Opinions

Archive for Opinions

Fertilizers carry a hidden cost for soil’s crucial microbes – using less as prices rise might pay off for farms in unexpected ways

By Esther Ndumi Ngumbi, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Across North America, in places such as Illinois, Iowa and Texas, farmers are busy growing the crops the world depends on for food, fuel and fiber.

But as their tractors roll across fields, a pressing concern weighs heavily on many farmers: the rising cost of synthetic fertilizers, widely considered essential for crop production.

After an expensive spring, with the war in Iran restricting fertilizer and petroleum shipments and raising prices, farmers may be wondering whether they can cut back on fertilizer now and in the future to save money.

The answer has a lot to do with a hidden world beneath our feet, where billions of soil-dwelling, beneficial microbes help sustain productive, resilient and healthy crops and agricultural systems.

As a researcher working to uncover the hidden roles of beneficial soil microbes and understand how they improve crop productivity and strengthen plants’ resilience against drought and insect pests, I know that cutting down on fertilizers is not a bad thing. In fact, studies suggest that using less fertilizer can boost this natural workforce.

Plants do not grow alone

Soils hold a vast and extraordinarily diverse hidden world teeming with billions of microbes that are essential for sustaining life on Earth and supporting productive and resilient crops.

Plants including corn, soybeans, wheat and tomatoes form intimate and mutually beneficial relationships with these soil-dwelling microbes. Their partnerships help sustain both plant health and the microbial communities.

A notable group of beneficial soil microbes is arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. These soilborne microbes can colonize plant roots, living around the roots, on the plant surface or even inside plant tissue.

A microscope image of fungi in and around a plant root — A microscope image using dye shows microbe filaments, known as hyphae, around a plant root, and arbuscular mycorrhizae fungi inside the root.
Rajarshi Rit/The University of Burdwan, CC BY

In exchange for shelter, nutrients and carbon-rich sugars that plants produce through photosynthesis, these microbes offer many benefits to plants. They improve plant health and growth, increase yields and enhance the plant’s water and nutrient uptake. They can also boost plants’ ability to withstand pathogens, plant-eating insects and diseases, and survive drought and flooding.

Research has shown that adding microbes, such as arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, near plant roots can increase plant biomass by nearly 50%. That includes significantly increasing nitrogen absorption by about two-thirds and more than doubling phosphorus uptake, two of the most important nutrients for plant growth.

One analysis found that under drought stress, plants with beneficial microbes in or around their roots had nearly 50% higher growth than those without.

My own team’s research has shown that mycorrhizal fungi can alter chemicals released by plants in ways that are useful for repelling insects while attracting pollinators and insects’ natural enemies. These chemicals can also alert plant neighbors of dangers and threats.

An illustration showing the difference between crops with and without the fungi — Some of the ways arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, often referred to as AM or AMF, help plants thrive.
Catherine N. Jacott, Jeremy D. Murray and Christopher J. Ridout, 2017, CC BY

Soil microbes are also associated with many aspects of soil quality and health. They break down organic matter, cycle nutrients, suppress disease-causing pathogens and detoxify contaminants.

How fertilizers harm the microbe-plant relationship

Synthetic fertilizers have certainly played important roles in food and fiber production and increasing crop yields over the years. However, excessive fertilizer use can quietly harm these beneficial soil microbe communities, in addition to fueling water pollution.

Studies have shown that overfertilizing can weaken the underground partnerships between plants and microbes that are fundamental to helping plants access nutrients and tolerate stress. Too much nitrogen fertilizer can reduce the diversity and abundance of beneficial soil microbes.

Researchers have offered several explanations for why synthetic fertilizers harm soil microbes.

First, adding nutrients reduces the amount of carbon that plants send below ground to microbes. This can lead to the loss of some fungal species or favor microbes that contribute little to plant health.

An animation shows how plants send carbon to microbes in and around their roots. — MRIs and PET scans of corn plant roots over two hours track a short-lived carbon radioisotope. It shows how recently fixed carbon reaches microbes in the root system and surrounding soil. Three different ages of plants are included.
Sina R. Schultes, et al., 2025, CC BY

Second, adding synthetic fertilizers rich in phosphorus or nitrogen can disrupt the harmonious partnership between plants and microbes. That partnership involves a trade system in which plants provide microbes with sugars from photosynthesis while the microbes help plants acquire limited nutrients from the soil. When nutrients are abundant, plants may forgo the partnership. Ultimately, without an active partnership, fewer microbes will grow.

Third, adding synthetic fertilizer makes soil more acidic, which can inhibit arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and mycelial development. Research has shown that shifts in soil pH to higher acidity can reduce the growth of some microbes, undermining plant-microbe partnerships that have evolved over millions of years.

The effects of fertilizers on soils, soil microbial communities and beneficial microbe groups such as mycorrhizal fungi vary and are at times inconsistent. They can be affected by many factors, including agricultural management and farming practices, such as cover cropping or tilling, or the crop species and breeding history.

Fertilizing in economically strategic ways

With fertilizer costs high, I believe farmers, researchers and others involved in food production should use this moment to rethink how crops and soils are nourished.

The answer is not to abandon fertilizers but to find a balance between fertilizer use and nurturing the living soils and the billions of microbial communities that quietly sustain American and global agriculture.

In an era of extreme weather, climate uncertainty, geopolitical tensions and rising fertilizer costs, keeping soil healthy and nurturing the billions of microbes living there is not only necessary but also economically strategic.

About the Author:

Esther Ndumi Ngumbi, Assistant Professor, Department of Entomology; African-American Studies, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

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

Opinions Soft Commodities

07 Jul

Americans are not as well off as people in peer nations – US safety net’s shortfalls show up in global data

By Stephen Bagwell, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Susan Randolph, University of Connecticut

As the United States celebrates the 250th anniversary of its Declaration of Independence, the global data we collect and analyze shows that the country is failing to “promote the general Welfare,” as the Constitution’s framers promised a little more than a decade later.

We are scholars of human rights. Alongside the Human Rights Measurement Initiative, a nonprofit that tracks how well more than 200 countries and territories are meeting the human rights commitments their governments have made, we annually update scores measuring whether people can actually get the basics of a decent life, such as healthcare, adequate food and a quality education.

