Market participants are waiting on today’s jobs report from the US in a week that has seen a lot of choppy price action and uncertainty. The exception being a US equity and Crypto rally which has given markets a wee bit of optimism as the Festive season approaches.

Heading into the jobs report and market expectations over US monetary policy have seen a significant shift over the past ten days. The probability of a 25 bps rate cut on December 18 has risen from 56% to a high yesterday of 78%, currently at 71%. Will the jobs data later today finally settle the matter?

The expected Non-farm payroll figure is 200k which would be a significant step up from last month’s disappointing print. Last month’s print was the worst in nearly four years, however it is key to remember the impact of hurricane Milton and the Boeing strikes. These all had a negative impact on job numbers and are all expected to reverse.

A job print above the 200k mark may prove to be less important than the unemployment rate which may be key. Markets are looking at a 4.1% print but I believe we could get a slight uptick toward 4.2%. Either way, should we get a print in the 4.1-4.2% range and a jobs number of 200k plus, I expect any immediate reaction by the US Dollar to prove short-lived. Similar to what we saw last month.

For interest’s sake I thought we could see what Goldman Sachs analysts are looking at from today’s report. Goldman’s analyst gives a scenario analysis for the NFP. The “sweet spot” he says is 150k-200k which he expects will see a 0.5-1% rally. Worst case is >275k which may lead to a Dec FOMC rate cut skip. Notably every other scenario he sees less than a 1% move.

Such a print should keep the Fed on track for a 25 bps cut at the upcoming meeting and thus should not have any lasting impact on market moves. This could lead to steady US Dollar weakness heading into next week.

The US Dollar is historically weak in December, usually weighed down by portfolio rebalancing and a pivot to more risky assets. The recent rise in US Equities and slight US Dollar weakness may be a sign that this has already begun.

Yesterday saw the DXY print a bearish daily candle close which is a maubozu candlestick. No wick on either side suggests significant bearish pressure as the DXY is back at last week’s lows around 105.63.

A break lower brings the 105.00 handle into focus before the 104.50 handle.

The DXY needs to gain acceptance above the 107.00 handle if bulls are to continue their impressive run from the beginning of October.

Looking at the Gold chart below, the range continues to hold between the $2600-$2660 area. The Asian session brought wild price swings for the precious metal with a low of 2612 before rallying toward the 2644 handle.

The one thing that has piqued my interest is the amount of rejections we have had in the 2655-2660 range suggesting this zone remains a key area. For not it appears that risks are tilted to the downside.

If the nobs data comes out largely in line with expectations and rate cut bets increase, I wonder whether bulls will be able to facilitate a breakout and acceptance above the 2660 handle.

A significant increase in the average hourly earnings and a jobs number closer to 300k could result in significant USD strength which could push Gold below the 2600 handle and beyond.

The Budget announced a range of changes to inheritance tax, curtailing reliefs for agricultural and business assets, bringing pensions into the scope of inheritance tax and freezing tax-free allowances until 2029–30. Together, the changes are expected to raise around £2.3 billion per year by 2029–30, £520 million of which comes from reducing business and agricultural reliefs.

While accounting for only a small part of the higher inheritance tax revenue, the changes to agricultural and business reliefs and specifically their effects on farms and farmers have received significant attention. What are the changes? Who will be affected? And are these measures a good idea?

Currently, full relief from inheritance tax is available for most agricultural property and business assets held for two years before death. In the case of agricultural property, relief applies in full to property held for more than two years, if farmed by the owner, but for property rented out the minimum holding period to get inheritance tax relief is seven years. HMRC recorded that, in 2021–22, 1,730 estates claimed agricultural relief, and £550 million of inheritance tax was relieved under agricultural relief, an average tax saving of over £300,000 per estate (with some benefiting from business relief on top of this). The largest 117 claims (7% of claims) accounted for 40% of the total value of agricultural relief (£219 million) and just 37 (2%) accounted for 22% of the total value (£119 million, or £3.2 million each).

The Budget announced that, from April 2026, business and agricultural reliefs will be restricted. Estates will be eligible for 100% inheritance tax relief on the first £1 million of combined business and agricultural assets and 50% relief on amounts over £1 million (i.e. 40% tax will apply to only 50% of the value of business and agricultural property in excess of £1 million). Shares designated as ‘not listed’ (notably AIM shares) will in all circumstances receive only 50% relief, i.e. they are not covered by the £1 million of 100% relief.

