Sunday , 23 April 2017


True or False: Rising Oil Prices Are Bearish For Stocks

A sensible story of causation regarding oil prices and stock prices made by countlessoil-price-rise economists is that “rising oil prices increase the cost of energy and therefore reduce corporate profits and consumers’ spending power, thus putting drags on stock prices and the economy.” Stunningly, as far as I can determine, however, no evidence supports that claim, as the discussion below will show.

By Vadim Pokhlebkin/Robert Prechter (elliottwave.com) originally entitled The Fundamental Flaw in Conventional Financial and Macroeconomic Theory (Part II)*

Claim #2: “Rising oil prices are bearish for stocks.”

This is a ubiquitous claim. It would take weeks to collect all the statements that economists have made to the press to the effect that recently rising oil prices are “a concern” or that an unexpected (they’re always unexpected) “oil price shock” would force them to change their bullish outlook for the economy.

For many economists, the underlying assumption about causality in such statements stems from the experience of 1973-1974, when stock prices went down as oil prices went up. That particular juxtaposition appeared to fit a sensible story of causation regarding oil prices and stock prices, to wit:

“Rising oil prices increase the cost of energy and therefore reduce corporate profits and consumers’ spending power, thus putting drags on stock prices and the economy.”

Figure 7 shows, however, that for the past 15 years there has been no consistent relationship between the trends of oil prices and stock prices. Sometimes it is positive, and sometimes it is negative.

In fact, during this 15-year period it has been positive for more time than it has been negative and the quarters during this period when the economy contracted the most occurred during and after the oil price collapse of 2008. Thereafter oil prices doubled as the economy was reviving in 2009. None of this activity fits the accepted exogenous-cause argument.

The above graph negates all the comments from economists who say that an “oil shock” would hurt the stock market and the economy. It also throws into doubt the very idea that stock prices and oil prices are linked.

Could rising oil prices perhaps be bullish for stocks?

Yes, once again we can argue both sides of the exogenous-cause case. Consider:

  • As the economy begins to expand, business picks up, so stock prices rise; and
  • as business picks up, demand for energy rises as businesses gear up and operate at higher capacity. That’s why stocks and oil go up together.

The above arguments make sense, don’t they, but neither claim explains the data. Sometimes oil and stocks go up or down together, and sometimes they trend in opposite directions. As with stocks and interest rates we discussed in Part I of this series [see here], we could easily isolate examples of all four pairs of coincident trends.

To conclude, we can determine no consistent relationship between the two price series, and no economist has proposed one that fits the data.
[The above article is presented by  Lorimer Wilson, editor of  www.munKNEE.com and www.FinancialArticleSummariesToday.com and the FREE Market Intelligence Report newsletter (sample hereregister here) and may have been edited ([ ]), abridged (…) and/or reformatted (some sub-titles and bold/italics emphases) for the sake of clarity and brevity to ensure a fast and easy read. The author’s views and conclusions are unaltered and no personal comments have been included to maintain the integrity of the original article. This paragraph must be included in any article re-posting to avoid copyright infringement.]

*http://www.elliottwave.com/freeupdates/archives/2014/09/09/Don-t-Get-Ruined-by-These-10-Popular-Investment-Myths-%28Part-II%29.aspx#axzz3IOE2gK92 (© 2014 Elliott Wave International)

If you liked this article then “Follow the munKNEE” & get each new post via

Related Articles:
Most economists (primarily Keynesians and monetarists) believe that authorities can control the money supply and interest rates, and most neo-Austrians believe that the Fed is all-powerful when it comes to inflating – that whatever inflation rate it wants, it simply manufactures. Is that true or false? Read on for the answer. Read More »
This one seems like a no-brainer. The government or the central bank prints more bonds, notes and bills, and prices for things go up in response. Gold is real money, so it must fluctuate along with the inflation rate. It’s basic physics but it doesn’t happen that way. Let’s examine the history of inflation and the precious metals since the low of the Great Depression. Read More »
It seems logical that a scary, destructive terrorist attack, particularly one that implies more attacks to come, would be bearish for stock prices – but has that actually been the case? Read More »
It would seem logical to say that peace allows companies to focus on manufacturing goods, providing services, innovation and competition, all of which helps the overall economy but does peace, in fact, have anything to do with determining stock prices? Read More »
Q: Is it correct to assume throughout that an expanding trade deficit impacts the economy negatively? A: No, the relationship, if there is one, is that there has been a positive — not negative — correlation between the stock market and the trade deficit. Let me explain. Read More »
The belief that earnings drive stock prices powers the bulk of the research on Wall Street but this glaring exception to the idea of a causal relationship between corporate earnings and stock prices challenges that theory. Let me explain. Read More »
It is common for economists to offer a forecast for the stock market yet add a caveat to the effect that “If a war shock or terrorist attack occurs, then I would have to modify my outlook.” As such, it would seem logical to assume that…they must have access to a study showing that such events affect the stock market, right? The answer is no, for the same reason that they do not check relationships between interest rates, oil prices or the trade balance and the stock market. The causality just seems too sensible to doubt. Read More »
Macroeconomic news supposedly explains only about one fifth of the movement in stock prices but if there is no accommodating theory, then the presumed causality involved is tenuous at best. Let me explain. Read More »
Events and conditions do not make investors behave in any particular way that can be identified as shown in this analysis of the supposed relationship between interest rates and stock prices. So much for the popular claim that “Interest rates drive stock prices”! Read More »