• Trade
  • Markets
  • Copy
  • Contests
  • News
  • 24/7
  • Calendar
  • Q&A
  • Chats
Screeners
SYMBOL
LAST
ASK
BID
HIGH
LOW
NET CHG.
%CHG.
SPREAD
SPX
S&P 500 Index
6939.02
6939.02
6939.02
6964.08
6893.47
-29.99
-0.43%
--
DJI
Dow Jones Industrial Average
48892.46
48892.46
48892.46
49047.68
48459.88
-179.09
-0.36%
--
IXIC
NASDAQ Composite Index
23461.81
23461.81
23461.81
23662.25
23351.55
-223.30
-0.94%
--
USDX
US Dollar Index
96.990
97.070
96.990
96.990
96.150
+1.020
+ 1.06%
--
EURUSD
Euro / US Dollar
1.18491
1.18514
1.18491
1.19743
1.18491
-0.01211
-1.01%
--
GBPUSD
Pound Sterling / US Dollar
1.36835
1.36880
1.36835
1.38142
1.36788
-0.01258
-0.91%
--
XAUUSD
Gold / US Dollar
4894.49
4894.49
4894.49
5450.83
4682.14
-481.82
-8.96%
--
WTI
Light Sweet Crude Oil
65.427
65.456
65.427
65.832
63.409
+0.175
+ 0.27%
--

Community Accounts

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

Become a signal provider

Sell trading signals to earn additional income

View More

Guide to Copy Trading

Get started with ease and confidence

View More

Signal Accounts for Members

All Signal Accounts

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

All Contests

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

Governor: Russian Drone Strike On Bus In Ukraine's Dnipropetrovsk Region Kills 12, Wounds 7

Share

Pakistan Cricket Team To Boycott T20 World Cup Match Against India, Pakistan Government Says In Post On X

Share

Iran Warns Of Regional Conflict If US Attacks, Designates EU Armies 'Terrorists'

Share

U.S. House Speaker Boris Johnson: Trump May “readjust” His Immigration Policy

Share

[Speaker Of The U.S. House Of Representatives: Confident Of Sufficient Votes To End Partial Government Shutdown By Tuesday] February 1st, According To Nbc News, U.S. House Speaker Johnson Said He Is Confident That There Will Be Enough Votes By At Least Tuesday To End The Partial Government Shutdown

Share

Iranian Official Tells Reuters: Media Reports Of Plans For Revolutionary Guards To Hold Military Exercise In Strait Of Hormuz Are Wrong

Share

Ukraine's Defence Minister Says Kyiv And Spacex Working On System To Ensure Only Authorized Starlink Terminals Work In Ukraine

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: Europe Has Failed To Defeat Russia In Ukraine

Share

Nigerian Army Says It Killed A Boko Haram Commander And 10 Fighters

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: We Never Found The Two Nuclear Submarines Trump Spoke Of Deploying Closer To Russia

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: Victory Will Come 'Soon' In Ukraine But Equally Important To Think Of How To Prevent New Conflicts

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: Trump Is An Effective Leader Who Seeks Peace

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: Behind The So Called 'Chaos' Of Trump, He Is An Effective And Original USA Leader

Share

Russian Security Committee's Vice Chairman Medvedev: Victory Will Come Soon In Ukraine War

Share

Ukraine President Zelenskiy: Next Round Of Trilateral Talks Set For Feb 4-5 In Abu Dhabi

Share

Russian Defence Ministry: Russia Gains Control Over Two Villages In Ukraine's Kharkiv And Donetsk Regions

Share

Trump Says India Will Buy Oil From Venezuela

Share

Istanbul Jan Consumer Price Index 4.56% Month-On-Month - Chamber Of Commerce

Share

Moody's: Interest Payments To Revenue Ratio Set To Worsen Next Year

Share

Moody's: Federal Government Fiscal Deficit Still Wider Than What It Was Prior To Covid

TIME
ACT
FCST
PREV
U.K. M4 Money Supply (SA) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --
Italy Unemployment Rate (SA) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Unemployment Rate (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Prelim QoQ (SA) (Q4)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Prelim YoY (SA) (Q4)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Italy PPI YoY (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Mexico GDP Prelim YoY (Q4)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Brazil Unemployment Rate (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

South Africa Trade Balance (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Deposit Gowth YoY

A:--

F: --

P: --

Germany CPI Prelim YoY (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Germany CPI Prelim MoM (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Germany HICP Prelim YoY (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Germany HICP Prelim MoM (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Core PPI YoY (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --
U.S. Core PPI MoM (SA) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PPI YoY (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PPI MoM (SA) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada GDP MoM (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada GDP YoY (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PPI MoM Final (Excl. Food, Energy and Trade) (SA) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PPI YoY (Excl. Food, Energy & Trade) (Dec)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Chicago PMI (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --
Canada Federal Government Budget Balance (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Oil Rig Count

