Archive for Opinions

18 Jun

How Wall Street is shifting electric utilities toward consolidation and profit

By Conor Harrison, University of South Carolina 

A corporate merger that would form the largest electric utility in the United States is underway. It’s just one of many recent utility mergers and acquisitions as electric utilities enter a period of rapid growth.

On May 18, 2026, NextEra Energy announced it would buy Dominion Energy for US$66.8 billion.

What’s driving this deal and others like it is not an increase in residential electricity demand. Rather, it’s based on rising demand for power to data centers for artificial intelligence systems and a desire to increase corporate profits.

As a scholar of the electricity industry, I seek to understand how and why the electricity grid and the companies that run it are changing. In my book “Brokers of Power” I explain that a primary force in the industry is not the desire to improve service for the rate-paying public, nor even for industries that want to use more electricity. Rather, stock market investors and Wall Street businesses are changing how electric utilities make money in the U.S.

A variety of electricity suppliers

In every state, the majority of companies that distribute and deliver electricity to homes and businesses over the wires are regulated monopolies with specific geographic service areas. But where that electricity comes from varies widely.

Many cities, some quite large, get their power from a municipally owned utility. Many rural areas get theirs from membership cooperatives. These organizations are nonprofits whose general goals are to serve their customers with reliable, affordable power.

However, around 70% of U.S. households get their electricity from private companies. Most are controlled by large holding companies, such as NextEra Energy, which customers know through subsidiaries such as Florida Power and Light and Dominion Energy, which operates local subsidiaries in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah. These companies’ main goal is to make money for their shareholders.

Regulated and unregulated markets

How a for-profit electric utility company makes money depends on where it operates.

In 28 states, electricity markets are traditionally regulated, meaning that the utility is a monopoly that owns everything it needs to make electricity – from the generators, wires and poles to the meter on the side of your house. Customers in these states cannot choose their provider, but the prices they pay are set by a state regulator based on negotiations with the company. Those prices are set so the utility can earn a profit on the money it spends improving the electricity system – a margin that is generally around 10%.

The other 22 states are considered deregulated markets, in which profits are not capped, but neither are potential losses. In those markets, companies that own power plants compete to sell electricity on a wholesale market. In 14 states, a middleman company buys the power and competes to find customers, in effect providing households with a choice of electricity providers. In the rest, distribution companies buy the power from wholesalers and deliver it to their customers.

Since states began electricity deregulation in the late 1990s, utilities that historically operated in a single state have expanded to other states, both with and without regulated markets. The result is holding companies with complicated corporate structures and various ways of earning profits. In my research, I have found that investors prefer utilities that have mastered four overlapping ways of making money.

1. Monopoly operations

First, utilities need to operate successfully in monopoly territories.

In general, utility companies in monopoly markets aren’t allowed to make any profit on just selling electricity. Rather, their profits depend on their investments in the infrastructure to generate and distribute electricity. For example, if a company builds a $100 million power plant expected to last 30 years, utilities can add that cost plus an additional $10 million – their 10% profit – to customer bills over the next three decades.

Utilities therefore have a financial incentive to predict that electricity demand will rise much faster than it actually does. They can use those predictions to justify overspending on new equipment, such as wires, transformers and substations, to handle those future loads. The ratepayers pick up the tab, and the company makes its 10% profit, even if the new equipment ends up being unnecessary.

For investors, monopoly utilities are not typically considered growth stocks, but they deliver reliable profits and returns for investors.

2. Deregulated markets

Wall Street also likes utilities that can succeed in deregulated markets, in which utilities are allowed to earn profits if they can generate electricity cheaply and sell it at high prices. In reality, utilities see periods of rapid demand growth and resulting high electricity prices, followed by the collapse of both.

This volatility is attractive to investors who are comfortable with risk, such as private equity firms, which use borrowed money to buy shares in companies.

As states such as California began deregulating in the late 1990s, many utilities saw the opportunity to make more money by trying to time the sale of electricity to maximize revenue, as well as timing the purchase and sale of power plants themselves in order to stay ahead of changes in the market that either raise or lower electricity prices. Most companies that tried this approach failed.

NextEra, however, has succeeded in deregulated markets by developing large renewable-energy projects that deliver cheap energy into markets with rising demand for renewables. The company uses long-term contracts that mimic regulated returns, avoiding the fluctuations customary in deregulated markets.

3. Mergers and acquisitions

Buying and selling power plants themselves is part of the third way electricity utilities can make profits: mergers and acquisitions. That’s what’s behind NextEra’s acquisition of Dominion.

NextEra’s success in deregulated markets has introduced more risk than its investors are keen to bear.

The company hopes that buying a regulated company like Dominion, which holds a monopoly over providing electricity in what some call northern Virginia’s “data center alley,” will rebalance its risk, improve its credit rating and help it raise money to build the next round of profit-generating infrastructure to support the data center boom.

4. Controlling regulations

For all this to work, NextEra and Dominion need to excel in the final way that utilities make profits – dominating the regulatory arena. In Florida, NextEra famously employed one lobbyist for every two legislators.

Crucial to electric utilities’ profitability is their power to win regulators’ approvals for their rate-increase requests, get lawmakers to pass laws that increase their guaranteed profit margins and – as with the massive NextEra-Dominion deal – gain approval of mergers by convincing policymakers they will not harm existing customers.

As the data center building boom and its growing demand for electricity roll along, utilities are jostling for prime position to benefit. For many companies, that means trying to become larger companies with more market and lobbying power. But whether bigger is better for residential customers is another question entirely.The Conversation

About the Author:

Conor Harrison, Associate Professor of Economic Geography, University of South Carolina

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy Opinions
18 Jun

Energy costs are high and unaffordable – what utilities, governments, communities and you can do to help save consumers money

By Sanya Carley, University of Pennsylvania; Alexandra Klass, University of Michigan; Alison L. Knasin, University of Pennsylvania; David Konisky, Indiana University, and Shelley Welton, University of Pennsylvania 

For many Americans, energy bills are becoming increasingly unaffordable.

Energy prices increased approximately 30% on average from 2021 to 2026. In some places, the rates of increase have been much steeper. In the Mid-Atlantic and eastern Midwest region where several of us live, the regional electricity grid is run by PJM Interconnection, and power prices in the first quarter of 2026 were 76% higher than the same period in 2025.

These rising utility costs are a shock to many people, including those already having a hard time paying for the energy they need. In 2024, 1 in 3 American households reported struggling to pay their energy bills, and 15.1 million homes were disconnected from their electricity or gas services because the residents couldn’t pay their bill. Energy insecurity is a pervasive and potentially dangerous predicament for these millions of households, and a growing challenge for America as energy bills rise.

Energy markets, which we study, are famously complex. But many parties in these marketplaces, from the federal government to individual consumers, have opportunities to help provide Americans with affordable energy. Some may not be obvious to the casual observer, or even to savvy energy wonks.

Federal programs

The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program helps households with lower incomes afford energy, particularly for heating in the winter and cooling in the summer. Historically, the funds provided by Congress – totaling about US$4 billion in 2025 – have not been enough to help everyone in need. Yet in his last two budget proposals, President Donald Trump has proposed eliminating all of the program’s funding, though Congress has so far preserved the funding.

Another federal effort, the Weatherization Assistance Program, provides around $370 million a year to help people conserve energy by sealing gaps around windows and doors and increasing insulation in their homes. This program serves approximately 32,000 homes, saving each household an average of $372 in direct energy expenses each year.

