Opinions

Archive for Opinions – Page 23

Speculator Extremes: Brent, Silver, Ultra 10-Year & 5-Year Bonds lead Bullish & Bearish Positions

The latest update for the weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) report was released by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Friday for data ending on June 3rd.

This weekly Extreme Positions report highlights the Most Bullish and Most Bearish Positions for the speculator category. Extreme positioning in these markets can foreshadow strong moves in the underlying market.

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

Here Are This Week’s Most Bullish Speculator Positions:

Brent Oil

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

The six-week trend for the percent strength score totaled 37 this week. The overall net speculator position was a total of 10,280 net contracts this week with a gain of 14,712 contract in the weekly speculator bets.

Speculators or Non-Commercials Notes:
Speculators, classified as non-commercial traders by the CFTC, are made up of large commodity funds, hedge funds and other significant for-profit participants. The Specs are generally regarded as trend-followers in their behavior towards price action – net speculator bets and prices tend to go in the same directions. These traders often look to buy when prices are rising and sell when prices are falling. To illustrate this point, many times speculator contracts can be found at their most extremes (bullish or bearish) when prices are also close to their highest or lowest levels.
These extreme levels can be dangerous for the large speculators as the trade is most crowded, there is less trading ammunition still sitting on the sidelines to push the trend further and prices have moved a significant distance. When the trend becomes exhausted, some speculators take profits while others look to also exit positions when prices fail to continue in the same direction. This process usually plays out over many months to years and can ultimately create a reverse effect where prices start to fall and speculators start a process of selling when prices are falling.

Nikkei 225

The Nikkei 225* speculator position comes next in the extreme standings this week. The Nikkei 225 speculator level is now at a 96 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score was 35 points at last data. The speculator position registered 1,904 net contracts with a recent weekly change of 2,025 contracts in speculator bets.

* Note: The Nikkei 225 (USD) has not been updated by the CFTC recently – likely due to lack of open interest. The Nikkei 225 levels on the charts this week reflect the last provided data. We will look to swap in the Nikkei 225 Yen contracts in future updates which has a higher open interest.

Silver

The Silver speculator position comes in third this week in the extreme standings. The Silver speculator level now resides at a 93 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at a gain of 20 points this week while the overall speculator position was 60,770 net contracts this week with a boost by 7,758 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Japanese Yen

The Japanese Yen speculator position has cooled off a bit but does come in at number four in the extreme standings this week. The JPY speculator level is at a 92 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a decline of -7 points this week. The overall speculator position was 151,149 net contracts this week with a shortfall by -12,863 contracts in the speculator bets.

MSCI EAFE MINI

The MSCI EAFE MINI speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings as the MSCI EAFE-Mini speculator level now sits at a 92 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score showed a gain of 18 points this week.

The speculator position was 2,201 net contracts this week with a rise of 2,337 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

This Week’s Most Bearish Speculator Positions:

Ultra 10-Year U.S. T-Note

The Ultra 10-Year U.S. T-Note speculator position comes in as the most bearish extreme standing this week. The Ultra 10-Year speculator level is at a 0 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -56 points this week. The overall speculator position was -371,588 net contracts this week with a reduction by -73,325 contracts in the speculator bets.

5-Year Bond

The 5-Year Bond speculator position comes in next for the most bearish extreme standing on the week. The 5-Year speculator level is also at a 0 percent minimum score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -9 points this week while the speculator position was -2,396,536 net contracts this week with a change of -63,299 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Bitcoin

The Bitcoin speculator position comes in as third most bearish extreme standing of the week as the speculator level resides at a 1 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -33 points this week. The overall speculator position was -2,312 net contracts this week with a dip of -38 contracts in the speculator bets.

Soybean Meal

The Soybean Meal speculator position comes in as this week’s fourth most bearish extreme standing. The Soybean Meal speculator level is at a 5 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a drop by -10 points this week. The speculator position was -54,519 net contracts this week with a decrease by -5,366 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

US Dollar Index

Finally, the US Dollar Index speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week. The USD Index speculator level is at a 8 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was a small gain by 3 points this week. The speculator position was 617 net contracts this week with an advance by 703 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

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.

05 Jun

How your electric bill may be paying for big data centers’ energy use

By Ari Peskoe, Harvard University and Eliza Martin, Harvard University

In the race to develop artificial intelligence, large technology companies such as Google and Meta are trying to secure massive amounts of electricity to power new data centers. Electric utilities see the prospect of earning large profits by providing electricity to these power-hungry facilities and are competing for their business by offering discounts not available to average consumers.

In our paper Extracting Profits from the Public, we explain how utilities are forcing regular ratepayers to pay for the discounts enjoyed by some of the nation’s largest companies and identify ways policymakers can limit the costs to the public.

Shifting costs

In much of the U.S., utilities are monopolists. Within their service territories, they are the only companies allowed to deliver electricity to consumers. To fund their operations, utilities split the costs of maintaining and expanding their systems among all ratepayers – homeowners, businesses, warehouses, factories and anyone else who uses electricity.

Historically, a utility expanded its system to meet growing demand for electricity from new factories, businesses and homes. To pay for its expansion − new power plants, new transmission lines and other equipment − the utility would propose to raise electricity rates by different amounts for various types of consumers.

Public utility commissions are state agencies charged with ensuring that the public gets a fair deal. These commissions monitor how much money the utility spends to provide electric service and how its costs are shared among various types of ratepayers, including residential, commercial and industrial consumers. Ultimately, the public utility commission is supposed to approve any rate increases based on its assessment of what’s fair to consumers.

Splitting the utility’s costs among all consumers made perfect sense when population growth and economic development across the economy stimulated the need for new infrastructure. But today, in many utility service territories, most of the projected growth in electricity demand is due to new data centers.

Here’s the problem for consumers: To meet data center demand, utilities are building new power plants and power lines that are needed only because of data center growth. If state regulators allow utilities to follow the standard approach of splitting the costs of new infrastructure among all consumers, the public will end up paying to supply data centers with all that power.

A big price tag

One particularly acute example is in Louisiana. A Meta data center under development in the northeastern corner of the state is projected to use, by our calculations, twice as much energy as the city of New Orleans.

Entergy, the regional monopoly utility, is proposing to build more than US$3 billion worth of new gas-fired power plants and delivery infrastructure to meet the data center’s energy demand. Rather than billing Meta directly for these costs, Entergy is proposing to include the costs in rates paid by all customers.

Entergy claims its contract with Meta will cover some portion of the $3 billion price tag and that will mitigate any increases in consumers’ bills. But Entergy has asked state regulators to keep key terms of the contract secret, and only a redacted version of its application is available online.

The public has no idea how much it might pay if the commission approves the contract. And if the Meta data center ends up using much less power than the company anticipates, the public does not know whether it would be on the hook to pay higher electricity rates for longer periods to guarantee Entergy a profit.

Secret agreements

Our research, reviewing nearly 50 public utility commission proceedings about data centers’ power needs across 10 states, uncovered dozens of secretive contracts between utilities and data centers. Unlike Louisiana, most states require utilities to submit to the public utility commission their one-off deals with data centers, but they allow utilities to conceal the pricing terms from the public.

In normal rate-review cases, numerous parties advocate for their interests in a public proceeding, including members of the public, industry groups and the utility itself. But as our paper finds, utility commission reviews of data center contracts are based on confidential utility filings that are inaccessible to the general public. Few, if any, outsiders participate, and as a result the commission often hears only the utility’s version of the deal.

Because the pricing terms are secret, it is impossible to know whether the deal that a utility is offering to a data center is too low to cover the utility’s costs of providing power to the data center, which would mean that the public is subsidizing the deal. History shows, however, that utilities have a long history of exploiting their monopolies to shift costs to the public, including through secret contracts.