The 100% and 50% reliefs are in addition to the nil-rate band, which allows £325,000 of assets to be passed on free of inheritance tax, and the residence nil-rate band which allows a further £175,000 to be passed on if bequeathing a home to a direct descendant. This means that, in many cases, an individual could pass on £1.5 million free of tax and a couple could pass on £3 million free of tax. To take an example, consider a married couple with a farm worth £3 million, including a family home worth at least £350,000. The couple could pass on their wealth as follows:

The first member of the couple to die passes on a £1 million share of the farm tax-free to their children using the new £1 million allowance. They leave any remaining assets to their spouse (which is always tax-free), who also inherits their unused nil-rate band and residence nil-rate band.The second member of the couple to die passes on the remaining £2 million, including the home, to their children tax-free. £1 million is covered by the new allowance, and the other £1 million is covered by the combination of their own nil-rate band and residence nil-rate band and those they inherited from their spouse.

Couples will not always be able to pass on this much tax-free, but often they will be able to pass on even more, and in certain (unusual) circumstances it will be possible for couples to pass on as much as £4 million combined before any inheritance tax is paid. With large amounts bequeathable tax-free, where tax is payable it will often only be a small percentage of the total value of the estate. The inheritance tax liabilities will be heavily concentrated on the very largest estates.

Inheritance tax due on business and agricultural property will be able to be spread over a 10-year period interest-free.

While the reform scales back business and agricultural reliefs, it is far from removing them completely: the government estimates that the change will raise £520 million a year but still leave these reliefs costing £1.8 billion a year.

Based on HMRC tax data, the government forecasts that out of the 1,800 estates per year claiming agricultural relief (including those which claim business relief as well), around 500 – 29% – could potentially pay more inheritance tax as a result of curtailing agricultural and business reliefs. However, these figures do not account for any change in behaviour that happens as a result of the Budget policy measures. The number of farming estates actually paying more tax due to the Budget policies could be much lower than 500 per year if, in response to these changes, some people change their behaviour to avoid inheritance tax. That might happen if, for example, more farm-owning couples split the transfer of assets to the next generation across their two estates (to take full advantage of both spouses’ allowances), or if there is increased gifting of assets more than seven years before death.

There has been public exchange of figures on the proportion of farms that will be affected by the tax changes. The National Farmers’ Union has claimed, citing figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), that around two-thirds of farms are worth over £1 million and are therefore potentially affected by the Budget measures. It is claimed that this contradicts the government figures above showing that 29% of estates claiming agricultural relief could face higher tax because of the Budget measures.

These two figures measure two different things and there are many reasons the two proportions being cited could differ without this implying that either is incorrect. The government figures based on inheritance tax returns reported to HMRC relate to all estates claiming agricultural relief, while the Defra figures from the Farm Business Survey relate to farms with at least a minimum level of output. One reason the two proportions could differ is that some estates claiming agricultural relief may do so on property that is not producing enough output to be included in Defra’s Farm Business Survey. A second reason for differences is that one estate could include only a share of a farm and/or could include multiple farms. A third reason is that some farms will be gifted well before death and therefore not attract inheritance tax. There may be other reasons for differences too. The share of ‘farms’ or ‘farmers’ affected by the Budget measures depends on how exactly terms are defined.

However defined – and therefore whatever the proportions – it is clear that some farms will be able to be passed on tax-free, while others will attract inheritance tax. Those farm owners who do not have a (surviving) spouse or civil partner, or who face a higher chance of dying within seven years, have less ability to manage their affairs so as not to pay inheritance tax.

Where inheritance tax is due, will it lead to farms’ being sold?

As noted above, the tax can be spread over 10 years interest-free. And in principle, the burden of the tax can be spread over longer than 10 years by saving up beforehand or by borrowing (perhaps with the farm as collateral) to pay the tax and paying back the loan more gradually.

Nevertheless, in some cases the farm will simply yield too little income (and the inheritor will have too few other resources) to pay the tax. The owners might choose, or be forced, to sell part or all of the farm. This is a feature of inheritance tax: the same applies to those inheriting a family home, for example.

But it matters when and why farmland is sold and what happens when it is sold. To understand that, it is worth reflecting on why a farm that yields little income might have a high enough market value to attract inheritance tax.

