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.”

For years, global companies showcased their Chinese operations as a source of robust growth. A burgeoning middle class, a stream of people moving to cities, and the creation of new services to cater to them—along with the promise of the further opening of the world’s second-largest economy—drew companies eager to tap into the action.

Then Covid hit, isolating China from much of the world. Chinese leader Xi Jinping tightened control of the economy, and U.S.-China relations hit a nadir. After decades of rapid growth, China’s economy is stuck in a rut, with increasing concerns about what will drive the next phase of its growth.

Though Chinese officials have acknowledged the sputtering economy, they have been reluctant to take more than incremental steps to reverse the trend. Making matters worse, government crackdowns on internet companies and measures to burst the country’s property bubble left households and businesses scarred.

Lowered Expectations

Now, multinational companies are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations and tempering their outlooks. Marriott International narrowed its global revenue per available room growth rate to 3% to 4%, citing continued weakness in China and expectations that demand could weaken further in the third quarter. Paris-based Kering , home to brands Gucci and Saint Laurent, posted a 22% decline in sales in the Asia-Pacific region, excluding Japan, in the first half amid weaker demand in Greater China, which includes Hong Kong and Macau.

Pricing pressure and deflation were common themes in quarterly results. Starbucks , which helped build a coffee culture in China over the past 25 years, described it as one of its most notable international challenges as it posted a 14% decline in sales from that business. As Chinese consumers reconsidered whether to spend money on Starbucks lattes, competitors such as Luckin Coffee increased pressure on the Seattle company. Starbucks executives said in their quarterly earnings call that “unprecedented store expansion” by rivals and a price war hurt profits and caused “significant disruptions” to the operating environment.

Executive anxiety extends beyond consumer companies. Elevator maker Otis Worldwide saw new-equipment orders in China fall by double digits in the second quarter, forcing it to cut its outlook for growth out of Asia. CEO Judy Marks told analysts on a quarterly earnings call that prices in China were down roughly 10% year over year, and she doesn’t see the pricing pressure abating. The company is turning to productivity improvements and cost cutting to blunt the hit.

Add in the uncertainty created by deteriorating U.S.-China relations, and many investors are steering clear. The iShares MSCI China exchange-traded fund has lost half its value since March 2021. Recovery attempts have been short-lived. undefined undefined And now some of those concerns are creeping into the U.S. market. “A decade ago China exposure [for a global company] was a way to add revenue growth to our portfolio,” says Margaret Vitrano, co-manager of large-cap growth strategies at ClearBridge Investments in New York. Today, she notes, “we now want to manage the risk of the China exposure.”

Vitrano expects improvement in 2025, but cautions it will be slow. Uncertainty over who will win the U.S. presidential election and the prospect of higher tariffs pose additional risks for global companies.

Behind the Malaise

For now, China is inching along at roughly 5% economic growth—down from a peak of 14% in 2007 and an average of about 8% in the 10 years before the pandemic. Chinese consumers hit by job losses and continued declines in property values are rethinking spending habits. Businesses worried about policy uncertainty are reluctant to invest and hire.

The trouble goes beyond frugal consumers. Xi is changing the economy’s growth model, relying less on the infrastructure and real estate market that fueled earlier growth. That means investing aggressively in manufacturing and exports as China looks to become more self-reliant and guard against geopolitical tensions.

The shift is hurting western multinationals, with deflationary forces amid burgeoning production capacity. “We have seen the investment community mark down expectations for these companies because they will have to change tack with lower-cost products and services,” says Joseph Quinlan, head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank.

Another challenge for multinationals outside of China is stiffened competition as Chinese companies innovate and expand—often with the backing of the government. Local rivals are upping the ante across sectors by building on their knowledge of local consumer preferences and the ability to produce higher-quality products.

Some global multinationals are having a hard time keeping up with homegrown innovation. Auto makers including General Motors have seen sales tumble and struggled to turn profitable as Chinese car shoppers increasingly opt for electric vehicles from BYD or NIO that are similar in price to internal-combustion-engine cars from foreign auto makers.

“China’s electric-vehicle makers have by leaps and bounds surpassed the capabilities of foreign brands who have a tie to the profit pool of internal combustible engines that they don’t want to disrupt,” says Christine Phillpotts, a fund manager for Ariel Investments’ emerging markets strategies.

Chinese companies are often faster than global rivals to market with new products or tweaks. “The cycle can be half of what it is for a global multinational with subsidiaries that need to check with headquarters, do an analysis, and then refresh,” Phillpotts says.

For many companies and investors, next year remains a question mark. Ashland CEO Guillermo Novo said in an August call with analysts that the chemical company was seeing a “big change” in China, with activity slowing and competition on pricing becoming more aggressive. The company, he said, was still trying to grasp the repercussions as it has created uncertainty in its 2025 outlook.

Sticking Around

Few companies are giving up. Executives at big global consumer and retail companies show no signs of reducing investment, with most still describing China as a long-term growth market, says Dana Telsey, CEO of Telsey Advisory Group.

Starbucks executives described the long-term opportunity as “significant,” with higher growth and margin opportunities in the future as China’s population continues to move from rural to suburban areas. But they also noted that their approach is evolving and they are in the early stages of exploring strategic partnerships.

Walmart sold its stake in August in Chinese e-commerce giant JD.com for $3.6 billion after an eight-year noncompete agreement expired. Analysts expect it to pump the money into its own Sam’s Club and Walmart China operation, which have benefited from the trend toward trading down in China.

“The story isn’t over for the global companies,” Phillpotts says. “It just means the effort and investment will be greater to compete.”

Corrections & Amplifications

Joseph Quinlan is head of market strategy for the chief investment office at Merrill and Bank of America Private Bank. An earlier version of this article incorrectly used his old title.

Future Returns: Investing In the Soaring Energy Sector

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

Multinationals like Starbucks and Marriott are taking a hard look at their Chinese operations—and tempering their outlooks.

Lowered Expectations

Behind the Malaise

Sticking Around