• Trade
  • Markets
  • Copy
  • Contests
  • News
  • 24/7
  • Calendar
  • Q&A
  • Chats
Trending
Screeners
SYMBOL
LAST
BID
ASK
HIGH
LOW
NET CHG.
%CHG.
SPREAD
SPX
S&P 500 Index
6857.13
6857.13
6857.13
6865.94
6827.13
+7.41
+ 0.11%
--
DJI
Dow Jones Industrial Average
47850.93
47850.93
47850.93
48049.72
47692.96
-31.96
-0.07%
--
IXIC
NASDAQ Composite Index
23505.13
23505.13
23505.13
23528.53
23372.33
+51.04
+ 0.22%
--
USDX
US Dollar Index
98.850
98.930
98.850
98.980
98.740
-0.130
-0.13%
--
EURUSD
Euro / US Dollar
1.16582
1.16591
1.16582
1.16715
1.16408
+0.00137
+ 0.12%
--
GBPUSD
Pound Sterling / US Dollar
1.33515
1.33525
1.33515
1.33622
1.33165
+0.00244
+ 0.18%
--
XAUUSD
Gold / US Dollar
4223.02
4223.45
4223.02
4230.62
4194.54
+15.85
+ 0.38%
--
WTI
Light Sweet Crude Oil
59.343
59.373
59.343
59.480
59.187
-0.040
-0.07%
--

Community Accounts

Signal Accounts
--
Profit Accounts
--
Loss Accounts
--
View More

Become a signal provider

Sell trading signals to earn additional income

View More

Guide to Copy Trading

Get started with ease and confidence

View More

Signal Accounts for Members

All Signal Accounts

Best Return
  • Best Return
  • Best P/L
  • Best MDD
Past 1W
  • Past 1W
  • Past 1M
  • Past 1Y

All Contests

  • All
  • Trump Updates
  • Recommend
  • Stocks
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Central Banks
  • Featured News
Top News Only
Share

Amd Chief Says Company Ready To Pay 15% Tax On Ai Chip Shipments To China

Share

Kremlin Aide Ushakov Says USA Kushner Is Working Very Actively On Ukrainian Settlement

Share

Norway To Acquire 2 More Submarines, Long-Range Missiles, Daily Vg Reports

Share

Ucb Sa Shares Open Up 7.3% After 2025 Guidance Upgrade, Top Of Bel 20 Index

Share

Shares In Italy's Mediobanca Down 1.3% After Barclays Cuts To Underweight From Equal-Weight

Share

Stats Office - Austrian November Wholesale Prices +0.9% Year-On-Year

Share

Britain's FTSE 100 Up 0.15%

Share

Europe's STOXX 600 Up 0.1%

Share

Taiwan November PPI -2.8% Year-On-Year

Share

Stats Office - Austrian September Trade -230.8 Million EUR

Share

Swiss National Bank Forex Reserves Revised To Chf 724906 Million At End Of October - SNB

Share

Swiss National Bank Forex Reserves At Chf 727386 Million At End Of November - SNB

Share

Shanghai Warehouse Rubber Stocks Up 8.54% From Week Earlier

Share

Turkey's Main Banking Index Up 2%

Share

French October Trade Balance -3.92 Billion Euros Versus Revised -6.35 Billion Euros In September

Share

Kremlin Aide Says Russia Is Ready To Work Further With Current USA Team

Share

Kremlin Aide Says Russia And USA Are Moving Forward In Ukraine Talks

Share

Shanghai Rubber Warehouse Stocks Up 7336 Tons

Share

Shanghai Tin Warehouse Stocks Up 506 Tons

Share

Reserve Bank Of India Chief Malhotra: Goal Is To Have Inflation Be Around 4%

TIME
ACT
FCST
PREV
France 10-Year OAT Auction Avg. Yield

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Retail Sales MoM (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Retail Sales YoY (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Brazil GDP YoY (Q3)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts MoM (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts YoY (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Initial Jobless Claims 4-Week Avg. (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Initial Jobless Claims (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Continued Jobless Claims (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada Ivey PMI (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada Ivey PMI (Not SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Non-Defense Capital Durable Goods Orders Revised MoM (Excl. Aircraft) (SA) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --
U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Excl. Transport) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Excl. Defense) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. EIA Weekly Natural Gas Stocks Change

A:--

F: --

P: --

Saudi Arabia Crude Oil Production

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Treasuries Held by Foreign Central Banks

A:--

F: --

P: --

Japan Foreign Exchange Reserves (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Repo Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Benchmark Interest Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Reverse Repo Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Cash Reserve Ratio

A:--

F: --

P: --

Japan Leading Indicators Prelim (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Halifax House Price Index YoY (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Halifax House Price Index MoM (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Current Account (Not SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Trade Balance (SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Industrial Output MoM (SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Italy Retail Sales MoM (SA) (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment YoY (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Final YoY (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Final QoQ (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment Final QoQ (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment Final (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --
Brazil PPI MoM (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Mexico Consumer Confidence Index (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Unemployment Rate (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Labor Force Participation Rate (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Part-Time Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Full-time Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Personal Income MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Dallas Fed PCE Price Index YoY (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PCE Price Index YoY (SA) (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PCE Price Index MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Personal Outlays MoM (SA) (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Core PCE Price Index MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich 5-Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations Prelim YoY (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Core PCE Price Index YoY (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Real Personal Consumption Expenditures MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. 5-10 Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Current Economic Conditions Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Consumer Sentiment Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich 1-Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Consumer Expectations Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Rig Count

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Oil Rig Count

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Consumer Credit (SA) (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Q&A with Experts
    • All
    • Chatrooms
    • Groups
    • Friends
    Connecting
    .
    .
    .
    Type here...
    Add Symbol or Code