There are several possible (not mutually exclusive) reasons.

One is that the market price of farmland has been pushed up by demand to buy it as a vehicle to avoid inheritance tax. By reducing (though not eliminating) the tax advantages of agricultural property, the Budget reform should reduce its price – softening the inheritance tax hit and the impetus to sell farms, and indeed making farmland more affordable for those who want to buy it for non-tax reasons. That is, the reform will make it easier to get into farming.

A second possibility is that land that currently yields little income has a high market value because potential buyers think they could use the land more profitably – whether by farming more efficiently or by using it for other purposes, such as housing development. Other things equal, reallocation of land for more profitable use should be welcomed. If other things are not equal, and the government wants land to be used in certain ways rather than others – for food security or environmental reasons, for example – then it should directly support the desired activities, making them more financially viable irrespective of inheritance tax.

A third possibility is that the land is already being used as productively as allowed, and the high market value reflects the speculative hope that planning permission might be granted in future for more profitable uses (such as housing development) which are not currently allowed. Pending such permission, continuing the current use of the land might be the most efficient outcome, yet not yield the income needed to cover any inheritance tax liability when it is bequeathed. In such cases, the farm might be sold (in part or whole) but still used for farming – indeed, the existing owners could potentially stay on as tenant farmers.

There is room for reasonable disagreement about whether we should have an inheritance tax at all. But if we have this tax, it should apply equally across all types of assets. Inheritance tax relief for agricultural and business assets unfairly favours those whose wealth is held in these forms rather than others: those who inherit a (multi-)million-pound farm are wealthy, even if the farm yields little income and they choose not to monetise the asset (around 3% of all estates requiring probate or confirmation have a net estate worth more than £1.5 million, and around 1% of estates requiring probate or confirmation have a net estate worth more than £3 million). And the relief provides a tax incentive for land to be used for agriculture (rather than more profitable but less tax-privileged purposes) and for agricultural property to be owned by those looking to pass on wealth to their heirs tax-efficiently (rather than those who value ownership for other reasons). The changes set out in the Budget reduce but do not eliminate these effects.

If the government wishes to promote certain uses of land – such as producing food, planting trees or encouraging biodiversity – it would be fairer and more efficient to explicitly target support towards the activities it seeks to promote. This would support any farm or business carrying out the desired activity, not only those that are passed on in estates (and not those used for other things), and would not leave open a channel for inheritance tax avoidance. Likewise, if the government wishes to redistribute to certain groups in society, it should do so directly: inheritance tax relief is not a well-targeted tool for doing these things. The government should clearly set out whether it has such aims and its view on the type and level of support required to achieve them.

As with all tax changes, the exact design of the policy and the transition to the new regime are important.

As discussed above, a typical couple might expect to be able to use both of their £1 million allowances. But people will not inherit any unused part of the £1 million allowance from a deceased spouse or civil partner, like they do with the nil-rate band and residence nil-rate band. So, to use both partners’ allowances, each must separately bequeath at least £1 million of the property to others (e.g. children). That means splitting ownership of the property between family members on or before the death of the first partner, rather than bequeathing the whole thing when one of them dies. It will also disadvantage families where one member of the couple has already passed away. There is a good case for making unused portions of the £1 million allowance inheritable by a spouse or civil partner. This would clearly reduce the revenue raised by the policy (and, as with the existing transferability of nil-rate bands, would not help couples who are not married or in a civil partnership).

Gifts made more than seven years before death are not subject to inheritance tax. Yet current farm owners passing away in the next seven years (but after the new regime comes into force in April 2026) will not have had that opportunity to avoid inheritance tax by making lifetime gifts. If the government wished to give current farm (or business) owners the same opportunity to avoid inheritance tax that owners of other assets have, it could do so by transitioning to the new regime more slowly. For example, lifetime gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date could be made inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death of the giver, so that those farm owners who pass away in the next seven years have an opportunity to make tax-avoiding gifts in light of the Budget changes. This would reduce the revenue raised from the policy, but this would be one-off, rather than permanent, reduction in the revenue raised.