Entities that run the electricity grid

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and state public utility commissions jointly regulate the nation’s electricity grid. Federal law requires them to ensure that electricity prices and practices are “just and reasonable.” They can use their authority to ensure that the grid is built and run efficiently, that utilities do not earn outsized profits, and that electricity markets are producing fair electricity prices for consumers.

In most U.S. regions, nonprofit organizations collectively called “regional transmission organizations” are the front-line managers of the nation’s electricity grid. Under federal supervision, these utilities make rules for how to connect new power plants or other electricity generation equipment to the grid, how electricity markets run, and how transmission lines are planned and paid for.

These rules directly affect how much customers pay for power. Their implications have become clearer, as data center electricity demand has caused regional wholesale electricity market prices to soar. Research suggests that better regional planning, accelerated permission for connecting new-generation sources, and updated market design could save consumers billions of dollars.

State governments

Many states prevent utilities from disconnecting residential customers’ electricity, even if the bills aren’t paid. In Virginia, for example, utilities can’t cut power during periods of extreme hot or cold weather. In Montana, the restrictions cover specific months when cold weather is common. Pennsylvania prevents power cuts if someone in the home has a certified medical condition that makes them dependent on electricity – such as needing an oxygen tank, which can increase electricity bills by hundreds of dollars per year.

Many states, such as Maine, also run programs to weatherize homes and improve home efficiency. Illinois helps pay to install solar panels or battery storage systems in homes. These efforts lower energy bills either by directly reducing a home’s energy use or by offsetting some of that use.

These services and technologies lower energy bills by either reducing the total energy that a household needs to consume or offsetting their energy with a zero-fuel cost option. Some of us were a part of a team that in 2025 found low-income households across the United States that recently installed residential solar were 44% more likely to report being able to pay their energy bills relative to similar households that did not have solar.

Other states more directly supervise utility bills to ensure they remain within the household’s budget. For instance, Illinois offers bill discounts for many low-income households that range from 5% to 84% savings on a customer’s gas bill. And other states, like Massachusetts, require utilities to partially forgive consumers’ debt after they make some number of on-time payments that also include some repayments of what is owed.

Utility companies

Utility companies can adopt billing and repayment policies that accommodate customers’ household budgets. They can also provide detailed, public information about these programs to their customers. Often, states place specific requirements on utilities’ policies, but companies can also choose to set their own billing practices.

Utilities can identify their customers most at risk of disconnection by analyzing customers’ payment data and consumption patterns, and offer to switch them to these plans, while also steering them toward bill and weatherization assistance. Some states, like New Jersey, automatically enroll customers who are either past-due or have been disconnected into utility payment plans.

Local communities

County and municipal governments can help their residents by spreading the word about federal, state and utility assistance programs and by identifying specific people or families who may be most in need. As two examples, they can use information about households’ use of other aid programs or examine data on who is calling 311 for local nonemergency assistance.

Many communities also operate warming or cooling centers for people who cannot afford to turn on their air conditioning or heating during times of extreme temperatures. These spaces can also be safe locations for people during power outages.

And local nonprofits can support people who need help with energy costs find other support, such as food banks and low-cost transportation, which can help relieve other sources of financial stress.

Local organizations can also couple energy aid with other housing and social services, including job training, for more holistic supports for struggling households and communities.

Residents and customers

Consumers themselves have a key role in energy affordability too. First, they can avoid wasting energy by turning off lights and rarely used appliances, or washing clothes with cold water and hanging them to dry. But that isn’t likely to make a significant difference. So they can seek out help from the government, utility companies and local nonprofits.

If people have some money available, they can also invest in technologies or services that will help them keep their bills lower, such as weatherization, efficient appliances or residential solar panels.

No entity can single-handedly solve the energy affordability crisis. U.S. energy markets are highly decentralized, and high prices are the result of many factors, only some of which can be addressed through government and corporate policies and programs. We believe, however, that complexity cannot be an excuse for inaction, because energy is essential for people’s health and well-being.The Conversation

About the Authors:

Sanya Carley, Presidential Distinguished Professor of Energy Policy and City Planning, University of Pennsylvania; Alexandra Klass, James G. Degnan Professor of Law, University of Michigan; Alison L. Knasin, Lab Manager, Energy Justice Lab, University of Pennsylvania; David Konisky, Lynton K. Caldwell Professor of Public Affairs, Indiana University, and Shelley Welton, Professor of Law and Energy Policy, University of Pennsylvania

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Energy Opinions
17 Jun

Prediction markets are opening many new opportunities for unregulated insider trading and unethical bets – in the name of making a game out of politics

By Matt Motta, Boston University and Robert Ralston, University of Birmingham 

Arrests for betting on the U.S. military operation that removed Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro. Death threats from gamblers to a journalist reporting on an Iranian missile attack on Israel. Fears of government officials manipulating world events – including the Iran war – to make a quick buck.

These are some of many concerns that experts have raised about how prediction markets – online marketplaces that allow people to bet on world events – might be affecting national security in the U.S. and abroad.

But prediction markets may not be only influencing international affairs. They could also affect the 2026 midterm elections.

We are social scientists who study gambling, public policy and national security. Here are four things you need to know about how prediction markets may be changing American politics:

Prediction markets turn politics into a game

Prediction markets offer people the opportunity to bet on political events by purchasing “shares” – like stock in a company – of different potential outcomes. If an outcome takes place, the market pays out for each share purchased by those who guessed correctly. More betting activity in favor of an outcome raises its price and lowers its payout, and vice versa.

Prediction markets are different from casinos and online sportsbooks because there is no “house” – like a casino – that determines the size of the payout for correctly guessing who will win or lose a sporting event. In a prediction market, players “bet” against one another, not the house. The markets make money by charging transaction fees on each trade.

Betting on prediction markets allows users to turn many aspects of U.S. politics into a game. For example, betting on election outcomes is very popular on prediction markets. Kalshi – a popular prediction market platform – has a portion of its site specifically designated for election-related markets. That includes the chance to bet on the eventual winner of the 2028 presidential election, the margin of victory in the 2026 South Dakota primary elections and which of two Dan Sullivans could become Alaska’s next senator.

Kalshi also offers opportunities to bet on nonelection outcomes, like whether or not the Supreme Court will ban transgender girls and women from competing on “female sports teams,” or whether the government will confirm before September 2026 that aliens exist.

The gamification of politics through prediction market betting is not new. Predictit, a self-described “political prediction market,” has been operating in the U.S. for over a decade.

What has changed in recent years, however, is that prediction markets are no longer an obscure pastime enjoyed by political junkies. Prediction markets have become quite popular, and media organizations are even integrating betting market data in their political analysis. For example, Kalshi is CNN’s “official prediction markets partner.” In a segment called “The Odds,” CNN commentators often use Kalshi data to make predictions about candidates’ electoral performance.

Insider trading could affect US elections

Insider trading on prediction markets occurs when people with nonpublic information – like internal polling, military intelligence, etc. – place wagers on events. While some prediction markets are trying to crack down on the practice, insider trading could already be affecting the upcoming U.S. midterm elections.

In spring 2026, for example, NPR documented several cases where campaign staffers working on statewide campaigns admitted to using inside information about candidates’ performance in the polls to “buy low” on their candidate’s electoral prospects prior to the release of favorable polling data. Additionally, although prediction markets usually prohibit betting on one’s own campaign, both Democrats and Republicans running for political office have come under fire for betting on their own campaigns.

Betting on one’s own campaign could create a scenario where a candidate’s electoral performance seems more robust than it actually is to prediction market users or watchers, including media organizations who report on prediction market data.

