Opinions

Archive for Opinions – Page 2

The oil price surge is just one symptom of a supply chain network that is not fit for this age of global tensions

The escalating conflict between Iran, the US and Israel has taken a critical turn. The strait of Hormuz – one of the most important shipping routes for oil and gas – is facing significant disruption. The strait is the main route connecting Persian Gulf ports in Iran and some of the region’s other oil producers to the open ocean.

The strikes on Iran are already having tangible effects: energy flows are slowing, markets are reacting and supply chains are under pressure. This is not just a regional conflict – it is a global supply chain crisis unfolding in real time.

As an expert on supply chains, I am acutely aware of how central the strait is – not only for the stability of the region but also to the functioning of the global economy.

This narrow corridor is one of the world’s most critical chokepoints – around a fifth of the world’s oil passes through the strait daily. Its sudden disruption represents a “chokepoint failure” – a breakdown at a critical node that triggers cascading effects across global systems.

Tanker traffic has dropped sharply, with vessels waiting in surrounding waters as ship owners reassess the risks. Oil prices surged in response to the strikes and the threat to shipping routes. Analysts have warned that prices could climb significantly higher if the disruption persists.

But crucially, this reaction was not driven solely by actual shortages. Markets respond to uncertainty itself. The mere possibility that several million barrels per day could be disrupted is enough to push prices up, even before supply is properly hit. This reflects a broader feature of geopolitical risk: expectations and perceptions can be as economically powerful as material disruptions.

Because energy underpins almost every sector, these price increases transmit rapidly through supply chains. Higher fuel costs raise transportation expenses, increase production costs and ultimately feed into inflation across goods and services that eventually land with consumers.

The strategic importance of the Gulf states

The disruption is not confined to the strait. Instability across the wider Gulf region also affects the United Arab Emirates, as well as other strategically important energy producers and logistics hubs, such as Qatar, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

This dimension matters because the Gulf functions not only as an energy supplier but also as a crossroads in global trade and logistics.

Ports such as Dubai handle vast volumes of international shipping, linking Asia, Europe and Africa. As tensions spread, the reliability of these logistics systems is increasingly called into question.

The result is a shift to more widespread insecurity, where both energy flows and trade infrastructure – things like major container ports, shipping lanes, export terminals and storage facilities – are simultaneously at risk.

Energy is the heart of global supply chains. Manufacturing depends on electricity and fuel, transport relies on oil-based logistics and agriculture depends heavily on natural gas-derived fertilisers. When energy flows are disrupted or become more expensive, the effects propagate across entire networks.

Research on geopolitical crises shows that disruptions to key inputs such as oil and gas quickly translate into broader supply chain instability. This affects production, trade and the availability of goods far beyond the conflict zone. The Iran crisis reflects this dynamic. What begins as disruption in a maritime corridor can become a global economic issue within days.

For decades, global supply chains have been optimised for efficiency. This means that they concentrate sourcing and production in regions that minimise costs. This model has delivered large economic benefits, but it has also created weaknesses in the structure.

The concentration of energy flowing through a single chokepoint such as the strait of Hormuz exemplifies this trade-off. When it is disrupted, the system lacks resilience.

In response, supply chains are likely to accelerate efforts to diversify and invest in alternative energy routes and sources. Countries that are heavily dependent on oil transiting through the Gulf will seek to expand strategic reserves, diversify their import routes and invest in pipelines that bypass maritime chokepoints.

But at the same time, geopolitical instability strengthens the case for renewable energy, electrification and regional energy integration. Expanding solar, wind and green hydrogen capacity reduces exposure to concentrated fossil fuel corridors. And cross-border electricity connections can improve flexibility during shocks. In this sense, resilience is also an energy transition issue.

At the same time, instability in conflict-hit regions can fuel the rise of informal and illegal supply chains, particularly where governance is weakened. These can include things like unregulated oil trading, goods being smuggled through informal maritime routes and labour exploitation hidden within subcontracting chains.

What’s more, supply chains themselves are increasingly shaped by geopolitical forces, as states use trade, energy and logistics networks as instruments of power.

For consumers, this could mean greater price volatility, shortages and reduced choice as firms adjust sourcing strategies in response to sanctions, trade restrictions or security risks. In some cases, it may also mean higher costs over the long term, as businesses prioritise resilience over efficiency.

A turning point for globalisation?

The situation in the strait of Hormuz may mark a turning point in how global supply chains are understood. It has shone a light on a fundamental tension at the heart of globalisation. Efficiency depends on sourcing and production being concentrated in a few locations, but resilience depends on diversification. When critical links in the chain fail, the consequences extend far beyond their immediate location.

This war demonstrates that supply chains are not merely economic systems. They are deeply embedded in geopolitical realities. The challenge ahead is not simply to manage disruption, but to redesign supply chains and energy sources for a world in which geopolitical risk is no longer exceptional, but structural.

About the Author:

Maryam Lotfi, Senior Lecturer in Sustainable Supply Chain Management, Cardiff University

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

Energy Opinions

02 Mar

Strait of Hormuz: if the Iran conflict shuts world’s most important oil chokepoint, global economic chaos could follow

By Sarah Schiffling, Hanken School of Economics

The reported sinking of several Iranian warships by US missiles in the Gulf of Oman serves as a reminder of the maritime aspect of the conflict which began February 28 with a barrage of Israeli and American missiles targeting Iran. Two other vessels, believed to be tankers, have also been reported as having been hit by missiles, of an as yet undetermined source, in the vicinity of the Strait of Hormuz, underlining the importance of this vital shipping lane – which is likely to play an key part in all sides’ calculations.

Full details have yet to emerge of the incidents. But there are already signs that the strait will become a major focus of concern because of the huge implications should the conflict disrupt maritime traffic through this the narrow outlet of the Persian Gulf. Ships crossing the Strait of Hormuz carry around one-fifth of global oil supplies. That’s about 20 million barrels per day. This makes the strait the most critical energy chokepoint.

There are a small number of strategic passageways, or chokepoints on which global trade depends and which are vulnerable to disruption. Any disruption reverberates instantly through global markets and supply chains. With conflict raging in Iran and attacks across the Middle East, traders, governments and businesses will be watching oil prices closely as the markets open.

After Israel and the US launched attacks on Iran on February 28, prompting retaliatory strikes across the region from Iran, Tehran broadcast to vessels in the region claiming that the Strait of Hormuz was closed.

Although the shipping lanes are only about two miles wide, actually physically closing them would be difficult to achieve. The most decisive action Tehran could take would be to mine the shipping lanes. With the large US naval presence in the area, this would be very difficult for Iran to achieve.

But a formal blockade is not necessary to stop traffic. When perceived threat levels rise, ships stay away. Big shipping companies such as Hapag Lloyd and CMA CGA have already suspended transit through the strait and advised their ships to proceed to shelter.

Vessel tracking already shows reduced movements in the Strait of Hormuz. Ships are waiting to enter or exit the Persian Gulf or diverting away from the region. An advisory from the United Kingdom Maritime Trade Operations (UKMTO) Centre has warned of the “increased risk of miscalculation or misidentification, particularly in proximity to military units”.

Several ports have suspended operations after debris from an intercepted missile sparked a fire at Dubai’s Jebel Ali Port. While other ports continue to operate, the risk and uncertainty are disrupting shipping in the region.

Supply chain disruption

Hormuz is dominated by oil tankers and liquid natural gas carriers, so disruption directly hits global energy supplies. In addition, a lesser-known dependency is that one-third of the world’s fertiliser trade passes through the strait. Both energy and agricultural supply chains have already been destabilised by the Ukraine war. Further price rises could have far-reaching consequences.

Map of Straits of Hormuz — The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most important waterways, with 20% of the global trade in oil flowing through a narrow maritime channel.
Wikimedia Commons

The main destinations for oil and gas flowing through Hormuz are China, India, Japan, and South Korea. India, which imports about half of its crude oil through the strait, has activated contingency plans to safeguard energy supplies.