      No matching data

      All
      Trump Updates
      Recommend
      Stocks
      Cryptocurrencies
      Central Banks
      Featured News
      • All
      • Russia-Ukraine Conflict
      • Middle East Flashpoint
      • All
      • Russia-Ukraine Conflict
      • Middle East Flashpoint

      Search
      Products

      Charts Free Forever

      Chats Q&A with Experts
      Screeners Economic Calendar Data Tools
      Membership Features
      Data Warehouse Market Trends Institutional Data Policy Rates Macro

      Market Trends

      Market Sentiment Order Book Forex Correlations

      Top Indicators

      Charts Free Forever
      Markets

      News

      News Analysis 24/7 Columns Education
      From Institutions From Analysts
      Topics Columnists

      Latest Views

      Latest Views

      Trending Topics

      Top Columnists

      Latest Update

      Signals

      Copy Rankings Latest Signals Become a signal provider AI Rating
      Contests
      Brokers

      Overview Brokers Assessment Rankings Regulators News Claims
      Broker listing Forex Brokers Comparison Tool Live Spread Comparison Scam
      Q&A Complaint Scam Alert Videos Tips to Detect Scam
      More

      Business
      Events
      Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

      White Label

      Data API

      Web Plug-ins

      Affiliate Program

      Awards Institution Evaluation IB Seminar Salon Event Exhibition
      Vietnam Thailand Singapore Dubai
      Fans Party Investment Sharing Session
      FastBull Summit BrokersView Expo
      Recent Searches
        Top Searches
          Markets
          News
          Analysis
          User
          24/7
          Economic Calendar
          Education
          Data
          • Names
          • Latest
          • Prev

          View All

          No data

          Scan to Download

          Faster Charts, Chat Faster!

          Download App
          English
          • English
          • Español
          • العربية
          • Bahasa Indonesia
          • Bahasa Melayu
          • Tiếng Việt
          • ภาษาไทย
          • Français
          • Italiano
          • Türkçe
          • Русский язык
          • 简中
          • 繁中
          Open Account
          Search
          Products
          Charts Free Forever
          Markets
          News
          Signals

          Copy Rankings Latest Signals Become a signal provider AI Rating
          Contests
          Brokers

          Overview Brokers Assessment Rankings Regulators News Claims
          Broker listing Forex Brokers Comparison Tool Live Spread Comparison Scam
          Q&A Complaint Scam Alert Videos Tips to Detect Scam
          More

          Business
          Events
          Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Affiliate Program

          Awards Institution Evaluation IB Seminar Salon Event Exhibition
          Vietnam Thailand Singapore Dubai
          Fans Party Investment Sharing Session
          FastBull Summit BrokersView Expo

          ESG Unpacked: Regulatory Frameworks Shaping Sustainable Investing

          JanusHenderson

          Economic

          Summary:

          Catherine Boyd, Global Head of ESG Strategy & Operations, unpacks the complexities of integrating ESG factors into investment strategies, highlighting the pivotal role of regulatory frameworks in enhancing transparency and helping investors make informed decisions for long-term returns.

          What is driving ESG regulation?

          The spotlight on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors has never been brighter, yet the path to fully integrating these considerations into investment strategies is fraught with challenges, highlighting not only the demand for such data but also the glaring gaps in its availability. At the heart of the issue lies different regional interpretations surrounding ESG terminology, which has left investors clamouring for reliable data on financially material ESG factors that can influence cash flows, cost of capital, repayment, and ultimately, valuation. The increasing focus on weaving financially material ESG considerations into the fabric of investment processes.
          The scarcity of reported data, coupled with fragmented and ever evolving methodologies for disclosing data and metrics, exacerbates the complexity of this endeavour. This challenge is further magnified by the vast range of ESG factors and the varying degrees of their materiality across different sectors. Companies, striving to manage risk, echo this demand for clarity and uniformity in ESG data, particularly within their supply chains. Similarly, asset owners are keen to understand how their portfolios align with their ESG objectives, seeking transparency and accountability in how these goals are achieved.
          In response, governments, regulators, non-regulatory working groups and standard setters are stepping forward to bridge the gap, crafting policy, frameworks and regulations designed to ensure that investors gain access to the company and portfolio data they require. This evolving regulatory landscape signifies a pivotal shift towards more informed and sustainable investment practices, promising to reshape how investors navigate the complexities of ESG integration.
          This article aims to unpack the alphabet soup of financial ESG regulation, with a focus on how key and often overlapping global rules intersect to enhance corporate accountability for sustainability disclosure, reporting and due diligence to better inform investors’ decisions.

          Bridging the gap: How regulatory efforts are unifying ESG standards

          The European Green Deal represents a holistic approach by the European Union (EU) to address climate change and promote sustainability while ensuring economic growth. The Deal is supported by a robust Sustainable Finance Framework including: the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) – underpinned by the European Sustainability Reporting Standards (ESRS), the Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR), the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, and the EU Taxonomy.
          These regulations, although designed to function in concert, exhibit some divergence in focus and application that have implications for companies and investors looking to navigate the evolving landscape of ESG-related reporting vital to mitigating investment risks, while capitalising on new opportunities.
          CSRD aims to expand sustainability reporting, requiring companies to disclose their impact on climate, plus policy on human rights and governance, where material. A key component of the regulation is Companies will need to provide detailed auditable reporting on Sustainability Matters considered material to that assessment.
          SFDR focuses on preventing greenwashing by mandating disclosures about how financial products consider sustainability risks and their impacts on ESG factors. It applies to financial institutions and includes both organisation-level and product-level reporting requirements.
          CSDDD emphasises corporate responsibility in mitigating adverse environmental and human rights impacts. It mandates thorough due diligence processes across a company’s operations and value chain, setting a more explicit framework for ethical corporate conduct.
          EU Taxonomy is a classification system that helps companies and investors identify “environmentally sustainable” economic activities to make sustainable investment decisions.