This may in turn generate more favorable media coverage, which could affect public sentiment toward the candidate. Unlike polling, which is not typically prone to the same kind of meddling by campaigns, betting on one’s own campaign could ultimately change voters’ minds regarding the viability of a candidate.

Policymakers are paying attention

Given concerns about insider trading and its potential consequences, we asked Americans whether U.S. government officials should be forbidden from trading on prediction markets. In a nationally representative online survey of 1,000 U.S. adults conducted via the survey platform Verasight in March 2026, we found that nearly 70% supported banning government officials from trading on prediction markets, while 20% supported a more limited trading ban when government officials have “inside” information.

Lawmakers in Washington are beginning to respond to public opinion. The Senate recently banned senators and their staff from trading on prediction markets, although how this policy will be implemented remains uncertain. However, members of the House, employees of the executive branch, military officials and other government employees can still bet on prediction markets.

Some lawmakers have proposed limiting trading when government officials have insider information about an event, such as internal polling or fundraising data that members of the public do not have access to.

Others in Congress have made an effort to ban all trading on “death markets,” which include war, assassinations and related topics. Known as the “DEATH BETS Act” – its title is an acronym that stands for “Discouraging Exploitative Assassination, Tragedy, and Harm Betting in Event Trading Systems Act – the legislation has been introduced but is pending committee review.

State governments are also taking action to regulate prediction markets.

Massachusetts, for example, is suing Kalshi for allowing “backdoor betting” on sports.

Backdoor betting refers to wagering through less regulated channels like prediction markets, rather than highly regulated state casinos and sportsbooks. Backdoor betting has been estimated to cost states over US$1 billion in tax revenue since prediction markets first began allowing sports wagering in early 2025.

Minnesota became the first state to ban prediction markets altogether, while Illinois has sent cease and desist letters to prediction market operators that it claims are operating without adhering to state gambling laws.

Trump wants control over prediction markets

In a recent Truth Social post, President Donald Trump blasted the idea that states should be able to regulate prediction markets. Referencing their recent regulatory actions, Trump referred to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Illinois Governor JB Pritzker as “SCUM” in the post.

Trump also expressed enthusiasm for prediction markets in the post, saying that the U.S. is “at the top” of a “new form of Financial Market.” The president and his family have deep financial ties to the industry. For example, Donald Trump Jr. serves as a prediction market adviser to Kalshi and Polymarket and is an investor in Polymarket.

Following Trump’s post, the administration began reviewing a proposal to give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission the exclusive authority to regulate prediction markets.

While the CFTC has repeatedly asserted regulatory authority over prediction markets, some – like former CFTC Chairman Gary Gensler – believe that states, not the CFTC, should be in charge.The Conversation

About the Authors: 

Matt Motta, Associate Professor of Health Law, Policy and Management, Boston University and Robert Ralston, Lecturer in Political Science and International Studies, University of Birmingham

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Opinions Programming
17 Jun

Soaring US beef prices likely to rise further thanks to trade tensions and disease outbreaks

By Andrew Muhammad, University of Tennessee and Charles Martinez

It’s summer grilling season, but for many Americans, surging prices mean beef is no longer what’s for dinner.

The cost of beef, having spiked since early 2025, is coming under even more pressure. The most recent is the screwworm outbreak that hit cattle in Mexico and has now spread to the United States, where the cattle herd has already fallen to levels not seen since the 1950s, due in part to drought.

Meanwhile, potential trade disruptions loom. Just before U.S. and Mexican trade negotiators began meeting on June 16-17, 2026, to discuss the long-standing deal binding North America, President Donald Trump warned that Washington may not renew the agreement, which was negotiated during his first term, and instead potentially withdraw from it altogether.

As international trade and livestock economists, we have studied how North American trade has deeply integrated cattle and beef markets, influencing production, prices and the movement of animals and meat products across Canada, Mexico and the United States. And because beef is both a top agricultural import and export for the U.S., the industry is especially vulnerable to any disruptions to the existing trade deal. As one example, the cost of ground beef is up by more than 20% just since January 2025.

Current trade uncertainty, reflecting Trump’s more fragmented, bilateral approach to negotiations, couldn’t come at a worse moment for inflation-weary consumers. The growing turmoil in the North American beef market risks further tightening supplies and raising prices.

A harmonized market

Cross-border trade was anchored in 1994 by the North American Free Trade Agreement, which established free trade between the U.S., Canada and Mexico. It remained in place until Trump replaced it with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement, which came into force in 2020. Unlike NAFTA, that deal must be jointly reviewed every six years and includes a 16‑year sunset clause. Beef, like other goods covered by the agreement, was exempted from the tariffs that Trump imposed on those trading partners in 2025.

Formally, all three countries must decide by July 1, 2026, whether to extend the deal for another 16 years or let it revert to a series of annual reviews until the full expiration in 2036. But Canada, whose relationship with Trump is especially fraught, is so far sitting out the talks. Instead, U.S. and Mexican negotiators are meeting by themselves and have now turned to agriculture, with beef as one of the key sectors.

Beef prices, production decisions and supply are closely tied together across the three countries, effectively creating a single North American beef market. Cattle and beef products move seamlessly across borders, thanks to the lower tariffs and harmonized regulations that resulted from the 1994 and 2020 trade deals. The U.S. imports young “feeder” cattle to be fattened for slaughter from Mexico, as well as mature, or “fed,” cattle ready for slaughter from Canada, both of which ultimately go to U.S. packing plants. To help meet consumer demand in Mexico, the U.S. also exports beef products and fed cattle.

This integration is also important for maintaining the United States’ own beef supply. Almost all U.S. cattle imports are from Mexico and Canada, amounting to around 2.1 million head in 2024, valued at more than US$3 billion. That number may look small against the total number slaughtered in the U.S. that year – around 32 million head – but having a steady flow into the U.S. from Mexico and Canada helps stabilize supplies and manage prices.

The importance of that relationship became clear in 2025, when live cattle imports plunged by more than 50%. That decrease continued into 2026, as young cattle imports from Mexico collapsed by more than 80% due to the screwworm outbreak. The parasite has now been discovered in cattle in south Texas and New Mexico, which prompted Canada to slap bans on live cattle from the region.

Where’s the beef?

The current trade talks go beyond the beef sector, and agriculture more broadly, to encompass issues such as rules of origin, labor and environmental standards, digital trade and investment provisions that shape North American supply chains. At the same time, U.S. trade negotiators are bringing the Trump administration’s more protectionist and transactional approach to the table.

Beef is among the vital trade relationships at stake if negotiators fail to conclude the review. In 2025, Mexico was the third-largest market for U.S. beef exports, exceeding $1.3 billion, while Canada was the fourth-largest market at $874 million. On the flip side, Canada and Mexico ranked second and third, respectively, among countries exporting beef to the U.S., with more than $5 billion combined.

Trump’s threat notwithstanding, the U.S. has a lot to lose if it quits the 2020 deal altogether. Since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s sweeping emergency tariffs earlier this year, the administration has a stronger incentive to keep its other tools in trade talks. And U.S. farm groups, a key Trump constituency, are strongly lobbying the Trump administration to keep the deal.

If the U.S. exits the pact, North American trade would likely revert to more basic international rules, which would free Mexico and Canada to impose their own tariffs, raising costs for producers, processors and, ultimately, consumers.

The two trading partners would also have a freer hand with nontariff barriers, such as requiring stricter inspections, more paperwork and potential quotas on U.S. exports, all of which could slow down trade. Because cattle often cross borders multiple times during production, even small delays can create significant disruptions.

