US ECONOMICS
CORONAVIRUS / FINANCE
FED. March 20, 2020. Coordinated central bank action to further enhance the provision of U.S. dollar liquidity
The Bank of Canada, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the European Central Bank, the Federal Reserve, and the Swiss National Bank are today announcing a coordinated action to further enhance the provision of liquidity via the standing U.S. dollar liquidity swap line arrangements.
To improve the swap lines' effectiveness in providing U.S. dollar funding, these central banks have agreed to increase the frequency of 7-day maturity operations from weekly to daily. These daily operations will commence on Monday, March 23, 2020, and will continue at least through the end of April. The central banks also will continue to hold weekly 84-day maturity operations.
The swap lines among these central banks are available standing facilities and serve as an important liquidity backstop to ease strains in global funding markets, thereby helping to mitigate the effects of such strains on the supply of credit to households and businesses, both domestically and abroad.
FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/monetary20200320a.htm
FED. March 20, 2020. Federal Reserve Board expands its program of support for flow of credit to the economy by taking steps to enhance liquidity and functioning of crucial state and municipal money markets
The Federal Reserve Board on Friday expanded its program of support for the flow of credit to the economy by taking steps to enhance the liquidity and functioning of crucial state and municipal money markets. Through the Money Market Mutual Fund Liquidity Facility, or MMLF, the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston will now be able to make loans available to eligible financial institutions secured by certain high-quality assets purchased from single state and other tax-exempt municipal money market mutual funds.
The attached term sheet details the assets that are eligible under the MMLF program, as well as additional information.
FULL DOCUMENT: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/pressreleases/files/monetary20200320b1.pdf
ENERGY
U.S. Department of State. 03/20/2020. Briefing With Senior State Department Official On the Global Oil Market
MODERATOR: Okay, sir, thank you for making time for this. I’ll just go over the ground rules one more time now that you’re on the line.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Please, thanks.
MODERATOR: Folks, if you’re not speaking, please mute your line so that it’s as clear as possible. ’s briefing will be on background, so he should be referred to as a senior State Department official. That’s how the transcript will come out. After his opening remarks, if you would like to ask a question, please send me an SMS at and I’ll call on people in the order of the message received. And please, the conversation is embargoed until the end of the call.
That’s all. , over to you, sir.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, thank you. Thank you, everyone, for joining. It’s been (inaudible) time for all of us. The U.S., or the world really, is – a period of considerable global uncertainty. The coronavirus, the continuing impact it’s having around the world, obviously you’re writing about it, you’re monitoring it. It’s on everyone’s mind and every family’s mind. So we’re keenly focused on ensuring the safety of all U.S. personnel and around the world.
It’s having a significant impact on global – the global economy. We don’t know the extent of that, and I’ll let others who really have the focus on that speak to those economic impacts, but we’re still in the throes of this considerable uncertainty. We now have a situation with respect to some of that uncertainty in terms of the global market because of the virus has had meaningful ramifications in terms of uncertainty, in terms of energy supply patterns and demand patterns, has already – has been affecting business across the globe.
We also now face this ongoing – as some in the media have described it as an oil pricing war or market share war, which only adds additional uncertainty to the global market. We’ve been engaged – multiple parts of the U.S. Government have been engaged, encouraging greater calm to the market when the (inaudible) economy is facing some real challenges. We’ve called on all parties to refrain from taking actions that can contribute greater volatility and uncertainty given the scale of the current coronavirus issues and the related demand disruption that’s been occurring as a result of that.
The United States has engaged through multiple diplomatic channels to encourage a rethink and provide greater confidence to global markets, and those – and restore that market confidence. The – we believe that returning to kind of a more transparent commercial environment will again enable the ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit of the U.S. private sector and energy sector to thrive and to continue to be a meaningful contributor to global economic prosperity.
That’s the frame through which we’re looking at the current situation. And again, this is an evolving issue and engagements are ongoing.
With that, I will pause and invite questions. Thank you.
MODERATOR: Thank you, sir. The first question is from Tim Gardner from Reuters.