But apart from amassing strategic national stockpiles to weather immediate disruptions, there may be limited alternatives for countries dependent on getting their energy supplies through the strait. Saudi Arabia and the UAE have some pipelines for both oil and gas that can bypass the Hormuz. There is an estimated spare capacity of 2.6 million barrels per day for these pipelines. But that’s a fraction of what is normally shipped through the strait.

Oil and gas are traded globally. So even countries whose energy needs are not met by imports from the Persian Gulf will be affected by price increases. Oil prices are expected to increase to up to US$100 (£74) per barrel when markets open on Monday. Opec has agreed to modestly boost oil output in a bid to stabilise markets. But the group of oil producing countries has limited options as key members are affected by the fallout of the attacks on Iran.

Energy price increases will hit consumers directly when filling up their cars or heating their homes. They also affect companies across a wide range of industries. This has the potential to cause further supply chain disruptions.

Supply chains rely on predictability. The persistent geopolitical uncertainty has complicated operations worldwide. Limited alternatives make the de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz all the more impactful. The longer the disruption persists, the more significant and structural the economic damage will become.

Potential for escalation

There is still a potential for a catastrophic escalation in the Strait of Hormuz. The sinking of a tanker would have dramatic consequences for the environment and would likely halt navigation for an extended period of time.

But prolonged instability may also prove destructive for the global economy.
Previously, Iran closing the strait was seen as unlikely considering the global backlash and economic harm to Iran itself. But with regime change now the stated goal of the US-Israeli attacks, the cost of holding the world economy hostage might seem justified to the rulers in Tehran.

About the Author:

Sarah Schiffling, Deputy Director of the HUMLOG (Humanitarian Logistics and Supply Chain Management Research) Institute, Hanken School of Economics

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

28 Feb

Currency Speculators push Aussie Bets Higher, Euro & GBP Bets fall this week

By InvestMacro

Open Interest Strength Levels show where current Open Futures Contracts are highest and lowest (higher interest can fuel trends and setup for more potential moves & vice versa) for currency markets.

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 February 24th 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 Australian Dollar & New Zealand Dollar

The COT currency market speculator bets were overall lower this week as just 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 Australian Dollar (6,713 contracts) with the New Zealand Dollar (5,446 contracts), the Brazilian Real (2,012 contracts) and the Canadian Dollar (1,752 contracts) also seeing gaining weeks.

The currencies seeing declines in speculator bets on the week were the EuroFX (-17,624 contracts), the British Pound (-14,668 contracts), the US Dollar Index (-2,117 contracts), the Japanese Yen (-1,416 contracts), the Mexican Peso (-1,242 contracts), Bitcoin (-466 contracts) and with the Swiss Franc (-305 contracts) also recording lower bets on the week.

Speculators push Aussie Bets Higher, Euro & GBP Bets fall this week

Highlighting the currency speculator positioning for last week through Tuesday was the continued bullishness for speculators in the Australian dollar. The New Zealand dollar speculator bets continued to improve despite being bearish while the Euro bets took a breather and the British pound speculator position went increasingly bearish.

First off, the Australian dollar speculator position rose this week for a 13th consecutive week, with speculator positions adding a total of +136,820 net contracts over that time period. This has taken the Australian dollar net position from a total of -84,176 contracts on November 25th to this week’s net position of 52,644 contracts. This is the best level for the Australian dollar net position since October 24th of 2017, a span of 435 weeks. The Australian dollar in the foreign exchange market has continued to rally since the beginning of the year and is up by almost 6.50 percent since the start of 2026. Since the AUD lows in February of last year, the Australian dollar has risen by over 16 percent against the US dollar. The Aussie has been able to hold above the major 0.7000 level and closed out the week above the 0.7100 exchange rate. The AUD has been having its highest weekly closes at the highest levels since early 2023.

The New Zealand dollar speculator position has been improving steadily, with weekly speculator bets improving in six out of the last eleven weeks for an eleven-week gain of 27,214 net contracts. These gains date back to December 9th when the net position totaled -56,781 net contracts, which was the all-time low or most bearish level in history for the NZD speculator positions. Since then, the bets have been improving and this week reached a -29,567 net contract level, the best level or least bearish standing of the past twenty weeks. In the spot price market, the NZD has been up in six out of the past seven weeks and is currently trading right around the major psychological level of 0.6000 threshold, which also coincides with the two hundred weekly moving average.

Euro speculator bets took a breather this week and fell for a second consecutive week. The Euro speculator positions have been mixed over the last ten weeks, with five weeks of falling speculator bets and five weeks of gaining speculator bets. Although the net change over the last ten weeks has been roughly a +12,000 net contracts. Overall, the speculator positioning for the Euro remains highly bullish with this week’s net position over +156,000 contracts. This marks the 13th consecutive week that the net position has been over +100,000 net contracts, and this is the 33rd out of the last 37 weeks that the net position has been over +100,000 net contracts. In the forex markets, the Euro closed over the 1.1820 level this week after seeing a small weekly gain. Continued overhead and major resistance resides at 1.2000, while there is support at the 1.1750 level, as well as the 1.1600 level below.

The British pound sterling saw its third week of strong bearish positioning and has now dropped by over -43,000 net contracts in the past three weeks. Previously, the British pound sterling had seen ten straight weeks of gains, so these last three weeks have cooled off that streak of bets. This week’s net position of negative -57,072 net contracts is the most bearish level of the past eleven weeks. Overall, the British pound sterling has been in bearish territory for 31 consecutive weeks dating back to July 2025. In the foreign exchange markets, the British pound sterling closed out the week at the 1.3480 level and has fallen for three out of the past four weeks. Currently, the bulls and the bears are battling it out around the 1.3500 area to see if this currency is gonna continue higher or take a breather and retreat lower. Since the beginning of 2025, the British pound has been up by approximately 11 percent against the US dollar in that time-frame.

The US dollar index bets dipped this week following four consecutive weeks of gains that had brought the US dollar index net position into a small bullish level last week. Last week’s pop up into the bullish level was the first time since June 2025 that the US dollar index had seen a bullish net contract position, a span of 36 weeks. This week’s dollar index speculator position dipped by over -2,100 contracts, bringing the overall net positioning to -1,789 net contracts. Essentially, this is a neutral position for speculator contracts and shows there is no dominant trend in where the speculators are leaning, with uncertainty as to whether we go up or down from here. In the Forex markets, the USD index had a small dip this week in price and is settling in and consolidating around the 97.50 exchange rate. The USD index has overhead resistance at the 98.00 level, while there is also strong support below as prices have bounced off the 96.50 level at least three times since June and have been unable to hold below that level for any amount of time.

Brazilian Real leads Currency Market Price Performance

This week’s five-day price performance was led by the Brazilian real, which rose by over one percent with a 1.03 percent gain on the week. The Swiss franc came in second with a 0.91 percent increase, followed by the Australian dollar, which rose by 0.50 percent on the week.

The New Zealand dollar was higher by 0.40 percent, followed by the Canadian dollar, which saw an uptick by 0.35 percent. The Euro was marginally higher at 0.32 percent.

On the downside, Bitcoin saw a -3.02 percent shortfall on the week. The Mexican peso was down by -0.62 percent, followed by the Japanese yen with a similar -0.61 percent decline. The US dollar index was lower by -0.11 percent, and the British pound was virtually unchanged with a small edge lower by -0.02 percent.

Over the past thirty days, the Australian dollar has been the standout performer with a 6.49 percent gain over that period. The Brazilian real has been up by 4.87 percent while the Swiss franc has been higher by 4.55 percent and the New Zealand dollar has also floated higher by 4.29 percent in the 30-day time-frame.

