OPEC, IEA Crude Oil Demand Forecasts May Be Too Cautious

Commodity

Economic

Summary:

A key difference in crude oil demand forecasts between this year and 2024 is that both OPEC and the International Energy Agency (IEA) are being far more cautious in their growth expectations.

While the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and the wider OPEC+ group publicly maintain that strong demand and a tight market justify increasing oil output, the numbers in their monthly report are more circumspect.

It is largely the same for the IEA, which forecast in its July monthly report that global crude demand will grow by 700,000 barrels per day (bpd) in 2025, the slowest pace since 2009.

OPEC's July report is slightly more bullish, forecasting oil demand will increase by 1.29 million bpd in 2025, with 1.16 million bpd coming from countries outside the developed economies of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The forecasts from both the IEA and OPEC are now so cautious that they actually run the risk of being too pessimistic, especially in the top-importing region of Asia.

This is in stark contrast to last year, when OPEC in particular was massively bullish in its demand forecasts even as Asia's crude oil imports were declining.

There is, of course, a difference between demand forecasts and imports, but the level of seaborne imports is the key driver of crude prices, given it is this market, which accounts for about 40% of global daily oil demand, that sets the global prices.

In its July 2024 monthly report OPEC forecast that Asia's non-OECD oil demand would rise by 1.34 million bpd in 2024, with China accounting for 760,000 bpd of this.

However, Asia's crude imports actually declined in 2024, dropping by 370,000 bpd to 26.51 million bpd, according to data compiled by LSEG Oil Research.

It was the first decline in Asia's oil imports since 2021, at a time when demand was hit by the lockdowns prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic.

The gap between OPEC's bullish forecasts for much of 2024 and the reality of weak crude imports by Asia may have tempered the exporter group's forecasts for 2025.

The question is whether they are now actually being too cautious.

ASIA RECOVERY

OPEC's July monthly report forecast that non-OECD Asia's oil demand will rise by 610,000 bpd in 2025, with China the main contributor at 210,000 and India, Asia's second-biggest crude importer, seeing an increase of 160,000 bpd.

The IEA said in its July report that it expects China's total oil product demand to rise by 81,000 bpd in 2025, while India is expected to see a gain of 92,000 bpd. Total non-OECD Asia is forecast to see demand rise by 352,000 bpd.

Both the OPEC and the IEA numbers seem modest, especially since Asia's crude imports actually saw relatively strong growth in the first half of 2025.

Asia's imports in the first six months of the year were 27.25 million bpd, an increase of 510,000 bpd from the same period last year, according to calculations based on LSEG data.

Imports increased in the second quarter, especially in China, as refiners took advantage of the weakening trend in oil prices that prevailed at the time cargoes were being arranged.

It is likely that some of the increase in oil imports was used to build inventories, a process that may extend into the second half if oil prices remain soft as OPEC+ increases output amid the economic uncertainty created by U.S. President Donald Trump's ongoing global trade war.

If there is one lesson to be learnt from the difference between this year's circumspect oil demand forecasts and last year's buoyant estimates, it is that price plays a far bigger role in demand, especially in Asia.

Part of the reason Asia's crude imports fell short of forecasts in 2024 was because prices remained elevated for much of the year, reaching above $92 a barrel in April and only briefly dropping below $70 in September.

This year, prices have been softer, with benchmark Brent futurespeaking at just over $82 a barrel in January, and trading as low as $58.50 in May.

Source: Reuters

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

Gerik

Economic

Stocks

India’s Equity Pipeline Gathers Pace

India’s IPO market is gearing up for another record-setting stretch, with Kotak Mahindra Capital estimating that companies could raise more than $30 billion over the next 12 months. V. Jayasankar, head of investment banking at Kotak and the year’s leading IPO arranger, attributed the surge in planned listings to deepening issuer confidence and sustained domestic growth momentum.

With around 150 firms preparing to tap public markets, the volume of new listings suggests broad-based participation across sectors. This projection follows a mixed year: while the start of 2025 was muted, momentum picked up strongly after HDB Financial Services Ltd. launched a $1.5 billion IPO India’s largest this year reinvigorating sentiment.