QUESTION: Thanks, , for holding this. I wonder if you could describe how U.S. officials are working with Saudi Arabia. After all, it’s been responsible for decades in terms of being a market stabilizer. How is it working with Saudi Arabia? Is there anything to this notion that the U.S. is suggesting that it might want to consider leaving OPEC? And also, how would the State Department work with this Energy Department official that would be – be soon going over to Riyadh to work with the State Department team there?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks, thanks. Look, we don’t get into the intricacies of – excuse me – diplomatic engagements with any country, including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Of course, the kingdom has been an important partner in the region, an ally and a friend, and so we have a very close relationship across multiple fronts. So it’s a deep – it’s a deep relationship that has a lot of areas of close collaboration.
I can’t speak to notions of the kingdom’s desire or interest in or appetite to leave OPEC. I haven’t – that hasn’t come across me, so I can’t speculate on that. I mean, whether – OPEC has long asserted that it serves a role in terms of market stability. We – I don’t think anyone sees – right now that’s I kind of think called into question. So I can’t speak to also other departments’ personnel maneuvers.
MODERATOR: Okay, next question from Nick Wadhams, Bloomberg. Nick.
QUESTION: Hi, . Thanks very much for doing the call. Just two questions for you: Do you believe that the Saudi decision to basically open the floodgates on production and the actions it’s taken are helpful to the U.S. economy or to its own economy? And also, could you say whether the U.S. is considering sanctions on Russia as a way of stabilizing prices? Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: So the first question was whether we – how do we view this as economically harmful. I don’t have a – I can tell you that we’ve been hearing from both members of Congress who represent states – oil – energy-producing states, as well as various companies, and they claim that they’re very concerned with the ongoing volatility in the market. A lot of these companies and I think you guys have written – at the last quarter of last year started writing about some financial challenges of some companies, and so I think that different companies’ business decisions was playing out in various ways, and not all for the best for those companies.
What I’ve heard is that this kind of accentuates that glide path for trouble for some companies and that no one likes that, and I can tell you that members of Congress are hearing about that. So I think that we’ll continue to take on that. Of course, we focus on the international file, not the domestic file, and – but we’re certainly hearing from companies and those who represent those companies in Congress about the concerns that this is having, and just the volatility on top of an existing really significant economic uncertainty.
In terms of – we don’t speak about sanctions. We don’t forward-look sanctions. That’s starkly against our policy to speak about that, so I’m not going to comment on that. We continue to – I’ve identified multiple instances, not just the – we here at the department or within the Executive Branch, but also Congress has also cited multiple instances where Russia has used energy as a malign actor, used it for malign purposes, and I’ll just let that stand for itself. Thanks.
MODERATOR: Next question from Emily Meredith, Energy Intelligence.
QUESTION: Hi, . Thanks for doing this. Hi.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Sure.
QUESTION: So a question – we’ve heard today some overtures from officials in Texas and talk between the Texas railroad commissioner and Barkindo. Do you believe that the U.S. federal government should be in the position of going to Saudi Arabia and perhaps to Russia and saying, look, there does exist this authority to rein in production on the U.S. side, which obviously has been a complaint for a long time and is something that the Texas commissioner is saying? And if so, can you just talk a little bit about the role between the federal officials and the state officials here? It seems quite muddled.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well – excuse me – I have seen – I am aware of the Texas railroad commissioner, or perhaps chairman, speaking to the secretary general of OPEC. That’s – but those are wholly within state matters, and I’ll leave it to them to make those levels of engagements.
From a federal level, we have no ongoing official engagements with OPEC. It’s a cartel, and we don’t from a federal level have any – none to my knowledge – any ability to restrict the private sector from taking actions it wants to take. So I really have no – nothing to add, other than what I’ve seen reported with respect to the commissioner, the commissioner’s discussions. I think it – I’m assuming that his outreach is perhaps a factfinding. That’s what it indicated in his tweet, anyway. And it’s interesting to see how that will mature over time or not. I think more information is always good, though.