          ESG regulations: harmony and divergence

          While these regulations share the goal of enhancing corporate accountability for their ecological and social impacts, they diverge in their applicability thresholds and specific requirements, leading to potential market confusion. However, their combined effect is to provide a more comprehensive framework for ESG reporting.
          The CSRD and CSDDD overlap significantly, particularly in their emphasis on detailed planning to mitigate adverse impacts. However, the CSDDD goes further by mandating active management of these impacts and introducing stakeholder enforcement mechanisms through the courts.
          Meanwhile, SFDR complements these by addressing the financial sector’s role, setting standards for how sustainability risks are integrated into investment decisions and disclosed to investors, with the aim to reduce greenwashing.
          These regulations collectively bridge significant gaps in ESG-related reporting, offering clearer guidance for investors and companies. Despite some divergence in their specific mandates, together they form a coherent framework that enhances transparency, accountability, and responsible investment, guiding investors and companies towards more sustainable practices (Figure 1).
          ESG Unpacked: Regulatory Frameworks Shaping Sustainable Investing_1
          In a significant move aimed at enhancing transparency around the environmental impact of companies, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted new rules on 6 March 2024, mandating climate-related disclosures in public companies’ annual reports and registration statements. This initiative, however, has not been without controversy, facing numerous legal challenges that have led to a temporary stay on its implementation. Despite these hurdles, the move underscores a global shift towards greater corporate accountability in environmental sustainability, aligning with similar initiatives in California and the EU’s CSRD.
          The SEC rule aims to provide investors with detailed information on how climate-related risks and sustainability factors affect public companies. Key disclosure requirements include material climate-related risks, strategies, targets, governance, and the financial impacts of severe weather events and natural conditions. For larger firms, (indirect) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions disclosures are mandated, subject to third-party validation. These requirements, scaled back from the original proposal, are based on the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD) and the global GHG Protocol, yet the SEC created its own standards rather than adopting an existing framework outright.

          Climate disclosure: California turns up the heat

          In 2023, California passed Senate Bills 253 and 261, which were recently combined to form the Senate Bill 219, Greenhouse Gases: Climate Corporate Accountability: Climate-Related Financial Risk (SB-219) alongside the Assembly Bill 1305, introducing its own climate disclosure mandates. While there is overlap with the SEC rule in areas such as GHG emissions reporting including Scope 1 and 2 emissions (beginning in 2026), the California laws uniquely require disclosure regardless of financial materiality and also include (beginning in 2027).
          The state laws and the SEC rule diverge significantly in their approach to materiality and the breadth of required disclosures, with California’s legislation taking a more expansive stance on what . California’s climate disclosure rules apply to public and private businesses operating in the state with more than US$1 billion in revenue.

          Materiality matters

          The CSRD represents the EU’s ambitious effort to integrate sustainability reporting within the corporate disclosure regime. It introduces the concept of ‘double materiality’.
          This approach is broader than the SEC’s focus on materiality from an investor’s perspective (’financial materiality’), and other regulators globally, requiring companies in scope of CSRD to disclose a wider range of information.
          The CSRD also mandates reporting on sustainability impacts, risks, and opportunities across a company’s value chain, covering a broader array of sustainability topics beyond climate, such as water use, biodiversity, and circular economy practices.

          Cross-border complexities

          Companies operating across jurisdictions face the challenge of navigating these varied and sometimes conflicting disclosure requirements.
          The SEC’s focus on materiality from an investor’s perspective, California’s more expansive disclosure mandates, and the EU’s comprehensive approach under the CSRD illustrate the complexities of the current regulatory landscape.
          Whilst regulators are considering some adjustments to reduce complexity and facilitate a partial interoperability, such as the integration of the International Sustainability Standards Board (ISSB) frameworks by various jurisdictions, organisations must develop cross-regulatory reporting strategies that address these regional differences.

          Clarity, consistency, and comparability

          The evolution of ESG disclosure regulations reflects a growing recognition of the critical importance of environmental sustainability in corporate governance. As companies grapple with these new requirements, the need for clarity, consistency, and comparability in disclosures becomes increasingly apparent.
          The SEC’s initiative, despite its current legal uncertainties, along with California’s laws and the EU’s CSRD, signal a significant shift towards a more sustainable and transparent corporate world.
          The path forward requires careful navigation of an increasingly diverse and evolving regulatory landscape. Further, the reporting landscape is likely to become increasingly complex, given that numerous jurisdictions, including Australia, Hong Kong, Singapore and the UK, are planning to integrate the climate-related disclosure framework developed by the ISSB – International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) S16 and IFRS S27 – into their corporate reporting regimes.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?

          FOREX.com

          Economic

          Central Bank

          RBNZ November preview

          New Zealand's economic activity shows little sign of recovery despite significantly lower interest rates, with many sentiment surveys still languishing in recessionary territory. For the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ), this underscores the urgent need for much less restrictive monetary policy.
          With inflation expectations anchored around the midpoint of its 1–3% target range and with projections for another 175 basis points of rate cuts this cycle, the board may be tempted to cut by more than 50 basis points with an 84-day gap between its November and February meetings. A truly jumbo cut next Wednesday could be the path of least regret to stimulate the economy over summer.

          Go big before summer break?

          The risk of a 75-basis-point cut looks underpriced ahead of next week’s RBNZ meeting, particularly given the bank's history of surprising markets under Governor Adrian "shock and" Orr.
          Heading into next week’s rate decision, a follow up 50-point move is favoured. Swaps markets put the probability at a little over 80%, with an even larger 75 the rank outsider at less than 20%. Economists are also backing a 50, with 27 of 30 surveyed by Reuters expecting a reduction to 4.25%.
          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_1

          Path of least regret

          Caution around larger cuts is understandable, especially after the RBNZ moved from 25 to 50-basis-point reductions in September. It could amplify economic concerns further. However, the risk of hesitation when policy is clearly too restrictive outweighs concerns over market perceptions. Based on its own forecasts, the RBNZ sees the neutral cash rate – where its neither restrictive nor stimulatory for the inflation outlook – at 3%, which it expects to reach by late next year or early 2026.
          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_2
          With the current rate 175 basis points above neutral, why not front-load cuts to speed up the transition? Even a 75-basis-point cut next week would leave policy a full percentage point above the estimated neutral rate, maintaining a degree of restraint and mitigating the risk of inflation reigniting.
          And let’s be honest, New Zealand activity data suggests the threat of demand-driven inflation is close to non-existent.

