Archive for Opinions – Page 2

20 Feb

The Arsenal Beneath Our Feet: Inside the US Defense Industrial Base Consortium

Source: Jason Williams (2/17/26) 

America is rebuilding its defense supply chain from the ground up, and a select group of mining companies now sits at the center of national security.

For decades, the U.S. defense conversation focused on jets, missiles, ships, and software — the visible hardware of military might.

What almost nobody talked about was the industrial engine underneath it all…

The Quiet Machine Behind American Power

The mines, processors, refiners, manufacturers, and logistics chains that turn rocks in the ground into weapons, infrastructure, and strategic leverage.

But that engine now has a name that’s finally entering the public conversation: the U.S. Defense Industrial Base Consortium.

At its core, the Consortium exists to strengthen, coordinate, and secure the Defense Industrial Base — often shortened to the DIB.

You can think of it as the full ecosystem of companies that supply materials, components, technology, and production capacity essential to U.S. national defense.

This includes not just traditional defense contractors, but the upstream producers that make everything else possible.

And in today’s geopolitical reality, upstream means minerals.

Why Washington Suddenly Cares About Where Materials Come From

For years, globalization made supply chains cheap, efficient, and fragile. Critical inputs were sourced wherever costs were lowest, often from geopolitical rivals.

That worked… until it didn’t.

Trade wars, sanctions, hot conflicts, cyber warfare, and industrial espionage exposed a dangerous truth…

The U.S. military cannot be stronger than its weakest supply chain link.

When rare earths, uranium, silver, or specialty metals come from hostile or unstable jurisdictions, national security becomes a hostage to foreign policy.

The Defense Industrial Base Consortium was built to fix that problem.

Its mission isn’t flashy, but it’s existential…

Identify vulnerabilities, coordinate domestic capacity, accelerate permitting and production, and align private companies with national defense priorities long before a crisis hits.

This isn’t about hypothetical future wars. It’s about readiness — today.

Why Membership Is a Strategic Asset, not a Press Release

For companies inside the Consortium’s orbit, participation is far more than symbolic…

It acts as a signal flare to Washington, the Pentagon, and capital markets that a company is strategically relevant.

Membership opens doors to federal coordination, long-term procurement visibility, and policy alignment that non-members simply don’t get.

It also places companies inside the conversation when rules are written around permitting reform, domestic sourcing mandates, stockpiling programs, and defense funding priorities.

In plain English, Consortium-aligned companies stop being “just another miner” or manufacturer. They become infrastructure.

That distinction matters when governments are deciding who gets funding, who gets fast-tracked, and who becomes indispensable.

And that brings us to a new and very important development: mining companies are now stepping into the defense spotlight.

Apollo Silver Corp: Silver as a Strategic Metal Again

One of the more interesting names to emerge in this shift is Apollo Silver Corp. (APGO:TSX.V; APGOF:OTCQB).

Silver rarely gets framed as a defense metal in popular discourse, but it absolutely should.

It is critical to advanced electronics, missile guidance systems, secure communications, solar-powered defense infrastructure, and a growing range of aerospace and energy applications.

Modern warfare is digital, electrified, and sensor-dense — and silver sits at the center of that reality.

Apollo Silver’s alignment with the Defense Industrial Base Consortium reflects a broader recognition that precious metals are no longer just financial hedges or industrial afterthoughts.

They’re strategic inputs.

Domestic silver supply, especially from stable U.S. jurisdictions, reduces exposure to foreign bottlenecks at a time when defense systems are becoming more metal-intensive, not less.

This is silver growing up. And investors who still think of it as a shiny relic are missing the plot.

MP Materials: Rare Earths, Real Power

If Apollo Silver represents the rediscovery of an old strategic metal, MP Materials Corp. (MP:NYSE) represents the hard lesson of losing an entire supply chain.

Rare earth elements are essential to fighter jets, precision-guided munitions, radar systems, drones, and electric propulsion.

For years, the U.S. outsourced this capability almost entirely. The result was a near-total dependence on China for materials that underpin modern warfare.

While it’s yet to become an official member, MP Materials and its government investment reflects a national effort to reverse that mistake.

By rebuilding domestic mining, processing, and magnet production capacity, MP isn’t just supplying materials — it’s restoring strategic autonomy.

This is what “onshoring” looks like when it actually matters. Not slogans. Capacity.

Energy Fuels: Nuclear Security Starts at the Mine

The third pillar in this emerging defense-miner alignment is Energy Fuels Inc. (EFR:TSX; UUUU:NYSE.American).

Nuclear energy sits at a strange intersection of civilian infrastructure and national defense.

Uranium fuels power grids, but it also underpins naval propulsion, deterrence credibility, and long-term strategic stability.

A nation that cannot secure its nuclear fuel cycle cannot fully secure its defense posture.

Energy Fuels’ participation in Defense Industrial Base initiatives reflects a recognition that uranium independence is not optional. It is foundational…

From fueling reactors to supporting advanced nuclear technologies, domestic uranium production is a national security imperative hiding in plain sight.

This is less about profits next quarter and more about sovereignty next decade.

The Bigger Picture Most Investors Are Missing

Here’s the part the market is still slow to price in…

The Defense Industrial Base Consortium represents a structural shift in how America thinks about industry.

Efficiency is no longer king. Resilience is. Redundancy is. Domestic capacity is.

That shift doesn’t happen overnight, but once it starts, it doesn’t reverse easily…

Defense supply chains are sticky. Relationships last decades. Contracts roll forward. Strategic suppliers become embedded.

For investors, that means something profound…

Companies aligned with national defense priorities often enjoy longer runways, stronger political tailwinds, and a margin of safety that purely commercial players don’t.

Apollo Silver, MP Materials, and Energy Fuels aren’t just operating in hot commodity markets. They’re operating in markets that Washington has decided it cannot afford to lose.

And historically, when that happens, capital follows policy.

This Isn’t a Trade—It’s a Theme

Let’s call this what it is…

The Defense Industrial Base is being rebuilt in real time, under pressure, with urgency. The Consortium is the connective tissue making that rebuild possible.

Mining companies inside this orbit are no longer background players. They are strategic assets.

The smartest investors won’t wait until everyone else starts calling these companies “defense stocks.”

By then, the easy money is gone.

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers, contractors, shareholders, and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Energy Fuels Inc.
  2. Jason Williams: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: Apollo Silver Corp. My company has a financial relationship with: None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: None. I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports, Street Smart, or their officers. The author is wholly responsible for the accuracy of the statements. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Any disclosures from the author can be found  below. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  4.  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.

Opinions Stock Market News
19 Feb

Week In Review: Brent rallies, hawkish Fed minutes, US PCE in focus

By ForexTime 

  • Mixed week for equities due to lack of catalyst
  • Brent hits $71 on geopolitical risk
  • Hawkish Fed minutes hit rate cut bets
  • Gold on standby ahead of US PCE

It has been a relatively quiet week for markets due to the absence of any significant fundamental drivers.

US equities got off to a slow start due to the public holiday on Monday, while Chinese markets were closed all week thanks to the Lunar New Year. Lingering worries over the outlook for artificial intelligence promoted some volatility, but this was nothing special compared to previous weeks.

Yesterday evening, the Fed minutes showed several officials suggesting the central bank may need to raise rates if inflation remains stubbornly high. With only two dissenters favoring a cut and no indications of further easing, this shaved Fed cut bets for 2026.

Before the meeting, traders were pricing a 50% chance of three Fed cuts this year; this figure had dipped to under 30%.

In response, the dollar gained with FXTM’s DXY punching above 97.70.

Prices are turning bullish on the daily charts with a solid breakout above 98.00, opening a path toward the 200-day and 10-day SMA.

Looking at commodities, oil extended its biggest daily jump since October amid mounting geopolitical risk. Growing concerns around the US and Iran sinking deeper into a fresh conflict sparked fears around supply.

Brent touched $71 a barrel on Wednesday after rallying over 4% on Wednesday. Oil benchmarks have gained over 15% year-to-date, with the risk of conflict pushing prices higher.

Indeed, a potential war in the region that pumps about a third of the world’s oil could result in major supply disruptions – boosting oil prices.

It’s been a flat week for gold with prices hovering around $5000. The precious metal seems to be waiting for the incoming US PCE/GDP combo which may shape Fed cut bets. A strong breakout above $5000 may open a path toward $5100. Weakness below $5000 could see prices test $4900.

 

Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

 

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions
19 Feb

AI Agent Firm With Payments Technology Expands Into Texas, New Jersey

Source: Streetwise Reports (2/17/26)

The FUTR Corp. (FTRC:TSX; FTRCF:OTC) announces it has signed agreements with four new dealerships, expanding the reach of its FUTR Payments product into Houston, Texas, and further strengthening its presence in New Jersey. Find out why one analyst says the company is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this “pivotal moment” in the history of AI.

The FUTR Corp. (FTRC:TSX; FTRCF:OTC) announced that it has signed agreements with four new auto dealerships, expanding the reach of its FUTR Payments product into Houston, Texas, and further strengthening its presence in New Jersey, according to a February 17 release from the company.

FUTR is the creator of the FUTR Agent App, which allows users to store, manage, access, and monetize their personal information and make real-time payments.