QUESTION: So you don’t think there’s a role for the U.S. Government either, at whole or at the state level, to join with OPEC here?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: My file is an international one, not a domestic one, so I can’t really speak to that. And I don’t know what other mechanisms would – could exist under federal authorities that would – that could allow something like that to happen.
MODERATOR: Okay. Tim Puko, Wall Street Journal.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Hey, Tim.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks for doing this. If I could ask you one, like, very quick question first, just a follow-up on the Texas issue: So have you spoken with them at all, or even communicated anything from the federal government to those officials in Texas?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I have not. But again, I’m – that’s not unusual. I mean, I handle foreign policy, and that’s domestic, U.S. domestic stuff. I just saw reporting or a tweet or something.
QUESTION: Okay. So the – my bigger question, then, is about – is about that ongoing diplomacy. You guys have been pretty communicative about what has already been happening over the past week and a half, almost two weeks now, at least in general terms. I’m wondering if you could explain, like, in all this talk of a ramp-up with diplomacy, what all the oil and gas companies are asking you for. Like, what is the next level? What escalation – what things would mark an escalation? What is possible? And then at what point do you, does the Trump administration just straight ask the Saudi Government to cut back production?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah, I mean, what we’re calling on is for all stakeholders – the world is – first we have to recognize that the world is – faces considerable uncertainty. Whether it’s – no matter how a country is developing its GDP, whether they’re an oil producing country or energy producing country or not, the world faces considerable uncertainty. And we urge all global stakeholders to avoid taking any actions that could exacerbate the existing uncertainty and introduce more volatility. That’s what – that’s the tenor of all of our engagements, and regardless of with whom those might be.
MODERATOR: Okay. Robbie Gramer, Foreign Policy.
QUESTION: Hi, can you hear me?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yep.
QUESTION: Thank you for doing this. Two questions. One, has your bureau or State had any conversations with the Russian counterparts about this oil price war? And what message would you like to send the Russian Government?
And then, two, what type of knock-on effects could plunging oil prices have on struggling economies that are reliant on oil revenue? So not only countries like Iraq, but also Sudan and South Sudan. Thanks.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Yeah. It’s an important point, and that’s why in my earlier response I was kind of thinking that along – that in mind. Because a lot of countries are, around the world, regardless of their relative state of fragility – if they are a producing country of any type or any scale, it tends to have it as a pretty important component of their economy. And the existing demand destruction that the world is seeing just from the virus has already thrown those countries into considerable turmoil.
The – excuse me – over-supply, the supply glut that we’re seeing right now and the relative price impact, again, that would have – these things would have played out as a matter of normal market response because of coronavirus uncertainties. But the action of increased supplies in the market just exacerbates an existing challenge, which only creates broader headwinds for those countries.
Countries – energy is an important component to foreign policy. It’s important as it is because having a reliable energy sector is often foundational to economic security of many countries. And so when that’s thrown into question, it calls – it creates a whole host of additional knock-on challenges for those countries.
We’re very, very much concerned about that, and I would suggest – I kind of am thinking about the International Energy Agency head Fatih Birol’s recent comments on this question. And I would suggest taking a – take a look at some of his comments on this. I think it was pretty – pretty compelling and concerning.
I kind of – we don’t go into discussions – on your other question, we don’t go into specific discussions on our – any diplomatic engagements with any countries, nor do we telegraph any kind of new actions, sanctions or otherwise. We do call and we have called on, as well as Congress has called on Russia many times for using its energy as a political weapon. And what we’re not going to do is go into any private discussions we’ve had with – we’ve had with any country. What we do is – are calling on all actors to look at this particular moment of global uncertainty and economic headwinds and take responsible actions to help us collectively kind of get through this together.
MODERATOR: Great. Ben Lefebvre from Politico, next.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks for taking the call. I was just looking for the mute button again. I was just going to chime in on a couple things.
One was that I guess the Texas Railroad Commission, for those kind of keeping track, today announced that they were not so hot about (inaudible), so that the (inaudible) to OPEC was not an official action on their part.
