China Demands Tariff Rollbacks as U.S. Softens Trade War Rhetoric

China–U.S. Trade War

Summary:

After months of escalating tariffs, both China and the United States appear to be tempering their language, but neither side wants to be the first to compromise, maintaining a high-stakes standoff over trade policy....

China Responds to U.S. Overtures: Dialogue Possible, but Only with Concessions

On May 2, China's Ministry of Commerce announced that it is considering trade negotiations with the U.S. following repeated diplomatic signals from Washington. A spokesperson confirmed that high-level American officials have conveyed a willingness to reopen talks, and recent backchannel communications further reinforce this interest.

However, China set a clear condition: the U.S. must eliminate all unilateral tariffs previously imposed. Beijing views these tariffs not as bargaining tools but as violations requiring correction before serious dialogue can resume. This position underscores a strategic tactic—shifting the responsibility back onto Washington to demonstrate "sincerity through action."

Despite this, Dan Wang, head of China research at Eurasia Group, noted that the Ministry’s remarks do not signify any change in China’s political stance. While some tariff reductions and exemptions—especially on U.S.-made semiconductors—have occurred in practice, Beijing continues to treat the full removal of U.S. tariffs as a non-negotiable prerequisite, thus returning the ball to America’s court. According to Wang, the chances of a breakthrough remain slim.

Tariff Retaliation and Trade Barriers Remain High

Since President Trump’s return to office in January, both nations have resumed their tit-for-tat tariff campaign. Currently, most Chinese exports to the U.S. face a 145% duty, while American goods entering China are subject to an added 125% levy. Small imported items valued under $800 are now taxed at 90% of their value—or $75 per item—set to rise to $150 after June 1.

Although certain exemptions signal a willingness to ease tensions, these remain symbolic amid a broader climate of entrenched protectionism. The structural impact on trade flows is evident, as high tariffs continue to distort supply chains and restrict market access across both economies.

Mutual Economic Damage Triggers Rhetorical Shift

Despite hardened positions, both sides are beginning to soften their rhetoric. President Trump recently hinted that tariffs on Chinese goods may decrease significantly from 145%, though “not to zero.” This adjustment coincides with growing recognition of the domestic toll the trade war has taken on both economies.

In the U.S., new economic data reveals that GDP contracted in the first quarter of 2025. Business uncertainty, weakened investor sentiment, and reduced consumer confidence are all linked to trade instability. Meanwhile, China's manufacturing activity in April reached its lowest level in over a year, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.

These parallel economic trends suggest a pattern of correlation—both economies appear to suffer simultaneously under the burden of mutual tariffs. However, whether one side’s slowdown causes the other’s is less clear. Instead, shared exposure to a fractured global trade system is generating similar outcomes, reinforcing the argument for coordinated de-escalation.

Strategic Stalemate: A Game of Endurance, Not Concession

What emerges is a geopolitical “staring contest,” where each side is waiting for the other to blink first. Economist Yao Yang from Peking University commented that both nations fear losing negotiating leverage if they make the first move. This competitive dynamic reduces the likelihood of immediate breakthroughs, as concessions risk being interpreted as weakness.

Adding to this impasse, Ja Ian Chong of the National University of Singapore observed that neither Washington nor Beijing wants to appear as the party that gave in. According to Wen-Ti Sung, a China scholar in Australia, one solution may lie in involving a neutral third party to provide a diplomatic “exit ramp,” offering both sides a way to save face while stepping back from the brink.

While recent messaging suggests a pause in escalation, the structural issues underlying the U.S.–China trade conflict remain unresolved. Mutual economic strain has made further confrontation less desirable, yet neither side is willing to appear conciliatory. As both superpowers await the other's move, the path to de-escalation hinges not just on policy shifts, but on the ability to reframe negotiations as a win-win scenario—something increasingly difficult amid nationalist pressures and domestic political calculations.