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Rig Count

A:--

F: --

P: --

China, Mainland NBS Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

China, Mainland NBS Non-manufacturing PMI (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

China, Mainland Composite PMI (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --

South Korea Trade Balance Prelim (Jan)

A:--

F: --

P: --
Japan Manufacturing PMI Final (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

South Korea IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI (SA) (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Indonesia IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

China, Mainland Caixin Manufacturing PMI (SA) (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Indonesia Trade Balance (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

Indonesia Inflation Rate YoY (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Indonesia Core Inflation YoY (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

India HSBC Manufacturing PMI Final (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Australia Commodity Price YoY (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Russia IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Turkey Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Nationwide House Price Index MoM (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Nationwide House Price Index YoY (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Germany Actual Retail Sales MoM (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --
Italy Manufacturing PMI (SA) (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

South Africa Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Manufacturing PMI Final (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Manufacturing PMI Final (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Brazil IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada National Economic Confidence Index

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Manufacturing PMI (SA) (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. IHS Markit Manufacturing PMI Final (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. ISM Output Index (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. ISM Inventories Index (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. ISM Manufacturing Employment Index (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. ISM Manufacturing New Orders Index (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. ISM Manufacturing PMI (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

South Korea CPI YoY (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Japan Monetary Base YoY (SA) (Jan)

--

F: --

P: --

Australia Building Permits MoM (SA) (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