The reforms to taxation of agricultural property proposed in the Budget would reduce the inheritance tax advantages enjoyed by owners of farmland but would still leave that land much more lightly taxed than most other assets. The exact number that will be affected is uncertain but government figures imply it will be significantly less than 500 estates per year. Some relatively simple tax planning will ensure that many farms worth considerably more than £2 million will not be liable for tax. And it is important to remember that most of the inheritance tax payable will be on very valuable estates. Overall, this moves our inheritance tax in the right direction. We should treat similar assets similarly for the purposes of inheritance tax, or any other tax, unless there are very good reasons not to. It is not obvious that such reasons exist in this case, and if the concern is about food production or protection of the environment then much better tools exist to support those activities.

It is not surprising that those who might lose from any tax change will feel aggrieved. That is their right and to be expected. One specific feature that may leave farm owners feeling unfairly treated is that those passing away in the next seven years (but after the new regime comes into force in April 2026) will not have had the opportunity to avoid inheritance tax by making lifetime gifts. If the government wished to give current farm owners the same opportunity to avoid inheritance tax as owners of other assets, it could, for example, make lifetime gifts of agricultural property made before a certain future date inheritance tax free, regardless of the timing of the death.

Whether or not the government wishes to make that tweak to the policy, there is certainly a good case for making unused portions of the £1 million allowance inheritable by a spouse or civil partner, like the other main inheritance tax allowances are.

The crypto market has risen by more than 3% on December 5 to reach $3.69 trillion, this time thanks to the euphoria surrounding Bitcoin.

The price of the first cryptocurrency surpassed $100,000, a psychologically important milestone. The price then stabilised at $102.4K. It took almost two weeks from approaching this level to crossing it, during which time altcoins became the market driver. Perhaps the pendulum of interest will swing back to bitcoin for a while.

Powell, the Fed chairman, once again referred to Bitcoin as the digital analogue of gold, which was seen as a bullish signal to overcome resistance. While we believe Powell was the reason for the recent momentum, we attribute it to his upbeat comments on the economy, which supported risk appetite. Next, automatic stop orders came into play, pulling the market higher in thin Asian trading.

Ethereum’s next important level for the cryptocurrency markets could be $4,000, which it failed to consolidate above earlier this year.

Grayscale Investments has filed with the SEC to convert the GSOL Trust into a Solana Spot ETF. Canary, VanEck, 21Shares, and Bitwise are also pending applications to launch Solana ETFs.

Paul Atkins, whom the media have touted as a leading candidate for the position of SEC chairman, has been interviewed by President-elect Donald Trump. However, according to CoinDesk, the position is not attractive to Atkins due to the amount of work involved.

BNB hit a new all-time high above $790 after DEX PancakeSwap unveiled Springboard, a platform for issuing meme coins on the BNB chain.

According to QCP Capital, the main driver of altcoin growth was the proposal to abolish the capital gains tax on cryptocurrencies, which representatives of US companies drafted. The market expects this will create a more favourable regulatory environment for the crypto industry.

President-elect Trump recently announced that when he begins his term on January 20, 2025 he will implement 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada unless these countries control the flow of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, and illegal immigrants. Trump also proposed an additional 10% tariff on imports from China due to concerns about fentanyl. Whether these proposed tariffs will address U.S. concerns around fentanyl and illegal immigration remains to be seen, but the costs of these tariffs for U.S. industry may be high enough that they will become economically and politically unsustainable. This will be even more so if Mexico retaliates, as Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has threatened to do. While tariffs seem justified, a tariff-first approach to addressing U.S. issues with Canada and Mexico undermines the key role of trade and investment across North America underpinned by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA); the regional agreement can play an important role in reducing U.S. dependencies on Chinese-centered supply chains and in securing alternative sources of critical minerals.

First, it is important to be clear about the costs of a 25% across-the-board tariff on imports from Mexico and Canada. Various studies have confirmed that the 25% tariff on imports from China initiated by the Trump administration and then expanded by the Biden administration created costs and reduced investment. This is not to say that tariffs are never justified, but it is important to be clear about some of the costs associated with them.

Second, the proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada will be much more extensive than current tariffs on imports from China, and the impact will be more significant. Imports from Mexico and Canada are the United States’ first and third largest sources of imports respectively, worth over $900 billion in 2023, and over 17 million jobs rely on trade across North America, including over 4.5 million U.S. jobs. In addition, approximately 50% of U.S. trade with Canada and Mexico is driven by supply chains in sectors such as automobiles, medical equipment, energy, and agricultural products. This means that products cross borders multiple times as they are manufactured. The 25% tariff applied each time a product moves along supply chains will add up quickly and raise prices, rendering many of these supply chains economically unviable. This analysis does not take into account additional costs should Mexico or Canada retaliate.