AI agents were at the center of what “is shaping up to be one of the most audacious branding plays in the history of the internet,” a new US$70 million mega deal for the domain name AI.com announced during last weekend’s Super Bowl.

The signed agreements mark FUTR Payments’ first dealer relationship in Texas and are the initial results of the company’s newly deployed sales resources aimed at geographic expansion and reinforcing its presence in existing markets. With these agreements, FUTR Payments’ U.S. footprint now includes Texas, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Florida, Iowa, and Connecticut.

These initial dealership partnerships are expected to serve as reference points as FUTR Payments continues to grow its presence in U.S. regional markets. The company said it plans to provide future updates as more dealerships, dealer groups, and regions join the platform.

“Expanding our footprint in New Jersey and entering the Texas market represent an important inflection point for FUTR Payments as we scale our platform across major U.S. markets,” said FUTR Payments Chief Business Officer Mindy Bruns. “These early dealership partnerships validate the demand we’re seeing for intelligent payment infrastructure that helps consumers build financial security while enabling dealers to engage customers in more durable, data-driven ways. We believe this expansion is an early indicator of the broader national opportunity ahead.”

Texas is one of the largest and most diverse automotive markets in the United States, with a significant concentration of independent and used-vehicle dealerships. Trailer Wheel & Frame Co., the company’s first Houston dealer, introduces a new asset category for FUTR Payments, expanding the applicability of its intelligent payment rails beyond traditional automotive inventory. The newly signed agreement with Speedway Motors LLC in Paterson, N.J., further expands the company’s presence in New Jersey by adding three more storefronts.

FUTR Payments is part of FUTR’s broader strategy, which combines intelligent payment infrastructure with consented consumer data and AI-enabled Agents.

Analyst: A ‘Pivotal Moment’ in AI Marketing

According to an updated research note by Research Capital Corp. Analyst Greg McLeish on February 11, “This year’s Super Bowl marked a pivotal moment in how artificial intelligence is being marketed to consumers.”

AI-related advertising has emerged as a key theme, illustrating how quickly AI has transitioned from an abstract concept to a mainstream consumer offering, Business Insider reported. The focus has shifted from chatbots to utility-driven AI systems that can perform tasks on behalf of users. In this context, Crypto.com’s launch of AI.com garnered significant attention and traffic, highlighting the growing interest in “AI agents that do things,” rather than systems that merely respond to prompts. Additionally, OpenClaw’s viral success in late January provided further validation, showing that autonomous, task-executing agents are gaining traction across both consumer platforms and developer communities. These developments indicate that AI agents are becoming mainstream as everyday utilities, rather than novelty tools.

“Crypto.com’s Super Bowl debut of AI.com reinforced that AI agents are moving decisively beyond experimental chat interfaces into mass-market, action-oriented tools,” McLeish wrote. “By committing roughly US$70 million for the AI.com domain and positioning its product as a ‘private AI agent,’ the company highlighted a shift toward autonomous digital assistants capable of managing schedules, automating workflows, and completing tasks on behalf of users. Post-game traffic reportedly overwhelmed early infrastructure, reinforcing strong initial engagement and signaling that consumer adoption is increasingly driven by execution rather than conversation.”

While recent agent launches validate the rising demand for autonomous AI, many early entrants lack the infrastructure needed for durable, real-world deployment, the analyst said.

“The FUTR Corp. is differentiated by anchoring its AI Agent in a SOC 2–compliant digital vault and embedding it directly into regulated financial workflows,” McLeish wrote. “FUTR’s platform combines compliance-grade data infrastructure, live banking and payment rails, and enterprise integrations that allow an agent not only to recommend actions, but to execute them securely across payments, credit, insurance, and home finance. Unlike consumer-facing agents that rely on generic cloud access, or open-source solutions that place security and operational burdens on the user, FUTR’s agent operates within institutional guardrails and is distributed through enterprise partnerships.”

McLeish continued, “In our view, this positions FUTR as an AI-native financial infrastructure layer, rather than a chatbot alternative, as agents move from novelty to necessity.”

Research Capital Corp. maintained its Speculative Buy rating on the stock with a CA$3 target price, a 991% return based on a sum-of-the-parts valuation taken at the time of writing.

“The result is a high-conviction opportunity at the intersection of consumer data, tokenized incentives, and privacy-first infrastructure,” McLeish said.

Most Expensive Domain Purchase in History

The US$70 million acquisition of AI.com by Crypto.com founder Kris Marszalek marks the most expensive domain purchase in history, paid entirely in cryptocurrency to an undisclosed seller, as reported by the Financial Times and covered by Connie Loizos for TechCrunch on February 8. This transaction sets a new standard in domain sales, surpassing previous record holders such as CarInsurance.com at US$49.7 million (2010), VacationRentals.com at US$35 million (2007), and Voice.com at US$30 million (2019).

In a letter to shareholders following the announcement, Alex McDougall, CEO of The FUTR Corp. (FTRC:TSX; FTRCF:OTC), stated that this acquisition “officially marks the beginning of functional AI Agents going mainstream.”

McDougall expressed the belief that this will become “the largest category the world has ever seen and as foundational as the advent of the internet.” He emphasized that FUTR is “ideally positioned to be at the front of the wave that is here.”

McDougall outlined the company’s progress: “We have set up the infrastructure in Q2, built the technology stack through Q3, signed the first wave of commercial partnerships through Q4, and now in Q1 it’s coming to market and the timing couldn’t be better” for FUTR’s agent. The company’s agent offers significant real-world utility, such as rewarding users for taking a picture of their property tax slip, knowing when those taxes are due, helping reserve cash flow in the budget to pay the tax, reminding users 15 days before the due date, comparing property taxes to other neighborhoods and home values, making the payment, and even reporting the payment to credit bureaus to maximize credit scores.

“That’s deep real-world utility,” McDougall said.

AI Agents Tailored to Your Data

According to FUTR, the AI agent within their app is not only easily accessible but also operates under your guidance, tailored specifically to your data. This AI is designed for individuals and works exclusively for you around the clock to accomplish your tasks. It integrates data from various sources and smoothly handles complex financial queries and services. “Chat GPT can find you information. It can order you food. It can do things in your browser,” McDougall told Streetwise Reports. But “FUTR can take your insurance policy, tell you where it’s good, where it’s bad, and find you a better one from our curated brand partners. If you put your mortgage into it, FUTR can read it, learn about it, tell you what clauses are suspect, find a better payment schedule for you, and then actually connect to payment rails and make those payments for you to take that intelligence and turn it into real action.”

For renters, FUTR could track when to renew your lease and report your rent payments to the credit bureau to help build your credit. “That’s really a key differentiator,” McDougall said. “There are a lot of AI agents that can tell you things. FUTR can go and do things for you.”

In a unique feature, FUTR tokens, created by the FUTR Foundation on the BASE Blockchain that powers the FUTR ecosystem, reward consumers and enterprises with tokens for sharing data, which they can use to purchase goods and services from FUTR brand partners. “Brands can purchase FUTR tokens or earn them from consumers and use those tokens to pay for leads from FUTR,” the company stated on its website.

According to the company, upcoming catalysts that could impact the stock price include the broad launch of the FUTR AI Agent App and FUTR Token sometime this quarter. The company also plans to introduce a FUTR Visa card.

The Catalyst: ‘Your Person For Everything’

According to the company, FUTR’s agent “can be your person for everything,” as McDougall explained. Unlike Chat GPT, which is designed for billions and processes data in a generalized way, the FUTR AI creates a personalized AI stack for each user, which the company refers to as “high fidelity AI.” A key advantage is that instead of your data being monetized without your knowledge, “every piece of data that goes into this agent and into this engine, you’re getting paid for it,” he said.

AI-powered shopping, with agents like FUTR’s acting on our behalf, signifies a major shift in the marketplace, according to a report by McKinsey & Co. This development points to a future where AI anticipates consumer needs, explores shopping options, negotiates deals, and completes transactions, all aligned with human intentions but operating independently through multistep processes enabled by reasoning models.

“This isn’t just an evolution of e-commerce,” the report stated. “It’s a rethinking of shopping itself in which the boundaries between platforms, services, and experiences give way to an integrated intent-driven flow, through highly personalized consumer journeys that deliver a fast, frictionless outcome.”

Streetwise Ownership Overview*

Insiders and Management: 23%
Share Structure as of 2/3/2026

By 2030, the U.S. B2C retail market alone could see up to US$1 trillion in orchestrated revenue from agentic commerce, with global estimates ranging from US$3 trillion to US$5 trillion, according to McKinsey research. This trend is expected to have an impact comparable to previous web and mobile-commerce revolutions, but it could progress even more rapidly since agents can navigate the same digital paths to purchase as humans, effectively “riding on the rails” established by these earlier transformations, researchers noted.

“This presents both benefits and risks for today’s commerce ecosystem,” McKinsey explained. “All kinds of businesses — brands, retailers, marketplaces, logistics and commerce services providers, and payments players — will need to adapt to the new paradigm and successfully navigate the challenges of trust, risk, and innovation.”

Ownership and Share Structure1

Approximately 23% of the company is owned by management and insiders. The remainder is held by retail investors.

Top shareholders include G. Scott Paterson with 8.38%, Melrose Ventures LLC with 2.08%, Michael Hillmer with 0.74%, Ashish Kapoor with 0.55%, and Jason G. Ewart with 0.52%.