The result would likely be less efficient supply chains, fewer imported cattle, tighter U.S. supply and, in the end, higher prices. And some U.S. ranchers are already bracing for a worst-case scenario, like what soybean farmers have already seen when a key export market disappears.

“We can’t lose demand for our products,” one rancher told us. “Look what happened with soybeans last year when China quit buying.”The Conversation

About the Authors:

Andrew Muhammad, Professor of Agricultural Economics and Blasingame Chair of Excellence, University of Tennessee and Charles Martinez, Assistant Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Opinions Soft Commodities
17 Jun

WTI oil prices have collapsed below 80 dollars per barrel

By JustMarkets

On Tuesday, the US stock market showed mixed dynamics caused by large‑scale profit‑taking in the artificial intelligence sector. By the end of the day, the Dow Jones Index (US30) rose by 0.64%. The S&P 500 Index (US500) fell by 0.57%. The Technology Index NASDAQ (US100) closed lower by 1.89%. Chipmakers suffered significant losses: Intel plunged by 8.5%, AMD by 7.3%, Micron by 6.2%, while Broadcom and Nvidia declined by 4.4% and 2.4%. At the same time, SpaceX shares rose by 4.8%, extending their gains after last Friday’s IPO on news of a planned acquisition of Cursor for 60 billion dollars. Additional support for the market came from declining government bond yields, triggered by falling oil prices, which noticeably eased investors’ inflation fears. This occurred ahead of the June Federal Reserve meeting, where rates are expected to remain unchanged, although analysts do not rule out hawkish rhetoric from Fed Chair Warsh regarding further balance sheet reduction.

European indices closed in the green yesterday. By the end of the day, Germany’s DAX (DE40) rose by 0.07%, France’s CAC 40 (FR40) closed up by 0.75%, Spain’s IBEX 35 (ES35) gained 0.69%, and the UK’s FTSE 100 (UK100) ended the session higher by 0.61%. Investor sentiment remained supported by expectations of a peace agreement with Iran and the resumption of safe navigation in the Strait of Hormuz.

Palladium (XPD) prices stabilized near 1,350 dollars per ounce after reaching an eight‑month low, supported by easing Middle East tensions and short‑covering. Precious metals were also positively influenced by declining US Treasury yields. Despite a monthly decline of 3.84%, palladium prices still exceed last year’s level by 30.39%. Market participants are now assessing supply risks, demand prospects from the automotive sector, and awaiting a series of central bank meetings.

On Tuesday, crude oil prices (WTI) recorded a sharp drop of more than 6%, pushing the price per barrel down to 75.5 dollars – the lowest level since early March. This decline almost completely erased the previous rally triggered by the Middle East conflict, amid news of the imminent restoration of exports from Persian Gulf countries. The easing of tensions is supported by the likely signing of a memorandum between the US and Iran, which will ensure unimpeded tanker passage through the Strait of Hormuz. At the same time, US strategic reserves have fallen to their lowest level in 43 years. Meanwhile, Iranian supplies will most likely be directed toward replenishing China’s depleted inventories.

The US natural gas prices (XNG) increased by more than 2%, reaching 3.2 dollars per MMBtu and showing positive dynamics for the third consecutive day. The main drivers of growth were fexpectations of hot weather, expected to remain above seasonal norms until early July, forcing power plants to increase fuel consumption to support air‑conditioning demand.

On Tuesday, Japan’s Nikkei 225 (JP225) rose sharply by 0.13%, China’s FTSE China A50 closed lower by 0.81%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng (HK50) fell by 1.40%, and Australia’s ASX 200 (AU200) closed higher by 0.04%.

The Australian dollar (AUD) consolidated above 0.70 USD, continuing its recovery after a two‑month low. This was supported by the hawkish stance of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA): despite keeping the base rate at 4.35% at the June meeting, Governor Michele Bullock emphasized that inflation risks remain high and demand must slow further. Although the RBA paused to assess the impact of the previous three rate hikes, Bullock did not rule out further monetary tightening. The central bank’s hawkish tone led investors to price in a 50% probability of another rate hike by the end of the year.

S&P 500 (US500) 7,511.35 -42.94 (-0.57%)

Dow Jones (US30) 51,999.67 +328.64 (+0.64%)

DAX (DE40) 24,910.41 +16.40 (+0.07%)

FTSE 100 (UK100) 10,494.21 +63.59 (+0.61%)

USD Index 99.57 -0.07 (-0.07%)

News feed for: 2026.06.17

  • Japan Trade Balance (m/m) at 02:50 (GMT+3) – JPY (LOW)
  • UK Consumer Price Index (m/m) at 09:00 (GMT+3) – GBP, UK100 (HIGH)
  • UK Producer Price Index (m/m) at 09:00 (GMT+3) – GBP, UK100 (MED)
  • Sweden Riksbank Rate Decision at 10:30 (GMT+3) – SEK (HIGH)
  • Eurozone Consumer Price Index (m/m) at 12:00 (GMT+3) – EUR (HIGH)
  • US Retail Sales (m/m) at 15:30 (GMT+3) – USD (MED)
  • US Crude Oil Reserves (w/w) at 17:30 (GMT+3) – WTI, BRENT (HIGH)
  • US Federal Funds Rate at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Economic Projections at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Statement at 21:00 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)
  • US FOMC Press Conference at 21:30 (GMT+3) – USD, XAU, US indices (HIGH)

By JustMarkets

 

This article reflects a personal opinion and should not be interpreted as an investment advice, and/or offer, and/or a persistent request for carrying out financial transactions, and/or a guarantee, and/or a forecast of future events.

Energy Opinions
14 Jun

Large Currency Speculator Roundup: Mexican Peso Bets rise as Euro, CAD Bets drop

By InvestMacro 

Speculators OI FX Futures COT Chart

Here are the latest charts and statistics for the Commitment of Traders (COT) data published by the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday June 9th and shows a quick view of how large market participants (for-profit speculators and commercial traders) were positioned in the futures markets. All currency positions are in direct relation to the US dollar where, for example, a bet for the euro is a bet that the euro will rise versus the dollar while a bet against the euro will be a bet that the euro will decline versus the dollar.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Mexican Peso & Bitcoin

Speculators Nets FX Futures COT Chart
The COT currency market speculator bets were lower this week as two out of the eleven currency markets we cover had higher positioning while the other nine markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the currency markets was the Mexican Peso (9,144 contracts) and with the Bitcoin (560 contracts) also showing positive weeks.

The currencies seeing declines in speculator bets on the week were the EuroFX (-34,934 contracts), the Canadian Dollar (-25,888 contracts), the Australian Dollar (-23,652 contracts), the Japanese Yen (-16,251 contracts), the British Pound (-11,995 contracts), the Swiss Franc (-3,756 contracts), the New Zealand Dollar (-3,325 contracts), the Brazilian Real (-3,134 contracts) and with the US Dollar Index (-2,374 contracts) also registering lower bets on the week.

Currency Speculator Roundup: Mexican Peso Bets rise as Euro, CAD Bets drop

Highlighting the major Currencies market futures positioning this week was the Mexican peso, which was the highest weekly gainer. The Mexican peso position rose by over 9,000 weekly contracts this week and is currently the most bullish of the Currencies right now according to net speculator position. The overall position is now at a standing of 63,801 net contracts and the peso position has been overall in a bullish level for 72 consecutive weeks. Recently, the Bank of Mexico cut its interest rate by 25 basis points to a new level of 6.50% with analysts speculating that this could end the easing cycle which began over a year ago and the next path for interest rates is uncertain. In the Forex markets, the Mexican peso has been on a strong uptrend since February 2025 with the MXN is up by over 22% since the lowest levels of 2025 against the US dollar.