Other public costs

Our paper also explores other ways that the public pays for data center energy costs. For instance, many high-voltage interstate transmission projects, which connect large power plants to local delivery systems, are developed through regional planning processes run by numerous utilities. These alliances have complex rules for splitting the costs of new transmission lines and equipment among their utility members.

Once a utility is charged its share, it spreads the costs of new transmission projects among its local ratepayers. Because some regions are building new transmission capacity to accommodate data centers, our analysis finds that the public has been forced to pay billions of dollars for data center growth.

Data center energy costs can also be shifted when data centers connect directly to existing power plants. Under what are called “co-location” deals, the power plant stops selling energy to the wider public and just sells to the data center. With less supply in the overall market, prices go up and the public faces higher bills as a result.

Many state legislatures are noticing these problems and working to figure out how to address them. Several recent bills would set new terms and conditions for future data center deals that could help protect the public from data center energy costs.

About the Author:

Ari Peskoe, Lecturer on Law, Harvard University and Eliza Martin, Legal Fellow, Environmental and Energy Law Program, Harvard University

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

Energy Opinions

04 Jun

Broadcom hits fresh all-time highs ahead of key earnings

By ForexTime

Broadcom shares ↑ 85% from 2025 low, recently touching a fresh ATH
Company to release fiscal Q2 earnings after US markets close Thursday 5th June
Beyond earnings, all eyes on hyperscalers collaboration and VMware
Broadcom share price forecasted to move 6.5% up/down post earnings
Wall Street analysts remain firmly bullish on stock

Broadcom is set to release its fiscal Q2 2025 earnings after US markets close on Thursday 5th June.

Shares of the chipmaker are up over 10% year-to-date, recently touching a fresh all-time high above $256.

Zooming out, Broadcom shares have rebounded more than 85% from the 2025 low – fuelled by demand for AI.

Broadcom fiscal Q2 earnings: What to look out for

Broadcom designs, develops and supplies various semiconductor devices with Nvidia, Qualcomm and TSMC among a handful of its biggest competitors.

Its core customers are the trillion-dollar titans – Apple, Microsoft, Meta, Amazon and Alphabet.

The chipmaker’s earnings release may reconfirm the strong demand for artificial intelligence following Nvidia’s blowout earnings last week.

Market expectations…

Wall Street expects the chipmaker to post strong earnings thanks to robust demand for AI.

Revenue: forecasted at $15 billion versus $12.5 billion a year ago

Earnings per share (EPS): forecasted at $1.56 versus $1.10 a year ago

Key challenges

Ongoing uncertainty around tariffs could disrupt supply chains and company profits.

Intense competition from Nvidia, which is now the most valuable company in the world.

Hyperscalers and VMware integration

Investors will be paying close attention to Broadcom’s AI-related revenues and collaboration with leading hyperscalers which could boost revenue streams.
On June 3rd, Broadcom announced that it is now shipping its new Tomahawk 6 switch series chips, delivering world’s first 102.4 terabits/sec of switching capacity in a single chip
VMware momentum is expected to roll over into Q2 with the segment expected to contribute roughly $4.3 billion in revenue.

How will Broadcom react to earnings

Markets currently predict that Broadcom’s stock could move 6.5% up or down when US markets reopen on Friday, 6th June.

BULLISH: Should Broadcom’s past quarterly results and forward guidance boost confidence in its business outlook, this could push prices higher.

Using Tuesday’s closing price of $256.75 as a reference point, a 6.5% climb would see this stock reach a fresh all-time high at $273.44.

BEARISH: Should Broadcom announce disappointing results, prices may tumble.

A 6.5% decline from $256.75 may drag prices to $240.1.

Over the next 12 months….

Wall Street analysts remain bullish on this stock.

46 “Buy” calls

4 “Hold”

1 “Sells”

Article by ForexTime

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

Opinions Stock Market News

30 May

Top Healthcare Companies scored from recent earnings including Humana

By InvestMacro Research

Earnings season continues on and our latest update highlights some of the top companies that have been recently added to our Cosmic Rays Watchlist.

Today, we have a selection of healthcare companies. The healthcare sector has been one of the weak links so far this year among the sector stock indexes and is considered a defensive stock category (in favor when growth and stocks are not under pressure).

The Cosmic Rays Watchlist is the output from our proprietary fundamental analysis algorithm. The algo examines company fundamental metrics, earnings trends and overall sector strength trends. The aim is identify quality dividend-paying companies on the NYSE and Nasdaq stock exchanges. If a company scores over 50, it gets added to our Watchlist for further analysis.

We use this system as a stock market ideas generator and to update our Watchlist every quarter. However, be aware the fundamental system does not take the stock price as a direct element in our rating so one must compare each idea with their current stock prices (this is not a timing tool).

Many studies are consistently showing overvalued markets and that has to be taken into consideration with any stock market idea. As with all investment ideas, past performance does not guarantee future results. A stock added to our list is not a recommendation to buy or sell the security.

Here we go with 5 of our of Top Healthcare Stocks scored in Q1 2025:

CONMED Corporation
Novartis AG
Novo Nordisk A/S
CVS Health Corporation
Humana Inc.

CONMED Corporation (CNMD):

CONMED Corporation (Symbol: CNMD) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. CNMD scored a 68 in our fundamental rating system on May 1st.

At time of writing, only 4.44% of stocks have scored a 60 or better out of a total of 13,007 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 3 times and rose by 8 system points from our last update.

CNMD is a Small Cap stock and part of the Healthcare sector. The industry focus for CNMD is Medical – Devices.

ConMed sports a PE ratio of approximately 15.64. The dividend yield at this moment is 1.39% with a dividend payout ratio around 20%. ConMed has beaten analyst earnings expectations 4 quarters in a row.

On a price return basis, ConMed has fared worse than its healthcare benchmark with a 52-week price return of over -23% compared to the healthcare benchmark which has fallen almost -9% in the past 52 weeks.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

CONMED Corporation, a medical technology company, develops, manufactures, and sells surgical devices and related equipment for surgical procedures worldwide. Company Website: https://www.conmed.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: CONMED Corporation (CNMD) 15.64 -23.03
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV 24.92 -8.97

* Data through May 29, 2025

Novartis AG (NVS):

Novartis AG (Symbol: NVS) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. NVS scored a 77 in our fundamental rating system on April 30th.

At time of writing, only 1.81% of stocks have scored a 70 or better out of a total of 13,007 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 9 times and rose by 20 system points from our last update.

NVS is a Mega Cap stock and part of the Healthcare sector. The industry focus for NVS is Drug Manufacturers – General.

Novatis (NVS) is a company with a PE ratio of 17.43. The current dividend yield is approximately 3.50%. This company is a mega cap and has seen its EPS beat analysts’ expectations for 4 quarters in a row. The payout ratio currently is approximately 65%.

The NVS price return has beaten the healthcare benchmark over the last 52 weeks with a return of over 11% compared to a -9% benchmark return.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Novartis AG researches, develops, manufactures, and markets healthcare products worldwide. The company operates through two segments, Innovative Medicines and Sandoz. The Innovative Medicines segment offers prescription medicines for patients and healthcare providers. Company Website: https://www.novartis.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Novartis AG (NVS) 17.43 11.14
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV 24.92 -8.97

* Data through May 29, 2025

Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO):

Novo Nordisk A/S (Symbol: NVO) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. NVO scored a 65 in our fundamental rating system on May 8th.

At time of writing, only 4.44% of stocks have scored a 60 or better out of a total of 13,007 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 4 times and rose by 62 system points from our last update.

NVO is a Mega Cap stock and part of the Healthcare sector. The industry focus for NVO is Drug Manufacturers – General.

Novo Nordisk (NVO), a healthcare company out of Denmark that engages in the manufacturing distribution of pharmaceutical products. The PE ratio for NVO is approximately 20.50. The dividend yield comes in at approximately 2.43% with a payout ratio on its dividend near 51%. NVO has beaten analysts’ earnings expectations 3 out of the last 4 quarters and for the last 3 quarters in a row.

