March eighteenth, two thousand twenty-six
《A Closer Look at the Finer Divergences: Chemicals as a Case in Point》 《What Has Changed Is the Cost of Being Wrong: The Key to the Fed Meeting Lies Ahead》
Author: Ariston
Simply put, the Fed’s current baseline remains closer to holding rates longer than returning to hikes. For markets, what has really been undermined is not the easing fantasy itself, but the margin for error that risk assets derive from the belief that they will be rescued sooner or later.
...
Chart: The median still shows one rate cut, but more importantly, the distribution is tighter and the long-term rate anchor continues to move higher.
The genuinely hawkish aspect of the press conference was not that Powell suddenly wanted to reopen the discussion of rate hikes, but that he made clearer the conditions that would need to be met for rate cuts.The key point is that if he does not see clearer progress on inflation—especially if core goods disinflation does not resume after the middle of this year—there will be no rate cuts. This matters because, this time, he did not simply categorize the oil-price shock as the kind of short-term noise that can easily be looked through. He repeatedly stressed that, after five years of inflation above target, the Fed has very little tolerance for inflation expectations becoming unanchored again.
This means the current wait and see is by no means an accommodative pause; it looks more like a cautious holding pattern. The Fed acknowledges, of course, that the conflict in the Middle East brings considerable uncertainty, and that the oil-price shock may ultimately weigh on employment and growth. But until there is clearer evidence that core inflation will continue moving back toward target, it will not ease policy early out of concern about growth. Strictly speaking, cuts remain more likely than hikes, but the bar for cuts has been raised substantially.
Today’s piece won’t be as long as the previous two. Its main aim is to use a case study to help everyone better understand how to make more effective and granular bets on micro-level baskets amid macro shocks After all, every view ultimately has to be expressed through a specific proxy. If you choose the wrong trading proxy, the most likely outcome is to hold a correct view but end up with a result that falls short of expectations—or even goes badly in the opposite direction.
The example is chemicals, the sector most people have chosen to bet on amid the oil-trade shock. Many people immediately treat it as a single, unified sector, but that is a mistake. Chemicals make a useful example, and should make the point clearer.
First, viewed as a sector as a whole, the story looks straightforward at first glance: conflict escalates, oil and gas become more expensive, and the impact passes through to chemicals. It all seems to follow neatly. But the chain is not so simple when you break it down. Take European chemicals: how far upstream a company sits, how dependent it is on oil- and gas-derived feedstocks, and whether it can gain pricing power first when Asian supply is disrupted can all have a major impact on the price outcome.
That is why I would rather see this as a reshuffling of the pecking order within the industry than as a simple, broad-based sector-basket trade. In fact, direct sales exposure to the macro shock from oil prices is quite limited. The major transmission channels are indirect: Asia faces shortages of raw materials, Europe loses one of its most aggressive price competitors, upstream companies and distributors benefit first, and downstream specialty players begin to come under pressure. In other words, the market may appear to be trading “chemicals,” but in reality it is distinguishing anew between chemicals that behave more like commodities and those that are actually downstream manufacturers facing delayed cost pass-through.
...
One, Shift the focus to the mismatch between demand and inventories
Take European chemicals as an example. The corresponding basket of companies actually has limited exposure to the Middle East, averaging only a few percentage points across the industry—nowhere near enough for regional demand alone to bring it down. What really needs close attention is the second-order impact. On the one hand, geopolitical uncertainty, inflation, and rising interest rates will eventually weigh on GDP and chemical demand; on the other, tighter supplies of raw materials and intermediates in Asia could trigger a short-term wave of stockpiling, inventory replenishment, and panic buying.
These two forces are at work simultaneously, so they are likely to leave performance highly divergent within the sector.
In the short term, what the market often sees first is stockpiling.Customers will first ask whether there is inventory and whether they can get supply; a modest price increase is actually a less pressing concern. But this kind of short-term positive feedback is usually less durable than people imagine, because once inventories have been replenished, the market will eventually have to return to a harder question:：if high oil prices and high interest rates persist, can underlying end demand really hold up? So what we are seeing in European chemicals right now is not a pure cyclical upswing, but more like a transition period artificially prolonged by supply disruptions.
Figure: Chemical volumes ultimately still follow GDP. Short-term stockpiling can drive them up for a while, but growth still determines the medium-term direction.
Two, The beneficiaries are upstream commodity producers and distributors; downstream specialty businesses are actually hurt.
The biggest divergence lies in how quickly the effects flow through to the income statement.
