Opinions

Archive for Opinions – Page 25

Target to sink back to 5-year lows after today’s earnings?

Target set to release earnings before US markets open today (Wed, May 21st)
US tariff fears expected to hit results for Q1 FY2026 (3 months ending April 30th)
Comparable sales forecasted to fall 1.8% year-on-year; EPS to drop over 18% y/y
Post-earnings, 1-day move predicted at 9.3% up/down for Target shares today
Wall Street analysts predict, pre-earnings, 20.8% upside over next 12 months

Target is set to unveil its fiscal Q1 earnings before US markets open today (Wed, May 21st).

At the time of writing, Target’s stocks are languishing around their lowest levels since August 2019.

Perhaps more tellingly, this stock has struggled to recover back above the psychologically-important $100 level since US President Donald Trump’s “liberation day” tariffs announcement on April 2nd.

Furthermore, as of the closing price on Tuesday, May 20th, Target’s stocks remain 27.4% lower so far this year.

Such sluggishness is all the more obvious when compared to the rebound in broader US stock markets over the past month, with the benchmark S&P 500 now back up 1% year-to-date.

From a technical perspective, despite finding some measure of support at its 21-day simple moving average (SMA) in recent sessions, Target remains hemmed in by its 50-day SMA, besides the earlier-mentioned psychological $100 level.

Target to sink back to 5-year lows after today’s earnings?

Could its fortunes change by today’s market open?
Experts think it’s unlikely.

Target’s fiscal Q1 2026 earnings (three months ending 30 April 2025): What to look out for?

Overall, Wall Street analysts predict that Target’s soon-to-be-released financial figures will point to a spending pullback by Target’s cautious customers who are wary about US tariffs.

This retail giant is expected to post the following key metrics:

Comparable Sales: down 1.84%
Average transaction amount: down 1.77%

Additionally, here are other (adjusted) headline numbers to look out for:

Revenue: US$ 24 billion – lowest since fiscal Q3 2021
If so, that would mark a 2.1% drop compared to Q1 FY2025
Net income: US$ 756.7 million – lowest since fiscal Q3 2023
Earnings per share (EPS): US$1.66
If so, that would mark an 18.08% drop compared to Q1 FY2025

More importantly, traders and investors will be glued to Target’s outlook on how US consumer demand might hold up in the face of tariff threats.

Can Target draw inspiration from other retail giants?

Target bulls (those hoping this stock can push higher) will be hoping that this retail giant can emulate the earnings outlook from another retail giant: Home Depot.

Just before US markets opened on Tuesday, May 20th, Home Depot – the world’s biggest home-improvement retailer – maintained its full-year sales forecast.

And that’s despite reporting a 0.3% drop in comparable sales for its latest fiscal quarter amid similar expected dampeners to consumer spending.

Home Depot execs also said they expect:

the worst of economic concerns to be in the past
tariffs to not translate into broad price increases

To be certain, even such seemingly soothing signals were unable to prevent Home Depot’s shares from falling 0.6% post-earnings during Tuesday’s cash session.

In contrast to Home Depot, Walmart sang a different tune at its quarterly results unveiling last week.

Walmart – the largest retailer in the world – suggested that:

price spikes stemming from tariffs are starting to take hold
the company would likely pass on such costs to end users

It remains to be seen what sort of signals will be conveyed by Target’s C-suite, whether it’s more in line with Home Depot’s confidence, or Walmart’s warnings.

Potential Post-Earnings Scenarios

Note that markets currently predict that Target shares could move 9.3% up or down when US markets reopen today – Wednesday, May 21st – right after its earnings announcement.

BULLISH: Should Target unveil better-than-expected Q1 figures, and more importantly speak confidently of resilient spending among US consumers, that could launch its stock back above $107 for the first time since March.

BEARISH: Should Target announce lower-than-expected Q1 results, coupled with growing concerns about weakening US consumer spending amid persistent tariff fears, or worse – pull its earnings guidance altogether for the year – that may see Target’s stocks gapping down to open around the $89.00 level – close to its year-to-date/5-year lows.

Over the next 12 months …

Wall Street analysts are rather neutral on this stock’s 12-month prospects, with:

23 “Hold” calls
14 “Buys”
2 “Sells”

Yet Target’s stocks are predicted to have another 20.8% potential upside over the next 12 months, potentially hitting $118.51 by May 2026.

Of course, all those analysts’ forecasts and 12-month target price may change drastically in a few hours, depending on what Target conveys to markets.

Targets earnings announcement is bound to offer the latest clues on the overall health of US domestic consumption – the primary driver of the world’s largest economy – while also potentially producing outsized trading opportunities in the immediate aftermath.

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

21 May

Gold Prices Climb Amid Geopolitical Tensions

By RoboForex Analytical Department

The price of gold rose to $3,303 per troy ounce on Wednesday, nearing a two-week high. The precious metal gained for the third consecutive day, following a 2% surge the previous day as investors sought safety amid heightened geopolitical uncertainty.

Key drivers behind the rally

Middle East Tensions: fears of escalation increased over a potential Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, which could trigger retaliatory measures from Tehran.

US Political Uncertainty: President Donald Trump’s remarks on peace talks between Russia and Ukraine added to market unease, though he distanced himself from a mediating role.

Dollar Weakness: the US dollar remained under pressure after the Federal Reserve’s cautious economic outlook and Moody’s downgrade of the US credit rating, citing rising government debt.

Trade & Fiscal Policy: investor confidence in the dollar was further dented by uncertainty over trade tariffs and the pending vote on Trump’s proposed tax reforms.

As a result, the dollar’s weakness has made gold more attractive to international buyers.

Technical analysis: XAU/USD

H4 Chart:

The market consolidated near 3,222 before breaking upward
The immediate upside target of 3,312 has now been met
A pullback to retest 3,222 (from above) is likely, followed by a potential rise towards 3,333
MACD Indicator: The signal line remains above zero and points upward, supporting further gains

H1 Chart:

The pair broke through 3,250 and continued its upward trajectory towards 3,333
A short-term correction to 3,222 is expected before another push higher
The current uptrend is viewed as corrective; once complete, a downward wave towards 3,222 may follow
Stochastic Oscillator: The signal line is below 80 and trending downward towards 20, indicating potential near-term weakness

Conclusion

Gold’s rally reflects its role as a haven amid geopolitical risks and dollar softness. While technical indicators point to a temporary correction, the broader uptrend remains intact, with 3,333 as the next key resistance level.