Q&A with Experts
    • All
    • Chatrooms
    • Groups
    • Friends
    3505186 flag
    [100]It's me, Hieu@Chế độ khách3487443
    3507622 flag
    how to trade please guide me
    hong hong flag
    That USA showed a Roun right now
    hong hong flag
    United States they can show Iran right now
    3487443 flag
    3505186
    [100]It's me, Hieu@Chế độ khách3487443
    [100]It's me, kid@Chế độ khách3505186
    hsjskbdb flag
    Similarities: Both are driven by inflation concerns, geopolitical factors, and expectations of currency devaluation. However, they differ in that central banks are now making large-scale, continuous purchases (in China, India, Turkey, etc.), which is not purely speculative . ETFs and institutional allocations are more structural, and there is no extreme single speculative event like the Hunt brothers' manipulation in 1980. Therefore, the price movements are "very similar," but the support is more solid, and while bubble risks exist, they are not entirely the same. Regarding the current surge in gold prices and future prospects, you mentioned that "the increase will far exceed the inflation rate by 2026," which has already partially materialized in 2025-2026. Gold has risen from approximately $2000+ in 2023 to the current $5000+, far exceeding the cumulative CPI over the same period. Most institutions predict that gold will remain in the $5000-$6200 range in 2026 (UBS $6200 target, JPM $5055 average, etc.), with some optimists seeing a possible $7000+. Has gold already transformed from a "safe-haven asset" into a "risk asset"? This is a very sharp observation, and there is indeed disagreement in the market: The traditional view is that gold remains the ultimate safe haven, with low correlation to the stock market, and performs exceptionally well during periods of geopolitical risk, inflation, and a weak dollar. Multiple reports (JPM, VanEck, BIS, etc.) for 2025–2026 still emphasize its role as "insurance," hedging against currency devaluation and geopolitical risks. However, reality has changed: gold volatility has increased significantly in recent years (monthly gains sometimes exceeding 10% in 2025), and its correlation with certain risk assets (such as Bitcoin) has occasionally increased. In times of extreme liquidity tightening or a sharp rebound in risk appetite, gold may also experience short-term sell-offs (like in the early stages of interest rate hikes in 2022). Therefore, to some extent, gold has become partially "risk-averse"—it is no longer a zero-volatility capital-preserving tool, but rather a strategic asset with strong trends and cyclicality. Especially at high levels, speculative elements increase, and the risk of a correction is considerable. However, the mainstream consensus remains that gold still leans towards safety during systemic crises, rather than being a purely risky asset like stocks. Central bank buying and the global trend of de-dollarization have strengthened its "strategic reserve" status. Overall, your historical analogy is quite accurate; gold is indeed currently in a "frenzied + structural" phase similar to the late 1970s, but with more support from real demand. Short-term bullish sentiment remains strong, but whether a repeat of the 1980-1982-style major correction will occur after consolidation at high levels is one of the biggest uncertainties of 2026. What is your view on the probability of a correction? Or which specific driving factor are you more focused on?
    hsjskbdb flag
    Envious of Trump, who can freely control gold prices.
    hsjskbdb flag
    He even acted with Musk last time.
    3507933 flag
    hsjskbdb
    He even acted with Musk last time.
    @hsjskbdbin
    Joyce flag
    have any of you review the lumonel.com that I have been posting my earnings on here
    "ThatfxSniper📈" recalled a message
    3487443 flag
    hsjskbdb
    Similarities: Both are driven by inflation concerns, geopolitical factors, and expectations of currency devaluation. However, they differ in that central banks are now making large-scale, continuous purchases (in China, India, Turkey, etc.), which is not purely speculative . ETFs and institutional allocations are more structural, and there is no extreme single speculative event like the Hunt brothers' manipulation in 1980. Therefore, the price movements are "very similar," but the support is more solid, and while bubble risks exist, they are not entirely the same. Regarding the current surge in gold prices and future prospects, you mentioned that "the increase will far exceed the inflation rate by 2026," which has already partially materialized in 2025-2026. Gold has risen from approximately $2000+ in 2023 to the current $5000+, far exceeding the cumulative CPI over the same period. Most institutions predict that gold will remain in the $5000-$6200 range in 2026 (UBS $6200 target, JPM $5055 average, etc.), with some optimists seeing a possible $7000+. Has gold already transformed from a "safe-haven asset" into a "risk asset"? This is a very sharp observation, and there is indeed disagreement in the market: The traditional view is that gold remains the ultimate safe haven, with low correlation to the stock market, and performs exceptionally well during periods of geopolitical risk, inflation, and a weak dollar. Multiple reports (JPM, VanEck, BIS, etc.) for 2025–2026 still emphasize its role as "insurance," hedging against currency devaluation and geopolitical risks. However, reality has changed: gold volatility has increased significantly in recent years (monthly gains sometimes exceeding 10% in 2025), and its correlation with certain risk assets (such as Bitcoin) has occasionally increased. In times of extreme liquidity tightening or a sharp rebound in risk appetite, gold may also experience short-term sell-offs (like in the early stages of interest rate hikes in 2022). Therefore, to some extent, gold has become partially "risk-averse"—it is no longer a zero-volatility capital-preserving tool, but rather a strategic asset with strong trends and cyclicality. Especially at high levels, speculative elements increase, and the risk of a correction is considerable. However, the mainstream consensus remains that gold still leans towards safety during systemic crises, rather than being a purely risky asset like stocks. Central bank buying and the global trend of de-dollarization have strengthened its "strategic reserve" status. Overall, your historical analogy is quite accurate; gold is indeed currently in a "frenzied + structural" phase similar to the late 1970s, but with more support from real demand. Short-term bullish sentiment remains strong, but whether a repeat of the 1980-1982-style major correction will occur after consolidation at high levels is one of the biggest uncertainties of 2026. What is your view on the probability of a correction? Or which specific driving factor are you more focused on?
    [100]1. The Fed chairman has warned that gold is rising too high and affirmed that gold will not affect the USD. 2. Russia and Ukraine may end the war in March. 3. Trump has appointed a rebel as Fed chairman, a person considered a proponent of a strong USD. 4. Gold has risen far beyond inflation. 5. The gold standard system will not return because the transfer of goods is too difficult to calculate and invest in, unlike the current USD monetary system which is easy to use and allows for profitable investment through channels such as cryptocurrencies, stocks, etc. Countries can trade more easily and can invest for profit. Everyone says that the US public debt exceeds $38 trillion, so countries can sell all their US bonds and buy gold. If the US public debt exceeds $40 trillion, countries will also accept it because in the next 50 years no currency will replace the USD except China, but currently they are not accepted due to exchange rate manipulation. There are still concerns that China's gold purchases have their own agendas. They also buy a large amount of oil and gas, with the intention of occupying Taiwan in the next few years or by 2030. In fact, many countries predicted that Trump might become president in 2025, so starting in late 2023, central banks began buying gold because Trump's policies are erratic and could affect the USD. They need to diversify their assets, not abandon them. Remember, the US has two parties: the Democratic Party and the US. Their policies are constantly changing. In the midterm elections in November, I think the Democrats will regain control of the Senate and the House of Representatives. At that time, they will fight against Trump. The Hunt brothers manipulated the silver market, not gold. In 1980, central banks also sold US bonds, just like today, because they lost confidence in the high inflation in the US, exceeding 13 percent due to the money pumped to support the military in Vietnam. The person who eradicated inflation and gold in 1980 was Fed Paula. VoLc Kern raised interest rates. Over 21 percent restored confidence in the USD, but in return, the US has been in recession for many years. Why is Trump now appointing someone who opposes his policies as chairman of the Fed?
    3487443 flag
    The signs of gold bull cycles and the end of the cycle are that gold usually rises very sharply in the last 3 years, but the similarity between 1980 and 2011 is that the final year saw a very strong increase. Currently, the gold price increase in 2026 is very similar to the two previous cycles, with the final year also showing a very strong increase. The average of the two previous cycles: in 1980, gold reached $850, by 2000 it was only over $200, from 2000 to 2011 it rose to $1950, and by 2025 it will return to $1035. The common point is that gold has decreased by half or fallen back to its real value. The real value of gold is between $1600 and $2000, equivalent to the 2019 inflation due to the COVID-19 recession, when the Fed injected a large amount of money into the market, resulting in inflation above 9 percent.
    just Brendon flag
    hello fastbul
    just Brendon flag
    alert for tonight move I have+1000 Pip's confirmed move analysis
    3505272 flag
    Hello Fasbull
    3508362 flag
    hello
    ABU BAKKOR SIDDQUE flag
    hlw
    Robiul flag
    hi
    3486743 flag
    hi
    Type here...
    Add Symbol or Code