NVO has significantly underperformed the benchmark over the last 52 weeks with an almost -50% return over that time compared to the -9% for the healthcare benchmark. NVO had previously surged higher with a return of over +200% from September 2022 to June 2024 before retreating lower.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Novo Nordisk A/S, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the research and development, manufacture, and distribution of pharmaceutical products in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Mainland China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, North America, and internationally. It operates in two segments, Diabetes and Obesity Care, and Rare Disease. Company Website: https://www.novonordisk.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Novo Nordisk A/S (NVO) 20.58 -49.47
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV 24.92 -8.97

* Data through May 29, 2025

CVS Health Corporation (CVS):

CVS Health Corporation (Symbol: CVS) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. CVS scored a 55 in our fundamental rating system on May 2nd.

At time of writing, only 7.77% of stocks have scored a 50 or better out of a total of 13,007 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 4 times and rose by 9 system points from our last update.

CVS is a Large Cap stock and part of the Healthcare sector. The industry focus for CVS is Medical – Healthcare Plans.

CVS has a PE ratio of just below 15.00 at the moment. The dividend yield for CVS is 4.30% with a payout ratio of around 63%. CVS has beaten analysts’ expectations 3 out of the last 4 quarters.

CVS has beaten the healthcare benchmark with a 12% return over the last 52 weeks compared to the -9% healthcare benchmark price return.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

CVS Health Corporation provides health services in the United States. The company’s Health Care Benefits segment offers traditional, voluntary, and consumer-directed health insurance products and related services. Company Website: https://www.cvshealth.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: CVS Health Corporation (CVS) 14.92 12.26
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV 24.92 -8.97

* Data through May 29, 2025

Humana Inc. (HUM):

Humana Inc. (Symbol: HUM) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. HUM scored a 57 in our fundamental rating system on May 1st.

At time of writing, only 7.77% of stocks have scored a 50 or better out of a total of 13,007 scores in our earnings database. This stock is on our Watchlist for the first time and rose by 62 system points from our last update.

HUM is a Medium Cap stock and part of the Healthcare sector. The industry focus for HUM is Medical – Healthcare Plans.

Humana (HUM) has a PE ratio of 16.11. The estimated yield is 1.45% with a dividend payout ratio of right around 25%. Humana has beaten analysts’ expectations for 4 quarters in a row on its earnings per share. Argus Research and Refinitiv/Verus recently upgraded Humana to BUY.

Humana has fared worse than the healthcare benchmark over the last 52 weeks with a return of roughly -35% compared to the price return for the healthcare benchmark of approximately -9%.

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Humana Inc., together with its subsidiaries, operates as a health and well-being company in the United States. It operates through three segments: Retail, Group and Specialty, and Healthcare Services. The company offers medical and supplemental benefit plans to individuals. Company Website: https://www.humana.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Humana Inc. (HUM) 16.11 -35.14
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV 24.92 -8.97

* Data through May 29, 2025

By InvestMacro – Be sure to join our stock market newsletter to get our updates and to see more top companies we add to our stock watch list.

All information, stock ideas and opinions on this website are for general informational purposes only and do not constitute investment advice. Stock scores are a data driven process through company fundamentals and are not a recommendation to buy or sell a security. Company descriptions provided by sec.gov.

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

Healthcare Opinions Stock Market News

30 May

Managing forests and other ecosystems under rising threats requires thinking across wide-ranging scenarios

By Kyra Clark-Wolf, University of Colorado Boulder; Brian W. Miller, U.S. Geological Survey, and Imtiaz Rangwala, University of Colorado Boulder

In Sequoia and Kings Canyon National Parks in California, trees that have persisted through rain and shine for thousands of years are now facing multiple threats triggered by a changing climate.

Scientists and park managers once thought giant sequoia forests nearly impervious to stressors like wildfire, drought and pests. Yet, even very large trees are proving vulnerable, particularly when those stressors are amplified by rising temperatures and increasing weather extremes.

The rapid pace of climate change – combined with threats like the spread of invasive species and diseases – can affect ecosystems in ways that defy expectations based on past experiences. As a result, Western forests are transitioning to grasslands or shrublands after unprecedented wildfires. Woody plants are expanding into coastal wetlands. Coral reefs are being lost entirely.

To protect these places, which are valued for their natural beauty and the benefits they provide for recreation, clean water and wildlife, forest and land managers increasingly must anticipate risks they have never seen before. And they must prepare for what those risks will mean for stewardship as ecosystems rapidly transform.

As ecologists and a climate scientist, we’re helping them figure out how to do that.

Thinking through scenarios allows land managers to prepare for many potential outcomes.
Benjamin Slyngstad via USGS

Managing changing ecosystems

Traditional management approaches focus on maintaining or restoring how ecosystems looked and functioned historically.

However, that doesn’t always work when ecosystems are subjected to new and rapidly shifting conditions.

Ecosystems have many moving parts – plants, animals, fungi and microbes; and the soil, air and water in which they live – that interact with one another in complex ways.

When the climate changes, it’s like shifting the ground on which everything rests. The results can undermine the integrity of the system, leading to ecological changes that are hard to predict.

To plan for an uncertain future, natural resource managers need to consider many different ways changes in climate and ecosystems could affect their landscapes. Essentially, what scenarios are possible?

Preparing for multiple possibilities

At Sequoia and Kings Canyon, park managers were aware that climate change posed some big risks to the iconic trees under their care. More than a decade ago, they undertook a major effort to explore different scenarios that could play out in the future.

It’s a good thing they did, because some of the more extreme possibilities they imagined happened sooner than expected.

In 2014, drought in California caused the giant sequoias’ foliage to die back, something never documented before. In 2017, sequoia trees began dying from insect damage. And, in 2020 and 2021, fires burned through sequoia groves, killing thousands of ancient trees.

While these extreme events came as a surprise to many people, thinking through the possibilities ahead of time meant the park managers had already begun to take steps that proved beneficial. One example was prioritizing prescribed burns to remove undergrowth that could fuel hotter, more destructive fires.

The key to effective planning is a thoughtful consideration of a suite of strategies that are likely to succeed in the face of many different changes in climates and ecosystems. That involves thinking through wide-ranging potential outcomes to see how different strategies might fare under each scenario – including preparing for catastrophic possibilities, even those considered unlikely.

For example, prescribed burning may reduce risks from both catastrophic wildfire and drought by reducing the density of plant growth, whereas suppressing all fires could increase those risks in the long run.

Strategies undertaken today have consequences for decades to come. Managers need to have confidence that they are making good investments when they put limited resources toward actions like forest thinning, invasive species control, buying seeds or replanting trees. Scenarios can help inform those investment choices.

Constructing credible scenarios of ecological change to inform this type of planning requires considering the most important unknowns. Scenarios look not only at how the climate could change, but also how complex ecosystems could react and what surprises might lay beyond the horizon.

A chart shows different ecological changes — Scientists at the North Central Climate Adaptation Science Center are collaborating with managers in the Nebraska Sandhills to develop scenarios of future ecological change under different climate conditions, disturbance events like fires and extreme droughts, and land uses like grazing.
Photos: T. Walz, M. Lavin, C. Helzer, O. Richmond, NPS (top to bottom)., CC BY

Key ingredients for crafting ecological scenarios

To provide some guidance to people tasked with managing these landscapes, we brought together a group of experts in ecology, climate science, and natural resource management from across universities and government agencies.

We identified three key ingredients for constructing credible ecological scenarios:

1. Embracing ecological uncertainty: Instead of banking on one “most likely” outcome for ecosystems in a changing climate, managers can better prepare by mapping out multiple possibilities. In Nebraska’s Sandhills, we are exploring how this mostly intact native prairie could transform, with outcomes as divergent as woodlands and open dunes.

