JPMorgan warns global oil supply disruptions of 13.7 million bpd in April could push Brent to $150 and lift US inflation to 4%, with the Fed on hold well into 2027.Summary:Global oil supply disruptions reached 13.7 million barrels per day in April, equal to roughly 14% of total world demand, with inventories drawing down at 7.1 million bpd to partially cover the gapThe market remained short by an estimated two million bpd even after that drawdown, with spare capacity from Saudi Arabia and the UAE effectively unavailable due to Strait of Hormuz closuresGlobal oil demand fell by 4.3 million bpd in April, nearly double peak demand destruction recorded during the 2008 financial crisisJPMorgan puts near-term Brent in a $120 to $130 range, with $150-plus possible if disruption extends into mid-May; Citi has warned of $150 Brent if Hormuz flows remain blocked into JuneJPMorgan's base case has US headline CPI reaching 4% by May, with all three of its scenarios keeping the Fed on hold well into 2027JPMorgan expects Brent to average $96 per barrel in 2026, with the market shifting into meaningful oversupply from September as Gulf producers maximise output after the strait reopens JPMorgan has issued a stark assessment of the global oil market, warning that supply disruptions from the US-Iran conflict are driving demand destruction on a scale not seen since the 2008 financial crisis, and that the inflationary consequences will keep the Federal Reserve sidelined well into 2027.Global supply disruptions reached 13.7 million barrels per day in April, roughly 14% of world demand, according to JPMorgan global commodities strategy head Natasha Kaneva. With spare capacity from Saudi Arabia and the UAE rendered inaccessible by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the world has relied heavily on inventory draws to bridge the gap, pulling down stockpiles at a rate of 7.1 million bpd last month. Even so, the market remained short by an estimated two million barrels per day.The result has been demand destruction of historic proportions. Global oil demand fell by 4.3 million bpd in April, almost double the peak loss recorded during the financial crisis, and at price levels that do not look extreme by historical standards. Around 87% of that demand pain is concentrated in the Middle East, Asian frontier economies and Africa, but JPMorgan is explicit that Western consumers face further adjustment ahead. US regular gasoline averaged $4.05 per gallon in late April, up from around $2.88 before the war began, and elevated fuel costs are already beginning to weigh on driving and air travel demand.On prices, JPMorgan puts near-term Brent in a $120 to $130 range, with $150 or above possible if the disruption extends into mid-May. Citi has issued a comparable warning, flagging $150 Brent if Hormuz flows remain blocked into June. Even in JPMorgan's base case, which assumes a June reopening of the strait, the bank expects Brent to average $96 per barrel across 2026, with quarterly averages of $103 in the second quarter and $104 in the third, as inventory stress, tanker shortages and refinery ramp-up constraints keep the market tight long after the chokepoint clears.On inflation, JPMorgan's base case has US headline CPI hitting 4% by May before gradually retreating toward 3% by December and below 2% by April 2027. In its worst-case scenario, a re-escalation that sustains crude above $120 through the summer could push CPI above 5%. Across all three scenarios the bank has modelled, inflation remains above the Fed's 2% target through early next year, leaving rate cuts firmly off the table for now. ---JPMorgan's framing of the current disruption as structurally worse than it appears in headline prices is a significant signal for traders. The bank's $120 to $130 near-term Brent range, with $150-plus possible, sits well above levels that would ordinarily trigger coordinated policy responses, and the acknowledgement that markets are still short by two million barrels per day even after historic inventory draws suggests the physical tightness has not been fully priced in. The forecast of Brent averaging $96 for the full year 2026, with third-quarter peaks around $104, gives commodity desks a relatively firm ceiling to trade against, while the projected shift to oversupply from September as Gulf producers maximise output post-reopening introduces a sharp directional pivot to watch for in forward curves. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

HSBC raised its year-end 2026 S&P 500 target to 7,650 from 7,500, lifting EPS growth forecasts by 8% on stronger Q1 results, while warning the rally remains dangerously narrow. Summary:HSBC Global Investment Research raised its year-end 2026 S&P 500 target to 7,650 from 7,500 on 11 MayThe revision was accompanied by an 8% upgrade to 2026 index EPS estimates, with HSBC now projecting earnings per share growth of around 20%, or $325Magnificent Seven megacap technology stocks were cited as the primary driver of gains, per HSBC analyst Nicole InuiHSBC outlined four conditions under which the index could exceed 8,000: a tech re-rating adding 300 to 700 points, laggard sector recovery adding around 130 points, AI-driven margin gains contributing 200 points, and a favourable rates-and-growth backdrop adding 300 pointsThe bank warned that most S&P 500 constituents remain below their 52-week highs despite the index sitting at record levels, flagging concentration riskDownside risks identified include persistently high oil prices, a potential slowdown in tech earnings against heavy capital expenditure, and a hawkish Federal Reserve pivot if inflation accelerates HSBC Global Investment Research has raised its year-end 2026 target for the S&P 500 to 7,650, up from a prior forecast of 7,500, citing stronger-than-expected corporate earnings and an 8% upgrade to its index earnings per share estimates. The bank now projects EPS growth of around 20% for 2026, equivalent to $325 per share, with Magnificent Seven megacap technology firms continuing to account for a disproportionate share of those gains.The revision follows what HSBC characterised as a solid first-quarter earnings season, which helped the S&P 500 recover to record highs. Analyst Nicole Inui, writing in the bank's research note, acknowledged that the recent advance has been driven by a relatively small group of names, with the majority of index constituents still trading below their 52-week highs. That divergence between headline performance and underlying breadth is, in HSBC's view, both a vulnerability and a source of potential upside.If participation broadens and more sectors join the rally, the bank believes the index could move beyond its new base target. HSBC mapped out four scenarios under which the S&P 500 could surpass 8,000. A re-rating of technology valuations, potentially catalysed by high-profile AI-sector IPOs, could contribute between 300 and 700 points. A recovery in underperforming sectors, as geopolitical and trade uncertainties ease, could add around 130 points. Wider adoption of artificial intelligence driving