Strong Macro Environment Supports Equity Raising

Jayasankar emphasized that India’s IPO trajectory reflects the underlying strength of its economic fundamentals. Even at a GDP growth rate of just over 6%, the size and dynamism of India’s economy create significant opportunities for firms to expand and attract capital. The outlook aligns with forecasts from Jefferies, which expects $18 billion in additional IPO proceeds in the second half of 2025, bringing total annual issuance near $25 billion.

The robust pipeline includes major names such as Tata Capital Ltd., aiming to raise around $2 billion, and the Indian subsidiary of South Korea’s LG Electronics, which is targeting up to $1.7 billion. These listings highlight the breadth of sectors from financial services to consumer electronics now turning to the public markets for growth capital.

Global Sentiment and Market Risks Still Lurk

While the medium-term sentiment is positive, Jayasankar also flagged several macro-level risks that could disrupt this bullish trend. A sustained downturn in India’s secondary markets could cool investor enthusiasm, while declining domestic mutual fund inflows or a pivot by foreign investors toward undervalued markets such as China could reduce capital availability for new offerings.

Nevertheless, India’s relative insulation from geopolitical instability and its continued political stability are viewed as strong buffers, helping to sustain global investor appetite for Indian equity exposure.

India’s IPO landscape is showing all the signs of a structural uptrend, supported by strong fundamentals, a growing issuer base, and resilient investor demand. With the potential to raise $30 billion in just a year, the market reflects a compelling narrative of domestic confidence and capital market maturity. However, the sustainability of this rally will depend heavily on maintaining favorable conditions in both global capital flows and domestic equity valuations. As major names prepare to list, the performance of upcoming deals will likely determine whether India’s IPO momentum continues to defy gravity.

Source: Bloomberg

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

Risk Warnings and Disclaimers

Add to Favorites

Gerik

Economic

BOJ Faces Crosscurrents Between Inflation Risks and Political Uncertainty

The outcome of Japan’s upper house election has left the Bank of Japan (BOJ) in a challenging position, as heightened political uncertainty and expectations for additional fiscal spending muddy its path forward on interest rate decisions. The ruling coalition’s significant loss has weakened Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s legislative standing, forcing him to rely on opposition parties that are calling for greater fiscal support particularly through tax cuts and expanded public spending.

This political shift adds complexity to the BOJ’s inflation-targeting mission. While inflation has remained above the 2% target for over three years, the weakened government may now prioritize short-term economic relief, potentially fueling additional inflationary pressure just as the central bank seeks to normalize policy. Several BOJ policymakers have recently voiced concern about persistent cost pressures, especially from food staples like rice and the risk of imported inflation via a weaker yen.

Diminished Political Clout Could Delay Policy Tightening

Ishiba’s announcement that he intends to remain as prime minister and work with opposition leaders has not reassured markets. While the move implies political continuity, analysts interpret it as a temporary stabilization rather than a clear path to policy consensus. The prospect of a large supplementary budget this autumn possibly exceeding last year’s 14-trillion-yen stimulus has increased following opposition demands for stronger support amid U.S. tariff threats.

This expansionary fiscal stance may put further upward pressure on consumer prices. Yet at the same time, it introduces risks to Japan’s already fragile public finances, which may undermine currency stability. Analysts warn that prolonged uncertainty could weaken the yen further, pushing import prices higher and complicating the BOJ’s assumption that cost-driven inflation will subside by year-end.

Yen Dynamics May Be the Deciding Factor

While the BOJ has paused rate hikes after lifting short-term rates to 0.5% in January, many within the central bank believe the policy rate must eventually rise to at least 1% to avoid overly stimulating the economy. However, the timing remains highly uncertain, as the BOJ watches both domestic demand conditions and geopolitical risks particularly from Washington’s tariff regime.

Should the yen fall below 150 against the dollar, upward pressure on imported goods prices may force the BOJ to act more aggressively to protect price stability. Historical precedent suggests that the central bank remains responsive to sharp yen declines, even though its formal independence limits direct political interference. In 2013, the BOJ launched a massive stimulus program under strong political pressure to counter deflation and currency appreciation. More recently, the 2022-2023 exit from ultra-loose policy followed widespread calls from lawmakers to address the yen’s rapid depreciation.