2. Thinking in trajectories: It’s helpful to consider not just the outcomes, but also the potential pathways for getting there. Will ecological changes unfold gradually or all at once? By envisioning different pathways through which ecosystems might respond to climate change and other stressors, natural resource managers can identify critical moments where specific actions, such as removing tree seedlings encroaching into grasslands, can steer ecosystems toward a more desirable future.

3. Preparing for surprises: Planning for rare disasters or sudden species collapses helps managers respond nimbly when the unexpected strikes, such as a severe drought leading to widespread erosion. Being prepared for abrupt changes and having contingency plans can mean the difference between quickly helping an ecosystem recover and losing it entirely.

Over the past decade, access to climate model projections through easy-to-use websites has revolutionized resource managers’ ability to explore different scenarios of how the local climate might change.

What managers are missing today is similar access to ecological model projections and tools that can help them anticipate possible changes in ecosystems. To bridge this gap, we believe the scientific community should prioritize developing ecological projections and decision-support tools that can empower managers to plan for ecological uncertainty with greater confidence and foresight.

Ecological scenarios don’t eliminate uncertainty, but they can help to navigate it more effectively by identifying strategic actions to manage forests and other ecosystems.

About the Author:

Kyra Clark-Wolf, Research Scientist in Ecological Transformation, University of Colorado Boulder; Brian W. Miller, Research Ecologist, U.S. Geological Survey, and Imtiaz Rangwala, Research Scientist in Climate, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado Boulder

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

30 May

Weaponized storytelling: How AI is helping researchers sniff out disinformation campaigns

By Mark Finlayson, Florida International University and Azwad Anjum Islam, Florida International University

It is not often that cold, hard facts determine what people care most about and what they believe. Instead, it is the power and familiarity of a well-told story that reigns supreme. Whether it’s a heartfelt anecdote, a personal testimony or a meme echoing familiar cultural narratives, stories tend to stick with us, move us and shape our beliefs.

This characteristic of storytelling is precisely what can make it so dangerous when wielded by the wrong hands. For decades, foreign adversaries have used narrative tactics in efforts to manipulate public opinion in the United States. Social media platforms have brought new complexity and amplification to these campaigns. The phenomenon garnered ample public scrutiny after evidence emerged of Russian entities exerting influence over election-related material on Facebook in the lead-up to the 2016 election.

While artificial intelligence is exacerbating the problem, it is at the same time becoming one of the most powerful defenses against such manipulations. Researchers have been using machine learning techniques to analyze disinformation content.

At the Cognition, Narrative and Culture Lab at Florida International University, we are building AI tools to help detect disinformation campaigns that employ tools of narrative persuasion. We are training AI to go beyond surface-level language analysis to understand narrative structures, trace personas and timelines and decode cultural references.

Disinformation vs. misinformation

In July 2024, the Department of Justice disrupted a Kremlin-backed operation that used nearly a thousand fake social media accounts to spread false narratives. These weren’t isolated incidents. They were part of an organized campaign, powered in part by AI.

Disinformation differs crucially from misinformation. While misinformation is simply false or inaccurate information – getting facts wrong – disinformation is intentionally fabricated and shared specifically to mislead and manipulate. A recent illustration of this came in October 2024, when a video purporting to show a Pennsylvania election worker tearing up mail-in ballots marked for Donald Trump swept platforms such as X and Facebook.

Within days, the FBI traced the clip to a Russian influence outfit, but not before it racked up millions of views. This example vividly demonstrates how foreign influence campaigns artificially manufacture and amplify fabricated stories to manipulate U.S. politics and stoke divisions among Americans.

Humans are wired to process the world through stories. From childhood, we grow up hearing stories, telling them and using them to make sense of complex information. Narratives don’t just help people remember – they help us feel. They foster emotional connections and shape our interpretations of social and political events.

Stories have profound effects on human beliefs and behavior.

This makes them especially powerful tools for persuasion – and, consequently, for spreading disinformation. A compelling narrative can override skepticism and sway opinion more effectively than a flood of statistics. For example, a story about rescuing a sea turtle with a plastic straw in its nose often does more to raise concern about plastic pollution than volumes of environmental data.

Usernames, cultural context and narrative time

Using AI tools to piece together a picture of the narrator of a story, the timeline for how they tell it and cultural details specific to where the story takes place can help identify when a story doesn’t add up.

Narratives are not confined to the content users share – they also extend to the personas users construct to tell them. Even a social media handle can carry persuasive signals. We have developed a system that analyzes usernames to infer demographic and identity traits such as name, gender, location, sentiment and even personality, when such cues are embedded in the handle. This work, presented in 2024 at the International Conference on Web and Social Media, highlights how even a brief string of characters can signal how users want to be perceived by their audience.

For example, a user attempting to appear as a credible journalist might choose a handle like @JamesBurnsNYT rather than something more casual like @JimB_NYC. Both may suggest a male user from New York, but one carries the weight of institutional credibility. Disinformation campaigns often exploit these perceptions by crafting handles that mimic authentic voices or affiliations.

Although a handle alone cannot confirm whether an account is genuine, it plays an important role in assessing overall authenticity. By interpreting usernames as part of the broader narrative an account presents, AI systems can better evaluate whether an identity is manufactured to gain trust, blend into a target community or amplify persuasive content. This kind of semantic interpretation contributes to a more holistic approach to disinformation detection – one that considers not just what is said but who appears to be saying it and why.

Also, stories don’t always unfold chronologically. A social media thread might open with a shocking event, flash back to earlier moments and skip over key details in between.

Humans handle this effortlessly – we’re used to fragmented storytelling. But for AI, determining a sequence of events based on a narrative account remains a major challenge.

Our lab is also developing methods for timeline extraction, teaching AI to identify events, understand their sequence and map how they relate to one another, even when a story is told in nonlinear fashion.

Objects and symbols often carry different meanings in different cultures, and without cultural awareness, AI systems risk misinterpreting the narratives they analyze. Foreign adversaries can exploit cultural nuances to craft messages that resonate more deeply with specific audiences, enhancing the persuasive power of disinformation.

Consider the following sentence: “The woman in the white dress was filled with joy.” In a Western context, the phrase evokes a happy image. But in parts of Asia, where white symbolizes mourning or death, it could feel unsettling or even offensive.

In order to use AI to detect disinformation that weaponizes symbols, sentiments and storytelling within targeted communities, it’s critical to give AI this sort of cultural literacy. In our research, we’ve found that training AI on diverse cultural narratives improves its sensitivity to such distinctions.

Who benefits from narrative-aware AI?

Narrative-aware AI tools can help intelligence analysts quickly identify orchestrated influence campaigns or emotionally charged storylines that are spreading unusually fast. They might use AI tools to process large volumes of social media posts in order to map persuasive narrative arcs, identify near-identical storylines and flag coordinated timing of social media activity. Intelligence services could then use countermeasures in real time.

In addition, crisis-response agencies could swiftly identify harmful narratives, such as false emergency claims during natural disasters. Social media platforms could use these tools to efficiently route high-risk content for human review without unnecessary censorship. Researchers and educators could also benefit by tracking how a story evolves across communities, making narrative analysis more rigorous and shareable.

Ordinary users can also benefit from these technologies. The AI tools could flag social media posts in real time as possible disinformation, allowing readers to be skeptical of suspect stories, thus counteracting falsehoods before they take root.

As AI takes on a greater role in monitoring and interpreting online content, its ability to understand storytelling beyond just traditional semantic analysis has become essential. To this end, we are building systems to uncover hidden patterns, decode cultural signals and trace narrative timelines to reveal how disinformation takes hold.