The proposed tariffs are also likely inconsistent with the USMCA—the trade agreement between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada that the Trump administration successfully negotiated. USMCA is up for review in 2026, and it is possible that these tariffs are part of a broader strategy to extract concessions from Mexico and Canada in the lead-up to the review. Yet, Trump’s willingness to ignore U.S. commitments under USMCA will hamper his administration’s ability to make progress on other key challenges. Threatening 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada has sent a signal globally that governments cannot rely on an agreement with Trump—even one that he negotiated. In response, governments will focus on one-off deals to address specific U.S. concerns, while avoiding getting drawn into agreements that are based on longer-term cooperation. This will make it more difficult to address U.S. economic and security concerns with China, which will require building more political, challenging, complex, and longer-term cooperation with other countries in areas such as export controls, investment screening, and industrial subsidies.

It is unclear whether these threatened tariffs on Mexico and China will ever materialize. However, given the threat, it is now up to Mexico and Canada to act on it. This may be a negotiating ploy, but given the potential costs the 25% tariff would pose to many U.S. industries, Trump has now placed himself in the position of relying on Mexico and Canada to act in order to avoid these harms. Addressing flows of fentanyl and illegal immigration are clearly issues that should be resolved. Whether Trump’s proposed 25% tariffs on all imports from Mexico and Canada could lead to further progress on these issues is uncertain. But it is clear that if implemented, these tariffs will harm U.S. industry.

Population ageing is accelerating rapidly. Across OECD countries, the share of people aged 65+ has doubled from less than 9% in 1960 to 18% as of 2021 (OECD 2023) and is expected to reach 27% by 2050, increasing demand for long-term care services (Kotschy and Bloom 2022). At the same time, there is growing public pressure to reduce the care burden on families and individuals in favour of government funding and the provision of long-term care (Ilinca and Simmons 2022). Combined with the rising costs of care (OECD 2023), these trends are adding pressure to the fiscal sustainability of public long-term care systems. Ensuring the cross-country comparability of the costs and benefits of public long-term care schemes in 32 OECD and EU countries, a new OECD report compares current long-term care costs across countries and presents evidence on the effectiveness of public expenditures in alleviating the financial burden on care recipients.

Without sufficient public support, long-term care services are unaffordable for most older people. The average long-term care cost for individuals with low care needs, already 42% of the median income of older people (without public support), could reach 259% for those with severe care needs. Even though all OECD countries included in the report cover at least part of the cost through benefit schemes, individuals’ out-of-pocket expenses remain substantial, particularly for older people with severe needs (see Figure 1). On average, these costs represent over 70% of the median income of older people across OECD countries, even after accounting for public social protection. However, there is significant variation among the analysed countries. In the Nordic countries such as Finland, Iceland, and Denmark, out-of-pocket costs remain below 5% of median income, while in Italy and Estonia, these costs exceed 150%, effectively pushing older adults into poverty or leaving them with unmet care needs.

High out-of-pocket expenses for long-term care significantly increase the poverty risk among older people (see Figure 2). On average, poverty rates for older adults with long-term care needs are 31 percentage points higher than for the general older population. The long-term care systems in Scandinavian countries, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands are among the most effective at reducing poverty risks linked to care expenses. In contrast, the poverty risk among long-term care recipients in Italy and Spain is much higher – more than 60 percentage points – in comparison to the total older population (aged 65+).

Rising costs, growing demand, and low productivity gains are placing substantial financial pressure on public long-term care systems. The OECD report analyses how this financial pressure could impact future long-term care spending under different scenarios (see Figure 3). In the first scenario (the ‘ageing scenario’) – whereby countries maintain the current level of support and the existing share of older adults with needs receiving long-term care – expenditures are projected to rise by an average of 91% by 2050. In the second scenario (the ‘high coverage scenario’), which assumes an increase to 60% of the share of older adults with care needs, expenditures would increase by 144%. Finally, in the ‘no copayment scenario’, out-of-pocket expenses are fully eliminated and long-term care expenditures grow by more than 300%.