margin improvements across industries could contribute a further 200 points. Finally, a backdrop of falling long-term interest rates alongside resilient economic growth could add 300 points.The bank was careful to balance its optimism with a set of clearly stated risks. Sustained elevated oil prices were flagged as a potential drag on economic growth and corporate margins. A slowdown in technology sector earnings, at a time when capital expenditure demands remain high, was identified as a specific concern. HSBC also warned that a shift toward a more hawkish Federal Reserve stance, if inflation were to re-accelerate, could undermine the rate-sensitive conditions that have supported equity valuations. Sentiment, the bank noted, is on shakier ground than earnings alone would suggest. ---HSBC's upward revision adds institutional weight to a market already trading at record highs, which may reinforce near-term bullish sentiment and support further inflows into large-cap technology names. However, the bank's own caution about rally breadth is the more telling signal for traders: an index carried by a handful of AI-linked megacaps is more vulnerable to sharp reversals if that leadership group disappoints. The flagging of elevated oil prices as a downside risk is directly relevant to energy markets, suggesting HSBC sees sustained fuel costs as a macro drag capable of slowing corporate earnings growth more broadly and complicating the Federal Reserve's rate path. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

The Trump administration will loan 53.3 million barrels from the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve to nine companies, part of a broader IEA-coordinated release of around 400 million barrels to cool war-driven oil prices. Summary:The Trump administration announced a loan of 53.3 million barrels from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to nine companies, including Exxon Mobil, Trafigura and Marathon Petroleum, per the Department of EnergyCompanies borrowed only around 58% of the 92.5 million barrels the DOE had offered last month, according to the reportThe DOE had already loaned roughly 80 million barrels earlier this spring and is targeting a total release of 172 million barrels, per the Department of EnergyThe US committed to releasing 172 million barrels as part of a March agreement with more than 30 IEA member countries to collectively release around 400 million barrels, aimed at countering the price impact of Iran's closure of the Strait of HormuzIEA executive director Fatih Birol described the conflict as the largest energy crisis ever recorded and said the agency stood ready to authorise further releases if supply disruptions continued, per statements made on 7 MayUS gasoline prices averaged $4.52 a gallon as of Monday, the highest since 2022, according to AAA motor club dataThe Trump administration will loan 53.3 million barrels of crude oil from the United States Strategic Petroleum Reserve to nine energy companies, the Department of Energy announced on Monday, as Washington steps up efforts to ease fuel prices driven sharply higher by the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran.The companies taking up the loan include Exxon Mobil, Trafigura and Marathon Petroleum. Combined, they drew down roughly 58% of the 92.5 million barrels the DOE had made available last month, a lower uptake than Washington had sought. The DOE had already released around 80 million barrels from the SPR earlier this spring and is working toward a total drawdown of 172 million barrels.That figure was agreed in March as part of a coordinated pact with more than 30 International Energy Agency member countries to release a combined 400 million barrels onto global markets. The agreement was a direct response to Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz, the critical waterway through which roughly one in five barrels of the world's daily oil supply normally flows. The closure has driven up prices across energy markets and pushed pump prices to multi-year highs for American consumers.IEA executive director Fatih Birol has called the conflict the largest energy crisis the world has ever faced. Speaking earlier this month, Birol said member countries have so far released around 20% of their available reserves and that the agency stands ready to authorise additional releases if supply disruptions from the war persist.The SPR, stored in underground caverns at four sites along the Texas and Louisiana coastlines, currently holds around 384 million barrels. Oil loaned from the reserve must be repaid in crude, with premiums of up to 24%, a structure the DOE says allows it to stabilise markets without any cost to taxpayers.The political stakes are considerable. Average US gasoline prices reached $4.52 a gallon on Monday, the highest level since 2022, placing pressure on Republican lawmakers who are seeking to defend narrow congressional majorities in November's midterm elections.--- The partial uptake of the DOE's loan offer, with companies borrowing only 58% of the available 92.5 million barrels, suggests demand for reserve oil is softer than Washington anticipated, which could signal some easing in physical market tightness. However, US gasoline prices at a decade-high average of $4.52 a gallon point to sustained consumer fuel pressure that carries political risk ahead of November midterms. The IEA's warning that this constitutes the largest energy crisis on record, combined with readiness to authorise further reserve releases, keeps a ceiling on how far prices can rally before coordinated intervention intensifies. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

UAE carried out covert strikes on Iran as Gulf war escalated, WSJ report saysUS stocks close marginally higher.Copper refuses to break despite the Iran warCrude oil futures settle at $98.07Iran is ready to dilute highly enriched uranium to levels of 3.7% and 20%U.S. Treasury auctions off $58 billion of three-year notes at a high yield of 3.965%Axios: Trump to meet with his national security team to discuss the way for in Iran war.Trump: Iran war will be over soon.Iran news: Pres Trump is considering renewing Project FreedomWhy the technicals for Meta Platforms are troubling for investorsinvestingLive Academy Launches Essentials of Technical AnalysisUS existing home sales for April 4.02M versus 4.05M estimateThe USD is higher to start the new trading week.Bias is higher for major pairs technicallyinvestingLive European markets wrap: A more tepid mood as US-Iran talks hit a snag againA fairly slow start to the trading week despite little headway is peace negotiations between the US and Iran over the weekend. President Trump sharply criticized Iran’s response to the reported U.S. 14-point peace framework, calling it “totally unacceptable,” “garbage,” and “unbelievably weak.” He said he did not even finish reading the response because he felt Iran was “playing games.” Trump also said the ceasefire was “on life support” following Tehran’s counterproposal, signaling growing frustration that negotiations