      No matching data

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

      Charts Free Forever

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

      Market Trends

      Market Sentiment Order Book Forex Correlations

      Top Indicators

      Charts Free Forever
      Markets

      News

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

      Latest Views

      Latest Views

      Trending Topics

      Top Columnists

      Latest Update

      Signals

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

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

      Business
      Events
      Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

      White Label

      Data API

      Web Plug-ins

      Affiliate Program

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

          View All

          No data

          Scan to Download

          Faster Charts, Chat Faster!

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

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

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

          Business
          Events
          Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Affiliate Program

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

          US Buyers Circumvent China’s Mineral Ban Through Third-Party Routes and Shadow Supply Chains

          Gerik

          Economic

          China–U.S. Trade War

          Commodity

          Summary:

          Despite China’s export ban on critical minerals to the United States, American firms continue to receive antimony, gallium, and germanium through third countries such as Thailand and Mexico...

          Uncovering the New Trade Routes in the Mineral War

          Following China's December 2024 ban on exporting key minerals antimony, gallium, and germanium to the United States, recent trade data reveal that US companies continue to access these critical resources through indirect channels. Notably, exports of antimony oxides from Thailand and Mexico to the US surged between December and April, surpassing volumes seen over the past three years combined. This redirection illustrates the effectiveness of rerouting minerals through intermediary nations, sidestepping China’s restrictions without violating US law.
          Since the ban took effect, Thailand and Mexico have emerged as major export hubs for Chinese antimony, rising from obscurity in 2023 to top positions by mid-2025. Neither country mines significant quantities of the metal and each only operates a single antimony smelter, further indicating that they are primarily transit points. Chinese customs data confirm that exports of antimony to these nations have increased sharply in 2025, coinciding with a proportional rise in US imports from them.
          The causative factor behind this shift is China's restriction policy, which, instead of curbing global availability, has merely redirected supply routes. The correlation between China’s export licensing controls and the spike in intermediary country trade suggests that enforcement gaps are allowing continued flows to the US.

          Evidence of Transshipment and Concealment

          Several US importers and industry experts confirm that shipments are proceeding under alternative labels and routing methods. According to Levi Parker of Gallant Metals, gallium purchased from China is mislabelled as other goods such as iron or art supplies before being sent through third countries. Although this practice allows continued access to the mineral, it is expensive and logistically complex, with increased scrutiny limiting shipment sizes.
          In particular, one company, Thai Unipet Industries a subsidiary of China's Youngsun Chemicals was documented shipping over 3,300 tons of antimony products to the US between December and May, a volume 27 times higher than in the same period a year earlier. These shipments were received by Texas-based Youngsun & Essen, a known importer of Chinese antimony prior to the ban. While the records do not confirm the origin of the raw materials, the scale of growth and the affiliations involved suggest a strong likelihood of Chinese origin minerals continuing to enter the US market through rebranding and third-party processing.

          China's Legal Response and the Limits of Enforcement

          In response to these rerouting strategies, China launched a crackdown in May targeting transshipment and smuggling of strategic minerals. The laws governing these exports hold Chinese sellers accountable for due diligence, including tracing the final destination of goods even if transactions occur abroad. Violations can lead to fines, export bans, or prison sentences exceeding five years in serious cases.
          However, these legal mechanisms are only effective if enforced consistently. Experts such as Ram Ben Tzion of Publican emphasize that while regulations exist, their real-world application is often limited. The disparity between policy and enforcement reveals structural weaknesses in China’s control regime, which faces the dual challenge of maintaining national security while sustaining global demand-driven profit motives.