About the Author:

Mark Finlayson, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Florida International University and Azwad Anjum Islam, Ph.D. Student in Computing and Information Sciences, Florida International University

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

Opinions Programming

29 May

NASDAQ Listing for Crypto Co. a Milestone

Source: Mark Palmer (5/27/25)

The upgrade from the OTC should afford this growing fintech various benefits, including greater visibility, noted a Benchmark report.

DeFi Technologies Inc. (DEFT:NASDAQ; DEFI:CBOE; R9B:FSE) received approval to list its common shares on the NASDAQ starting today, under the symbol DEFT, reported Benchmark Analyst Mark Palmer in a May 12 research note. Benchmark increased its target price on the fintech firm on expected growth in 2025.

“We believe DeFi’s uplisting to the NASDAQ is likely to result in significantly increased liquidity for the stock, broader institutional ownership and sell-side coverage of its shares and a lower overall cost of capital for the company,” Palmer wrote.

DeFi, offering exposure to a differentiated portfolio of cryptocurrencies, no longer will trade on the OTC. It will, however, continue on the CBOE in Canada (symbol DEFI), where it has traded since September 2016, and on the Frankfurt Stock Exchange (symbol R9B).

Target Price Raised

Benchmark raised its target price on the digital assets firm to CA$8 per share from CA$5 based on 15x its forecasted full-year 2025 earnings per share (EPS) of CA$0.53, noted Palmer.

“Our bullish stance toward DeFi’s shares is rooted in our confidence that it will be able to execute on its aggressive growth plans during the balance of the year and beyond,” wrote the analyst.

Those include adding at least 40 new crypto-focused exchange-traded products (ETPs) by year-end, taking the total count to more than 100. Plans also include expansion in the U.K., Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, toward which the company has been working.

DeFi announced in its last monthly update that it increased its assets under management (AUM) in April to CA$988 (CA$988M), reflecting an 11.7% month-over-month increase. This is attributed to rising crypto prices and CA$10.8M of net inflows into DeFi’s ETPs. In other growth news, the DeFi Alpha trading desk closed a CA$30.5M arbitrage trade on May 5.

Stock Undervalued, 44% Uplift

DeFi was trading, at the time of Palmer’s report, at CA$5.55 per share, the analyst noted. While this level is consistent with the fintech’s growth prospects, it is at a steep discount to other crypto-related stocks, including Coinbase Global Inc. (COIN:NASDAQ), Robinhood Markets Inc. (HOOD:NASDAQ) and Galaxy Digital Holdings Ltd. (GXLY:TSX).

From this share price, the return to target is 44%. DeFi is a Buy.

Changes to Estimates

Palmer reported that Benchmark tweaked its estimates for DeFi to account for its progress as well as the recent uptick in crypto prices. For Q1/25, estimated revenue was reduced to CA$27M from CA$52.7M and estimate earnings per share was lowered to CA$0.06 from CA$0.09.

Q2/25 EPS was raised to CA$0.16 from CA$0.10 to reflect DeFi Alpha’s May 5 arbitrage trade.

More Stock Details

Palmer reported that on May 12, DeFi had 298 million shares outstanding, a market cap of CA$1.2 billion and a 52-week range of CA$0.75–5.56 per share.

Important Disclosures:

Doresa Banning wrote this article for Streetwise Reports LLC and provides services to Streetwise Reports as an independent contractor.
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.

Disclosures for Benchmark Equity Research, DeFi Technologies Inc., May 12, 2025

alyst Certification The Benchmark Company, LLC (“Benchmark”) analyst(s) whose name(s) appears on the front page of this research report certifies that the recommendations and opinions expressed herein accurately reflect the research analyst’s personal views about any and all of the subject securities or issues discussed herein. Furthermore, no part of the research analyst’s compensation was, is, or will be, directly or indirectly, related to the specific recommendations or views expressed by the research analyst(s) in this research report.

Equity Research Ratings System Firm-Wide Stock Ratings Distribution As of March 31, 2025 All Covered Companies Investment Banking Clients Buy 266 73.7% 57 15.8% Hold 73 20.2% 5 1.4% Speculative Buy 20 5.5% 11 3.0% Sell 2 0.6% 0 0.0% Company Ratings Buy: Stock is expected to outperform the analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* over the following 6 to 12 months. Speculative Buy: The stock has a market value below $100M and/or a higher financial risk profile. It is expected to outperform the analyst’s defined sector/industry index over the following 6 to 12 months. Hold: Stock is expected to perform in-line with the analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* over the following 6 to 12 months. Sell: Stock is expected to underperform the analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* over the following 6 to 12 months. Industry Ratings Overweight: Analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* is expected to outperform the S&P 500 over the following 6 to 12 months. Market Weight: Analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* is expected to perform in-line with the S&P 500 over the following 6 to 12 months. Underweight: Analyst’s defined Sector/Industry Index* is expected to underperform the S&P 500 over the following 6 to 12 months. Benchmark Disclosures as of May 12, 2025 Company Disclosure DeFi Technologies Inc Research Disclosure Legend 1. In the past 12 months, Benchmark and its affiliates have received compensation for investment banking services from the subject company. 2. In the past 12 months, Benchmark and its affiliates have managed or comanaged a public offering of securities for the subject company. 3. Benchmark and its affiliates expect to receive or intend to seek compensation for investment banking services from the subject company in the next three months. 4. The research analyst, a member of the research analyst’s household, any associate of the research analyst, or any individual directly involved in the preparation of this report has a long position in the shares or derivatives of the subject company. 5. The research analyst, a member of the research analyst’s household, any associate of the research analyst, or any individual directly involved in preparation of this report has a short position in the shares or derivatives of this subject company. 6. A member of the research analyst’s household serves as an officer, director or advisory board member of the subject company. 7. As of the month end immediately preceding the date of publication of this report, or the prior month end if publication is within 10 days following a month end, Benchmark and its affiliates, in the aggregate, beneficially owned 1% or more of any class of equity securities of the subject company. 8. A partner, director, officer, employee or agent of Benchmark, or a member of his/her household, is an officer, director or advisor, board member of the subject company and/or one of its subsidiaries. 9. Benchmark makes a market in the securities of the subject company. 10. In the past 12 months, Benchmark, its partners, affiliates, officers or directors, or any analyst involved in the preparation of this report, has provided non-investment banking securities-related services to the subject company for remuneration. 11. In the past 12 months, Benchmark, its partners, affiliates, officers or directors, or any analyst involved in the preparation of this report, has provided non-securities related services to the subject company for remuneration. Investment Risk Risks to our investment thesis include crypto market volatility, regulatory risk, changing investor sentiment resulting in reduced ETP flows, and liquidity risk. Valuation Methodology Our C$8.00 price target for DEFI is based on 15x the company’s FY25E diluted earnings per share of C$0.53. We believe the multiple we have used reflects DEFI’s ample growth prospects. Price Charts Benchmark’s disclosure price charts are updated within the first fifteen days of each new calendar quarter per FINRA regulations. Price charts for companies initiated upon in the current quarter, and rating and target price changes occurring in the current quarter, will not be displayed until the following quarter. Additional information on recommended securities is available on request.