may be breaking down. The U.S. proposal reportedly included: A long-term halt or severe limits on uranium enrichment Removal of highly enriched uranium from Iran Dismantling or reduction of key nuclear facilities Restrictions tied to regional proxy groups and missile programs Iran’s response reportedly focused more on: Ending the war and military operations Lifting sanctions and blockades Reopening oil exports and shipping lanes War reparations Maintaining parts of its nuclear infrastructure and enrichment rights That gap appears to be the core sticking point. Trump indicated the Iranian response failed to seriously address the nuclear demands that Washington views as essential.The stalemate comes ahead of the meeting between US and China. Ahead of that meeting the US treasury enacted sanctions on 12 individuals and entities for aiding Iran's oil shipments to China. China relies on oil from the middle east. The US dollar is ending the day mixed to modestly higher against the major currencies today, with the greenback showing its strongest gains versus the Japanese yen while posting only modest changes elsewhere. The moves come as traders continue to balance higher crude oil prices, shifting yield dynamics, and ongoing geopolitical headlines tied to Iran developments.The clearest directional move is in the USDJPY, where the pair is up 0.36% to 157.21. Higher US yields and firmer oil prices helped support the dollar against the yen, with the pair remaining near session highs at 157.27. The move higher suggests buyers remain in control in that pair for now.Against the European currencies, the dollar is little changed overall. The EURUSD is down slightly by -0.03% at 1.1780, while the GBPUSD is lower by -0.15% at 1.3612. The modest declines imply mild dollar buying versus both the euro and pound, although neither pair has broken away aggressively from recent ranges. UK PM Starmer's run as PM is under stress after a poor showing at the recent elections. The USDCHF is also showing dollar strength, with the pair up 0.18% at 0.7777. The Swiss franc had been one of the stronger currencies in recent weeks, so today’s rebound in USDCHF reflects some short-covering and stabilization in the dollar.Commodity-linked currencies are more mixed. The USDCAD is trading slightly higher by 0.02% at 1.3679 as traders weigh stronger crude oil prices against broader US dollar demand. Meanwhile, the AUDUSD is essentially flat at 0.7247, showing only a 0.04% decline, suggesting the Australian dollar is holding relatively firm despite the broader dollar bid.The NZDUSD is also little changed but weaker on the day, down -0.08% at 0.5960. The New Zealand dollar has lagged the Australian dollar slightly, although price action remains relatively contained overall.Overall, the dollar’s gains today are being led by strength against the yen and Swiss franc, while the euro, pound, and commodity currencies are holding in relatively narrow trading ranges as markets continue to assess the macro and geopolitical backdrop.The US yields moved higher with the 2 year up 5.9 basis points to 3.951%. The 10 year yield rose by 4.8 basis points to 4.4124%. The US treasury auctioned off $58B of 3 year notes to kickoff the coupon auctions for the week, to tepid demand (I gave it an below average grade of D+). The treasury will auction 10 and 30 year coupon issues tomorrow and on Wednesday.US stock muddled down and up and is closing modestly higher. The small cap Russell was not bothered by the higher yields and rose by0.33%. The S&P and the Dow each gained by a modest 0.19%. The Nasdaq increased by an even more modest 0.10%.Crude oil move higher by $2.94 at $98.34. Gold increased by $23 to $4736 while silver surged by $5.87 to $86.17 and closed at the highest level since March 10. The price also closed above the 100 day MA This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The UAE secretly carried out military strikes on Iran, including hitting a refinery on Lavan Island in April, as part of the broader Gulf conflict, the Wall Street Journal (gated) reported. Summary:The UAE conducted covert military strikes on Iran, including an attack on a refinery on Lavan Island in the Persian Gulf in early April, according to the Wall Street JournalThe Lavan strike sparked a large fire and knocked much of the refinery's capacity offline for months, per the WSJIran responded with a barrage of missiles and drones against the UAE and Kuwait, and has targeted the UAE with more than 2,800 missiles and drones throughout the conflict, according to the reportThe US was not opposed to the UAE strikes, with Washington quietly welcoming Gulf state participation in the campaign, per people familiar with the matter cited by the WSJThe UAE backed UN resolutions authorising force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and took additional steps against Iran's financial interests, including closing Iranian-linked institutions in Dubai and restricting visas for Iranian nationals, according to the reportThe United Arab Emirates secretly carried out military strikes against Iran during the Gulf conflict, including an attack on a key oil refinery, according to a report by the Wall Street Journal, marking a significant escalation in the role played by Gulf Arab states in the war.The strikes, which Abu Dhabi has not publicly acknowledged, included an attack on Iran's Lavan Island refinery in the Persian Gulf in early April, timed roughly with the announcement of a ceasefire following a five-week air campaign. The strike caused a large fire and took much of the facility's processing capacity offline for months. Iran attributed the attack to enemy action at the time and launched a retaliatory barrage of missiles and drones against the UAE and Kuwait in response.Washington was not troubled by the UAE action, with the US quietly welcoming involvement from Gulf states willing to participate in the campaign. The White House declined to address questions about the UAE's role directly but reiterated that President Trump retains all options in the region.The UAE's willingness to strike Iran directly reflects a fundamental shift in how Abu Dhabi views the threat posed by Tehran. Iran targeted the UAE with more than 2,800 missiles and drones during the conflict, more than any other country including Israel, hammering the country's air traffic, tourism and property markets and prompting widespread layoffs and furloughs. Officials in the Gulf have said the attacks have reshaped the UAE's strategic outlook, with Iran now viewed as a rogue actor directly threatening the country's economic and social model.The UAE is equipped with a capable air force, including French Mirage fighters and advanced F-16 jets supported by refuelling aircraft, airborne command systems and surveillance drones. Publicly available imagery circulated in mid-March appeared to show aircraft not belonging to Israel or the US operating over Iran, fuelling speculation about Emirati involvement. Researchers tracking open-source material later pointed to images purportedly showing Mirage fighters and