Archive for Opinions – Page 84

Xi-Blinken meeting: Emerging markets hold growing appeal amid US-China rivalry

By George Prior 

The heightening US-China rivalry is fuelling international investors’ interest in emerging markets, according to the CEO and founder of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory, asset management and fintech organizations.

The analysis from Nigel Green of deVere comes as U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken met with Chinese President Xi Jinping on Monday, amid simmering U.S.-China tensions.

He comments: “The intensifying rivalry between the US and China has significant implications for global markets.

“While this rivalry creates uncertainties and challenges, it also presents opportunities, particularly in emerging markets.

“Our consultants around the world have experienced a significant surge in interest from international investors about these dynamic economies as they seek diversification, growth potential, and reduced exposure to geopolitical tensions.”

The soaring demand from global investors about increasing their exposure to emerging market opportunities comes as tensions rooted in a combination of economic, geopolitical, and ideological factors between the world’s two largest economies and major superpowers continue to make international headlines.

“The economic dimension is a fundamental aspect of the rivalry. China’s rapid rise as a global economic powerhouse and its pursuit of industrial policies that include state subsidies, intellectual property concerns, and market access restrictions have generated tensions with the United States,” explains Nigel Green.

“The US accuses China of unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and a lack of reciprocity in market access.”

The rising rivalry also stems from competing geopolitical ambitions. China’s increasing assertiveness in the South China Sea, its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) aimed at expanding its global influence through infrastructure projects, and its military modernisation have raised concerns among US policymakers.

“The US sees China’s rising influence as a challenge to its own status as a global superpower.”

Technological competition is a critical aspect of the rivalry. The deVere chief executive notes: “Both countries are vying for dominance in emerging technologies like 5G, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, and advanced manufacturing.

“The US has expressed concerns over China’s strategic acquisition of technology, intellectual property theft, and forced technology transfer, leading to initiatives like export controls, investment restrictions, and heightened scrutiny of Chinese tech companies.”

National security considerations also play a significant role in the rivalry with the US viewing China’s military upgrades, cyber espionage activities, and perceived threats to its allies and partners in the Asia-Pacific region as potential challenges to its strategic interests.

One of the key reasons international investors find emerging markets attractive during the US-China rivalry is diversification.

“The rivalry between these two economic giants often generates volatility in global markets, making it sensible for investors to seek alternative investment destinations. Emerging markets provide precisely that,’ affirms Nigel Green.

“By increasing exposure to these economies, investors can reduce their dependency on the performance and fluctuations of US and Chinese markets and, therefore, spread risk across a broader range of regions and industries.”

In addition, emerging markets offer vast growth potential, driven by factors such as expanding populations, rising middle-class populations, and increasing urbanisation.

“These countries present investment opportunities in sectors such as tech, infrastructure, healthcare, and renewable energy – where significant growth opportunities are happening.”

The CEO also emphasises that “non-aligned” economies are also piquing interest among global investors.

“As the rivalry between the US and China escalates, non-aligned states emerge as safe havens, relatively insulated from the direct impact of the tensions,” observes Nigel Green.

“With stable political environments and lower exposure to global power struggles, frontier markets offer investors a degree of stability and reduced risk associated with the US-China rivalry.”

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) member states, such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, and Vietnam, are often viewed as non-aligned or neutral in the US-China rivalry.

Several countries in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, can also be considered non-aligned markets.

Similarly, African nations, including Nigeria, Kenya, and Ethiopia, and Central and Eastern European ones, such as Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic.

He concludes: “It’s our experience that investors are increasingly involved in geopolitical hedging.

“These dynamic economies provide avenues to navigate the changing global landscape and capitalise on the potential rewards that emerge amid the ongoing and heightening rivalry.”

About:

deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of more than 70 offices across the world, over 80,000 clients and $12bn under advisement.

Week Ahead: Powell’s Testimony May Move These 3 Markets

By ForexTime 

Global financial markets could see increased volatility over the coming week due to Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell’s semi-annual testimony to Congress.

Attention will also fall on key central bank decisions including the Bank of England coupled with Fed speeches and top-tier economic data from major economies:

Monday, June 19

  • AUD: RBA meeting minutes

Tuesday, June 20

  • CNH: China loan prime rates
  • JPY: Japan industrial production
  • USD: Fed speeches

Wednesday, June 21

  • EUR: Eurozone new car registrations
  • CAD: Canada retail sales
  • GBP: UK May CPI
  • USD: Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testimony

Thursday, June 22

  • CHF: Swiss National Bank rate decision
  • EUR: Eurozone consumer confidence
  • GBP: BoE rate decision
  • USD: Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testimony, Fed speech

Friday, June 23

  • EUR: Eurozone S&P Global Manufacturing & Services PMI
  • JPY: Japan CPI
  • GBP: UK S&P Global/CIPS Manufacturing PMI
  • USD: S&P Global Manufacturing PMI, St. Louis Federal Reserve Bank President James Bullard speech

Just one week after the FOMC meeting brought a hawkish tilt on the rates outlook, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell will be under the spotlight again. 

Powell will provide his semi-annual monetary-policy report to the House Financial Service Committee on Wednesday 21st June and Senate Banking Committee on Thursday 22nd June. Powell is widely expected to reiterate comments from his post-Fed meeting press conference, which were cautious but still opened doors for more rate hikes. Indeed, the latest dot plot indicates two more 25 basis point rate hikes in the coming months but markets think otherwise with traders only pricing in one more for 2023.

Given how markets remain highly sensitive to rate hike expectations, his testimony has the potential to spark volatility – especially if fresh clues are offered on the Fed’s next move.

With all of the above discussed, here’s how these 3 assets could react to Powell’s testimony:

  • USD Index 

Despite receiving a boost earlier in the week from a hawkish Federal Reserve, the dollar has found itself under renewed selling pressure thanks to disappointing US economic data. This has raised questions over just how much further the Fed can raise interest rates despite the dot plot signalling two more 25 basis point hikes in the coming months.

  • The dollar could weaken further if Powell strikes a cautious tone during Testimony, which could drag prices toward 101.50 and 100.72, respectively.
  • Should Powell sound more hawkish and offer fresh clues on rate hike timings, this may offer support to the dollar, pushing prices back above 103.00.

