capital has declined, many of the smaller players have struggled.

King looks for opportunities among companies with sustainable practices that are in position to buy the smaller players. They’re benefiting from strengthened commodity prices and a perked-up demand.

“They have the ability to not only develop and maintain a growth rate comparable to the overall average S&P 500 growth rate, but to deliver excess cash to shareholders,” King says. “The model is being proven out and we’re in inning two or three.”

Veteran Industry Players

Among biggest holdings in Halpert’s and King’s institutional strategy is Plano, Texas-based Denbury (DEN), one of their few small-cap names that focuses on producing carbon negative barrels oil through carbon sequestration, which is the process of capturing and storing carbon dioxide.

“As people talk more about carbon sequestration, this is the game in town,” King says. “A lot of industrial companies don’t want to deal with the complexity of storing carbon. We think this is a very unique small-cap story that’s underappreciated.”

Another is Valero, the San Antonio-based largest independent refiner in the U.S.

“It has best-in-class assets and best-in-class management team,” Halpert says. “They’ve done a really good job returning capital to shareholders over the last several years.”

The company recently entered into an agreement with Darling, which processes waste such as from meat processing plants and the leftover oil from restaurants and food businesses. Valero transforms the waste into the fuel equivalent of ethanol.

“It has the identical chemical properties as ethanol, but ethanol has constraints around usage. It’s tough in the cold weather because it can cause engines to clog,” Halpern says. “Valero’s product is a low carbon fuel and low cost to produce.”

Another noteworthy holding is the big oil service company Schlumberger (SLB), based in Houston but with a global reach. “It’s involved in lithium, carbon sequestration, and a number of technologies that will be important in the energy transition,” Halpert says.

While there are numerous new entrants to the energy transition play, “we prefer to play it with a company with a balance sheet like Schlumberger and the technology of Schlumberger.”

Imagine if having children came with more than $150,000 in cheap loans, a subsidised minivan and a lifetime exemption from income taxes.

Would people have more kids? The answer, it seems, is no.

These are among the benefits—along with cheap child care, extra vacation and free fertility treatments—that have been doled out to parents in different parts of Europe, a region at the forefront of the worldwide baby shortage. Europe’s overall population shrank during the pandemic and is on track to contract by about 40 million by 2050, according to United Nations statistics.

Birthrates have been falling across the developed world since the 1960s. But the decline hit Europe harder and faster than demographers expected—a foreshadowing of the sudden drop in the U.S. fertility rate in recent years.

Reversing the decline in birthrates has become a national priority among governments worldwide, including in China and Russia , where Vladimir Putin declared 2024 “the year of the family.” In the U.S., both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump have pledged to rethink the U.S.’s family policies . Harris wants to offer a $6,000 baby bonus. Trump has floated free in vitro fertilisation and tax deductions for parents.

Europe and other demographically challenged economies in Asia such as South Korea and Singapore have been pushing back against the demographic tide with lavish parental benefits for a generation. Yet falling fertility has persisted among nearly all age groups, incomes and education levels. Those who have many children often say they would have them even without the benefits. Those who don’t say the benefits don’t make enough of a difference.

Two European countries devote more resources to families than almost any other nation: Hungary and Norway. Despite their programs, they have fertility rates of 1.5 and 1.4 children for every woman, respectively—far below the replacement rate of 2.1, the level needed to keep the population steady. The U.S. fertility rate is 1.6.

Demographers suggest the reluctance to have kids is a fundamental cultural shift rather than a purely financial one.

“I used to say to myself, I’m too young. I have to finish my bachelor’s degree. I have to find a partner. Then suddenly I woke up and I was 28 years old, married, with a car and a house and a flexible job and there were no more excuses,” said Norwegian Nancy Lystad Herz. “Even though there are now no practical barriers, I realised that I don’t want children.”

The Hungarian model

Both Hungary and Norway spend more than 3% of GDP on their different approaches to promoting families—more than the amount they spend on their militaries, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Hungary says in recent years its spending on policies for families has exceeded 5% of GDP. The U.S. spends around 1% of GDP on family support through child tax credits and programs aimed at low-income Americans.

Hungary’s subsidised housing loan program has helped almost 250,000 families buy or upgrade their homes, the government says. Orsolya Kocsis, a 28-year-old working in human resources, knows having kids would help her and her husband buy a larger house in Budapest, but it isn’t enough to change her mind about not wanting children.

“If we were to say we’ll have two kids, we could basically buy a new house tomorrow,” she said. “But morally, I would not feel right having brought a life into this world to buy a house.”

Promoting baby-making, known as pro natalism, is a key plank of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán ’s broader populist agenda . Hungary’s biennial Budapest Demographic Summit has become a meeting ground for prominent conservative politicians and thinkers. Former Fox News anchor Tucker Carlson and JD Vance, Trump’s vice president pick, have lauded Orbán’s family policies.

Orbán portrays having children inside what he has called a “traditional” family model as a national duty, as well as an alternative to immigration for growing the population. The benefits for child-rearing in Hungary are mostly reserved for married, heterosexual, middle-class couples. Couples who divorce lose subsidised interest rates and in some cases have to pay back the support.

Hungary’s population, now less than 10 million, has been shrinking since the 1980s. The country is about the size of Indiana.

“Because there are so few of us, there’s always this fear that we are disappearing,” said Zsuzsanna Szelényi, program director at the CEU Democracy Institute and author of a book on Orbán.

Hungary’s fertility rate collapsed after the fall of the Soviet Union and by 2010 was down to 1.25 children for every woman. Orbán, a father of five, and his Fidesz party swept back into power that year after being ousted in the early 2000s. He expanded the family support system over the next decade.