Disclaimer

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

Metals Opinions

18 May

Euro Speculator Bets hit 2024 High as Brazilian Real Bets Rebound, CAD Bets Decline

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 13th and shows a quick view of how large market participants (for-profit speculators and commercial traders) were positioned in the futures markets. All currency positions are in direct relation to the US dollar where, for example, a bet for the euro is a bet that the euro will rise versus the dollar while a bet against the euro will be a bet that the euro will decline versus the dollar.

Weekly Speculator Changes led by Brazilian Real & EuroFX

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

Leading the gains for the currency markets was the Brazilian Real (18,554 contracts) with the EuroFX (9,055 contracts), Bitcoin (954 contracts), the New Zealand Dollar (523 contracts), the Swiss Franc (505 contracts) and the US Dollar Index (493 contracts) also showing positive weeks.

The currencies seeing declines in speculator bets on the week were the Canadian Dollar (-11,511 contracts), the Japanese Yen (-4,591 contracts), the Mexican Peso (-2,849 contracts), the British Pound (-2,019 contracts) and the Australian Dollar (-974 contracts) also registering lower bets on the week.

Currency Futures Data Highlights: Euro hits 2024 high

This week’s notable changes in the Currency Speculator positions included the Euro rising to a new yearly high, the Brazilian Real rebounding from last week’s sharp decline, and the Canadian Dollar posting the largest decrease this week in the speculator bets.

Euro Speculator Position:
– The Euro speculator bet rose by over +9,000 contracts this week.
– The Euro speculator position has risen in 4 out of the past 6 weeks and in 10 out of the last 13 weeks.
– Over the last 13 weeks, approximately +150,000 contracts have been added to the Euro speculator position.
– The overall standing has increased from approximately -64,000 contracts in February to a +84,774 contracts this week.
– This brings the Euro contract position to its highest level since September 2024, a span of 36 weeks.

Brazilian Real Speculator Position:
– The Brazilian Real jumped this week with a gain of over +18,000 speculator positions, rebounding from last week’s -43,377 contract decline.
– The Brazilian Real contract positions have risen in 5 out of the past 6 weeks and maintains a bullish net position of over +43,000 contracts this week.

Other Major Currencies:
– Speculator positions for the Australian Dollar, the Swiss Franc, the U.S. Dollar Index, the New Zealand Dollar, and Bitcoin all saw changes of less than 1,000 contracts on the week.
– The Japanese Yen saw an approximate -4,500 contract fall from its overall net position but maintains a highly bullish position slightly off the all-time highs of 2 weeks ago.
– The Canadian Dollar saw the most bearish change of the week with a decline of over 11,000 contracts, likely weighed down by falling oil prices and speculation that the Canadian government could reduce interest rates.

U.S. Dollar Index:
– The U.S. Dollar Index currently has a speculator’s net standing of -615 contracts, which amounts to an overall neutral position after a small gain this week.
– The U.S. Dollar Index price has risen slightly for the past 4 weeks in a row and ended the week just below the 101.00 exchange level.

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 (98 percent) and the Brazilian Real (80 percent) lead the currency markets this week. The Mexican Peso (62 percent), the EuroFX (61 percent) and the Swiss Franc (54 percent) come in as the next highest in the weekly strength scores.

On the downside, the US Dollar Index (5 percent) comes in at the lowest strength levels currently and is in Extreme-Bearish territory (below 20 percent). The next lowest strength scores are Bitcoin (33 percent), the New Zealand Dollar (38 percent) and the Australian Dollar (41 percent).

3-Year Strength Statistics:
US Dollar Index (5.4 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (4.4 percent)
EuroFX (61.0 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (57.6 percent)
British Pound Sterling (48.3 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (49.2 percent)
Japanese Yen (98.1 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (99.4 percent)
Swiss Franc (54.1 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (53.1 percent)
Canadian Dollar (51.1 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (56.3 percent)
Australian Dollar (41.3 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (42.0 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (38.3 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (37.7 percent)
Mexican Peso (62.3 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (63.7 percent)
Brazilian Real (79.9 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (64.8 percent)
Bitcoin (33.3 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (12.4 percent)

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

COT Strength Score Trends (or move index, calculates the 6-week changes in strength scores) showed that the Swiss Franc (40 percent) and the New Zealand Dollar (26 percent) lead the past six weeks trends for the currencies. The Canadian Dollar (21 percent), the Australian Dollar (19 percent) and the Japanese Yen (14 percent) are the next highest positive movers in the 3-Year trends data.

Bitcoin (-29 percent) leads the downside trend scores currently with the US Dollar Index (-16 percent) following next with lower trend scores.

3-Year Strength Trends:
US Dollar Index (-15.9 percent) vs US Dollar Index previous week (-17.8 percent)
EuroFX (12.5 percent) vs EuroFX previous week (3.9 percent)
British Pound Sterling (-3.3 percent) vs British Pound Sterling previous week (-6.8 percent)
Japanese Yen (13.9 percent) vs Japanese Yen previous week (14.2 percent)
Swiss Franc (39.9 percent) vs Swiss Franc previous week (28.4 percent)
Canadian Dollar (21.4 percent) vs Canadian Dollar previous week (26.4 percent)
Australian Dollar (18.8 percent) vs Australian Dollar previous week (20.6 percent)
New Zealand Dollar (25.9 percent) vs New Zealand Dollar previous week (21.3 percent)
Mexican Peso (7.5 percent) vs Mexican Peso previous week (4.9 percent)
Brazilian Real (5.3 percent) vs Brazilian Real previous week (-12.5 percent)
Bitcoin (-28.8 percent) vs Bitcoin previous week (-64.6 percent)

Individual COT Forex Markets:

US Dollar Index Futures:

The US Dollar Index large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -615 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 493 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -1,108 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 5.4 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 96.2 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 24.2 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:	55.5	27.4	10.2
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	57.7	23.6	11.8
– Net Position:	-615	1,067	-452
– Gross Longs:	15,539	7,680	2,849
– Gross Shorts:	16,154	6,613	3,301
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.0 to 1	1.2 to 1	0.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	5.4	96.2	24.2
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-15.9	14.7	2.6