Next up, the Euro speculator position dropped by over -34,000 contracts this week, marking the most bearish weekly change in the past 12 weeks. Overall, the euro speculator position has now fallen for three out of the past four weeks and has fallen to the lowest standing since April. The current level of net speculator positions is at 13,932 contracts and is essentially a neutral-to-small bullish level in the big scheme of things. The European Central Bank, this week (on Thursday June 11th), increased their interest rate by 25 basis points to a total level of 2.25% and marked the first rate increase in almost three years. Despite the weakness in speculative bets for the week, the euro price in the Forex markets continues to trade in a sideways range between 1.1500 and 1.1950, with this week’s close for the euro against the US dollar at 1.1617.

The Canadian dollar speculator position dropped sharply and has now fallen for five consecutive weeks. The Canadian dollar positioning has now fallen by -105,340 net contracts in just the past five weeks and is now at a net position standing of -119,999 contracts. This marks the lowest or most bearish level for the Canadian dollar contracts since December 9th, a span of 26 weeks. The Bank of Canada this week held its interest rate steady at 2.25%, with uncertainty which way policy could go in the near future as inflation due to the Iran war is an issue. In the Forex markets, the Canadian dollar against the US dollar saw a slight uptick this week after falling in four out of the previous five weeks that saw prices drop to the downside out of its previous ascending triangle pattern. The Canadian dollar was helped out and bounced off of resistance at the 0.7150 level, which is where support lies currently and could mark a level of down-trending action if this level is broken.

The US Dollar Index saw weekly speculator bets decline by over -2,000 contracts this week following two weeks of gains. The current US Dollar Index positioning is very much in a neutral-to-small-bullish level with an overall net speculator standing of just 1,384 contracts. The DX speculator positioning has been in this small bullish situation now for 13 consecutive weeks with only 1 small dip into a small bearish position in that time-frame. Before that, the DX positioning had been in an overall bearish level for 38 out of the previous 39 weeks through March 10th. The US Dollar Index price this week tested the upper range of its sideways channel that the currency has been in for quite some time. This channel has a low level of 96.50 with an upper resistance level of 100.00. This week, the US Dollar Index price tested the 100.00 level and was rejected lower with a close at 99.49. A breakout above 100 could see a play towards 102.50 in the near future.

Brazilian Real and Mexican Peso lead Currency market price performances

The leading gains for the major Currency markets this week saw the Brazilian Real up by 2.38% over the past five days. The Mexican Peso was next with a gain over 1% with a 1.25% rise.

The New Zealand Dollar was higher by 0.64%, followed by the British Pound Sterling, which rose by 0.50%. Next up, the Euro was higher by 0.41%, while Bitcoin was marginally higher by 0.32%. The Australian Dollar was virtually unchanged with an uptick of 0.09%, followed by the Japanese Yen, which edged higher by 0.05%, and the Swiss Franc, which saw an uptick by 0.03%.

On the downside, the Canadian Dollar was lower by -0.32%. The US Dollar Index was the biggest decliner on the week with a -0.49% decline.

Currencies Data:

Speculators FX Futures COT Data Table
Legend: Open Interest | Speculators Current Net Position | Weekly Specs Change | Specs Strength Score compared to last 3-Years (0-100 range)

Strength Scores led by Bitcoin & Brazilian Real

Speculators Strength Scores FX Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that the Bitcoin (100 percent) and the Brazilian Real (72 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The Australian Dollar (65 percent) comes in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the Japanese Yen (11 percent) and the British Pound (12 percent) come in at the lowest strength levels currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are the Swiss Franc (28 percent) and the New Zealand Dollar (29 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (47.9 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (54.3 percent)
EuroFX (35.0 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (48.6 percent)
British Pound Sterling (12.3 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (17.4 percent)
Japanese Yen (10.6 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (15.0 percent)
Swiss Franc (28.3 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (36.4 percent)
Canadian Dollar (32.8 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (44.0 percent)
Australian Dollar (65.1 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (77.3 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (28.8 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (32.6 percent)
Mexican Peso (46.3 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (39.8 percent)
Brazilian Real (71.8 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (74.1 percent)
Bitcoin (100.0 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (89.8 percent)

New Zealand Dollar & Bitcoin top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trends FX Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the New Zealand Dollar (17 percent) and Bitcoin (11 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies.

The Canadian Dollar (-35 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the Australian Dollar (-28 percent), Japanese Yen (-12 percent) and the EuroFX (-9 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (-8.4 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (-3.3 percent)
EuroFX (-8.5 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (2.9 percent)
British Pound Sterling (-1.5 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (-0.1 percent)
Japanese Yen (-12.0 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (-9.7 percent)
Swiss Franc (-3.1 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (0.8 percent)
Canadian Dollar (-35.1 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (-15.2 percent)
Australian Dollar (-27.8 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (-11.9 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (16.9 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (23.1 percent)
Mexican Peso (-2.8 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (-9.2 percent)
Brazilian Real (-1.9 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (2.5 percent)
Bitcoin (11.4 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (7.0 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

US Dollar Index Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 1,384 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decrease of -2,374 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 3,758 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 47.9 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 46.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 96.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

US DOLLAR INDEX StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:55.532.08.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:52.739.23.7
– Net Position:1,384-3,5992,215
– Gross Longs:27,90816,0924,059
– Gross Shorts:26,52419,6911,844
– Long to Short Ratio:1.1 to 10.8 to 12.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):47.946.896.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBearishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-8.44.928.6

 

Euro Currency Futures:

Euro Currency Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Euro Currency large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 13,932 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position decrease of -34,934 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 48,866 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 35.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 68.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 25.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

EURO Currency StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:25.258.710.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:23.663.07.6
– Net Position:13,932-38,08524,153
– Gross Longs:219,564511,35990,399
– Gross Shorts:205,632549,44466,246
– Long to Short Ratio:1.1 to 10.9 to 11.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):35.068.025.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-8.512.7-32.2

 

British Pound Sterling Futures:

British Pound Sterling Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -64,213 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -11,995 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -52,218 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 12.3 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 89.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 23.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

BRITISH POUND StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:15.774.88.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:37.748.812.3
– Net Position:-64,21375,870-11,657
– Gross Longs:45,743218,02524,172
– Gross Shorts:109,956142,15535,829
– Long to Short Ratio:0.4 to 11.5 to 10.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):12.389.823.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-1.54.6-21.2

 

Japanese Yen Futures:

Japanese Yen Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -145,818 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -16,251 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -129,567 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 10.6 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 86.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 42.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

JAPANESE YEN StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:24.162.09.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:52.933.98.5
– Net Position:-145,818142,3693,449
– Gross Longs:121,520313,35146,489
– Gross Shorts:267,338170,98243,040
– Long to Short Ratio:0.5 to 11.8 to 11.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):10.686.842.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-12.010.91.8

 

Swiss Franc Futures:

Swiss Franc Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -36,665 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -3,756 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -32,909 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 28.3 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.6 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 23.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

SWISS FRANC StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:6.482.09.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:38.138.921.2
– Net Position:-36,66549,741-13,076
– Gross Longs:7,33594,61211,370
– Gross Shorts:44,00044,87124,446
– Long to Short Ratio:0.2 to 12.1 to 10.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):28.380.623.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-3.111.4-23.6

 

Canadian Dollar Futures:

Canadian Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -119,999 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -25,888 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -94,111 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 32.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 69.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 20.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Downtrend.