 

  •     SPX500_m 

The SPX500_m is en route to ending the week at levels not seen in 14 months as disappointing economic data fuelled expectations around the Fed’s hiking campaign coming to an end. SPX500 bulls are certainly in a position with power with the index gaining over 15% year-to-date.

  • The SPX500_m could extend gains towards 4500 in the coming week if Powell sounds cautious and expresses concerns over the US economic outlook.
  • If the Fed head suggests that US rates are likely to stay higher for longer, this may cap the SPX500_m upside gains – encouraging a decline back towards 4351 higher low.

  • Gold 

Gold still remains trapped within a range with support at $1932 and resistance at $1985. A potent fundamental spark may be required for prices to experience a decisive breakout.

  • Gold prices could push above the $1985 resistance level on growing market expectations around the Fed’s hiking cycle coming to an end. This may be fuelled by cautious remarks from Powell or Fed officials.
  • Prices could sink back towards the $1932 and $1900 if Powell’s testimony boosts the dollar and renews rate hike bets.


Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

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

Generative AI is a minefield for copyright law

By Robert Mahari, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Jessica Fjeld, Harvard Law School, and Ziv Epstein, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) 

In 2022, an AI-generated work of art won the Colorado State Fair’s art competition. The artist, Jason Allen, had used Midjourney – a generative AI system trained on art scraped from the internet – to create the piece. The process was far from fully automated: Allen went through some 900 iterations over 80 hours to create and refine his submission.

Yet his use of AI to win the art competition triggered a heated backlash online, with one Twitter user claiming, “We’re watching the death of artistry unfold right before our eyes.”

As generative AI art tools like Midjourney and Stable Diffusion have been thrust into the limelight, so too have questions about ownership and authorship.

These tools’ generative ability is the result of training them with scores of prior artworks, from which the AI learns how to create artistic outputs.

Should the artists whose art was scraped to train the models be compensated? Who owns the images that AI systems produce? Is the process of fine-tuning prompts for generative AI a form of authentic creative expression?

On one hand, technophiles rave over work like Allen’s. But on the other, many working artists consider the use of their art to train AI to be exploitative.

We’re part of a team of 14 experts across disciplines that just published a paper on generative AI in Science magazine. In it, we explore how advances in AI will affect creative work, aesthetics and the media. One of the key questions that emerged has to do with U.S. copyright laws, and whether they can adequately deal with the unique challenges of generative AI.

Copyright laws were created to promote the arts and creative thinking. But the rise of generative AI has complicated existing notions of authorship.

Still from ‘All watched over by machines of loving grace’ by Memo Akten, 2021. Created using custom AI software.
Memo Akten, CC BY-SA

Photography serves as a helpful lens

Generative AI might seem unprecedented, but history can act as a guide.

Take the emergence of photography in the 1800s. Before its invention, artists could only try to portray the world through drawing, painting or sculpture. Suddenly, reality could be captured in a flash using a camera and chemicals. As with generative AI, many argued that photography lacked artistic merit. In 1884, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on the issue and found that cameras served as tools that an artist could use to give an idea visible form; the “masterminds” behind the cameras, the court ruled, should own the photographs they create.

From then on, photography evolved into its own art form and even sparked new abstract artistic movements.

AI can’t own outputs

Unlike inanimate cameras, AI possesses capabilities – like the ability to convert basic instructions into impressive artistic works – that make it prone to anthropomorphization. Even the term “artificial intelligence” encourages people to think that these systems have humanlike intent or even self-awareness.

This led some people to wonder whether AI systems can be “owners.” But the U.S. Copyright Office has stated unequivocally that only humans can hold copyrights.

So who can claim ownership of images produced by AI? Is it the artists whose images were used to train the systems? The users who type in prompts to create images? Or the people who build the AI systems?

Infringement or fair use?

While artists draw obliquely from past works that have educated and inspired them in order to create, generative AI relies on training data to produce outputs.

This training data consists of prior artworks, many of which are protected by copyright law and which have been collected without artists’ knowledge or consent. Using art in this way might violate copyright law even before the AI generates a new work.

Computer generated image made to look like a painting of a face with wires spilling out of its head surrounded by a field of grass and flowers.
Still from ‘All watched over by machines of loving grace’ by Memo Akten, 2021. Created using custom AI software.
Memo Akten, CC BY-SA

For Jason Allen to create his award-winning art, Midjourney was trained on 100 million prior works.

Was that a form of infringement? Or was it a new form of “fair use,” a legal doctrine that permits the unlicensed use of protected works if they’re sufficiently transformed into something new?

While AI systems do not contain literal copies of the training data, they do sometimes manage to recreate works from the training data, complicating this legal analysis.

Will contemporary copyright law favor end users and companies over the artists whose content is in the training data?

To mitigate this concern, some scholars propose new regulations to protect and compensate artists whose work is used for training. These proposals include a right for artists to opt out of their data’s being used for generative AI or a way to automatically compensate artists when their work is used to train an AI.

Muddled ownership

Training data, however, is only part of the process. Frequently, artists who use generative AI tools go through many rounds of revision to refine their prompts, which suggests a degree of originality.

Answering the question of who should own the outputs requires looking into the contributions of all those involved in the generative AI supply chain.

The legal analysis is easier when an output is different from works in the training data. In this case, whoever prompted the AI to produce the output appears to be the default owner.

However, copyright law requires meaningful creative input – a standard satisfied by clicking the shutter button on a camera. It remains unclear how courts will decide what this means for the use of generative AI. Is composing and refining a prompt enough?

Matters are more complicated when outputs resemble works in the training data. If the resemblance is based only on general style or content, it is unlikely to violate copyright, because style is not copyrightable.

The illustrator Hollie Mengert encountered this issue firsthand when her unique style was mimicked by generative AI engines in a way that did not capture what, in her eyes, made her work unique. Meanwhile, the singer Grimes embraced the tech, “open-sourcing” her voice and encouraging fans to create songs in her style using generative AI.

If an output contains major elements from a work in the training data, it might infringe on that work’s copyright. Recently, the Supreme Court ruled that Andy Warhol’s drawing of a photograph was not permitted by fair use. That means that using AI to just change the style of a work – say, from a photo to an illustration – is not enough to claim ownership over the modified output.

While copyright law tends to favor an all-or-nothing approach, scholars at Harvard Law School have proposed new models of joint ownership that allow artists to gain some rights in outputs that resemble their works.