          Price Incentives and Global Market Dynamics

          Despite higher prices resulting from the ban, US imports of antimony, gallium, and germanium are on pace to match or exceed pre-ban levels. The market's response has been clear: where demand exists, supply chains will adapt, even at higher costs and legal risks. Profit margins on these scarce resources have risen dramatically, incentivizing continued trade regardless of the regulatory landscape.
          While China's export data shows that its shipments remain below pre-restriction levels, the persistence of mineral flows to the US underscores the limitations of unilateral bans in globally integrated supply chains. The causal mechanism here is economic: restrictions raise prices, which then incentivize circumvention strategies, maintaining supply continuity through unofficial channels.

          The Real Battle Lies in Enforcement, Not Policy

          Beijing’s efforts to exert control over critical mineral flows highlight a fundamental tension between political strategy and economic reality. While it possesses near-monopolistic control over global production of certain minerals, its ability to enforce export restrictions remains imperfect. On the other side, US firms continue to demonstrate adaptability and resilience by leveraging indirect supply routes, ensuring minimal disruption to sectors reliant on these inputs.
          As the geopolitical competition between the US and China intensifies, the trade in critical minerals will remain a key battlefield not just in terms of access, but also in the global contest of regulatory enforcement versus market creativity.

          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
          Share

          RBA Holds Steady Amid Global Tariff Uncertainty and Waits for Clearer Inflation Signals

          Gerik

          Economic

          RBA Cautions Amid Heightened Global Uncertainty

          The Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) has chosen to maintain its cash rate at 3.85% during its latest policy meeting, defying market expectations for further tightening. This decision underscores a cautious stance from the central bank as it navigates growing international uncertainties, particularly those tied to the evolving US tariff regime. According to Deputy Governor Andrew Hauser, the global landscape is currently marked by heightened instability, and developments in American trade policy are commanding close attention from the Australian monetary authority.
          Hauser emphasized that while the impact of these US tariff changes on Australia is still in the early stages, the RBA is not taking their potential lightly. Unlike in the United States and parts of Europe, where business and consumer confidence has seen a notable decline, sentiment within Australia’s domestic economy remains relatively stable for now. This difference may reflect the time lag between policy announcements abroad and tangible effects on Australian markets.
          The relationship between US tariff measures and the Australian economy at this stage appears to be more of a correlation than a direct causation. However, should the trade environment deteriorate further through escalated tariffs or retaliatory measures Australia could begin to experience more pronounced economic spillovers, particularly in trade-sensitive sectors such as agriculture and manufacturing.

          Why the RBA Is Pausing Despite Inflation Concerns

          The RBA’s decision to pause rate hikes stems from an internal majority that prefers to wait for clearer data confirming a sustained slowdown in inflation. Although price pressures remain elevated, the central bank believes it prudent to assess whether previous monetary tightening has begun to have the intended dampening effect on inflationary trends. This approach reflects a more data-dependent strategy, rather than pre-committing to a set path of interest rate adjustments.
          Such a stance suggests that the RBA is attempting to balance two competing risks: tightening too much and choking off economic growth, or doing too little and allowing inflation to become entrenched. In this context, the uncertainty stemming from US policy actions adds a further layer of complexity, reinforcing the case for a more measured pace.

          Market Reactions and Economic Outlook

          Financial markets were caught off guard by the RBA’s decision, having priced in at least one additional hike before year-end. The central bank’s caution signals a shift toward patience as global developments unfold. Nevertheless, the tone from Deputy Governor Hauser makes it clear that vigilance remains high, and any acceleration in global trade disruptions or domestic inflation data could reignite policy tightening.
          In conclusion, the RBA is entering a phase of careful observation. Its attention to US tariff developments is not merely reactive but part of a broader attempt to anticipate secondary effects on Australia's open and trade-reliant economy. For now, the bank has chosen stability over preemptive action, relying on real-time data to guide its next move.

          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
          Share

          Israel's Army Still Taking On Mass Casualties After 640 Days Of War In Gaza

          George Anderson

          Over 630 days of war later and much of Hamas' top command has been wiped out, and large swathes of the Gaza Strip obliterated. It's been no secret that the Netanyahu government is pursuing the complete annihilation of Hamas, ensuring that it can never again return to rule, but the reality is that the Israeli army is still taking on mass casualties.

          This shows that the Hamas insurgency, using the Strip's hundreds of miles of tunnels, is still fierce and ongoing. "Five Israeli soldiers were killed in combat in the Gaza Strip, the Israeli army admitted on Tuesday, in one of the deadliest days for Israeli forces in the devastated Palestinian territory this year," regional media reports.