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 Canadian Dollar & Australian Dollar

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, a 50 score is right down the middle of the past 3-Years) showed that the Canadian Dollar (100 percent) and the Australian Dollar (100 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The EuroFX (88 percent), Bitcoin (78 percent) and the Mexican Peso (67 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the British Pound (15 percent) and the Swiss Franc (17 percent) come in at the lowest strength levels currently and are both in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are the New Zealand Dollar (31 percent) and the US Dollar Index (39 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (39.3 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (45.0 percent)
EuroFX (88.5 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (95.2 percent)
British Pound Sterling (15.4 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (21.6 percent)
Japanese Yen (53.9 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (54.3 percent)
Swiss Franc (17.4 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (18.1 percent)
Canadian Dollar (100.0 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (99.2 percent)
Australian Dollar (100.0 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (95.8 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (31.1 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (24.9 percent)
Mexican Peso (66.8 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (67.5 percent)
Brazilian Real (66.6 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (63.0 percent)
Bitcoin (77.5 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (87.4 percent)

Australian Dollar & Canadian Dollar top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Australian Dollar (45 percent) and the Canadian Dollar (31 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies. Bitcoin (23 percent), the New Zealand Dollar (22 percent) and the Japanese Yen (16 percent) are the next highest positive movers in the 3-Year trends data.

The British Pound (-14 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the Mexican Peso (-12 percent) following next with a lower trend score.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (5.2 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (11.2 percent)
EuroFX (9.2 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (4.4 percent)
British Pound Sterling (-13.5 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (-5.0 percent)
Japanese Yen (15.6 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (1.1 percent)
Swiss Franc (4.5 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (-1.2 percent)
Canadian Dollar (31.2 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (29.7 percent)
Australian Dollar (44.6 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (40.5 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (22.0 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (9.5 percent)
Mexican Peso (-12.1 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (-14.7 percent)
Brazilian Real (13.7 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (-7.6 percent)
Bitcoin (23.4 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (50.3 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

The US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -1,789 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -2,117 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 328 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 39.3 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 63.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 25.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

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

US DOLLAR INDEX Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	50.7	31.7	8.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	57.5	21.9	11.1
– Net Position:	-1,789	2,582	-793
– Gross Longs:	13,295	8,312	2,119
– Gross Shorts:	15,084	5,730	2,912
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	1.5 to 1	0.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	39.3	63.6	25.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	5.2	-3.2	-13.7

Euro Currency Futures:

The Euro Currency large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 156,856 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -17,624 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 174,480 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish-Extreme with a score of 88.5 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 9.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 88.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

EURO Currency Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	32.4	54.7	10.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	15.1	77.8	4.3
– Net Position:	156,856	-210,903	54,047
– Gross Longs:	294,873	498,044	93,336
– Gross Shorts:	138,017	708,947	39,289
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.1 to 1	0.7 to 1	2.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	88.5	9.3	88.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	9.2	-10.6	14.6

British Pound Sterling Futures:

The British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -57,072 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -14,668 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -42,404 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 15.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 82.1 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 55.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

BRITISH POUND Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.3	55.2	11.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	50.5	32.4	11.5
– Net Position:	-57,072	56,176	896
– Gross Longs:	67,213	135,804	29,236
– Gross Shorts:	124,285	79,628	28,340
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.5 to 1	1.7 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	15.4	82.1	55.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-13.5	12.0	2.9

Japanese Yen Futures:

The Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 11,539 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -1,416 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 12,955 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 53.9 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 47.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 45.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

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

JAPANESE YEN Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	40.4	38.4	10.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	37.3	42.4	9.7
– Net Position:	11,539	-14,729	3,190
– Gross Longs:	149,364	141,918	38,952
– Gross Shorts:	137,825	156,647	35,762
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.1 to 1	0.9 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	53.9	47.2	45.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	15.6	-15.3	9.9

Swiss Franc Futures:

The Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -41,186 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -305 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -40,881 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish-Extreme with a score of 17.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 64.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 83.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

SWISS FRANC Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	11.9	69.0	19.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	54.4	27.6	17.8
– Net Position:	-41,186	40,007	1,179
– Gross Longs:	11,525	66,778	18,411
– Gross Shorts:	52,711	26,771	17,232
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	2.5 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	17.4	64.7	83.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	4.5	-11.7	21.0

Canadian Dollar Futures:

The Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 27,578 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 1,752 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 25,826 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three 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 and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 52.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

CANADIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	41.7	42.3	13.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	29.3	55.9	12.4
– Net Position:	27,578	-30,260	2,682
– Gross Longs:	92,812	94,074	30,230
– Gross Shorts:	65,234	124,334	27,548
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.4 to 1	0.8 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	100.0	0.0	52.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	31.2	-32.5	17.4

Australian Dollar Futures:

The Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 52,644 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly increase of 6,713 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 45,931 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three 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 and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 92.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	48.9	30.3	17.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	27.8	61.4	7.2
– Net Position:	52,644	-77,313	24,669
– Gross Longs:	121,661	75,380	42,604
– Gross Shorts:	69,017	152,693	17,935
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.8 to 1	0.5 to 1	2.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	100.0	0.0	92.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	44.6	-37.8	4.7

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

The New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -29,567 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 5,446 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -35,013 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 31.1 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 65.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 77.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	19.4	70.2	7.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	60.7	31.6	4.3
– Net Position:	-29,567	27,657	1,910
– Gross Longs:	13,839	50,226	5,009
– Gross Shorts:	43,406	22,569	3,099
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	2.2 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	31.1	65.2	77.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	22.0	-24.4	31.5

Mexican Peso Futures:

The Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 82,880 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -1,242 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 84,122 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 66.8 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 33.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 46.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

MEXICAN PESO Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	55.9	37.7	3.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	19.1	76.3	1.3
– Net Position:	82,880	-87,127	4,247
– Gross Longs:	126,009	85,018	7,071
– Gross Shorts:	43,129	172,145	2,824
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.9 to 1	0.5 to 1	2.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	66.8	33.8	46.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-12.1	12.4	-2.1

Brazilian Real Futures:

The Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 36,674 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 2,012 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 31,643 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 66.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 31.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 47.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

BRAZIL REAL Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	53.5	38.4	4.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	26.0	69.4	0.8
– Net Position:	36,674	-41,394	4,720
– Gross Longs:	71,431	51,277	5,780
– Gross Shorts:	34,757	92,671	1,060
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.1 to 1	0.6 to 1	5.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	66.6	31.7	47.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	13.7	-14.6	9.0

Bitcoin Futures:

The Bitcoin large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 1,172 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -466 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 1,638 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 77.5 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 31.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 34.6 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:	71.6	2.1	5.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	66.5	7.0	5.3
– Net Position:	1,172	-1,120	-52
– Gross Longs:	16,410	485	1,162
– Gross Shorts:	15,238	1,605	1,214
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.1 to 1	0.3 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	77.5	31.7	34.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	23.4	-22.0	-6.1

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

*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.

COT Updates Forex and Currency News Opinions

28 Feb

Speculator Extremes: AUD, CAD, Natural Gas & Sugar 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 February 24th.

This weekly Extreme Positions report highlights the Most Bullish and Most Bearish Positions for the speculator category. 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)

Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

Australian Dollar

The Australian Dollar speculator position comes in tied as the most bullish extreme standing for a second straight this week as the AUD speculator level is currently at a maximum 100 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score totaled a strong gain by 45 percentage points this week. The overall net speculator position was a total of 52,644 net contracts this week with an advance by 6,713 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.

Canadian Dollar

The Canadian Dollar speculator position also comes in tied as the most bullish extreme standing once again this week as well. The CAD speculator level is also at a maximum 100 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score was a jump by 31 percentage points this week while the speculator position registered 27,578 net contracts this week with a modest increase by 1,752 contracts in speculator bets.

Steel

The Steel speculator position comes in third this week in the extreme standings with the Steel speculator level residing at a 97 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at a rise by 4 percentage points this week. The overall speculator position was 11,824 net contracts this week with a slight uptick by 88 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Palladium

The Palladium speculator position comes up number four in the extreme standings this week. The Palladium speculator level is at a 96 percent score of its 3-year range and the six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a decline of -4 percentage points this week.

The overall net speculator position was 664 net contracts this week with a small gain of 172 contracts in the speculator bets.

Ultra 10-Year

The Ultra 10-Year speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings with the Ultra 10-Year speculator level sitting at a 95 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a huge jump by 52 percentage points this week. The speculator position was -55,263 net contracts this week with a gain of 44,766 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

The Most Bearish Speculator Positions of the Week:

Natural Gas

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

The six-week trend for the strength score was a decrease by -9 percentage points this week while the overall speculator position was -198,519 net contracts this week with a fall of -12,707 contracts in the speculator bets.