Euro Currency Futures:

The Euro Currency large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 84,774 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly boost of 9,055 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 75,719 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 61.0 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 35.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 83.3 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:	27.9	54.2	12.6
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	16.6	72.0	6.0
– Net Position:	84,774	-134,282	49,508
– Gross Longs:	209,549	406,660	94,529
– Gross Shorts:	124,775	540,942	45,021
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.7 to 1	0.8 to 1	2.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	61.0	35.5	83.3
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	12.5	-17.5	41.1

British Pound Sterling Futures:

The British Pound Sterling large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 27,216 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decrease of -2,019 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 29,235 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 48.3 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 48.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 72.4 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

BRITISH POUND Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	46.0	28.7	16.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	32.0	45.1	14.3
– Net Position:	27,216	-32,059	4,843
– Gross Longs:	89,540	55,836	32,765
– Gross Shorts:	62,324	87,895	27,922
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.4 to 1	0.6 to 1	1.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	48.3	48.6	72.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-3.3	2.7	1.4

Japanese Yen Futures:

The Japanese Yen large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 172,268 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly reduction of -4,591 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 176,859 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 98.1 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 4.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 74.4 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:	54.0	28.1	11.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	6.1	79.6	7.6
– Net Position:	172,268	-184,891	12,623
– Gross Longs:	194,226	101,140	40,015
– Gross Shorts:	21,958	286,031	27,392
– Long to Short Ratio:	8.8 to 1	0.4 to 1	1.5 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	98.1	4.3	74.4
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	13.9	-11.7	-9.5

Swiss Franc Futures:

The Swiss Franc large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -23,069 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 505 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -23,574 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 54.1 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 37.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 79.1 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:	10.2	69.8	19.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	41.7	38.3	19.8
– Net Position:	-23,069	22,999	70
– Gross Longs:	7,443	51,006	14,560
– Gross Shorts:	30,512	28,007	14,490
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	1.8 to 1	1.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	54.1	37.0	79.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	39.9	-43.6	30.0

Canadian Dollar Futures:

The Canadian Dollar large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -82,156 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -11,511 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -70,645 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 51.1 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 52.6 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 16.1 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

CANADIAN DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	8.8	81.0	8.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	40.1	46.0	11.8
– Net Position:	-82,156	91,895	-9,739
– Gross Longs:	23,250	212,802	21,276
– Gross Shorts:	105,406	120,907	31,015
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.2 to 1	1.8 to 1	0.7 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	51.1	52.6	16.1
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	21.4	-21.8	10.2

Australian Dollar Futures:

The Australian Dollar large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -49,346 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly decline of -974 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -48,372 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 41.3 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 60.3 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 45.0 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:	14.1	66.5	11.8
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	41.5	38.3	12.6
– Net Position:	-49,346	50,883	-1,537
– Gross Longs:	25,507	119,964	21,268
– Gross Shorts:	74,853	69,081	22,805
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	1.7 to 1	0.9 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	41.3	60.3	45.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	18.8	-16.8	4.6

New Zealand Dollar Futures:

The New Zealand Dollar large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -22,612 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 523 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -23,135 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 38.3 percent. The commercials are Bullish with a score of 59.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bullish with a score of 59.7 percent.

Price Trend-Following Model: Uptrend

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

NEW ZEALAND DOLLAR Statistics	SPECULATORS	COMMERCIALS	SMALL TRADERS
– Percent of Open Interest Longs:	16.8	74.6	7.1
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	54.0	38.2	6.3
– Net Position:	-22,612	22,116	496
– Gross Longs:	10,207	45,320	4,303
– Gross Shorts:	32,819	23,204	3,807
– Long to Short Ratio:	0.3 to 1	2.0 to 1	1.1 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	38.3	59.0	59.7
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish	Bullish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	25.9	-27.8	29.8

Mexican Peso Futures:

The Mexican Peso large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 65,706 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly lowering of -2,849 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 68,555 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bullish with a score of 62.3 percent. The commercials are Bearish with a score of 38.5 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 44.0 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:	66.9	26.7	5.3
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	18.2	78.2	2.4
– Net Position:	65,706	-69,541	3,835
– Gross Longs:	90,191	35,941	7,084
– Gross Shorts:	24,485	105,482	3,249
– Long to Short Ratio:	3.7 to 1	0.3 to 1	2.2 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	62.3	38.5	44.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	7.5	-10.0	26.6

Brazilian Real Futures:

The Brazilian Real large speculator standing this week reached a net position of 43,515 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly rise of 18,554 contracts from the previous week which had a total of 24,961 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 79.9 percent. The commercials are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 18.8 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish with a score of 40.9 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:	63.9	30.7	4.9
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	19.1	79.1	1.2
– Net Position:	43,515	-47,068	3,553
– Gross Longs:	62,123	29,847	4,729
– Gross Shorts:	18,608	76,915	1,176
– Long to Short Ratio:	3.3 to 1	0.4 to 1	4.0 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	79.9	18.8	40.9
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bullish	Bearish-Extreme	Bearish
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	5.3	-4.8	-2.6

Bitcoin Futures:

The Bitcoin large speculator standing this week reached a net position of -827 contracts in the data reported through Tuesday. This was a weekly increase of 954 contracts from the previous week which had a total of -1,781 net contracts.

This week’s current strength score (the trader positioning range over the past three years, measured from 0 to 100) shows the speculators are currently Bearish with a score of 33.3 percent. The commercials are Bullish-Extreme with a score of 100.0 percent and the small traders (not shown in chart) are Bearish-Extreme with a score of 0.0 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:	80.7	6.8	4.4
– Percent of Open Interest Shorts:	83.5	1.5	6.9
– Net Position:	-827	1,548	-721
– Gross Longs:	23,453	1,986	1,276
– Gross Shorts:	24,280	438	1,997
– Long to Short Ratio:	1.0 to 1	4.5 to 1	0.6 to 1
NET POSITION TREND:
– Strength Index Score (3 Year Range Pct):	33.3	100.0	0.0
– Strength Index Reading (3 Year Range):	Bearish	Bullish-Extreme	Bearish-Extreme
NET POSITION MOVEMENT INDEX:
– 6-Week Change in Strength Index:	-28.8	45.3	-27.8

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

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

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

COT Updates Forex and Currency News Opinions

18 May

Speculator Extremes: Brent, Wheat lead weekly Bullish & Bearish Positions

By InvestMacro

The latest update for the weekly Commitment of Traders (COT) report was released by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) on Friday for data ending on May 13th.

