Oil prices edged lower on Friday, heading for a weekly loss of around 3 per cent after the IEA forecast a growing glut and U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to meet again to discuss Ukraine.

Brent crude futures were down 65 cents, or 1.1 per cent, at US$60.41 a barrel at 1026 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate futures were 58 cents lower, down 1 per cent, at $56.88.

Trump and Putin agreed on Thursday to another summit on the war in Ukraine, to be held in the next two weeks in Hungary.

The surprise development came as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was headed to the White House on Friday to push for more military support, including U.S.-made long-range Tomahawk missiles, while Washington pressured India and China to stop buying Russian oil.

“Now that the two leaders are expected to meet, it could be a sign that the U.S.’s stance on Russia may ease. If so, that should push prices lower,” said Tamas Varga, analyst at PVM.

Ukrainian drone strikes on Russian refineries and the threat of secondary sanctions on buyers of Russian oil such as India and China set a floor under the market, but this could now change, Varga said.

This week’s decline was also partly due to rising trade tensions between the U.S. and China, which added to concerns about an economic slowdown and lower energy demand.

“It just demolishes confidence,” said Jorge Montepeque, managing director at Onyx Capital Group. He expects the U.S. economy will quickly be impacted.

Also weighing on prices was the International Energy Agency’s outlook for a growing supply glut in 2026. The Energy Information Administration said on Thursday that U.S. crude inventories increased by 3.5 million barrels to 423.8 million barrels last week, compared with analysts’ expectations in a Reuters poll for a 288,000-barrel rise.

The bigger-than-expected build in crude inventory was largely due to lower refining utilization as refineries go into autumn turnarounds.

The data also showed a rise in U.S. production to 13.636 million barrels per day, the highest on record.

In the previous session, Brent settled 1.37 per cent lower and U.S. WTI closed down 1.39 per cent, their lowest since May 5.

Reporting by Anna Hirtenstein in London. Additional reporting by Nicole Jao in New York and Colleen Howe in Beijing; Editing by Sonali Paul, Kim Coghill, Elaine Hardcastle, Reuters

Source: BNN BIoomberg

Treasury Yields Slide as Safe-Haven Demand Grows

Source: Reuters

Traders are betting that Singapore’s swap rates will need to rise to offset an expected weakening of the currency.The city-state’s dollar is around the lowest levels in five months versus the greenback, which may put upward pressure on local rates. The central bank is also less likely to pump liquidity in the near-term, according to analysts. And while in the past Federal Reserve interest-rate cuts would help lower Singapore rates too, that link has broken down.“We maintain an upward bias for Singapore dollar interest rates on a multi-month horizon,” said Frances Cheung, head of foreign-exchange and rates strategy at Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp. in Singapore.

Singapore dollar rates will likely look past further declines in greenback peers, as moves between the two “have decoupled” and as Fed fund rate cuts have been priced in, she added.The two-year local swap rates fell to the lowest level in more than 40 months in mid-September, and is currently at around 1.18%. Both one-year and two-year Singapore dollar overnight indexed swaps may rise to a range of 1.35% to 1.50% over the next few months, OCBC’s Cheung said.

Singapore’s dollar has weakened since the end of June against the basket of currencies of its key trading partners. The nominal effective exchange rate has pulled away from the top end of the Monetary Authority of Singapore’s policy band, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. estimates. Analysts see room for the trade-weighted Singapore dollar to keep declining, which is set to push up local rates even further. Citi sees further weakness in the Singapore dollar relative to the greenback potentially driving up Singapore money market rates, according to a note on Oct. 1.

Nomura also sees “less intervention and injections of liquidity from the MAS” as the trade-weighted Singapore dollar has drifted away from the top end of the policy band — reducing the need for MAS to “defend,” strategist Nathan Sribalasundaram wrote in a note on Wednesday.Expectations for easing from MAS have grown, though the central bank left policy settings unchanged in a decision this week.US rates have historically had a meaningful impact on Singapore’s since the island state lacks a policy rate anchor. In previous periods, the Singapore one-year OIS and its US equivalent moved in tandem. But this linkage has recently broken down due to a buildup of cash in Singapore’s money markets.

Since bottoming out on Sept. 8, Singapore’s one-year OIS has risen six basis points, while its US equivalent has declined eight basis points, leading to a so-called pass-through ratio of minus 0.73.

Source: Bloomberg Europe

Bitcoin plunged below $105K and gold soared to another all-time high (ATH) as “extreme fear” grips the crypto market.

The sell-off followed emerging loan issues at several US regional banks, raising concerns of broader systemic risks.

US regional lenders Zions Bancorp and Western Alliance Bancorp disclosed that they were victims of fraud on loans to funds that invest in distressed commercial mortgages.

