Topic Tags: Commodities

I Drink Your Milkshake

The capture of Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro is a watershed moment for a country whose natural resource economy has been managed by an interventionist, state-centric regime for nearly 30 years. Indeed, Maduro’s detention effectively ends the command-and-control model that had long governed Venezuela’s oil sector, in which the state-owned oil company PDVSA functioned largely as a political instrument rather than a commercial enterprise. Once a technically competent producer, PDVSA was hollowed out in the early 2000s as revenues were diverted to fund government spending, skilled workers were purged, and maintenance and reinvestment were neglected. As can be seen in this week’s chart, this led to a steep decline in Venezuelan production and export capacity. For global markets, the immediate significance of the ousting of Maduro lies less in the regime change itself than in the potential reopening of one of the world’s largest hydrocarbon endowments after years of sanctions and operational decay.

In the short run, Venezuelan oil exports are likely to increase modestly but unevenly. Although the nation’s output has already started to recover from its 2020 trough due to limited sanctions waivers and ad hoc deals, infrastructure constraints remain severe. Years of deferred maintenance have left pipelines, ports, and storage facilities in poor condition, while a shortage of skilled labor and reliable power continues to limit throughput. As a result, any additional barrels reaching export markets will likely come primarily via better utilization of existing fields rather than large-scale new investment, at least over the coming months. Deals that redirect crude toward the United States (particularly heavy oil suited for Gulf Coast refineries) could shift trade flows quickly, but they do not solve the deeper structural problems of the industry. Near-term export gains are therefore likely to be measured in hundreds of thousands of barrels per day rather than a return to Venezuela’s historical multi-million-barrel output.

Over a longer time horizon, the toppling of Maduro could reshape Venezuela’s oil sector more profoundly by altering its relationship with foreign capital and global commodities markets. International oil companies have long viewed Venezuela’s reserves as attractive but effectively uninvestable due to sanctions risk, opaque governance, a history of expropriation, and weak contract enforcement. A political realignment raises the possibility of a gradual normalization of commercial terms, including joint ventures, profit-sharing mechanisms, and clearer legal protections for market participants. However, analysts widely agree that rebuilding production capacity would be a long and risky process, likely requiring tens of billions of dollars and many years of stable policy. Further complicating matters is Venezuela’s exceptionally high methane intensity, which makes its crude oil among the most emissions-intensive in the world and increasingly problematic for buyers facing stricter environmental standards. Addressing these environmental liabilities would add both cost and time to any meaningful expansion of exports.

Beyond oil, Venezuela’s broader natural resource abundance adds an additional layer of significance to the recent change in leadership. Specifically, the country sits atop substantial reserves of gold and other strategic minerals, and renewed export capacity could feed into a broader bull market in commodities if supply constraints ease. It is important to remember, however, that recent events do not automatically translate into a clean political transition, and the near-term outlook for Venezuelan commodities exports remains shaped by institutional fragility, security risks and unresolved questions about who exercises authority over production, contracts, and revenues. Ultimately, Maduro’s capture creates an opening rather than a resolution, as it increases the probability that Venezuelan resources re-enter global markets at scale, but it does not eliminate the risks that have defined the country’s commodities sector for years.

Don’t Call It a Comeback, Gold’s Been Here for Years

With gold now trading near $4,000 per ounce after a steady multi-year climb, investor attention has turned to the potential role of the commodity in markets and portfolios. Some may view gold’s rise cautiously given shifting perceptions of U.S. policy and debt sustainability, questioning whether the rally reflects a meaningful shift in safe-haven preferences or simply the latest stretch of momentum.

The opinions of most investors have been shaped by an era in which attractive real yields, credible policy, and deep liquidity positioned Treasuries as the world’s premier safe-haven asset. As global reserves and risk frameworks increasingly centered on Treasuries and the dollar, gold’s role as a monetary anchor naturally faded. This week’s chart helps highlight this transition, and the events detailed above underscore how shifts in confidence have shaped market behavior. The Nixon Shock in 1971 ended gold convertibility and closed a monetary era in which trust in the dollar rested on the gold anchor, giving way to one in which confidence hinged on U.S. policy credibility. That credibility was tested early in 1978, when the Dollar Crisis revealed how unsettled the fiat transition remained and required coordinated intervention to steady the currency. By 1981, rate hikes had pushed real yields higher and helped tame inflation, providing the foundation the new system needed. As inflation cooled and credibility strengthened, Treasuries became the stabilizing asset of choice, helping set the conditions for the multi-decade bond bull market that followed (a dynamic that would surface again with the 1994 rate hikes). Decades later, the landscape shifted again with the Global Financial Crisis and quantitative easing by the Federal Reserve. Long-term yields compressed, central bank balance sheets expanded, and the dollar’s share of total reserves began a gradual decline. The pandemic shock in 2020 accelerated these dynamics as debt expanded and real yields turned negative. In recent years, central banks and affiliated institutions have been gradually increasing their gold holdings as a precaution against persistent macroeconomic and geopolitical strains.