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 score (or maximum) of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score totaled a rise of 14 points this week. The overall net speculator position was a total of 5,637 net contracts this week with a gain of 3,142 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.

Japanese Yen

The Japanese Yen speculator position comes next in the extreme standings this week. The JPY speculator level is now at a 98 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the percent strength score was a gain by 14 points this week. The speculator position registered 172,268 net contracts this week with a weekly decline of -4,591 contracts in speculator bets.

VIX

The VIX speculator position comes in third this week in the extreme standings. The VIX speculator level resides at a 96 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score came in at 14 this week. The overall speculator position was 6,099 net contracts this week with a drop of -4,844 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Nikkei 225

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

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score totaled a boost by 35 points this week. The overall speculator position was 1,904 net contracts this week with a rise by 2,025 contracts in the speculator bets.

Brazil Real

The Brazil Real speculator position rounds out the top five in this week’s bullish extreme standings. The BRL speculator level sits at a 80 percent score of its 3-year range. The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was 5 this week.

The speculator position was 43,515 net contracts this week with a jump by 18,554 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

This Week’s Most Bearish Speculator Positions:

Wheat

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

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -11 points this week. The overall speculator position was -118,100 net contracts this week with a decrease by -10,563 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 at a 5 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -7 points this week. The speculator position was -2,180,043 net contracts this week with a rise of 116,453 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Heating Oil

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

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -25 points this week. The overall speculator position was -29,396 net contracts this week with an increase of 2,214 contracts in the speculator bets.

US Dollar Index

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

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was -16 points this week. The speculator position was -615 net contracts this week with an advance by 493 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

2-Year Bond

Finally, the 2-Year Bond speculator position comes in as the fifth most bearish extreme standing for this week. The 2-Year speculator level is at a 18 percent score of its 3-year range.

The six-week trend for the speculator strength score was 0 this week. The speculator position was -1,222,232 net contracts this week with a dip by -1,439 contracts in the weekly speculator bets.

Article By InvestMacro – Receive our weekly COT Newsletter

COT Updates Energy Opinions

15 May

Piper Sandler leads latest Small-Cap Stock System Scores

By InvestMacro Research | Stock Market Ideas

The second quarter of 2025 is underway and we wanted to highlight three of the top small-cap companies that have been just recently added to our Cosmic Rays Watchlist. Today’s group includes a financial services company, an industrial company and a communications provider.

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).

Currently, the total number of stocks in our model is 1,291. We have scored 12,949 quarterly earnings reports so far and overall, only 7.74% of company earnings reports have come in with a 50 or above score.

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 3 of our Top Small-Cap Stocks scored in Q1 2025:

Piper Sandler Companies (PIPR):

Piper Sandler Companies (Symbol: PIPR) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. PIPR scored a 81 in our fundamental rating system on May 5th, 2025.

At time of writing, only 0.66% of stocks have scored a 80 or better out of a total of 12,949 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 2 times.

PIPR is a Small-Cap stock and part of the Financial Services sector. The industry focus for PIPR is the Capital Markets.

Piper Sandler

– P.E. ratio: 23.38
– Dividend: approximately 1.00%
– Dividend payout ratio: approximately 25%
– Earnings: Earnings PerShare (EPS) has risen 3 out of the last 4 quarters, beating analyst expectations for the last 2 quarters in a row

Piper Sandler Price Performance:
– Trades above 0.382 fibonacci retracement level (2022 to present)
– Down 11% year to date
– Up 20% in the last month

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Piper Sandler Companies operates as an investment bank and institutional securities firm that serves corporations, private equity groups, public entities, non-profit entities, and institutional investors in the United States and internationally. The company offers investment banking and institutional sales, trading, and research services for various equity and fixed income products. Company Website: https://www.pipersandler.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Piper Sandler Companies (PIPR) 23.38 25.84
– Benchmark Symbol: XLF 17.01 21.85

* Data through May 14, 2025

Griffon Corporation (GFF):

Griffon Corporation (Symbol: GFF) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. GFF scored a 56 in our fundamental rating system on May 9th, 2025.

At time of writing, only 7.74% of stocks have scored a 50 or better out of a total of 12,949 scores in our earnings database. This stock is on our Watchlist for the first time after rising by 10 system points from our last update.

GFF is a Small-Cap stock and part of the Industrials sector. The industry focus for GFF is Conglomerates.

Griffon Company:
– P.E. ratio: 15.45
– Dividend ratio: approximately 1%
– Payout ratio: approximately 15%
– Beaten analysts’ EPS expectations for three straight quarters
– EPS, P.E., and 5-year average P.E. below the industry average

Griffon Corporation Price Performance:
– Uptrend since 2022
– Trades above 0.236 fibonacci retracement level (2020 to present)
– Up 2.50% year to date
– Up 3.60% in the last month

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

Griffon Corporation, through its subsidiaries, provides consumer and professional, and home and building products in the United States, Europe, Canada, Australia, and internationally. Company Website: https://www.griffon.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Griffon Corporation (GFF) 15.45 3.26
– Benchmark Symbol: XLI 24.51 12.01

* Data through May 14, 2025

TEGNA Inc. (TGNA):

TEGNA Inc. (Symbol: TGNA) was recently added to our Cosmic Rays WatchList. TGNA scored a 61 in our fundamental rating system on May 9th, 2025.

At time of writing, only 4.43% of stocks have scored a 60 or better out of a total of 12,949 scores in our earnings database. This stock has made our Watchlist a total of 4 times and rose by 25 system points from our last update.

TGNA is a Small-Cap stock and part of the Communication Services sector. The industry focus for TGNA is Broadcasting.