Hungary’s fertility rate rose to 1.6 children for every woman in 2021. Ivett Szalma, an associate professor at Corvinus University of Budapest, said that like in many other countries, women in Hungary who had delayed having children after the global financial crisis were finally catching up.

Then progress stalled. Hungary’s fertility rate has fallen for the past two years. Around 51,500 babies have been born there this year through August, a 10% drop compared with the same period last year. Many Hungarian women cite underfunded public health and education systems and difficulties balancing work and family as part of their hesitation to have more children.

Anna Nagy, a 35-year-old former lawyer, had her son in January 2021. She received a loan of about $27,300 that she didn’t have to start paying back until he turned 3. Nagy had left her job before getting pregnant but still received government-funded maternity payments, equal to 70% of her former salary, for the first two years and a smaller amount for a third year.

She used to think she wanted two or three kids, but now only wants one. She is frustrated at the implication that demographic challenges are her responsibility to solve. Economists point to increased immigration and a higher retirement age as other offsets to the financial strains on government budgets from a declining population.

“It’s not our duty as Hungarian women to keep the nation alive,” she said.

Big families

Hungary is especially generous to families who have several children, or who give birth at younger ages. Last year, the government announced it would restrict the loan program used by Nagy to women under 30. Families who pledge to have three or more children can get more than $150,000 in subsidised loans. Other benefits include a lifetime exemption from personal taxes for mothers with four or more kids, and up to seven extra annual vacation days for both parents.

Under another program that’s now expired, nearly 30,000 families used a subsidy to buy a minivan, the government said.

Critics of Hungary’s family policies say the money is wasted on people who would have had large families anyway. The government has also been criticised for excluding groups such as the minority Roma population and poorer Hungarians. Bank accounts, credit histories and a steady employment history are required for many of the incentives.

Orbán’s press office didn’t respond to requests for comment. Tünde Fűrész, head of a government-backed demographic research institute, disagreed that the policies are exclusionary and said the loans were used more heavily in economically depressed areas.

Eszter Gerencsér and her husband, Tamas, always wanted a big family. Photo: Akos Stiller for WSJ

Government programs weren’t a determining factor for Eszter Gerencsér, 37, who said she and her husband always wanted a big family. They have four children, ages 3 to 10.

They received about $62,800 in low-interest loans through government programs and $35,500 in grants. They used the money to buy and renovate a house outside of Budapest. After she had her fourth child, the government forgave $11,000 of the debt. Her family receives a monthly payment of about $40 a month for each child.

Most Hungarian women stay home with their children until they turn 2, after which maternity payments are reduced. Publicly run nurseries are free for large families like hers. Gerencsér worked on and off between her pregnancies and returned full-time to work, in a civil-service job, earlier this year.

She still thinks Hungarian society is stacked against mothers and said she struggled to find a job because employers worried she would have to take lots of time off.

The country’s international reputation as family-friendly is “what you call good marketing,” she said.

Gina Ekholt said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child. Photo: Signe Fuglesteg Luksengard for WSJ

Nordic largesse

Norway has been incentivising births for decades with generous parental leave and subsidised child care. New parents in Norway can share nearly a year of fully paid leave, or around 14 months at 80% pay. More than three months are reserved for fathers to encourage more equal caregiving. Mothers are entitled to take at least an hour at work to breast-feed or pump.

The government’s goal has never been explicitly to encourage people to have more children, but instead to make it easier for women to balance careers and children, said Trude Lappegard, a professor who researches demography at the University of Oslo. Norway doesn’t restrict benefits for unmarried parents or same-sex couples.

Its fertility rate of 1.4 children per woman has steadily fallen from nearly 2 in 2009. Unlike Hungary, Norway’s population is still growing for now, due mostly to immigration.

“It is difficult to say why the population is having fewer children,” Kjersti Toppe, the Norwegian Minister of Children and Families, said in an email. She said the government has increased monthly payments for parents and has formed a committee to investigate the baby bust and ways to reverse it.

More women in Norway are childless or have only one kid. The percentage of 45-year-old women with three or more children fell to 27.5% last year from 33% in 2010. Women are also waiting longer to have children—the average age at which women had their first child reached 30.3 last year. The global surge in housing costs and a longer timeline for getting established in careers likely plays a role, researchers say. Older first-time mothers can face obstacles: Women 35 and older are at higher risk of infertility and pregnancy complications.

Gina Ekholt, 39, said the government’s policies have helped offset much of the costs of having a child and allowed her to maintain her career as a senior adviser at the nonprofit Save the Children Norway. She had her daughter at age 34 after a round of state-subsidised IVF that cost about $1,600. She wanted to have more children but can’t because of fertility issues.

She receives a monthly stipend of about $160 a month, almost fully offsetting a $190 monthly nursery fee.

“On the economy side, it hasn’t made a bump. What’s been difficult for me is trying to have another kid,” she said. “The notion that we should have more kids, and you’re very selfish if you have only had one…those are the things that took a toll on me.”

Her friend Ewa Sapieżyńska, a 44-year-old Polish-Norwegian writer and social scientist with one son, has helped her see the upside of the one-child lifestyle. “For me, the decision is not about money. It’s about my life,” she said.

Future Returns: Investing In the Soaring Energy Sector

The sector came roaring back to life late last year on positive vaccine news.

Subsidised minivans, no income taxes: Countries have rolled out a range of benefits to encourage bigger families, with no luck

The Hungarian model

Big families

Nordic largesse