Sugar

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

The six-week trend for the strength score was a decrease by -15 percentage points this week while the speculator position was -246,123 net contracts this week with a gain of 7,469 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Cocoa Futures

The Cocoa Futures speculator position comes in as third most bearish extreme standing of the week as the Cocoa speculator level resides at just a 5 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the strength score was a dip by -4 percentage points this week and the overall speculator position was -13,280 net contracts this week with a rise of 4,338 contracts in the speculator bets.

Brent Oil

The Brent Oil speculator position comes in as this week’s fourth most bearish extreme standing with the Brent speculator level at an 11 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a decline by -22 percentage points this week. The speculator position was -49,493 net contracts this week and had a decline of -13,226 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

2-Year Bond

Next, the 2-Year Bond speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week. The 2-Year speculator level is at just a 14 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a dip by -4 percentage points this week and the speculator position was -1,348,036 net contracts this week with a drop of -113,628 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Opinions

27 Feb

How natural hydrogen, hiding deep in the Earth, could serve as a new energy source

By Promise Longe, University of Kansas

In the search for more, new and cleaner sources of energy, a largely untapped resource is emerging: natural hydrogen.

Unlike hydrogen produced from industrial processes, natural hydrogen forms through geological reactions that occur normally within the Earth’s crust, meaning it costs nothing to make – though it costs some amount to extract – and does not emit any carbon dioxide or other human‑caused pollutants.

Today, hydrogen is used mainly in oil refining, production of ammonia for fertilizer and to make methanol, which can be a fuel and an ingredient in plastics. Emerging technologies are making hydrogen a viable fuel for cars, planes, ships and factories. Hydrogen demand around the world is projected to grow from around 90 million metric tons in 2022 to more than 500 million metric tons by 2050. Some of that supply could come from nature itself, as well.

To describe each source of hydrogen, energy researchers like me, and the energy industry as a whole, use a range of colors. In general, “gray” and “blue” hydrogen are made by burning fossil fuels, with blue hydrogen incorporating technology that captures the carbon dioxide produced in the process to reduce emissions. “Green” hydrogen comes from renewable‑energy‑powered electrolysis, using electricity to split water into hydrogen and oxygen. “White” or “gold” hydrogen occurs naturally underground and can be extracted directly with minimal processing.

How natural hydrogen forms

Natural hydrogen originates from several geological processes. The most well‑studied mechanism is serpentinization, a reaction where water interacts with iron‑rich rocks known as ultramafics, releasing hydrogen gas.

Serpentinization occurs in diverse settings around the world, including ocean ridges and continental formations such as the Midcontinent Rift in North America, a band of mostly igneous rocks with some sedimentary rocks mixed in, which extends from Minnesota through the Lake Superior region and southward toward Kansas.

Another process, thermogenic hydrogen formation, occurs in deep sedimentary basins when organic material decomposes under high temperatures, roughly 480 to 930 degrees Fahrenheit (250 to 500 degrees Celsius). These reactions can also produce hydrogen alongside other gases, such as methane or nitrogen.

Because these processes happen over millions of years, using natural hydrogen generally requires far less energy than human‑made methods such as electrolysis, which consumes roughly 50 kilowatt-hours of electricity per kilogram of hydrogen produced – enough to power an average home for a day or two, and more than the energy that kilogram of hydrogen can provide. Natural hydrogen is already made – it just has to be collected.

The science and the search

Researchers and exploration companies are developing methods similar to those used in oil and gas exploration to locate potential hydrogen accumulations. They are looking at three types of geological formations:

Focused seepage, where hydrogen seeps naturally through cracks and faults. It tends to reach the surface and disperse quickly, making large-scale capture difficult.
Coal beds, where hydrogen binds to coal layers, offer higher potential density but pose difficulties for extraction. The hydrogen must first be separated from the coal and then flow through tight rock layers to the extraction point.
Reservoir‑trap‑seal systems, comparable to the rock formations that trap natural gas underground, are considered the most promising for commercial production because they can concentrate large volumes of hydrogen in well‑defined, drillable structures. However, they remain largely unproven in practice: The basic idea is well established, and geologists have a good sense of where those formations might occur, but they still lack detailed data on how much hydrogen these formations actually contain and how easy it would be to extract.

Massive reserves – somewhere

The U.S. Geological Survey estimates there could be more than 5 trillion metric tons of geological hydrogen underground around the world. But only a small fraction of that is estimated to be recoverable, both technically and in terms of reasonable costs.

However, even 2% of that total would be more than all proven natural gas reserves on the planetand enough to meet projected demand for the next 200 years, even accounting for increased consumption.

All of that reserve has built up over billions of years. The Earth naturally produces between 15 million and 31 million metric tons of natural hydrogen each year – less than 1% of the amount expected to be needed each year by 2050. But only a fraction of that is likely to be efficiently captured.

So geologic hydrogen is likely best viewed as a very large but ultimately finite source of low‑carbon energy that can substantially complement, but not replace, other energy sources, including various methods of producing hydrogen.

Global hot spots

Currently, only one hydrogen field, at Mali’s Bourakébougou village, produces natural hydrogen commercially, supplying tens of tons of hydrogen per year to power the village.

However, the number of companies exploring for natural hydrogen has increased rapidly, from roughly 10 in 2020 to about 40 by the end of 2023, according to Rystad Energy and related government and research‑lab reports.

Apart from that one field in Mali, exploration is concentrated in the United States, Australia, Canada and several European countries.

In the U.S., HyTerra’s Nemaha Project in Kansas has confirmed subsurface hydrogen concentrations reaching more than 90% hydrogen and 3% helium. The higher the concentration of hydrogen, the more efficient and cost‑effective it is to recover. HyTerra is also exploring elsewhere in the Midwest and Rocky Mountain regions.

A close-up image of a rock that is mottled in shades of green and gray. — The geologic process of forming serpentinite can produce hydrogen.
James St. John via Flickr, CC BY

Technical barriers

Transforming geological hydrogen into a commercial energy source presents tough scientific and technical challenges. Detecting and measuring hydrogen underground is difficult because of its small molecular size and reactivity with other elements in the rocks.

And if what’s found is low concentrations of hydrogen mixed with large amounts of other gases, it can be costly, even prohibitively so, to separate and purify the hydrogen before it can be used.

Economics and efficiency

The economic promise of natural hydrogen lies in its simplicity.

Because geological processes already performed the production work, early estimates suggest that extraction costs could be one‑tenth the production costs for other traditional hydrogen generation techniques – or possibly even less than that.

But those figures are based on the small amounts of hydrogen found so far and may not represent future large‑scale performance. Producing enough to serve commercial demand will require discovering large, high-quality accumulations.

As one leading research group noted, “This is not a gold rush.” It’s a careful exploration for scientific evidence that could lead, in time, to an abundant, carbon‑free and continuous energy source that complements other renewable energy sources.

About the Author:

Promise Longe, Ph.D. Candidate in Chemical and Petroleum Engineering, University of Kansas

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

Energy Opinions

27 Feb

Week In Review: Nvidia fails to dazzle, Bitcoin hits $70k

By ForexTime

Nvidia ↓ over 5% post earnings
AI giant delivers 73% surge in Q4 revenue
Foreign leaders on standby after Supreme Court ruling
Bitcoin touches $70,000
Dollar set for bullish breakout above 98.00?

The world’s most valuable company delivered a 73% surge in fourth quarter revenue and beat analyst estimates.

However, it’s shares tumbled as much as 5.6% when US markets opened on Thursday – marking its biggest intraday drop since November 2025.

Despite the blowout results, investors remain concerned over the outlook for AI with growing questions about massive AI spending. Traders have also been spooked by the threat from AI disruption to major sectors.

Reported earnings:

$1.76 (+98% YoY) – Earnings per share (EPS) vs $1.54 est.
$68.10B (+73% YoY) – Revenue vs $66.13B est.

With Nvidia’s earnings wrapping up earnings season, the focus returns to global trade developments and geopolitical risk.