The company’s market cap on February 12 was CA$35.1 million with 125.36 million shares outstanding. It trades within a 52-week range of CA$0.09 and CA$0.42.

Important Disclosures:

  1. The FUTR Corp. is a billboard sponsor of Streetwise Reports and pays SWR a monthly sponsorship fee between US$3,000 and US$6,000.
  2. As of the date of this article, officers, contractors, shareholders, and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of The FUTR Corp.
  3. Steve Sobek wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an employee.
  4. 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.

Opinions Programming
18 Feb

Gold and Silver Move in Different Directions

Source: Adrian Day (2/17/26)

Global Analyst Adrian Day looks at the action of gold and silver the week of February 7, 2026, and shares his view on how to invest. He also looks at developments from several companies on his list.

The action in gold and silver over the past week since the large drops is mixed. Since the Monday low for gold just above $4,000 (1:38 a.m. Eastern), the action has been encouraging, with gold gaining over $900, if not steadily. Silver, however, fell further.

It staged an impressive rally at the beginning of the week moving over $90, before dropping again, hitting its low of just over $64 an ounce on Friday morning in Asia, before recovering to close a tad below $78. That is 36% down from the high a week-ago Thursday, while gold is down just 11% from its peak.

We expect these trends to continue, with gold moving two steps forward, one back for the next few weeks before hitting new highs within a couple of months. I expect we have see the lows. Silver, however, I expect to be more volatile, and may retest its lows, but I expect it to be longer before we see new highs.

Should You Invest Now in the Precious Metals Equities?

We are buying the gold stocks, perhaps with a narrower focus, and opportunistically. Given the volatility, we are looking to buy the bests companies on the down days. Thursday was a good day to buy, but we were scarcely buying anything Friday. As for silver, the declines in the equities have been fairly muted given the large decline in the metal.

In fairness, though, many of the silver names had not moved higher in line with the silver price in December and January. However, a longer recovery with perhaps new lows for silver might see the stocks decline further. Thus, we have few “top buys” among the gold stocks below, but if you are an active trader, you should be alert to any pullbacks during the week.

Barrick Plans Reorganization With New CEO

Barrick Mining Corp. (ABX:TSX; B:NYSE) released year-end results and forward guidance, overshadowed by a flood of important announcements on the company’s strategy and future. Disturbingly, many details were omitted, even when questioned by analysts.

  • The company plans to proceed with an IPO of its North American assets, including the Nevada Gold Mines (NGM), saying it intended to IPO a minority of around 10-15% of its interest with a target completion in the fourth quarter of this year. However, details were light, and during its analyst call, it would not respond to several questions on the specifics.
  • It completed an operational review, with safety top priority. Business units have been restructured, with Pueblo Viejo going into the North American region, now overseen by Tim Crib, moved from Reko Diq; he is the group COO. The review appears to have been focused on Nevada which had had some operational issues in recent years, and difficulty attracting and retaining people. A Chief Technical Officer has been named at the group level.
  • Barrick said its board is concerned about security in Balochistan, the province hosting the Reko Diq copper project. A review of the project is underway, though the company says “all options are being considered.”
  • It named Mark Hill as permanent CEO after “an extensive search”. He stepped in as interim CEO when Mark Bristow abruptly left the company in September. Hill joined Barrick in 2019 after the merge with Randgold and was not seen as a Bristow loyalist.
  • Barrick also introduced a new dividend policy, increasing its base dividend, and changing its bonus dividend program to a target of 50% of free cash flow. This equates to an estimated yield of 3.7%, one of the largest in the industry. This replaces the policy based on free cash on the balance sheet that had been in place only a couple of years, and adds more discretion to the dividend.
  • The new dividend policy will replace buybacks going forward; the share buyback authorization has not been renewed for 2026. Last year, Barrick repurchased $1.5 billion of shares, representing about 3% of the shares outstanding. It was only a few years ago that Barrick started a buyback program, after stubbornly rejecting it for years under Bristow.

Pakistan Project’s Future Appears Uncertain

Barrick seems to be moving towards a smaller North American-focused company, with growing indications it will (or at least wants to) scale back its investments in Pakistan. One sign was its statement that it had paused proceeding with a loan for the project until its review had been concluded.

“It is too early to say” if a divestiture is on the table. As discussed before, the Saudi Arabian sovereign wealth fund wants into the project and was earlier rebuffed by Barrick who told the Saudis they should buy some of the Pakistan government’s stake. So there might be a ready buyer for part of Barrick’s interest.

North American IPO Only a Minority Interest, With Details Unclear

The North American assets proposed for the new company IPO represent just under 60% of Barrick’s NAV. The small spin off ensues that Barrick retains a controlling interest in NGMs and the other joint-venture mines. Separating the higher-quality North American assets will help to release some value but, if it spins off less than 15% of its interest–so less than 10% of the total mines–I question whether the new company would trade at the premium multiple the company is expecting. Conglomerate discounts are common, due to the complexity of organizations, and a partial spin off of assets partially owned, add to complexity.

Several question remain hanging over the transaction, most notably the ROFR held by Newmont Corp. (NEM:NYSE; NGT:TSX; NEM:ASX). Barrick, in answers to questions, said “we are well aware of our legal contracts,” which does not really answer the question. The last thing the company needs is a legal dispute with Newmont over rights.

Given that Newmont apparently has a ROFR on NGM, is a partner in the Pueblo Viejo mine, and has rights to invest in Fourmile, Newmont must be looking seriously at whether to make a bid for these assets. On the analyst call, Barrick would not say whether it had held talks with Newmont over its rights. In addition, Barrick has yet to address the use of proceeds; and the domicile of the new company, important for index inclusion.

A Large Dividend Boost, Despite Capital Needs

The new dividend policy represents an annual distribution of $2.8 billion or more. Given the company’s large capital requirements, one might question the wisdom of such a large dividend.

This might also be another signal on intentions regarding Reko Dik. Although one metric may be better than another, the large gold companies (Barrick and Newmont) have a history of introducing dividend policies only to abandon or change them, which defeats the point of having a policy in the first place. Barrick’s previous policy had only been in place a couple of years.

Results Were Strong, Though Guidance Soft

The announcements on the IPO, Pakistan, the new CEO, and the dividend, overshadowed the fourth-quarter results which were in line with expectations, though guidance was distinctly weak. The fourth-quarter saw strong financial results, with the highest production of the year (as indicated by Bristow last January that it would), and unsurprisingly, given the gold and copper prices, record cash flow and adjusted earnings per share.

Gold production was up 5% over the third-quarter, driven by large increases at the Nevada mines, while copper output was 13% higher than Q3, primarily driven by Lumwana in Zambia. However, costs in the fourth quarter were higher than anticipated. Annual shareholder returns in 2025, from share buybacks and the dividend, were the highest ever.

On specific mines, Barrick said it had restarted all three underground mines at Loulo-Gounkoto in Mali and said the relationship with the government is being reset. It paid the government over quarter-of-a-billion dollars to settle the dispute as well as committing to pay the government all retained earnings. In addition, it appears to have conceded the government’s demand to increase its ownership to 20%. Barrick said the mine complex was expected to produce this year only half its 2024 output as it ramps back up.

It also said that recoveries at the Pueblo Viejo mine in Dominican Republic remain a challenge, and it set a new lower target recovery rate. Currently recoveries are around 75% and the new target is 84%. Hill said that, despite lower recovery rates, the mine life would be extended to 2048 maintaining the same total output produced.

Guidance Calls for Lower Production and Higher Costs

Guidance for 2026 was soft, with no guidance beyond. The company said it expected the seventh consecutive year of lower gold production, 10% higher costs (14% above consensus estimates), and significantly higher capex than expected (again, questioning the dividend increase). The production drop comes despite the restart of Loulo-Gounkoto. Once again, the second-half is expected to be stronger with about 55% of the annual production. It would appear, however, that the company has deliberately set cautious guidance, which it aims to achieve, rather than the admittedly optimistic guidance provided by Bristow, which often seemed more like goals.

Longer term, the company indicated that the cost outlook beyond 2026 should remain flat, rather than the cost reductions earlier indicated. This was in response to a question. Interesting, and rather disturbingly, many of the more significant details (long-term cost outlook, size of NGM IPO and more) were only revealed in answers to questions rather than stated upfront by the company.

Barrick’s proven and probable reserves totaled 85 million ounces at year-end, calculated at $1,500, with 150 million ounces of measured and indicated resources, calculated at $2,000. These numbers are lower than 2024 due to the sale of two mines. Copper resources, calculated at $3.25/lb, remained stabled at 18 million ounces. For reference, spot prices at $4,964 and $5.88, so the assumed prices seem very low.

We are holding, awaiting progress on the North American IPO.

Transition at Wheaton as CEO Moves Up

Wheaton Precious Metals Corp. (WPM:TSX; WPM:NYSE) said founder and CEO Randy Smallwood would step down and become non-executive Chairman of the Board, to be replaced at CEO by current President, Haytham Hodaly. Helping to found the company in 2004, Smallwood has led the company for 15 years.

A mining engineer by training and former analyst at RBC, Hodaly joined Wheaton in 2012 and has recently been in charge of executing streaming transactions.

Hold.