In many ways, generative AI is yet another creative tool that allows a new group of people access to image-making, just like cameras, paintbrushes or Adobe Photoshop. But a key difference is this new set of tools relies explicitly on training data, and therefore creative contributions cannot easily be traced back to a single artist.

The ways in which existing laws are interpreted or reformed – and whether generative AI is appropriately treated as the tool it is – will have real consequences for the future of creative expression.The Conversation

About the Author:

Robert Mahari, JD-PhD Student, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Jessica Fjeld, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School, and Ziv Epstein, PhD Student in Media Arts and Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)

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

 

Why the Federal Reserve’s epic fight against inflation might be over

By Ryan Herzog, Gonzaga University 

The Federal Reserve’s decision to hold rates steady signals that central bankers believe it is time to hit pause, at least temporarily, on their aggressive campaign to tame runaway inflation.

The latest data, not to mention several other factors, however, suggests it’s time for a full stop.

On June 14, 2023, the Fed chose not to lift rates for the first time in 11 meetings, leaving its target interest rate – a benchmark for borrowing costs across the global economy – at a range of 5% to 5.25%. Over 10 consecutive hikes beginning in March 2022, the Fed had raised rates a whopping 5 percentage points.

“Holding the target range steady at this meeting allows the committee to assess additional information and its implications for monetary policy,” the central bank said in a statement. The Fed indicated it still expects to raise rates two more times by the end of the year.

As an economist who follows the central bank’s actions closely, I believe there’s good reason to think the Fed’s brief hiatus is likely to turn into a permanent vacation.

Inflation is lower than it appears

The fastest rate of inflation since the 1980s is what prompted the Fed to hike interest rates so much. So it makes sense that inflation would be a key indicator of when its job is complete.

The latest consumer price index data, released on June 13, showed core inflation – the Fed’s preferred measure, which excludes volatile food and energy prices – falling to an annual rate of 5.3% in May 2023, the slowest pace since November 2021. That’s down from a peak of 6.6% in September 2022.

While the data shows inflation remains well above the Fed’s target of around 2%, there’s good reason to believe that it will continue to fall regardless of what the Fed does.

Shelter, a measure of the cost of owning or renting a home, is the largest component of the consumer price index, accounting for more than one-third of the total. In its latest report, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported shelter costs rose 8% from a year ago. After stripping that out, inflation was up just 2.1%.

The thing is, the data reported by the bureau doesn’t reflect the reality of what’s happening in the current housing market.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics relies on a survey that gauges rental prices from 50,000 leases, many of which were signed during the rental bubble in 2021 and 2022. A better measure of current market rents is the Zillow Observed Rent Index. That index suggests rates are declining – rents rose 4.8% year over year in May, aligning with pre-pandemic rates.

Comparing the two measures suggests the official consumer price index data lags behind the market by four to six months. Using current rents would put inflation much closer to where the Fed wants it to be. Jason Furman, former chair of the government’s Council of Economic Advisors, created a modified version of core inflation – which uses a market-based measure of shelter prices – at 2.6%.

The risk of more rate hikes

Moreover, it is likely that further rate hikes will do more harm than good – particularly to the banking sector – and without helping lower inflation below its current trajectory.

Several regional lenders, including Silicon Valley Bank and First Republic, collapsed earlier this year following bank runs. Combined, they had over a half-trillion dollars in assets.

While there were several factors behind the banks’ demise, an important one was the Fed’s aggressive rate hikes, which caused the value of many of their assets to fall. The banks catered to depositors with accounts that exceeded the US$250,000 threshold protected by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. These depositors ran for the hills when they learned about the extent of the bank losses.

This turmoil, in tandem with higher rates, is also cooling business activity. This means the Fed doesn’t need to go as high on rates as it otherwise would have.

Further troubles loom over the banking sector. In recent days, notable figures in the finance industry, such as Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon and former U.S. Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, have warned that nearly $1.5 trillion in commercial real estate loans will require refinancing over the next three years.

The combination of already high interest rates and low office occupancy rates will likely force banks to absorb hundreds of billions of dollars in loan losses, inevitably putting more banks on the brink of failure.

And if the Fed keeps raising rates, the situation is likely to get a lot worse.

Don’t make the same mistakes

The Fed was behind the curve in 2021 and 2022 in realizing inflation was getting out of control, and it has been historically slow in recognizing the impact of rental rates on inflation.

The June pause in raising rates should give the Fed time to take a break, look at the data and, I hope, realize inflation is closer to its target than it appears.

But if it continues to raise rates, I believe the central bank will be repeating the same mistakes it made in the past.The Conversation

About the Author:

Ryan Herzog, Associate Professor of Economics, Gonzaga University

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

 

EU files antitrust charges against Google – here’s how the ad tech at the heart of the case works

By Eric Zeng, Carnegie Mellon University 

The European Union filed an antitrust case against Google on June 14, 2023, charging that the company abused its power in the online advertising market to disadvantage its competition. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a similar civil antitrust suit against Google on Jan. 24, 2023.

The online ad ecosystem is largely built around “programmatic advertising,” a system for placing advertisements from millions of advertisers on millions of websites. The system uses computers to automate bidding by advertisers on available ad spaces, often with transactions occurring faster than would be possible manually. Google runs the dominant advertising platform and has 28% market share of global advertising revenue.

Most websites outsource the task of selling ads to a complex network of advertising tech companies that do the work of figuring out which ads are shown to each particular person. Programmatic advertising is also a powerful tool that allows advertisers to target and reach people on a huge range of websites.

As a postdoctoral researcher in computer science, I study these technologies and companies, including how sketchy ads, like those for miracle weight-loss pills and suspicious-looking software, sometimes appear on legitimate, well-regarded websites.

Programmatic advertising, explained

The modern online advertising marketplace is meant to solve one problem: match the high volume of advertisements with the large number of ad spaces. The websites want to keep their ad spaces full and at the best prices, and the advertisers want to target their ads to relevant sites and users.

Rather than each website and advertiser pairing up to run ads together, advertisers work with demand-side platforms – tech companies that let advertisers buy ads. Websites work with supply-side platforms – tech companies that pay sites to put ads on their page. These companies handle the details of figuring out which websites and users should be matched with specific ads.