The latest data our team has amassed shows that the U.S. is falling short compared with what it could achieve, given its US$32 trillion economy. This is not a one-year blip – the U.S. has been underperforming for the past 25 years.

Economic and social rights

Two foundational human rights agreements, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, describe countries’ obligations to promote the welfare of their people. Countries should improve the health, education and occupational well-being of their people over time, as best they can, given their “resources.”

The United States co-authored and voted in favor of the universal declaration in 1948. Although President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in 1977, U.S. lawmakers never ratified it.

Resources in this context generally mean a government’s wealth and capacity. We measure resources by using per capita gross domestic product – the amount of money in a country evenly divided among its entire population. Because rich countries, like the U.S., can do more than lower-income countries, like Haiti, they are held to a higher standard.

So we don’t just ask how healthy, well-fed or educated the people of a country are. We ask how well a country is providing for its people compared with other countries with similar resources.

A 100% score means a country is doing all it can with what it has, and further improvements would require more resources. A lower score means there’s room for improvement.

Doing all you can with what you have doesn’t mean a government has to provide goods and services directly. Governments can rely on private businesses, employers, nonprofits, public programs or a combination. What we score is the result: Are people actually getting what they need?

We compared the scores of the U.S. over time against 37 other high-income free-market based countries in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a forum for industrialized economies to exchange information on the best policies and practices to support growth and development. Then we calculated how many Americans would be able to have these things if the U.S. adopted better policies.

Across all five areas we track – health, food, education, work and income – the U.S. has either stalled or lost ground, relative to its own history and to its peers.

Right to health

The U.S. ranks below its peer nations on health. Even Turkey and Hungary, less industrialized countries where the GDP per capita is a fraction of what it is in the U.S., have guaranteed better health outcomes for their people when compared to their resources.

Health scores indicate how well a country keeps its people alive and well, like whether children are born and stay healthy, whether adults live long lives and if the incidence of preventable diseases is kept low.

The U.S. scores about 80% of what it possibly could. By comparison, Canada scores 90%, Japan 88%, Mexico 86% and Australia 93%. Iceland scores the highest at 97%.

U.S. health scores have been relatively flat for a quarter century, rising from 79% in 2000 to a high of 82% in 2012. In 2023, it had receded to 80%. The rising scores were likely due to more Americans gaining health insurance following the Affordable Care Act’s rollout. The later decline was caused primarily by the COVID-19 pandemic.

We anticipate further declines. The Congressional Budget Office estimated that 11.8 million Americans would lose access to government-subsidized health insurance due to changes in the big tax and spending package President Donald Trump signed into law in the summer of 2025. By 2034, that number is projected to rise to 17 million people.

Right to food

People who have realized the right to food and adequate nutrition can reliably access affordable, healthy and nutritious food.

Our score measures the percentage of people who find themselves in that situation. The U.S. is only achieving about 81% of what it possibly could.

If the United States allocated its resources more efficiently, we estimate that roughly 14.8 million more women and 9.1 million more men would always have enough healthy food.

Among countries for which we have food security data, the U.S. ranks 30th out of 37.

Our data for the right to food in the U.S. spans 2015 to 2023. The U.S. food score fell slightly during that period, from 81.9% to 81.1%. This means that as the U.S. got wealthier, Americans got hungrier.

This score peaked in 2020, before the pandemic. Persistent inflation, rising housing costs and changes to the Supplemental Nutrition and Assistance Program led to declines.

Signs point to the share of Americans who have access to affordable and nutritious food declining further.

About 3.4 million people lost access to food assistance from September 2025 to June 2026, also due to cuts in Trump’s 2025 legislative package.

The effects are starker in some places. In Arizona, SNAP enrollment had fallen by about half as of April 2026, with more than 400,000 people losing benefits since July 2025. The Arizonans who were still getting SNAP benefits to help them buy groceries were receiving significantly lower benefits, ProPublica reported.

Right to dignified work and fair income

Can people find work? Do they earn enough to get by? That’s what we measured for this economic right.

We set the bar at half of what a typical American household earns. By that measure, the U.S. reaches just 27% of what a country this wealthy could achieve, which is the worst score for an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development member country.

It does better at creating conditions where people can find a job, scoring about 75%, ranking 10th alongside countries like the Netherlands and Iceland. But it’s still far behind leaders like South Korea and Mexico.

If the U.S. changed some policies – such as increasing the federal minimum wage – 46 million people could earn enough to rise above that fair pay line. About 5 million more would escape extreme poverty, surviving on less than $4.20 per day.

The country has been losing ground on work and pay for 25 years. After accounting for how much richer the U.S. has grown, its score fell from about 62% in 2000 to 51% today. This reflects the growth in economic inequality, with the gains in wealth skewing toward the richest Americans.

Right to an education

The U.S. scores a 76% on the overall right to education, placing it 20th among 38 OECD countries. It’s behind Japan and the U.K. but ahead of some peers, including Canada and Norway.

We measure education through access – whether students are enrolled in school – and quality – how well they score on tests in science, math and reading.

The U.S. rates a score of 90.7% on access but only averages 61.3% on quality.

An unmet promise

The U.S. is among the wealthiest nations in human history, but it falls far short of what that national wealth makes possible for its people – in terms of health, food, pay and what its students learn.

The reason isn’t that the country can’t afford to do better; we’ve found it’s because the U.S. doesn’t turn that wealth into opportunities for everyone to have a decent life.

Recent cuts to health insurance coverage and food assistance are pushing much of what we measure in the wrong direction.

Promoting the general welfare was written into the country’s founding promise – 250 years later, our data shows how far there still is to go.

About the Author:

Stephen Bagwell, Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Missouri-St. Louis and Susan Randolph, Associate Professor Emerita of Economics, University of Connecticut

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

06 Jul

It may be almost impossible to make data centers pay their ‘fair share’ of electricity costs

By Theodore J. Kury, University of Florida

Many major tech companies have pledged to pay their fair share of the costs associated with generating and transmitting more electricity to serve large data centers. But ratepayers across the United States are worried about the potential costs they might have to bear. That’s because it’s not immediately clear how the cost of data centers’ energy will be calculated. The effects of price increases are likely just beginning, and their full effects may not be felt for years.