          Assessing inflation reacceleration threat

          Citi's Economic Surprise Index remains negative, showing data consistently underperforming expectations nearly three months into the easing cycle. While monetary policy operates with lags, the persistence of dire soft sentiment indicators is troubling.
          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_3
          The BNZ Performance of Services Index (PSI) released this week hit 46.0 in October, indicating contracting activity. It’s a level comparable to the depths of the Global Financial Crisis and has shown minimal improvement since the RBNZ began cutting rates. Leading indicators like sales and new orders remain far below historical averages. Where does the inflation threat come from given that outlook? Not the domestic economy the RBNZ can influence.
          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_4
          It makes the case for a bold move compelling, especially given the long gap between decisions. A 75-point cut looks mispriced at less than 20% probability, in my view, with risk-reward dynamics favouring positioning for such an outcome.

          Domestic rates outlook not driving NZD/USD

          Before we look at the technical picture for NZD/USD, it’s worthwhile addressing a concern often heard whenever big policy moves are being contemplated: that lower rates will lead to investors fleeing the Kiwi.
          The analysis below disputes that, at least based on what’s been happening recently. While there’s little doubt a 75-point move would likely lead to kneejerk shunt lower for NZD/USD, beyond the short-term, it’s the US bond curve you should be interested in.
          RBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_5
          Over the past month, NZD/USD has had the strongest relationship with US bond yields between five and 10-years. The Kiwi has often moved in the opposite direction to US yields over this period. The inverse relationship has also been strong with US two-year yields, albeit marginally weaker.
          Tellingly, the correlation with New Zealand two-year yields is moderately negative, suggesting the Kiwi has tended to push higher when domestic rates have fallen. Tell me again that lower rates will lead to a Kiwi massacre?
          Just to reinforce the point, the relationship between US and New Zealand two-year yield spreads has essentially been zero in November. It’s US rates driving the bird.

          NZD/USD technical pictureRBNZ Preview: Will Orr's 'Shock and Awe' Return as Key Rates Decision Looms?_6

          NZD/USD looks heavy on the charts, hitting fresh 2024 lows earlier in today’s session. With the price in a downtrend, mirroring momentum indicators such as RSI (14) and MACD, it’s an obvious sell-on-rallies play. Symbolically, the 50-day moving average has crossed its 200-day equivalent from above, delivering what’s known as a “death cross”. I don’t tend to put much weight on such occurrences, but it’s probably appropriate.
          Near-term, buying has been evident below .5840, making that the first downside level of note. Beyond, .5774 and .5600 should be on the radar, coinciding with market bottoms of prior years. If the Kiwi were to break the downtrend its trading in, which appears unlikely near-term, .5912 and .6053 are levels of potential resistance.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          The Fundamental Picture Is Looking Up For EM Sovereigns

          ING

          Economic

          Bond

          EM fundamental heatmap

          *Azerbaijan IIP is estimate of sovereign net foreign assets (FX reserves and SOFAZ assets, net of government external debt).

          Source: National Sources, IMF, World Bank, Brookings, Bruegel, Macrobond, ING; IMF WEO data for 2024 used for Economy & Fiscal variables, External Balance Sheet data is latest available.

          EM sovereigns are more resilient to external shocks

          Much of the discussion following Donald Trump’s US presidential victory has focused on the potential for higher US rates and a stronger US dollar, amid lower global trade volumes, which is likely to produce a tough environment for EMFX. However, despite the external headwinds and global macro uncertainty, the fundamental picture for many EM sovereigns has shifted more positive, with reforms being successfully implemented and balance sheets strengthened despite the significant twin shocks of Covid and the war in Ukraine in recent years. This should help to keep EM sovereign credit markets well supported, despite relatively expensive valuations in terms of tight credit spreads.

          This trend has started to be reflected by improvements in sovereign credit ratings, with the trend of net downgrades seen from 2020 to 2022 shifting to net upgrades, first in 2023 and looking even more positive this year. This is true for all three largest rating agencies – Moody’s, S&P and Fitch, where upgrades outnumber downgrades for EM sovereigns this year. Significant upgrades have included Turkey (multiple times), Qatar, Egypt, Ivory Coast, Brazil, Argentina, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Serbia, Croatia, Montenegro, Albania, Pakistan, and Mongolia.

          Annual EM sovereign rating changes – Fitch

          Source: Fitch, ING

          When looking ahead, an even more encouraging signal is the shift in the balance of outlooks to positive (more positive than negative rating outlooks), highlighting the potential for further upgrades over the next 12 months. By this measure, both Fitch and S&P’s rating outlook balances are hovering near their most positive level for the past decade, with a negative skew seen for much of this historical period.

          EM sovereign rating outlook balance – Fitch

          Source: Fitch, ING

          Rising stars in focus for investors

          Of particular interest for investors is likely to be the transition from High Yield (HY) to Investment Grade (IG) ratings as a potential technical trigger for strong performance, with potential ‘rising star’ candidates within the EM universe including the BB+ rated Azerbaijan, Oman, Serbia, and Morocco. This dynamic of narrowing the gap in fundamentals between the BB-tier of EM sovereigns and the BBB-tier (where ratings momentum is broadly heading the opposite way, in a more negative direction) is starting to play out in the market, with a compression in the spread differential between the two tiers. Indeed, on a country level, some of these upgrade candidates (Oman, Serbia in particular) are already trading at tighter spread levels than higher rated peers, with market-implied ratings nearer BBB, although we expect a further short-term bounce if the composite rating (average of three major agencies) eventually reaches IG.