Chinese-made Wing Loong drones in action.Beyond military action, the UAE moved against Iran's financial interests by closing Iranian-linked schools and clubs in Dubai and restricting visas and transit rights for Iranian nationals, steps that cut into an economic lifeline that had allowed Iran to circumvent Western sanctions. Abu Dhabi also backed UN resolutions authorising the use of force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, signalling it is prepared to escalate further to protect regional shipping lanes.Analysts say Tehran's strategy of drawing Gulf Arab states into the conflict has deepened political divisions within the region, even as it has hardened the UAE's alignment with the United States and Israel. ---The confirmation of UAE strikes on Iranian energy infrastructure raises the risk premium on Persian Gulf supply significantly. Lavan Island is a key node in Iran's oil export and processing network, and further targeting of similar facilities could disrupt regional flows. Markets will also weigh the risk of Iranian retaliation against UAE energy and trade infrastructure, given the scale of missile and drone attacks already sustained. The UAE's decision to back UN resolutions authorising force to reopen the Strait of Hormuz signals it is prepared to escalate further if Iranian chokepoints on shipping are not lifted. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

Major US stock indices closed higher on the day, with the Russell 2000 leading the charge with a modest gain of 0.33%. Both the Dow and the S&P rose by 0.19%, while the NASDAQ index increased by 0.10%.The stock market winners and losers showed a sharply bifurcated tone today, with investors aggressively rewarding select technology, commodity, and infrastructure-related names while rotating out of consumer, retail, travel, and some high-growth momentum stocks. Semiconductor and AI-linked shares helped power many of the session’s biggest gainers, while weakness in consumer discretionary and select technology names weighed on the downside. The divergence highlighted a market still willing to chase growth and momentum in favored sectors, but equally quick to punish stocks facing valuation pressure, slowing growth concerns, or profit taking.Some of the biggest large cap winners (Gains of 5% or More) Corning (GLW): +10.89% Barrick Mining (B): +9.02% Qualcomm (QCOM): +8.42% Vertiv Holdings (VRT): +8.23% CF Industries (CF): +8.23% Coinbase Global (COIN): +7.68% Western Digital (WDC): +7.46% Papa John’s (PZZA): +7.19% Micron (MU): +6.50% Ciena Corp (CIEN): +6.09% First Solar (FSLR): +6.06% Nebius NV (NBIS): +5.11% Some of the biggest losers (Losses of 5% or More) Whirlpool (WHR): -8.59% Shake Shack (SHAK): -8.08% Shopify (SHOP): -7.13% Intuitive Surgical (ISRG): -6.67% Target (TGT): -5.43% Super Micro Computer (SMCI): -5.23% Dell Technologies (DELL): -5.16% Celsius Holdings (CELH): -5.11%The market wrestled with the prospects for success or failure from the Middle East. China is also a focus of this week as President Trump along with a number of corporate executives and government officials will be meeting with China's Xi along with other China officials starting Wednesday.Tomorrow the CPI data will be released with expectations for the headline to rise by 0.6% while the core (ex food and energy) is expected to rise by 0.3%. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The Bank of Japan will release its 'Summary' of the April meeting today. This was an 'on hold' meeting, but was eventful. From the day:The Bank of Japan left its short-term policy rate unchanged at 0.75%, as widely expected, but delivered a significantly more hawkish inflation outlook alongside the decision, sharply revising up its price forecasts while acknowledging that the Iran war and elevated crude oil prices are clouding Japan's growth trajectory.The decision to hold was not unanimous. Three board members, Nakagawa, Takata and Tamura, proposed raising the short-term rate target to 1.0% from 0.75%, a move that was turned down by a majority vote. The dissent is notable in its scale: three members pushing for a hike simultaneously, even against the backdrop of war-driven economic uncertainty, signals that the hawkish minority on the board is growing more vocal and more willing to act.Takata, in justifying his proposal, said the BOJ's price stability target had been more or less achieved and that inflation risks in Japan were already skewed to the upside, driven by second-round effects from overseas price pressures feeding into domestic costs. Nakagawa made a similar argument, saying that even with the Middle East situation remaining unclear, economic developments and accommodative financial conditions meant risks to prices were tilted upward.Ueda's press conference followed:BOJ governor Ueda vows to stay on the path of raising interest ratesThe Bank of Japan (BOJ) releases a "Summary of Opinions" after each monetary policy meeting. It serves as a record of the discussion and views of the Policy Board members on various economic and financial issues.Key points about the Summary:The summary includes the views of the Policy Board members on economic conditions, both domestically and globally. This includes assessments of economic growth, inflation, and employment trends, among other indicators.The summary also outlines the Policy Board members' views on the effectiveness of the BOJ's current monetary policy measures, including interest rate policy, asset purchases, and yield curve control. Members may discuss the pros and cons of these policies and their potential impact on the economy.The summary includes discussions on the outlook for monetary policy and the potential risks to the economy. Board members may express their views on the appropriate timing and direction of future policy changes, as well as the potential impact of external factors such as global economic conditions.The summary also includes any dissenting views among the Policy Board members. If a member disagrees with the majority view on a particular issue, they may express their own opinion and rationale.In a few week's time we'll get the Minutes of this meeting. The Minutes are a more detailed record of the discussions and decisions made during the meeting.The Minutes include a more complete record of the views expressed, including any dissents or alternative opinions that may not be included in the summary.The Summary of Opinions is typically released a few days after the policy meeting, while the Minutes are published about a month later. This means that the Summary of Opinions can provide more up-to-date information on the BOJ's current stance and view on the economy and monetary policy.The Summary of Opinions is usually written in a more accessible language, making it easier to understand the BOJ's views on monetary policy.The Minutes, on the other hand, are often more technical and may require a deeper understanding of economics and financial markets.The Summary of Opinions is typically shorter than the Minutes. This article was written by Eamonn Sheridan at investinglive.com.