For example, a recent report by the organization that monitors the PJM market, an area that encompasses all or part of 14 mid-Atlantic and Midwest states, concluded that expected power demand from data centers was a primary reason for US$23 billion in customer price increases that will last until at least the end of 2028.

I have studied the programs states have launched to address the needs of these large electricity customers. Prices are set by state utility commissions, who determine which customers’ rates will increase by how much to pay for new investments in electricity infrastructure. It’s not simple.

The complexity of setting prices

Setting a price for electricity is straightforward in principle but complicated in execution. Regulators identify the costs to provide service, allocate the costs to customers and design prices to recover those costs.

First, regulators identify the costs that a utility company incurs to provide service. Regulators look at the value of the assets the utility company invests in, such as power plants, transmission lines and substations, as well as its day-to-day operating expenses, such as salaries, fuel, replacement parts and electricity it purchases from other sources. Then these costs are allocated to categories of customers, such as residential, commercial and industrial.

Ideally, costs are allocated to the customers who cause them, but that can be complicated to determine. For example, imagine a data center is built in an area that lacks existing power lines and is located 50 yards from a nearby electric substation. It’s clear that the data center should pay to run a 50-yard power line from the substation to the data center.

But what if the power company needs to upgrade the substation to handle the increased needs of the data center? Or secure additional sources of electricity? In these cases, the investments are part of the electricity grid that everyone uses. These costs will likely be shared among all customers.

Cost analysts review each line of a utility company’s costs, often thousands of items, and determine how each cost will be allocated. Each decision incorporates one basic idea: What’s your share?

For instance, if a group of customers uses 20% of the electricity delivered by the utility, they would be allocated 20% of the costs associated with energy delivery. Other cost items may be allocated based on the number of customers or how much electricity customers use at particular points in time, but the idea is the same.

Finally, the analysts set prices that are designed to recover the costs allocated to each customer group. So, the costs that are allocated to you are directly reflected in the electricity prices that you pay.

Flexibility and a potential loophole

One common criterion for figuring out how much a customer should pay is based on what is called “coincident peak demand” – the amount a customer group uses at the moment when all customers are collectively using the largest amount of electricity. Costs associated with overall peak usage are typically split proportionally – but this opens an opportunity for data centers to exploit the system.

Data centers often are able to fine-tune their electricity consumption, using more one minute and less another, in ways that residential users can’t easily replicate. Computerized systems can automatically adjust the amount of work a data center is doing, while a homeowner would either have to race around shutting off appliances to meaningfully reduce the amount of power their home was using or invest in a device that does.

Their flexibility means data centers may be able to learn to predict when system loads will peak and consume little to no power in just the right period to avoid contributing to peak loads, as has happened with cryptocurrency-mining operations in Texas. So when regulators look at their usage to determine prices, data centers may be able to avoid paying any costs allocated through coincident peak demand, even if they use large amounts of electricity at other times.

Who speaks for you?

When utility regulators decide how costs should be allocated to each customer group, they solicit input from different groups. The utility company initially submits its own proposal for how it thinks costs should be allocated across its system.

Large industrial customer groups representing customers such as factories will also submit their own proposals for how to allocate costs and set rates. Retail customer groups representing large and small stores will submit theirs. And large data centers, with the resources to hire experts in cost allocation, will submit theirs as well. Some states have specific state-government agencies to do some of this work on behalf of particular commercial groups, such as Pennsylvania’s Office of Small Business Advocate.

Regulators don’t always get a good sense of residential customers’ voices, though. Every state except Georgia, Idaho and Louisiana has an office of the consumer advocate that represents customer interests in proceedings before the state utility regulator. But they are often charged with representing all customers in the state without bias, meaning they cannot advocate for outcomes that would impose costs on one group of customers in favor of another.

So while every state’s consumer advocate is concerned with keeping the utility’s costs as low as possible, they may be barred by law from adopting a position on how those costs should be allocated. This lack of representation in this aspect of rate-setting for average households may lead to situations where the data centers’ advocates argue for minimal costs to be allocated to them – but nobody advocates on behalf of residents to examine or refute that argument.

Citizens left holding the bag

There are other risks for residential customers, too. Utilities’ investments in electricity infrastructure last for many years. But not every proposed data center will get built, and some may use less energy than originally projected. Technology may even change, making some data centers obsolete after a year or two of operations.

If those events happen, then any costs the utility company incurred to provide enough electricity will be spread among all the other customers.

The allocation process may be even more complicated for municipal utilities regulated by city councils or independent boards, or cooperative utilities regulated by elected boards in rural communities. These groups may not have full-time staff who are utility or regulatory experts, yet they face the same decision-making challenges as trained professionals and might have to retain outside experts to aid in the process.

Consumers need to be aware of the importance of cost allocation and how it affects their electricity rates. I believe they should provide public comments to the regulators and speak during open hearings, as there may not be anyone else effectively advocating for their interests.

About the Author:

Theodore J. Kury, Director of Energy Studies, University of Florida

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

Opinions Programming

03 Jul

Mid-week review: ECB Forum, US NFP & Intervention risk

By ForexTime

US stocks heading for best quarter in 6 years
ECB forum in Sintra may rock markets
Yen weakens to levels not seen since 1986
US NFP on Thursday may set tone for July
Gold lingers around $4000 level

It’s been a positive week for equity markets so far as easing US-Iran tensions lifted sentiment and stimulated appetite for risk.

Global equities are mostly higher, with the S&P500 set to secure its best quarter in six years.

Stock markets are securing gains as investors prepare for another strong earnings season, while lower oil prices may reduce inflation fears – cooling bets around higher US rates.

This bullish combination could mean a solid start for global stocks in Q3.

The world’s most powerful central bankers are gathering at a luxury resort in Sintra, Portugal this week.

This forum of financial heavyweights is a big deal and may provide critical insight into monetary policy for the second half of 2026.

Anything Lagarde, Warsh and their peers say this week could move currencies, gold and risk sentiment fast.

This could be a big week for the Japanese Yen after its recent losses extended beyond 162 against the dollar.

Such a major milestone is likely to ruffle fears in Japan as the currency trades around levels not seen since 1986.

It’s worth noting that Japanese authorities have already spent almost $74 billion in late April to prop up the currency.