Tether Strengthens Its Grip on Metalla

Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd. (MTA:TSX.V; MTA:NYSE American) saw Tether report additional share purchases, taking its stake to 8.9%. It last reported a month ago, with 7.8%. It appears to be buying in the market, consistently, rather than actively taking advantage of price dips. It is now the second largest holder, behind Beedie Investments (10.3%) which had provided debt facilities to the company before converting entirely to equity, and ahead of Euro Pacific at 6.2%.

(Disclosure: I manage Euro Pacific gold fund and gold accounts.)

Metalla is a buy independent of Tether’s growing interest.

Ares Maintains Dividend and Credit Standing

Ares Capital Corp. (ARCC:NASDAQ) reports a solid quarter, with 50 cents per share of core earnings, once again in excess of the dividend, which remains stable at 48 cents per quarter. Credit, both non-accruals and the investment grade, remained stable, while the Net Asset Value increased slightly over the year-ago quarter (though modestly down quarter-on-quarter). It is the highest rated BDC by all three ratings agencies.

New activity remains strong, with the majority for loans during the year to existing portfolio companies, for growth, while the second half saw a pick up of new borrowers, adding over 100 new companies. Exits averaged an IRR of 25%. The company remains in a great position to invest in undervalued areas with high cash balance and low leverage.

In keeping the dividend flat, the company said it was in a good position to maintain the dividend, despite lower rates in the economy. It has low leverage (1.08x), its portfolio companies have strong debt coverage, while its carry forward income equivalent to $1.38 per share, represents nearly three quarters of dividends, providing a cushion for any temporary income shortfalls. It estimates that the decline in rates, and therefore a decline in earnings, will represent about 1 cent per share in the current quarter.

How Exposed to Software Weakness in Ares?

On the analyst call, there was much discussion on the risks posed by the software industry. It was positive to see the company tackle the subject head on, and not wait for questions to respond. CEO Kort Schnabel said the company recognized the risks of new technology and obsolescence. But he added that Ares’s portfolio will remain “highly resistant”, since it invests in foundational technology, as well as software for regulated industries, which are much slower to change software.

Trading just below NAV with a yield of 9.95%, Ares is a buy for long-term income investors. Disruption in the sector, however, including possible dividend cuts or credit troubles, even at other companies, will raise concerns about even the strongest companies in the sector, so we may see increased volatility going forward.

Hutchison’s Revenue and Profits Increase as It Struggles With Global Trade

Hutchison Port Holdings Trust (HPHT:Singapore)  reported revenue up 2.6% for the year, with profit up over 15%. Despite this, the final distribution was cut again, to 6½ cents (HKD) down from 8 cents two years ago, representing a forward dividend of 6.7%. Revenue rose thanks to higher throughput at the Yantian terminals in Shenzhen. The company noted that though exports from Yantian remained strong, more ships were returning empty. Throughput at the Hong Kong terminals, which were the historic base of the company, fell again, by over 6%. The high profits increase was largely due to the revaluation of the company’s yuan-denominated financial assets, offset partly by higher capex.

The company said the outlook was uncertain, facing “a complex landscape marred by the constant shifting in trade and tariff policies.” The new “China plus one” strategy of diversifying dependence on China for materials, is unlikely to change back to sole reliance on China, even if the trade dispute smooths over, in my view. So this is a fundamental shift for Hutchison. At the same time, growth across Europe is expected to be subdued amid geopolitical tensions.

Hold, particularly as part of a diversified income portfolio.

TOP BUYS this week, in addition to above, include Kingsmen Creatives Ltd. (KMEN:SI), Lara Exploration Ltd. (LRA:TSX.V), and Orogen Royalties Inc. (OGN:TSXV; OGNNF:OTC).

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Barrick Mining Corp., Wheaton Precious Metals Corp., Metalla Royalty & Streaming Ltd., Lara Exploration Ltd., and Orogen Royalties Inc.
  2. Adrian Day: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: All. My company has a financial relationship with: None. My company has purchased stocks mentioned in this article for my management clients: All. I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports, Street Smart, or their officers. The author is wholly responsible for the accuracy of the statements. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Any disclosures from the author can be found  below. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  4.  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.

Adrian Day Disclosures

Adrian Day’s Global Analyst is distributed for $990 per year by Investment Consultants International, Ltd., P.O. Box 6644, Annapolis, MD 21401. (410) 224-8885. www.AdrianDayGlobalAnalyst.com. Publisher: Adrian Day. Owner: Investment Consultants International, Ltd. Staff may have positions in securities discussed herein. Adrian Day is also President of Global Strategic Management (GSM), a registered investment advisor, and a separate company from this service. In his capacity as GSM president, Adrian Day may be buying or selling for clients securities recommended herein concurrently, before or after recommendations herein, and may be acting for clients in a manner contrary to recommendations herein. This is not a solicitation for GSM. Views herein are the editor’s opinion and not fact. All information is believed to be correct, but its accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The owner and editor are not responsible for errors and omissions. © 2023. Adrian Day’s Global Analyst. Information and advice herein are intended purely for the subscriber’s own account. Under no circumstances may any part of a Global Analyst e-mail be copied or distributed without prior written permission of the editor. Given the nature of this service, we will pursue any violations aggressively.

Metals Opinions
16 Feb

Why is US health care still the most expensive in the world after decades of cost-cutting initiatives?

By Patrick Aguilar, Washington University in St. Louis 

In announcing its “Great Healthcare Plan” in January 2026, the Trump administration became the latest in a long history of efforts by the U.S. government to rein in the soaring cost of health care.

As a physician and professor studying the intersection of business and health, I know that the challenges in reforming the sprawling U.S. health care system are immense. That’s partly for political and even philosophical reasons.

But it also reflects a complex system fraught with competing interests – and the fact that patients, hospitals, health insurance companies and drug manufacturers change their behaviors in conflicting ways when faced with new rules.

Soaring costs

U.S. health care is the most expensive in the world, and according to a poll published in late January 2026, two-thirds of Americans are very worried about their ability to pay for it – whether it’s their medications, a doctor’s visit, health insurance or an unpredictably costly medical emergency.

Disputes over health policy even played a central role in the federal government shutdown in fall 2025.

Trump’s health care framework outlines no specific policy actions, but it does establish priorities to address a number of longtime concerns, including prescription drug costs, price transparency, lowering insurance premiums and making health insurance companies generally more accountable.

Why have these challenges been so difficult to address?

Drug price sticker shock

Prescription drug costs in the U.S. began rising sharply in the 1980s, when drugmakers increased the development of innovative new treatments for common diseases. But efforts to combat this trend have resembled a game of whack-a-mole because the factors driving it are so intertwined.

One issue is the unique set of challenges that define drug development. As with any consumer good, manufacturers price prescription drugs to cover costs and earn profits. Drug manufacturing, however, involves an expensive and time-consuming development process with a high risk of failure.

Patent protection is another issue. Drug patents last 20 years, but completing costly trials necessary for regulatory approval takes up much of that period, reducing the time when manufacturers have exclusive rights to sell the drug. After a patent expires, generic versions can be made and sold for significantly less, lowering the profits for the original manufacturer. Though some data challenges this claim, the pharmaceutical industry contends that high prices while drugs are under patent help companies recover their investment, which then funds the discovery of new drugs. And they often find ways to extend their patents, which keeps prices elevated for longer.

Then there are the intermediaries. Once a drug is on the market, prices are typically set through negotiations with administrators called pharmacy benefit managers, who negotiate discounts and rebates on prescription drugs for health insurers and employers offering benefits to their workers. Pharmacy benefit managers are paid based on those discounts, so they do not have an incentive to lower total drug prices, though new transparency rules enacted Feb. 3 aim to change payment practices. Drugmakers often raise the list price of drugs to make up for the markdowns that pharmacy benefit managers negotiate – and possibly even more than that.

In many countries, centralized government negotiators set the price for prescription drugs, resulting in lower drug prices. This has prompted American officials to consider using those prices as a reference for setting drug prices here. In its blueprint, the Trump administration has called for a “most-favored nation” drug pricing policy, under which some U.S. drug prices would match the lowest prices paid in other countries.

This may work in the short term, but manufacturers say it could also curtail investment in innovative new drugs. And some industry experts worry that it may push manufacturers to raise international prices.

Policy experts have questioned whether TrumpRx will bring down drug prices.

In late 2025, 16 pharmaceutical companies agreed to most-favored nation pricing for some drugs. Consumers can now buy them directly from manufacturers through TrumpRx, a portal that points consumers to drug manufacturers and provides coupons for purchasing more than 40 widely used brand-name drugs at a discount, which launched Feb. 5. However, many drugs available through the platform can be purchased at lower prices as generics

Increasing price transparency

Fewer than 1 in 20 Americans know how much health care services will cost before they receive them. One fix for this seems obvious: Make providers list their prices up front. That way, consumers could compare prices and choose the most cost-effective options for their care.

Spurred by bipartisan support in Congress, the government has embraced price transparency for health care services over the past decade. In February 2025, the Trump administration announced stricter enforcement for hospitals, which must now post actual prices, rather than estimates, for common medical procedures. Data is mixed on whether the approach is working as planned, however. Hospitals have reduced prices for people paying out of pocket, but not for those paying with insurance, according to a 2025 study.