          The five soldiers "fell during combat in the northern Gaza Strip," the IDF announced. In total 14 others were wounded. Included were two that were severely wounded and "evacuated to a hospital to receive medical treatment."

          They came under attack near Beit Hanoun in the north of Gaza,when improvised explosive devices were detonated, after which Israeli soldiers who sought to rescue the wounded came under fire again. Thus it's clear that either Hamas or Islamic Jihad militants set a trap and ambush for the soldiers.

          The IDF and Israeli media have described that the infantry troops were operating on foot when the blast happened. One detail which highlights the ongoing extreme difficulty of uprooting the Palestinian insurgency is that the area where the attack occurred was subject of Israeli aerial raids just prior:

          The military said the area where the attack took place was targeted from the air ahead of the troops’ operations.

          The Netzah Yehuda soldiers were operating under the Gaza Division’s Northern Brigade as part of a fresh offensive with the 646th Reserve Paratroopers Brigade in Beit Hanoun, which began on Saturday, aimed at clearing the area of terror operatives who remain holed up there.

          Israeli opposition leader Yair Lapid wrote on X in the wake of the large-scale casualties, "For the sake of the fighters, for the sake of their families, for the sake of the hostages, for the sake of the State of Israel: this war must be ended."

          Israeli society has remained fiercely divided over Netanyahu policy, with hostage victims' family members outraged that efforts to negotiate a deal to release the remaining captives have completely stalled.

          Meanwhile, there is some activity on this front, with Qatar’s foreign ministry on Tuesday saying that renewed indirect negotiations will "need time". The White House has been supportive of peace efforts, but has sided with Israeli actions in Gaza time and again in its public rhetoric.

          "I don’t think that I can give any timeline at the moment, but I can say right now that we will need time for this," spokesman Majed Al-Ansari said as Doha-hosted discussion entered a third day.

          "What is happening right now is that both delegations are in Doha. We are speaking with them separately on a framework for the talks. So talks have not begun, as of yet, but we are talking to both sides over that framework," he tells a Doha news conference.

          Source: Zero Hedge

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

          Gold Holds Decline As Extended US Negotiations Ease Trade Fears

          Michael Ross

          Gold held a decline after President Donald Trump said the new August deadline for the start of so-called “reciprocal” tariffs won’t be delayed, with nations expected to use the extended window to continue negotiating with the US.

          Bullion traded near $3,300 an ounce, after a 1% loss in the previous session. Trump’s move to postpone the imposition of all “Liberation Day” duties — which were first announced in April and then delayed to July 9 — to next month is partly an effort to clinch more agreements from nations still willing to deal with the US, denting haven demand for the precious metal.

          While the delay has eased some concerns about the potential negative impact that Trump’s tariff agenda could have on the global economy, the president also indicated he could announce substantial new rates on imports of copper and pharmaceuticals. If those materialize, that could see renewed demand for havens.

          Gold was also impacted on Tuesday as US Treasuries fell. Yields have been rising as investors pare bets on Federal Reserve interest-rate cuts by year-end, following a report last week that showed a surprisingly resilient US labor market. Higher borrowing costs tend to pose a headwind for non-yielding bullion.

          The precious metal has rallied by more than a quarter this year, setting a record in April, as Trump’s efforts to overhaul trade policies stoked uncertainty, driving investors to seek safety in gold. The advance has been supported by central-bank accumulation, with China announcing an eighth straight month of purchases earlier this week.

          Spot gold was little changed at $3,300.23 an ounce as of 7:40 a.m. in Singapore. The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was little changed. Silver, palladium and platinum edged lower.

          Source: Bloomberg Europe

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

          Trump, Netanyahu Meet A Second Time As Gaps Said To Narrow In Gaza Ceasefire Talks

          Alice Winters

          U.S. President Donald Trump on Tuesday met for a second time in two days with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to discuss Gaza as Trump's Middle East envoy said Israel and Hamas were closing their differences on a ceasefire deal.

          The Israeli leader departed the White House on Tuesday evening after just over an hour's meeting with Trump in the Oval Office, with no press access. The two men also met for several hours during a dinner at the White House on Monday during Netanyahu's third U.S. visit since the president began his second term on January 20.

          Netanyahu met with Vice President JD Vance and then visited the U.S. Capitol on Tuesday, and is due back in Congress on Wednesday to meet with U.S. Senate leaders.

          He told reporters after a meeting with the Republican House of Representatives Speaker Mike Johnson that while he did not think Israel's campaign in the Palestinian enclave was done, negotiators are "certainly working" on a ceasefire.

          "We have still to finish the job in Gaza, release all our hostages, eliminate and destroy Hamas' military and government capabilities," Netanyahu said.