General Disclosures The Benchmark Company, LLC. (“Benchmark” or “the Firm”) compensates research analysts, like other Firm employees, based on the Firm’s overall revenue and profitability, which includes revenues from the Firm’s institutional sales, trading, and investment banking departments. No portion of the analyst’s compensation is based on a specific banking transaction. Analyst compensation is based upon a variety of factors, including the quality of analysis, performance of recommendations and overall service to the Firm’s institutional clients. This publication does not constitute an offer or solicitation of any transaction in any securities referred to herein. Ratings that use the “Speculative” risk qualifier are considered higher risk. Any recommendation contained herein may not be suitable for all investors. The Benchmark Company, LLC makes every effort to use reliable, comprehensive information, but we make no representation that it is accurate or complete. We have no obligation to disclose when information in this report changes apart from when we intend to discontinue research coverage of a subject company. Although the information contained in the subject report has been obtained from sources, we believe to be reliable, its accuracy and completeness cannot be guaranteed. This publication and any recommendation contained herein speak only as of the date hereof and are subject to change without notice. The Benchmark Company, LLC and its affiliated companies and employees shall have no obligation to update or amend any information herein. This publication is being furnished to you for informational purposes only and on the condition that it will not form a primary basis for any investment decision. Each investor must make its own determination of the appropriateness of an investment in any securities referred to herein based on the legal, tax and accounting considerations applicable to such investor and its own investment strategy. By virtue of this publication, none of The Benchmark Company, LLC or any of its employees shall be responsible for any investment decision. This report may discuss numerous securities, some of which may not be qualified for sale in certain states and may therefore not be offered to investors in such states. The “Recent Price” stated on the cover page reflects the nearest closing price prior to the date of publication. For additional disclosure information regarding the companies in this report, please contact The Benchmark Company, LLC, 150 East 58th Street, New York, NY 10155, 212-312-6770. The Benchmark Company, LLC is not in any way affiliated with or endorsed by the Menlo Park, California venture capital firm Benchmark Capital.

Cryptocurrencies Opinions

29 May

Critical minerals don’t belong in landfills – microwave tech offers a cleaner way to reclaim them from e-waste

By Terence Musho, West Virginia University

When the computer or phone you’re using right now blinks its last blink and you drop it off for recycling, do you know what happens?

At the recycling center, powerful magnets will pull out steel. Spinning drums will toss aluminum into bins. Copper wires will get neatly bundled up for resale. But as the conveyor belt keeps rolling, tiny specks of valuable, lesser-known materials such as gallium, indium and tantalum will be left behind.

Those tiny specks are critical materials. They’re essential for building new technology, and they’re in short supply in the U.S. They could be reused, but there’s a problem: Current recycling methods make recovering critical minerals from e-waste too costly or hazardous, so many recyclers simply skip them.

Sadly, most of these hard-to-recycle materials end up buried in landfills or get mixed into products like cement. But it doesn’t have to be this way. New technology is starting to make a difference.

Multiple printed circuit boards laid on top of one another. — A treasure trove of critical materials is often overlooked in e-waste, including gallium in LEDs, indium in LCDs, and tantalum in surface mount capacitors.
Ansan Pokharel/West Virginia University, CC BY

As demand for these critical materials keeps growing, discarded electronics can become valuable resources. My colleagues and I at West Virginia University are developing a new technology to change how we recycle. Instead of using toxic chemicals, our approach uses electricity, making it safer, cleaner and more affordable to recover critical materials from electronics.

How much e-waste are we talking about?

Americans generated about 2.7 million tons of electronic waste in 2018, according to the latest federal data. Including uncounted electronics, a survey by the United Nations suggests that the U.S. recycles only about 15% of its total e-waste.

Even worse, nearly half the electronics that people in Northern America sent to recycling centers end up shipped overseas. They often land in scrapyards, where workers may use dangerous methods like burning or leaching using harsh chemicals to pull out valuable metals. These practices can harm both the environment and workers’ health. That’s why the Environmental Protection Agency restricts these methods in the U.S.

The tiny specks matter

Critical minerals are in most of the technology around you. Every phone screen has a super-thin layer of a material called indium tin oxide. LEDs glow because of a metal called gallium. Tantalum stores energy in tiny electronic parts called capacitors.

All of these materials are flagged as “high risk” on the U.S. Department of Energy’s critical materials list. That means the U.S. relies heavily on these materials for important technologies, but their supply could be easily disrupted by conflicts, trade disputes or shortages.

Right now, just a few countries, including China, control most of the mining, processing and recovery of these materials, making the U.S. vulnerable if those countries decide to limit exports or raise prices.

These materials aren’t cheap, either. For example, the U.S. Geological Survey reports that gallium was priced between US$220 to $500 per kilogram in 2024. That’s 50 times more expensive than common metals like copper, at $9.48 per kilogram in 2024.

Revolutionizing recycling with microwaves

At West Virginia University’s Department of Mechanical, Materials and Aerospace Engineering, I and materials scientist Edward Sabolsky asked a simple question: Could we find a way to heat only specific parts of electronic waste to recover these valuable materials?

If we could focus the heat on just the tiny specks of critical minerals, we might be able to recycle them easily and efficiently.

The solution we found: microwaves.

This equipment isn’t very different from the microwave ovens you use to heat food at home, just bigger and more powerful. The basic science is the same – electromagnetic waves cause electrons to oscillate, creating heat.

In our approach, though, we’re not heating water molecules like you do when cooking. Instead, we heat carbon, the black residue that collects around a candle flame or car tailpipe. Carbon heats up much faster in a microwave than water does. But don’t try this at home; your kitchen microwave wasn’t designed for such high temperatures.

Photo of a chemistry lab space with colorful gas bottles. At the center of the image is a microwave reactor connected by a waveguide to a microwave source. — West Virginia University researchers are using this experimental microwave reactor to recycle critical materials from end-of-life electronics.
Ansan Pokharel/West Virginia University, CC BY

In our recycling method, we first shred the electronic waste, mix it with materials called fluxes that trap impurities, and then heat the mixture with microwaves. The microwaves rapidly heat the carbon that comes from the plastics and adhesives in the e-waste. This causes the carbon to react with the tiny specks of critical materials. The result: a tiny piece of pure, sponge-like metal about the size of a grain of rice.

This metal can then be easily separated from leftover waste using filters.

So far, in our laboratory tests, we have successfully recovered about 80% of the gallium, indium and tantalum from e-waste, at purities between 95% and 97%. We have also demonstrated how it can be integrated with existing recycling processes.

Why the Department of Defense is interested

Our recycling technology got its start with help from a program funded by the Defense Department’s Advanced Research Projects Agency, or DARPA.

Many important technologies, from radar systems to nuclear reactors, depend on these special materials. While the Department of Defense uses less of them than the commercial market, they are a national security concern.

We’re planning to launch larger pilot projects next to test the method on smartphone circuit boards, LED lighting parts and server cards from data centers. These tests will help us fine-tune the design for a bigger system that can recycle tons of e-waste per hour instead of just a few pounds. That could mean producing up to 50 pounds of these critical minerals per hour from every ton of e-waste processed.

If the technology works as expected, we believe this approach could help meet the nation’s demand for critical materials.

How to make e-waste recycling common

One way e-waste recycling could become more common is if Congress held electronics companies responsible for recycling their products and recovering the critical materials inside. Closing loopholes that allow companies to ship e-waste overseas, instead of processing it safely in the U.S., could also help build a reserve of recovered critical minerals.

But the biggest change may come from simple economics. Once technology becomes available to recover these tiny but valuable specks of critical materials quickly and affordably, the U.S. can transform domestic recycling and take a big step toward solving its shortage of critical materials.

About the Author:

Terence Musho, Associate Professor of Engineering, West Virginia University

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

Energy Opinions

28 May

Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care

By Patrick Aguilar, Washington University in St. Louis and Peter Boumgarden, Washington University in St. Louis

Pharmacies are more than just stores – they’re vital links between people and their health care.

One of us, Patrick, witnessed this firsthand in 2003 while working as a pharmacy technician at Walgreens in a midsize West Texas town. Each day involved handling hundreds of prescriptions as they moved through the system – meticulously counting pills, deciphering doctors’ handwriting and sorting out confusing insurance issues. The experience revealed that how pharmacies are owned and managed is as much a public health issue as it is a financial one.

Fast-forward to today, and Walgreens – one of the world’s largest pharmacy chains, which filled nearly 800 million U.S. prescriptions in 2024 – is at a turning point. In March, the company announced it would be acquired by private equity firm Sycamore Partners for US$10 billion, just 10% of its peak market value. That deal takes the storied pharmacy chain off the public market for the first time in nearly 100 years.