Most of the time, ad tech companies decide which ads to show through a real-time bidding auction. Whenever a person loads a website, and the website has a space for an ad, the website’s supply-side platform will request bids for ads from demand-side platforms through an auction system called an ad exchange. The demand-side platform will decide which ad in their inventory best targets the particular user, based on any information they’ve collected about the user’s interests and web history from tracking users’ browsing, and then submit a bid. The winner of this auction gets to place their ad in front of the user. This all happens in an instant.

Diagram showing the different entities involved in real time bidding, and the requests and responses
When you see an ad on a web page, behind the scenes an ad network has just automatically conducted an auction to decide which advertiser won the right to present their ad to you.
Eric Zeng, CC BY-ND

Google runs a supply-side platform, demand-side platform and an exchange. These three components make up an ad network. Google’s control of these three components sets the stage for the company to manipulate the market, as the EU and Justice Department allege the company has done. A variety of smaller companies such as Criteo, Pubmatic, Rubicon and AppNexus also operate in the online advertising market.

This system allows an advertiser to run ads to potentially millions of users, across millions of websites, without needing to know the details of how that happens. And it allows websites to solicit ads from countless potential advertisers without needing to contact or reach an agreement with any of them.

Screening out bad ads

Malicious advertisers, like any other advertiser, can take advantage of the scale and reach of programmatic advertising to send scams and links to malware to potentially millions of users on any website. I study how malicious online advertisers take advantage of this system. This means that online advertising companies have a big responsibility to prevent harmful ads from reaching users, but they sometimes fall short.

There are some checks against bad ads at multiple levels. Ad networks, supply-side platforms and demand-side platforms typically have content policies restricting harmful ads. For example, Google Ads has an extensive content policy that forbids illegal and dangerous products, inappropriate and offensive content, and a long list of deceptive techniques, such as phishing, clickbait, false advertising and doctored imagery.

However, other ad networks have less stringent policies. For example, MGID, a native advertising network my colleagues and I examined for a study and found to run many lower-quality ads, has a much shorter content policy that prohibits illegal, offensive and malicious ads, and a single line about “misleading, inaccurate or deceitful information.” Native advertising is designed to imitate the look and feel of the website that it appears on, and is typically responsible for the sketchy looking ads at the bottom of news articles. Another native ad network, content.ad, has no content policy on their website at all.

Three screenshots of misleading political ads
These political ads from the 2020 election are examples of potentially misleading techniques to get you to click on them. The ad on the left uses Donald Trump’s name and a clickbait headline promising money. The ad in the center claims to be a thank-you card for Dr. Anthony Fauci but in reality is intended to collect email addresses for political mailing lists. The ad on the right presents itself as an opinion poll but links to a page selling a product.
Screenshots by Eric Zeng

Websites can block specific advertisers and categories of ads. For example, a site could block a particular advertiser that has been running scammy ads on their page, or specific ad networks that have been serving low-quality ads.

However, these policies are only as good as the enforcement. Ad networks typically use a combination of manual content moderators and automated tools to check that each ad campaign complies with their policies. How effective these are is unclear, but a report by Confiant, a firm that tracks malware in advertising, suggests that between 0.14% and 1.29% of ads served by various supply-side platforms in the third quarter of 2020 were low quality.

Malicious advertisers adapt to countermeasures and figure out ways to evade automated or manual auditing of their ads, or exploit gray areas in content policies. For example, in a study my colleagues and I conducted on deceptive political ads during the 2020 U.S. elections, we found many examples of fake political polls, which purported to be public opinion polls but asked for an email address to vote. Voting in the poll signed the user up for political email lists. Despite this deception, ads like these may not have violated Google’s content policies for political content, data collection or misrepresentation, or were simply missed in the review process.

Bad ads by design

Lastly, some examples of “bad” ads are intentionally designed to be misleading and deceptive, by both the website and ad network. Native ads are a prime example. They apparently are effective because native advertising companies claim higher clickthrough rates and revenue for sites. Studies have shown that this is likely because users have difficulty telling the difference between native ads and the website’s content.

A grid of three native ads that look like news articles. One ad is selling CBD gummies, another is a clickbait story, and the last is trying to sell financial advice.
These are examples of native ads found on news websites. They imitate the look and feel of links to news articles and often contain clickbait, scams and questionable products.
Screenshot by Eric Zeng

You may have seen native ads on many news and media websites, including on major sites like CNN, USA Today and Vox. If you scroll to the bottom of a news article, there may be a section called “sponsored content” or “around the web,” containing what look like news articles. However, all of these are paid content. My colleagues and I conducted a study on native advertising on news and misinformation websites and found that these native ads disproportionately contained potentially deceptive and misleading content, such as ads for unregulated health supplements, deceptively written advertorials, investment pitches and material from content farms.

This highlights an unfortunate situation. Even reputable news and media websites are struggling to earn revenue, and turn to running deceptive and misleading ads on their sites to earn more income, despite the risks it poses to their users and the cost to their reputations.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on April 13, 2022.The Conversation

About the Author:

Eric Zeng, Postdoctoral Researcher in Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University

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

US Federal Reserve must now stop rate hikes: deVere CEO

By George Prior 

The US Federal Reserve must now stop interest rate hikes due to the “notorious time lag” of monetary policy, warns the CEO of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory, asset managers and fintech organizations.

The warning from deVere Group’s Nigel Green comes as the US central bank’s Chair Jerome Powell on Wednesday announced after a meeting of the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) – the branch of the Fed responsible for implementing monetary policy – that it would skip raising rates this month, as was widely anticipated, but will resume after this pause.

He says: “After a painful 15 months and 10 consecutive rate increases into its battle to cool red-hot inflation, the Fed has confirmed what markets had expected: that it is not raising rates this month in the world’s largest economy right now.

“This clearly indicates that the fight to combat soaring prices is, finally, being won.

“This is good news for households, businesses and those financial assets hit by the most aggressive monetary policy since the 1980s.”

However, the Fed isn’t done with raising rates at this point.

“This pause is just a ‘skip’, as we expected.

“Both core and headline inflation are coming down, but core is still pretty high. The target of 2% is still way off. And the Fed is obsessing over the tightness of the labor market as, despite the 15-month-long inflation battle, unemployment is still near record lows.

“As such, I wouldn’t be surprised at all if rates were hiked to 6% by the end of 2023.”

As the Federal Reserve will resume rate hikes this year, Nigel Green is issuing a warning to the US central bank.

“The battle against inflation is being won. This is now the time for the Fed to stop – not pause – interest rate hikes.