But my question was going to be: How hard has it been – as the State Department kind of reaches out to its foreign partners to kind of try to settle the market, how hard has it been, or have you guys had to sit down with the President and with his tweets of low gasoline prices are great for all kind of stuff, has that muddied the waters at all when you’re trying to deal with foreign partners?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I’m sorry, could you – I’m not sure I got the question. You mentioned —
QUESTION: Yeah. Has the President’s tweets about the boon of low gasoline prices made it harder for you guys to negotiate with foreign partners about, yeah, we’re asking you to cut out – lowering – or to lower or step off the accelerator on oil production, even though the President is singing the boons of high oil production and low gasoline prices, has that confused – have you heard from partners that that’s confused the message out of the United States a little bit?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: No.
MODERATOR: Okay, last question will be from John Hudson.
QUESTION: Hi, thanks. And just piggying back on that is that you’re not hearing mixed messages because the foreign countries just don’t take those tweets seriously as the actual negotiating position of the United States? Is that why?
And then the second question is: Just given how much low oil prices weaken the Russian state, does the State Department view any opportunities here, either geopolitically, diplomatically, or energy-wise, when it comes to having the Russians in a pinch like this?
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: I want to go back to the – what I was saying a few times now, which the objective here is not to finger-point but to move forward with reducing market volatility, restoring market confidence, and helping us to get through this very uncertain time when there are a lot of global uncertainties out there. Let’s remain calm. Let’s get back to working to get out of this uncertainty and encourage all stakeholders to buy into that and move forward. Thanks.
MODERATOR: All right, everybody. That concludes today’s briefing. Again, just to recap, that was on background and we will endeavor to put out the transcript as soon as possible. The embargo is lifted. Thank you very much, , for your time.
SENIOR STATE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Thanks, all. Bye. Have a good weekend.
OAS
U.S. Department of State. 03/20/2020. Re-election of Organization of American States Secretary General Luis Almagro. Michael R. Pompeo, Secretary of State
I congratulate Luis Almagro on his re-election as Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS). Under his principled leadership, which the member-states have now renewed, the United States will continue to work with our partners at the OAS to promote and defend democracy, human rights, security, and economic prosperity for the people of the Americas.
Today’s vote by OAS Member States shows that even in the most challenging of times, such as what we are facing with the COVID-19 pandemic, our Hemisphere of Freedom remains steadfast in safeguarding our shared values.
As we overcome the threat to public health posed by COVID-19, the peoples of the Americas and the Caribbean face other challenges, such as the full restoration of democracy in Nicaragua and Venezuela; adherence to free, fair and credible electoral processes in Guyana; and holding the Cuban regime accountable for its malign activities. Opportunities abound as well, including the upcoming democratic elections in Bolivia and implementing an array of OAS programs and initiatives to boost resilience; strengthen democratic governance, human rights, and fundamental freedoms; and bolster economic competitiveness and development in the region.
With Secretary General Almagro continuing at the helm, I am confident about the future of the OAS and the Americas.
MRE. DCOM. NOTA-47. 20 de Março de 2020. Reeleição de Luis Almagro como Secretário-Geral da Organização dos Estados Americanos (OEA)
O Governo brasileiro registra, com satisfação, a reeleição de Luis Almagro como Secretário-Geral da Organização dos Estados Americanos, para mandato de cinco anos (2020-2025). A reeleição se deu por 23 votos a 10 no pleito realizado hoje, em Washington, durante a 54ª Assembleia-Geral Extraordinária da OEA.
Luis Almagro é diplomata e político uruguaio, com sólido conhecimento e comprovada experiência em temas hemisféricos. Ao longo de seu primeiro mandato como Secretário-Geral (2015-2020), teve atuação fundamental na promoção da democracia no continente.
A candidatura de Almagro foi apoiada pelo Brasil desde o início do governo do Presidente Jair Bolsonaro.
