Berkshire Hathaway’s big mystery stock wager could be revealed soon

Warren Buffett tours the grounds at the Berkshire Hathaway Annual Shareholders Meeting in Omaha Nebraska.

David A. Grogan | CNBC

Berkshire Hathaway, led by legendary investor Warren Buffett, has been making a confidential wager on the financial industry since the third quarter of last year.

The identity of the stock — or stocks — that Berkshire has been snapping up could be revealed Saturday at the company’s annual shareholder meeting in Omaha, Nebraska.

That’s because unless Berkshire has been granted confidential treatment on the investment for a third quarter in a row, the stake will be disclosed in filings later this month. So the 93-year-old Berkshire CEO may decide to explain his rationale to the thousands of investors flocking to the gathering.

The bet, shrouded in mystery, has captivated Berkshire investors since it first appeared in disclosures late last year. At a time when Buffett has been a net seller of stocks and lamented a dearth of opportunities capable of “truly moving the needle at Berkshire,” he has apparently found something he likes — and in the financial realm no less.

That’s an area he has dialed back on in recent years over concerns about rising loan defaults. High interest rates have taken a toll on some financial players like regional U.S. banks, while making the yield on Berkshire’s cash pile in instruments like T-bills suddenly attractive.

“When you are the GOAT of investing, people are interested in what you think is good,” said Glenview Trust Co. Chief Investment Officer Bill Stone, using an acronym for greatest of all time. “What makes it even more exciting is that banks are in his circle of competence.”

Under Buffett, Berkshire has trounced the S&P 500 over nearly six decades with a 19.8% compounded annual gain, compared with the 10.2% yearly rise of the index.

Coverage note: The annual meeting will be exclusively broadcast on CNBC and livestreamed on CNBC.com. Our special coverage will begin Saturday at 9:30 a.m. ET.

Veiled bets

Berkshire requested anonymity for the trades because if the stock was known before the conglomerate finished building its position, others would plow into the stock as well, driving up the price, according to David Kass, a finance professor at the University of Maryland.

Buffett is said to control roughly 90% of Berkshire’s massive stock portfolio, leaving his deputies Todd Combs and Ted Weschler the rest, Kass said.

While investment disclosures give no clue as to what the stock could be, Stone, Kass and other Buffett watchers believe it is a multibillion-dollar wager on a financial name.

That’s because the cost basis of banks, insurers and finance stocks owned by the company jumped by $3.59 billion in the second half of last year, the only category to increase, according to separate Berkshire filings.

At the same time, Berkshire exited financial names by dumping insurers Markel and Globe Life, leading investors to estimate that the wager could be as large as $4 billion or $5 billion through the end of 2023. It’s unknown whether that bet was on one company or spread over multiple firms in an industry.

Schwab or Morgan Stanley?

If it were a classic Buffett bet — a big stake in a single company —  that stock would have to be a large one, with perhaps a $100 billion market capitalization. Holdings of at least 5% in publicly traded American companies trigger disclosure requirements.

Investors have been speculating for months about what the stock could be. Finance covers all manner of companies, from retail lenders to Wall Street brokers, payments companies and various sectors of insurance.

Charles Schwab or Morgan Stanley could fit the bill, according to James Shanahan, an Edward Jones analyst who covers banks and Berkshire Hathaway.

“Schwab was beaten down during the regional banking crisis last year, they had an issue where retail investors were trading out of cash into higher-yielding investments,” Shanahan said. “Nobody wanted to own that name last year, so Buffett could’ve bought as much as he wanted.”

Other names that have been circulated — JPMorgan Chase or BlackRock, for example, are possible, but may make less sense given valuations or business mix. Truist and other higher-quality regional banks might also fit Buffett’s parameters, as well as insurer AIG, Shanahan said, though their market capitalizations are smaller.

More from Berkshire Hathaway’s Annual Meeting

Buffett & banks

Berkshire has owned financial names for decades, and Buffett has stepped in to inject capital — and confidence — into the industry on multiple occasions.