          EM USD sovereign spreads by rating (bp)

          Source: ICE, Refinitiv, ING

          Other big stories for investors have been the multi-notch shift for Turkey from B- to BB- given the return to orthodox monetary policy (although we expect the upwards momentum in ratings may take a pause for now), and the first signs of a reversal in South Africa’s long-term down trend, with a positive outlook now at S&P. Among higher-risk frontier names, Egypt and Nigeria also look to have recovered from the brink, with multiple positive outlooks and ratings almost entirely lifted out of the CCC bucket and back towards B- or B. In the IG space eurozone members/hopefuls such as Croatia and Bulgaria have seen upgrades and positive outlooks, along with some improvements in the GCC for Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Overall, it is clear that EM governments are being rewarded for decisive reform efforts, while negative shifts have largely come from political pressures, such as in Kenya, Georgia, and Panama (although not limited to EM countries, as seen with France in the developed world).

          Debt levels rising but lower external vulnerabilities

          An important area of fundamental improvement in the EM world is reduced vulnerability to external shocks. In aggregate, EM current account deficits have reduced, with the median EM deficit near its narrowest in the past decade, meaning generally lower external financing needs across the world. By region, the large surpluses for oil exporters in the Middle East have moderated over the past year but are still in a strong position compared to much of the past decade, while EM Europe has seen a recovery from the energy and terms of trade shock of 2022. At the same time, most economies have been steadily accumulating FX reserves, monetary policy has generally been orthodox and conservative, and more governments have been gradually adopting more flexible exchange rates. Lower foreign holdings of local currency debt represent another area of reduced external vulnerability.

          EM median current account by region (% of GDP)

          Source: National sources, Macrobond, ING

          It’s not all good news for EM sovereigns however, as fiscal accounts are still showing some signs of strain. Fiscal balances have deteriorated relative to the pre-Covid era, and government debt ratios are elevated, even more so when compared to a decade ago. Debt levels in Developed Markets are still higher, but that differential has narrowed and looks set to narrow further. For EM Europe, government spending is likely to remain high on military expenditure and the green energy transition, while in the Middle East most are focused on shifting their economies away from hydrocarbon dependence.

          EM gross government debt by region – IMF WEO (% of GDP)

          Source: IMF WEO Oct 2024, Macrobond, ING

          Overall, the key question is how fiscal deficits are likely to be funded across EM economies. Countries with deep capital markets can be content with local currency funding, although a return of foreign investors to local currency EM debt markets would be helpful here. In EM Europe, many countries have returned as significant international bond issuers since Covid, in contrast to the previous decade of net negative supply, although can also count on financing support from the EU. For frontier and higher-beta names, bilateral and multilateral official funding sources should remain an important safety net, with IMF programmes often the catalyst for a wider range of official financing, as seen this year with the likes of Egypt and Pakistan, although domestic political considerations can often clash with the reform conditionality that comes with such support.

          Among stronger BB names, we expect further ratings upgrades are likely for Serbia, Oman and Azerbaijan, with the latter offering the most potential for spread tightening in the event of upgrade to IG. In the IG tier, Bulgaria would likely see upgrades in the event of eventual eurozone accession, although the timing remains unclear, while Saudi Arabia could also see further gains if oil prices remain elevated and production normalises. For lower rated credits we are sceptical of multiple upgrades for South Africa, although investor sentiment may well move to price in this potential, while Turkey should see a pause in momentum at BB-. The likes of Egypt and Pakistan will also likely see further progress amid strong external support. In contrast, Panama is teetering on the edge of a full downgrade to HY, while some pressures could re-emerge on Romania next year if fiscal consolidation expectations are not met, with market pricing already pointing towards this potential. In the HY space, Senegal is at risk of further downgrades, while Kenya looks most vulnerable among lower rated B-/CCC credits.

          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Which Companies are Opposed to the SEC’s New Climate Change Disclosure Law?