Tenga:
– P.E. ratio: 6.26
– Dividend ratio: slightly under 3%
– Dividend payout ratio: around 18%
– Beaten analysts’ expectations for four quarters
– EPS, P.E., and 5-year P.E. average below the industry average

Price Performance:
– Down 4% year-to-date
– Trading off the April lows
– Up over 13% in the last month
– Trades above 0.50 fibonacci retracement level (2020 to present)

Company Description (courtesy of SEC.gov):

TEGNA Inc. operates as a media company in the United States. The company operates television stations that deliver television programming and digital content. It offers news content to consumers across various platforms, including online, mobile, and social platforms; owns and operates multicast networks under the names True Crime Network, Quest, and Twist that offer on-demand episodes of shows; and operates VAULT Studios, which provides True Crime Network and Quest. Company Website: https://www.tegna.com

Asset vs Sector Benchmark: *P/E Ratio (TTM) *52-Week Price Return
– Stock: TEGNA Inc. (TGNA) 6.26 16.93
– Benchmark Symbol: XLC 19.09 20.18

* Data through May 14, 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.

Opinions Stock Market Ideas Stock Market News

15 May

Utilities choosing coal, solar, nuclear or other power sources have a lot to consider, beyond just cost

By Erin Baker, UMass Amherst and Paola Pimentel Furlanetto, UMass Amherst

The Trump administration is working to lift regulations on coal-fired power plants in the hopes of making its energy less expensive. But while cost is one important aspect, utilities have a lot more to consider when they choose their power sources.

Different technologies play different roles in the power system. Some sources, like nuclear energy, are reliable but inflexible. Other sources, like oil, are flexible but expensive and polluting.

How utilities choose which power source to invest in depends in large part on two key aspects: price and reliability.

Power prices

One way to compare power sources is by their levelized cost of electricity. This shows how much it costs to produce one unit of electricity on average over the life of the generator.

The asset management firm Lazard has produced levelized cost of electricity calculations for the major U.S. electricity sources annually for years, and it has tracked a sharp decline in solar power costs in particular.

Coal is one of the more expensive technologies for utilities today, making it less competitive compared with solar, wind and natural gas, by Lazard’s calculations. Only nuclear, offshore wind and “peaker” plants, which are used only during periods of high electricity demand, are more expensive.

Land-based wind and solar power have the lowest estimated costs, far below what consumers are paying for electricity today. The National Renewable Energy Lab has found similar levelized costs for renewable energy, though its estimates for nuclear are lower than Lazard’s.

Upfront costs are also important and can make the difference for whether new power projects can be built, as the East Coast has seen lately.

Several offshore wind farms planned along the Northeast were canceled in recent years as costs rose due to inflation and supply chain problems during the pandemic. Construction costs for the two newest nuclear generators built in the U.S. also rose considerably as the projects, both in the Southeast, faced delays.

Reliability and flexibility matter

But cost is not the whole story. Utilities must balance a number of criteria when investing in power sources.

Most important is matching supply and demand at every moment of the day. Due to the technical characteristics of electricity and how it flows, if the supply of electricity is even a little bit lower than the demand, that can trigger a blackout. This means power companies and consumers need generation that can ramp down when demand is low and ramp up when demand is high.

Since wind and solar generation depend on the wind blowing and the sun shining, these sources must be combined with other types of generation or with storage, such as batteries, to ensure the power grid has exactly as much power as it needs at all times.

Nuclear and coal are predictable and run reliably, but they are inflexible – they take time to ramp up and down, and doing so is expensive. Steam turbines are simply not built for flexibility. The multiple days it took to shut down Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant after an earthquake and tsunami damaged its backup power sources in 2011 illustrated the challenges and safety issues related to ramping down nuclear plants.

That means coal and nuclear aren’t as helpful on those hot summer days when utilities need a quick power increase to keep air conditioners running. These peaks may only happen a few days a year, but keeping the power on is crucial for human health and the economy.

In today’s energy system, the most flexible generation sources are natural gas and hydro. They can quickly adjust to meet changing electricity demand without the safety and cost concerns of coal and nuclear. Hydro can ramp in minutes but can only be built where large dams are feasible. The most cost-effective natural gas technology can ramp up within hours.

The big picture, by power source

Over the past two decades, natural gas use has risen quickly to overtake coal as the most common fuel for generating electricity in the U.S. The boom was largely driven by the growing use of fracking technology, which allowed producers to extract gas from rock and lowered the price.

Natural gas’s low price and high flexibility make it an attractive choice. Its rise is a large part of the reason coal use has plummeted.

But natural gas has its challenges. Natural gas requires pipelines to carry it across the country, leading to disruptive construction. As Texas saw during its February 2021 blackouts, natural gas equipment can also fail in extreme cold. And like coal, natural gas is a fossil fuel that releases greenhouse gases during combustion, so it is also helping to cause climate change and contributes to air pollution that can harm human health.

Nuclear power has been gaining interest recently since it does not contribute to climate change or local air pollution. It also provides a steady baseload of power, which is useful for computing centers as their demand does not fluctuate as much as households.

Of course, nuclear has ongoing challenges around the storage of radioactive waste and security concerns, and construction of large nuclear plants takes many years.

Coal is more flexible than nuclear, but far less so than natural gas or hydropower. Most concerning, coal is extremely dirty, emitting more climate-change-causing gases, and far more air pollution than natural gas.

Solar and wind have grown rapidly in recent years due to their falling costs and environmental benefits. According to Lazard, the cost of solar combined with batteries, which would be as flexible as hydropower, is well below the cost of coal with its limited flexibility.

However, wind and solar tend to take up a lot of space, which has led to challenges in local approvals for new sites and transmission lines. In addition, the sheer number of new projects is overwhelming power system operators’ ability to evaluate them, leading to increasing wait times for new generation to come online.

What’s ahead?

Utilities have another consideration: Federal, state and local governments can also influence and sometimes limit utilities’ choices. Tariffs, for example, can increase the cost of critical components for new construction. Permitting and regulations can slow down development. Subsidies can artificially lower costs.

In our view, policies that are done right can help utilities move toward more reliable and cost-effective choices which are also cleaner. Done wrong, they can be costly to the economy and the environment.