Given how the USDJPY is a ticking timebomb, it remains a question of when, not if, Japan intervenes.

US markets are closed on Friday and Japan has made a habit of intervening during the US holiday periods. So, there could be some fireworks by the end of this week or earlier.

Gold is on track for its biggest quarterly decline in 13 years.

The precious metal has been pressured by inflation risk thanks to US-Iran tensions. A stronger dollar has added pressure to gold, making the metal more expensive for many buyers, with a gauge of the greenback rising more than 2% this month.

A strong US jobs report on July 2, where World Cup-related hiring nudges the headline number above expectations, may reinforce the Fed’s hawkish narrative. If this bolsters the odds of a hike in July, gold could be set for fresh pain below $4000.

Article by ForexTime

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

02 Jul

GBP Strength Holds Despite Dovish Bank of England Signals

By Analytical Department RoboForex

GBP/USD shrugged off the impact of Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey’s speech at the ECB forum in Sintra and rose to 1.3287 on Thursday.

Earlier, Bailey confirmed that he had opposed the interest rate increase at the last meeting, citing signs of a slowdown in the British economy.

He also noted that the regulator should exercise greater caution in projecting the future rate path, as overly rigid guidance could limit the flexibility of monetary policy.

Bailey’s comments reinforced expectations of a more cautious approach to future rate decisions, which briefly weighed on the pound. However, the market absorbed the impact quickly.

Technical Analysis

On the H4 GBP/USD chart, the pair is moving towards 1.3300 (a test from below). A broad consolidation range is forming around this level. An upside breakout from the range would open the way for a move towards 1.3350. A downside breakout would suggest a move towards 1.3200, with scope for the trend to extend to 1.2980. The MACD indicator supports this scenario, with its signal line above zero and pointing firmly upwards.

On the H1 chart, GBP/USD is trading within a compact consolidation range around 1.3255, currently extending down to 1.3220. A move higher towards 1.3300 is expected, followed by a decline towards 1.3200. The Stochastic oscillator confirms this scenario, with its signal line above 50 and pointing upwards towards 80.

Conclusion

Sterling has shown resilience, pushing higher despite Bank of England Governor Bailey’s dovish remarks at the ECB forum. His confirmation that he opposed the last rate hike and his call for more cautious forward guidance initially weighed on the pound. However, the market quickly absorbed these comments, with GBP/USD recovering to trade around 1.3287. The central bank’s cautious tone may limit the pound’s longer-term upside potential, but for now, technical indicators point to further gains towards 1.3300 and potentially 1.3350. The broader direction will depend on upcoming UK economic data and any shifts in Bank of England policy.

Disclaimer

Any forecasts contained herein are based on the author’s particular opinion. This analysis may not be treated as trading advice. RoboForex bears no responsibility for trading results based on trading recommendations and reviews contained herein.

Forex and Currency News Opinions

27 Jun

Currency Speculators continue to sharply raise British Pound Sterling bearish bets

By InvestMacro

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 23rd 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 Japanese Yen & Brazilian Real

The COT currency market speculator bets were lower this week as four out of the eleven currency markets we cover had higher positioning while the other seven markets had lower speculator contracts.

Leading the gains for the currency markets was the Japanese Yen (4,028 contracts) with the Brazilian Real (2,685 contracts), the Mexican Peso (2,436 contracts) and Bitcoin (49 contracts) also showing positive weeks.

The currencies seeing declines in speculator bets on the week were the British Pound (-34,134 contracts), the Canadian Dollar (-13,891 contracts), the New Zealand Dollar (-9,683 contracts), Australian Dollar (-8,887 contracts), the EuroFX (-4,195 contracts), the Swiss Franc (-1,036 contracts) and with the US Dollar Index (-269 contracts) also registering lower bets on the week.

Currency Speculators continue to sharply raise British Pound Sterling bearish bets

Highlighting this week’s currencies speculative data is the British Pound Sterling‘s sharp weakness that has pushed the current speculative position to the fourth most bearish level on record. Speculators dropped their British Pound Sterling bets this week by -34,134 contracts, marking the third consecutive week of speculator decreases — and the speculative position has now fallen by over -53,500 contracts in just these past three weeks. This weakness has brought the overall speculator standing to a total of -105,719 standing net contracts. This marks the fourth most bearish level on record and is only less bearish than the levels that were reached for the speculators’ standing in March and April of 2017. The British Pound Sterling speculator bets have now been in bearish territory for 48 consecutive weeks, dating back to July 29th of 2025. In the Forex trading market, the British Pound Sterling dipped for a second consecutive week and is now trading at the bottom of its sideways trading channel near the 1.3200 threshold. The Pound Sterling has been in this sideways trading channel for approximately a year, with the high levels being capped around 1.3800, while the bottom has seen support at 1.3150.

The Canadian Dollar speculator position continues to deteriorate and has now fallen for seven consecutive weeks. This seven-week period has added a total of -132,133 net contracts to the bearish level. This has brought the overall net position to a total of -146,792 contracts in the third consecutive week that has seen the net position with contracts higher than -100,000. The Canadian net speculative position has been in bearish territory for 14 consecutive weeks, following a reprieve from negative bets that spanned from February 3rd to March 17th. That saw positive positions for the Canadian Dollar. This coincided with higher Oil prices, which is a major factor in Canadian exports. Currently, in the Currency markets, the Canadian Dollar has been falling rapidly and has fallen in five out of the previous seven weeks. The Canadian Dollar has broken through its previously ascending triangle pattern that had seen an upward trend line coinciding with the 200-week moving average. This week, the Canadian Dollar fell to its most bearish level since April of 2025 and tested support at 0.7050.

Next up, a currency on the rise has been the US Dollar Index (DX). The Dollar Index saw a dip this week but has risen to multi-month highs in its weekly net speculator standing over the past few weeks. This week, the US Dollar Index saw a dip by a small -269 net contract bets following last week’s strong jump by +11,813 contracts. The standing US Dollar Index net position has now been over +12,000 contracts for a second consecutive week and is at the highest levels since March of 2025. Overall, the US Dollar Index net position standing has now been in bullish or positive territory for 14 out of the past 15 weeks, including the past five weeks in a row. The Dollar Index in the currency trading markets has just recently broken out of its sideways trading band that had sustained for approximately a year. The 100.00 level had provided strong resistance to the currency, but in the last two weeks, the Dollar Index has broken out above and closed this week at 101.12. This marks the highest close since April of 2025. The next level of resistance above for further bullish action is around the 102.50 level, while we could see support for the Dollar Index at the 100.00–100.50 area.