Buffett served as CEO of a scandal-stricken Salomon Brothers in the early 1990s to help turn the company around. He pumped $5 billion into Goldman Sachs in 2008 and another $5 billion into Bank of America in 2011, ultimately becoming the latter’s largest shareholder.

But after loading up on lenders in 2018, from universal banks like JPMorgan to regional lenders like PNC Financial and U.S. Bank, he deeply pared his exposure to the sector in 2020 on concerns that the coronavirus pandemic would punish the industry.

Since then, he and his deputies have mostly avoided adding to his finance stakes, besides modest positions in Citigroup and Capital One.

‘Fear is contagious’

Last May, Buffett told shareholders to expect more turbulence in banking. He said Berkshire could deploy more capital in the industry, if needed.

“The situation in banking is very similar to what it’s always been in banking, which is that fear is contagious,” Buffett said. “Historically, sometimes the fear was justified, sometimes it wasn’t.”

Wherever he placed his bet, the move will be seen as a boost to the company, perhaps even the sector, given Buffett’s track record of identifying value.

It’s unclear how long regulators will allow Berkshire to shield its moves.

“I’m hopeful he’ll reveal the name and talk about the strategy behind it,” Shanahan said. “The SEC’s patience can wear out, at some point it’ll look like Berkshire’s getting favorable treatment.”

— CNBC’s Yun Li contributed to this report.

Don’t miss these exclusives from CNBC PRO

Source link

#Berkshire #Hathaways #big #mystery #stock #wager #revealed

First Berkshire Hathaway annual meeting without Charlie Munger: What to expect from Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett walks the floor and meets with Berkshire Hathaway shareholders ahead of their annual meeting in Omaha, Nebraska on May 3rd, 2024. 

David A. Grogan

When Warren Buffett kicks off Berkshire Hathaway‘s annual shareholder meeting on Saturday, the absence of Charlie Munger will be on everyone’s mind.

Some 30,000 rapt shareholders are descending on Omaha for what’s been called “Woodstock for Capitalists.” Pandemic lockdown apart, it will be the first without Munger, Buffett’s longtime partner who passed away in November about a month shy of his 100th birthday.

“The meeting will only have one comedian up there” this year, said David Kass, a finance professor at the University of Maryland and a Berkshire shareholder, who has attended more than 20 annual meetings. “There’ll be, let’s say, a more serious, less humorous background.”

The annual meeting will be exclusively broadcast on CNBC and livestreamed on CNBC.com. Our special coverage will begin Saturday at 9:30 a.m. ET. For the first time, Berkshire will broadcast its annual meeting movie that had previously always been reserved only for those in attendance in Omaha. Many speculate this year’s will be a tear-jerker tribute to Munger.

Vice Chairman of Non-Insurance Operations Greg Abel, Buffett’s designated successor, will fill Munger’s seat in the afternoon session, helping answer shareholder questions. Vice Chairman of Insurance Operations Ajit Jain will join Buffett, the CEO, and Abel in the morning session. Buffett has said they expect to field about 40 to 60 questions Saturday.

“The tone of the meeting is certainly going to be a lot different without Charlie,” said Steve Check, CEO of Check Capital Management and a longtime Berkshire shareholder. “He was the one that really made it funny. It’s getting closer and closer to the transition, so it’s good to see Ajit and Greg on the stage.”

Warren Buffett and Charlie Munger at a press conference during the Berkshire Hathaway Shareholders Meeting, April 30, 2022.

CNBC

Munger’s investment philosophy rubbed off on Buffett early on, giving rise to the sprawling conglomerate worth $860 billion that Berkshire is today. Generations of investors also appreciated Munger’s trademark bluntness and humor, rare to come by on Wall Street.

If anything, the sea of Buffett admirers will cherish his folksy wisdom even more as the “Oracle of Omaha” turns 94 in less than four months.