          Shortly after Netanyahu spoke, Trump's special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff, said the issues keeping Israel and Hamas from agreeing had dropped to one from four and he hoped to reach a temporary ceasefire agreement this week.

          "We are hopeful that by the end of this week, we'll have an agreement that will bring us into a 60-day ceasefire. Ten live hostages will be released. Nine deceased will be released," Witkoff told reporters at a meeting of Trump's Cabinet.

          A delegation from Qatar, which has been hosting indirect talks between Israeli negotiators and the Hamas Palestinian militant group, met with senior White House officials for several hours before Netanyahu's arrival on Tuesday, Axios reported, citing a source familiar with the details.

          The White House had no immediate comment on the report.

          The Gaza war erupted when Hamas attacked southern Israel in October 2023, killing around 1,200 people and taking 251 hostages, according to Israeli figures. Some 50 hostages remain in Gaza, with 20 believed to be alive.

          Israel's retaliatory war in Gaza has killed over 57,000 Palestinians, according to the enclave's health ministry. Most of Gaza's population has been displaced by the war and nearly half a million people are facing famine within months, according to United Nations estimates.

          Trump had strongly supported Netanyahu, even wading into domestic Israeli politics by criticizing prosecutors over a corruption trial against the Israeli leader on bribery, fraud and breach-of-trust charges that Netanyahu denies.

          In his remarks to reporters at the U.S. Congress, Netanyahu praised Trump, saying there has never been closer coordination between the U.S. and Israel in his country's history.

          Source: Reuters

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

          US Used Car Prices Surge As Tariffs Drive Market Volatility

          James Riley

          A gauge of U.S. used vehicle prices sold at wholesale auctions that proved predictive ahead of the inflation surge following the COVID pandemic is climbing again, last month notching its largest annual increase in nearly three years.

          The rise comes amid ongoing vehicle price and sales volatility connected to auto tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump.

          The Manheim Used Vehicle Value Index rose 1.6% in June from May on a seasonally adjusted basis and surged 6.3% from a year earlier, the largest year-over-year increase since August 2022, according to data released on Tuesday. At 208.5, the index has been trending upward for a year and is now at its highest since October 2023.

          “Wholesale appreciation trends have been more volatile over Q2 as tariffs really impacted new sales and supply, which impacted the used marketplace as well,” said Jeremy Robb, senior director of economic and industry insights at Cox Automotive, which provides the index.

          Price pressures typically ease in the second half of the year, but Robb said retail vehicle sales remain "a bit hotter than prior years" and the supply of vehicles coming off lease into the used-car market has been trending downward, "two factors which should be fairly supportive of higher values as we move onward.”

          Trump's 25% tariff on imported autos prompted a surge in new vehicle-buying during the early spring as consumers sought to front-run anticipated price increases from the levies. Sales fell off substantially in May and dropped again in June.

          Overall inflation has so far defied the predictions of most economists, but many Federal Reserve officials remain convinced some sort of price surge will follow and are hesitant to cut interest rates until satisfied that risk has passed.

          Manheim's index in recent years has caught the eye of private economists and some Fed officials who saw it as among the early indicators auguring for a more substantial, and long-lasting, bout of inflation as the economy emerged from the pandemic in 2021 and 2022.

          The index began a sharp climb in late 2020 that persisted for more than a year. By mid-2022, overall U.S. inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index had topped 9% and was the highest since the 1980s.

          Fed Governor Christopher Waller in the fall of 2021 warned against "selectively ignoring data series - be it used car prices, food and energy prices or household surveys of inflation expectations. All of these series convey important information about the evolution of inflation, and one should exhibit caution in dismissing data as outliers."

          At the time, Waller was building the case for interest rate hikes to combat still-building inflation that some of his colleagues considered "transitory."

          Now, though, Waller, who is viewed to be among those Trump is considering as a successor to Fed Chair Jerome Powell, appears more concerned the tariff increases will hurt demand rather than stoke another lasting bout of inflation. Waller said recently he was open to cutting rates as early as the Fed's meeting later in July.

          Source: Reuters

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

          Supreme Court Lets Trump Pursue Mass Federal Layoffs

          James Whitman

          Political

          Handing President Donald Trump another victory, the U.S. Supreme Court gave the go-ahead on Tuesday for his administration to pursue mass federal job cuts potentially numbering in the hundreds of thousands and the restructuring of numerous agencies.

          Workforce reductions are being planned by the administration at the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Health and Human Services, State, Treasury, Veterans Affairs and more than a dozen other agencies.

          The Supreme Court lifted San Francisco-based U.S. District Judge Susan Illston's May 22 order that blocked large-scale federal layoffs called "reductions in force" while litigation in the case proceeds.