About the Author:

Erin Baker, Distinguished Professor of Industrial Engineering and Faculty Director of The Energy Transition Institute, UMass Amherst and Paola Pimentel Furlanetto, Ph.D. candidate in Industrial Engineering and Operations Research, UMass Amherst

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

Energy Opinions

14 May

Challenges to high-performance computing threaten US innovation

By Jack Dongarra, University of Tennessee

High-performance computing, or HPC for short, might sound like something only scientists use in secret labs, but it’s actually one of the most important technologies in the world today. From predicting the weather to finding new medicines and even training artificial intelligence, high-performance computing systems help solve problems that are too hard or too big for regular computers.

This technology has helped make huge discoveries in science and engineering over the past 40 years. But now, high-performance computing is at a turning point, and the choices the government, researchers and the technology industry make today could affect the future of innovation, national security and global leadership.

High-performance computing systems are basically superpowerful computers made up of thousands or even millions of processors working together at the same time. They also use advanced memory and storage systems to move and save huge amounts of data quickly.


Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s Frontier supercomputer is one of the world’s fastest.
Oak Ridge Leadership Computing Facility, CC BY

With all this power, high-performance computing systems can run extremely detailed simulations and calculations. For example, they can simulate how a new drug interacts with the human body, or how a hurricane might move across the ocean. They’re also used in fields such as automotive design, energy production and space exploration.

Lately, high-performance computing has become even more important because of artificial intelligence. AI models, especially the ones used for things such as voice recognition and self-driving cars, require enormous amounts of computing power to train. High-performance computing systems are well suited for this job. As a result, AI and high-performance computing are now working closely together, pushing each other forward.

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory’s supercomputer El Capitan is currently the world’s fastest.

I’m a computer scientist with a long career working in high-performance computing. I’ve observed that high-performance computing systems are under more pressure than ever, with higher demands on the systems for speed, data and energy. At the same time, I see that high-performance computing faces some serious technical problems.

Technical challenges

One big challenge for high-performance computing is the gap between how fast processors are and how well memory systems can keep up with the processors’ output. Imagine having a superfast car but being stuck in traffic – it doesn’t help to have speed if the road can’t handle it. In the same way, high-performance computing processors often have to wait around because memory systems can’t send data quickly enough. This makes the whole system less efficient.

Another problem is energy use. Today’s supercomputers use a huge amount of electricity, sometimes as much as a small town. That’s expensive and not very good for the environment. In the past, as computer parts got smaller, they also used less power. But that trend, called Dennard scaling, stopped in the mid-2000s. Now, making computers more powerful usually means they use more energy too. To fix this, researchers are looking for new ways to design both the hardware and the software of high-performance computing systems.

There’s also a problem with the kinds of chips being made. The chip industry is mainly focused on AI, which works fine with lower-precision math like 16-bit or 8-bit numbers. But many scientific applications still need 64-bit precision to be accurate. The greater the bit count, the more digits to the right of the decimal point a chip can process, hence the greater precision. If chip companies stop making the parts that scientists need, then it could become harder to do important research.

This report discusses how trends in semiconductor manufacturing and commercial priorities may diverge from the needs of the scientific computing community, and how a lack of tailored hardware could hinder progress in research.

One solution might be to build custom chips for high-performance computing, but that’s expensive and complicated. Still, researchers are exploring new designs, including chiplets – small chips that can be combined like Lego bricks – to make high-precision processors more affordable.

A global race

Globally, many countries are investing heavily in high-performance computing. Europe has the EuroHPC program, which is building supercomputers in places such as Finland and Italy. Their goal is to reduce dependence on foreign technology and take the lead in areas such as climate modeling and personalized medicine. Japan built the Fugaku supercomputer, which supports both academic research and industrial work. China has also made major advances, using homegrown technology to build some of the world’s fastest computers. All of these countries’ governments understand that high-performance computing is key to their national security, economic strength and scientific leadership.

The U.S.-China supercomputer rivalry explained.

The United States, which has been a leader in high-performance computing for decades, recently completed the Department of Energy’s Exascale Computing Project. This project created computers that can perform a billion billion operations per second. That’s an incredible achievement. But even with that success, the U.S. still doesn’t have a clear, long-term plan for what comes next. Other countries are moving quickly, and without a national strategy, the U.S. risks falling behind.

I believe that a U.S. national strategy should include funding new machines and training for people to use them. It would also include partnerships with universities, national labs and private companies. Most importantly, the plan would focus not just on hardware but also on the software and algorithms that make high-performance computing useful.

Hopeful signs

One exciting area for the future is quantum computing. This is a completely new way of doing computation based on the laws of physics at the atomic level. Quantum computers could someday solve problems that are impossible for regular computers. But they are still in the early stages and are likely to complement rather than replace traditional high-performance computing systems. That’s why it’s important to keep investing in both kinds of computing.

The good news is that some steps have already been taken. The CHIPS and Science Act, passed in 2022, provides funding to expand chip manufacturing in the U.S. It also created an office to help turn scientific research into real-world products. The task force Vision for American Science and Technology, launched on Feb. 25, 2025, and led by American Association for the Advancement of Science CEO Sudip Parikh, aims to marshal nonprofits, academia and industry to help guide the government’s decisions. Private companies are also spending billions of dollars on data centers and AI infrastructure.

All of these are positive signs, but they don’t fully solve the problem of how to support high-performance computing in the long run. In addition to short-term funding and infrastructure investments, this means:

Long-term federal investment in high-performance computing R&D, including advanced hardware, software and energy-efficient architectures.
Procurement and deployment of leadership-class computing systems at national labs and universities.
Workforce development, including training in parallel programming, numerical methods and AI-HPC integration.
Hardware road map alignment, ensuring commercial chip development remains compatible with the needs of scientific and engineering applications.
Sustainable funding models that prevent boom-and-bust cycles tied to one-off milestones or geopolitical urgency.
Public-private collaboration to bridge gaps between academic research, industry innovation and national security needs.

High-performance computing is more than just fast computers. It’s the foundation of scientific discovery, economic growth and national security. With other countries pushing forward, the U.S. is under pressure to come up with a clear, coordinated plan. That means investing in new hardware, developing smarter software, training a skilled workforce and building partnerships between government, industry and academia. If the U.S. does that, the country can make sure high-performance computing continues to power innovation for decades to come.