          Brookings Institution

          Economic

          The United States ranks second after China in global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 13.5% of the worldwide total, according to the World Resources Institute. During his first term, President Trump withdrew the U.S. from the Paris Agreement, a decision that President Biden reversed upon taking office. With the reelection of President Trump, there is a strong possibility he will once again withdraw the country from the Paris Agreement, potentially hindering global efforts to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050.
          Corporate leaders have started to come to terms with the need to take climate action seriously, although support for such policies is far from universal. About half of the largest U.S. companies have made net zero emissions pledges, and more than 90% of S&P 500 companies now publish ESG reports. Yet, research has revealed the limitations of self-regulation. Extensive evidence shows that companies exploit the voluntary nature of climate disclosures to further their competitive interests through selective and biased disclosure—a practice commonly known as “greenwashing.
          To mitigate greenwashing and improve market transparency, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently introduced a groundbreaking climate disclosure law. “The Enhancement and Standardization of Climate-Related Disclosures for Investors,” which was adopted in March 2024 after a two-year delay, was intended to expand the scope of greenhouse gas (GHG) reporting among publicly traded companies in the U.S. The law could compel corporations to take climate-related risk seriously and integrate it with their governance and operational strategies. The use of mandatory standards could also reduce the problem of selective reporting and greenwashing, significantly improving the comparability and reliability of climate-related ESG data.
          The importance of this regulation cannot be overstated: U.S. companies, including those in the energy and manufacturing sectors, are among the largest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. It is estimated that 80% of global GHG emissions were produced by just 57 companies, many of which are based in or operate extensively within the United States.
          The SEC’s regulation thus represents a landmark rulemaking effort that can help curb emissions in line with the ambitions of the Paris Agreement. However, the new law has faced significant criticism. The New York Times described the final rules as “far weaker than originally proposed,” and a former SEC acting chairman questioned whether the law could effectively deter corporate greenwashing. The SEC apparently diluted key provisions in the original proposal to preempt political and legal risks. Nevertheless, the agency was forced to temporarily halt the implementation of its final rules, pending judicial review, in the face of mounting legal challenges from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other actors.
          This is not the first time corporations have opposed climate policies. Industry associations, such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Petroleum Institute, have long funneled substantial resources into lobbying efforts aimed at stalling climate change legislation. Many major corporations, particularly those in highly emitting industries, actively participate in political campaigns to limit regulatory oversight. These actions have played a major role in thwarting legislative efforts to reduce carbon emissions despite numerous attempts to introduce bills in the U.S. Congress.
          In a newly published study, we analyzed company comments submitted to the SEC on its draft climate-related disclosure law to understand which companies were more opposed to climate change regulation. We generated a quantitative metric of corporate opposition toward the proposed law by conducting sentiment analysis using OpenAI’s GPT-3 Text Embeddings model. We then conducted exploratory statistical analysis to identify company attributes associated with opposition to climate change regulation. Our analysis is based on a sample of 146 major companies, including some of the largest ones.
          Surprisingly, the average company in our sample showed statistically significant, if mild, support for the SEC’s new law. This may reflect the fact that many large companies actively engage in public policy advocacy and adopt environmentally friendly business practices.
          Nonetheless, many companies that submitted letters to the SEC expressed strong opposition to the proposed law. Not surprisingly, energy firms exhibited the highest level of opposition, followed by manufacturing and service firms, reflecting their differing levels of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Companies with higher direct GHG emissions, whether in total or per dollar of revenue, were significantly more opposed to the regulation.
          Companies with strong stock market performance in recent years were less opposed to the law, suggesting that financially well-performing companies are, in principle, supportive of climate policy. Moreover, companies with liberal-leaning boards, based on the political campaign contributions of their directors, were less likely to oppose the SEC’s new law.
          Further, we found that companies with more transparent practices—in terms of non-financial disclosures—were less opposed to the regulation. Companies that have adopted the OECD Guidelines for responsible business conduct, and those with sustainability committees on their boards were also significantly less opposed to the law. This suggests that well-governed companies tend to have a more favorable stance toward regulatory oversight, likely because they face a lower marginal cost in transitioning to mandatory disclosure regimes.
          Overall, our results indicate that corporations face mixed incentives that simultaneously increase the appeal and risk of climate-related disclosures. For example, larger and financially sound companies adopt a supportive stance toward the regulation of climate-related disclosures, likely in response to rising public expectations. However, these same companies also face increasing GHG emissions, which heightens the risk of disclosure. This explains why, in the absence of regulatory oversight, corporate efforts to demonstrate sustainability could result in greenwashing, as these efforts are often not supported by significant investments needed to reduce environmental impact. In this context, the SEC’s new climate change disclosure law is a welcome development that could greatly enhance corporate transparency and accountability on sustainability issues. The new regulation is facing legal challenges and, under President Trump, will be at significant risk of being repealed.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Outlook 2025: What’s on the Horizon for the Hang Seng Index?

          IG

          Economic

          Stocks

          Hang Seng Index unwinding its outperformance into year-end

          This year is thought to be a turnaround year for the Hang Seng Index (HSI), but doubts on the recovery prospects for Hong Kong's markets have resurfaced lately, following the lack of a more direct fiscal injection into China’s economy and the looming Trump 2.0 administration in the US. The index had its chance to shine in September this year, where it briefly outperformed the S&P 500, but it has since retreated more than 16% from its two-year high.

          “Value play” reflects reservations over the recovery in Chinese economy

          Thus far, its price-to-earnings ratio continues to trade below its 10-year historical average. While the index may continue to be framed as a “value play”, failure to sustain a higher valuation also reflects market reservations over the recovery in the Chinese economy.
          There are still a lot of moving parts currently, with questions around whether further improvement in economic data can be sustained in the absence of a stronger fiscal injection, along with how China may manage upcoming US economic pressures. Recent corporate earnings continue to surprise on the upside (eg. Tencent, Alibaba), but macroeconomic conditions and geopolitical risks remain the overlying theme. These ought to be addressed in the coming year in order to drive a more meaningful valuation re-rating.
          Outlook 2025: What’s on the Horizon for the Hang Seng Index?_1

          Anticipation remains for strong fiscal boost to lift confidence

          Since late-September this year, the People’s Bank of China (PBOC) has rolled out a series of measures to stimulate the economy, which includes key lending rate cuts, liquidity injections through reserve requirement ratio (RRR) cuts and lowering mortgage rates on existing home loans.
          While some degree of monetary policy success may be reflected in October through stronger retail sales, slower new home prices’ decline and improving Purchasing Managers' Index (PMI) numbers, the risks are that the recovery momentum may fizzle off in the likes of April 2024 without stronger fiscal efforts. One may note that there are still underlying deflationary risks from recent inflation data, weak external demand from China’s new export orders and contraction in home prices having a negative wealth effect, which creates an uneven recovery backdrop.

          Slower growth expected in 2025 and 2026

          Looking to 2025, Refinitiv estimates are pointing to a continued slowdown in China’s growth, with below-trend growth of 4.5% next year (4.8% in 2024), before further slowing to 4.3% in 2026. This may mark a divergence from other parts of the world, where Eurozone, UK, Australia, Canada, Japan are all expected to see a recovery, and that could continue to see investor capitals leaning into these markets.

          Things may get worse before it gets better?