Trump’s tariff fiasco

Earlier this week, Trump’s global 10% tariffs went into effect, bringing trade uncertainty back on the table.

Last Friday’s Supreme Court ruling has created fresh confusion over the volley of trade deals negotiated by the United States. Foreign leaders are on standby with the EU moving to freeze their trade deal with the United States.

Bitcoin kisses $70,000

Bitcoin surged toward $70,000, snapping a three-day losing streak as global risk sentiment improved.

Still, the “OG” crypto is down almost 15% month-to-date – its worst month since November 2025. Despite the recent rebound, prices are still down more than 40% from its peak and down almost 50% from its October high of over $126,000.

Prices remain in a range with support at $60,000 and resistance $70,000. A breakout could be on the horizon.

USDInd eyeing bullish breakout?

It’s been a choppy week for the dollar with prices repeatedly testing resistance at 98.00.

On one side, the dollar has been pressured by renewed trade uncertainty amid Trump’s tariff fiasco. However, bulls are drawing strength from cooling Fed cut bets in the face of better-than-expected data.

A solid breakout above 98.00 may open a path toward the 200-day SMA and 99.00.

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

25 Feb

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral, and This Co. Is On a Fast Track to US Production

Source: Streetwise Reports (2/9/26)

The U.S. introduces new initiatives aimed at forming a preferential trade bloc for critical minerals like uranium. This company is on a literal fast-track for its projects in the Southwest.

Last week, the U.S. introduced new initiatives aimed at forming a preferential trade bloc for critical minerals like uranium, including coordinated price floors, as part of efforts to counter China’s dominance in this essential market for technology and defense, according to a CNBC report on February 5 by Dylan Butts.

These plans were discussed at a “Critical Minerals Ministerial” in Washington, which included representatives from 54 countries, the European Union, and senior Trump administration officials. Following the event, Washington announced that it had signed bilateral critical minerals agreements with 11 countries, building on 10 similar agreements made over the past five months. Negotiations were also completed with an additional 17 nations.

The Trump administration’s new minerals stockpile initiative, known as “Project Vault,” can encompass any materials identified as “critical” by the U.S. Geological Survey, a White House official told CNBC, according to another February 3 report by Pippa Stevens and Spencer Kimball for the website. The agency, which is part of the Interior Department, lists over 50 minerals as critical, including rare earths, lithium, uranium, and copper. These minerals are considered essential for national security, economic stability, and supply chain resilience. According to the USGS, these minerals are crucial because they “underpin key industries, drive technological innovation, and support critical infrastructure vital for a modern American economy.”

The objectives of these agreements are to tackle pricing challenges, encourage development, create fairer markets, and expand access to financing in the critical minerals sector. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who hosted the Ministerial, also announced the creation of the “Forum on Resource Geostrategic Engagement (FORGE)” on Wednesday. This partnership aims to coordinate critical mineral policy and projects.

“We have a number of countries that have signed on to that, and many more that we hope will do so… the purpose of FORGE is to foster collaboration and to build a network of partners across the world,” Rubio said.

FORGE will complement an earlier initiative between the U.S. and nine partners, known as “Pax Silica.” While Pax Silica focuses on safeguarding AI-related supply chains, FORGE is designed as a broader platform to coordinate critical mineral policy, pricing, and project development. Rubio highlighted the risks associated with the concentration of critical minerals in “one country,” implicitly referring to China, including geopolitical leverage and potential disruptions from pandemics or instability.

AI, Data Centers Begin Impacting Power Grids

Uranium is becoming one of the most important of these minerals. Predictions of increased electricity consumption from data centers are beginning to materialize, raising concerns about the impact on the power grid and the environment, according to a report by Benjamin Storrow for E&E News/Politico on December 24, 2025.

Commercial electricity demand, which serves as a proxy for data center power usage, rose by 2% in the first nine months of 2025 compared to the same period last year, following a 3% increase in 2024. This marks a significant shift for the U.S. power sector, which had experienced flat electricity demand for much of the past two decades.

Demand is expected to climb even higher as the Trump administration and tech companies aim to outpace China in artificial intelligence development. The consulting firm Grid Strategies forecasts that peak electricity demand nationwide could rise by 166 gigawatts by 2030, equivalent to adding 15 New York Cities over the next five years.

“We’re now seeing in the data what we’ve all been talking about the last couple years,” said Rob Gramlich, CEO of Grid Strategies. He estimated that data centers would contribute to 55% of the growth in U.S. electricity demand over the next five years. The increasing power needs of data centers have become a political issue as electricity costs rise for consumers.

AI data centers and the electrification of various industries are driving a surge in power demand that exceeds global supply, prompting companies, policymakers, and investors to reconsider nuclear power, according to a research report by Morgan Stanley on August 28, 2025. Morgan Stanley Research projects 586 gigawatts (GW) of new global nuclear capacity by 2050, which is 53% higher than their previous forecast last year when analysts noted a “renaissance” in the industry. They now estimate that potential investments in the nuclear value chain could reach US$2.2 trillion by 2050, up from the initial US$1.5 trillion forecast. This increased momentum is expected to benefit several sectors, including uranium mining, nuclear power generation, and the construction of equipment and plants. “The nuclear renaissance has been building for some time already—with 22 nations pledging to triple nuclear capacity by 2050 at the COP28 summit in December 2023, plant life extensions in Europe, a strong pipeline in China, and Japan continuing to restart capacity,” says Tim Chan, Morgan Stanley’s Head of Asia Sustainability Research. “The dual imperatives of decarbonization and energy security are making the nuclear renaissance a truly global investment theme.”

While natural gas is currently the primary alternative to meet AI’s energy needs, technology companies are willing to pay a premium to transition to nuclear energy. “We believe natural gas will be the primary near-term solution for powering AI data centers due to its speed to market, reliability, and flexibility, while nuclear power represents a longer-term clean energy alternative that is likely to gradually increase in importance,” said Stephen Byrd, Morgan Stanley’s Global Head of Sustainability Research. “Gas and nuclear are likely to play complementary roles.”

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral

Last fall, the USGS released the final 2025 list of critical minerals deemed essential to mitigate potential risks from disrupted supply chains, reported Nick Mordowanec for Military.com on December 1, 2025. Ten new minerals were added, including uranium, bringing the total to 60.

“This is the most comprehensive, science-based assessment yet of the minerals our nation relies on,” said USGS Director Ned Mamula. “Critical minerals underpin industries worth trillions of dollars, and import dependence puts key sectors at risk. This work helps secure the materials needed for U.S. economic growth and technological leadership.”

Trump has called for a quadrupling of nuclear power by 2050, the article reported.

Christo Liebenberg, co-founder and president of the U.S.-based uranium enrichment company LIS Technologies, told Military.com that there is “huge market demand” for uranium to bolster a domestic electricity grid facing challenges from expanding AI data centers across the country.

He noted the significance of the critical list now including 60 minerals — more than half of the 118 elements on the periodic table.

“Being on that list, it’s clear that it triggers a whole set of advantages,” Liebenberg said. “That makes mining uranium in the U.S. a lot easier, faster, and more attractive to investors. It’s like flipping a switch that says, ‘OK, everybody, uranium is now important. Let’s make mining in the US easier, cheaper, faster, and more predictable.’ Of course, this is exactly what would stimulate production. But the thing is, it doesn’t stop just with mining. Being on that list actually has a ripple effect through the entire nuclear fuel supply chain.”

Key actions and impacts for uranium under the U.S. critical minerals framework include fast-tracked permitting, reduced foreign reliance, strategic stockpiling, improved support for the mining industry, and energy security.

Companies With Tangible Operational Progress in the Spotlight

The uranium sector enters 2026 at a pivotal moment where operational execution increasingly distinguishes credible investment opportunities from speculative ventures, according to Henry Mann writing for Crux Investor on January 27. Spot uranium prices reached US$100 per pound in January 2026, marking 17-month highs. However, equity valuations across the sector reflect ongoing institutional caution about timing mismatches between nuclear buildouts and the upstream uranium supply response.