O Governo brasileiro aproveita a oportunidade para reafirmar sua disposição de seguir trabalhando, em estreita cooperação com a Secretaria-Geral da OEA, em prol da defesa da democracia, da segurança, dos direitos humanos e do desenvolvimento nas Américas.
________________
ORGANISMS
CORONAVIRUS
IMF. MARCH 20, 2020. Blunting the Impact and Hard Choices: Early Lessons from China
By Helge Berger, Kenneth Kang, and Changyong Rhee
The impact of the coronavirus is having a profound and serious impact on the global economy and has sent policymakers looking for ways to respond. China’s experience so far shows that the right policies make a difference in fighting the disease and mitigating its impact—but some of these policies come with difficult economic tradeoffs.
Hard choices
Success in containing the virus comes at the price of slowing economic activity, no matter whether social distancing and reduced mobility are voluntary or enforced. In China’s case, policymakers implemented strict mobility constraints, both at the national and local level—for example, at the height of the outbreak, many cities enforced strict curfews on their citizens. But the tradeoff was nowhere as devastating as in Hubei province, which, despite much help from the rest of China, suffered heavily while helping to slow down the spread of the disease across the nation.
Mitigating the impact of this severe shock requires providing support to the most vulnerable.
This makes it clear that, as the pandemic takes hold across the world, those hit the hardest—within countries but also across countries—will need support to help contain the virus and delay its spread to others.
High costs
The outbreak brought terrible human suffering in China, as it is continuing to do elsewhere, along with significant economic costs. By all indications, China’s slowdown in the first quarter of 2020 will be significant and will leave a deep mark for the year.
What started as a series of sudden stops in economic activity, quickly cascaded through the economy and morphed into a full-blown shock simultaneously impeding supply and demand—as visible in the very weak January-February readings of industrial production and retail sales. The coronavirus shock is severe even compared to the Great Financial Crisis in 2007–08, as it hit households, businesses, financial institutions, and markets all at the same time—first in China and now globally.
Quick action
Mitigating the impact of this severe shock requires providing support to the most vulnerable. Chinese policymakers have targeted vulnerable households and looked for new ways to reach smaller firms—for example, by waiving social security fees, utility bills, and channeling credit through fintech firms. Other policies can also help. The authorities quickly arranged subsidized credit to support scaling up the production of health equipment and other critical activities involved in the outbreak response.
Safeguarding financial stability requires assertive and well-communicated action. The past weeks have shown how a health crisis, however temporary, can turn into an economic shock where liquidity shortages and market disruptions can amplify and perpetuate. In China, the authorities stepped in early to backstop interbank markets and provide financial support to firms under pressure, while letting the renminbi adjust to external pressures. Among other measures, this included guiding banks to work with borrowers affected by the outbreak; incentivizing banks to lend to smaller firms via special funding from China’s central bank; and providing targeted cuts to reserve requirements for banks. Larger firms, including state-owned enterprises, enjoyed relatively stable credit access throughout—in large part because China’s large state banks continued to lend generously to them.
Of course, some of the relief tools come with their own problems. For example, allowing a broad range of debtors more time to meet their financial obligations can undermine financial soundness later on if it is not aimed at the problem at hand and time-limited; subsidized credit can be misallocated; and keeping already non-viable firms alive could hold back productivity growth later. Clearly, wherever possible, using well-targeted instruments is the way to go.
Not over
While there are reassuring signs of economic normalization in China—most larger firms have reported reopening their doors and many local employees are back at their jobs—stark risks remain. This includes new infections rising again as national and international travel resumes. Even in the absence of another outbreak in China, the ongoing pandemic is creating economic risks. For example, as more countries face outbreaks and global financial markets gyrate, consumers and firms may remain wary, depressing global demand for Chinese goods just as the economy is getting back to work. Therefore, Chinese policymakers will have to be ready to support growth and financial stability if needed. Given the global nature of the outbreak, many of these efforts will be most effective if coordinated internationally.