This followed a loan blowup at subprime auto lender Tricolor Holdings and the collapse of First Brands Group, which owed over $10 billion to some of the biggest Wall Street banks.

US President Donald Trump add to the downbeat mood when he confirmed that there is a trade war with China.

The Crypto Fear & Greed Index plummeted six points into “extreme fear’ territory with a reading of 22. That’s down from 64 last week, when there was still “greed” in the market.

Crypto Fear & Greed Index (Source: alternative.me)

Crypto Liquidations Surpass $1B As Bitcoin Tumbles

The Bitcoin price has slid over 5% in the past 24 hours, extending its weekly losses to more than 13%, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

BTC price (Source: CoinMarketCap)

It’s trading at $104,818.37 as of 4:24 a.m. EST.

The rest of the market followed BTC’s lead, with overall market capitalization plummeting over 5%.

Traders took a knock as a result, causing 24-hour liquidations in the market to soar to above $1.1 billion, data from CoinGlass shows. The majority of this amount came from long positions, which are bets that prices will rise, for Bitcoin and Ethereum. Overall, $935.64 million got liquidated from bullish trades.

Gold Soars To Another ATH

Gold, which has been the go-to hedge against market uncertainty and inflation for investors over the years, saw its price go on to set yet another record high, this time at $4,380.79 per ounce.

TradingView data shows that the price of gold has surged 25% since Aug. 29.

Gold price (Source: TradingView)

The rising price has also seen gold’s market cap soar to a record high of $30 trillion, making the commodity the first asset in history to achieve this milestone.

Known Bitcoin critic and gold investor Peter Schiff recently took to X to comment on gold’s outperformance compared to Bitcoin, and said that “Gold is more likely to hit $1 million than Bitcoin.”

Gold is more likely to hit $1 million than Bitcoin.

— Peter Schiff (@PeterSchiff) October 16, 2025

That’s after he said that long-term Bitcoin investors “are in denial” amid the “de-bitcoinization” trade.

“Gold is eating Bitcoin’s lunch,” he wrote on X. “HODLers, sell your fool’s gold now and buy the real thing, or have fun going broke,” Schiff added.

Crypto ETFs Lose Over $500M

The capital rotation out of crypto is also seen with spot Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs (exchange-traded funds).

Investors pulled out more than $530.9 million from the BTC products in the latest trading session, according to Farside Investor data. The majority of these net daily outflows came from ARK Invest’s ARKB, which saw $275.2 million leave its reserves.

The next-biggest outflows in the US spot Bitcoin ETF market were posted by Fidelity’s FBTC, with its $132 million outflows.

Other spot BTC ETFs, including BlackRock’s IBIT, Bitwise’s BITB, VanEck’s HODL, and both of Grayscale’s products all saw outflows on the day as well.

IBIT’s outflows reached $29.5 million, while BITB and HODL saw respective negative flows of $20.6 million and $6.1 million. Meanwhile, Grayscale’s GBTC saw $45 million outflows and $22.5 million left its BTC ETF.

Spot Ethereum ETFs saw lighter outflows of only $56.8 million with Grayscale’s ETHE bleeding $69 million in outflows.

Fidelity’s FETH, Bitwise’s ETHW, Franklin’s EZET and Grayscale’s ETH also saw capital leave their reserves. BlackRock’s ETHA was the only one of the funds to record positive flows, with $46.9 million added to its reserves.

Source: CryptoSlate

Dollar Weakens Amid Fed Repricing and Market Instability

Source: Reuters

The ceasefire in Gaza, and the release of Israeli hostages and Palestinian prisoners is clearly a momentous occasion. But does this moment mark the adoption of a ground-breaking peace settlement for the Midde East?

For President Donald Trump, the answer was clear. In his view the event marks the end of the Palestine conflict. His overall vision is one of a cascade of peace flowing from the Gaza deal that will fundamentally transform the region.

This view supposes that the end of hostilities in Gaza will soon be followed by the conclusion of further Abraham Accords between Israel and the states of the region. Then, there might follow steps towards regional economic integration and eventually even security cooperation between Israel and its neighbours, ending an era of perennial regional crisis. That would be a historic feat indeed.

However, to move this vision forward, it is necessary to progress the actual peace process. The 13 October summit at Sharm el-Sheikh in Egypt offered an opportunity to translate the general principles contained in the Trump plan into a more fully developed peace settlement.

In fact, the event turned out to be little more than a further celebration of President Trump’s achievements. The US, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey signed a brief declaration. But is there actually a peace agreement in place?

There are three documents thus far. The first is the original 20 point plan of 29 September. It has not been signed, and its 20 principles are largely aspirational. That is to say, they offer a general direction but are too general to be implemented without far more detailed agreement.

Instead, in the next document, called ‘Implementation Steps’ of 9 October, President Trump simply announced the end of the war in the Gaza Strip. (Hamas claims that the president gave additional, verbal assurances against the resumption of the use of force by Israel).