US Dollar Index leads Currency price performances

The Currencies’ price performance this week was led by the US Dollar Index, which rose by 0.43% over the past five days. The Canadian Dollar was virtually unchanged on the week, followed by the Japanese Yen, which edged down slightly by -0.11%.

Next up, the Swiss Franc also slid by a minuscule amount with a -0.13% decline, followed by the British Pound Sterling, which dipped by -0.16%, and the Brazilian Real, which also was lower by -0.16%. The Euro declined by -0.60% on the week, while the Mexican Peso was down by -0.94%.

The Currencies that fell by over 1% this week were the Australian Dollar, with a dip of -1.51%, followed by the New Zealand Dollar, which fell by -1.55% over the past five days.

The biggest decliner on the week was Bitcoin, which dropped by -5.71%.

Currencies Data:

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 & US Dollar Index

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 Bitcoin (100 percent) and the US Dollar Index (79 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The Brazilian Real (72 percent) and the Mexican Peso (54 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the British Pound (0 percent), the New Zealand Dollar (2 percent), the Japanese Yen (10 percent) and the Swiss Franc (19 percent) come in at the lowest strength levels currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (79.0 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (79.8 percent)
EuroFX (41.3 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (43.0 percent)
British Pound Sterling (0.0 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (13.8 percent)
Japanese Yen (10.5 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (9.4 percent)
Swiss Franc (18.8 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (21.0 percent)
Canadian Dollar (21.3 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (27.3 percent)
Australian Dollar (48.9 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (53.5 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (2.2 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (13.3 percent)
Mexican Peso (53.6 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (51.9 percent)
Brazilian Real (71.7 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (69.8 percent)
Bitcoin (100.0 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (99.2 percent)

Bitcoin & US Dollar Index top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that Bitcoin (38 percent) and the US Dollar Index (26 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies. The Mexican Peso (7 percent) is the next highest positive movers in the 3-Year trends data.

The Canadian Dollar (-56 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the Australian Dollar (-51 percent), British Pound (-25 percent) and the Japanese Yen (-20 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (26.3 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (33.8 percent)
EuroFX (-3.9 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (0.8 percent)
British Pound Sterling (-25.3 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (-3.1 percent)
Japanese Yen (-19.5 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (-24.3 percent)
Swiss Franc (-10.6 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (-11.9 percent)
Canadian Dollar (-56.2 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (-50.9 percent)
Australian Dollar (-50.7 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (-42.9 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (-17.9 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (3.5 percent)
Mexican Peso (7.2 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (6.8 percent)
Brazilian Real (-18.1 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (-18.8 percent)
Bitcoin (37.7 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (33.8 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

Positioning Notes:

US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 12,928 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decrease of -269 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 13,197 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 79.0 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 12.3 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

US DOLLAR INDEX Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	62.4	25.6	9.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	38.9	55.2	3.1
– Net Position:	12,928	-16,246	3,318
– Gross Longs:	34,278	14,069	5,010
– Gross Shorts:	21,350	30,315	1,692
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.6 to 1	0.5 to 1	3.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	79.0	12.3	100.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	26.3	-31.6	33.3

Euro Currency Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Euro Currency large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 30,158 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decrease of -4,195 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 34,353 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 41.3 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish with a score of 61.4 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 31.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

EURO Currency Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	31.5	55.0	10.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	27.6	62.3	6.9
– Net Position:	30,158	-57,183	27,025
– Gross Longs:	247,332	431,837	81,337
– Gross Shorts:	217,174	489,020	54,312
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.1 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	41.3	61.4	31.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-3.9	7.5	-25.0

British Pound Sterling Futures:

Positioning Notes:

British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -105,719 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position decrease of -34,134 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -71,585 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 0.0 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 7.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

BRITISH POUND Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	13.7	78.2	6.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	49.3	36.7	12.4
– Net Position:	-105,719	123,431	-17,712
– Gross Longs:	40,772	232,430	19,092
– Gross Shorts:	146,491	108,999	36,804
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	2.1 to 1	0.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	0.0	100.0	7.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-25.3	28.4	-41.9

Japanese Yen Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -146,104 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position boost of 4,028 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -150,132 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 10.5 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 43.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

JAPANESE YEN Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	26.4	58.5	11.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	60.3	25.5	10.1
– Net Position:	-146,104	142,381	3,723
– Gross Longs:	113,698	252,278	47,306
– Gross Shorts:	259,802	109,897	43,583
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.4 to 1	2.3 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	10.5	86.8	43.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-19.5	17.2	7.6

Swiss Franc Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -41,094 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position fall of -1,036 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -40,058 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 18.8 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 91.6 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 13.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

SWISS FRANC Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	7.3	83.6	9.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	45.2	31.6	23.2
– Net Position:	-41,094	56,495	-15,401
– Gross Longs:	7,975	90,828	9,792
– Gross Shorts:	49,069	34,333	25,193
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	2.6 to 1	0.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	18.8	91.6	13.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-10.6	19.9	-31.0

Canadian Dollar Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -146,792 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position reduction of -13,891 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -132,901 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 21.3 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 80.7 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 21.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

CANADIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	11.5	78.0	8.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	54.3	32.6	11.5
– Net Position:	-146,792	155,789	-8,997
– Gross Longs:	39,429	267,566	30,351
– Gross Shorts:	186,221	111,777	39,348
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	2.4 to 1	0.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	21.3	80.7	21.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-56.2	57.3	-34.8

Australian Dollar Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -13,012 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position fall of -8,887 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -4,125 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 48.9 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 48.4 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 69.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

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

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	38.3	45.3	16.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	44.4	45.7	9.6
– Net Position:	-13,012	-863	13,875
– Gross Longs:	82,200	97,086	34,390
– Gross Shorts:	95,212	97,949	20,515
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.0 to 1	1.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	48.9	48.4	69.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-50.7	48.4	-27.5

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

Positioning Notes:

New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of -54,844 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position reduction of -9,683 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -45,161 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 2.2 percent.
The Commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 98.8 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 15.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	11.7	84.0	3.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	64.8	28.4	6.0
– Net Position:	-54,844	57,522	-2,678
– Gross Longs:	12,114	86,813	3,469
– Gross Shorts:	66,958	29,291	6,147
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	3.0 to 1	0.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	2.2	98.8	15.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-17.9	18.0	-4.2

Mexican Peso Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 74,225 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position gain of 2,436 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 71,789 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 53.6 percent.
The Commercials are Bearish with a score of 45.5 percent.
The Small Traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 52.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

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

MEXICAN PESO Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	56.6	39.7	3.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	19.2	78.8	1.7
– Net Position:	74,225	-77,667	3,442
– Gross Longs:	112,389	78,775	6,786
– Gross Shorts:	38,164	156,442	3,344
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.9 to 1	0.5 to 1	2.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	53.6	45.5	52.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	7.2	-6.1	-8.5

Brazilian Real Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 43,679 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position gain of 2,685 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 40,994 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 71.7 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 39.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Uptrend

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

BRAZIL REAL Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	71.8	22.2	4.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	29.9	67.2	1.3
– Net Position:	43,679	-47,025	3,346
– Gross Longs:	74,888	23,105	4,718
– Gross Shorts:	31,209	70,130	1,372
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.4 to 1	0.3 to 1	3.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	71.7	27.7	39.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-18.1	18.7	-7.2

Bitcoin Futures:

Positioning Notes:

Bitcoin large speculator standing this week resulted in a net position of 3,524 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday.
Weekly Speculator position rise of 49 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 3,475 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 5.3 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.

BITCOIN Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	79.5	0.3	4.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	62.4	16.2	5.9
– Net Position:	3,524	-3,253	-271
– Gross Longs:	16,348	70	935
– Gross Shorts:	12,824	3,323	1,206
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.3 to 1	0.0 to 1	0.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	100.0	5.3	23.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	37.7	-19.9	-60.7

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

27 Jun

Speculator Extremes: Bitcoin, Copper, GBP & Lean Hogs lead Bullish & Bearish 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 23rd.

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.

Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

Bitcoin

The Bitcoin speculator position comes in as the most bullish extreme standing this week as the speculators tend to use the futures as a hedging instrument for Bitcoin. 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 rise higher by 38 percentage points this week while the overall net speculator position was a total of 3,524 net contracts this week with an increase of 49 contract in the weekly speculator bets.

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

The Copper speculator position comes next in the extreme standings this week with the Copper speculator level now at a 94 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score was a decline of -4 percentage points this week. The speculator position registered 71,620 net contracts this week with a decrease of -3,730 contracts in speculator bets.

Cotton

The Cotton speculator position comes in third this week in the extreme standings as the Cotton speculator level resides at a 89 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at a decline of -11 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was 83,558 net contracts this week with an increase of 4,881 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Steel

The Steel speculator position comes up number four in the extreme standings this week as the Steel speculator level is currently at an 87 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a boost of 2 percentage points this week while the overall speculator position was 11,781 net contracts this week with a decline of -216 contracts in the speculator bets.

5-Year Bond

The 5-Year Bond speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings with the 5-Year speculator level sitting at a 82 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was an advance by 4 percentage points this week.

The speculator position was -1,301,269 net contracts this week with a rise of 48,908 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

The Most Bearish Speculator Positions of the Week:

British Pound

The British Pound speculator position comes in as the most bearish extreme standing this week as the GBP speculator level is at a 0 percent minimum score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decrease by -25 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was -105,719 net contracts this week with a retreat of -34,134 contracts in the speculator bets.

Lean Hogs

The Lean Hogs speculator position comes in second for the most bearish extreme standing on the week with the Lean Hogs speculator level at a 1 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a retreat of -34 percentage points this week while the speculator position was -57,209 net contracts this week with a rise of 2,133 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

New Zealand Dollar

The New Zealand Dollar speculator position comes in as third most bearish extreme standing of the week. The NZD speculator level resides at a 2 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decrease by -18 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was -54,844 net contracts this week with a decline of -9,683 contracts in the speculator bets.

Cocoa Futures

The Cocoa Futures speculator position comes in as this week’s fourth most bearish extreme standing as the Cocoa speculator level is at just a 3 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a retreat of -6 percentage points this week and the speculator position was -19,789 net contracts this week with an advance of 1,091 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

3-Month Secured Overnight Financing Rate

Lastly, the 3-Month Secured Overnight Financing Rate speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week with the SOFR 3-Months speculator level at a 3 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decrease by -45 percentage points this week while the speculator position was -2,808,392 net contracts this week with an addition of 100,586 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Reports by Email

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

26 Jun

GBP/USD Ends the Month with Its Worst Performance in a Year

By RoboForex Analytical Department

The GBP/USD pair continued to decline against the US dollar on Friday and is set to close June with its worst monthly performance since July last year, trading near 1.3182. Since the start of the month, sterling has lost around 2.2%. Current levels are the lowest since November last year.

Several factors are weighing on the British currency. First, lower oil prices following the easing of tensions between the US and Iran have reduced inflation risks and lowered the likelihood of more aggressive rate hikes by the Bank of England. The market now expects only one rate increase before the end of the year, compared with two that were priced in just a few weeks ago.

Domestic UK politics has become an additional source of uncertainty. Following the resignation of Prime Minister Keir Starmer, investors are awaiting the appointment of a new head of government and, most importantly, a new finance minister. Andy Burnham is seen as the most likely successor, although the composition of the future government’s economic team remains unclear.

The market is closely watching the new cabinet’s staffing decisions. These appointments will shape the country’s future fiscal policy and influence investor sentiment towards British assets.

Technical Analysis

On the H4 chart of GBP/USD, the market completed a downward wave to 1.3140 and a growth wave towards 1.3217. In practice, a wide consolidation range is forming around 1.3200.

If the pair breaks out of this range to the upside, the potential will open for the wave to continue towards 1.3240. If the pair breaks out to the downside, the potential will open for a continuation of the decline towards 1.3033.

Technically, this scenario is confirmed by the MACD indicator. Its signal line is below the zero mark and is pointing firmly downwards.