          Reference from the 2018 trade war seems to suggest that things could get worse before it gets better, as we are likely to enter another phase of tit-for-tat retaliations, which may make it difficult for the two nations to reach a resolution in the near term. US President-elect Donald Trump has floated the idea of a 60% tariff on all Chinese imports into the US, while China is unlikely to back down with its emphasis on “mutual respect” and will likely take action to remind the US that any moves against China will come with consequences.
          That said, we may expect drawdown in Chinese equities to be more limited this time round. This is because of declining China’s exports to US over the past years, “bolder steps” in stimulus next year to mitigate any US economic pressures, some pricing already in place for tariff risks and measures of capital market support in place (eg. special re-lending facility, state fund purchases).
          Reference from 2018 suggests that the peak of trade tensions may mark a near-term bottom for Chinese equities (late-October 2018), where negotiations stalled and there was widespread concerns of a prolonged trade conflict. So we may watch for such opportunities this time round as well, but for now, more clarity around US-China ties is much-needed into the coming year, which could still cap risk-taking in the meantime.

          Technical analysis: Path of least resistance may be a continued drift lower

          Following a 36% rally since mid-September this year, the HSI has since given back more than half of those gains. While the index is now seeking to stabilise at a key 61.8% Fibonacci retracement around the 19,454 level, there are not much conviction for longs just yet, with its daily relative strength index (RSI) dipping back below its mid-line for the first time since September this year, which indicates sellers in control.
          The current price action may resemble what occurred in April 2024, where the index experienced a sharp rally, followed by a prolonged downward drift. In this case, we will be keeping an eye on whether the upward trendline in place since the start of the year can hold. Near-term, conviction for longs may have to come from a strong break above the wedge resistance, which may leave any move above the 20,300 level on watch.Outlook 2025: What’s on the Horizon for the Hang Seng Index?_2
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          UK Fiscal Policy: Permanently Living on the Edge?

          Justin

          Central Bank

          Chancellor Rachel Reeves’ first budget in October 2024, with its increases in public expenditure, borrowing and taxation, was presented as a one-off ‘reset’ of fiscal policy, not to be repeated in the current parliament. This is too optimistic.
          The planned growth in public expenditure after the 2025-26 financial year is, as with the previous government’s plans, unrealistically low. Either public spending will be higher, involving more borrowing or further increases in taxation, or there will have to be painful cuts in public services. This will come to a head when the government sets spending plans for departments for the years after 2025-26 in the spending round it is committed to carrying out in ‘late spring’ 2025.
          Given the immense pressures for more spending – notably on health, defence, local authority services, the justice system and many investment projects – the 2025 spending round will reopen all the issues on spending, borrowing and taxation that the October budget was meant to settle.
          Fiscal policy in the UK is better managed and on a more predictable path than in some other large economies. President-elect Donald Trump’s tax-cutting aspirations could increase further the historically high rate of public borrowing in the US. The German and French governments cannot get their legislatures to agree budgets for 2025, let alone the medium term.
          Such uncertainties abroad at a time when most governments are financing their activities through high recourse to the bond markets does not mean that the UK can be assured of financing future deficits comfortably. There will be high levels of gilt redemptions to finance, and it is likely that the Bank of England will continue quantitative tightening, which will involve selling gilts in the market.
          Against this background, the government should urgently consider further ways to ease its fiscal pressures beyond simply raising taxes or squeezing services. It should reverse the large fall in public sector productivity during the pandemic and finance increased infrastructure investment other than relying on gilt sales. This would necessitate a thorough revamp of the Private Finance Initiative. The last Labour government’s PFI was regarded as poor value for money and there were many complaints about aspects of the contracts. The initiative was eventually ended and not replaced. Instead, investment in infrastructure, such as in hospitals and schools, fell away – the worst possible outcome.

          Restoring productivity levels

          Focus on these reforms will be crucial as there will be strong resistance to tax increases for individuals and companies following the recent budget. There is mounting evidence that public sector efficiency and productivity in the UK fell sharply during the pandemic and have not fully recovered. According to the Office for National Statistics, at the beginning of 2024, public service productivity was over 6% lower than its pre-pandemic peak at the end of 2019.
          Measuring the output and productivity of public services is notoriously difficult. The ONS stresses that its work in this area is still under development. Yet there is enough evidence to suggest that the fall in efficiency is a serious problem. Reversing it will take far more than setting modest annual efficiency targets of around 2% for government departments. It will require some drastic changes that would be difficult to achieve and uncomfortable for the workforce. But as the alternative is cuts in public services or further increases in taxes, it is the least bad option.
          Much of the pre-budget discussion focused on changing the government’s fiscal rules to allow more borrowing for investment. The post-budget projections from the Debt Management Office show gross financing requirements (new borrowing plus refinancing of redemptions) in the range of £250bn to £300bn in each of the four financial years to 2028-29. The bulk of these will be met by gilt sales. At the same time, the Bank will be running off its stock of gilts (currently at a rate of £100bn per annum). This scenario may be feasible, particularly if the UK’s fiscal policy is perceived as relatively responsible by international standards. However, there are risks. Everything should be done to prevent a loss of confidence in the gilt market that could make a policy correction necessary.

          Adapting to new investment models

          It is ironic that governments, including the UK since 1694, invariably seek to finance even their legitimate financing requirements primarily through bond issuance. Yet despite the importance of the international bond market, recent decades have seen huge developments in other financial products and institutions. Many of these institutions are interested in infrastructure but have little or no appetite for UK government bonds. In financing their own activities, governments have not kept up with the changes in the international financial system.
          Recent UK governments have tried to diversify from exclusive bond financing by tapping sovereign funds, insurance companies, pension funds, private equity and others to help fund infrastructure projects. The challenge is not so much to attract these investors as to find acceptable structures with adequate returns into which they might invest. Outright privatisation has been severely criticised, especially in the case of the water companies and train operators.
          Since there will be future constraints on gilt-financed public sector investment, it would be preferable to design structures for private finance that reduce or minimise the previous problems with private finance. As with the need to improve public sector productivity, designing acceptable structures for private finance is primarily a task for government. An ambitious public sector efficiency programme and a reformed PFI need to be in place before next year’s spending round if service cuts and tax increases are to be avoided.