More upstream commodity businesses are inherently more closely tied to supply and demand and spot prices. Once shortages of naphtha, natural gas, and other feedstocks in Asia start triggering force majeure, upstream prices and spreads will be lifted first.Upstream facilities and basic chemicals chains in Europe and the United States, as well as some distributors, may actually benefit first in this situation, since they can both recapture some market share and escape the price pressure previously exerted by Asian peers.
The real trouble is further downstream, in specialty and formulation businesses...
Their problem is not that they cannot raise prices, but that price increases usually take longer, contract pass-through lags further, and customers are less willing to accept them immediately.Once upstream oil, gas, naphtha, and derivative feedstocks rise quickly, downstream specialty businesses can easily get squeezed in the middle. On the surface, the whole industry is facing rising costs, but in reality, upstream is trading on tighter markets, while downstream is facing a cost squeeze, These are two entirely different earnings situations.
Taking companies as examples, Air Liquide, BASF, Brenntag, IMCD, K+S, Yara, and some more upstream-oriented players such as Arkema, Evonik, and Syensqo are in a more comfortable position right now. Relatively more challenged are AkzoNobel, Clariant, and businesses that rely more heavily on pricing formulations, additives, and brands, but are slower to pass through costs.
Figure: This is a divergence trade; it should not be approached as though the whole sector has the same directional exposure.
So, for market participants, the real question to ask now is not simply whether they are bullish on chemicals, but whether a company makes money from the supply shock or has to absorb the supply shock on behalf of its customers first.
Figure: Europe's true relative advantage comes from Asia's greater reliance on Middle Eastern feedstocks and upstream chemical supplies.
Three, The United States, not Europe, is the biggest winner; Europe is merely a relative beneficiary compared with Asia.
The second section discussed divergences within the industry; here we need to return to the market as a whole. This point is also important. When people see that “European chemicals may benefit,” many instinctively take it to mean they should be broadly optimistic. That is an overextension. The United States is still in the most comfortable position, because its energy costs are lower, its ethane system is more stable, and its reliance on Middle Eastern feedstocks is also lower. Europe's benefit is more relative: after problems emerge in Asia, Europe is no longer under pricing pressure from the most aggressive Asian supply, and some chains can secure better prices amid the global scramble for supplies.
The main reason Europe is not in a particularly strong position is that its own problems have not gone away.
Europe's energy fundamentals were not particularly cheap to begin with, and have also become structurally more fragile over the past two years. So if oil, gas, and LNG rise further, Europe will still come under pressure. Compared with Asia, however, it is at least less likely to have to shut down directly because of an initial interruption in feedstock supplies.In other words, Europe's current advantage is more that it is not as bad off, rather than that it is doing especially well.
Figure: One point to note is that a stronger dollar is one of the few clear buffers for European chemicals, because foreign-exchange translation provides an additional layer of support for earnings.
If this distinction is not handled carefully, relative gains can easily be mistaken for absolute gains later on.
Four, Likewise, the key is not the oil price itself, but the durability of spreads.
Finally, at the end of the day, this sector comes back to a very traditional question:
Can spreads and earnings improve faster than demand weakens?
...
If this is just a short-term supply disruption, short-term panic buying, and short-term inventory rebuilding, then European chemicals companies further up the value chain could very well deliver a strong stretch of relative outperformance. But if the shock drags on and end-market demand starts to weaken, while Europe itself faces higher energy costs and weaker industrial activity, even the spreads that look most comfortable today may not last.
..
So I would understand this European chemicals trade as a story that is relative first, then absolute. First, look at who can seize pricing power and market share when things go wrong in Asia; then look at who can turn this window of opportunity into real profits, rather than merely appearing more resilient in a highly volatile market. The most important thing to avoid right now is valuing the whole sector according to one and the same logic.
The real winners will not be the broad label “European chemicals,” but the companies that happen to sit at the intersection of upstream spreads, distributor inventories, and dollar conversion.
Figure: Sensitivities still differ
...
The purpose of this article is really captured in the opening line of the first section:
You need to take a closer look at the finer differences.
...
(End of full text)
A quick plug: the US stocks, A-shares and Hong Kong stocks, and commodities Planets that complement one another are continuing to develop their content.
US stocks:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies(Xingzhi)
A-shares and Hong Kong stocks:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=asia-strategies(Ganglong)
Commodities:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=commodity-strategies(Dixin)
Note: All content in this article is for reference only and does not constitute investment advice, nor should it be taken as a basis for any laws, regulations, or regulatory policies. Investors should not use or rely on this information as a basis for making decisions.