On the H1 chart, GBP/USD formed a compact consolidation range around 1.3180. At the moment, the range has expanded downwards to 1.3140. Further growth towards 1.3220 is expected, followed by a decline to 1.3060.

The Stochastic oscillator also supports this scenario. Its signal line is below 50 and is pointing firmly downwards towards 20.

Disclaimer

Forex and Currency News Opinions

25 Jun

How local communities are challenging Big Tech data centers’ noise, pollution and rising electricity bills

By Rachel Mural, Harvard Kennedy School

As the race to build data centers across the United States accelerates, local governments worry that the tech industry mantra of “move fast and break things” means their communities are at risk of being broken.

I’m a Harvard researcher studying the relationship between data centers and energy. I’ve closely monitored how local governments respond to proposals or even just concerns about the potential for data centers in their communities. What I’ve found is a complex story of community needs, political tensions and corporate power – all interacting with local, state and national democratic processes.

Promises and potential

Technology companies stay competitive by being ready to provide data and communications services even before customer demand rises. Data centers already power online communications, shopping and banking systems. Now, expanding demand for artificial intelligence has led to over 1,000 pending data center proposals across the country.

Federal actions also drive development. The Trump administration has identified data center build-out as a strategic priority. The administration has promoted data center capacity as a measure of American strength and signaled that federal regulations on data centers may be eased.

At the community level, technology companies claim that data centers bring jobs, economic revitalization, digital connectivity and economic growth to local communities.

Not great neighbors

So far, however, data centers’ benefits are overshadowed by more visible harms.

Nearby residents experience higher air pollution and excess noise. Data processing also uses a lot of water to cool the buildings and their equipment.

Simultaneously, electricity prices continue to outpace inflation, burdening families across the country. These trends reflect, in part, the costly infrastructure investments needed to power data centers.

The local movement

My research has found that local governments across the U.S. are trying to avoid or reduce these harms.

Some counties and cities that don’t have specific zoning rules and regulations for data center development are using short-term moratoriums. These pauses in data center permitting and construction give communities time to consider how to define new laws and regulations about the facilities’ location, electricity use, water conservation and noise buffering.

Speaking about his town’s decision to impose a one-year data center moratorium, Rick Bella, the town council president in Merrillville, Indiana, about 40 miles southeast of Chicago, stressed a desire to “evaluate real-world impacts and learn from a project developing right next door before determining what may or may not be appropriate for Merrillville.”

Other places want to block data centers altogether. In April 2026, for example, the Ypsilanti Community Utilities Authority near Detroit, Michigan, passed a yearlong halt to the “delivery, commitment, reservation, extension, or approval of water and sewer services” for data centers. The move blocks data centers, including one under development by the University of Michigan and Los Alamos National Laboratory, from getting the water they need to operate.

Separately, towns across Ohio, Wisconsin, Maryland, Nevada and California have put questions related to data centers on their local ballots. Through these referendums, voters can weigh in on construction bans, tax incentives and zoning ordinances.

Power struggles

While public attitudes around data centers have remained largely nonpartisan, local and state officials don’t always see eye to eye.

Officials in Hood County, Texas, for example, rejected a proposal for a six-month moratorium after a state senator urged the Texas attorney general to intervene and prevent the measure.

In 2025, West Virginia passed a bill that reduces local governments’ zoning and regulatory powers in relation to data centers and microgrids. A similar bill in New Hampshire’s legislature was defeated in May 2026.

Tech companies are also flexing their legal and financial muscles. For example, data center developers sued Saline Township, Michigan, and Chatham County, North Carolina, seeking to overturn their local zoning decisions, to be able to proceed with data center construction.

Changing tides

Local pushback comes at a pivotal moment for artificial intelligence technology itself.

As seen in objections to the internet’s expanding AI “slop,” backlash over AI-generated Super Bowl ads, worries about an AI-related financial bubble and complaints about Google’s pivot to AI-directed search, Americans are reckoning with AI’s role in society.

Further, many people are questioning the role of technology broadly. Increasing numbers of teens and adults are addicted to their smartphones, emotionally and psychologically dependent on their availability. Parents and teachers are questioning the usefulness of various types of digital technologies in classrooms. Even the pope has warned that technology must serve humanity – and not the other way around.

Americans are responding to this moment through the power of their voices and votes.

Technology companies may view moratoriums and new regulations as delays in project development. But the town hall discussions, community coalitions, public petitions and even farmers’ unions reflect American democracy at work.

In Sunbury, Ohio, local officials considered a moratorium only after witnessing the scope of public protest over a proposed data center.

In April 2026, voters in Festus, Missouri, removed several City Council members after they supported a new data center despite resident pushback.

The question of whether a community wants or should have a data center does not have a universal answer. I believe it’s a question that deserves deliberate processes, transparency and consideration.

To me, these local-level actions reflect a desire to slow down. There is little question that data centers and AI will be part of our collective future. Today, communities are asking for a fair say in what their futures will be.

About the Author:

Rachel Mural, Senior Research Associate in Environment and Natural Resources and Science, Technology, and Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School

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

Opinions Programming

24 Jun

Quantum sensors could spot hidden damage in the thousands of US bridges rated ‘structurally deficient’

By Alex Krasnok, Florida International University

Every bridge has parts that drivers never see: steel buried in concrete, welds tucked under girders, and soil packed around foundations below the waterline. A bridge can look fine from the road while rust spreads around steel hidden inside concrete. A small fatigue crack can lengthen. A flood can wash soil away from a pier. By the time cracks, loose concrete or lane closures appear, the cheapest repair window may already have closed.

When it comes to these damaged bridges, this problem is national. The United States has more than 624,000 highway bridges. About 220,000 need major repair or replacement, and 41,677 are rated poor, also called structurally deficient. While “poor” does not mean unsafe, it does mean at least one key bridge element received a poor rating, indicating deterioration or cracking that will require significant repair.

As a researcher who studies photonics and quantum sensing, I work on devices that measure faint or hidden signals. My lab applies physics to develop devices, including quantum sensors. Advanced sensors of this type might one day be able to help engineers pinpoint where to look to determine whether hidden damage in infrastructure is worsening. However, they cannot replace human inspectors.