About the Author:
Jack Dongarra, Emeritus Professor of Computer Science, University of Tennessee
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Opinions Programming

14 May

If you really want to close the US trade deficit, try boosting innovation in rural manufacturing

By Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Rochester Institute of Technology

President Donald Trump has long been preoccupied by the trade deficit — the gap between what the U.S. sells to the rest of the world and what it buys from it. He recently declared the issue a national emergency and used trade deficit data to calculate so-called “reciprocal tariffs” targeting nearly 100 countries. Although those specific tariffs are now on pause, Trump’s concern with the trade deficit persists.

As an economist, I know there are two basic ways for a country to reduce a trade deficit: import less or export more. While Trump has focused on the former strategy, a more productive path may lie in the latter – especially by looking at untapped opportunities in rural America.

Economists have long studied the differences between rural and urban regions. But while research shows that urban areas tend to be more technologically advanced, fast-growing and economically dynamic, economists have historically paid less attention to how regional differences affect export performance.

New research is starting to fill that gap. Economists recently found that urban businesses export significantly more than rural ones – a difference with significant implications for national trade.

The urban-rural export gap

Looking at data from the Census Bureau’s Annual Business Survey as well as trade statistics from 2017 to 2020, researchers used econometric techniques to measure the urban-rural export gap. They also examined two categories of potential causes – “explained” and “unexplained.”

The first is due to differences in what economists call “endowments” – for example, a region’s digital infrastructure, its access to renewable energy and its opportunities for high-tech employment. These endowments can be observed and therefore explained.

The second is due to what economists call “structural advantage.” This refers to attributes of a region that matter for export performance but can’t be observed and, as a result, remain unexplained.

They found that most of the urban-rural export gap is due to explained differences. That means rural businesses could close the export gap if they were provided with similar endowments – meaning comparable access to renewable energy, similar digital infrastructure and analogous opportunities for high-tech employment – to their urban counterparts.

Even more strikingly, the unexplained component was negative – which means rural businesses outperform expectations given their characteristics. That suggests rural regions have significant untapped export potential.

Several factors collectively account for the urban export advantage. First, urban regions have a greater concentration of highly educated science and technology workers. Urban businesses also tend to be larger and more tech-savvy, and because they have better access to broadband, they use cloud technology more frequently. Urban areas also have more foreign-born business owners who may leverage their international networks.

However, many of these differences suggest possible policy solutions. For instance, since cloud adoption depends on broadband availability, it follows that investing in digital infrastructure could boost rural exports. Also, rural manufacturers, especially in sectors like metals manufacturing, show comparable or higher export intensity per worker than their urban counterparts. So encouraging rural manufacturing would be one way to reduce the urban-rural export gap.

Rethinking trade and rural development

I think this research has important policy implications.

First, it shifts some of the focus away from other countries as the root cause of the trade deficit. And second, it bolsters the case for what economists call “place-based policies” targeting specific geographic areas – as opposed to “people-based policies,” which provide support directly to individuals.

Even though many economists dislike place-based policies, they are increasingly attracting both academic and governmental attention.

The 2022 CHIPS and Science Act had special significance to rural areas.

During the Biden administration, three major laws – the Inflation Reduction Act, the CHIPS and Science Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act – directed significant federal funds to rural areas. About 43% of funds from those laws – or US$440 billion – was designated as either “rural relevant” or as “rural stipulated,” meaning the funds were either geographically targeted or designed to address disproportionately rural challenges.

Such massive investments in rural regions have led researchers and policymakers to question whether rural export underperformance stems from differences in observable endowments – in other words, things like access to broadband – or from inherent disadvantages that are much harder to deal with.

In my view, this research provides compelling evidence that much of the urban-rural export gap is due to unequal distribution of productive assets, rather than inherent rural disadvantages. With appropriate investments in digital infrastructure, human capital and support for export-capable industries, America’s rural regions could play a much larger role in global trade. These findings also suggest the value of continued federal support for rural development efforts.

In other words, if the U.S. wants to shrink its trade deficit, one answer could be more innovation in rural manufacturing.

About the Author:

Amitrajeet A. Batabyal, Distinguished Professor, Arthur J. Gosnell Professor of Economics, & Interim Head, Department of Sustainability, Rochester Institute of Technology

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

13 May

Decentralized finance is booming – and so are the security risks. My team surveyed nearly 500 crypto investors and uncovered the most common mistakes

By Mingyi Liu, Georgia Institute of Technology

When the first cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, was proposed in 2008, the goal was simple: to create a digital currency free from banks and governments. Over time, that idea evolved into something much bigger: “decentralized finance,” or “DeFi.”

With decentralized finance, people trade, borrow and earn interest on crypto assets without relying on traditional intermediaries. DeFi services run on blockchains, which are essentially digital ledgers, and use “smart contracts” − self-executing code that automates financial transactions. Tens of billions of dollars have poured into the DeFi market.

But with innovation comes risks. The lack of centralized oversight has made crypto, including decentralized finance, a prime target for hackers and scammers. In 2024 alone, people lost nearly US$1.5 billion due to security exploits and fraud. And unlike traditional finance, there’s usually no way to recover stolen crypto.

As a computer scientist, I wanted to better understand how people perceive and respond to these risks. So my colleagues and I first conducted in-depth interviews with 14 crypto investors, then surveyed nearly 500 others to validate our findings.

Our study found that people often made the same mistakes, driven by recurring misconceptions and gaps in security awareness. Here are some of the most important.

Mistake 1: Thinking the blockchain guarantees security

Many people told us they thought decentralized finance was secure – but their reasoning wasn’t very convincing. Some seemed to confuse decentralized finance with blockchain technology itself, which is designed to ensure transactions are tamper-resistant through so-called “consensus mechanisms.” One told us that DeFi is secure “because a hacker would have to override an entire blockchain” to steal funds.

But services on the blockchain are still vulnerable to implementation and design flaws. These include smart contract breaches, in which bad guys exploit bugs in a service’s code, and front-end attacks, where a user interface is altered to redirect funds into a hacker’s wallet. A front-end attack was reportedly to blame for a recent $1.5 billion crypto heist.

CNBC reports on the record-breaking $1.5 billion crypto theft.