In the document, Israel and Hamas agree ‘to implement the necessary steps’ to end the war, namely a ceasefire, resumption of humanitarian relief, Israeli withdrawals from designated areas in Gaza, and the release of hostages and of detained Palestinians. The agreement is signed by both parties, along with the mediators. It entered into force upon acceptance by the Israeli cabinet on 10 October.

Finally, there is the ‘Trump Declaration for Enduring Peace and Prosperity’ signed by the mediators, the US, Egypt, Qatar and Turkey – but not the warring parties – at Sharm el-Sheikh on 13 October. This document is without any hard substance. It merely invokes broad hopes for the future and the willingness of the mediators to implement the ‘Trump Peace Agreement’.

However, it is clear that no actual peace agreement yet exists. There is only the cease-fire and the rough roadmap offered in the original 20 point plan.

Standard peace-making

In most cases, the standard principles for negotiating peace would see a first step in which the sides agree the base points for a settlement in the form of a declaration of principles – outlining the essence of the overall deal.

There would then follow a framework agreement, where the interests of the sides are carefully balanced to give both an interest in sticking with the agreement. This would be supplemented by detailed annexes on the modalities for implementation, along with the deployment of an international military and civilian presence.

Instead, the Trump Plan has seen an outside power, the US, issue the basic principles for a settlement. Neither side was fully supportive. Both were pressed into acceptance by key Western, Islamic and Arab states.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepted while declaring that he opposes eventual Palestinian statehood, going against an important provision of the plan. Israel also continues to oppose any role for the Palestinian Authority (PA) in relation to Gaza – which is again called for by the Trump plan (after the PA is reformed).

Hamas has agreed not to play a role in the future of governance in Gaza. But it seems likely to re-badge itself, hoping to retain power in the Strip and gain a role in any reformed PA. It also does not seem to have committed to its own total disarmament – a fact that has already led President Trump to threaten forcible disarmament if necessary. It is not clear, though, who would undertake that task. The international stabilization force (ISF) envisioned by the plan lies somewhere in the future.

It is entirely correct that Hamas should not be the key interlocutor in the peace process, going beyond immediate military matters. But it creates a significant problem. Hamas, as the initial party to the settlement, is meant to accept its displacement from negotiations and governance of Gaza in favour of its avowed enemy, the PA (once the PA has been reformed).

In the meantime, there is no clear Palestinian ‘side’ foreseen in the most critical phase of the process. True, the PA’s low standing makes it an unlikely candidate as the key partner in agreeing future governance within the framework of the 20 points. This leaves the option to impose a system of governance and supervision of its activities by the international ‘Board of Peace,’ headed by President Trump. The Tony Blair Institute has generated a detailed blueprint for such arrangements.

But filling in the blanks on interim governance for Gaza by international fiat, without Palestinian involvement, sounds risky. It would mean the US and other international actors will take full responsibility for developments in Gaza.

That would encourage local actors to disown responsibility, criticize ineffective governance, and condemn the Board as a neo-colonial institution. That was certainly the direction the well-intentioned international administrations in Eastern Timor and Kosovo took. And those were UN operations conducted under the benign protection of blue helmets, rather than a mission led directed by Israel’s strongest ally.

Regardless, crafting the structures for interim governance for Gaza will continue under great pressure of time. It would therefore be prudent to appoint and involve a Palestinian Peace Advisory Board to boost local representation in that process. Similarly, the Board of Peace, and the subordinated technocratic committee responsible for delivering local government, need to include credible Palestinian faces. Moreover, efforts to reform the PA will need to be accelerated, so that it can transition to power and lead Palestine to chart its own future.

The danger

The gap between the celebration of the ceasefire and the existence of an actual, substantive peace agreement (with the means to implement it) is increasing every day. This is highly dangerous. Hamas’s attempt to grasp power immediately upon the partial Israeli withdrawal proves the point.

Fortunately, heads of state and government used the time spent waiting for President Trump at Sharm el-Sheikh to start discussing an international division of labour. The UK, for instance, is offering to cover some of the most difficult tasks, including disarming Hamas and deconflicting the ceasefire. Its conference on Gaza’s recovery and reconstruction at Wilton Park is quite deliberately arranged in quiet partnership with the government of Egypt and the PA.

Transforming the hostage release and ceasefire into a historic, new beginning will require many further steps, each of which will be no less significant.

The first is to develop President Trump’s broad principles into actionable provisions that can be supported by local constituencies. Preparations for the very rapid deployment of international support for their implementation must occur in parallel. President Trump’s vision for peace in Gaza and beyond is significant. But the world is a fair distance from having a viable settlement for Gaza. To achieve this will require a tremendous amount of focus and very rapid and close international cooperation.

Source: Chatham House