Here are some of the big topics shareholders want Buffett to discuss:

  • Inflation: Price pressures have proved sticky lately. What impact is inflation having on Berkshire’s businesses? Which businesses are being hurt (and helped) the most?
  • Apple: Why did Berkshire trim its Apple stake in the fourth quarter? Investors will look for Buffett’s outlook on the tech stock given its challenges in China and recent news of a giant, $110-billion stock buyback.
  • Secret stock pick: Berkshire has been buying a financial stock for two quarters straight. What is it?
  • Record cash: Does Buffett plan to put his record level of cash to work?
  • A slowdown in buybacks: With Berkshire shares outperforming this year, will Buffett continue to slow down his own buyback program?
  • Life after Buffett: More details on Berkshire’s succession plan.

Macro commentary

The annual meeting comes at a tricky time for markets as a pickup in inflation puts the brakes on the Federal Reserve’s plan to cut interest rates this year. While the Berkshire CEO doesn’t make investment decisions based on daily headlines, investors still are eager to hear any market commentary and guidance from the protege of the father of value investing, Ben Graham.

“They don’t time their investments,” Kass said of Berkshire. “The economy goes through cycles. They totally ignore cycles. They invest for a long run, and they really ignore what pretty much what the Federal Reserve is doing. I believe that will be his answer.”

Apple

Shareholders may seek an explanation as to why Berkshire sold about 10 million Apple shares (1% of its massive stake) in the fourth quarter. At the end of 2023, Berkshire owned 905,560,000 shares of the iPhone maker, worth more than $174 billion and taking up more than 40% of the portfolio.

The move came as a surprise to many because Apple has been Buffett’s favorite stock for years, and he even called the tech giant his second-most important business after Berkshire’s cluster of insurers. What’s more, the last time Buffett trimmed this bet, he admitted it was “probably a mistake.’

Shares of the iPhone maker got a big boost Friday after the firm announced that its board had authorized $110 billion in share repurchases, the largest in company history. However, Apple posted a decline in overall sales and in iPhone sales.

Secret holding

There’s a small chance that Buffett will reveal the identity of the mystery bank stock that Berkshire has been buying for two quarters straight.

In the third and fourth quarters of 2023, Berkshire requested that the Securities and Exchange Commission keep the details of one or more of its stock holdings confidential. Many speculated that the secret purchase could be a bank stock as the conglomerate’s cost basis for “banks, insurance, and finance” equity holdings jumped by around $2.37 billion.

“He will comment as late as possible…. Charlie would be the only one that would let it slip once in a while. It’s not going to happen with Warren,” Check said.

Succession

Berkshire’s succession could be front and center at this meeting after Munger’s passing. Abel, became known as Buffett’s heir apparent in 2021 after Munger inadvertently made the revelation.

Abel has been overseeing a major portion of Berkshire’s sprawling empire, including energy, railroad and retail. Buffett revealed previously that Abel’s taken on most of the responsibilities at Berkshire.

Still, some questions remain as to who will be helping allocate capital at Berkshire, and the roles of Buffett’s investing managers Ted Weschler and Todd Combs, who is also the CEO of Geico.

Source link

#Berkshire #Hathaway #annual #meeting #Charlie #Munger #expect #Warren #Buffett

Paramount’s Shari Redstone is open for business, but business may not be open for her

Shari Redstone, president of National Amusements and controlling shareholder of Paramount Global, walks to a morning session at the Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference in Sun Valley, Idaho, July 12, 2023.

David A. Grogan | CNBC

Shari Redstone may have missed her window.

Paramount Global‘s controlling shareholder is open to a merger or selling the company at the right price, according to people familiar with her thinking. And she has been open to it for several years, said the people, who asked not to speak publicly because the discussions have been private.

Spokespeople for Redstone and Paramount Global declined to comment.

The problem has been finding the right deal for shareholders. Market conditions have made a transformative transaction difficult at best and highly unlikely at worst.