          White House spokesperson Harrison Fields welcomed the court's action, calling it "another definitive victory for the president and his administration" that reinforced Trump's authority to implement "efficiency across the federal government."

          The Supreme Court in recent months has sided with Trump in several cases that were acted upon on an emergency basis since he returned to office in January including clearing the way for implementation of some of his hardline immigration policies. In addition, Trump last week also claimed the biggest legislative win of his second presidential term with congressional passage of a massive package of tax and spending cuts.

          The court, in a brief unsigned order on Tuesday, said Trump's administration was "likely to succeed on its argument that the executive order" and a memorandum implementing his order were lawful. The court said it was not assessing the legality of any specific plans for layoffs at federal agencies.

          Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole member of the nine-person court to publicly dissent from the decision. Jackson wrote that Illston's "temporary, practical, harm-reducing preservation of the status quo was no match for this court's demonstrated enthusiasm for greenlighting this president's legally dubious actions in an emergency posture."

          Trump in February announced "a critical transformation of the federal bureaucracy" in an executive order directing agencies to prepare for a government overhaul aimed at significantly reducing the federal workforce and gutting offices and programs opposed by his administration.

          A group of unions, non-profits and local governments that sued to block the administration's mass layoffs said Tuesday's Supreme Court ruling "dealt a serious blow to our democracy and puts services that the American people rely on in grave jeopardy."

          "This decision does not change the simple and clear fact that reorganizing government functions and laying off federal workers en masse haphazardly without any congressional approval is not allowed by our Constitution," the plaintiffs said in a statement, adding that they would "continue to fight on behalf of the communities we represent."

          Illston had ruled that Trump exceeded his authority in ordering the government downsizing.

          "As history demonstrates, the president may broadly restructure federal agencies only when authorized by Congress," Illston wrote.

          The judge's ruling was the broadest of its kind against the government overhaul being pursued by Trump and the Department of Government Efficiency, a key player in the Republican president's drive to slash the federal workforce.

          Formerly spearheaded by billionaire Elon Musk, DOGE has sought to eliminate federal jobs, shrink and reshape the U.S. government and root out what they see as wasteful spending. Musk formally ended his government work on May 30 and subsequently had a public falling out with Trump.

          The judge blocked the agencies from carrying out mass layoffs and limited their ability to cut or overhaul federal programs. Illston also ordered the reinstatement of workers who had lost their jobs, though she delayed implementing this portion of her ruling while the appeals process plays out.

          Don Moynihan, a public policy professor at the University of Michigan, said the Supreme Court's decision allows Trump to move forward with mass firings of federal workers, without adjudicating the legality of those layoffs.

          "These are not minor reductions in force," Moynihan said. "Trump has made clear he wants a major downsizing of the federal government. The court is willing to let him move forward and do severe and irreparable damage to public services."

          Americans narrowly favor on Trump's campaign to downsize the federal government, with about 56% saying they supported the effort and 40% opposed, according to April Reuters/Ipsos polling. Their views broke down along party lines with 89% of Republicans, but just 26% of Democrats, supportive.

          'SUPERVISORY POWERS'

          The San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in a 2-1 ruling on May 30 denied the administration's request to halt the judge's ruling. That prompted the Justice Department's June 2 emergency request to the Supreme Court to halt Illston's order.

          "The Constitution does not erect a presumption against presidential control of agency staffing, and the president does not need special permission from Congress to exercise core Article II powers," the Justice Department told the court, referring to the constitution's section delineating presidential authority.

          Allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its "breakneck reorganization," the plaintiffs told the court, would mean that "programs, offices and functions across the federal government will be abolished, agencies will be radically downsized from what Congress authorized, critical government services will be lost and hundreds of thousands of federal employees will lose their jobs."

          The Supreme Court in recent months has let Trump's administration resume deporting migrants to countries other than their own without offering them a chance to show the harms they could face and end temporary legal status previously granted on humanitarian grounds to hundreds of thousands of migrants.

          In addition, it has allowed Trump to implement his ban on transgender people in the U.S. military, blocked a judge's order for the administration to rehire thousands of fired employees, twice sided with DOGE and curbed the power of federal judges to impose nationwide rulings impeding presidential policies.

          Source: Reuters

          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share
          FastBull
          Copyright © 2026 FastBull Ltd

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

          TelegramInstagramTwitterfacebooklinkedin
          App Store Google Play Google Play
          Products
          Charts

          Chats

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

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Poster Maker

          Affiliate Program

          Risk Disclosure

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

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

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

          Not Logged In

          Log in to access more features

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

          Log In

          Sign Up

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