We’re professors who study the intersection of medicine and business, and we think this deal offers a window into the future of pharmacy care. It matters not just to pharmacists but also to the tens of millions of Americans who rely on outlets like Walgreens to meet their everyday health needs.

The rise and struggles of Walgreens

A lot has changed in the pharmacy industry since 1901, when Charles R. Walgreen Sr. purchased the Chicago drugstore where he served as a pharmacist. The company went public in 1927, expanded rapidly throughout the 20th century and grew to 8,000 stores by 2013. By 2014, a merger with the European pharmacy chain Alliance Boots made Walgreens one of the largest pharmacy chains in the world.

More recently, however, the picture for the pharmacy industry hasn’t been so rosy. Labor costs have risen. Front-end retail sales – things like snacks, greeting cards and cosmetics – have fallen. And financial pressures from pharmacy benefit managers – those third-party groups that manage the cost of prescription drug benefits on the behalf of insurers – have grown.

All of these things have significantly constrained revenues across the industry, leading stores to shutter. Some estimates suggest that as many as one-third of U.S. retail pharmacies have closed since 2010.

Against that backdrop, Sycamore Partners’ March acquisition of Walgreens raises big questions. What does Sycamore see in this investment, and what might their strategies imply about the future of American pharmacy care?

Framing the private equity bet

Private equity firms typically buy companies, streamline their operations and seek to sell them for a profit within five to seven years of the acquisition.

This growing movement of private equity into the global economy is by no means limited to health care. In 2020, private equity firms employed 11.7 million U.S. workers, or about 7% of the country’s total workforce. The total assets under management by such investors have grown by over 11% annually over the past two decades, a trend that’s expected to continue.

In looking at Walgreens, Sycamore, like many of these businesses, likely sees an opportunity to buy low, cut costs and improve profitability. One survey of private equity investors found that the most common self-reported sources of value creation in these deals for companies of Sycamore’s size were changing the product and marketing it more robustly to drive demand, changing incentives for those within the business, and facilitating a high-value exit.

While private owners may have more patience than public markets, critics argue that private equity firms tend to have a short-term focus, looking for quick, predictable services of margin improvement – like, for example, cutting jobs.

There’s some evidence in favor of that claim. One study found that employment often drops in the years following a private equity buyout. And if the focus shifts to repaying debt or prepping for resale, long-term projects, such as investing in future innovation, can get deprioritized.

The history of privatized public companies offers a mix of successes and failures. Dell Technologies and hotel chain Hilton are two prominent examples of companies that went private, restructured successfully and came back stronger. In those cases, going private helped management focus without the constant pressure of quarterly earnings reports.

On the other hand, companies such as Toys R Us, which was taken private in 2005 and filed for bankruptcy in 2018, show how high debt and missed innovation can lead to collapse.

What’s next for Walgreens

So, where does this leave Walgreens − and the investors involved in the deal?

If part of the returns will be driven by “buying low” – the easiest indicator of potential future success to measure as of today – Sycamore started well: Its purchase price represents a mere 8% premium over the market trading value on the day of the announcement, significantly less than the 46% seen across industries in 2023. That said, Sycamore financed 83.4% of the purchase with debt, a number on the high end for these kinds of transactions. Health care groups have pointed to this number while raising concerns that innovation-focused investments may take a back seat to debt obligations.

As the dust settles on the purchase, Sycamore has indicated an interest in splitting Walgreens into three business units: one focused on U.S. pharmacies, one on U.K. pharmacies and one on U.S. primary health care through its VillageMD subsidiary.

That’s not unusual: Sycamore has used a similar approach before with its investment in the office supply retailer Staples, a strategy that has garnered strong financial returns but been called into question for its long-term sustainability.

Given the significant financial challenges VillageMD has faced since its acquisition by Walgreens, this represents an opportunity to separately evaluate and optimize its performance. Meanwhile, Sycamore’s historic focus on retail and customer-focused businesses might help it modernize the in-store experience or optimize staffing.

For more than a century, Walgreens has survived and adapted to sweeping changes in retail. Now, it’s entering a new chapter – one that could reshape not just its own future but the role of pharmacies in American life.

Will Sycamore help Walgreens thrive, using its resources to strengthen services and deliver more value to customers? Or will pressure to generate quick returns create problems? Either way, the answer matters – not just for investors but for anyone who’s ever relied on their neighborhood pharmacy to stay healthy.

About the Author:

Patrick Aguilar, Professor of Practice of Organizational Behavior, Washington University in St. Louis and Peter Boumgarden, Professor of Family Enterprise, Washington University in St. Louis

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

Opinions Stock Market News

26 May

Speculator Bets led lower by Canadian Dollar & Brazilian Real, USD Index Bets edge up

By InvestMacro

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

The latest COT data is updated through Tuesday May 20th 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 lower overall by Canadian Dollar & Brazilian Real

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

The currency with a gain this week was the US Dollar Index that showed a small rise of 69 contracts on the week.

The currencies seeing declines in speculator bets on the week were the Canadian Dollar (-21,705 contracts), the Brazilian Real (-17,226 contracts), the EuroFX (-10,321 contracts), the Australian Dollar (-9,731 contracts), the Japanese Yen (-4,938 contracts), British Pound (-3,223 contracts), the Mexican Peso (-3,174 contracts), Bitcoin (-1,125 contracts), the New Zealand Dollar (-1,040 contracts) and with the Swiss Franc (-698 contracts) seeing lower bets on the week.

Currency Speculator Position Roundup:

The latest data (through Tuesday May 20th) showed that all currency speculator positions pulled back, except for the US Dollar Index. However, the US Dollar Index only had a small rise and actually remains in a very small net speculator bearish position of -546 contracts as of Tuesday.

Overall, most currencies’ speculator positions remain in a bullish state against the US Dollar, including the Japanese Yen, which is not too far off its all-time record high that has was reached recently on April 29th at +179,212 contracts. The Euro is currently at approximately +75,000 contracts and has been in an overall bullish position for the past 11 weeks. The British Pound has also been in a bullish position for 13 straight weeks and is around +24,000 contracts at the moment.

The Mexican Peso has been mostly bullish since 2023 and is currently at approximately +62,000 contracts, which is above its average for 2025 (of around +34,000 weekly contracts). In comparison, the Mexican Peso contracts averaged +68,482 weekly contracts over the whole of 2024 which included a 15-week streak of over +100,000 contracts from March of 2024 to June 2024.

The Brazilian Real recently hit an all-time high and remains bullish for a 16th consecutive week at over +26,000 contracts.

The only speculator positions with negative positions right now against the US Dollar are the Swiss Franc, the New Zealand Dollar, the Australian Dollar, the Canadian Dollar and Bitcoin.

Euro Speculator Bets

The Euro speculator bets dipped this week by over 10,000 contracts for its largest pullback since early April. However, this speculator contract has been on the rise strongly since February, with gains in 10 out of the last 14 weeks. The 14-week rise has been over a total +138,000 contracts to bring the Euro position from a -64,425 contract position on February 11th to this week’s total of +74,453 contracts.

Bitcoin Speculator Contracts

The Bitcoin speculator positions have been in overall bearish territory for the last five weeks. Bitcoin contracts seem to be behaving similarly to some of the stock market contracts, which exhibit the behavior of hedging among the speculators. As the Bitcoin price has been going up, the contracts speculators have been going more bearish and vice versa. The Bitcoin price has been rising rapidly lately and reaching all-time record high prices despite the bearish speculator bets.

Exchange Rate Market

The US Dollar Index fell sharply on the week and closed under the significant 100 level, ending the week around the 99.30 level.