He says: “The time lag for monetary policies is notoriously long.

“It typically takes about 18 months to two years for the full effect of rate hikes to filter fully into the economy.

“We’re now beginning to see the drag effects on the world’s largest economy with households and businesses becoming considerably more cautious.”

He continues: “Investors are increasingly concerned that with more hikes the Federal Reserve could steer the US economy into a major recession.

“Of course, the central bank will argue it needs to continue with rate rises to bring inflation back to target.

“But it must also ensure that the tight labor market doesn’t overshadow the broader picture and continue to overdo the hikes, which would make a US recession deeper and longer.

“As the world’s largest economy, this would clearly have a serious, negative impact on the global economy.”

He concludes: “The case for stopping rate hikes is compelling.”

About:

deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of more than 70 offices across the world, over 80,000 clients and $12bn under advisement.

Golden Schizophrenia

Source: Michael Ballanger  (6/12/23) 

Michael Ballanger of GGM Advisory Inc. shares his opinion on the current state of the gold market as the U.S. federal debt rises.

Schizophrenia:the abnormal interpretation of reality.”

If this was June of 2003, and I were to tell you that in the next twenty years, U.S. Federal debt would rise from US$6.19 billion to US$31.35 trillion, you would probably assume that gold would be somewhat higher.

If this were June 2003, and I were to tell you that the Federal Reserve Board would manufacture a balance sheet explosion from US$744 billion to US$8.4 trillion, you would be correct in assuming that the prices for gold and silver would be substantially higher than US$1,981 per ounce.

In June of 2003, the price of gold was around US$350/ounce, still approximately US$500/ounce below the 1980 peak but just beginning an uptrend that would take it to the current price of US$1,980/ounce, representing a 566% increase over the twenty year period of fiscal and monetary insanity.

However, the national debt has increased by 4,715% while the Fed balance sheet has increased by 1,144% within the same time period.

Now, nowhere in the cards is it written that the U.S. national debt should be positively correlated with the price of gold, nor can the same assumption be made for the Fed balance sheet.

In fact, outside of the 1970s, there has been no time in recent history that gold was positively correlated to the published rate of inflation, and no better example exists than the period of 2020 to 2023 when inflation rates rose 236% while at the same time, gold rose a paltry 29.6 % despite massive central bank accumulation.

If I told you in June of 2003 that within twenty years, there would be two banking crises, a global economic shutdown due to a viral outbreak, and an invasion of Ukraine by Russia, you would certainly put the price of gold at a minimum of tenfold its price at the time as US$3,500/ounce would still be ridiculously low relative to the price increases in food, medicine, real estate, and other notable items.

I propose that gold, were it a human, suffers from a severe case of schizophrenia where its pricing structure is an “abnormal interpretation of reality.”

In the case of gold, it separates itself from all other assets in that it cannot be stored electronically, and it has no other counterparty laying claim to it. Also, given its historic role as a store of value, a protector of sorts against monetary and fiscal shenanigans that serve to cheapen the value of our savings which in turn are the reward for our labor, how is it that prices for everything that humans consume can experience astronomical increases in price while the 5,000-year-old haven does not follow suit?

Gold bullion is the kryptonite of the central bank “Supermen” that use money to control the citizenry. As Mayer Anselm Rothschild said back in 1790, “Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws.”

Perhaps this explains the perversity of gold’s inability to interpret reality “normally” as it languishes in mediocrity.

Gold at Critical Crossroads 

Here in June of 2023, gold appears to be at critical crossroads. I have been a gold bull for most of the post-Millennium period, having fully expected the arrival of a debt crisis as the catalyst for a re-pricing of the only asset that serves as collateral currently for central banks the world over. It is collateral that remains pitifully underpriced relative to the mountains of debt, the bulk of which has been issued in the past fifteen years (since the 2008 GFC).

However, on a near-term basis, the U.S. dollar-denominated price of gold is a matter of National Security for those that recognize the downside risk to the end of dollar hegemony. With that in mind, one must factor in the interventions when one is trading gold so as the chart shown above would dictate, there have been two major runs at the old highs at US$2,089 in 2023, and both times they were soundly repelled.

 It now looks as though it is a fruitless to attempt to “call” the breakout to new highs in gold. I am therefore standing aside until the forces of true price discovery are able to overcome the interventionalists and take it through and above US$2,100/ounce with certainty.

Not even the second and third largest bank failures in U.S. history — First Republic and Silicon Valley — were enough to vault gold to new highs, and this I find staggeringly bizarre.

Nevertheless, gold sits at US$1,981 basis August and needs to reclaim the mighty US$2,000/ounce level in order to repair the damage wrought by the recent bombing to US$1,939.

I fully expected that gold would see new highs in the first half of 2023, and thus far, I have once again been vanquished by legions of NY Fed desk traders, programmed algobots operating on platforms designed by the dollar protectors, and the always dependable bullion banks that continue to spoof their way to insane trading enrichment, setting aside a sinking fund of realized profits for future and totally anticipated fines from the Justice Department and the SEC.

From the trader’s perspective, it now looks as though it is a fruitless and completely maddening exercise to attempt to “call” the breakout to new highs in gold. I am therefore standing aside until the forces of true price discovery are able to overcome the interventionalists and take it through and above US$2,100/ounce with certainty. Until then, the chop-chop one hears is the sound of the bulls’ P&Ls being decimated by bullion bank artistry at which they are supremely adept.

AI

There have been only two times in my long life that I have attempted to short a technology bubble, and both times I had my head handed to me on a platter, but not before ample servings of crow were stuffed down my throat by snot-nosed kiddies “riding the wave.”

The first time was in late 1999 when I decided that America Online was overvalued; I got sledgehammered in the put options abattoir. The second time was in 2019 when I thought the idea of an electric car running on two-hour power intervals was ridiculously overrated, so I bought a whack load of Tesla puts as it was rising, only to watch it continue to rise right on up until Feb/2020 when the rumor of a pandemic coming out of China sent it reeling lower.

Alas, by then, the Tesla put options were sawdust resting on the floor of broken dreams as the Tesla-vites and their Millennial know-it-alls wagged their fingers disdainfully, trying their best to hold back shrieks of laughter at “that old guy that doesn’t get it.”

Vancouver promoters are once again mobilizing their marketing armies to “get the word out” that Foofoo Mining Corp. is now “FULLY ENGAGES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” and is working on a deal with Microsoft t find lithium and cobalt on Mars.