Veteran analysts, including Nomura’s Mari Iwashita, believe October could be a critical moment. If the yen continues to weaken and crosses key psychological thresholds, inflation expectations could rise sharply, forcing the BOJ to reassess its cautious stance.

The BOJ’s near-term strategy remains in flux as it balances the need to manage inflation with uncertainty about the government’s fiscal response and legislative capacity. While economic fundamentals argue for tighter policy, political volatility and external trade risks suggest a more measured approach. In the coming months, the yen’s trajectory and the size of any supplementary budget will likely be decisive. A sustained currency depreciation may become the clearest signal for the BOJ to resume rate hikes, even in the absence of full political clarity.

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

Economic

Stocks

Strategic Moves Suggest Industry Consolidation May Be Brewing

BNSF Railway, a subsidiary of Berkshire Hathaway, has hired Goldman Sachs to evaluate potential merger opportunities, according to reports from Semafor. This move comes just as rival Union Pacific (UNP) is reportedly deep in merger discussions with Norfolk Southern (NSC), advised by Morgan Stanley. The timing of BNSF’s decision suggests it may be preparing either to counter a Union Pacific-Norfolk Southern deal or to pursue its own consolidation strategy in a rapidly evolving rail landscape.

Although the exact target for BNSF remains unclear, speculation includes both CSX Corporation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern, with NS currently engaged in active merger talks with UP. All parties involved including the railroads and their respective financial advisors have declined to comment publicly, leaving markets and regulators watching closely for further developments.

Regulatory and Competitive Implications

If a merger involving any of the Class I freight railroads materializes, it would represent the most significant consolidation in the industry since the U.S. Surface Transportation Board (STB) implemented stricter merger review rules in 2001. These tighter regulations were designed to protect competition and ensure service reliability following earlier consolidations that reshaped the rail industry throughout the 1990s.

Any attempt at large-scale consolidation would face intense regulatory scrutiny. The STB has indicated it will prioritize network fluidity, shipper access, and competitive balance when assessing merger applications. Given the scope of operations involved BNSF, UP, NS, and CSX together account for the majority of U.S. rail freight the market concentration risks are substantial.

Industry Drivers: Efficiency, Earnings, and Long-Term Strategy

With second-quarter earnings reports for major rail carriers due this week CSX on July 23, Union Pacific on July 24, and Norfolk Southern on July 29 the timing of the news may be more than coincidental. A merger could potentially improve cost structures, streamline operations, and expand service coverage, key advantages in a sector facing long-term volume pressure from road freight and intermodal competition.

Moreover, rising capital costs, ongoing labor negotiations, and increasing shipper demands for reliability may be pushing railroads toward seeking economies of scale and greater network integration. From a strategic standpoint, Warren Buffett’s BNSF may be attempting to protect its market position if UP and NS consolidate and create a more formidable competitor.

BNSF’s engagement of Goldman Sachs, following UP’s similar step with Morgan Stanley, signals that the U.S. Class I rail industry could be entering a new era of consolidation. While any deal will face regulatory hurdles, competitive pressures and strategic positioning are clearly driving railroads to consider transformational moves. The coming weeks with earnings, market reactions, and potential merger announcements could mark a pivotal period for the future of North American freight logistics.

Source: FreightWeight

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

Retail Frenzy Propels Opendoor to Multi-Month Highs

Opendoor Technologies, a digital real estate platform, experienced a dramatic price surge on Monday, continuing a rapid ascent that began in June. The stock rose as much as 120% intraday before closing with a 42.67% gain, as interest from Reddit retail traders and endorsement from EMJ Capital’s Eric Jackson pushed it firmly into meme stock territory.

The rally comes after OPEN shares flirted with Nasdaq delisting earlier this year when they remained below $1 for over 30 consecutive sessions. The current price of $3.21 marks a more than sixfold increase from last month’s lows, reflecting a wave of speculative momentum-driven buying.

Technical Resistance at the 200-Week Moving Average

Despite the strong upward move, Monday’s rally ran into significant resistance at the 200-week moving average, a historically important technical level that often acts as a ceiling during countertrend moves. This resistance currently aligns with the $5 region, which also matches a trendline formed from previous price action dating back to June 2022.