Viewed through this lens, gold’s renewed relevance carries a familiar echo. Specifically, the commodity often strengthens when global confidence in the dollar feels tenuous. From this perspective, the recent rally may signal a shift away from a Treasury-centric period rather than any departure from gold’s longstanding function (i.e., a store of value). In that context, conversations regarding the role of gold may broaden from here.

Oil Pressure?

Earlier this year, Marquette published a Chart of the Week that detailed the muted change in oil prices in the aftermath of U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. Tensions in the region have persisted in recent time, with last week seeing Israeli airstrikes that targeted Hamas leadership in Qatar. In response to this development, oil ticked higher as investors assessed the increased risk of commodity supply chain disruptions but later gave back most of these gains. This represents a continuation of the trend exhibited during most of 2025, in which geopolitical shocks do not materially increase the price of oil. One possible explanation for this dynamic would be persistently elevated supply of the commodity.

As displayed in the chart above, there has been a sustained imbalance between oil supply and demand for most of the last six months, with supply outpacing demand. Indeed, OPEC+, which includes the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia, and other allied producers, has moved to aggressively raise output in 2025, which has resulted in a production capacity increase of over two million barrels per day since April. Despite this already increasing supply, OPEC+ recently made an agreement to add an additional 137,000 barrels per day to its production capacity in October. These increases in capacity have significantly outpaced global demand, driving prices lower and widening the oil supply glut. Going forward, while geopolitical instability may support temporary price increases, the longer-term outlook for oil remains clouded by excess supply and uncertainty surrounding future consumption of the commodity.

Oil Pares Gains After U.S. Strikes Iran

Last week, Marquette released a publication detailing the importance of the Strait of Hormuz within the context of the global oil trade given recent tensions in the Middle East. Over the weekend, these tensions escalated materially, with the United States carrying out a bombing campaign against multiple nuclear enrichment facilities in Iran. In response, Iranian officials launched a missile attack on a U.S. military installation in Qatar and have threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, a measure that would need to be ratified by the country’s parliament and national security council. Experts agree that such an undertaking would be highly problematic for the global economy and China in particular, which accounts for roughly 90% of Iran’s oil exports (around 1.6 million barrels per day). Goldman Sachs estimates that a closure of the strait could push the price of oil to more than $100 per barrel.

Interestingly, despite these developments, oil prices have not moved significantly higher in recent time. Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, did climb above $81 per barrel immediately after the U.S. strikes, but has since dropped back to around $72 per barrel as of this writing. Interestingly, most of this decline occurred after the missile attack on the U.S. airbase in Qatar, which may have led investors to believe that oil flows will not be the primary target of the Iranian military going forward. The current figure of $72 per barrel, while still above the five-year average level for Brent crude oil, is largely in line with where the commodity has traded since 2021. Equity markets do not seem particularly phased by this weekend’s strikes either, with major global stock indices finishing Monday in positive territory. These positive dynamics amid a string of negative headlines likely stem from the fact that the Strait of Hormuz has yet to be officially closed, although analysts have reported a slowdown in shipping navigation through the strait since the U.S. strikes. Clearly, much uncertainty remains related to the situation in the Middle East, and asset prices could see increased volatility in the near term depending on the next moves by any of the countries involved.

Oil Markets in Focus Given Middle East Turmoil

Tensions in the Middle East spiked last week following a major escalation in the conflict between Israel and Iran, raising concerns over the stability of the global energy supply chain. To that point, the Strait of Hormuz — a vital chokepoint for global oil and gas flows that connects the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman — has become increasingly fragile amid new reports of electronic interference with navigation systems and a tanker collision near the strait earlier this week. Roughly 20 million barrels of crude oil pass through the Strait of Hormuz each day, accounting for roughly 27% of the world’s maritime oil trade and 20% of total global oil consumption. Additionally, around 20% of global liquefied natural gas (LNG) is transported through the area, primarily from Qatar. Despite the heightened conflict and concerns that Iran could attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz, tanker traffic has remained relatively stable, with 111 vessels reportedly transiting through the Strait on June 15. This figure is down only slightly from 116 on June 12, and consistent with the recent daily range of 100 to 120 vessels.

Most of the material exported through the Strait of Hormuz is delivered to Asia, with roughly 84% of the crude oil and 83% of the LNG being shipped to the region last year. China, India, Japan, and South Korea accounted for approximately 69% of these flows, making Asia particularly vulnerable to supply shocks. While the U.S. has reduced its reliance on Middle East crude oil imports in recent years, with only 6% of its oil imports coming via the Strait, concerns remain for potential inflationary pressures and global GDP headwinds if regional conflicts escalate further.