Well, that “old guy that doesn’t get it” is ignoring the arrival of sexagenarian memory loss and is going to once again take a royal run at the short side of a market driven largely by ten stocks all leading an entire exchange of “wannabe’s” to incorporate “AI” into their business models.

In the past month, dozens of junior mining companies, many of which switched from silver to lithium in 2022, have now told the world that they are using AI to find lithium AND silver, and furthermore, they are using it to provide life insurance for dachshunds in case they need hip replacements in their later years.

The predictability of this migration to AI is reminiscent of the one that took place in 2018 when all the junior mining explorco’s sitting at five cents with twenty bucks in working capital ( but a really “cool” website) all made the switch to “crypto” in order to catch the wave of Millennial Madness sweeping across the international trading floors.

Vancouver promoters are once again mobilizing their marketing armies to “get the word out” that Foofoo Mining Corp. is now “FULLY ENGAGES IN ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE” and is working on a deal with Microsoft t find lithium and cobalt on Mars.

The QQQ’s are the ETF created to capture the NASDAQ magic in one very potent bottle, and as you can see, it is an ETF that is up 33.39% YTD coming off a three-week period in “overbought” status where the RSI got up into the low 80’s before heading south.

The MACD indicator is dangerously close to a full bearish crossover that, when combined with prices now stretched to the top of the Bollinger Bands, gives me a very warm and fuzzy feeling that a NASDAQ correction might be very close.

The CNN Fear-Greed Index, which was flashing “Extreme Fear” last October, has for the first time reached the “Extreme Greed” zone largely fueled by NASDAQ exuberance, much of which is irrational.

I fully recognize that I could be “early,” which translates into “I could be wrong,” which means that I will be three-for-three in failed attempts to second-guess the tech market, and the only thing worse than achieving this “Trifecta” of trading incompetence is the wagging of Millennial fingers in my wizened face.

Fingers crossed and rabbit’s feet engaged. . .

Junior Miners

If there is one sector that has become the poster child for a generation of Babyboomers, it is the junior resource space. I was talking to a young gentleman in his late twenties that has been in investment banking since he successfully passed his CFA designation five years ago after graduating summa cum laude (“with great distinction”) from a prestigious American university.

The conversation shifted from “central bank pivoting” to the junior resource space, and I was astonished to learn that the number of funds that specialize in junior resource companies has declined something like 75% in the last fifteen years.

Conversely, the pool of capital that was once the playground of adventurous youth has dwindled away as the number of “Special Situations/Technology” funds has increased tenfold over the same period. The kiddies are sick and tired of the old guys telling that old story about making it big in Diamondfields or Arequipa or DiaMet or even more recently, Great Bear Resources circa 2018, which seems for many like just yesterday but for this new generation of traders, five years is a lifetime.

Just as gold bullion has seen investors and traders ignore all of the inputs in the last twenty years that would and should have driven gold to US$3,500/ounce, junior miners have to be ignored despite compelling results and impressive resource growth, typically the catalysts for higher prices.

There have been some wins in the junior resource space, and while most of it was in lithium, even the hard-rock pegmatite deals are coming under pressure with the correction in the lithium price late last year. The kiddies love to tell their stories about sinking stimmy cheques into Gamestop at US$20 before riding it to US$400 per share in weeks.

They loved silver back in 2021 when a number of the high-profile silver promoters conned them into the #silversqueeze travesty, but their first foray into the metals ran into a bullion bank haymaker, and that sent the kiddies scurrying back into the darkness and have yet to return.

This young banker could talk more eloquently about lithium than most miners can, but at the end of the day, it is all about the flow of money rather than the “cost of production,” “preliminary economic analysis,” or “prefeasibility study.” If the stock is expected to go up, it must first have the blessing of a select few internet “influencers” that promote these juniors by way of podcasts or tweets, or private chatrooms. The expression “safety in numbers” is not to be confused with “misery loves company” because if there is one thing the youngsters have proven, especially to older aficionados of junior resource plays like me, it is that they can really move paper.

This thought is not a great deal removed from the title of this missive because it is the inability to interpret reality that has me staring at companies like Getchell Gold Corp. (GTCH:CSE; GGLDF:OTCQB) whose 2,059,000 ounces of gold in Nevada and 43101-compliant is valued at an incredible US$9.60 per ounce.

The sellers do not care about the “value-per-ounce,” nor do the prospective buyers because since the stock is not found on any of the “accepted websites” or featured in any of the “authorized podcasts,” it is not a stock that qualifies in the hearts and minds of the millions upon millions of Millennial and Gen-X traders that have a totally different set of investment rules.

That all changes when the underlying drivers that lead to a change in perception percolate down to the influencers who then bestow their blessings upon the deal, whatever that might be and whatever the reason. Just as gold bullion has seen investors and traders ignore all of the inputs in the last twenty years that would and should have driven gold to US$3,500/ounce, junior miners have to be ignored despite compelling results and impressive resource growth, typically the catalysts for higher prices. The juniors will change when it becomes commonplace for the kiddies to actually make money trading them, which means visibility and volumes have to increase.

No more grey-haired old men giving out key chains and calendars for business cards and referral leads as in a chapter of the classic Glengarry Glen Ross, a must-watch for the aspiring stock promoter in any era. . .

 

Important Disclosures:

  1. As of the date of this article, officers and/or employees of Streetwise Reports LLC (including members of their household) own securities of Getchell Gold Corp.,
  2. Michael Ballanger: I, or members of my immediate household or family, own securities of: Getchell Gold Corp.  I determined which companies would be included in this article based on my research and understanding of the sector.
  3. Statements and opinions expressed are the opinions of the author and not of Streetwise Reports or its officers. The author is wholly responsible for the validity of the statements. The author was not paid by Streetwise Reports for this article. Streetwise Reports was not paid by the author to publish or syndicate this article. Streetwise Reports requires contributing authors to disclose any shareholdings in, or economic relationships with, companies that they write about. Streetwise Reports relies upon the authors to accurately provide this information and Streetwise Reports has no means of verifying its accuracy.
  4.  This article does not constitute investment advice. Each reader is encouraged to consult with his or her individual financial professional. By opening this page, each reader accepts and agrees to Streetwise Reports’ terms of use and full legal disclaimer. This article is not a solicitation for 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. Streetwise Reports does not endorse or recommend the business, products, services or securities of any company.