The presence of heavy volume surging to record highs confirms the intensity of buying interest, but the relative strength index (RSI) also signals that the stock is entering overbought territory. This technical divergence often precedes sharp price reversals or consolidations, especially when driven by speculative trading behavior.

$5 Resistance Marks a Critical Barrier

Traders are closely watching the $5 level. A breakout above this price, particularly one supported by continued high volume, could trigger a rally toward $11. This upside projection coincides with a prior February 2022 price spike and a period of consolidation seen in 2020. Such a move would likely attract profit-taking activity from short-term traders who entered during the sub-$2 consolidation range.

On the downside, initial support lies at $1.80, a level corresponding with the November 2023 low and a multi-month consolidation zone from mid to late 2023. Should the stock experience a sharp retracement, bulls will look to this area to gauge whether buying interest can absorb selling pressure.

If the $1.80 level fails to hold, technical support near 92 cents becomes critical. This price acted as a strong floor during December 2022’s swing low and could represent the final line of defense before a full retracement of the recent rally. A fall to this region would likely signify the exhaustion of retail momentum and the reassertion of bearish sentiment.

Opendoor’s extraordinary rally exemplifies the power of meme-driven retail enthusiasm, but its future path remains uncertain. With technical indicators flashing overbought signals and price action approaching major resistance, the stock may be entering a high-volatility phase. For traders, the $5 and $1.80 levels represent crucial pivot points. A break above or below these thresholds will likely dictate whether the recent surge turns into a sustained trend or an abrupt reversal.

Source: Investing

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

Dollar Movement Stalls Amid Tariff Ambiguity

Currency markets remained subdued on Tuesday as the U.S. dollar hovered within a tight trading band. The primary cause of this indecision stems from growing uncertainty surrounding impending U.S. tariff decisions. With just over a week remaining before the August 1 deadline for countries to strike trade deals with Washington, traders are hesitant to take directional positions, awaiting clarity on whether tariffs will be enacted or extended.

The dollar index, which measures the greenback against six major peers, edged slightly higher to 97.94 after falling 0.6% in the previous session. This minor rebound was largely technical, reflecting the yen’s Monday rally rather than a shift in sentiment. The dollar’s muted tone indicates how sensitive FX markets have become to geopolitical developments rather than traditional macroeconomic drivers.

Yen Gains Fizzle as Japanese Political Risk Rises

The Japanese yen, which climbed 1% on Monday following the upper house election in Japan, gave up some of its strength and was last trading slightly weaker at 147.65 per dollar. While the election outcome though damaging to Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba’s coalition was largely anticipated, analysts see a risk that prolonged political instability could hinder Tokyo’s ability to reach a timely trade agreement with the United States.

Lee Hardman of MUFG noted that the relief rally in the yen may prove short-lived, as uncertainty around Ishiba’s leadership may raise questions about Japan’s policy consistency. A delayed or weakened Japanese response to tariff negotiations could present downside risks to the yen and Japan’s export-dependent economy.

Broader FX Market Trapped Between Trade and Central Bank Uncertainty

The lack of significant movement in other major currencies mirrors the same cautious positioning. The euro dipped 0.12% to $1.1684, with investors eyeing the upcoming European Central Bank meeting, where policymakers are expected to keep rates unchanged. Sterling edged 0.03% lower to $1.3488, as broader dollar dynamics outweighed domestic factors.

In the background, the EU is preparing additional countermeasures against the United States as hopes for a trade resolution dwindle. This ongoing friction adds another layer of complexity to global FX markets, particularly for the euro, which remains up 13% year-to-date but vulnerable to policy shocks.

U.S. Politics and Fed Independence Cloud Outlook

Another source of volatility is speculation surrounding the Federal Reserve’s independence. President Trump’s repeated criticism of Fed Chair Jerome Powell and his resistance to rate cuts have stirred concerns about political interference. While Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent reaffirmed the need to evaluate the Fed’s institutional role, markets are wary of any changes that could undermine the central bank’s autonomy.

Despite these concerns, economists such as Jonas Goltermann of Capital Economics maintain that solid U.S. data and a potential inflation rebound fueled in part by tariffs could keep the Fed on hold into 2026. If this scenario materializes, shifting interest rate differentials could support a medium-term dollar rebound. However, Goltermann warned that any sustained dollar recovery remains exposed to political unpredictability.