          Source:Peter Sedgwick

          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Corporate Bonds Explained: Income and Security for Your Portfolio

          SAXO

          Economic

          Bond

          Corporate Bonds: A Stable Income Opportunity Amid Tightening Spreads and Global Economic Divergence

          Corporate bonds, whether through individual investments or ETFs, offer a compelling option for diversifying your portfolio and earning stable income in a challenging economic environment. By understanding the basics, assessing the macroeconomic landscape, and choosing suitable ETFs, investors can navigate the bond market with confidence and achieve their financial goals.
          U.S., corporate bonds—both high-yield (HY) and investment-grade (IG)—have seen their spreads narrow to levels not seen since before the global financial crisis, reflecting strong investor confidence in the U.S. economy. Credit spreads refer to the difference in yield between corporate bonds and risk-free government bonds of similar maturity. This spread compensates investors for the additional risk of lending to a corporation instead of a government. When spreads tighten, it signals increased investor confidence and demand for corporate bonds, as the perceived risk of default decreases.
          In Europe, credit spreads are also trading near the bottom of their 17-year range but have not tightened as substantially as U.S. corporate spreads. This disparity can be attributed to the relatively sluggish performance of the European economy compared to the robust growth in the U.S., which has made investors more cautious about taking on additional credit risk in Europe. This divergence highlights how regional economic dynamics influence the corporate bond market, making it essential for investors to consider these factors when building their portfolios.
          Corporate Bonds Explained: Income and Security for Your Portfolio_1

          Why Are Investors Focusing on Corporate Bonds Now?

          Navigating a Complex Macroeconomic Environment
          In today’s challenging economic climate, corporate bonds are gaining popularity as investors seek stability and income amid uncertainty. Here’s why:
          Inflation Protection: Inflation that remains sticky and elecated erodes the value of future cash flows. Corporate bonds, especially high-yield ones, can offer higher yields that help cushion the impact of inflation.
          Monetary Policy Uncertainty: Central banks, including the Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank, are navigating uncertain economic conditions. Rate hikes and unexpected policy moves can shake markets, making corporate bonds an attractive buffer against volatility.
          Diversification: Corporate bonds often have a low correlation with equities, providing a stabilizing effect in turbulent markets.
          Credit Quality Matters: Investment-grade corporate bonds are seen as a safer haven for risk-averse investors, while high-yield bonds can be appealing for those seeking greater returns in exchange for taking on additional risk.
          The Appeal of Corporate Bonds Amid Market Volatility
          Corporate bonds provide:
          Income: Regular coupon payments offer a predictable income stream.
          Capital Preservation: Bondholders are prioritized over shareholders in case of bankruptcy, making corporate bonds a relatively safer investment.
          Flexibility: Bonds can be held to maturity for predictable returns or traded in the secondary market for potential capital gains.

          What Does It Entail to Invest in Corporate Bonds?

          Corporate bonds are a way for investors to lend money to companies in exchange for periodic interest payments (known as coupons) and the return of the bond’s face value at maturity. These instruments are typically less risky than stocks but can provide steady income and capital preservation, making them a popular choice for diversifying portfolios.
          How Corporate Bonds Work: When you invest in a corporate bond, you’re essentially giving a company a loan. The company promises to pay you interest (the coupon) and repay the principal amount at the end of the bond's term. For example, a 10-year bond with a 5% coupon purchased for $1,000 would pay you $50 annually until maturity.
          Why Companies Issue Bonds: Companies use bonds to raise capital for projects, acquisitions, or refinancing debt. Issuing bonds is often cheaper and more flexible than obtaining a bank loan or issuing additional stock.

          Types of Corporate Bonds:

          Investment Grade (IG): Lower-risk bonds issued by companies with strong credit ratings.
          High-Yield (HY): Higher-risk bonds issued by companies with lower credit ratings, offering higher returns to compensate for the increased risk.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share
          FastBull
          Copyright © 2025 FastBull Ltd

          728 RM B 7/F GEE LOK IND BLDG NO 34 HUNG TO RD KWUN TONG KLN HONG KONG

          TelegramInstagramTwitterfacebooklinkedin
          App Store Google Play Google Play
          Products
          Charts

          Chats

          Q&A with Experts
          Screeners
          Economic Calendar
          Data
          Tools
          Membership
          Features
          Function
          Markets
          Copy Trading
          Latest Signals
          Contests
          News
          Analysis
          24/7
          Columns
          Education
          Company
          Careers
          About Us
          Contact Us
          Advertising
          Help Center
          Feedback
          User Agreement
          Privacy Policy
          Business

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Poster Maker

          Affiliate Program

          Risk Disclosure

          The risk of loss in trading financial instruments such as stocks, FX, commodities, futures, bonds, ETFs and crypto can be substantial. You may sustain a total loss of the funds that you deposit with your broker. Therefore, you should carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your circumstances and financial resources.

          No decision to invest should be made without thoroughly conducting due diligence by yourself or consulting with your financial advisors. Our web content might not suit you since we don't know your financial conditions and investment needs. Our financial information might have latency or contain inaccuracy, so you should be fully responsible for any of your trading and investment decisions. The company will not be responsible for your capital loss.

          Without getting permission from the website, you are not allowed to copy the website's graphics, texts, or trademarks. Intellectual property rights in the content or data incorporated into this website belong to its providers and exchange merchants.

          Not Logged In

          Log in to access more features

          FastBull Membership

          Not yet

          Purchase

          Become a signal provider
          Help Center
          Customer Service
          Dark Mode
          Price Up/Down Colors

          Log In

          Sign Up

          Position
          Layout
          Fullscreen
          Default to Chart
          The chart page opens by default when you visit fastbull.com