Source: Yahoo Finance

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

Gerik

Political

Economic

Comprehensive Sanctions and the Oil Ban: Economic Strain Deepens

On May 2, President Donald Trump announced a total ban on the purchase of Iranian oil and petrochemical products, warning that any country, organization, or individual violating the ban would face immediate secondary sanctions. He stated that entities continuing to trade with Iran would be barred from doing business with the United States. Oil prices surged by $3 per barrel in response, as markets anticipated tighter global supply.

This measure marks a renewed phase of the U.S. "maximum pressure" strategy, reinstated in February 2025, aimed at cutting Iran's vital oil revenue. Analyst Yassamine Mather pointed out that Iran’s currency has depreciated sharply over the past two months, and with European nations still refraining from commercial engagement due to fear of U.S. penalties, the country's economic situation is deteriorating further.

Iran’s Response: Condemnation and Mistrust

Iran’s Foreign Ministry condemned the latest sanctions, describing them as a repeat of coercive tactics undermining diplomatic efforts to resolve the nuclear dispute. It accused the U.S. of adopting a contradictory approach by pursuing diplomacy while simultaneously applying economic pressure, arguing this dual strategy erodes trust and violates the spirit of international cooperation as outlined in the UN Charter.

The delay of the fourth round of indirect nuclear negotiations, mediated by Oman, adds to growing diplomatic stagnation. Although prior rounds in Italy and Oman were reported as constructive by both sides, the current impasse reflects mounting logistical and political barriers, likely exacerbated by U.S. economic threats. The apparent correlation between increasing sanctions and disrupted diplomacy suggests a deteriorating framework for constructive engagement.

U.S. Nuclear Ultimatum: Diplomacy Framed as a One-Sided Opportunity

On the same day, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a renewed warning, stating that Iran must cease uranium enrichment if it truly seeks peaceful nuclear energy. He emphasized that Iran should import enriched uranium and allow unrestricted inspections, including by American inspectors. According to Rubio, this represents Iran's best and perhaps only chance to avoid deeper isolation.

This statement shifts the focus from multilateral negotiation to a unilateral framework of conditions. Instead of balancing interests, the U.S. appears to be setting preconditions that could frame the future of talks solely within American strategic objectives. Iran's increasing skepticism toward U.S. intentions reflects this shift, particularly given the lack of parallel commitments to easing sanctions.

Interlinked Trends in Economic Pressure and Political Posturing

The relationship between U.S. economic measures and Iran’s diplomatic posture reveals a concerning pattern. Economic pressure is not only deepening Iran’s internal challenges but also shaping its external political behavior. While the causal pathway from sanctions to currency depreciation is clear, the impact on Iran’s political resistance is more nuanced. Although sanctions are meant to coerce policy change, they appear to harden Iran’s stance instead, mirroring past episodes where economic strain fueled nationalistic resistance rather than compliance.

With both sides escalating their rhetoric, the balance of power remains asymmetrical. The U.S. leverages its dominance in global finance and trade to isolate Iran, while Iran is left navigating limited diplomatic options and mounting economic hardship. The “maximum pressure” campaign is functioning less as a bridge to resolution and more as a wedge that risks long-term regional instability. The breakdown in trust, fueled by unilateral actions and rhetorical ultimatums, suggests that the path toward a sustainable agreement is becoming increasingly narrow.

Source: Dawn

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Stocks

Historic capital flight despite index inclusion

India’s bond market, once buoyed by optimism surrounding its integration into global financial indices, faced an unexpected reversal in April 2025. Foreign investors withdrew ₹111 billion (about $1.3 billion) from Indian government bonds under the Fully Accessible Route (FAR), marking the largest monthly outflow in a year. This occurred just months after JPMorgan announced the formal inclusion of Indian bonds in its Global Bond Index starting June, an event expected to boost stable capital inflows.

However, data from the Clearing Corporation of India showed a sharp decline in foreign-held FAR bonds, dropping to ₹2.95 trillion. This signals that even index recognition cannot immunize markets from external shocks when global uncertainty intensifies.

U.S. tariffs trigger global flight from risk

The primary catalyst for this capital exodus was the escalation in U.S. protectionist trade policy. On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled a sweeping new round of tariffs that rattled investor confidence globally. As risk appetite waned, capital moved away from emerging market bonds—including India’s—toward perceived safe havens.