The remarkable thing about copper in 2026 isn’t where it’s trading—it’s where it isn’t. With the Strait of Hormuz still a battleground, oil dancing around levels that would normally crush industrial metals, and global growth forecasts being marked down by the week, copper is holding $6.45/lb on Comex and refusing to break. That’s a stone’s throw from the all-time highs set in late January, before the war even started. “Dr. Copper” is supposed to be the world’s most reliable economist. In this kind of macro environment—war in the Persian Gulf, blocked shipping lanes, energy shocks—the textbook says copper should be falling but it’s still threatening fresh highs. The bear case wrote itself when the missiles started flying. Bloomberg Intelligence laid it out clearly: oil at $150-plus and curbed flows through Hormuz could drive copper below $10,000/t and tip the refined market into a 100,000–200,000 ton surplus. JPMorgan’s EMEA mining team noted that copper has historically troughed about 25% below peak during major macro shocks, with Dominic O’Kane flagging additional downside risk if global growth headwinds accelerate. The logic is straightforward—stagflationary energy shocks destroy demand. Copper, as a cyclical industrial metal, should follow. It hasn’t.For context, $6.45/lb on Comex translates to roughly $14,200 per tonne—effectively aligning the US price with the upper end of recent LME trading ranges.What’s emerged instead is a market that looks almost intellectually disorienting. Few spectacles in commodities are as puzzling as a metal trading near record prices while visible inventories build and macro conditions deteriorate. Yet that is precisely where copper sits today. On the LME, three-month copper recently pushed toward $14,000/t, brushing record territory even as the geopolitical backdrop deteriorates. Traders have effectively shrugged off the war, focusing instead on a more nuanced supply-demand balance that is tightening beneath the surface. The explanation begins on the supply side—and ironically, the war itself is part of the bullish story. The Middle East conflict has disrupted shipments of sulphuric acid, a critical input in copper refining. Gulf countries account for roughly 45% of global sulfur supply, and the near-halt of tanker traffic through Hormuz has choked availability. In response, China has banned sulphuric acid exports from May through at least December, removing an estimated 3 million tonnes from the seaborne market. That hits major importers like Chile, Indonesia, and India directly.This matters more than it initially appears. Roughly 15% of global copper production is directly reliant on sulphuric acid availability. Chile alone depends heavily on imported acid for leaching operations, and disruptions are already feeding through. Chilean production was down around 6% in Q1 2026 versus the same period in 2025, even before the acid shortage fully tightened the system. Costs are rising as well—Codelco estimated a roughly 5% increase in production costs tied to the war-related disruptions. The second pillar holding copper up is demand—and specifically, the Chinese bid. Chinese buyers account for roughly 60% of global consumption, and they’ve been aggressively buying the dip. After being priced out during earlier rallies, they’ve used macro-driven weakness to rebuild inventories. O’Kane noted that copper held steady in mid-March at around $12,000/t despite severe macro tensions, largely explained by strong Chinese buying. That bid has acted as a floor under the market through the worst of the war headlines.There’s also a structural demand component that is increasingly difficult to ignore. Citi points to three drivers: the energy transition, AI infrastructure buildout, and rising military demand. The last of these is underappreciated. Military-related copper consumption is estimated at roughly 2.5 million tons annually—about 9% of global demand—and modern warfare is becoming more metal-intensive. Drones, missiles, and electrified systems all increase copper intensity, and defense budgets are still expanding. Historical data from the Russia-Ukraine war suggests copper demand can grow faster than military spending itself. On top of that, strategic stockpiling is emerging as a new layer of demand. The U.S. “Project Vault,” a $12 billion initiative aimed at building strategic reserves of critical minerals, adds another incremental buyer to the system.The mine side completes the picture. Production has been constrained by a series of disruptions across key regions. Operational setbacks in Chile, Africa, and Indonesia throughout 2025 have already pushed the market toward its first annual contraction in output since the pandemic. Events like the Kakula earthquake and Grasberg mudslide are still working through supply chains and the full resumption of Grasberg was recently pushed further back. UBS has responded by raising its 2026 deficit forecast to around 520,000 tons, reflecting a widening gap between supply and demand. The longer-term setup I've been writing about for years hasn’t changed—and if anything, it has tightened. The International Copper Study Group sees a 178,000-ton surplus in 2025 flipping to a 150,000-ton deficit in 2026. Morgan Stanley is more aggressive, forecasting the most severe copper deficit in more than 20 years, with demand exceeding supply by roughly 600,000 tons next year. Citi goes further still, suggesting that once the Strait of Hormuz reopens and sentiment improves, prices could push toward $15,000/t by year-end.Not everyone is convinced. StoneX has warned that speculative positioning looks overdone, calling current price levels “unsustainable.” Goldman Sachs expects copper to trade in a $10,000–$11,000/t range next year, arguing that near-term fundamentals don’t fully justify the rally. There is also the issue of inventory—global visible stocks have climbed to around 1.5 million tons, though much of that build is geographically concentrated in the U.S. ahead of tariff risks, while other regions tighten. Still, the key point is that copper has erased the losses sustained during more than six weeks of war—and then some. The market is no longer trading purely on macro fear. Instead, it’s pricing a structurally tight system where supply constraints, policy-driven demand, and opportunistic Chinese buying are offsetting what would normally be a deeply bearish environment.That’s the paradox of copper in 2026. The macro says it should be breaking but it isn't and that might be a tell, particularly if this war ever ends. This article was written by Adam Button at investinglive.com.