In response to recent events, Brent crude oil has climbed to over $78 per barrel, and any further escalation could trigger additional volatility in energy prices and, by extension, global financial markets. Indeed, the Strait of Hormuz remains one of the most strategically significant and sensitive corridors for the global economy and investors should continue to monitor developments within the region given the potential for broader economic impacts.

“Renew” Your Opinion on Policy Bets

During election season, investors are often tempted to position their portfolios based on expectations related to potential changes in government policy. That said, market dynamics in the wake of various political events can be confounding and notoriously difficult to forecast. There is perhaps no better example to support this statement than performance of the energy space over the last seven years.

When Donald Trump assumed the presidency in 2017, his administration sought to rescind many environmental regulations and attain energy independence via the use of fossil fuels. His term saw the approval of multiple controversial oil pipelines, a large expansion of oil and gas leasing, and support for energy development on federal land. Since coming to office in 2021, however, Joe Biden has aimed to reverse many of the energy policies of his predecessor, as well as promote an agenda focused on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and the development of renewable energy sources. Based on this information, many readers might have expected robust performance of traditional energy companies during the Trump presidency, as well as more challenged returns for clean energy stocks. The policies of the Biden administration, on the other hand, might have been expected to lead to a reversal of these dynamics. Readers may be surprised to learn, however, that the Energy sector of the S&P 500 Index returned -29.6% during Trump’s term in office, compared to 136.1% since Biden assumed office. Conversely, the S&P Global Clean Energy Index returned 305.9% in the four years of Trump’s presidency but has notched a -54.0% gain during the Biden term.

There are many factors that can help explain these and other surprising performance trends. First, markets tend to be forward-looking in nature, meaning current prices of financial assets usually reflect investor expectations of what is to come in the (sometimes distant) future. Additionally, exogenous shocks can roil securities markets and lead to dynamics that would have otherwise been unexpected based on prevailing conditions and the agendas of those in political office. For instance, the COVID-19 pandemic upended supply chains and the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine led to increases in the prices of certain commodities, and these developments were largely conducive to positive performance from traditional energy companies despite a renewables-focused U.S. president. Finally, there is the question of natural business and economic cycles, which have tended to ebb and flow regardless of which party controls the White House. All of this is to say that market timing around an election or any other major political event can be a most difficult exercise. Given the upcoming presidential election in the U.S., investors should remain diversified across the asset class spectrum in order to capture market gains and insulate their portfolios against losses, both of the expected and unexpected kind.

Airline Stocks: Just Plane Challenged

Although travelers have happily bid farewell to pandemic-related restrictions and returned to the skies en masse, airline stocks seem to have missed the memo on bouncing back to pre-COVID levels. To that point, the Dow Jones U.S. Airlines Index has returned roughly -35% since the start of the pandemic. This cumulative performance figure is despite a surge in the index in the wake of vaccine announcements in late 2020, as well as the fact that that this summer may be the busiest travel season the U.S. has ever seen. These dynamics can be observed in this week’s chart.

The dichotomy between booming travel numbers and lackluster airline stock performance can be attributed to several challenges facing the industry. Specifically, while increased passenger volumes boost revenues for major airlines, these businesses continue to grapple with profit margin pressures stemming from soaring operational costs. For instance, higher oil prices (now $80 per barrel compared to roughly $55 before the pandemic) have proved to be a significant headwind for airlines. Additionally, ongoing issues including pilot and crew shortages, escalating wages, operational inefficiencies, and higher maintenance expenses have further constrained airline profitability in recent time. Spending on corporate travel has also been somewhat tepid over the last few years as well, which has presented problems for airlines that offer premium upgrades such as business class seating.

In conclusion, the challenges faced by airlines will likely persist into the near future, though robust passenger volumes are certainly a cause for optimism. As it relates to investor exposure to these types of stocks in general, four major airlines (American, Delta, Southwest, and United) are constituents of the S&P 500 Index, and these carriers comprise roughly 0.2% of the benchmark. In other words, adequate diversification should mitigate the impacts of the headwinds described above at the portfolio level.

The Emergence of Argentinian Equities

Argentina has faced myriad economic headwinds in recent time, including hyperinflation, currency-related difficulties, and a series of defaults on its sovereign debt. As the country headed into a presidential election year in 2023, Javier Milei, a member of the Argentinian Libertarian Party, emerged as a front-runner in the race, as many viewed his laissez-faire approach to economic policy as having the potential to correct the nation’s trajectory. Milei ultimately won the presidential election and assumed office in December of last year.