“The market is crying out for reshaping media company portfolios and consolidation,” said Jon Miller, chief executive at Integrated Media and a senior advisor at venture firm Advancit Capital, which Redstone co-founded. “But the deck is stacked against large-scale transactions now because of both immediate concerns in terms of ad sales, subscription video numbers and the cost of debt. No one wants to transact at the current market valuations that these companies are given.”

Paramount Global is an archetype for the media industry’s consolidation conundrum. The company consists of Paramount Pictures, the CBS broadcast network, 28 owned-and-operated local CBS stations, the streaming service Paramount+, free advertising-supported Pluto TV, “Star Trek,” “SpongeBob SquarePants,” MTV, Nickelodeon, Comedy Central, BET and Showtime. It also owns the physical Paramount studio lot in Los Angeles, California.

From a sum-of-the-parts perspective, the company holds a strong hand. Many of Paramount Global’s assets would fit nicely within larger media companies.

“Paramount has a tremendous amount of assets in its content library and they own some pretty powerful sports rights in the form of the NFL contract, Champions League soccer and March Madness,” Guggenheim analyst Michael Morris told CNBC last week.

“But, they are still losing money on their streaming service,” Morris said. “They need to pull these things together, right-size the content, super charge that topline through pricing and penetration, and then we can see investors get excited about this idea again.”

Declining revenue from the acceleration of pay-TV cord-cutting, continued streaming losses and rising interest rates have put Redstone in a bind. The company’s market capitalization has slumped to $7.7 billion, nearly the company’s lowest valuation since Redstone merged CBS and Viacom in 2019. At the time, that transaction gave the combined company a market valuation of about $30 billion.

It’s unclear whether staying the course will help turn investor sentiment. Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, one of Paramount Global’s biggest shareholders, told CNBC in April that streaming “is not really a very good business.” He also noted that shareholders in entertainment companies “really haven’t done that great over time.”

Paramount Global’s direct-to-consumer businesses lost $424 million in the second quarter and $511 million in the first quarter. The company reports third-quarter earnings Nov. 2.

CEO Bob Bakish said 2023 will be the peak loss year for streaming. Paramount Global cut its dividend to 5 cents per share from 24 cents per share to “further enhance our ability to deliver long-term value for our shareholders as we move toward streaming profitability,” Bakish said in May.

Wells Fargo analyst Steven Cahall suggested earlier this year that Bakish should shut down the company’s streaming business entirely, despite the fact that Paramount+ has accumulated more than 60 million subscribers.

“We believe Paramount Global is worth a lot more either as a content arms dealer or as a break-up for sale story,” Cahall wrote in a note to clients in May. “Great content, misguided strategy.”

Big Tech lifeline

Bob Bakish, CEO of Paramount, speaks with CNBC’s David Faber on Sept. 6, 2023.

CNBC

Executives at Paramount Global continue to hold out hope that a large technology company, such as Apple, Amazon or Alphabet, will view the collection of assets as a way to bolster their content aspirations, according to people familiar with the matter.

Paramount+’s 61 million subscribers could help supersize an existing streaming service such as Apple TV+ or Amazon’s Prime Video, or give Alphabet’s YouTube a bigger foothold into subscription streaming beyond the National Football League’s Sunday Ticket and YouTube TV.

While Federal Trade Commission Chairman Lina Khan has been particularly focused on limiting the power of Big Tech companies, Apple, Amazon and Alphabet may actually be better buyers than legacy media companies from a regulatory standpoint. They don’t own a broadcast TV network, unlike Comcast (NBC), Fox or Disney (ABC). It’s highly unlikely U.S. regulators would allow one company to own two broadcast networks. Divesting CBS is possible, but it’s so intertwined with Paramount+ that separating the network from the streaming service would be messy.

“We believe Paramount Global is too small to win the streaming wars, but it is bite-size enough to be acquired by a larger streaming competitor for its deep library of film and TV content, as well as its sports rights and news assets,” Laura Martin, an analyst at Needham & Co., wrote in an Oct. 9 research note to clients.