The AUDUSD initially dipped during the Asia-Pacific session, but buyers stepped in against a key swing area between 0.7221 and 0.7227. That zone had acted as a ceiling from mid-April through early May before the pair finally broke higher. Since then, the price has traded back and forth around the area, with the level alternating between support and resistance.On Friday, the pair moved back above the zone and successfully held it as support both Friday and again today. The repeated inability to move back below that area increases its technical importance for both the short term and the broader near-term outlook.For sellers to regain more control, the price would need to move below the rising 100-hour moving average at 0.72336 and then break back under the 0.7221–0.7227 swing area. Such a move would disappoint buyers who have been leaning against support over the last two sessions.If the pair does break lower, traders would then target the 200-hour moving average near 0.7205, followed by another key swing area between 0.7193 and 0.7200. A move below those levels would strengthen the bearish bias further.On the topside, the next key targets are Thursday’s high near 0.7263 and Wednesday’s high at 0.7277. That resistance zone carries added importance because it lines up with a broader swing area from March 2022 between 0.7267 and 0.7283. Last week’s high stalled within that range, reinforcing it as a major resistance ceiling.As a result, the technical picture is becoming well defined. Close support comes in near 0.7221, while close resistance extends up to 0.7283. Traders will be looking for a break outside either boundary to provide the next short-term directional clue, with momentum expected to build in the direction of the breakout. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The price of crude oil futures settled at $98.07, up $2.65 or 2.78% on the day. Looking at the hourly chart, the low price today reached $96.13, briefly pushing below the rising 100-hour moving average, currently at $96.96 (blue line on the chart below). However, sellers were unable to sustain momentum below that key support level, allowing buyers to regain some control and helping to neutralize the bearish bias.At the same time, upside momentum also stalled ahead of the 200-hour moving average, currently at $100.74. The high price today reached $100.37, just short of that key resistance target.As a result, crude oil remains trapped between the 100-hour moving average support below at $96.96 and the 200-hour moving average resistance above at $100.74. A break outside either boundary would give traders the next stronger directional clue.On a break higher, traders look toward the downward sloping trend line as a next key target level. That level comes in at around the $107.68. On a break back below the 100 hour moving average traders would look toward $93.74 followed by the upward sloping trend line near $91.60. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The NZDUSD moved lower during the Asian-Pacific session in sympathy with the broader US dollar strength. However, each dip toward the rising 100-hour moving average attracted willing buyers, with the pair bouncing on several separate tests of that key support level. The inability to break below the 100-hour moving average helped give buyers the green light to push the pair higher during the North American session.The 100-hour moving average currently comes in at 0.5948 and continues to trend higher. The rebound has taken the price up to 0.5967, putting the pair near the highs from Friday’s trade and close to a downward-sloping trendline connecting the highs from last Wednesday and Thursday on the hourly chart.As a result, the technical picture is becoming well defined in the short term: buyers are successfully defending support against the rising 100-hour moving average, while sellers are leaning against resistance near Friday’s highs and the descending trendline resistance from last week.If buyers can break above the trendline resistance and Friday’s high, traders would begin targeting last week’s highs between 0.5983 and 0.5990. A move above that zone would strengthen the bullish bias further and put the pair at its highest level since February. Beyond that, the next upside targets come in near the February 26 high at 0.6013, followed by the broader swing area between 0.6055 and 0.6091 — the highs for the year.On the downside, a move back below the rising 100-hour moving average at 0.5948 would shift attention toward the old ceiling area between 0.5927 and 0.5935. If sellers can get below that level, the 200 hour moving average at 0.5912 (and moving higher) would be targeted. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Iran is ready to downblend highly enriched uranium to levels of 3.7% and 20%, according to Al Jazeera citing a source. Washington refused to transfer the highly enriched uranium to Russia and instead suggested a third country receive it. Iran rejected the transfer of Uranium stockpiles outside of Iran. Washington wanted a halt to uranium enrichment for 20 years, but Iran rejected the proposal. It also rejected a proposal to pay Iran reparations for war losses.How does this compare to the JCPOA that Obama negotiated in 2015 and which Trump tore up in 2018.Uranium enrichment levelsCurrent reported proposal: Iran would dilute highly enriched uranium down to 3.7% and 20%. The US reportedly wants Iran to give up uranium enriched to 60%. JCPOA: Iran was limited to enrichment of 3.67% for 15 years. Iran was not permitted to accumulate 20% or higher enriched uranium. The agreement effectively eliminated Iran’s stockpile of medium- and highly-enriched uranium at the time. Uranium stockpile locationCurrent reported proposal: Washington reportedly wanted enriched uranium transferred out of Iran, potentially to Russia or another country. Iran rejected transferring uranium abroad. JCPOA: Iran shipped roughly 98% of its enriched uranium stockpile out of the country, mainly to Russia. This was one of the central pillars of the agreement because it dramatically extended Iran’s breakout timeline. 