Commodity price collapse: who wins and who loses?

One of the great back stories of the ongoing economic crisis is the collapse in commodity prices, which occurred in the second half of 2008 after a record boom period lasting at least five years. The bursting of the bubble has produced clear winners and losers. Thanks to our fantastic contributors, zzzeitgeist has had excellent coverage of these repercussions. I thought I’d try to tie things together.

The biggest winners are consumers, particularly first-world automobile drivers. In the last 7+ months, oil has fallen from $147/barrel to about $37/barrel now. Economists reckon that amounts to a ‘stimulus’ of more than $240 billion. Also, now that the world food crisis has largely subsided, developing-world consumers stand to benefit from cheaper food prices. This means a lot when you spend more than 50% of your budget on food.

The mining sector is obviously a huge loser. Mining is often a boom and bust industry, because it takes a long time to develop new mining projects. It’s hard to forecast future supply/demand fundamentals (remember when this seemed like a good idea?) and unfortunately they can change drastically and rapidly, which is exactly what has happened in the last year. As a result, a number of firms are closing mines, because prices are too low to justify operating costs. Mining firms often take on a lot debt out of necessity – digging mines ain’t cheap. But thanks to the financial crisis and the disappearance of cheap credit, heavily indebted companies are suddenly struggling to stay afloat. Case in point: Rio Tinto, the world’s second largest mining conglomerate. See Rory’s excellent treatment of Rio’s debt woes here.

Finally, commodity-dependent countries suffer perhaps the worst. When prices are high, resource-rich countries are suddenly flush with cash, which they can use to advance geopolitical aims, reward cronies, or invest in infrastructure, education and health to avoid the resource curse (don’t hold your breath). Falling commodity prices have scaled back these ambitions. See Dan’s analysis of Venezuela, Rory’s take on Russia, or this money quote about Iran.

In my mind, these are the biggest winners and losers, but this list is by no means exhaustive. Falling commodity prices also have an enormous effect on agricultural trade, international cooperation, foreign direct investment, Guinea, South Africa, Australia, several Latin American countries, etc. Who else am I missing?

(photo from jeff-o-matic’s photostream)

I Drink Your Milkshake!

Venezuela, an archetypal petro-state, was bound to suffer when the price of oil collapsed late last year, but the situation has worsened rapidly, I think even faster than most expected. The government looks to be scaling back its ideologically-motivated ambitions to divert exports from the US to China. They can't find state-owned oil companies willing or able to carry out new developments, so are turning to the same private foreign firms they spurned in recent nationalizations. PDVSA, the massive national oil company, and big private service companies, are rumored to be cutting thousands of jobs to save money and deal with OPEC output reductions. Production is slowing as the government is falling behind in its billion dollar plus debts to oil service firms.

These signals are especially surprising given that oil prices are still relatively high, between $35-$40 a barrel for Venezuela's unusually heavy crude, compared to about $7 when President Hugo Chávez came to power in 1998. And the country should have a bigger cushion after a year of $100+ prices. Also, the government may be holding more bad economic and employment news until after Chávez's February 15 referendum on eliminating presidential and other term limits.

So what does it all mean? Chávez's second decade in power (which begins today after a hastily-called national holiday) may be much rougher than his first. He no longer has his handy foil, and efforts to stir things up with Obama don't seem to be catching on, for now. Without the slush fund from off-budget oil profits, Chávez is hard-pressed to fulfill his generous foreign aid commitments, and he may start to get the cold shoulder from fair-weather international friends. At home, Chávez is prioritizing social programs over oil production or investment, but he can't continue that downward spiral for too long and any reduction in benefits will erode his somewhat fickle power base. It's no surprise Venezuela relies on oil, but under Chávez the dependence has reached the point that it accounts for over 90 percent of export revenue and a huge chunk of the budget. Now it appears that well is running dry.

(photo from rhaaga's photostream)

A black lining

Well the world is falling apart but there's a little bit of good news...Oil futures closed today below $90.

But as Brad Setser points out, the Gulf monarchies will feel a pinch in the coming year and that may spell even more bad news for the US economy. Sovereign wealth funds have certainly taken a hit in the recent downturn and exporters the world over are feeling the pinch from these losses; coupled with the downturn in prices, they probably won't be inclined to keep pumping money into Wall Street institutions.

The lower costs of consumption will most certainly be happily accepted by Americans given the coming winter. But the secondary implications for international oil exporters may also shape the next administration's initial foreign policy. Venezuela recently had to cut spending for the next year; Iran will probably be next. Domestic regimes who can no longer lavishly spend on their constituents will probably not be accepted as readily. Rogue leaders - weather in Iran, Venezuela, or Russia - may have trouble holding onto power when they can't continue propping up ill-designed economic systems with booming oil revenues. This is great news for the next administration - whoever is in charge.

Inflation woes

The Central Bank of Zimbabwe is set to lop some more zeroes off the Zimbabwe dollar. They knocked off three back in 2006, and this round is set to see another 3-6 zeroes get the chop. Excuse this humble commentator for his cynicism, but when the annual rate of inflation is above 2.2 million per cent, this isn't going to help much. It will likely improve transaction efficiency for a short period of time, but unless Zimbabwe takes some concrete steps to rein in inflation, sooner than later the currency will be just as worthless as it is today.

Venezuela tried this trick last year, when it introduced the Strong Bolivar, which President Hugo Chavez promised would help curb inflation. A 'Strong' Bolivar is essentially just a normal Bolivar, Venezuela's unit of currency, with three zeroes lopped off. Unfortunately, Venezuelan inflation has actually gotten worse since then, reaching 32% in Caracas in the month of June.

I wrote last month about how inflation is fast becoming a major financial worry. This is especially true in developing countries and emerging markets . As painful as the medicine may be, now is the time when such countries should be prioritizing inflation control over economic growth. The short term losses are undesirable, but the long term dangers are too real to ignore. Keynes said it best:

As inflation proceeds and the real value of the currency fluctuates wildly from month to month, all permanent relations between debtors and creditors, which form the ultimate foundations of capitalism, become so utterly disordered as to be almost meaningless; and the process of wealth-getting degenerates into a gamble and a lottery.

It's troubling when there exists such chronic financial mismanagement in economies like Venezuela and Zimbabwe, which could both be in much better shape than they are. But they're not, and unfortunately it is the citizens of those countries who pay the highest price for that.