Acquiring Paramount Global would be a relative drop in the bucket for a Big Tech company. Paramount Global’s market value was below $8 billion as of Friday. It also has about $16 billion in long-term debt.

Still, even with huge balance sheets and trillion-dollar valuations, there’s no evidence technology companies want to own declining legacy media assets such as cable and broadcast networks. Netflix has built its business specifically on the premise that these assets will ultimately die. Paramount’s lot and studio may be appealing for content creation and library programming, but that would leave Redstone holding a less desirable basket of legacy media assets.

Breakup difficulties

It’s possible Redstone could break up the company and sell off legacy media assets to a private equity firm that could milk them for cash. But Paramount Global’s diminished market valuation, relative to its debt, likely makes a leveraged buyout less appealing for a potential private equity firm.

Moreover, rising interest rates have generally slowed down take-private deals in all industries, as the cost of paying debt interest has soared. Globally, buyout fund deal volume in the first half of 2023 is down 58% from the same period a year ago, according to a Bain & Co. study.

If a full sale to Big Tech and a partial sale to private equity won’t happen, another option for Redstone is to merge or sell to another legacy media company. Warner Bros. Discovery could merge with Paramount Global, though putting together Warner Bros. and Paramount Pictures may hold up deal approval with U.S. regulators.

Beyond regulatory issues, recent history suggests big media mergers haven’t worked well for shareholders. Tens of billions of dollars in shareholder value have been lost in recent media mergers, including WarnerMedia and Discovery, Disney and the majority of Fox, Comcast/NBCUniversal and Sky, Viacom and CBS, and Scripps and Discovery.

Merger partners such as Warner Bros. Discovery also may prefer to sell or merge with a different company, such as Comcast’s NBCUniversal, if regulators allow a big media combination.

Redstone has recently dabbled around the edges, shedding some assets, such as book publisher Simon & Schuster, and engaging in talks to sell a majority stake in cable network BET.

But Paramount Global shelved the idea of selling a stake in BET in August after deciding sale offers were too low to outweigh the value of keeping the network in its cable network portfolio. With the total company’s market valuation below $8 billion, it’s difficult to convince buyers to pay big prices for parts. A change in broader investment sentiment that pushes the company’s valuation higher may help Redstone and other Paramount Global executives get more comfortable with divesting assets.

Selling National Amusements

If Redstone can’t find a deal to her liking, she could also sell National Amusements, the holding company founded by her father, Sumner Redstone, that owns the bulk of the company’s voting shares. National Amusements owns 77.3% of Paramount Global’s Class A (voting) common stock and 5.2% of the Class B common stock, constituting about 10% of the overall equity of the company.

Redstone took a $125 million strategic investment from merchant bank BDT & MSD Partners earlier this year to pay down debt, reiterating her belief in Paramount Global’s inherent value.

“Paramount has the best assets in the media industry, with an incredible content library and IP spanning all genres and demographics, as well as the No. 1 broadcast network, the leading free ad-supported streaming television service and the fastest-growing pay streaming platform in the U.S.,” Redstone said in a statement in May. “NAI has conviction in Paramount’s strategy and execution, and we remain committed to supporting Paramount as it takes the necessary steps to build on its success and capitalize on the strategic opportunities in our industry.”

Selling National Amusements wouldn’t alter Paramount Global’s long-term future. But it is a way out for Redstone if she can’t find a deal beneficial to shareholders.

Paramount Global isn’t actively working with an investment bank on a sale, according to people familiar with the matter. The company is content to wait for a shift in market conditions or regulatory officials before getting more aggressive on a transformational deal, said the people.

Still, Redstone’s predicament aptly sums up legacy media’s current problems. The industry is counting on a turn in market sentiment, while executives privately grumble that in the near term there’s little they can do about it.

WATCH: Mad Money host Jim Cramer weighs in on Paramount Global

Lightning Round: Paramount Global might drop another two to three points lower, says Jim Cramer

Disclosure: Comcast’s NBCUniversal is the parent company of CNBC.