60% enriched uraniumCurrent reported proposal: The US reportedly demanded Iran abandon its 60% enriched uranium stockpile. JCPOA: Iran had no 60% enriched uranium under the deal. Enrichment above 3.67% was prohibited. The existence of 60% uranium today is viewed by Western powers as much closer to weapons-grade capability than what existed under the JCPOA. Enrichment haltCurrent reported proposal: Washington reportedly sought a halt to enrichment for 20 years. Iran rejected it. JCPOA: Iran was allowed limited civilian enrichment under strict caps and monitoring. The JCPOA was not a total enrichment ban. Key restrictions had “sunset clauses,” with several major limits lasting 10–15 years. Monitoring and inspectionsCurrent reported proposal: Iran reportedly offered dilution under IAEA supervision. JCPOA: The IAEA had extensive monitoring powers, including: Continuous surveillance of nuclear facilities Monitoring of centrifuge production Regular inspections Oversight of uranium supply chains Economic compensation and sanctionsCurrent reported proposal: Iran reportedly sought reparations for war losses, which Washington rejected. JCPOA: The deal focused on sanctions relief: Removal/suspension of nuclear-related sanctions Release of frozen assets Re-entry into global oil and financial markets The JCPOA did not include war reparations as there was no war damage. Key takeawayThe reported framework appears far more difficult to bridge than the original JCPOA because: Iran now possesses 60% enriched uranium, which did not exist under the 2015 deal. Iran appears unwilling to export enriched uranium stockpiles, while that step was essential to the JCPOA. The US position described here appears stricter in some respects, including the reported push for a much longer enrichment halt. The reported proposal resembles a partial rollback and containment framework more than a return to the original JCPOA structure.History cannot be rewritten. Who knows where Iran would have been if the original deal was in place and not recinded in 2018. What we do know (most likely) is if Trump made a deal that was less than the 2015 agreement, it would be political fuel for the Dems against Trump and the GOP. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

U.S. Treasury auctions of $58 billion of 3-year notes at a high yield of 3.965%. WI level at the time of the auction 3.959%Tail 0.6 basis points versus a six month average of -0.4 basis points.Bid to cover 2.54X versus 2.67X six month averageDealers 16.9% versus six month average of 12.7%.Directds 20.14% versus six month average of 23.4%Indirects 62.96% versus six month average of 63.9%Auction Grade D+The auction was weak with a positive tail, bid to cover less than the six month average, the dealers being saddled with more of the average. The domestic buyers were weak while the international buyers were modestly lower than the average. The grade is less than a C and with weakness across the board, I give it a D+ grade This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The GBPUSD initially moved lower during the Asia-Pacific session following the election results, as traders reacted to the uncertainty surrounding the outcome. However, that same uncertainty also fueled speculation that potential policy changes could ultimately prove supportive for the economy, helping buyers regain confidence as the session progressed.Technically, buyers continued to lean against the rising 100-hour moving average (currently at 1.35924), with dips finding willing support. That buying helped fuel a stronger upside rotation during the North American session. The move higher pushed the pair above a key topside trendline near 1.3627, increasing the bullish bias.After breaking above the trendline, the price targeted last week’s high near 1.3643. A sustained move above that level — and above the early May high at 1.36569 — would open the door for further upside momentum and take the pair to its highest level since mid-February.Beyond that, traders would begin targeting the next major swing area between 1.3725 and 1.3772. If bullish momentum continues through that zone, attention would then shift toward the 2026 high from January at 1.38688.It would take a move back below 1.3627 and then the rising 100 hour MA at 1.35924, to increase the bearish bias today and going forward. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

President Trump is meeting with his national security team Monday to discuss the path forward in the Iran war, including the possibility of resuming military action after negotiations stalled on Sunday, according to Axios citing three U.S. officials. U.S. officials said Trump still wants a deal to end the conflict, but Iran’s rejection of key demands and refusal to make meaningful concessions on its nuclear program has brought military options back into focus. Officials expected to participate in Monday’s meeting include: Vice President Vance White House envoy Steve Witkoff Secretary of State Rubio Defense Secretary Hegseth Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine CIA Director John Ratcliffe Other senior national security officials Two U.S. officials said Trump is leaning toward some form of military action against Iran to increase pressure on the regime and force concessions on its nuclear program. One U.S. official said Trump would likely “tune them up a bit.” A second official added: “I think we all know where this is going.”It is unlikely the Pres. would order a new attack on Iran ahead of returning back from China. Over the weekend, hopes for a diplomatic breakthrough between the U.S. and Iran faded sharply after Iran delivered what President Trump described as an unacceptable response to the latest U.S. proposal aimed at ending the conflict and restarting broader nuclear negotiations. Trump said he was disappointed with Iran’s reply, calling it “totally unacceptable” and “inappropriate,” while adding that Tehran failed to make meaningful concessions on its nuclear program — a central U.S. demand. According to reports, Iran’s response focused more on ending military operations, lifting sanctions, securing guarantees against future attacks, and preserving aspects of its nuclear program rather than agreeing to the tougher restrictions Washington was seeking This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