According to Rajeev De Mello of Gama Asset Management, India’s growing visibility in global benchmarks has a dual effect: attracting new money during calm periods but also making it more vulnerable to sudden, sentiment-driven volatility.

Profit-taking or panic? A deeper look at motivations

While risk-off sentiment explains part of the pullback, analysts believe profit-taking also played a role. Indian bond yields had surged to a 5-year high of 2.13% (unhedged returns) prior to the outflow, offering attractive exit points for investors. In this context, the withdrawal may reflect tactical positioning rather than a structural loss of confidence.

Yifei Ding of Invesco Hong Kong noted that the broader sell-off in risky assets globally in early April likely contributed to the reaction. Meanwhile, some institutional investors are already rotating capital toward Indian equities, which are seen as less exposed to global trade fluctuations and supported by India’s strong domestic growth outlook.

Central bank policy provides resilience

Despite the capital flight, India’s domestic bond market showed signs of resilience. The 10-year government bond yield fell by 23 basis points during April, suggesting continued confidence in the Reserve Bank of India’s accommodative stance. Liquidity injections and rate cuts by the RBI helped stabilize yields, even as external pressure grew.

Ashish Vaidya of DBS Bank emphasized that while regional tensions with Pakistan may add short-term uncertainty, a global slowdown—potentially induced by the tariffs themselves—could eventually trigger broad-based rate cuts. In that case, Indian bonds may regain appeal due to their comparatively high yields and improving macro fundamentals.

Long-term outlook: cyclical setback, not structural shift

This episode illustrates how financial globalization can be a double-edged sword. India’s inclusion in JPMorgan and Bloomberg’s emerging bond indices is a strategic milestone, but it also increases the country’s exposure to capital flow volatility linked to exogenous shocks.

Still, the fundamentals remain supportive. With inflation relatively under control, monetary policy space, and a strong domestic economy, many believe the recent capital exodus will be temporary. As trade tensions ease and rate expectations soften, India’s bond market could reemerge as a destination for global capital seeking yield in a low-rate world.

In short, April’s sell-off was not necessarily a vote of no confidence in India—it was a reaction to broader global tremors. For Asia’s largest democracy, the test lies in managing these short-term turbulences while strengthening the foundations for long-term financial stability.

Source: Reuters

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Commodity

Accelerated decision ahead of schedule

OPEC and its allies, collectively known as OPEC+, are poised to approve a significant increase in oil production, adding another 411,000 barrels per day in June 2025. This decision, initially scheduled for May 5, was moved up to May 3, signaling a coordinated urgency among the participating nations. The move follows a similar production boost in May, which had already exceeded planned targets and contributed to oil prices falling below $60 per barrel—a four-year low.

The decision aligns with market expectations based on previous signals. Multiple sources within the group had earlier suggested that a faster production ramp-up would likely be approved. The swift scheduling change suggests strong internal consensus or mounting pressure from key producers seeking to stabilize internal dynamics and reassert influence in the global market.

Brent crude slides as supply outlook intensifies

Market reactions were immediate. Brent crude futures dropped 1.4%, settling at $61.29 per barrel on May 2. The decline was largely attributed to concerns that increased supply from OPEC+ would exacerbate an already fragile demand outlook, especially as trade tensions between the United States and China continued to escalate. Fears of economic slowdown have led to reduced projections for global oil demand growth, amplifying the sensitivity of markets to any changes in production.

This correlation between rising output and falling prices suggests that OPEC+'s recent actions are having a direct influence on market dynamics. The simultaneous implementation of U.S. trade tariffs appears to be reinforcing downward pressure, indicating a dual impact from both supply-side decisions and macroeconomic headwinds.

Fractures within the bloc: Compliance under scrutiny

While the group has pledged to maintain cuts totaling over 5 million barrels per day through at least the end of 2026, internal tensions are rising. Saudi Arabia, the de facto leader of OPEC+, has reportedly expressed dissatisfaction with Kazakhstan and Iraq for exceeding their output quotas. This lack of compliance has become a recurring concern, undermining collective credibility and prompting Riyadh to reassess its willingness to shoulder deeper output reductions on behalf of the group.