Source link

#Paramounts #Shari #Redstone #open #business #business #open

What Wall Street needs to know about UAW talks, a potential strike, and what it could all cost

United Auto Workers members on strike picket outside General Motors’ Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly plant in Detroit, Sept. 25, 2019.

Michael Wayland / CNBC

DETROIT – The Oracle of Omaha is cutting exposure to the U.S. automotive industry amid union negotiations — potentially for good reason.

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway this week said it nearly halved its stake in General Motors in the second quarter. While the firm didn’t disclose its reasoning, the sale front runs what is expected to be a challenging end of the year for the U.S. automotive industry, plagued by contentious contract talks between the United Auto Workers union and GM, Ford Motor and Stellantis.

The talks, which cover nearly 150,000 U.S. auto workers, could cost the automakers billions of dollars in additional labor costs, work stoppages or, in a worst-case scenario, both.

New UAW leadership team has dubbed these talks the union’s “defining moment.” President Shawn Fain has already deployed harsh messaging and a few theatrics, including throwing contract proposals by Stellantis in a trash bin, and there’s been little to no talk about “give and take” or “win-win” deals.

“They’re ready to strike if a deal does not happen,” said Melissa Atkins, a labor and employment partner at Obermayer. “Going in with that mindset, I anticipate it being very contentious … and just given the history, there probably will be a strike.”

Aggressive efforts by the union are great for organized labor and the embattled UAW, which is attempting to regain its footing after a yearslong federal corruption probe landed several top leaders in prison for bribery, embezzlement and other crimes — but not for the companies or their shareholders.

Here are the numbers investors should know ahead of the expiration date for current contracts between the Detroit automakers and UAW at 11:59 p.m. ET on Sept. 14.

$80 billion

Contract proposals made by the UAW at this point would add more than $80 billion in labor costs for each of the biggest U.S. automakers over the length of the contract, Bloomberg News first reported earlier this month.

“One might think of these UAW contracts as a set of three large purchase orders to secure the labor needed to assemble future vehicles, parts, and components—contracts that are collectively worth roughly $70–$80 billion over the course of the next four years,” Kristin Dziczek, automotive policy advisor for the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s Detroit branch, wrote in a Wednesday blog post.

United Auto Workers President Shawn Fain greets workers at the Stellantis Sterling Heights Assembly Plant, to mark the beginning of contract negotiations in Sterling Heights, Michigan, U.S. July 12, 2023. 

Rebecca Cook | Reuters

The demands include a 46% wage increase, restoration of traditional pensions, cost-of-living increases, reducing the work week to 32 hours from 40 and increasing retiree benefits.

If the UAW gets those demands, without any changes to other benefits, the all-in hourly labor cost for the automakers would more than double from at least $64 per hour to more than $150 per hour, according to media reports.

That would be a significant increase over wage hikes seen during the previous four-year agreements, according to estimates from the Center for Automotive Research. The 2019 deals were projected to increase average hourly labor costs over the length of the contracts by $11 per worker for then-Fiat Chrysler, now Stellantis, and $8 per worker at GM and Ford.

Under the current pay structure, UAW members start at about $18 an hour and have a “grow-in” period of four years to reach a top wage of more than $30 an hour.

$5 billion

A work stoppage by nearly 150,000 UAW workers at GM, Ford and Stellantis would result in an economic loss of more than $5 billion after 10 days, according to Anderson Economic Group, a Michigan-based consulting firm that closely tracks such events.

AEG estimates the total economic loss by calculating potential losses to UAW workers, the manufacturers and to the auto industry more broadly if the sides cannot reach tentative agreements before the current contracts expire.

In another analysis, Deutsche Bank previously estimated that a strike would hit earnings at each affected automaker by about $400 million to $500 million per week of production.

Strikes could take several forms: a national strike, where all workers under the contract cease working, or targeted work stoppages at certain plants over local contract issues. A strike against all three automakers, as Fain has alluded to, would be the most impactful but also the riskiest and most costly for the union.