For one thing, when regulations change, companies make strategic decisions to achieve their financial goals and meet the new rules – sometimes yielding unintended consequences. One study found, for example, that price transparency regulations in a series of clinics led to an increase in physician charges to insurance companies because some providers who had been charging less raised their prices to match more expensive competitors.

Additionally, a 2024 federal government study found that 46% of hospitals were not compliant. The American Hospital Association, a trade group, suggested price transparency imposes a high administrative burden on hospitals while providing confusing information to patients, whose costs may vary depending on unique aspects of their conditions. And the fine for noncompliance, US$300 per day, may be insufficient to offset the cost of disclosing this information, according to some health policy experts.

Beyond high costs, patients also worry that insurers won’t actually cover the care they receive. Cigna is currently fighting a lawsuit accusing its doctors of denying claims almost instantly – within an average of 1.2 seconds – but concerns about claims denial are rampant across the industry. Companies’ use of artificial intelligence to deny claims is compounding the problem.

Curbing the rise in health insurance premiums

Many Americans struggle to afford monthly insurance premiums. But curbing that increase significantly may be impossible without reining in overall health care costs and, paradoxically, keeping more people insured.

Insurance works by pooling money paid by members of an insurance plan. That money covers all members’ health care costs, with some using more than they contribute and others less. Premium prices therefore depend on how many people are in the plan, as well as the services insurance will cover and the services people actually use. Because health care costs are rising overall, commercial insurance companies may not be able to significantly lower premiums without reducing their ability to cover costs and absorb risk.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans under age 65 receive health insurance through employers. Another 6.9% of them get it through Affordable Care Act marketplaces, where enrollment numbers are extremely sensitive to premium costs.

Enrollment in ACA plans nearly doubled in 2021, from about 12 million to more than 24 million, when the government introduced subsidies to reduce premiums during the COVID-19 pandemic. But when the subsidies expired on Jan. 1, 2026, about 1.4 million dropped coverage, and for most who didn’t, premiums more than doubled. The Congressional Budget Office projects that another 3.7 million will become uninsured in 2027, reversing some of the huge gains made since the ACA was passed in 2010.

When health insurance costs rise, healthier people may risk going without. Those who remain insured tend to need more health services, requiring those more costly services to be covered by a smaller pool of people and raising premium prices even higher.

The Trump administration has proposed routing the money spent on subsidies directly to eligible Americans to help them purchase health insurance. How much people would receive is unclear, but amounts in previous proposals wouldn’t cover what the subsidies provided.

To sum it up, health care is extremely complicated and there are numerous barriers to reforms, as successive U.S. administrations have learned over the years. Whether the Trump administration finds some success will depend on how well the policies are able to surmount these and other obstacles.The Conversation

About the Author:

Patrick Aguilar, Managing Director of Health, Washington University in St. Louis

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

 

Healthcare Opinions Stock Market News
12 Feb

The rise of ‘Merzoni’: How an alliance between Germany’s and Italy’s leaders is reshaping Europe

By Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager, Colorado State University 

“Merzoni” isn’t a neologism that easily trips off the tongue, and it hasn’t fully taken hold in the world of European politics.

Yet, for months, a pragmatic alliance between German Chancellor Friedrich Merz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has been building.

And despite the politicians being, in many ways, unlikely partners, the union has quietly been redefining Europe’s power balance. In the latest display of this dynamic, a joint-policy paper drawn up by Merz and Meloni is set to be delivered to European Union partners at an informal summit on Feb. 12, 2026, urging reforms to improve the bloc’s competitiveness.

As a scholar of European politics, history and culture, I see the union as being born of necessity but nonetheless serving the interests of both parties – and possibly those of the European Union, too.

Moving on from ‘Merkron’

Post-war European politics has seen the center of its gravity move before, but it has largely revolved around shifts to and from France or Germany, the bloc’s current two largest economies. The U.K.’s ability to dominate EU politics was always stymied by its lateness to the “European project” and ambivalence at home. And it was ended outright by a referendum in 2016 that saw the U.K.’s exit from the union.

For nearly a decade after Britain’s exit, Europe revolved around the axis of Germany’s Angela Merkel and France’s Emmanuel Macron, an alliance given the nickname “Merkron”: Merkel’s clumsy charm and cautious pragmatism paired with Macron’s charisma and sweeping European idealism. Their dual-stewardship helped steer the EU through Brexit, Donald Trump’s first presidency and the pandemic.

But times have changed.

Merkel is gone. She stepped down as German chancellor in December 2021. Macron, meanwhile, has struggled politically at home and increasingly resembles what diplomats and journalists describe as a European “Cassandra”: right in his warnings about global instability, yet less able to mobilize support domestically or across the continent to confront the issues.

The end of the “Merkron” era coincided with myriad crises confronting Europe, including Russia’s ongoing war in Ukraine, current U.S. unpredictability, growing climate pressures, never-stopping migration tensions and the collapse of arms-control regimes.

The comforting post-Cold War assumption that peace in Europe was permanent has vanished.

An unlikely partnership

Into this vacuum stepped Merz and Meloni. At first glance, the pairing looks odd.

Merz is a conservative Atlanticist and unapologetic economic liberal. His message, and the title of his 2008 book, “Dare More Capitalism,” signals a move toward an assertive pro-market agenda after years of cautious centrism under Merkel. Merz insists Germany must rebuild military capacity – a departure from decades of both German domestic and EU-wide reticence toward such a move.

Meloni, meanwhile, rose to power from Italy’s nationalist right. The lineage of her home party, Fratelli d’Italia, or Brothers of Italy, traces back to the rump of Mussolini’s fascists. Yet in office, she has proved politically agile, repositioning herself as a responsible and quite successful European actor. Meloni as prime minister has maintained support for Ukraine and cooperation with the European Union – shrugging off concerns over both areas prior to her coming to power. She has equally skillfully cultivated strong ties with Washington – including Trump’s political camp, and overall has demonstrated successful strategic chameleonism.

Critics call her opportunistic; admirers call her pragmatic. Either way, Meloni has mastered political shape-shifting, becoming a bridge between nationalist and mainstream Europe.

What unites Merz and Meloni is less ideology than necessity.

Germany remains Europe’s economic engine but needs partners to push Europe toward greater defense capacity and economic competitiveness. Italy is seeking greater influence and credibility at Europe’s core.

Both governments now speak the language of strategic autonomy: Europe must be able to defend itself and protect its interests even if the U.S. becomes unreliable. As the joint-paper reportedly being presented to other EU partners puts it: “Continuing on the current path is not an option. Europe must act now.”

Europe unites against a frenemy

Ironically, Europe’s unity has often emerged in response to crisis.

Brexit strengthened pro-EU sentiment on the mainland. Similarly, Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine revived NATO and EU cooperation.

Now, Trump – with his flirtation with abandoning NATO commitments, threatening tariffs and questioning of territorial arrangements in places like Greenland – has delivered a shock to European political consciousness.

Recent surveys show overwhelming European support for stronger EU defense cooperation and greater unity against global threats.

For leaders like Merz and Meloni, this creates political space for policies that would have seemed unthinkable, or certainly more difficult, a decade ago, such as military buildups, defense integration, industrial protection and tougher migration policies.

Defense and militarization

The most dramatic change is, arguably, happening in Germany. For decades, Berlin avoided military leadership, haunted by its history and sheltered under U.S. security guarantees. That era is ending. German officials increasingly speak about rearmament, European defense readiness and long-term strategic competition.

The timing could not be more urgent. Merz, framing Moscow’s ongoing aggression as a direct assault on European security and unity, stated in September 2025 that “we are not at war, but we are no longer at peace either.”

The new German-Italian action plan explicitly strengthens cooperation on defense, cybersecurity and strategic industries. Both governments stress NATO loyalty while simultaneously pushing for stronger European military capacity.

The idea of a future European defense force, once dismissed as fantasy, now circulates seriously in policy circles. Rome is reportedly planning a major procurement deal with German arms manufacturer Rheinmetall worth up to US$24 billion (20 billion euros). Including hundreds of armored vehicles and new-generation tanks, it would represent one of Europe’s largest joint defense projects.

The move reflects a shared push by Berlin and Rome to strengthen Europe’s military capacity while anchoring rearmament in European industrial partnerships.

What’s in it for Meloni and Merz?

For Meloni, partnership with Berlin delivers legitimacy. Italy has traditionally oscillated between European leadership and peripheral frustration. By aligning with Germany, Rome reenters Europe’s decision-making core.

At the same time, Meloni can present herself as both nationalist at home and indispensable to Europe. Her political positions allow her to maintain channels with Washington while remaining inside EU consensus – a balancing act few European leaders can manage.

Germany, meanwhile, gains political flexibility and a partner more aligned with big-picture EU politics.

Macron’s ambitious federalist vision has at times alienated more cautious partners in the bloc. Italy offers a pragmatic counterweight for Merz, focused on competitiveness, migration control and industrial policy rather than a grand European redesign.

Macron isn’t being entirely squeezed out. France still leads on nuclear deterrence and many diplomatic initiatives. Yet political momentum is shifting and now lies with governments willing to prioritize economic competitiveness and security over institutional reform.

Will it work?

The Merzoni partnership faces major tests.

Italy’s economy remains fragile, and Germany’s export model struggles amid global economic shifts. Far-right and populist movements still challenge EU cohesion. And defense integration remains politically sensitive across member nations.