In this context of structural demand growth and supply fragility, companies demonstrating tangible operational progress — such as permitting momentum — are positioning themselves to attract capital as the gap between operational reality and equity pricing narrows, Mann wrote.

Chris Frostad, CEO of Purepoint Uranium, explains the demand fundamentals, according to Mann: “When a reactor begins operation, it creates a customer relationship lasting 40 years or more. Reactors operate under strict refueling schedules, and utilities know precisely how much fuel they will require annually for years into the future.” The growth in artificial intelligence infrastructure and data centers adds incremental demand considerations, though existing reactor fleets provide the foundation of predictable consumption.

In 2025, utilities contracted for approximately 82-85 million pounds of uranium, while replacement requirements approached 150-180 million pounds. However, utility contracting does not follow smooth patterns, as buyers may contract for 250 million pounds in a single year when conditions align with their strategies.

Laramide Resources Ltd.

One company uniquely positioned to take advantage of these events is Laramide Resources Ltd. (LAM:TSX; LMRXF:OTCQX: LAM:ASX), a uranium developer with both in-situ and hard-rock deposits located in the southwestern United States and Australia.

In June 2025, Laramide announced that its advanced-stage uranium projects, Crownpoint-Churchrock and La Jara Mesa in New Mexico, were designated as FAST-41 covered projects by the Federal Permitting Improvement Steering Council. This designation is part of the federal infrastructure permitting program established under Title 41 of the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act. It underscores the strategic importance of Laramide’s projects and streamlines the evaluation process.

The FAST-41 designation places these uranium projects among a select group of federally prioritized energy initiatives, receiving enhanced permitting coordination and transparency to support the Department of Energy’s domestic uranium reserve and the U.S. government’s broader energy-security goals.

“The project comprises two geographically distinct deposits: one at Crownpoint and the other at Churchrock,” the company said in a recent recap sent to Streetwise Reports. “They are unified under a single U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Source Material License. This regulatory status differentiates the project from many U.S. peers that remain at earlier permitting stages.”

Churchrock’s current NI 43-101 Inferred Mineral Resource is 50.8 million pounds U₃O₈ based on historic drilling consolidated into a modern database. Crownpoint adds an NI 43-101 Inferred Mineral Resource of 5.1 million pounds U₃O₈, also derived from historic datasets and interpreted for ISR-style mineralization geometry, the company said.

Laramide’s U.S. portfolio is “increasingly relevant against the backdrop of declining domestic uranium production and growing demand tied to nuclear energy, including life-extensions of existing reactors and new investments linked to data centers and advanced nuclear technologies,” Laramide said in the document. “With the majority of U.S. uranium supply currently imported, projects that are licensed, permitted, or moving visibly through federal processes have taken on heightened strategic importance.”

Analyst: Co. ‘Scans Very Well on Value’

Laramide is a uranium exploration and development company with projects in the western United States and Australia, according to Beacon Securities Analyst Michael Curran in an updated research note on November 3, 2025.

Crownpoint-Churchrock’s designation as a FAST-41 project is expected to streamline the permitting process as part of the U.S. government’s initiative to advance domestic critical mineral and metal projects toward production. This followed a similar designation for LAM’s La Jara Mesa project in early May, also in New Mexico.

“In mid-July, LAM’s Westmoreland project in Queensland, Australia, received a Mineral Development License (MDL), which allows Laramide to proceed with studies to advance the project towards a Mining Lease (ML) application,” the analyst wrote. “This work is likely to include metallurgical testing, environmental, engineering and design studies, as well as feasibility-related work.”

In July, Laramide raised gross proceeds of CA$12 million by issuing 20 million common shares at CA$0.60 each.

Beacon’s 12-month fair value increased from CA$1.45 to CA$1.50 per LAM share. As this still represents significant upside from current price levels, the firm maintained its BUY rating for Laramide Resources.

“In our view, Laramide represents an attractive investment for exposure to uranium developments in the top-tier mining jurisdictions,” Curran wrote. “Laramide’s assets are in areas of historical uranium mining, thus should have lower barriers to development than other jurisdictions.”

Curran said the firm’s preferred valuation for mining equities uses cash flow-based metrics such as P/CF and P/NAV, utilizing life-of-mine production forecasts and commodity price assumptions.

“However, for earlier-staged explorers where it is arguably too early to create a DCF model with much accuracy, we employ a more basic valuation metric of Adjusted Market Capitalization per total resource (AMC/lb) or Enterprise Value per resource pound (EV/lb),” the analyst wrote. For Laramide, he employed a hybrid model using DCF-based valuation for Churchrock and EV/lb valuation methods for the company’s other U.S. and Australian assets. Curran noted that Beacon currently did not attribute any value to the Kazakhstan assets.

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Laramide Resources Ltd. (LAM:TSX; LMRXF:OTCQX: LAM:ASX)

Retail: 70%
Strategic Investors: 19%
Insiders and Management: 11%
^*Share Structure as of 2/9/2026
Source: Laramide Resources Ltd.

Churchrock is recognized as a development-ready asset, as noted by SCP Equity Research analysts J. Chan, E. Magdzinski, and K. Kormpis in a June 3 research note. The company’s January 2024 PEA forecasts a 31-year operational lifespan, producing 31.2 million pounds at an all-in sustaining cost of US$34.83 per pound using ISR extraction methods.

With uranium valued at US$75 per pound, this results in a US$239 million after-tax NPV, strongly supporting Laramide’s evaluation. The plan involves accelerating wellfield development to increase output to 2-3 million pounds, thereby shortening the operational timeline while improving financial outcomes.

“We think Laramide scans very well on value, with two projects of reasonable size/scale in the U.S. and Australia (arguably two of the top three jurisdictions in today’s geopolitically bifurcating market),” the analysts remarked, giving the stock a Buy rating with a CA$1.35 per share target price.

Ownership and Share Structure¹

Laramide reports that insiders and management hold about 11% of the company, with strategic corporate entity Boss Energy Ltd. owning 19%. The remainder is held by retail investors.

Other major shareholders include Alps Advisors with 9.4%, Henderson with 6.82%, Mirae Asset Global Investments LLC with 4.78%, and Vident Investment Advisory LLC with 1.1%. As of February 9, its market capitalization is CA$215.06 million, with 283.62 million shares outstanding. It trades within a 52-week range of CA$0.46 to CA$0.91.

Important Disclosures:

Laramide Resources Ltd. is a billboard sponsor of Streetwise Reports and pays SWR a monthly sponsorship fee between US$3,000 and US$6,000.
Steve Sobek wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee.
This article does not constitute investment advice and is not a solicitation for any investment. Streetwise Reports does not render general or specific investment advice and the information on Streetwise Reports should not be considered a recommendation to buy or sell any security. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her personal financial adviser and perform their own comprehensive investment research. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

1. Ownership and Share Structure Information

The information listed above was updated on the date this article was published and was compiled from information from the company and various other data providers.

Energy Opinions

25 Feb

Coffee crops are dying from a fungus with species-jumping genes – researchers are ‘resurrecting’ their genomes to understand how and why

By Lily Peck, University of California, Los Angeles

For anyone who relies on coffee to start their day, coffee wilt disease may be the most important disease you’ve never heard of. This fungal disease has repeatedly reshaped the global coffee supply over the past century, with consequences that reach from African farms to cafe counters worldwide.

Infection with the fungus Fusarium xylarioides results in a characteristic “wilt” in coffee plants by blocking and reducing the plant’s ability to transport water. This blockage eventually kills the plant.

Some of the most destructive plant pathogens in the world infect their hosts in this way. Since the 1990s, outbreaks of coffee wilt have cost over US$1 billion, forced countless farms to close and caused dramatic drops in national coffee production. In Uganda, one of Africa’s largest producers, coffee production did not recover to pre-outbreak levels until 2020, decades after coffee wilt was first detected there. And in 2023, researchers found evidence that coffee wilt disease had resurfaced across all coffee-producing regions of Ivory Coast.

Studying the genetics of plant pathogens is crucial to understanding why this disease continues to return and how to prevent another major outbreak.