The Euro, the Pound, the Yen, the Swiss Franc, the Canadian Dollar, the Australian Dollar, and the New Zealand Dollar, despite the fall in speculator contracts, all had positive weeks against the US Dollar in the exchange rate markets.

Last week, the Mexican Peso was up for the third time in the last four weeks, while the Brazilian Real also squeaked out a positive week.

Currencies Data:

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

Strength Scores led by Japanese Yen & Brazilian Real

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 Japanese Yen (97 percent) and the Brazilian Real (66 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The Mexican Peso (61 percent), EuroFX (57 percent) and the Swiss Franc (53 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the US Dollar Index (6 percent) and the Bitcoin (9 percent) come in at the lowest strength levels currently and are in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are the Australian Dollar (34 percent) and the New Zealand Dollar (37 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (5.6 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (5.4 percent)
EuroFX (57.1 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (61.0 percent)
British Pound Sterling (45.4 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (46.8 percent)
Japanese Yen (96.7 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (98.1 percent)
Swiss Franc (52.7 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (54.1 percent)
Canadian Dollar (41.4 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (51.1 percent)
Australian Dollar (34.4 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (41.3 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (37.1 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (38.3 percent)
Mexican Peso (60.6 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (62.3 percent)
Brazilian Real (65.9 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (79.9 percent)
Bitcoin (8.7 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (33.3 percent)

New Zealand Dollar & Swiss Franc top the 6-Week Strength Trends

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the New Zealand Dollar (18 percent) and the Swiss Franc (13 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies. The Mexican Peso (12 percent), the Canadian Dollar (7 percent) and the EuroFX (6 percent) are the next highest positive movers in the 3-Year trends data.

The Bitcoin (-72 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the Brazilian Real (-15 percent), US Dollar Index (-7 percent) and the Australian Dollar (3 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (-7.2 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (-15.9 percent)
EuroFX (5.5 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (12.5 percent)
British Pound Sterling (3.1 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (-3.4 percent)
Japanese Yen (5.6 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (13.9 percent)
Swiss Franc (13.2 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (39.9 percent)
Canadian Dollar (6.9 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (21.4 percent)
Australian Dollar (3.0 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (18.8 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (17.9 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (25.9 percent)
Mexican Peso (12.0 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (7.5 percent)
Brazilian Real (-15.3 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (5.3 percent)
Bitcoin (-71.7 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (-28.8 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

The US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -546 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly gain of 69 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -615 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 5.6 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 97.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 12.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Downtrend

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

US DOLLAR INDEX Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	58.2	27.7	7.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	60.1	21.5	11.8
– Net Position:	-546	1,870	-1,324
– Gross Longs:	17,583	8,369	2,252
– Gross Shorts:	18,129	6,499	3,576
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.0 to 1	1.3 to 1	0.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	5.6	97.8	12.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-7.2	8.8	-13.8

Euro Currency Futures:

The Euro Currency large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 74,453 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decrease of -10,321 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 84,774 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 57.1 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 38.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 89.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

EURO Currency Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	27.1	55.8	12.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	17.3	72.5	5.5
– Net Position:	74,453	-126,830	52,377
– Gross Longs:	206,042	423,456	94,072
– Gross Shorts:	131,589	550,286	41,695
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.6 to 1	0.8 to 1	2.3 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	57.1	38.0	89.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	5.5	-12.4	48.8

British Pound Sterling Futures:

The British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 23,993 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -3,223 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 27,216 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 Bearish with a score of 49.9 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 82.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

BRITISH POUND Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	45.1	29.5	17.0
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	32.8	46.8	12.0
– Net Position:	23,993	-33,817	9,824
– Gross Longs:	88,144	57,675	33,168
– Gross Shorts:	64,151	91,492	23,344
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.4 to 1	0.6 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	45.4	49.9	82.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	3.1	-7.5	23.8

Japanese Yen Futures:

The Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 167,330 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -4,938 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 172,268 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 96.7 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 5.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 76.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

JAPANESE YEN Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	53.0	27.8	10.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	7.4	77.2	6.8
– Net Position:	167,330	-181,021	13,691
– Gross Longs:	194,510	102,102	38,497
– Gross Shorts:	27,180	283,123	24,806
– Long to Short Ratio:	7.2 to 1	0.4 to 1	1.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	96.7	5.3	76.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	5.6	-4.9	-2.1

Swiss Franc Futures:

The Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -23,767 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decrease of -698 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -23,069 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 52.7 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 40.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 72.3 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

SWISS FRANC Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	10.4	70.9	18.5
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	42.9	36.3	20.6
– Net Position:	-23,767	25,298	-1,531
– Gross Longs:	7,632	51,871	13,558
– Gross Shorts:	31,399	26,573	15,089
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	2.0 to 1	0.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	52.7	40.8	72.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	13.2	-20.4	25.4

Canadian Dollar Futures:

The Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -103,861 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -21,705 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -82,156 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 41.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 61.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 17.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

CANADIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	8.5	81.3	8.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	47.4	38.9	11.7
– Net Position:	-103,861	112,982	-9,121
– Gross Longs:	22,629	216,736	22,213
– Gross Shorts:	126,490	103,754	31,334
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	2.1 to 1	0.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	41.4	61.5	17.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	6.9	-7.0	3.1

Australian Dollar Futures:

The Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -59,077 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -9,731 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -49,346 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 34.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 65.4 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 47.9 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

AUSTRALIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	11.8	68.2	11.7
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	45.0	34.7	11.9
– Net Position:	-59,077	59,536	-459
– Gross Longs:	20,997	121,279	20,781
– Gross Shorts:	80,074	61,743	21,240
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	2.0 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	34.4	65.4	47.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	3.0	-6.4	17.0

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

The New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -23,652 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly fall of -1,040 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -22,612 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 37.1 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 61.4 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 45.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	16.3	76.3	5.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	55.1	36.6	6.9
– Net Position:	-23,652	24,260	-608
– Gross Longs:	9,981	46,591	3,626
– Gross Shorts:	33,633	22,331	4,234
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	2.1 to 1	0.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	37.1	61.4	45.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	17.9	-19.1	19.5

Mexican Peso Futures:

The Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 62,532 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -3,174 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 65,706 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 60.6 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 41.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 31.2 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Strong Uptrend

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

MEXICAN PESO Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	65.2	29.3	4.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	19.6	76.0	3.0
– Net Position:	62,532	-64,062	1,530
– Gross Longs:	89,323	40,078	5,579
– Gross Shorts:	26,791	104,140	4,049
– Long to Short Ratio:	3.3 to 1	0.4 to 1	1.4 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	60.6	41.3	31.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	12.0	-14.3	24.2

Brazilian Real Futures:

The Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of 26,289 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -17,226 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 43,515 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 65.9 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 27.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 76.6 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

BRAZIL REAL Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	56.3	31.4	12.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	27.6	70.9	1.3
– Net Position:	26,289	-36,167	9,878
– Gross Longs:	51,552	28,734	11,113
– Gross Shorts:	25,263	64,901	1,235
– Long to Short Ratio:	2.0 to 1	0.4 to 1	9.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	65.9	27.6	76.6
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-15.3	8.3	48.1

Bitcoin Futures:

The Bitcoin large speculator standing this week came in at a net position of -1,952 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -1,125 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -827 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 8.7 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 50.8 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Weak Downtrend

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

BITCOIN Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	75.4	6.6	4.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	81.5	1.3	3.8
– Net Position:	-1,952	1,692	260
– Gross Longs:	24,142	2,121	1,466
– Gross Shorts:	26,094	429	1,206
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.9 to 1	4.9 to 1	1.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	8.7	100.0	50.8
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-71.7	61.1	36.0

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Forex and Currency News Opinions

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

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

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:	*P/E Ratio (TTM)	*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: CONMED Corporation (CNMD)	15.64	-23.03
– Benchmark Symbol: XLV	24.92	-8.97