Over the last several months, President Milei has enacted a series of unique and controversial economic policies aimed at making the nation’s currency more competitive, reigning in excessive inflation, and stabilizing Argentina’s economic footing. These policies include the devaluation of the Argentinian peso by more than 50% and the introduction of a crawling peg, which is designed to further depreciate the peso. Additional initiatives by the Milei government include lifting capital controls, slashing state subsidies, and scrapping hundreds of government jobs and regulations. This austerity program, while certainly creating its own set of complications for the Argentinian people, has been largely well received by investors. To that point, the MSCI Argentina Index has returned close to 200% on a cumulative basis over the last two years, which is far in excess of the cumulative returns of both the MSCI Emerging Markets and MSCI Frontier Emerging Markets indices in that time. This performance is a sign of investor optimism related to the country’s economic prospects under Milei’s leadership, and Argentina’s status as a world leader in lithium and copper reserves could provide additional support from market participants. Marquette will continue to monitor the progress made by Argentina on the economic front.

Sweet and High Up

Chocolate eggs and bunnies may have appeared more expensive to shoppers this Easter weekend, as the price of cocoa futures has surged by around 125% since the beginning of 2024. New York futures prices saw a roughly 50% increase in the month of March alone and now sit at an all-time high of just below $10,000 per metric ton. By comparison, copper futures prices sat at approximately $8,900 per metric ton as of this writing, meaning cocoa is currently more expensive than the bellwether industrial metal.

The drivers of this dramatic increase in cocoa prices involve difficulties faced by the two biggest growers of the commodity: Ivory Coast and Ghana. Specifically, both nations have seen production hampered by strong seasonal winds and a lack of rainfall, as well as a prevalent disease known as swollen shoot virus, which serves to kill cocoa trees and leads to a drop in yields. To make matters worse, the Ghana Cocoa Board, which depends on foreign financing to compensate domestic farmers, may soon lose access to a critical funding facility due to a lack of beans. Due to these challenges, experts currently expect cocoa production shortfalls ranging from 150,000 to 500,000 tons over the next few seasons.

As readers might imagine, these dynamics are creating turmoil within futures markets. Investors with short positions have been forced to either manage margin calls or purchase contracts to close out their shorts, which can exacerbate price action. Pain has not been limited to futures market participants, as consumers have been forced to stomach chocolate prices that have climbed by roughly 10% over the last year. Additionally, it is possible that more shelf price increases are on the way, as producers of chocolate often hedge their purchases of cocoa months in advance. All of this said, it is unlikely that these developments will have a material impact on capital markets broadly. In other words, a diversified portfolio is one of the best ways for investors to keep their returns sweet!

Where’s the (Affordable) Beef?

Readers who have recently shopped for Labor Day barbeque supplies may lament the fact that beef prices have climbed to extreme levels. This sharp increase in the cost of beef is in part thanks to an elevated price of corn, which, as the primary feed source for cattle, is a key input in the beef manufacturing process. Due to this relationship, the two prices have moved in a highly correlated matter over the last few decades, albeit with a lag. For instance, corn prices rose from roughly $2 per bushel in 2000 to over $8 per bushel in 2012 as ethanol usage became more prevalent during that time. Live cattle futures increased by roughly 70% over that same interval and kept climbing to nearly $1.70 per pound before tapering off in 2014.

The lagged nature of this relationship is attributable to beef market dynamics. Specifically, when corn prices increase, beef producers first try to pass these higher input costs on to consumers. However, this can only be accomplished to a limited extent before the margins of producers begin to come under pressure. At that point, farmers are forced to cull their herds to reduce the supply of beef, raise prices, and protect margins. Since it takes an extended period of time to rebuild herds, beef prices often moderate over several years after the initial reversion of input prices back to normal levels.

After the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, corn prices skyrocketed due to various shocks, including a spike in demand from ethanol producers and a fertilizer shortage that increased production costs. The invasion of Ukraine further boosted the price of the commodity given the nation’s status as the fourth-largest corn exporter in the world, accounting for roughly 15% of the global corn trade. After increasing by more than 110% since the start of 2020, corn prices peaked in July of last year at roughly $8.20 per bushel. Perhaps unsurprisingly, these dynamics have led to a commensurate rise in the cost of beef in recent years, with prices rising from less than $1 per pound at the beginning of the pandemic to an all-time high of over $1.80 per pound today.

The good news is that it does appear that corn prices have started to moderate, falling by roughly 42% since last summer. That said, it will likely take a few years for beef prices to fully reverse course due to the factors detailed above. Until that time, grillmasters everywhere may need to find more cost-effective ingredients to use during their cookouts.

Print PDF > Where’s the (Affordable) Beef?

 

The opinions expressed herein are those of Marquette Associates, Inc. (“Marquette”), and are subject to change without notice. This material is not financial advice or an offer to purchase or sell any product. Marquette reserves the right to modify its current investment strategies and techniques based on changing market dynamics or client needs.