The Dames Point Bridge spans a river in Jacksonville, Fla.
Jonathan Zander/Wikimedia Commons, CC BY

Inspections keep bridges safe, but are snapshots

Federal bridge inspections – rooted in National Bridge Inspection Standards mandated by Congress in 1968 – exist because past failures showed that small defects can threaten large structures.

Under current federal rules, many bridges must be inspected in, at most, 24-month intervals. Higher-risk bridges, such as those carrying heavy interstate traffic, those with aging structures or known defects, or those built over saltwater, may require shorter intervals. Lower-risk bridges with lighter traffic and sound materials may qualify for longer intervals.

Those inspections remain essential, but they are snapshots. A bridge may change during the months between visits. Corrosion can spread below a deck that looks sound. A small crack can sit inside a weld. A river can displace soil from a foundation while the roadway above looks unchanged. Sensors extend inspections by tracking these change that form between scheduled checks.

Hidden damage can grow quietly

The three common hidden threats to bridges are corrosion, fatigue and scour. Corrosion begins when water, oxygen and salts reach steel. A concrete layer usually protects steel, but cracks, salt spray and chloride ions from seawater or deicing salts can break that protection. The rust then expands, much like ice widening a crack in a sidewalk. It pushes the concrete outward and can cause the material to come loose or the layers to separate.

Fatigue damage is the bridge version of bending a paper clip back and forth. Just as a paper clip eventually snaps after repeated bending, a bridge’s steel components weaken and break down under continuous cycles of stress. Thousands of heavy vehicles can make tiny cracks grow near welds, bolted connections or older steel details.

Scour damage is different: Moving water removes soil around the bridge’s foundations. The bridge above can look stable, while the support below loses the ground it needs.

Waiting costs more

The earlier engineers can identify damage to aging bridges, the more time and options they have to fix them. The average U.S. bridge is about 47 years old. Many bridges are near or past the 50-year life they were designed for, and about 45% have exceeded their planned design lives.

Typically, it’s less costly to preserve bridges in fair condition than those already in poor condition. Making all the identified necessary U.S. bridge repairs would cost about US$467 billion.

Past failures show why small details matter. As one example, the 2007 I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis was partially due to undersized gusset plates – steel plates that connect the intersecting beams in a bridge’s structural framework – along with added weight and construction loads. The collapse killed 13 people and injured 145.

Monitoring bridges can pinpoint structural damage that could eventually lead to devastating collapses.

Sensors alone are not a cure for such failures, but better measurements can help engineers notice when important details are changing.

Sensors help engineers look, listen and scan

Sensor systems are easiest to categorize based on what they do.

Some sensors see: Drones can photograph cracks and loose concrete, infrared cameras can show heat patterns linked to damaged deck zones, and LiDAR, short for light detection and ranging, can build three-dimensional maps.

Some sensors listen: Ultrasonic testing and impact-echo probes send sound waves into concrete or steel, acoustic emission sensors listen for active cracking, and accelerometers track how a bridge vibrates.

Some sensors scan below the surface. Specialized radio tools try to locate hidden steel, trapped moisture, empty pockets or crumbling layers inside the concrete. Meanwhile, magnetic and electrical instruments attempt to guess whether that buried steel is rusting away.

The value of sensors often comes from combining methods. One bridge deck inspection robot uses subsurface radar, electrical tools that measure moisture, and a standard camera to collect data. It then builds simple visual maps showing the exact health of the bridge deck. Fiber-optic sensing could be another route. Researchers have shown that existing telecommunication cables can record bridge vibration signatures.

Sensors are evidence, not verdicts

While instruments provide crucial clues about a structure’s condition, they do not automatically dictate the solution. Engineers still need to examine the bridge design, inspection history, traffic loads, weather, material condition and measurement uncertainty before deciding whether to repair, restrict traffic or close a bridge.

Field data is messy. Wet concrete can blur radar results. Traffic, wind and temperature can mask vibration changes.

The best systems answer narrow questions: Where is the concrete deck beginning to split into horizontal layers underneath the surface? Is this crack actively widening? Is a suspension cable losing its structural strength because its inner steel wires are rusting away? Is the fast-moving water washing away the critical soil supporting the bridge’s underwater foundations after a storm?

Quantum sensors are a frontier

Quantum sensors may help when the signs of structural distress are weak, buried or noisy. These devices use quantum systems, such as atoms or electron spins, as highly sensitive probes.

By measuring how these atomic properties shift in response to extremely subtle changes in gravity, motion or magnetic fields, the sensors can detect flaws that traditional instruments miss.

For bridges, the nearest-term opportunity is likely magnetic inspection. My team and I co-authored a review, which has not yet been peer-reviewed, on quantum magnetometers for infrastructure inspection. These sensors identify signals from induction responses, magnetic flux leakage, stress, corrosion and operational currents.

In plain terms, these sensors may help map weak magnetic fields near steel, cables or electrical conductors. Changes or disruptions in these local magnetic fields can reveal hidden rust, snapped wire strands inside a thick suspension cable, or abnormal stress points in the steel before a crack even forms.

a small piece of electronics — Atomic magnetometers are a type of sensor that use atoms in a vapor cell to measure faint magnetic fields. They can operate at room temperature.
J. Kitching/NIST

The hard part is not building a record-setting sensor in a quiet lab, but rather making a device that works on a noisy bridge, near traffic, weather, steel and electrical interference. Quantum sensors will matter only where they beat cheaper classical tools in real inspection conditions.

The goal is not to make every bridge smart. The goal is to make damage harder to hide. Sensors give engineers more ways to see inside concrete, steel, soil and water, turning some surprise closures into repairs planned months earlier.

The public may never notice the best use of bridge sensors. That is the point: The safest infrastructure technology often works before a problem becomes visible from the road.

About the Author:

Alex Krasnok, Assistant Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Florida International University

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

Opinions Programming

Risk Disclosure: Foreign Currency trading and trading on margin carries a high level of risk and can result in loss of part or all of your investment. Due to the level of risk and market volatility, Foreign Currency trading may not be suitable for all investors and you should not invest money you cannot afford to lose. Before deciding to invest in the foreign currency exchange market you should carefully consider your investment objectives, level of experience, and risk appetite. You should be aware of all the risks associated with foreign currency exchange trading, and seek advice from an independent financial advisor should you have any doubts.

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