Rise and fall of coffee wilt disease in Africa

While early outbreaks of coffee wilt disease affected a wide range of coffee types, later epidemics primarily affected the two coffee species dominating global markets today: arabica and robusta.

First identified in 1927, coffee wilt disease decimated several varieties of coffee grown in western and central Africa. Although farmers combated the fungus with a shift to supposedly resistant robusta crops in the 1950s, the reprieve was short-lived.

The disease reemerged in the 1970s on robusta coffee, spreading through eastern and central Africa. By the mid-1990s, yields had collapsed and coffee production could not recover in countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Separately, researchers identified the disease on arabica coffee in Ethiopia in the 1950s and watched it become widespread by the 1970s

Two side-by-side maps of Africa with several regions highlighted to indicate coffee wilt disease outbreaks — Coffee wilt disease has spread widely in Africa. The first outbreak before the 1950s affected mainly central and western Africa (left map) while the second outbreak originated in central Africa and spread east (right map). Affected countries are colored by the decade the disease was first detected.
Peck et al 2023/Plant Pathology, CC BY-SA

Although coffee wilt disease is currently endemic at low and manageable levels across eastern and central Africa, any future resurgence of the disease could be catastrophic for African coffee production. Coffee wilt also poses a threat to producers in Asia and the Americas.

New types of disease emerge

Coffee wilt disease evolved alongside coffee itself. Over the past century, it has repeatedly reemerged, attacking different types of coffee each time. But did these shifts reflect the rapid evolution of new types of disease, or something else entirely?

Fungal disease has devastated plants for millennia, with the earliest records of outbreaks dating from the biblical plagues. Like humans, plants have an immune system that protects them against attacks from pathogens like fungi.

While most fungal attempts at infection fail, a small number do succeed thanks to the constant evolutionary pressure on pathogens to overcome host plant defenses. In this evolutionary arms race, pathogens and hosts continuously adapt to each other by genetically changing their DNA. Boom and bust cycles of disease occur as one gains advantage over the other.

The rise of modern agriculture has led to widespread monocultures of genetically uniform crops. While monocultures have significantly boosted food production, they have also contributed to environmental degradation and increased plant vulnerability to disease.

Crop breeders have attempted to protect monocultures by introducing disease resistance genes, with farms widely applying fungicides and other environmentally damaging products. But these relatively weak protections for hundreds of acres of identical plants have resulted in outbreaks decimating crops that people depend on.

It’s likely that modern agriculture’s reliance on monocultures has enabled and accelerated the evolution of new types of pathogen capable of overcoming resistance in plants. As a result, crops become more susceptible to disease outbreaks.

Resurrecting fungal strains

Understanding the lessons of the past is essential to avoiding future plant pandemics. But this can be challenging, because the specific pathogen strains that caused previous disease outbreaks may no longer exist in nature or may have changed substantially.

In my research on the evolutionary arms race between host and pathogen in coffee wilt disease, I sought to address these problems by “resurrecting” historical strains of the fungus that causes the disease, Fusarium xylarioides. Researchers know little about why the earlier and later outbreaks targeted different types of coffee, so I explored the genetic changes in F. xylarioides that underlie this narrowing of its hosts.

I reconstructed historical genetic changes in the major coffee wilt disease outbreaks over the past seven decades by using strains from a fungus library – culture collections that preserve living fungi. These libraries store long-term living data and reflect the fungal genetic diversity present at the time of collection.

Microscopy image of blue fuzzy sphere with long extensions — *Gibberella (Fusarium) xylarioides*, with arrow pointing to its spore-containing sac.
Julie Flood

Whether a pathogen takes the upper hand in the evolutionary arms race depends on its ability to generate new types of genes. It can do so either by changing and rearranging its DNA sequence or by moving DNA sequences between organisms in a process called horizontal gene transfer. These mechanisms can create new effector genes that enable pathogens to infect and colonize a host plant.

Initially, I sequenced six whole genomes of strains involved in outbreaks before the 1970s as well as later outbreaks that specifically targeted arabica or robusta coffee plants. I found that strains of F. xylarioides specific to arabica or robusta genetically differed from each other, with most of these differences inherited from parent to offspring. This process is called vertical inheritance.

Genes that jump between species

However, I also found that several regions of the F. xylarioides genome were potentially acquired horizontally from F. oxysporum, a global plant pathogen that infects over 120 crops, including bananas and tomatoes. These included different regions of the genome across strains specific to arabica and robusta coffee.

But did these changes introduce new effector genes in the F. xylarioides strains that infect arabica and robusta coffee plants specifically? To answer this question, I first sequenced and assembled the first F. xylarioides reference genome, stitching together long stretches of DNA. I then sequenced and compared this reference genome to the whole genomes of three more pre-1970s F. xylarioides strains and 10 additional historical Fusarium strains found on or around diseased coffee bushes, as well as F. xylarioides strains from infected arabica coffee seedlings.

I found substantial evidence for horizontal transfer of disease-causing genes between species of Fusarium. This includes the presence of giant genetic components called Starships in Fusarium. These so-called jumping genes carry their own molecular machinery, allowing them to move around or between genomes. Genes involved in adaptation, such as those linked to virulence, metabolism or host interaction, also move with them. Scientists think Starships may potentially enable fungi to adapt to changing environmental conditions.

I found that large and highly similar genetic regions, including Starships and active effector genes involved in disease, had moved from F. oxysporum to F. xylarioides. Importantly, different genetic regions were present across strains of F. xylarioides specific to arabica and robusta, but they were absent from other related Fusarium species. This suggests that these genes were gained from F. oxysporum.

Arming farmers with knowledge

Today, a third of all global crop yields are lost to pest and disease. Reconciling the tension between agricultural productivity and environmental protection is important to balance humanity’s needs for the future. Central to this challenge is reducing the spread of disease and new outbreaks.

On the flip side to monocultures, many plant species surrounding and within small and family-run coffee farms in sub-Saharan Africa may act as disease reservoirs, where fungi pathogens can lurk. These include banana trees and Solanum weeds in the tomato family that are susceptible to fungal infection.

Human farming practices may have inadvertently created an artificial niche for these fungi, with coffee bushes brought into widespread contact with banana plants and Solanum weeds. If fungi in the same genus can frequently exchange genetic material, it could accelerate the ability of plant pathogens to adapt to new hosts.

Testing noncoffee plants for F. xylarioides infection could reveal alternative plant species where different Fusarium fungi come into contact and exchange genetic material. This matters because across sub-Saharan Africa, coffee plants often share fields with banana trees and weeds. If these neighboring plants can harbor fungi that act as new sources of genetic variation, they may help fuel new disease strains.

Identifying the plants that can act as hosts to fungi could give farmers practical options to reduce coffee plants’ risk of disease, from targeted weed management to avoiding the planting of vulnerable crops side by side.

About the Author:

Lily Peck, Postdoctoral Scholar in Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles

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

Opinions Soft Commodities

24 Feb

Supreme Court rules against Trump’s emergency tariffs – but leaves key questions unanswered

By Kent Jones, Babson College

President Donald Trump’s economic agenda took a major hit when the Supreme Court struck down many of his most sweeping tariffs. While Trump has options to restore some of the tariffs, he’s losing his most powerful tool to impose them almost at will as a bargaining chip with other countries.

In a 6-3 decision on Feb. 20, 2026, the court ruled that Trump’s use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 to unilaterally impose tariffs on other countries was unconstitutional. Since January 2025, Trump has used the act to impose tariffs on nearly every other country.

As a trade economist, I wasn’t particularly surprised by the ruling. In the oral arguments, several justices were openly skeptical about the president’s ability to claim virtually unlimited powers to set tariffs without specific congressional language to authorize them. While the ruling answers some questions about the legality of Trump’s tariffs, it leaves many others unanswered.

What are the tariffs the court ruled against?

The tariffs that the court ruled are illegal include the “reciprocal” tariffs Trump imposed to match the value of trade barriers set by other countries. They ranged from 34% on China to a baseline of 10% for the rest of the world.

They also include a 25% tariff on some goods from Canada, China and Mexico over those countries’ supposed failure to curb the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.