CANADIAN DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:9.978.48.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:41.244.810.5
– Net Position:-119,999128,812-8,813
– Gross Longs:37,944300,85631,377
– Gross Shorts:157,943172,04440,190
– Long to Short Ratio:0.2 to 11.7 to 10.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):32.869.820.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-35.136.9-28.3

 

Australian Dollar Futures:

Australian Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 18,160 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position reduction of -23,652 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 41,812 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 65.1 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 32.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 79.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Weak Uptrend.

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:29.654.912.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:23.866.66.4
– Net Position:18,160-36,66918,509
– Gross Longs:92,995172,45138,751
– Gross Shorts:74,835209,12020,242
– Long to Short Ratio:1.2 to 10.8 to 11.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):65.132.879.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-27.826.5-14.9

 

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

New Zealand Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -31,571 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -3,325 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -28,246 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 28.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 73.1 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 9.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:7.983.41.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:29.060.24.0
– Net Position:-31,57134,705-3,134
– Gross Longs:11,764124,4822,830
– Gross Shorts:43,33589,7775,964
– Long to Short Ratio:0.3 to 11.4 to 10.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):28.873.19.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:16.9-14.4-25.5

 

Mexican Peso Futures:

Mexican Peso Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 63,801 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position boost of 9,144 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 54,657 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 46.3 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 51.8 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 60.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Strong Uptrend.

MEXICAN PESO StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:46.945.33.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:17.077.31.7
– Net Position:63,801-68,3514,550
– Gross Longs:100,19996,9598,190
– Gross Shorts:36,398165,3103,640
– Long to Short Ratio:2.8 to 10.6 to 12.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):46.351.860.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-2.83.0-2.3

 

Brazilian Real Futures:

Brazil Real Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 43,846 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position fall of -3,134 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 46,980 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 71.8 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 27.7 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 38.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Uptrend.

BRAZIL REAL StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:73.022.24.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:33.964.01.2
– Net Position:43,846-46,9463,100
– Gross Longs:81,81424,8454,463
– Gross Shorts:37,96871,7911,363
– Long to Short Ratio:2.2 to 10.3 to 13.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):71.827.738.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-1.92.7-7.1

 

Bitcoin Futures:

Bitcoin Crypto Futures COT ChartPositioning Notes:

  • Bitcoin large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 3,018 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
  • Weekly Speculator position rise of 560 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 2,458 net contracts.
  • This week’s current strength score (range over the past 3 years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
  • The Commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 percent.
  • The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 31.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Our weekly trend-following model classifies the current market price position as: Downtrend.

BITCOIN StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:86.90.55.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:71.615.25.7
– Net Position:3,018-2,906-112
– Gross Longs:17,1781061,009
– Gross Shorts:14,1603,0121,121
– Long to Short Ratio:1.2 to 10.0 to 10.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):100.00.031.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bullish-ExtremeBearish-ExtremeBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:11.4-11.8-2.7

 

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

COT Updates Forex and Currency News Opinions
14 Jun

Speculator Extremes: Bitcoin, Copper & Steel lead weekly Bullish Positions

By InvestMacro 

The latest update for the weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) report was released by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Friday for data ending on Tuesday June 9th.

This weekly Extreme Positions report highlights the Most Bullish and Most Bearish Positions for the speculator category and is a current snapshot of how speculators were positioned as of Tuesday. Extreme positioning in these markets can foreshadow strong moves in the underlying market.

To signify an extreme position, we use the Strength Index (also known as the COT Index) of each instrument, a common method of measuring COT data. The Strength Index is simply a comparison of current trader positions against the range of positions over the previous 3 years. We use over 80 percent as extremely bullish and under 20 percent as extremely bearish (Compare Strength Index scores across all markets in the data table or cot leaders table).

The 6-WK Trend score is the change in the Strength Index over the past 6 weeks and signals how strong and which way the Strength Index is going.

Extreme Bullish Speculator Table

Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

Bitcoin

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Bitcoin speculator position comes in as the most bullish extreme standing this week as the Bitcoin speculator level is currently at a 100 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score totaled a boost of 11 percentage points this week. The overall net speculator position was a total of 3,018 net contracts this week with an advance of 560 contract in the weekly speculator bets.

The Bitcoin speculator positioning is often seen as a hedging position as many times when Bitcoin drops speculator bets go up and vice versa.

Speculators or Non-Commercials Notes:

Speculators, classified as non-commercial traders by the CFTC, are made up of large commodity funds, hedge funds and other significant for-profit participants. The Specs are generally regarded as trend-followers in their behavior towards price action – net speculator bets and prices tend to go in the same directions. These traders often look to buy when prices are rising and sell when prices are falling. To illustrate this point, many times speculator contracts can be found at their most extremes (bullish or bearish) when prices are also close to their highest or lowest levels.

These extreme levels can be dangerous for the large speculators as the trade is most crowded, there is less trading ammunition still sitting on the sidelines to push the trend further and prices have moved a significant distance. When the trend becomes exhausted, some speculators take profits while others look to also exit positions when prices fail to continue in the same direction. This process usually plays out over many months to years and can ultimately create a reverse effect where prices start to fall and speculators start a process of selling when prices are falling.

 

Copper

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Copper speculator position comes next in the extreme standings this week as the Copper speculator level is now at a 96 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score was a rise higher by 10 percentage points this week. The speculator position registered 74,450 net contracts this week with a decline of -4,383 contracts in speculator bets.

Steel

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Steel speculator position comes in third this week in the extreme standings with the Steel speculator level residing at an 87 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at a decrease of -2 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was 11,707 net contracts this week with a gain of 1,107 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Cotton

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Cotton speculator position comes up number four in the extreme standings this week. The Cotton speculator level is at a 84 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a decline of -3 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was 75,957 net contracts this week with a decline of -9,249 contracts in the speculator bets.

Soybean Oil

Extreme Bullish Leader
The Soybean Oil speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings as the Soybean Oil speculator level sits at a 80 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decline of -20 percentage points this week.

The speculator position was 121,954 net contracts this week with a fall of -26,485 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

The Most Bearish Speculator Positions of the Week:

Lean Hogs

Extreme Bearish Leader
The Lean Hogs speculator position comes in tied as the most bearish extreme standing this week as the Lean Hogs speculator level is at a 0 percent or minimum score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decline by -40 percentage points this week while the overall speculator position was -42,121 net contracts this week with a decrease of -5,067 contracts in the speculator bets.

Cocoa Futures

Extreme Bearish Leader
The Cocoa Futures speculator position comes in next and tied for the most bearish extreme standing on the week with the Cocoa speculator level is at 0 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score showed no change this week while the speculator position was -23,497 net contracts this week with a retreat of -6,185 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

3-Month Secured Overnight Financing Rate

Extreme Bearish Leader
The 3-Month Secured Overnight Financing Rate speculator position comes in also tied as most bearish extreme standing of the week. The SOFR 3-Months speculator level resides at a 0 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a reduction of -54 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was -2,534,063 net contracts this week with a reduction of -385,462 contracts in the speculator bets.

Natural Gas

Extreme Bearish Leader
The Natural Gas speculator position comes in as this week’s fourth most bearish extreme standing as the Natural Gas speculator level is at an 8 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a fall by -18 percentage points this week. The speculator position was -193,957 net contracts this week with a drop of -7,842 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Japanese Yen

Extreme Bearish Leader
Next, the Japanese Yen speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week. The JPY speculator level is at a 11 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a drop of -12 percentage points this week and the speculator position was -145,818 net contracts this week with a decline of -16,251 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Reports by Email

*COT Report: The COT data, released weekly to the public each Friday, is updated through the most recent Tuesday (data is 3 days old) and shows a quick view of how large speculators or non-commercials (for-profit traders) were positioned in the futures markets.