This internal disagreement highlights a divergence in strategic priorities. While Saudi Arabia has historically led efforts to balance supply for market stabilization, its frustration signals a shift toward protecting national interests, especially in the absence of broad compliance. The reluctance to continue aggressive cuts also reflects a recalibration of expectations around price control mechanisms.

Strategic realignment and forward outlook

According to Helima Croft, an analyst at RBC Capital Markets, discussions are increasingly leaning toward expanding output over a three-month horizon. This approach suggests a tactical pivot by OPEC+, moving away from aggressive constraint toward managed supply expansion. Croft also emphasized that compliance will remain a focal point, as the bloc’s ability to enforce quotas directly affects market perception and price trajectory.

The expected ministerial meeting on May 28 may provide further clarity on the medium-term strategy of the group. If compliance remains uneven, the credibility of any extended agreements could weaken, potentially fostering more unilateral actions among member states.

The decision by OPEC+ to further increase oil production marks a significant turning point in its market management strategy. While aimed at rebalancing internal expectations and responding to member pressures, the move risks deepening price volatility in a demand-weakened global economy. The interplay between production levels, quota discipline, and geopolitical tensions continues to define the challenges facing the alliance. As market sentiment remains fragile, the upcoming ministerial meeting will be critical in signaling whether OPEC+ can maintain cohesion or whether internal fragmentation will reshape the future of oil diplomacy.

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

China–U.S. Trade War

An inflationary spiral triggered by protectionism

President Donald Trump’s push to realign global trade through steep tariffs—especially against China—was meant to put "America First." However, the early consequences suggest a paradox: while aiming to revive domestic production and reduce trade dependency, the tariffs are driving up consumer prices in the U.S., while Europe, surprisingly, is poised to benefit.

Recent tariffs imposed on imports from China and other nations have inflated the cost of goods in the U.S., with Nomura analysts suggesting they could ironically help "Make Europe Great Again." As Chinese manufacturers search for alternative export markets to offload excess inventory, Europe emerges as a natural destination, welcoming a flood of low-cost goods.

Europe gains price relief, while the U.S. battles cost pressure

The shifting of Chinese exports to Europe could exert downward pressure on consumer prices across the EU, especially as the euro strengthens. The euro has appreciated 3% against a basket of currencies and 4% against the U.S. dollar since Trump's tariff announcement on April 2, making imports cheaper for the eurozone.

This contrasts sharply with the American experience. With importers passing higher costs directly to consumers, inflationary pressure mounts. The IMF has warned that such tariffs function effectively as a consumption tax, reducing purchasing power. Adidas’ CEO confirmed that U.S. retail prices will rise due to tariffs, while no such increase is planned elsewhere.

Research by the New York Fed in 2019 further validates this concern: nearly the entire burden of earlier tariffs was transferred to domestic prices. Even local producers not directly affected by tariffs took advantage of reduced foreign competition to raise their own prices, compounding inflation.

Monetary policy divergence: A tale of two continents

As the Federal Reserve faces mounting difficulty in cutting interest rates amid persistent inflation, the European Central Bank (ECB) may soon have room to ease policy. If Chinese goods depress price levels in Europe and energy prices continue to fall, the ECB could consider stimulative measures.

The World Bank projects a continued drop in European natural gas prices for the next year, while U.S. prices are expected to rise. Brent crude has fallen 17% since early April, driven by fears of a trade-induced global slowdown. These falling energy costs, coupled with a stronger euro and disinflationary Chinese exports, give Europe short-term inflationary breathing room.

However, Europe’s disinflation advantage may be tempered by structural factors, including delayed but sizable fiscal commitments such as Germany’s national defense spending and broader EU green investment plans. Though these could eventually raise inflation, their rollout will likely span years, muting immediate effects.

Confidence erosion and consumer caution weigh on U.S. outlook

In the U.S., the policy-induced uncertainty is also eroding consumer and corporate confidence. As companies hold back on investment and households curtail spending amid price volatility, aggregate demand may soften—not through policy success, but through economic anxiety.