FULL DOCUMENT: https://blogs.imf.org/2020/03/20/blunting-the-impact-and-hard-choices-early-lessons-from-china/?utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery
________________
ECONOMIA BRASILEIRA / BRAZIL ECONOMICS
CORONAVIRUS
G-20. REUTERS. 20 DE MARÇO DE 2020. G20 dividido enfrenta pressão para liderar resposta global ao vírus
Por Andrea Shalal e Stephen Kalin
WASHINGTON/RIAD (Reuters) - O Grupo das 20 principais economias enfrenta uma pressão crescente para conciliar divisões internas e se unir contra o coronavírus, assim como se uniu para enfrentar a crise financeira global de 2008 a 2009.
Muitas perguntas permanecem, incluindo quais ações poderão ser acordadas, que tecnologia será usada para se comunicar, já que os líderes não se reunirão pessoalmente, e até a data.
Autoridades atuais e anteriores associadas ao G20 dizem que o grupo deixou seu papel de “quartel de bombeiros” global desde a reunião do mês passado em Riad, onde as autoridades financeiras minimizavam os riscos do surto.
“O G7 e o G20 tiveram um papel mais vigoroso na crise financeira global”, disse uma autoridade internacional de finanças à Reuters. “Esperávamos que esses dois órgãos respondessem de maneira muito mais proativa a essa situação”.
Após uma ligação na segunda-feira passada, os líderes do G7 se comprometeram a fazer “o que for necessário” para combater o vírus, que adoeceu quase 250 mil pessoas e matou mais de 10 mil. A doença também devastou as economias, já que os governos impõem restrições de viagens e interrompem reuniões públicas para tentar conter a disseminação.
Membros do G20 devem conversar por teleconferência na próxima segunda-feira, disseram várias fontes do grupo, para se preparar para uma reunião complicada por uma guerra de preços do petróleo entre dois membros, Arábia Saudita e Rússia, e uma guerra de palavras entre dois outros, Estados Unidos e China.
INDÚSTRIA
FGV. IBRE. 20/03/20. Sondagens e Índices de Confiança. Prévia da Sondagem da Indústria. Prévia da Sondagem da Indústria sinaliza recuo em março
A prévia da Sondagem da Indústria de março de 2020 sinaliza recuo de 3,2 pontos do Índice de Confiança da Indústria (ICI) em relação ao número final de fevereiro, para 98,2 pontos. Esse mês seria o primeiro resultado negativo depois de quatro altas na margem e seis em médias móveis trimestrais.
A queda da confiança em março decorreria da piora da percepção dos empresários tanto em relação à situação atual quanto aos próximos três e seis meses. O Índice de Expectativas caiu 4,1 pontos, para 97,7 pontos, enquanto o Índice de Situação Atual recuou 2,1 pontos, para 98,8 pontos.
O resultado preliminar de março indica redução de 1,1 ponto percentual do Nível de Utilização da Capacidade Instalada da Indústria (NUCI), para 75,1%, o mesmo valor dezembro de 2019.
DOCUMENTO: https://portalibre.fgv.br/navegacao-superior/noticias/previa-da-sondagem-da-industria-sinaliza-recuo-em-marco.htm
CNI. 20/03/2020. Expectativa da indústria recua em março. Sondagem Industrial também revela que o número de empregados e a produção caíram nas pequenas e médias empresas
Pesquisa realizada pela Confederação Nacional da Indústria (CNI) mostra queda do emprego em fevereiro entre as empresas de menor porte. O índice de evolução do número de empregados ficou em 48,5 pontos no caso das pequenas empresas e 49,5 pontos, no caso das médias empresas. A produção das pequenas e médias empresas também caiu no mês. A Sondagem Industrial foi feita com 1.950 pequenas, médias e grandes indústrias entre os dias 2 e 11 de março, antes de a Organização Mundial de Saúde (OMS) declarar pandemia de coronavírus.