The CFTC categorizes trader positions according to commercial hedgers (traders who use futures contracts for hedging as part of the business), non-commercials (large traders who speculate to realize trading profits) and nonreportable traders (usually small traders/speculators) as well as their open interest (contracts open in the market at time of reporting).See CFTC criteria here.

All information and opinions on this website and contained in this article are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice.

COT Updates Opinions
12 Jun

Week Ahead: NAS100 faces triple threat – SpaceX, Fed & Iran

By ForexTime 

  • NAS100 ↑ 17% YTD, 4% away from ATH
  • SpaceX begins trading on the Nasdaq exchange
  • Renewed peace deal hopes may lift risk sentiment
  • Fed decision set to add to overall volatility
  • Technical levels: 29500, 30850, 28300

Big money is moving. Are you ready?

Central bank decisions, major data and geopolitics spell fresh trading opportunities in the week ahead.

SpaceX hits the Nasdaq exchange this afternoon, the biggest stock listing in history, with a record $75 billion raised from financial firms.

Trade SpaceX CFD (SPCX) with FXTM from Monday 15th June.

Add a potential US-Iran peace deal to the mix and markets have the ingredients for serious market volatility:

Monday, 15th June

•       CAD: Canada housing starts, manufacturing sales

•       EUR: Eurozone industrial production

•       USD: US industrial production, Empire State manufacturing

Tuesday, 16th June

•       AUD: RBA rate decision

•       CNY: China property prices, retail sales, industrial production

•       EUR: Germany ZEW survey expectations

•       JPY: BoJ rate decision

•       NZD: New Zealand food prices

Wednesday, 17th June

•       EUR: Eurozone CPI, ECB Wage Tracker

•       ZAR: South Africa CPI, retail sales

•       GBP: UK CPI

•       USD: US FOMC rate decision, retail sales

 

Thursday, 18th June

•       NZD: New Zealand GDP

•       GBP: UK BOE rate decision, jobless claims, unemployment

Friday, 19th June

•       CAD: Canada retail sales

•       JPY: Japan CPI, BOJ meeting minutes

•       GBP: UK retail sales

•       US Juneteenth holiday, China, Hong Kong and Taiwan observe Dragon Boat Festival. Markets closed.

SpaceX’s debut doesn’t just make history. It removes the liquidity overhang that’s been sitting on markets like a dead weight. With that pressure gone, equities could be in for a rollercoaster ride.

 

Here are 4 forces that could send NAS100 flying or falling:

 

1)      SpaceX goes live

SpaceX is now among the largest public companies on the planet and $100 billion in retail buy orders flooded in before it even started trading. It could join the Nasdaq 100 in just 15 trading days.

But here’s the catch…at a $1.8 trillion valuation, this stock is priced for perfection on a company that isn’t yet turning a profit.

  • Strong debut = risk-on rocket fuel for the Nasdaq100 and US equities.
  • Weak debut = confidence shock. Markets feel it everywhere.

2)     US-Iran deal close, but no done

We have been here before.

Trump says a deal is near. Markets heard it and liked it with risk sentiment jumping on hopes that 100+ days of Middle East-driven volatility might finally be coming to an end.

Less regional conflict -> less oil risk -> cooling inflation fears -> more appetite for equities.

But sentiment remains fragile as Iranian officials haven’t signed anything yet. Until ink hits paper, this is just hope not reality.

 

3)     Fed decision – all eyes on Warsh

Fed is widely expected to leave interest rates unchanged.

The real story is Kevin Warsh stepping up to the podium for his first press conference as Fed Chair.

Expect him to play it carefully — no explicit rate guidance, a balanced read on inflation and jobs data, maybe some housekeeping on how the Fed communicates going forward.

  • If he strikes a hawkish tone, this may weigh on equities as Fed hike bets jump.
  • A move dovish lean may support equities.

 

4)     Technical forces                                                                                                                                    

The NAS100 bullish on the daily charts with prices recently bouncing near the 50-day SMA

  • A solid breakout above 30,000 may trigger an incline toward 30,793 and higher.
  • Weakness below 29500 may open the doors toward 28200 and the 50-day SMA.

 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

ForexTime Ltd (FXTM) is an award winning international online forex broker regulated by CySEC 185/12 www.forextime.com

Opinions Stock Market News
09 Jun

5 ways data centers endanger their local communities and the country as a whole

By Neha Gour, George Mason University; Ed Maibach, George Mason University, and Luis Ortiz, George Mason University 

Every internet search, streamed video and AI-generated response depends on a data center somewhere. Driven by rapid growth in artificial intelligence, cloud computing and cryptocurrency, data centers have become the backbone of the modern digital economy. But though their key role is in enabling virtual and remote experiences, data centers are physical buildings in real communities around the nation and the globe.

The United States hosts more than 4,000 data centers – more than any other country. The U.S. Department of Energy expects that, taken together, all U.S. data centers will consume as much as 12% of all U.S. electricity by 2028. In 2023, data centers consumed about 4.4% of total U.S. electricity – roughly 176 terawatt-hours.

In the U.S., Virginia has more data centers than any other state – over 600, two-thirds of which are in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C. In 2023, the state’s data centers consumed about 26% of Virginia’s total electricity supply – a higher share than in any other state.

We study science communication, climate science and public health, so we wanted to understand how data centers in Virginia affect the people who live near them and the broader public.

We found that the data centers that already exist affect nearby residents and the nation as a whole in five main areas: air quality, water quality, noise levels, land use and energy costs.

Air pollution

Data centers generally operate 24/7 and consume enormous amounts of electricity, which must be generated somewhere – either near the data center or farther away.

When fossil fuels are burned to generate that power, they emit a wide range of air pollutants, including those linked to lung disease, cardiovascular disease, stroke and neurological conditions. They also emit heat-trapping pollution that causes global warming and climate change, which, in turn, worsens air pollution further.

Generating power for U.S. data centers in 2023 emitted the equivalent of 2.2% of the nation’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other air pollutants emitted from fossil-fuel combustion are associated with increased risk of ADHD and autism in children and risks of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s diseases in older adults.

Unless the energy powering data centers comes from clean energy sources, such as solar, wind or geothermal, generating that electricity also pollutes the air. People who live near fossil-fuel burning power plants, whether in communities that also host data centers or in distant states, are exposed to air pollution. And during electrical outages, on-site diesel generators kick in, releasing large amounts of air pollution that can harm data center employees and nearby residents alike.

Water consumption and pollution

Data centers require vast quantities of water to cool their servers. Globally, they are projected to consume between 4.2 billion and 6.6 billion cubic meters of water annually by 2027. In the United States, data centers already rank among the top 10 industrial water users.

In northern Virginia, data center water use has risen sharply. In Loudoun County alone, just northwest of D.C., potable water use by data centers more than doubled between 2019 and 2023, while facilities across northern Virginia consumed nearly 2 billion gallons of water in 2023.

This demand can strain local rivers, aquifers and municipal water systems, even in regions like the mid-Atlantic that are not usually prone to drought, but especially in regions like the U.S. Southwest that face persistent droughts.

Noise pollution

Data centers’ continuous operation means that cooling systems, including air chillers and cooling fans, generate a persistent humming sound around the clock – as do any generators that are in use to provide power.

In northern Virginia, some residents have complained about an industrial-scale “drone” or “hum.” Measurements at the data centers that were the subject of complaints found noise levels were between 40 and 59 decibels on residential property.