$825 million

The UAW has more than $825 million in its strike fund, which it uses to pay eligible members who are on strike. The strike pay is $500 per week for each member – up from $275 in 2022.

Speaking in front of a backdrop of American-made vehicles and a UAW sign, President Joe Biden, then a presidential candidate, speaks about new proposals to protect U.S. jobs during a campaign stop in Warren, Michigan, Sept. 9, 2020.

Leah Millis | Reuters

1.5 million

If the union decides to strike against all three Detroit automakers, production losses would quickly add up.

S&P Global Mobility estimates a 10-week strike would mean lost production of roughly 1.5 million units, according to an investor note from Mizuho Securities USA.

A 40-day strike against GM during the last round of negotiations in 2019 led to a production loss of 300,000 vehicles, the company said then. It also cost the automaker $3.6 billion in earnings, GM said.

Industry experts argue that a strike against all or any of the automakers would likely impact the operations and bottom lines of the companies more quickly than four years ago since the U.S. auto industry is still recovering from supply chain problems caused during the coronavirus pandemic.

Vehicle inventory levels for the automakers also are lower than they were heading into the talks four years ago.

Heading into 2019 contract negotiations, U.S. vehicle supply was 3.73 million — essentially enough units to last 86 days of selling under normal conditions at the time, according to Cox Automotive. The industry is currently just under 2 million units, with 56 days’ supply.

“In 2019, there was quite a slack in there. There’s almost no slack now,” AEG CEO Patrick Anderson said Thursday during a webinar with the Automotive Press Association. “If we are to get a strike, within the first week, the numbers start to get serious for each of the automakers.”

Source link

#Wall #Street #UAW #talks #potential #strike #cost

Oxy CEO Vicki Hollub doesn’t seem worried about White House pressure on buybacks, oil prices

Occidental (long known as Occidental Petroleum) was the No. 1-performing stock in S&P 500 last year, but it didn’t get there by way of massive growth in oil and gas production. While fossil fuels have the tailwind of the Russia-Ukraine war resetting energy policy and priorities around the globe, on Wall Street, it’s the recent capital discipline displayed by energy companies that has been as a big a factor in market performance.

The boom and bust cycles of the past when oil rig count exploded in line with the latest high price in crude oil are now seen as a cautionary tale. “We’ve seen that movie before,” Hess CEO John Hess said at the annual CERAWeek energy conference on Tuesday. That new fiscal approach from the energy patch has not made the White House happy, especially when oil prices and oil company profits were at a peak last year. The blowback from President Biden has continued, with recent buyback programs from companies including Chevron attracting renewed scrutiny. But when you listen to the way Chevron CEO Mike Wirth talked about its plans to increase the level of buybacks for shareholders, it seems the White House was an afterthought — if any thought was given to it.

Long-time energy sector analyst Paul Sankey put it this way after the recent Chevron earnings call: “I would be absolutely certain many in the White House own Chevron stock in their 401ks. In DC, it is clear that politicians have no comprehension of 1) what a buyback is and 2) how many Americans own stocks in their pension funds/401ks. The tone of Mike’s delivery, and he is a relaxed and confident guy, indicated that they were not really considering Washington, D.C.”

Wirth isn’t the only one sitting in the driver’s seat at a major oil and gas company who seems to have little time to worry about the way the White House views stock buybacks.

Occidental’s approach has attracted the world’s most-famous investor, with the company quickly growing to be among the top 10 stocks held by Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway over the past several years (second to Chevron among Buffett’s public energy stock holdings). Buffett recently made clear (for the umpteenth time) what he thinks about politicians weighing in on buybacks.