Yet necessity often drives European integration. And as crises accumulate, cooperation becomes less optional.

The real question is whether Europe can move from reactive crisis management to having a proactive geopolitical strategy. For now, the unlikely German-Italian partnership suggests Europe’s political map is being redrawn – not through grand federal visions but through pragmatic alliances shaped by fear, necessity and opportunity.The Conversation

About the Author:

Julia Khrebtan-Hörhager, Associate Professor of Critical Cultural & International Studies, Colorado State University

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

 

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions
11 Feb

Has globalization lessened the importance of physical distance? For economic shocks, new research suggests ‘yes’

By Josh Ederington, Miami University and Jenny Minier, Miami University 

National economies are increasingly moving in sync and responding to the same booms and busts as a result of near-instantaneous communications and interdependent global supply chains. This is a sharp change from much of the 21st century, when economies were primarily affected by economic shocks in neighboring countries.

That’s what we found in a paper published in the journal Economic Letters, in which we calculated measures of economic correlation using data on gross domestic product for 70 countries over the past 60 years. Along with fellow economic scholars Yoonseon Han and David Lindequist, we found that physical distance was indeed less important than it used to be, particularly with regard to how interconnected countries are to one another.

Specifically, we measured the extent to which countries have found their business cycles — the traditional boom-bust intervals of economic performance — in sync. For example, when there is a positive shock to production in Germany, to what extent does this affect incomes in the United States?

We were interested in whether the relationship between distance and economic correlation has changed over time.

What we found was that from 1960-1999, business cycles were strongly localized. That is, a country’s economy was much more likely to be impacted by shocks to nearby countries than by shocks in faraway countries. For example, the U.S. was more affected by economic conditions in Canada or Mexico than it was to economic conditions in the United Kingdom or South Korea.

This finding is not surprising and fits well with a long economic literature showing that countries are more likely to trade with nearby countries and that the volume of trade between two countries is a significant predictor of how synchronized their business cycles are.

However, we went on to find that this relationship between physical distance and economic correlation started to break down after 2000. Specifically, for the past 20 years, there has been no statistically significant relationship between the geographic distance between two countries and the extent to which incomes in the two countries move together — what economists refer to as their economic covariance.

Why it matters

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a number of economists, including Frances Cairncross and Thomas Friedman, popularized the idea that new technologies like the internet and containerization had led to the death of distance, in which our new lives would be increasingly globalized. They imagined a future in which these new technologies not only impacted how goods were produced — like global supply chains — but also how we work and live.

Such theories were met with some skepticism by trade researchers at the time, and not all of the predictions have come true. For example, the link between distance and trade flows has proved stubbornly persistent. Even today, the top-two trading partners of the U.S. remain Canada and Mexico. And one only has to look at housing prices in major urban centers in the U.S. to see that physical location remains highly valued to most people.

However, our research suggests that at least some of the popular predictions about the globalized economy might be coming true. For instance, the world economy appears to have made countries increasingly susceptible to global, as opposed to localized, shocks.

This was made devastatingly clear to millions of people during the pandemic, when supply chain bottlenecks reverberated across the globe, subsequently generating a worldwide rise in prices. As a result, U.S. economic and trade policy discussions have been increasingly focused on potential vulnerabilities to foreign shocks. Indeed, a new buzzword during the Biden administration was “supply chain resiliance.”

What still isn’t known

Our work provides evidence that business cycles and economic shocks have become more globalized over the past couple of decades. Many of the main economic events from 1960-2000 – like the 1980s savings and loan crisis or the 1997 Asian currency crisis – had primarily localized effects. But more recently, the principal economic events of the past two decades — like the 2008 financial crisis — have had far more global implications.

What we don’t know is whether this pattern will continue, resulting in a new era in which most of the world’s economies move in tandem. Or will a new turn toward economic nationalism lead to a reversal in which economies – and economic shocks – become more localized once again?

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.The Conversation

About the Author:

Josh Ederington, Professor of Economics, Miami University and Jenny Minier, Julian Lange Professor of Economics, Miami University

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

 

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions
10 Feb

Why Trump’s new pick for Fed chair hit gold and silver markets – for good reasons

By Henry Maher, University of Sydney 

After months of speculation, US President Donald Trump confirmed he will be nominating Kevin Warsh as the next chair of the US Federal Reserve. The appointment has been closely watched in the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Fed and its current chairman Jerome Powell.

The immediate reaction to the announcement was a significant crash in gold and silver markets. After months of record highs and stretched valuations, spot prices for gold and silver dropped 9% and 28% respectively after the announcement. The US stock market also fell, with major indexes all reporting modest losses.

However, in the context of concerns over Trump’s interference with the Fed, the market crash can ironically be understood as an early vote of confidence in Warsh’s independence and suitability for the role.

Understanding why requires the context of Trump’s ongoing conflict with the Federal Reserve, and the importance of central bank independence to our current global financial system.

Trump’s war with the Fed

The last year has seen Trump in an unprecedented conflict with the Federal Reserve.

Trump appointed current Chairman Jerome Powell back in 2017. However, the relationship quickly soured when Powell did not cut interest rates as quickly as Trump wanted. In characteristically colourful language, Trump has since called Powell a “clown” with “some real mental problems”, adding “I’d love to fire his ass”.

The war of words descended into legal threats. Trump’s Justice Department announced an investigation into Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook over alleged fraud in historical mortgage documents. Then last month, in a shocking escalation the Justice Department opened a criminal investigation into Powell relating to overspending in renovations of the Federal Reserve offices.

Both sets of allegations are widely viewed as baseless. However, Trump has tried to use the investigation as grounds to fire Cook. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

Powell has hit back strongly at Trump, saying the legal threats were

a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the President.

Powell received support from 14 international central bank chiefs, who noted “the independence of central banks is a cornerstone of price, financial and economic stability”.

Historically, presidential interference with the Fed was a major cause of the stagflation crisis in the 1970s. More recently, both Argentina and Turkey have experienced significant financial crises caused by interference with central bank independence.

Who is Kevin Warsh?

Kevin Warsh is a former banker and Federal Reserve governor, who previously served as economic advisor to both President George W Bush and President Trump.

Originally Trump seemed likely to favour the current director of Trump’s National Economic Council, Kevin Hassett, for the job. However, Hassett was widely viewed as being too influenced by Trump, intensifying fears about Fed independence.

Warsh appears more independent and brings a reputation as an inflation “hawk”.

What is an inflation hawk?

The Federal Reserve is responsible for setting US interest rates. Put simply, lower interest rates can increase economic growth and employment, but risk creating inflation. Higher interest rates can control inflation, but at the cost of higher unemployment and lower growth.

Getting the balance right is the central role of the Federal Reserve. Central bank independence is essential to ensure this delicate task is guided by the best evidence and long-term needs of the economy, rather than the short-term political goals.

An inflation “hawk” refers to a central banker who prioritises fighting inflation, compared to a “dove” who prioritises growth and jobs.

From Warsh’s previous time at the Federal Reserve, he established a strong reputation as an inflation hawk. Even in the aftermath of the global financial crisis of 2008, Warsh was more worried about inflation than jobs.

Given Trump’s past conflict with Powell around cutting interest rates, Warsh might seem a curious choice of candidate.

More recently though, Warsh has moderated his views, echoing Trump’s criticism of the Fed and demands for lower interest rates. Whether this support will continue, or if his hawkish tendencies return leading to future conflict with Trump, remains to be seen.

The market reaction

The crash in gold and silver, and decline in stock markets, suggests investors view interest rate cuts as less likely under Warsh than alternative candidates.

Gold and silver prices typically rise in response to instability or fears of inflation.

The previous record highs were driven by many factors, including global instability, concerns over Fed independence, and a speculative bubble.

That Warsh’s appointment has triggered a market correction in precious metals means investors expect lower inflation, and greater financial stability. The US dollar trading higher also supports this view.

The credibility of the Fed is at stake

The past month has seen much discussion of the changing world order. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney recently decried the end of the international rules-based order and called for a break from “American hegemony”.

The global dominance of the US dollar is a crucial plank of US economic hegemony. Though Trump clearly remains sceptical of central bank independence, his appointment of Warsh suggests he recognises the importance of retaining the credibility of the US currency and Federal Reserve.

Whether that recognition can continue to temper Trump’s instinct to interfere with the setting of interest rates remains to be seen.The Conversation

About the Author:

Henry Maher, Lecturer in Politics, Department of Government and International Relations, University of Sydney

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

 

Metals Opinions
10 Feb

Why corporate America is mostly staying quiet as federal immigration agents show up at its doors

By Alessandro Piazza, Rice University 

When U.S. Border Patrol agents entered a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota, in early January, detaining two employees, it marked a new chapter in the relationship between corporate America and the federal government.

Across the Twin Cities, federal immigration enforcement operations have turned businesses into sites of confrontation — with agents in store parking lots rounding up day laborers, armed raids on restaurants and work authorization inspections conducted in tactical gear.

Some retailers report revenue drops of 50% to 80% as customers stay home out of fear. Along Lake Street and in East St. Paul, areas within the Twin Cities, an estimated 80% of businesses have closed their doors at some point since the operations began.

Then came the killing of U.S. citizens Renee Good and Alex Pretti, the latter of which came a day after widespread protests and a one-day business blackout involving over 700 establishments.