By striking down these tariffs, the Supreme Court will presumably force U.S. tariff schedules to revert to the status quo before they were imposed on April 2, 2025, or “liberation day,” as Trump called it.

Why did the Supreme Court rule against the tariffs?

Most of the tariffs Trump has imposed used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to provide legal justification. While the law allows the president to respond to economic emergencies with measures such as embargoes and asset seizures, it does not specifically authorize the use of tariffs imposed unilaterally.

This was a major point made in the Supreme Court decision. In every other statute available to the president to use tariffs, there is specific language stating the way in which tariffs can be imposed, language that is absent in the International Emergency Economic Powers Act statute.

The majority decision, in which the court’s liberal justices were joined by three of its conservatives, determined that the president overreached his powers to set tariffs, based on Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S Constitution. Any delegation of tariff-making powers in an emergency to the president must be consistent with this provision.

It is also noteworthy that Trump openly declared that one of the benefits of the tariffs was how much revenue they bring in. But the majority decision noted that this represented an unauthorized presidential power to tax, which is also governed by the Article 1, Section 8, provision that assigns this power exclusively to Congress.

What does this mean for Trump’s trade policy?

Trump used the International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs as leverage to negotiate numerous bilateral deals with U.S. trading partners. Now that the tariffs have been declared unconstitutional, many countries may demand that the deals be renegotiated.

The decision does not cover all of the administration’s tariffs, including national security tariffs imposed under Section 232 for specific industries such as autos, steel and aluminum, and Section 301, a statute that allows the president to impose tariffs against individual countries if they have imposed unfair or discriminatory trade actions against the U.S. This covers some of the tariffs on imports from China.

What other options does Trump have to achieve similar results?

Trump has often used or threatened to use International Emergency Economic Powers Act tariffs for political reasons, including against Brazil over its prosecution of a former president, Mexico over immigration and Canada over its plans to sign a trade deal with China, and other reasons.

The Supreme Court decision will make it more difficult for Trump to use tariffs and tariff threats in that way. One outcome is that constitutional limits the justices set on presidential tariff-making powers should constrain the justification of tariffs for political reasons.

The main avenues for new tariffs in response to the Supreme Court decision are sections 232 and 301. The president could potentially try to get Congress to pass new legislation expanding his tariff powers, but that seems unlikely in an election year.

However, it is important to understand that he chose to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act as the mainspring of his trade policy because he interpreted it as providing him with full discretion in the unlimited power to impose tariffs without further congressional constraints.

In order to impose similar tariffs under Section 232, for example, each tariff order must be focused on a single industry, and the Commerce Department must issue a report documenting the emergency as it applies to that industry. Presumably, Trump will be preparing to use Section 232 for a large numbers of industries in addition to those currently covered by that statute.

For at least some of the countries with which Trump has already negotiated bilateral trade deals, many of their exports would not be covered by Section 232 tariffs, hence the likelihood that those countries will demand a renegotiation.

Will US companies get refunds for the tariffs they’ve already paid?

The Supreme Court decision appears not to address the question of tariff rebates, but many companies have already indicated that they will demand them.

In principle, any U.S. company in possession of tariff receipts documenting their payment of tariffs would be eligible for a refund if the Supreme Court approves this remedy.

What are the political consequences of this decision?

Since public opinion about Trump’s tariffs is already negative, the president will have to deal with a likely backlash against any attempts to replace the rejected tariffs with new ones.

It will be interesting to see how Republicans in Congress react to Trump’s tariff strategy in view of the upcoming midterm elections. For example, Republicans from states that border Canada may push back against further efforts to curb trade with their northern neighbor.

This may impose a further constraint on Trump’s tariff policy.

About the Author:

Kent Jones, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Babson College

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

24 Feb

Supreme Court delivers Trump a heavy tariff blow

By ForexTime

Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs 6-3
Trump announces new global tariffs of up to 15%
USD set for big week due to high-risk events
Precious metals rally on risk-off mode

After the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s tariffs on Friday, he fought back, announcing new global tariffs of 10% – which were hiked to 15% over the weekend.

This development has certainly opened a can of worms:

The $175 billion problem – The US government may have to refund ~$175 billion in duties already collected. *Note: Polymarket are forecasting a 20% chance*

Fiscal woes – Tariffs were projected to bring in trillions of dollars over the course of Trump’s term and beyond. With this gone, the fiscal outlook deteriorated further.

Existing trade deals – Senior US officials have also urged that Trump’s defeat won’t unravel deals negotiated with trade partners…

Renewed global trade uncertainty could spell trouble for US equities while supporting safe-haven assets.

Markets kicked off Sunday evening with price gaps from Friday’s close as investors reacted to the weekend turmoil.

USDInd: -0.3%
XAUUSD: +1%
XAGUSD: +3%

USDInd set for rollercoaster week?

DID YOU KNOW:

FXTM’s USDInd has gained roughly 1% month-to-date with prices lingering below 98.00.

WHAT COULD MOVE USDInd THIS WEEK:

It could be a pivotal week for the greenback thanks to a triple risk cocktail revolving around Trump.

Trump’s tariff chaos: A renewed sense of uncertainty over global trade following the Supreme Court’s decision and the ramifications it may have on the US economy could hit the dollar.

Trump’s State of the Union address: On Tuesday, President Trump will deliver the first State of the Union address of his second term. Any comments on the economy, immigration, and foreign policy may shake the greenback.

Trump’s threat to strike Iran: The United States and Iran are to hold the next round of nuclear talks in Geneva on Thursday after tensions escalated in recent days. Whatever the outcome of the talks may impact the US dollar.

Beyond these high-impact events, top US data and speeches by various Fed officials could add to the overall volatility.

POTENTIAL SCENARIOS:

BULLISH: A strong daily close above 98.00 may open a path toward the 200-day SMA, 100-day SMA and 99.00.

BEARISH: Weakness below 98.00 could signal a decline toward 97.00 and 96.50.

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

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.

Archive for Opinions – Page 2

The strategic importance of the Gulf states

A turning point for globalisation?

Supply chain disruption

Potential for escalation

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Australian Dollar & New Zealand Dollar

Speculators push Aussie Bets Higher, Euro & GBP Bets fall this week

Brazilian Real leads Currency Market Price Performance

Currencies Data:

Strength Scores led by Canadian Dollar & Australian Dollar

Australian Dollar & Canadian Dollar top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Euro Currency Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

British Pound Sterling Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Japanese Yen Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

Swiss Franc Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Canadian Dollar Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Australian Dollar Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Mexican Peso Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

Brazilian Real Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

Bitcoin Futures:

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

Australian Dollar

Speculators or Non-Commercials Notes:

Canadian Dollar

Steel

Palladium

Ultra 10-Year

The Most Bearish Speculator Positions of the Week:

Natural Gas

Sugar

Cocoa Futures

Brent Oil

2-Year Bond

How natural hydrogen forms

The science and the search

Massive reserves – somewhere

Global hot spots

Technical barriers

Economics and efficiency

The world’s most valuable company delivered a 73% surge in fourth quarter revenue and beat analyst estimates.

Reported earnings:

Trump’s tariff fiasco

Bitcoin kisses $70,000

USDInd eyeing bullish breakout?

AI, Data Centers Begin Impacting Power Grids

Uranium Is Now a Critical Mineral

Companies With Tangible Operational Progress in the Spotlight

Laramide Resources Ltd.

Analyst: Co. ‘Scans Very Well on Value’

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Ownership and Share Structure1

Rise and fall of coffee wilt disease in Africa

New types of disease emerge

Resurrecting fungal strains

Genes that jump between species

Arming farmers with knowledge

What are the tariffs the court ruled against?

Why did the Supreme Court rule against the tariffs?

What does this mean for Trump’s trade policy?

What other options does Trump have to achieve similar results?

Will US companies get refunds for the tariffs they’ve already paid?

What are the political consequences of this decision?

After the Supreme Court ruled against Trump’s tariffs on Friday, he fought back, announcing new global tariffs of 10% – which were hiked to 15% over the weekend.

USDInd set for rollercoaster week?

Ownership and Share Structure¹