Those noise levels are quieter than a conversation with someone 3 feet away and not loud enough to damage people’s hearing or violate local noise ordinances. But they are close to levels the EPA says reduce people’s ability to work, sleep and exercise. Some people have complained that data center noise has given them trouble sleeping and concentrating, and some have said they avoid using their homes’ outdoor spaces, where the noise is louder.

Land use and community well-being

Data center expansion often targets land near green spaces, agricultural areas or rural communities where developers can secure affordable land with access to existing electricity supplies.

Converting green space into industrial facilities can diminish health benefits associated with being in and near natural environments, including opportunities for physical activity and improved mental well-being.

In Virginia, residents living near data center construction have reported increased exposure to truck traffic and diesel exhaust, which can contribute to respiratory and cardiovascular health risks, especially in children and older adults. While these effects are typical of large construction projects, they can be amplified when several data centers are clustered together.

In places like Prince William County, Virginia, developers have proposed data centers on roughly 2,400 acres of undeveloped land in the Rural Crescent, an area designated by the county’s planners to remain relatively undeveloped. Those data centers could transform open space and rural farmland into industrial zones, disrupting communities with long-standing ties to the land.

Rising energy costs

As data centers increase electricity demand, they put upward pressure on energy prices across the grid. A 2024 Virginia legislative report found that the state’s typical residential electricity bill could rise by $14 to $37 per month by 2040 because of grid strain tied to data center growth – a 9% to 25% increase over current average bills, and a figure that does not factor in potential inflation.

These higher costs are paid by all consumers, but they place a greater burden on families that are most economically distressed, who also tend to have more health problems. Lower-income families spend a higher share of their budget on electricity, and when bills rise, the consequences can include reduced access to adequate heating and cooling, increased risks of heat-related illness and cold-related cardiovascular stress, as well as difficult choices between paying for energy and food or healthcare.

What can be done

Many of these health harms can be mitigated through better planning and design.

Increasing the share of renewable energy used to power data centers would help reduce air pollution and associated health harms.

Using recycled water in targeted systems that cool individual server rows or racks rather than whole buildings can significantly reduce cooling energy demand, with some studies estimating reductions of up to 29%.

On noise, a Leesburg, Virginia, data center reduced low-frequency tonal noise by reengineering its fan mounts.

And on energy costs, requiring large-scale data centers to cover more of the grid costs they create could help protect residential customers from higher electricity bills.

The world’s digital infrastructure runs through data centers, and that is not changing. We believe that expanding this infrastructure without protecting the health of surrounding communities is an unacceptable option.The Conversation

About the Authors:

Neha Gour, Ph.D. Candidate in Science Communication, George Mason University; Ed Maibach, Distinguished University Professor Emeritus of Communication, George Mason University, and Luis Ortiz, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric, Oceanic and Earth Sciences, George Mason University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

 

Opinions Programming
04 Jun

How you map numbers in your mind isn’t universal, even among people who read the same language

By Olga Lazareva, Drake University and Reggie Gazes, Bucknell University 

Imagine taking out a 12-inch ruler and finding that the number 12 is on the left side and the number 1 is on the right side. For most native English speakers, this would be disorienting. We are used to seeing the numbers move from smallest to largest, from left to right. When this layout flips, people struggle because the numbers are now in the “wrong” place.

Psychologists have long known that people in Western cultures tend to associate smaller numbers with the left side of space and larger numbers with the right, a phenomenon called the SNARC effect – short for Spatial-Numerical Association of Response Codes.

In the lab, researchers like us test this tendency by asking people to press a left or a right button when shown a numerical digit. Native English speakers are generally quicker to press left for small numbers and right for large numbers because these locations match our mental number line.

But here’s the twist: What feels like the “correct” direction depends on where you grew up and where you live. In places with right-to-left languages like Arabic, the pattern often flips: People are faster to press right for small numbers and left for large numbers. Speakers of Farsi, a right-to-left language, who were born in Iran but move to France gradually shift toward a left-to-right mapping the longer they stay.

Even literacy matters. On average, people who never learned to read or count don’t show the effect at all. Researchers aren’t sure why. Maybe these people do not map numbers to space. Or maybe each individual has their own different orientation – left-to-right vs. right-to-left – that wash each other out when investigators average them all together.

Although people in Western cultures are used to seeing numbers increase left to right on keypads, rulers or classroom number lines, the SNARC effect isn’t limited to numbers. In the lab, similar left-to-right patterns appear with other magnitudes, including size, height and brightness.

A key question is the origin of the SNARC effect. Some researchers point to brain lateralization: the differences in how the left and right sides of the brain are wired and used. Others suggest it is a broader cognitive habit: When people line things up, they prefer to sort them in an order that makes sense for them. For example, if you are comparing 5 inches to 9 inches, you might think of 5 on the left and 9 on the right. But if you were comparing 5 o’clock to 9 o’clock, you might think of 5 on the right and 9 on the left, based on the face of an analog clock.

But culture matters, too: Cultural experience learning that “small” is on the left and “large” is on the right results in a stronger SNARC effect. It’s therefore not yet clear where the SNARC effect comes from because in humans, biology and culture are all tangled up.

Do other animals have mental number lines?

Our field of study is comparative cognition. We study how primates and birds make sense of the world: how they think, learn and remember. Animals share many cognitive processes with humans, but lack cultural experiences like reading, writing and counting, making them ideal subjects for investigating this number-line question.

We and other researchers in our field started by developing a SNARC task for nonhuman animals. We showed orangutans and gorillas two sets of dots on a touchscreen, one on the left and the other on the right. If these animals naturally associate “less” with left and “more” with right, then on average they should have been more accurate and faster at picking out the smaller set when it appeared on the left than when it appeared on the right. But that is not what happened.

Orangutan reaches fingers through fencing toward a computer screen; white bird faces a blue computer screen.
An orangutan and a pigeon select the smaller number of dots on a touchscreen computer task meant to measure the SNARC effect – how they map quantities onto space.
Reggie Gazes and Olga Lazareva

Looking closer at the individuals, we saw why: Some apes showed a left-to-right pattern and others preferred right-to-left. These individual preferences canceled each other out in our overall averaged results. This split suggested that apes, like humans, do organize magnitudes in space. But without cultural cues like reading or counting direction, each animal developed its own preferred ordering direction.

We and others have since replicated the original study in rhesus monkeys, pigeons and blue jays and our ongoing, not yet peer-reviewed study with chickens. In all of these cases, there’s strong evidence for spatial representation of magnitude, along with clear individual differences in direction.

Number-line direction may not be so clear-cut

Finding so much variability in animals made us think: Might individual people also differ more than the averages suggest? Many SNARC studies report only average scores combining all the people tested, making it hard to see whether individual people vary like other animals do.

So we ran a new study in which native English speakers from the United States judged different magnitudes ranging from Arabic numerals to dot quantities and the brightness of a square. The averages showed the expected left-to-right pattern. But individuals often didn’t.

Nearly a quarter of participants judging dot quantities showed a right-to-left pattern, contradicting their reading and counting history. When judging brightness of a square, the split was almost 50/50, erasing the average effect altogether, just like in animals.

Our results suggest that the SNARC effect isn’t a universal rule etched into human brains by culture. Instead, it looks more like a flexible way of thinking that can vary among individuals, species – or even from task to task in the same person. Some people like arranging things left-to-right, others prefer right-to-left, and the same is true of animals.

By looking beyond averages, we see a richer story: Minds can be flexible and inventive, whether they belong to apes, birds or humans.The Conversation

About the Authors:

Olga Lazareva, Professor of Psychology, Drake University and Reggie Gazes, Associate Professor of Psychology, Bucknell University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions
Next Page →