For additional disclosures, please click here.

Michael Ballanger Disclosures

This letter makes no guarantee or warranty on the accuracy or completeness of the data provided. Nothing contained herein is intended or shall be deemed to be investment advice, implied or otherwise. This letter represents my views and replicates trades that I am making but nothing more than that. Always consult your registered advisor to assist you with your investments. I accept no liability for any loss arising from the use of the data contained on this letter. Options and junior mining stocks contain a high level of risk that may result in the loss of part or all invested capital and therefore are suitable for experienced and professional investors and traders only. One should be familiar with the risks involved in junior mining and options trading and we recommend consulting a financial adviser if you feel you do not understand the risks involved.

Will faster federal reviews speed up the clean energy shift? Two legal scholars explain what the National Environmental Policy Act does and doesn’t do

By J.B. Ruhl, Vanderbilt University and James Salzman, University of California, Los Angeles 

The National Environmental Policy Act, enacted in 1970, is widely viewed as a keystone U.S. environmental law. For any major federal action that affects the environment, such as building an interstate highway or licensing a nuclear power plant, NEPA requires relevant agencies to analyze environmental impacts, consider reasonable alternatives and accept public input. It also allows citizens to sue if they believe government has not complied.

Critics argue that NEPA reviews delay projects and drive up costs. In May 2023 negotiations over raising the federal debt ceiling, President Joe Biden agreed to certain changes to NEPA reviews, which both the White House and congressional Republicans said would streamline permitting for infrastructure projects. Legal scholars J.B. Ruhl and James Salzman explain these changes and what they mean for protecting the environment and expanding clean energy production.

What kinds of projects typically require NEPA reviews?

The statutory text of NEPA is quite sparse and open-ended. When people speak of what NEPA requires, they really are talking about how the White House Council on Environmental Quality, or CEQ, federal agencies and the courts have implemented the law over the past 50 years.

The simple requirement is for agencies to create a detailed statement on the impacts of any major federal action that significantly affects the environment. A whole body of law and policy creates filters that sort projects into different NEPA buckets.

NEPA requires all federal agencies to analyze the environmental impacts of their major actions, consider alternatives and receive public comment.

First, only projects that will be carried out, funded or authorized by a federal agency are subject to NEPA. That’s a pretty big universe, but it also excludes a lot. For example, a wind farm built on private land by a private utility might not require any federal funding or approval. That means it wouldn’t be subject to NEPA.

If a project is subject to NEPA, the federal agency that has primary oversight assesses its impacts to decide how much analysis is needed. Many agencies use a classification known as categorical exclusions to winnow out minor actions that they know have no significant impacts, either individually or cumulatively. For example, the Interior Department categorically excludes planned burns to clear brush on areas smaller than 4,500 acres.

If the expected impacts are more extensive, but it’s not clear by how much, the agency can prepare an environmental assessment. If that assessment finds the impacts to the human environment will not be significant, that’s the end of the NEPA process.

If the impacts are significant, the agency will prepare a full-blown environmental impact statement, or EIS, which is a far more intensive process. CEQ guidelines establish an elaborate template of topics agencies must evaluate, and the public has opportunities to comment on a draft version.

A CEQ review of EISs prepared by all federal agencies from 2010 through 2018 found that, on average, it took about four and a half years to issue an EIS, not including added time if someone sued. The lengths of these reviews ranged widely but averaged 575 pages.

Flow chart showing numerous steps in the NEPA process.
A schematic of the NEPA process.
NASA

If an agency conducts lots of the same actions under a particular program, such as timber leasing on federal land, it might conduct a high-level programmatic EIS to cover the large-scale issues and then follow up with individual NEPA analyses for specific projects.

Decisions not to issue an EIS can be challenged in court. So can the EIS itself if critics believe that it’s inadequate.

What are NEPA critics’ central arguments?

Critiques of NEPA come from many different interests. The law mainly affects land development, industry and resource extraction activities such as logging, mining and drilling for oil and gas, particularly on federal public lands.

NEPA requires an impact assessment, but it doesn’t prescribe any particular outcome. Still, it unquestionably can add substantial time and cost to any significant project. If a project is controversial, interested parties can submit public comments that get their views on the record. If opponents aren’t happy with the final EIS, they can sue the agency responsible for the decision in federal court.

Between agency review and litigation, NEPA can add many years to a project’s development timeline before it is “shovel ready.” For example, it takes roughly four to seven years to complete environmental reviews for prescribed burns that the U.S. Forest Service carries out to reduce wildfire risks.

Supporters argue that NEPA reviews have avoided many bad decisions. In our view, the NEPA process is an important feature of the country’s stewardship of its natural resources. But we also share the growing concern that it can be used to delay building renewable energy infrastructure that the U.S. urgently needs to mitigate climate change.

Did the debt ceiling agreement significantly change the NEPA process?

Many of the changes are little more than tweaks. Others codify long-standing practices based on how the Council on Environmental Quality, agencies and courts implement the law.

One notable change is requiring a single lead agency and a single environmental impact statement for projects, even when those projects require multiple agency approvals. There also are some new time and page limits. For example, environmental impact statements will be required to be completed within two years and be no more that 150 pages long for most projects, and 300 pages for the most complex projects.

There also are some changes to definitions, such as what constitutes a “major federal action,” that narrow NEPA’s scope to some degree, although it will take time to sort out their meaning. Overall, we do not see these changes as a major overhaul of NEPA.

Will the changes speed up work on clean energy systems?

Maybe, but not nearly as much as needed. First, NEPA applies to projects that need federal funding or approval, such as under the Endangered Species Act. Getting that money or agency green light can also involve delays and litigation independent of the NEPA review.

Second, many state and local laws can affect large renewable energy projects, and those statutes can also be used to slow projects down. The bottom line is that to move the needle, politicians will have to do more to reform the project review process.

The debt ceiling agreement left several big questions unaddressed. They include where to build high-voltage electric transmission lines; which federal public lands and offshore waters can be used for power lines and renewable power production; and where to mine for essential minerals.
Beyond those immediate priorities, if carbon sequestration technology can be developed and scaled up, the U.S. will need an enormous buildout of carbon capture and storage infrastructure to meet net-zero goals.

As renewable energy scales up in the U.S., local opposition could impede some utility-scale projects.

All of these involve incredibly complex permitting processes, and tweaking NEPA won’t change that. Other hot-button issues – including federal preemption of state and local laws, impacts on Native American cultural lands, and environmental justice – will make further permitting reforms politically difficult.

Even this first small measure was hotly contested, and happened now only because it was tied to the debt limit legislation. As the inclusion of federal approval for the Mountain Valley gas pipeline in the debt ceiling agreement shows, in politics you need a quid in exchange for a quo. We expect to see a lot more deal-making if Congress takes permitting reform seriously.The Conversation

About the Authors:

J.B. Ruhl, Professor of Law, Director, Program on Law and Innovation, and Co-director, Energy, Environment and Land Use Program, Vanderbilt University and James Salzman, Professor of Environmental Law, University of California, Los Angeles

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

Stock markets likely to get ‘wide boost’ this week: deVere CEO

By George Prior

Global stock markets are likely to experience a wide boost this week – not just the mega cap tech stocks – as the US Federal Reserve is expected to pause interest rate hikes, says the CEO and founder of one of the world’s largest independent financial advisory, asset management and fintech organizations.

The bullish analysis from Nigel Green of deVere Group comes as investors worldwide wait for the latest inflation data Tuesday when the consumer price index report for the world’s largest economy is released. On Wednesday, the US central bank will issue its latest monetary policy decision.

He says: “Mega cap tech stocks – namely Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Amazon, Meta, Tesla and Alphabet – have made up around 90% of gains on Walls Street’s S&P 500 this year.

“But we expect that other sectors which have been outperformed so far in 2023 are likely to get a boost should the Fed, as we anticipate, pause rate hikes this week.”

The deVere CEO continues: “Despite a stubbornly robust labor market and still too-sticky inflation, the markets now expect the world’s most influential central bank to pause its interest hike agenda this month.

“This will firmly signal that progress is being made in the battle to cool inflation and this will buoy investors across the board, finally providing a boost to sectors which have been unloved so far this year.”

Last week, Nigel Green warned investors against exclusively buying into the hype of the tech titans, or so-called Magnificent Seven.

“The volume is getting louder and the frenzy is reaching fever pitch. This hype is dangerous as it could lead investors to assume that these stocks are a silver bullet to build long-term wealth – and they are not, at least not on their own,” he noted.

“While I believe that exposure to these mega-cap tech stocks should be part of almost every investor’s portfolio, as they have robust fundamentals and are future-focused, especially in AI, they should not be exclusive.”

Easing inflation – as would be indicated by a Fed pause this week – would, says the CEO, stimulate a “wider global stock market rally” that would be “positive across a broad sweep of asset classes, sectors and regions.”

Diversification, as Nigel Green stresses, remains investors’ best tool for long-term financial success. As a strategy it has been proven to reduce risk, smooth-out volatility, exploit differing market conditions, maximise long-term returns and protect against unforeseen external events.

The comments about a fresh rally come as stocks rose just enough last Thursday for Wall Street to run into a new bull market as the S&P 500 keeps rallying off its low from last autumn.

The index rose 0.6% to carry it 20% above a bottom hit in October. This means Wall Street’s main measure has climbed out of a challenging bear market, which saw it drop 25.4% over roughly nine months.

Meanwhile, the Dow Jones Industrial Average added 168 points, or 0.5%. The Nasdaq composite, meanwhile, led the market with a 1% rise.

He concludes: “Investors should be speaking to an advisor about the possibility of an opportunity-packed new rally if the Fed, as is expected, pauses rate hikes this week.”

About:

deVere Group is one of the world’s largest independent advisors of specialist global financial solutions to international, local mass affluent, and high-net-worth clients.  It has a network of more than 70 offices across the world, over 80,000 clients and $12bn under advisement.

Trade Of The Week: XAUUSD Gearing Up For Breakout?

By ForexTime 

Don’t be fooled by Gold’s current state of calm.

This could be an explosively volatile week for the precious metal due to key economic reports and high-risk events.

Over the past few weeks, gold has found itself trapped within a range with support at $1938 and resistance at $1983. A major breakout could be around the corner and here are reasons why….

  1. Key US inflation data

On Tuesday, 13th June the latest US CPI report will be released. 

US inflation is expected to have slowed again in May after slightly easing in April. Markets forecast the MoM print to rise 0.2% after the 0.4% increase in April while the annual headline reading is seen falling to 4.1% from 4.9%. When keeping in mind that CPI hit 9.1% in June 2022, the drop in inflation has been a welcome development, driven by falling energy and commodity prices.

However, much attention will be on the Core CPI reading which excludes volatile food and energy prices. Core inflation is expected to remain unchanged at 0.4% MoM while the annual reading is seen cooling to 5.2% from 5.5% in April.

  • Fresh signs of cooling inflationary pressures may reinforce expectations around the Federal Reserve ending its hiking campaign. This development could inject gold bulls with renewed confidence ahead of the Fed decision on Wednesday.
  • If US inflation continues to run hot, rising more than market forecasts this could drag gold prices lower as bets rise over the Fed keeping interest rates higher for longer.

 

  1. Federal Reserve rate decision 

All eyes will be on the Federal Reserve interest rate decision on Wednesday, 14th June.

Markets widely expect the Fed to leave interest rates unchanged with traders currently pricing in a 23% probability of a 25bps hike on Wednesday, according to Fed fund futures. Nevertheless, the unexpected rate hikes from the Bank of Canada (BoC) and Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) have created some element of uncertainty over what to expect from the Fed. Investors are likely to closely scrutinize the updated dot plots, Fed Chair Jerome Powell’s press conference for fresh clues on the central bank’s next move.

  • If the Fed moves ahead with a hawkish hold and signals one more rate hike in July, this could weaken gold prices – especially if the dollar rises along with Treasury yields.
  • An unexpected rate hike may deal with a heavy blow toward zero-yielding gold, potentially sending prices tumbling to levels not seen since mid-March 2023 around $1900.

 

  1. Gold in breakout mode?

After swinging within a range since mid-May 2023, gold could be ready to break out. 

A strong daily close and breakout above $1983 may inspire an incline toward the $2000 psychological level and $2018, respectively. Should prices breach the $1938 support, where the 100-day SMA resides – this could open a path back toward $1900. Ultimately, how gold concludes this week will be heavily influenced by the US inflation data and Fed decision.


Forex-Time-LogoArticle by ForexTime

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