Commodity Currencies Drift as Risk Sentiment Weakens

In the Asia-Pacific region, risk-sensitive currencies softened. The Australian dollar dipped 0.05% to $0.6522, and the New Zealand dollar declined 0.14% to $0.5960. The moves were modest but reflect a broader unease about global demand, especially with trade tensions threatening growth among commodity exporters.

The dollar’s indecisiveness reflects a market in wait-and-see mode, shaped by the convergence of trade policy, central bank credibility, and political risk. With the August 1 tariff deadline looming and negotiations still unresolved, currency markets are likely to remain range-bound. A decisive move will only come when trade outcomes, Fed direction, and geopolitical developments align or clash. Until then, investors are hedging exposure rather than placing bold bets.

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

Economic

Push for Structural Reform over Reactionary Regulation

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has signaled a decisive shift in regulatory philosophy, criticizing what he described as an outdated and reaction-driven financial oversight framework. Speaking at a Federal Reserve regulatory conference, Bessent emphasized the need for a “long-term blueprint” focused on innovation, competitiveness, and resilient growth. His remarks come as the Trump administration pursues a broader deregulatory agenda aimed at dismantling elements of the post-2008 financial regime.

Bessent criticized the layering of capital requirements over the past decade, claiming they have imposed unnecessary constraints on financial institutions, reduced lending, and distorted market dynamics by encouraging credit migration to non-bank lenders. He argued that these rules originally designed for risk mitigation now operate as a brake on economic expansion.

Critique of the Dual Capital Requirement Proposal

Central to Bessent’s address was a forceful rejection of the dual capital requirement structure proposed in 2023. Designed in the aftermath of high-profile bank failures, including that of Silicon Valley Bank, the framework would have required banks to comply with the higher of two risk capital calculations. While never implemented, it would have led to higher capital buffers across the sector.

Bessent condemned the proposal as unprincipled and overly punitive, claiming it lacked a clear calibration method and was motivated by a desire to inflate capital reserves rather than refine risk sensitivity. He contended that this structure would have hindered reform by entrenching legacy rules as the effective regulatory floor for most large banks.

According to Bessent, the dual approach contradicts efforts to modernize capital regulation and undermines the flexibility needed to tailor requirements to the actual risk profile of institutions. He advocated for a simpler, more coherent regime that aligns regulatory burdens with both bank size and business models.

Expanding Relief to Community Banks

Beyond the large banks typically at the center of regulatory debate, Bessent also proposed extending capital relief to smaller community banks. He floated the idea of a voluntary opt-in mechanism for banks not currently subject to modernized standards, allowing them to access reduced capital thresholds. This move, he suggested, would free up capital for lending and investment in underserved regions without compromising financial stability.

This proposal echoes broader Trump administration goals to support local financial institutions and promote credit availability in rural and economically fragile communities. By tailoring regulation based on institutional scale, Bessent seeks to bridge the divide between prudential oversight and economic vitality.

Balancing Deregulation and Stability

While advocating for reform, Bessent acknowledged the need to preserve core elements of financial safety, consumer protection, and systemic resilience. He stressed that regulation can be both rational and effective, arguing that modernizing oversight does not equate to weakening it. The Treasury, he noted, would play a more active role in coordinating reform efforts across agencies, aiming to overcome institutional inertia and avoid gridlock between regulators such as the Fed and the OCC.

Bessent’s comments also included a broader call for reviewing the Fed’s role and structure, emphasizing the importance of maintaining monetary policy independence while increasing institutional accountability.

Bessent’s remarks reflect a significant recalibration of U.S. financial regulation under the Trump administration. By rejecting complex and rigid capital frameworks in favor of streamlined, growth-oriented rules, the Treasury is advancing a vision of financial reform that prioritizes lending, institutional flexibility, and market competitiveness. However, balancing this agenda with the imperatives of risk containment and systemic integrity will define the success and sustainability of this deregulatory pivot. As the debate unfolds, regulators and lawmakers alike will confront the challenge of ensuring that reform does not lead to vulnerability.