March eighteenth, two thousand twenty-six
《A Closer Look at the Finer Divergences: Chemicals as a Case in Point》 《You Need to Take a More Serious Look at the Finer Divergences: Chemicals as a Case in Point》
Author: Ariston
Following on from Notes260316《From Hormuz to Growth Damage: The Market Is Slowly Realizing This Is More Than Just an Oil Price Shock》 + Notes260317《Oil Prices Are Only the Opening Act; The Real Repricing Will Hit Growth, Currencies, and Industrial Supply Chains》, this article adds a case study to the final section’s micro-level discussion in 260317, You need to take a more serious look at the finer divergences.
...
Today’s article will not be as long as the previous two. Its main purpose is to use a case study to help everyone better understand how to make more effective and precise bets on micro-level baskets amid macro shocks because, in the end, every view has to be implemented through a specific proxy. If you choose the wrong trading proxy, the most likely outcome is that you hold a correct view but end up with a disappointing or even very poor result in the opposite direction.
The example is chemicals, which most people have been betting on in response to the oil trading shock. Many people immediately treat it as a single sector, but that is wrong; chemicals make a useful example, and the distinctions may be clearer this way.
First, viewed as a single sector, it 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 once you break down the chain, things are not so simple. Take European chemicals: who is further upstream, who depends more on oil- and gas-derived feedstocks, and who can gain pricing power first when Asia faces supply disruptions—all of these factors can have a significant impact on prices.
That is also why I would rather see this as a reshuffling of the pecking order within the industry than as a simple, broad-based trade in a sector basket. In fact, direct sales exposure to the macro shock from oil prices is quite limited; the really significant transmission channels are indirect: Asia faces a shortage of feedstocks, Europe loses one of its most aggressive price competitors, upstream companies and distributors benefit first, while downstream specialty producers come under pressure. In other words, The market may appear to be trading “chemicals,” but in reality it is distinguishing between chemicals that are more like commodities and those that are actually downstream manufacturers facing lagged cost pass-through.
...
I.Shift the focus to the mismatch between demand and inventories
Take European chemicals as an example. The basket of companies in question has relatively little exposure to the Middle East—the industry average is only a few percentage points, nowhere near enough for regional demand alone to drag 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 demand for chemicals; on the other hand, tighter supplies of feedstocks and intermediates in Asia will trigger a short-term rush to secure goods, restock inventories, and engage in panic buying.
These two forces are at work simultaneously, so performance within the sector is likely to be highly divergent.
In the short term, what the market usually sees first is a rush to secure goods.Customers will first ask whether there is inventory and whether suppliers can deliver; a modest price increase is actually not the most 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 sooner or later 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 transitional period artificially prolonged by supply disruptions.
Chart: Ultimately, chemical volumes still follow GDP. Short-term stockpiling can provide a temporary boost, but growth will determine the medium-term direction.
II.The beneficiaries are upstream commodities and distribution; downstream specialty producers are actually being hurt
The greatest divergence lies in how quickly the effects flow through to the income statement.
Commodity businesses further upstream are inherently more closely tied to supply and demand and spot prices. Once Asia starts declaring force majeure because of shortages of naphtha, natural gas, and other feedstocks, upstream prices and spreads will be the first to rise.Upstream facilities and basic chemicals chains in Europe and the United States, along with some distributors, may actually benefit first in this situation: they can recapture some market share and escape the price pressure previously exerted by Asian peers.
The real trouble lies in specialty and formulation businesses further downstream...
Their problem is not that they cannot raise prices, but that price increases typically come more slowly, contract pass-through lags further, and customers are less willing to accept them immediately.Once the prices of upstream oil, gas, naphtha, and derived feedstocks rise quickly, downstream specialty businesses can easily get caught in the middle. On the surface, the entire industry is experiencing rising costs, but in reality, the trade in upstream businesses is about tighter markets, while the trade in downstream businesses is about enduring a cost squeeze, and these are two entirely different earnings environments.
Among the companies, Air Liquide, BASF, Brenntag, IMCD, K+S, Yara, and some more upstream-oriented names such as Arkema, Evonik, and Syensqo are in a more comfortable position for now. Relatively more challenging are AkzoNobel, Clariant, and chains that rely more heavily on pricing formulations, additives, and brands, but are slower to pass through costs.
Chart: This is a divergence trade, not one to approach as though the sector has uniform exposure in the same direction
Therefore, what market participants should really be asking 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.
Chart: Europe's real relative advantage comes from Asia's greater dependence on Middle Eastern raw materials and upstream chemical supplies
Three, Europe is not the biggest winner—the United States is; Europe is simply a relative beneficiary compared with Asia
The second section discussed divergence within the industry; here we need to return to the broader market perspective. This point also matters. When people hear that “European chemicals may benefit,” many instinctively take it as a broadly bullish signal, but that is an overextension. The United States remains in the most comfortable position, thanks to its lower energy costs, more stable ethane system, and lower dependence on Middle Eastern feedstocks. Europe's benefits are relative: after Asia runs into problems first, Europe is no longer under price pressure from the most aggressive Asian supply, and some chains can secure better prices amid the global scramble for supply.
The main reason Europe is not in a particularly strong position is that its own problems have not gone away.
Europe's energy cost base was not particularly cheap to begin with, and its structure has also become more vulnerable over the past two years. So further increases in oil, gas, and LNG will still weigh on Europe. Compared with Asia, however, it is at least less likely to have to shut down first because of an outright feedstock supply disruption.In other words, Europe's current advantage is more a matter of being less bad than being especially good.
Chart: One point to note is that a stronger dollar is one of the few clear offsets for European chemicals, as currency translation provides an additional boost to 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
Ultimately, this sector still comes down to a very traditional question:
Can the improvement in spreads and earnings outpace the weakening in demand?
...
If the disruption is only temporary, panic buying is short-lived, and inventory rebuilding lasts only briefly, European chemical companies further upstream could certainly deliver a very strong period of relative returns. But if the shock drags on, end-market demand starts to weaken, and Europe itself faces higher energy costs and weaker industrial activity, even the spreads that look most favorable today may not last.
..
So I would understand this European chemicals trade as a story that is relative first and absolute later. First, look at who can seize pricing power and market share when problems arise in Asia; then look at who can truly turn this window of opportunity into profits, rather than merely appearing more resilient amid high volatility. The most important thing to avoid right now is continuing to price the entire sector according to the same logic.
The real outperformers 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 translation.
Chart: Sensitivities still differ
...
The purpose of this article is really just to elaborate on the opening line of the first section:
You need to take a more serious look at the finer divergences.
...
(End of full text)
A quick plug: the U.S. stocks, A-share and Hong Kong, and commodities Planets that complement this content are continuing to take shape.
U.S. stocks:https://www.meridianresearch.app/home?product=us-strategies(Xingzhi)
A-share and Hong Kong: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, does not constitute any investment advice, and is not a basis for any laws, regulations, or regulatory policies. Investors should not use or rely on this information as a basis for making decisions.