The response of corporate America to those killings was instructive — both for what was said and left unsaid. After the Pretti killing, more than 60 CEOs from Minnesota’s largest companies — Target, 3M, UnitedHealth Group, U.S. Bancorp, General Mills, Best Buy and others — signed a public letter organized by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter called for “peace,” “focused cooperation” among local, state and federal officials, and a “swift and durable solution” so that families, workers and businesses could return to normal.

What it didn’t do was name Pretti, mention federal immigration enforcement or criticize any specific policy or official. It read less like moral leadership and more like corporate risk management.

As a researcher who studies corporate political engagement, I think the Minnesota CEO letter is a window into a broader shift. For years, companies could take progressive stances with limited risk — activists would punish them if they remained silent on an issue, but conservatives rarely retaliated when they spoke up. That asymmetry has collapsed. Minneapolis shows what corporate activism looks like when the risks cut both ways: hedged language, no names named and calls for calm.

A shifting pattern

In 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, corporate America was remarkably quiet compared with its vocal stances on LGBTQ+ rights or the war in Ukraine.

The explanation: Companies tend to hedge on issues that are contested and polarizing. In my research with colleagues on companies taking stances on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, I’ve found that businesses frame their stances narrowly when issues are unsettled — focusing on workplace concerns and internal constituencies like employees rather than broader advocacy. Only after issues are legally or socially settled do some companies shift to clearer activism, adopting the language of social movements: injustice, moral obligation, calls to action.

By that logic, the Minnesota CEOs’ caution makes sense. The Trump administration’s federal immigration enforcement policy is deeply contested. There’s no clear legal or social settlement in sight.

But something else has changed since 2022 — something that goes beyond any particular issue.

For years, corporate activism operated under a favorable asymmetry that allowed them to stake out public positions on controversial topics without much negative consequence.

That is, activists and employees pressured companies to speak out on progressive causes, and silence carried real costs. Meanwhile, conservatives largely subscribed to free-market economist Milton Friedman’s view that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. They generally didn’t demand corporate stances on their issues, and they didn’t organize sustained punishment for progressive corporate speech.

That asymmetry has collapsed

During the Black Lives Matter protests of 2020, corporations rushed to declare their commitments to racial justice, diversity and social responsibility. Many of those same companies have since quietly dismantled diversity, equity and inclusion programs, walked back public commitments and gone silent on issues they once called moral imperatives. It appears that their allegedly deeply held values were contingent on a favorable political environment. When the risks shifted, the values evaporated.

The turning point may have been Disney’s opposition to Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” law in 2022. The company faced criticism from employees and activists for not doing enough – and then fierce retaliation from Florida’s government, which stripped Disney of self-governing privileges it had held for 55 years.

In other high-profile examples, Delta lost tax breaks in Georgia after ending discounts for National Rifle Association members following the Parkland shooting. And Bud Light lost billions in market value after a single social media promotion that featured Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer.

Conservatives learned to play the game that progressive activists invented. And unlike consumer boycotts, government retaliation carries a different kind of weight.

Minneapolis reveals the new calculus

What makes Minneapolis distinctive is that the federal government isn’t a distant policy actor debating legislation in Washington. It’s a physical presence in companies’ daily operations. When federal agents can show up at your store, detain your employees, raid your parking lot and audit your hiring records, the calculation about whether to criticize federal policy looks very different than when the worst-case scenario is an angry tweet from a politician.

Research finds that politicians are less willing to engage with CEOs who take controversial stances – even in private meetings – regardless of local economic conditions or the politicians’ own views on business. The chilling effect is real. As one observer noted, Minnesota companies communicated through industry associations specifically “to avoid direct exposure to possible retaliation.”

“De-escalation,” then, has become the corporate buzzword of choice because, as one news report in The Wall Street Journal noted, it “sounds humane while remaining politically noncommittal.” It points to a process goal – reduce conflict, restore order – rather than a contested diagnosis of responsibility.

This is the triple bind facing businesses in Minneapolis: pressure from the federal government on one side, pressure from activists and employees on the other, and the economic devastation from enforcement itself — comparable in some areas to the COVID-19 pandemic — crushing them in the middle. It’s a situation that rewards silence and punishes principle, and most companies are making the predictable choice.

And yet the situation within companies is also full of internal tensions, whether they’re companies headquartered in Minnesota or not. At tech company Palantir, which holds contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, employees took to internal Slack channels after Pretti’s death to express that they felt “not proud” to work for a company tied to what they described as “the bad guys.” Similar sentiments could be seen at elsewhere, where rank-and-file employees expressed far more vocal outrage than their bosses.

What comes next

The Minnesota CEO letter is what corporate political engagement looks like when the risks run in every direction: no injustice framing, no attribution of blame, no names named — just calls for stability and cooperation.

As a local Minneapolis writer put it in an op-ed: “Stand up, or sit down … because the Minnesotans who are standing up? We don’t recognize you.”

It’s not cowardice, exactly. It’s what the research predicts when an issue is contested and the costs of speaking cut both ways.

But it does mean Americans shouldn’t expect corporations to lead when government power is directly at stake. The conditions that enabled corporate activism on LGBTQ+ rights — an asymmetry where speaking out was relatively low-risk — don’t exist here.

Until the political landscape shifts, the hedged statement and the cautious coalition letter are the new normal. Corporate activism, it turns out, might always have been more about positioning than principle.The Conversation

About the Author:

Alessandro Piazza, Assistant Professor of Strategic Management, Rice University

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

 

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions
08 Feb

Currency Speculators boost Euro bets to highest since 2023, CAD bets go Bullish

By InvestMacro

Speculators OI FX Futures COT Chart

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

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday February 3rd 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 Euro, Australian Dollar and Canadian Dollar

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

Leading the gains for the currency markets was the EuroFX (31,227 contracts) with the Australian Dollar (18,972 contracts), the Canadian Dollar (18,176 contracts), the Japanese Yen (14,711 contracts), the New Zealand Dollar (13,451 contracts), the Brazilian Real (12,117 contracts), the US Dollar Index (3,553 contracts), the British Pound (2,251 contracts), the Swiss Franc (2,176 contracts) and Bitcoin (318 contracts) with also showing positive weeks.

The currency seeing declines in speculator bets on the week was the Mexican Peso with a drop by -12,522 contracts on the week.

Currency Speculators sharply boost Euro bets to highest since 2023, CAD bets go Bullish

Highlighting this week’s currency speculator changes were the strong gains in the Euro, the Australian Dollar, and the Canadian Dollar.

First off, the Euro jumped by over 30,000 contracts this week and this week’s gain marked the largest one-week gain since March of 2025, when speculative bets surged by over +46,000 contracts. This week’s surge follows last week’s rise by over 20,000 contracts and has now pushed the overall speculative level to a total of 163,361 net contracts, which marks the highest level for the Euro bets dating back to August 1st of 2023. The European currency’s speculative standing has now been above +100,000 net contracts for 10 consecutive weeks, and for 30 out of the last 34 weeks as well. The Euro exchange rate this week dipped slightly for a second consecutive week and closed out the week around the 1.1840 exchange level. Last week, however, the Euro hit its highest level since 2021 with a high around 1.2110 before retreating. We’ll see in the weeks to come if the Euro will threaten the 1.20 psychological threshold once again.

Next up, the Australian Dollar speculative bets surged higher for a second consecutive week, and are now in an overall bullish position also for a second straight week. Last week marked the first time since December of 2024 that the Australian Dollar speculative position was in bullish territory. And this week, the position grew further. The Australian Dollar exchange rate has risen for three consecutive weeks, and this week closed at the highest levels since 2023, where it closed above the 0.700 significant psychological level. The Australian Dollar is up by over 5% against the U.S. Dollar this year so far, and is higher by about 14% since the start of 2025. The weekly RSI for the Australian Dollar is currently in overbought position so we’ll see if the Aussie can hold these multi-year high levels.

The Canadian Dollar speculator positions rose for a third consecutive week, as well as the eighth time in the last ten weeks that speculator bets have been bullish. Overall, the net standing for the Canadian Dollar speculators this week went bullish with a total of 2,130 net contracts. This is the first time the Canadian Dollar has seen a bullish net contract level since August 1st of 2023, a span of 131 straight weeks. The turnaround in the Canadian Dollar speculator positions has been fast and furious as the net position totaled a -130,600 contracts as recently as December 9th. And then eight weeks later, the net position has managed to turn bullish. In the foreign exchange markets, the Canadian Dollar trades right around its 200-week moving average at the 0.7333 exchange rate. This week, the CAD fell a little bit, but has been higher in total over the past three weeks. Time will tell if the CAD can break through its 200-weekly moving average level and can work its way back to the strong support and resistance level of 0.7500.

The US Dollar Index saw improving bets for the second consecutive week and for the ninth time out of the last 10 weeks. This has taken the speculator level from a total of -16,347 net contracts down to a tiny bearish level of just -852 net contracts this week. Overall, the Dollar Index has consistently been in a bearish level dating back to June 10th of 2025, a span of 34 consecutive weeks. In the foreign exchange market, the US Dollar Index saw a boost this week after falling for the previous two weeks and trades at the 97.50 level. Since the beginning of 2025, the Dollar Index has fallen by over 10%, however, prices have bounced off the 96.00 area three times since June. We’ll see if the Dollar Index can hold this level and can find its way higher or will eventually break lower.