While population ageing is unavoidable, countries can help older populations adopt healthier lifestyles and introduce preventive measures to reduce dependency and health issues for as long as possible. Programmes like home visits in Scandinavian countries have proven to be cost-effective by increasing the number of active, healthy years (Kronborg et al. 2006). Such policies could reduce future long-term care spending by 13% compared to the baseline high coverage scenario (see healthy ageing scenario, Figure 3).

Although labour productivity growth in the long-term care sector remains low or even negative (OECD 2023), emerging technologies could be put to better use to help reduce overall care costs. OECD simulations suggest that if productivity growth in long-term care reached even half the average productivity growth of the overall economy, long-term care spending by 2050 could be 13% lower than in the baseline high coverage scenario (see productivity growth scenario, Figure 3). New user-centred support tools, such as environmental and wearable sensors, can assist long-term care providers in monitoring, positioning, and recognising physical movements (Bibbò et al. 2022). Virtual carers also play an increasingly important role, supporting both care recipients and providers in managing conditions like diabetes, depression, and heart failure (Bin Sawad et al. 2022).

While taxes are the most common source of long-term care funding, some countries have introduced public long-term care insurance to achieve better risk-sharing and address transparency challenges. For example, Slovenia introduced a long-term care insurance scheme in 2023, aiming to create a more comprehensive system, improve funding transparency, and avoid increasing public-sector debt.

With limited public resources, countries may prioritise supporting individuals most in need: those with low incomes and those with severe long-term care needs. An example of such a policy would be capping out-of-pocket expenses at 60%, 40%, and 20% of care costs for older adults with low, moderate, and severe needs, respectively. Our simulation reveals that such a needs-testing approach could be an attractive option for countries like Latvia, Malta, and Hungary. In these cases, the simulation indicates that this strategy could reduce overall public long-term care spending without significantly increasing the poverty risk among recipients (OECD 2024).

Furthermore, more progressive cost-sharing across the income distribution can help manage long-term care budgets and limit poverty among care recipients. Almost 90% of OECD and EU countries analysed in the report apply some form of income-testing to define levels of support, but individuals with low incomes still face a significantly higher risk of poverty. Optimising income-testing to focus on vulnerable populations can further improve outcomes. In about one-third of the analysed OECD countries, this approach leads to lower long-term care spending and reduces poverty among care recipients, or at least contains spending without increasing poverty rates (OECD 2024).

Achieving fair access to long-term care and the fiscal sustainability of public systems amid population ageing is a challenge for policymakers. The OECD analysis reveals that existing systems are often unaffordable and badly targeted: there is substantial room for improvement and reforms. The promotion of healthy ageing, proactive use of new technologies to elevate the care sector’s productivity, revision of eligibility rules to enable more targeted and inclusive coverage, diversification of funding sources, and optimisation of income-testing are all viable policy options. Each is worth exploring in the search for resilient long-term care systems that can withstand demographic shifts and evolving societal needs.

Bitcoin’s $100k dream becomes reality

Bitcoin’s $100k dream became a reality on Thursday morning…

Prices jumped over 6%，smashing through this key milestone as investors cheered Trump’s pick to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Sentiment towards the crypto space has also been boosted by recent comments from Fed Chair who compared Bitcoin to gold but “only its virtual, it’s digital”.

Hitting $100,000 is certainly a major milestone and something that could support gains for the remainder of 2024.The next key event that could rock Bitcoin may be Friday’s NFP report which is likely to influence Fed cut bets.

Looking at the charts, Bitcoin is firmly bullish – boasting a year-to-date gain of over 140%.

A strong weekly close above $100,000 may signal further upside.

However, should prices slip below this key level – bears may target $95,000.

Oil prices initially slipped on Thursday after OPEC+ decided to delay oil production hikes by three months. However, losses were clawed back as investors perused the details of the new output plan.

Nevertheless, OPEC+ is in a tricky position with production hikes down the road leading to potentially lower prices.

Even if they opt to delay production beyond April, this could spark internal disputes while raising the risk of a price war.

In addition, Trump’s return to the White House adds another element of uncertainty for the cartel ranging from tighter sanctions on OPEC members to tariffs impacting China’s demand.

Looking at the technical picture, Brent remains in a range on the weekly charts with support at $70.00 and resistance at $76.00. A breakout could be on the horizon.