With roughly 12% production growth, Occidental could produce more. And in fact, one point the White House has made is that oil companies are spending too much on “enriching” shareholders and not enough on producing more. But when asked by CNBC’s Brian Sullivan on Monday at CERAWeek if the company could produce more, Occidental CEO Vicki Hollub answered in a direct way that defies any concern about political pressure:

“We do,” Hollub said, have the ability to produce more oil, “but we have a value proposition that includes an active buyback program and also a growing dividend and we always want to make sure we max out our return on capital employed. So we are very careful with how we structure our capital program on an annual basis to make sure we still have sufficient cash to buy back shares.”

Hess CEO on oil and gas demand

This year, Occidental authorized a new $3 billion share repurchase authorization and a 38% increase to its dividend. It completed $3 billion in share repurchases last year, with $562 million of repurchases in the fourth quarter.

“Look, we are a stronger company than we were a few years ago, so the numbers are bigger but the patterns are no different,” Chevron’s CEO Wirth told CERA chairman Daniel Yergin on Monday at the conference, referring to Chevron’s financial priorities – sustaining and growing its dividend, reinvesting capital to bring supplies to market (its budget is up 30% year over year), maintain a strong balance sheet for ups and downs in the commodities cycle, and returning excess cash to shareholders. “We could stack it up on the balance sheet,” Wirth said, but he added, “It’s their cash.”

“Some things get more scrutiny at certain points in time than others,” he told Yergin when asked multiple times about the political “heat.”

What to expect in gas prices at the pump

Frederick Forthuber, president of Oxy Energy Services, said separately at CERAWeek that U.S. oil production will grow by about 500,000 barrels per day this year, with 80% or 90% of that coming from the Permian basin, according to Reuters. Hollub noted in her CNBC interview that current capacity as measured in total barrels produced per day — nearly 12 million bpd in 2022 and projected by the EIA to reach over 12 million bpd this year — has not changed significantly from the pre-pandemic world, though the EIA forecast would be a new record. Its outlook for gas prices is an average $3.57/gallon this year. 

Last year, U.S. oil production grew by 500,000 barrels, a figure noted by Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield during an interview with CNBC from CERAWeek, and he added that was well short of the most optimistic estimates to add one million barrels this year. When asked whether it wasn’t the energy industry’s job to increase production, Sheffield said, “No, our model has changed. We just don’t have that potential to grow U.S. production ever again.”

He added we may get to 13 million barrels in two to three years.

For consumers still worried about the price of gas at the pump, which has come down significantly along with crude prices from last summer’s high, don’t look to Hollub for more relief. Gas prices are right where they should be right now, she says, and are likely to stay this way.

“Prices are in a good place right now, in the $75-$80 range. That’s a sustainable price scenario for the industry to continue to be healthy and gas prices at the pump are not so bad at this price.”

In fact, she described the situation as “optimum.”

Crude has traded between $73 and $80 during the past four months.

“I do believe the mid-cycle price of oil is close to $80, maybe $75 to $80,” Hollub said. “In that price regime we can balance supply with demand over time,” she added.

If there is risk to gas prices this year, it’s to the upside. “I do think towards the end of the year we will have a little supply issue relative to demand, and it could send prices higher,” she said.

Strategic Petroleum Reserve

While the energy CEOs are showing through their words and actions this year that they aren’t buying the White House “Big Oil” rhetoric and will continue to message to the shareholders they’ve been able to win back, Hollub does expect one notable oil buyer to remain on the sidelines this year: the White House.

Amid high gas prices last year, the Biden administration released the most oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve on record, 180 million barrels. While the administration has said it will be replenishing the SPR, Hollub doesn’t expect much buying.

“I think we should have more storage in the SPR and over time the administration will buy that storage back and start to refill, but it’s gonna be hard to do any time in the next couple of years, because I do believe we are in a scenario where prices will be higher.”

Among the reasons oil prices will remain higher?

“Lack of supply and lack of investment in our industry over the years,” Hollub said. “I do think they are going to have a difficult time here in the near term.”

Based on the way the oil CEOs are talking, maybe in more ways than one.

Source link

#Oxy #CEO #Vicki #Hollub #doesnt #worried #White #House #pressure #buybacks #oil #prices