Mistake 2: Thinking safe keys mean safe funds

Another common misconception is that DeFi is secure if private keys are well stored. A private key is a secret code that allows someone to access their crypto assets. It’s true that in DeFi – unlike in centralized crypto finance where an exchange holds private keys – users have full control over their own private keys.

But even with perfect private key management, users can still lose funds by interacting with compromised DeFi platforms. That’s because safeguarding private keys can prevent only direct attacks targeting private key access, such as phishing attempts.

The people we spoke with also failed to follow best practices for securing their private keys. Using a hardware wallet – a physical device that stores private keys offline – is one of the most secure options for protecting keys from online threats. However, our study found that only a handful of participants actually used hardware wallets.

Mistake 3: Thinking 2-factor authentication is a silver bullet

Two-factor authentication, or 2FA, is a standard security mechanism in which two forms of verification are required to access an account. Think being texted a one-time code before you can log into your bank account.

To prevent account breaches, centralized crypto exchanges such as Binance and Coinbase use two-factor authentication for logins, account recovery and withdrawal confirmations. But while 2FA is crucial to security in the traditional and centralized crypto finance system, it plays a much smaller role in decentralized finance.

DeFi wallets give users access based on private key ownership rather than identity verification, which means traditional 2FA can’t be used. Instead, only 2FA-like mechanisms are available in DeFi. For instance, multisignature wallets require approval from multiple private key holders. However, if your private key is compromised, attackers can perform wallet operations on your behalf without any additional verification. In addition, even users who adopt 2FA-like measures can’t prevent the security breaches on the DeFi services’ end.

Unfortunately, our participants were overly confident regarding the effectiveness of 2FA, with one saying, “Two-factor authentication has been one of the best solutions for keeping wallets safe.” In our survey, 57.1% of users relied on 2FA as their only technical countermeasure against rug pulls – scams where project creators suddenly withdraw funds – and 49.3% did so for smart contract exploits. This misplaced trust could lead them to ignore more effective security strategies.

Mistake 4: Not managing token approvals

One such effective strategy is revoking token approvals. In DeFi, tokens are digital assets on a blockchain that represent value or rights, and users often need to approve smart contracts to access or spend them. But if you leave these approvals open, a malicious contract – or one that’s been hacked – can drain your wallet. So it’s crucial to routinely check all token approvals you’ve granted to prevent losses caused by fraudulent or hacked DeFi services. Specifically, you should limit spending allowances instead of using the default “unlimited” option, and revoke approvals for apps you no longer use or trust.

Worryingly, we found that only 10.8% and 16.3% of participants regularly checked and revoked token approvals to protect against rug pulls and smart contract exploits, respectively. In light of this, we recommend that wallet providers introduce a reminder feature to prompt users to review their token approvals periodically.

Mistake 5: Not learning from past incidents

Even after they’re hacked or scammed, people often don’t do anything to improve their security practices, we found. Just 17.6% of those who reported being victims of a DeFi scam regularly checked token approvals afterward. Worse, 26% took no action at all after a scam, and 16.4% doubled down by investing even more in other DeFi services.

Surprisingly, more than half of the victims said their belief in DeFi either stayed the same or grew stronger after the incident. One user who lost $4,700 due to a rug-pull incident said, “My belief in cryptocurrency has grown stronger after that because I made good money from it.” That person added, “An opportunity to make money is something I believe in.” This suggests that DeFi users’ financial motivations can sometimes outweigh their security concerns – and, perhaps, their better judgment.

There’s no one-size-fits-all solution to DeFi security. But awareness is the first step. To stay safe, crypto investors should use hardware wallets, revoke unused token approvals and continually learn new techniques to protect themselves from evolving threats. Most importantly, they should stay rational and not let the allure of profits cloud their security practices.

About the Author:

Mingyi Liu, Ph.D. student in Computer Science, Georgia Institute of Technology

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

Cryptocurrencies Opinions

12 May

Markets rally on 90-day US-China trade truce

By ForexTime

Risk-on returns on China-US trade truce
Both sides announce 115% reduction in tariffs for 90-days
Global equities, USDInd, Bitcoin and Oil rally
Gold tumbles almost 3%, JPY & CHF weaken
US500: US CPI sparked moves of ↑ 0.9% & ↓ 2.0% over past year

Investors sprinted toward riskier assets on Monday after China and the United States agreed to slash reciprocal tariffs for 90 days.

After positive talks over the weekends, both sides announced a massive 115% reduction in tariffs, representing a major step toward de-escalating a trade war.

China will lower tariffs on US goods to 10% from 125%.
The United States will cut tariffs on Chinese goods to 30% from 145%.

In response to the risk-on mood, Asian equities surged, European markets opened higher, while US futures flashed green.

FXTM’s USDInd jumped over 1%.
Bitcoin pushed beyond $105,000.
Crude oil rallied more than 2%.

Safe-haven assets took a beating as

Gold shed almost 3%.
The Yen and Swiss franc fell against all G10 currencies.

This breakthrough in the China and US talks has uplifted market sentiment and eased fears around a global recession.

Further signs of progress within this 90-day window could spell more gains for stock markets. However, if talks stall down the road or tensions return – risk assets will be in the firing line.

Beyond US-China trade developments, it’s a week packed with more key data and earnings from the largest Chinese companies.

The likes of JD.com, Tencent and Alibaba will publish their latest quarterly results which may influence FXTM’s CHINAH index.

On the data front, the CPI report is likely to impact Fed expectations, resulting in more volatility for US equities, USDInd and gold prices.

Speaking of equities, FXTM’s US500 has punched above key resistance at 5800.

The incoming CPI report and speech by Fed Chair Jerome Powell could determine whether this resistance is conquered.

Over the past 12 months, the US CPI has triggered upside moves of as much as 0.9% or declines of 2.0% in a 6-hour window post-release.

A solid breakout and daily close above 5800 may encourage an incline toward 5880.
Should prices remain below 5800, this may trigger a sell-off toward 5715.

Article by ForexTime

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

Economics & Fundamentals Opinions

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

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

Asset vs Sector Benchmark:	*P/E Ratio (TTM)	*52-Week Price Return
– Stock: Piper Sandler Companies (PIPR)	23.38	25.84
– Benchmark Symbol: XLF	17.01	21.85