This behavioral drag reinforces inflation from the supply side while depressing growth from the demand side, an undesirable combination for any central bank.

Strategic intent, economic reality

Trump’s intention to reconstruct global trade flows and reduce U.S. dependency on Chinese goods is clear. Yet, the practical effect of broad, sudden tariffs—especially in a tightly interlinked global supply chain—often involves unintended feedback loops. Rather than protecting consumers, tariffs have imposed higher costs, complicated monetary policy, and invited foreign competitors to step into the void.

Meanwhile, Europe, though not actively seeking confrontation, benefits from diverted trade, falling energy prices, and improved policy flexibility. In this evolving geopolitical and economic environment, the true cost of unilateral protectionism may be borne at home before gains materialize abroad.

Source: CNN

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Cryptocurrency

Digital currencies at a turning point in global finance

April 2025 marked a watershed moment in the digital currency landscape. On one side, central banks intensified their CBDC pilots and legal frameworks. On the other, stablecoins reached record highs in capitalization and utility. The CoinDesk Data report highlights this dual momentum, suggesting not a rivalry but a structural convergence—where CBDCs provide regulatory stability and stablecoins offer the market-driven adaptability essential for decentralized finance (DeFi).

At the heart of this transformation lies a deeper ideological divergence: CBDCs represent centralized, state-backed control of digital payments, while stablecoins reflect market innovation, speed, and global integration.

CBDCs: A government-led shift toward programmable money

Several countries advanced their CBDC agendas in April. Kyrgyzstan granted legal recognition to its digital som, while the UAE and Belarus announced formal issuance plans. South Korea launched a 100,000-person retail pilot of the digital won, allowing bank deposits to be converted into CBDC and used at 7-Eleven stores with a 10% discount—marking one of the most comprehensive consumer-facing CBDC experiments to date.

Unlike traditional currencies, CBDCs are designed to integrate into national payment infrastructures. Transactions occur through digital wallets authorized by the central bank, reducing intermediation costs and enabling real-time, targeted monetary policy interventions—such as direct fiscal stimulus distribution.

However, this model is not without systemic risks. A significant shift of deposits from commercial banks into CBDCs could trigger liquidity imbalances, weakening the role of traditional banks. Furthermore, cross-border utility remains limited; no CBDC to date offers competitive international settlement capabilities compared to the fluidity of stablecoins. The absence of published CBDC supply ratios indicates that most programs remain experimental and have not yet reshaped macro-financial architecture.

Stablecoins: Market dynamism, DeFi integration, and global reach

In contrast, stablecoins continue to dominate liquidity on centralized exchanges and increasingly infiltrate decentralized platforms. According to CoinDesk, stablecoins reached a market cap of $238 billion in April, extending a 19-month growth streak. While their share of the total crypto market fell from 8.64% to 7.88%—due to Bitcoin’s surge from $74,496 to $95,000—stablecoin trading volume soared to $1.32 trillion.

Tether (USDT) led with 75.2% market share, followed by USDC at 18.0%. USDC reached $62.1 billion in capitalization and captured 26% of trading activity—the highest since February 2023. Even non-USD stablecoins like EURC surged 54.1% to $231 million as the USD/EUR rate dropped to 0.87 amid U.S.–EU tariff tensions.

Institutional-grade stablecoins linked to traditional assets are also gaining traction. BlackRock’s BUIDL, pegged to short-term bond funds, expanded 32.5% in April to $2.54 billion. Conversely, First Digital USD (FDUSD) lost its dollar peg, slipping to $0.86 and losing 46.2% of its value—demonstrating the critical role of asset transparency and redemption mechanisms.

Parallel systems, distinct strengths

The CBDC-stablecoin divide is less about competition and more about differentiated functionality. CBDCs offer a policy lever for governments—supporting domestic stability, social transfers, and national financial sovereignty. Stablecoins, meanwhile, serve as agile instruments for cross-border transactions, non-bank financial services, and DeFi participation.