Os índices variam de 0 a 100 pontos e valores abaixo de 50 pontos sinalizam queda no indicador ante o mês anterior. O levantamento mostra que, apesar do número de empregados ter caído nas pequenas e médias empresas, ele aumentou nas grandes: 51,9 pontos. Diferença significativa de performance por tamanho da empresa também foi observada na produção. As indústrias de maior porte tiveram crescimento (50,9 pontos). A última vez que as grandes empresas tinham aumentado a produção em fevereiro havia sido em 2011 (51,9 pontos).
O estudo da CNI também avalia a Utilização da Capacidade Instalada (UCI). Esse indicador ficou em 68% em fevereiro, 1 ponto percentual acima do registrado em janeiro e 2 pontos percentuais acima de fevereiro de 2019. O percentual é o maior para o mês desde 2014, quando alcançou 72%.
“A UCI das grandes aumentou 2 pontos percentuais na passagem de janeiro para fevereiro de 2020, para 73%. O percentual é 4 pontos superior ao registrado em fevereiro de 2019 e próximo do patamar pré-crise de 75%, observado em todos meses de fevereiro entre 2011 e 2014”, pontua o relatório da Sondagem Industrial.
Sondagem Industrial mostra recuo nas expectativas do setor
A análise destaca que, apesar de os índices de expectativas terem caído de fevereiro para março, eles continuam bem acima da linha divisória de 50 pontos. Ou seja, os empresários mostram expectativa de aumento da demanda e da quantidade exportada, assim como elevação nas compras de matérias-primas e do número de empregados para os próximos meses.
Na comparação com março de 2019, a maioria dos índices mostra queda moderada do otimismo; a exceção é o índice de expectativa do número de empregados, que mostra perspectivas mais otimistas na mesma comparação.
A leve queda em março também foi observada no índice de intenção de investimento, que recuou 0,4 ponto na comparação com fevereiro, para 58,3 pontos. Mesmo com a segunda retração no ano, o indicador é 2,9 pontos maior que o registrado em março de 2019 e está no maior patamar para o mês desde 2014, quando alcançou 58,7 pontos.
DOCUMENTO: https://noticias.portaldaindustria.com.br/noticias/economia/expectativa-da-industria-recua-em-marco/
ENERGIA
ANP. PORTAL G1. JORNAL VALOR ECONÔMICO. 20/03/2020. Produção nacional de petróleo cai 6,2% em janeiro, informa ANP. Petrobras ficou com 72,3% da produção total do país
A produção nacional de petróleo caiu 6,2% em fevereiro, ante janeiro. Foram produzidos, em média, 2,971 milhões de barris diários de óleo no mês passado, de acordo com dados da Agência Nacional do Petróleo, Gás Natural e Biocombustíveis (ANP). Os preços do petróleo vêm despencando no mercado internacional por conta da pandemia de coronavírus.
Já o volume de gás natural produzido, no país, recuou 6,5% em fevereiro, para uma média de 129,8 milhões de metros cúbicos diários (m3/dia). Com isso, a produção de óleo e gás totalizou 3,788 milhões de barris diários de óleo equivalente (BOE/dia), o que representa uma queda de 6,2% ante janeiro.
A Petrobras ficou com 72,3% da produção total do país, seguida da Shell (12,4%), Petrogal (3,4%), Repsol Sinopec (2,4%) e Equinor (2%).
Petrobras
A produção de petróleo apenas da Petrobras no Brasil caiu 7,8% em fevereiro, na comparação com janeiro. A companhia produziu, no país, em média, 2,138 milhões de barris diários de óleo no mês. Já o volume de gás natural diminuiu 5,9% na mesma comparação, para uma média de 95,5 milhões de metros cúbicos diários (m3/dia).
Com isso, a produção de óleo e gás da estatal totalizou 2,739 milhões de barris diários de óleo equivalente (BOE/dia) em fevereiro, o que representa uma queda de 7,5% ante janeiro. Apesar da queda, o volume ainda está acima da meta de 2,7 milhões de BOE/dia definida para o ano.
Durante a divulgação dos resultados de 2019, a petroleira havia informado que a produção da empresa seria afetada, no primeiro trimestre, por paradas de manutenção nas plataformas.
________________
LGCJ.:
