Two graphs (from Scott Barber) to remind that what you get from assets depends on the currency:

Oxford SWF Project, a university think tank on sovereign wealth funds, is looking at reports that the latest entry in the field could be Scotland. The project has a new post about the Scottish government floating the idea of an oil stabilisation fund to use oil and gas revenues.  It cites Scottish cabinet secretary for finance John Swinney looking abroad gleefully:

“We want to harness the benefit of oil revenues now for future years. An oil fund can provide greater stability, protect our economy and support the transition to a low carbon economy. Norway’s oil fund is worth over £200 billion – despite the first instalment being made as recently as the mid 1990s – and Alaska’s oil fund even gives money back to its citizens every year.”

The SWF project reckons the idea is a good one, but wonders if something other than meets the eye is at play. It had two questions.

First, it wonders whether the plan might just be a political rebuke for the UK government from the ruling (and separatist) Scottish National Party over a perceived lack of savings over the years.  Second, it notes that the UK government floated the idea of a strategic investments fund back in April and questions whether “the Scottish SWF reflects a ‘whatever they have, we should have’ mentality”.

Here’s a third question. Is it not a bit late for an oil fund? UK oil and gas output, most of which is in Scottish waters, has more than halved since 1999.

By any standard the second quarter of 2009 was remarkable. Here are some numbers to chew over as the third quarter gets under way:   

— World stocks as measured by the MSCI All-Country World Index had their best quarter since the benchmark was first compiled in 1988.

    — The world index gained 21.2 percent for the second quarter. Its nearest “competitor” was the fourth quarter of 1998 when it rose 20.66 percent.

    — Much of the index’s gain this quarter came in the first two months. The index was essentially flat in June as investors began trading in a tight range.

    — Emerging markets were the main driver. MSCI’s sub-index for the sector gained 34.3 percent for the quarter, also a record high. Asian shares have been among the stars, with the MSCI Asia-Pacific ex-Japan index rising 33.7 percent. This was more than twice the gain on the U.S. Standard & Poor’s 500 index.

    — A big decliner was volatility. The Chicago Board Options Exchange Volatility Index, often called Wall Street’s fear gauge, fell below 30 percent at the end of the quarter to its lowest level since before the collapse of Lehman Brothers.

    — Over the quarter the VIX has lost 40.3 percent, reflecting growing confidence among investors that equities have ended the tumble of the past year or so.

    — One of the biggest percentage gainers was oil. New York crude gained around 42.2 percent on expected demand from a recovering world economy. Other commodities also made strong gains, with copper up 23.4 percent.

    — Hopes for a global recovery and rising concerns about future inflation — linked to the oil price surge and super-easy credit policy — pushed government bond yields and mortgage rates higher. Ten-year U.S. Treasury yields jumped 87 basis points over the quarter to 3.54 percent, having topped 4 percent at one point in early June. Ten-year euro zone government yields ended the quarter 39 basis points higher at 3.38 percent.

    — A growing appetite for higher-yields boosted demand for emerging market debt. Emerging sovereign debt spreads narrowed 212 basis over U.S Treasuries according to JPMorgan.

    — Investors ended the quarter clearly committed to future gains in higher-yielding assets. Reuters asset allocation polls for June showed cash reserves at a 23-month low, a sign that money was being put to work. EPFR Gobal data showed that about $130 billion has exited safe-haven money market funds in the year to date, but that is still less than a third of the $455 billion of cash that flocked to those funds in 2008 as a whole.

(Reuters photo: Gary Hershorn)

    The recent run-up in oil prices could have further to go as most analysts are likely to begin raising their year-end oil price targets, according to market research firm Birinyi Associates in Stamford, Connecticut.
    "Given several considerably lower expectations, we think it is reasonable to expect upgrades," they said in a research commentary, noting that crude oil prices were already above most firms' year-end targets.
    U.S. front-month crude hit an intraday high of $73.23 on Thursday, the highest intraday level since prices hit $75.69 on Oct. 21.
    A year-end oil price target of note recently came from Goldman Sachs, which raised its end-of-2009 oil price forecast on June 4 to $85 a barrel from $65.
    Oil's climb partly reflects weakness of the U.S. dollar and expectations that demand may be picking up as the global recession abates.

--- Graphic courtesy of Birinyi Associates, Inc.

Oil prices have been trading in an unusually strong positive correlation with equities markets over the past few months on hopes that signs of an economic recovery could mean a boost for energy demand.

But with oil and product inventories swelling and little sign of demand improving in the United States and other big developed economies, analysts warn that the linkage may be hard to maintain, especially if U.S. motorists cut back on vacations this summer.

It's fair to say that investing in Iraq is not for the faint-hearted.

Just last week more than 200 people were killed in suicide bombings across the country, while kidnapping and armed assault remain commonplace.

That said, more than 600 delegates still turned up to the Invest Iraq 2009 conference held in London this week, eager to find out what opportunities there might be in the oil, construction, petrochemicals, engineering, agriculture, transport and tourism industries, to name a few.

From City of London bankers to executives from Shell and Chevron, bosses from energy service companies and airport construction firms, management training specialists and security advisers, they were all there, milling around a west London hotel in their smartest suits, seeing what business they might be able to do.

There were plenty of Iraqis too. Mostly businessmen with operations outside the country -- in Lebanon, Jordan or Dubai -- and now looking to step up investment in their homeland.

Some of them, perhaps feeling more familiar with the lay of the land than Western investors, had already made sizeable moves into Iraq, but judging from the questions they were putting to the Iraqi officials speaking at the conference, they were concerned about a lack of legal direction from the government.

One Iraqi was particularly illustrative of the potential pitfalls that can befall investors.

During a seminar on Iraq's new investment law, which is supposed to make it quicker and easier to pour money into the country, he stood up to ask a question. Dressed in a smart pinstripe suit, he looked every part the international entrepreneur as he grabbed the mircophone.

"I am worried," he said, his concern audible in his voice. "I have $400 million invested in Iraq. I have built several hotels already and I am just completing the construction of a new 400-room, five-star hotel in Kerbala," he said, referring to a religious city in southern Iraq that is a popular destination for religious tourism.

"I am worried," he continued, "because I do not yet have planning permission for any of the buildings."

There was silence in the room as the audience digested just how out on a limb he was.

"Have you asked for it?" a government representative on the panel asked.

"Yes," said the man. "I asked three years ago and I keep asking but I have heard nothing."

After a pause the government official mumbled something about the issue being tackled: "This is something that regional authorities should be looking at. They need to speed up the process," he said, before moving on to the next question.

The businessman did not look particularly reassured as he sat back down.

– The estimated earnings growth rate for the S&P 500 for Q4 2008 currently stands at -1.2 percent. Six months ago, this was estimated at 59.3 percent.

– The price of oil was $37.71 at the close on December 26, the last formal price before Israel began its bombardment of Gaza. It has since risen close to 25 percent.

– A standout winner among investments last year was German stock volatility. The DAX New Volatility index rose more than 139 percent in 2008.

– From its all time high in November 2007 to its 2008 low, MSCI’s benchmark all-country world stock index lost 56.2 percent.

– Since hitting that low on November 21, 2008, the MSCI benchmark has risen around 25 percent.

If Lithuania’s experience is anything to go by, Spain may regret its declaration that it would rather Russian oil company LUKOIL did not buy a major stake in its largest refiner, Repsol.

Russian oil company LUKOIL is in talks to buy around 30 percent of Repsol, one of Western Europe’s five largest non-government controlled oil companies by market value, sources close to the matter say. Analysts think the move could be a prelude to a full takeover, which would be the largest overseas acquisition by a Russian company.

Spain’s Interior Minister Alfredo Perez Rubalcaba said on Tuesday he would prefer a different buyer. Rubalcaba didn’t say why LUKOIL was persona non grata in Madrid but analysts think the company’s nationality is the reason.

Europe relies on Russia for around a quarter of its gas and much of its oil. EU leaders fret about their reliance on Russia for energy supplies and recent moves by Russian companies, especially state-owned Gazprom, to buy up European energy infrastructure such as power stations and gas networks, have prompted Brussels to consider investment restrictions.

For LUKOIL, Madrid’s hostility is ominously familiar. In 2006, Lithuania opted to sell control of its Mazeikiu refinery to Poland’s PKN Orlen, rather than LUKOIL. Analysts said LUKOIL, and TNK-BP, another Russian oil major, lost out because the Lithuanian government feared a Russian buyer would give the Kremlin too much influence over the Baltic state’s economy.

 Shortly after the deal, Russia shut an oil pipeline to Mazeikiu, saying it needed to be repaired to avoid a leak. The pipeline has not restarted and Russian technical watchdog Rostekhnadzor said in September at least another 18 months would be needed for repairs.

 Lithuania said the shutdown is a politically motivated action linked to its decision not to select a Russian buyer.

Spain is not currently a major buyer of Russian crude or gas but a deal signed by Spanish utility Gas Natural and Russian state-controlled export monopoly Gazprom earlier this year might change this in the future. Also, Repsol has upstream interests in Russia, which it hopes to expand.

How will Moscow react to this latest snubbing of one of its largest oil companies?

The price of oil was falling sharply on Tuesday after traders stopped worrying about former Hurricane Gustav’s winds, but by at least one calculation it remains very pricey - that is, its link to the price of gold.Some market watchers argue that there is a long-term relationship between the prices of the two commodities. Roughly speaking, this theory would have 10 barrels of crude oil costing the same as one ounce of gold.  Back in March, for example, gold hit a record of $1,030 an ounce and a barrel of oil brought around $105.

By July, however, gold had fallen and oil had risen to the extent that the ratio was not 10 to 1, but 5.9 to1. Some argued at the time that hedge funds noticed this and began to short crude. With the latest tumble, oil is about 27 percent below its high. But against gold, the ratio is still at 7.4 to 1.

The problem is that gold won’t stop falling either, which rather undermines the ratio theory. Perhaps it is all just hooey. If it is not, however, oil would have to dive another 25 percent to reach equilibrium of $79 a barrel against today’s gold price.

As George Bush might say, the EU is addicted to Russian energy. While no member wants to kick the habit totally, Brussels would like the bloc to reduce its growing dependence.

Even before Moscow invaded Georgia, the main non-Russian route for exporting Central Asian and Azeri crude and gas to Europe, the EU watched Russia’s regular cuts in energy supplies to neighbours with concern.

But EU members have been reluctant to take the hard measures that would allow them to bypass Russia, so analysts think their reliance on Moscow will grow.

What should European countries to ensure it has sufficient oil and gas in the future? 

Should EU nations be prepared to put cash behind its energy diversification goals?

Is a common EU energy policy even possible when oil and gas is so important that no country seems prepared to risk its own energy security for that of the bloc?