Circle’s April 1 IPO filing, under ticker CRCL, reflects this shift. With $1.68 billion in reserve income in 2024—up from $1.45 billion in 2023—and partnerships with Deutsche Bank, Santander, and Standard Chartered, Circle is building infrastructure for interbank payments using USDC. CBDCs, in contrast, have yet to demonstrate interoperability with smart contracts or DeFi protocols.

Each model still faces limitations. CBDCs remain bounded by national legal frameworks and lack DeFi compatibility. Stablecoins, while more flexible, are exposed to peg instability, regulatory scrutiny, and divergent collateralization standards. As these ecosystems mature, technological convergence may blur these distinctions—but regulatory alignment and governance remain key variables.

Toward a hybrid digital monetary architecture

Rather than replacing one another, CBDCs and stablecoins are carving out symbiotic niches in an increasingly fragmented monetary landscape. The future will likely involve functional coordination: CBDCs ensuring domestic monetary control and policy precision, stablecoins facilitating global liquidity flows, financial inclusion, and decentralized innovation.

In this post-globalization era—marked by geopolitical tension, de-dollarization debates, and digital acceleration—a hybrid architecture combining state-backed trust and market-based innovation is not just possible but necessary. The coexistence of CBDCs and stablecoins represents not a struggle for dominance, but a reflection of the multifaceted demands of a complex, digitally-driven global economy.

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

Forex

A historic intervention to uphold a decades-old commitment

On May 3, 2025, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) made its largest foreign exchange market intervention on record, purchasing $6 billion USD in a single day. This action was aimed at preserving the integrity of Hong Kong’s currency peg to the U.S. dollar, a mechanism that has anchored financial stability in the city since 1983.

The HKMA confirmed the move through its New York representative office, stating that this marked its first intervention since 2020. The catalyst was the strengthening of the Hong Kong dollar, which approached the upper limit of its fixed trading band at 7.75–7.85 HKD/USD, compelling the authority to step in to prevent further appreciation.

This surge in the local currency’s value was primarily triggered by the recent depreciation of the U.S. dollar and a broader wave of regional currency volatility, as Asian central banks struggle to manage external shocks and shifting trade dynamics.

USD weakness and geopolitical signals reshape currency dynamics

The April 2025 drop in the U.S. dollar—its worst monthly performance since 2022—was driven by a confluence of factors. Chief among them was investor unease surrounding President Donald Trump's aggressive trade policies, particularly the “Liberation Day” tariff regime launched earlier in the year. These moves destabilized global trade expectations and eroded the U.S. dollar’s traditional role as a financial safe haven.

The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index, which tracks the greenback against a basket of major currencies, fell 6.5% from the start of the year, indicating a broad loss in relative strength. This depreciation created upward pressure on regional currencies, including the Hong Kong dollar and Taiwan’s new dollar (TWD), prompting both jurisdictions to intervene to avoid destabilizing capital inflows and preserve export competitiveness.

Taiwan, for instance, was forced to intervene on April 25 after the TWD jumped 3% against the USD in a single day—its steepest appreciation since 1988. Such movements underscore the contagious nature of currency shocks in an increasingly fragile global macroeconomic environment.

Peg mechanism under pressure, but remains intact

Hong Kong’s linked exchange rate system was originally introduced during the 1980s to restore market confidence during the uncertain period surrounding the negotiations between the UK and China over the city’s sovereignty. Since then, the HKMA has been tasked with maintaining the currency within a fixed band by automatically buying or selling USD.

This system was slightly liberalized in 2005 to allow trading within a defined range of 7.75–7.85. While the peg has weathered repeated speculative attacks over the years, it has remained intact—thanks largely to HKMA’s deep reserves and policy consistency. Renowned hedge fund managers like Kyle Bass and Bill Ackman have previously bet on the peg’s collapse, but their predictions have yet to materialize.

The current intervention flips the trend seen in 2022–2023, when the HKMA sold USD to defend against a weakening local currency. Now, the pressure has reversed, with the USD’s decline drawing capital toward Hong Kong and necessitating large-scale USD purchases to maintain parity.