Finally, the Swiss Franc positions rose modestly for a third consecutive week and for the fourth time out of the past five weeks. Interestingly, the Swiss Franc speculator net position is highly bearish and has been in an overall bearish level dating all the way back to September of 2021 while the Swiss Franc exchange rate is at the strongest levels it has traded since 2011. The dichotomy in the speculator positions versus the strength of the currency can be explained through hedging, as there has been reports that many business entities are hedging away the historic strength of the Swiss Franc at the current time while the Franc is also a sought-after safe haven in an uncertain geopolitical time. Currently, the Swiss Franc trades at 1.2946 against the U.S. Dollar in the exchange markets. Since the beginning of 2025, the Franc is up by approximately 18% against the U.S. Dollar and looks to be threatening the 1.30 major level.

Mexican Peso leads Currency Price Returns this week

The major currency markets price performance was led by the Mexican Peso this week. The Peso was the highest riser by 1.25% over the past five days. The Brazilian Real followed that up with a 0.99% gain. The Australian Dollar was higher by 0.79%. The US Dollar Index showed a 0.60% rise. The New Zealand Dollar was virtually unchanged at a 0.04% dip, followed by the euro which fell by 0.26%. The Canadian Dollar was lower by 0.28%. The Swiss Franc fell by 0.30%. The British Pound was lower by 0.48%. The Japanese Yen was lower by over 1% with a 1.48% decrease.

Bitcoin was the biggest loser on the week with a 16.45% drop.

Currencies Data:

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

Strength Scores led by Canadian Dollar & Australian Dollar

Speculators Strength Scores FX Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Scores (a normalized measure of Speculator positions over a 3-Year range, from 0 to 100 where above 80 is Extreme-Bullish and below 20 is Extreme-Bearish) showed that the Canadian Dollar (98 percent) and the Australian Dollar (95 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The EuroFX (91 percent), Bitcoin (74 percent) and the Mexican Peso (73 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the Swiss Franc (18 percent) comes in at the lowest strength levels currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are the the New Zealand Dollar (26 percent), the British Pound (34 percent) and the US Dollar Index (42 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (41.8 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (32.2 percent)
EuroFX (91.0 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (79.1 percent)
British Pound Sterling (33.7 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (32.7 percent)
Japanese Yen (45.4 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (41.4 percent)
Swiss Franc (18.4 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (14.0 percent)
Canadian Dollar (97.9 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (88.9 percent)
Australian Dollar (94.8 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (81.4 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (25.7 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (10.3 percent)
Mexican Peso (72.6 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (79.6 percent)
Brazilian Real (62.5 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (53.6 percent)
Bitcoin (74.1 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (67.3 percent)

Australian Dollar & Bitcoin top the 6-Week Strength Trends

Speculators Trends FX Futures COT Chart
COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Australian Dollar (34 percent) and the Bitcoin (32 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies. The Canadian Dollar (29 percent), the British Pound (12 percent) and the New Zealand Dollar (11 percent) are the next highest positive movers in the 3-Year trends data.

The Brazilian Real (-12 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the Mexican Peso (-6 percent), Japanese Yen (-6 percent) and the EuroFX (1 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (8.6 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (0.5 percent)
EuroFX (1.3 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (-4.9 percent)
British Pound Sterling (11.6 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (13.7 percent)
Japanese Yen (-5.6 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (-8.5 percent)
Swiss Franc (6.6 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (-8.1 percent)
Canadian Dollar (28.6 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (34.8 percent)
Australian Dollar (33.9 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (20.6 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (11.1 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (0.3 percent)
Mexican Peso (-5.9 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (8.9 percent)
Brazilian Real (-12.2 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (-21.2 percent)
Bitcoin (31.5 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (12.4 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

US Dollar Index Forex Futures COT ChartThe US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -852 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 3,553 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -4,405 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 41.8 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 60.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 23.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

US DOLLAR INDEX StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:58.925.77.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:61.920.310.2
– Net Position:-8521,529-677
– Gross Longs:16,6107,2392,188
– Gross Shorts:17,4625,7102,865
– Long to Short Ratio:1.0 to 11.3 to 10.8 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):41.860.723.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:8.6-8.81.2

 

Euro Currency Futures:

Euro Currency Futures COT ChartThe Euro Currency large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 163,361 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 31,227 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 132,134 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 91.0 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 6.7 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 91.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

EURO Currency StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:33.253.110.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:15.377.24.2
– Net Position:163,361-218,54155,180
– Gross Longs:302,301483,91193,181
– Gross Shorts:138,940702,45238,001
– Long to Short Ratio:2.2 to 10.7 to 12.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):91.06.791.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bullish-ExtremeBearish-ExtremeBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:1.3-3.111.8

 

British Pound Sterling Futures:

British Pound Sterling Futures COT ChartThe British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -13,911 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 2,251 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -16,162 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 33.7 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 63.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 71.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

BRITISH POUND StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:41.642.115.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:47.739.012.0
– Net Position:-13,9117,0646,847
– Gross Longs:94,89396,00434,151
– Gross Shorts:108,80488,94027,304
– Long to Short Ratio:0.9 to 11.1 to 11.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):33.763.071.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:11.6-14.324.2

 

Japanese Yen Futures:

Japanese Yen Forex Futures COT ChartThe Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -19,222 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 14,711 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -33,933 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 45.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 54.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 49.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

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

JAPANESE YEN StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:37.740.412.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:44.035.611.3
– Net Position:-19,22214,4174,805
– Gross Longs:114,428122,66539,140
– Gross Shorts:133,650108,24834,335
– Long to Short Ratio:0.9 to 11.1 to 11.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):45.454.649.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-5.65.10.3

 

Swiss Franc Futures:

Swiss Franc Forex Futures COT ChartThe Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -40,717 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly advance of 2,176 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -42,893 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 18.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 63.1 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 86.0 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

SWISS FRANC StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:10.469.919.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:53.928.217.3
– Net Position:-40,71739,0121,705
– Gross Longs:9,68765,42417,858
– Gross Shorts:50,40426,41216,153
– Long to Short Ratio:0.2 to 12.5 to 11.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):18.463.186.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bearish-ExtremeBullishBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:6.6-7.14.5

 

Canadian Dollar Futures:

Canadian Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartThe Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 2,130 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 18,176 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -16,046 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 97.9 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 6.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 61.5 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

CANADIAN DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:35.848.114.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:34.851.811.8
– Net Position:2,130-7,9165,786
– Gross Longs:77,397104,11931,230
– Gross Shorts:75,267112,03525,444
– Long to Short Ratio:1.0 to 10.9 to 11.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):97.96.861.5
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bullish-ExtremeBearish-ExtremeBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:28.6-28.720.1

 

Australian Dollar Futures:

Australian Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartThe Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 26,118 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 18,972 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 7,146 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 94.8 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 1.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 91.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:46.736.416.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:36.455.37.7
– Net Position:26,118-48,06021,942
– Gross Longs:118,75192,58241,430
– Gross Shorts:92,633140,64219,488
– Long to Short Ratio:1.3 to 10.7 to 12.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):94.81.391.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):Bullish-ExtremeBearish-ExtremeBullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:33.9-30.99.3

 

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

New Zealand Dollar Forex Futures COT ChartThe New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of -34,294 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 13,451 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -47,745 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 25.7 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 72.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 51.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:16.776.65.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:64.828.45.7
– Net Position:-34,29434,376-82
– Gross Longs:11,88354,5963,988
– Gross Shorts:46,17720,2204,070
– Long to Short Ratio:0.3 to 12.7 to 11.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):25.772.851.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BearishBullishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:11.1-11.910.5

 

Mexican Peso Futures:

Mexican Peso Futures COT ChartThe Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 90,592 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -12,522 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 103,114 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 72.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 27.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 51.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

MEXICAN PESO StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:58.637.33.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:18.579.71.1
– Net Position:90,592-95,8035,211
– Gross Longs:132,39284,2247,660
– Gross Shorts:41,800180,0272,449
– Long to Short Ratio:3.2 to 10.5 to 13.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):72.627.351.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-5.95.71.9

 

Brazilian Real Futures:

Brazil Real Futures COT ChartThe Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 30,962 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 12,117 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 18,845 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 62.5 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 36.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 44.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

BRAZIL REAL StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:65.528.05.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:30.168.21.1
– Net Position:30,962-35,1334,171
– Gross Longs:57,23224,4215,163
– Gross Shorts:26,27059,554992
– Long to Short Ratio:2.2 to 10.4 to 15.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):62.536.244.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:-12.210.411.9

 

Bitcoin Futures:

Bitcoin Crypto Futures COT ChartThe Bitcoin large speculator standing this week recorded a net position of 1,008 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lift of 318 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 690 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 74.1 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 35.1 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 35.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Downtrend

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

BITCOIN StatisticsSPECULATORSCOMMERCIALSSMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:82.22.35.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:77.86.55.2
– Net Position:1,008-968-40
– Gross Longs:18,9395211,151
– Gross Shorts:17,9311,4891,191
– Long to Short Ratio:1.1 to 10.3 to 11.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):74.135.135.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):BullishBearishBearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:31.5-31.6-3.4

 

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
← Previous Page
Next Page →