Strategic motives and long-term implications

The broader context behind this surge in interventions is not limited to currency management. It also reflects Hong Kong's strategic positioning as a financial hub amid shifting global power dynamics. With signs of renewed U.S.–China trade negotiations emerging, local currency strength may mirror market optimism for de-escalation—but it also amplifies risks for export-driven economies if left unchecked.

By stepping in aggressively, the HKMA reinforces its credibility and signals resilience, especially at a time when doubts are resurfacing about the long-term viability of pegged regimes in a world of floating currencies and fragmented trade.

Moreover, investor sentiment has clearly shifted. In recent months, gold has surged to record highs in Hong Kong as residents seek inflation hedges. Meanwhile, talk of legalizing sports betting with expected revenues of $6.7 billion reflects Hong Kong's broader efforts to diversify fiscal revenue sources amid global economic turbulence.

Stability through decisive action

Hong Kong’s $6 billion USD intervention serves as a stark reminder that currency pegs, while rigid, remain powerful tools for financial stability—especially when defended with conviction and liquidity. While global trade disruptions, declining faith in the U.S. dollar, and rising geopolitical tensions have stirred volatility, Hong Kong's rapid and large-scale response underscores its determination to remain a stable outpost in a shifting economic landscape.

Whether future interventions will be required depends on the trajectory of U.S. monetary policy, the durability of global risk sentiment, and the resilience of Hong Kong’s economic fundamentals. For now, the peg holds firm—but the cost of defending it has never been higher.

Source: Financial Times

To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Recent Searches

Top Searches

Markets

News

Analysis

User

24/7

Economic Calendar

Education

Data

China Demands Tariff Rollbacks as U.S. Softens Trade War Rhetoric

China Responds to U.S. Overtures: Dialogue Possible, but Only with Concessions

Tariff Retaliation and Trade Barriers Remain High

Mutual Economic Damage Triggers Rhetorical Shift

Strategic Stalemate: A Game of Endurance, Not Concession

Source: Yahoo Finance

Maximum Pressure Redux: U.S. Sanctions and Nuclear Ultimatums Escalate Tensions with Iran

Comprehensive Sanctions and the Oil Ban: Economic Strain Deepens

Iran’s Response: Condemnation and Mistrust

U.S. Nuclear Ultimatum: Diplomacy Framed as a One-Sided Opportunity

Interlinked Trends in Economic Pressure and Political Posturing

Source: Dawn

Global Shockwaves Hit India: Why Foreign Investors Are Fleeing Asia’s Emerging Giant

Historic capital flight despite index inclusion

U.S. tariffs trigger global flight from risk

Profit-taking or panic? A deeper look at motivations

Central bank policy provides resilience

Long-term outlook: cyclical setback, not structural shift

Source: Reuters

OPEC+ Accelerates Output Hike Amid Demand Uncertainty and Internal Tensions

Accelerated decision ahead of schedule

Brent crude slides as supply outlook intensifies

Fractures within the bloc: Compliance under scrutiny

Strategic realignment and forward outlook

When Tariffs Backfire: Trump’s Trade War Fuels U.S. Inflation, Eases Pressure in Europe

An inflationary spiral triggered by protectionism

Europe gains price relief, while the U.S. battles cost pressure

Monetary policy divergence: A tale of two continents

Confidence erosion and consumer caution weigh on U.S. outlook

Strategic intent, economic reality

Source: CNN

CBDC Versus Stablecoin: Collaboration, Not Substitution, in the Future of Digital Money

Digital currencies at a turning point in global finance

CBDCs: A government-led shift toward programmable money

Stablecoins: Market dynamism, DeFi integration, and global reach

Parallel systems, distinct strengths

Toward a hybrid digital monetary architecture

Hong Kong's Record USD Purchase Signals Renewed Defense of Currency Peg Amid Global Instability

A historic intervention to uphold a decades-old commitment

USD weakness and geopolitical signals reshape currency dynamics

Peg mechanism under pressure, but remains intact

Strategic motives and long-term implications

Stability through decisive action

Source: Financial Times

Risk Disclosure