The USDCHF continues to lean against its 100-hour moving average as a key resistance barometer. Corrective rallies last week stalled against that moving average on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday — and today’s rally attempt once again failed near the same level. If buyers are to take back more control, the pair needs to break above and stay above the 100-hour MA at 0.77913. Until that happens, the buyers are not winning the technical battle.On the downside, the pair has moved back below a key swing area along with the 61.8% retracement of the move up from the January 2026 low, between 0.7771 and 0.7782. Staying below that zone keeps the sellers firmly in control and shifts focus toward last week’s low at 0.7760. Below that, traders will target the March low at 0.77468. A move beneath those levels would increase the bearish bias and open the door for further downside momentum.For the USDCAD, the pair moved higher on Friday but stalled near a major resistance cluster. The rally tested the 38.2% retracement of the decline from the early-April high at 1.37085, while also reaching the lower end of a swing area between 1.37089 and 1.37149. Adding to the resistance, the falling 200-day moving average comes in near 1.3719. Sellers leaned against that confluence area on Friday, helping to push the pair back lower, with downside momentum extending into today’s session.The next downside target comes in at the rising 100-hour moving average near 1.3642. Below that, traders will look toward the 200-hour moving average at 1.36314, followed by a swing area between 1.36199 and 1.3630. Additional downside support targets come in between 1.35934 and 1.3600. As long as the price remains below the key resistance cluster near 1.3710–1.3720, sellers maintain the near-term technical advantage. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

Trump is speaking and says:Iran war will be over soonWe have wiped out their Navy.Iran is out of weapons, leadership, Army and NavyWill meet with a large group of Generals about IranWants to bring oil prices down.Says they have a plan on Iran. Iran Blockade was part of "military genius"Ceasefire is unbelievable weak. Is on life support. Says GOP should walk away with midtermsTo temporarily reduce tariffs on beef impots as soon as Monday. On other topics:He had a positive call with Russia's Putin. We have a massive amount of oil.The war goes on and so does the promises. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

It The latest Iran-related headlines suggest that tensions in the Middle East remain elevated, but there are also ongoing diplomatic efforts to prevent a broader escalation.Key developments:Trump is reportedly considering restarting “Project Freedom” — the US-led naval effort aimed at reopening and securing commercial shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz after Iran restricted transit in the region. Trump adds that "U.S. Navy guiding ships through the Straits of Hormuz would only be a piece of it"Iran said the US would need to clean up radioactive contamination (“nuclear dust”) at Iranian nuclear facilities allegedly damaged in prior strikes, signaling Tehran is continuing to frame the nuclear issue as unresolved and dangerous. Iran still has not allowed at least one UAE-linked LPG tanker to pass through the Strait of Hormuz, according to Tasnim, reinforcing concerns that shipping disruptions remain in place despite ceasefire discussions. Pakistan is actively mediating between the US and Iran, with Pakistani sources saying there is “no immediate danger” of the war restarting. Pakistan has emerged as a key intermediary in negotiations over sanctions relief, shipping access, and broader de-escalation. Iran’s proposal to the US reportedly focuses on: ending hostilities, lifting sanctions, easing the naval blockade, and restoring safer shipping conditions in Hormuz. Trump is pushing back against arrest demands for war reparations, as the administration views this to be implications of defeat.On Iran's the price of crude oil hard-line leaders that "they are going to fold". Regime change present Trump says "I will not deal with them until they make a deal."Market implication: The tone is mixed. Continued tanker restrictions and the possible revival of Project Freedom are supportive for oil prices because they keep supply-disruption fears alive. However, the ongoing mediation effort through Pakistan and talk of negotiations are helping limit some of the worst-case geopolitical fears for now.The price of crude oil is trading up $2.12 at $97.50. The high price reached $100.37. The low price was at $96.13.Trump is saying that the $0.18 federal gas tax may be paused for a period of time. He says that they will wait for the prices to come back down and then "phase it back in". So it sounds like the pause in tax is going to happen. The AAA average gas price for regular stayed steady at $4.52. A week ago it was at $4.46. A month ago it was at $4.14, and a year ago the average price was at $3.14. Pres. Trump and other officials will often say that the prices are coming down. It may with the $0.18 pause but that would be an artificial decline. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.

? Tech Sector StumblesToday's trading session saw prominent losses within the tech sector. Notably, Microsoft (MSFT) took a hit, sliding down by 1.11%, while Google (GOOGL) faced a significant decline of 2.01%. The downturn in these tech giants reflects broader market sentiment, with anxiety over high valuations and regulatory scrutiny taking center stage.? Healthcare ImpressesIn stark contrast, the healthcare sector exhibited robust performance today. Eli Lilly (LLY) surged by an impressive 4.05%, driving momentum across the sector, supported by Gilead Sciences (GILD) rising 2.62%. Positive clinical trial results and ongoing demand for innovative treatments buoyed investor confidence.? Consumer Cyclicals and Defensive DentThe consumer cyclical sector experienced setbacks, highlighted by Tesla (TSLA) declining 2.37%. Market pressures from inventory concerns and potential demand challenges seemed to weigh heavily. Likewise, consumer defensive stocks did not fare well, with Procter & Gamble (PG) showing a drop of 2.03%.? Market Sentiment and HighlightsToday's broader market sentiment was a mixed bag, driven largely by industry-specific news and sector rotations. The tech sector's retreat aligns with larger worries about tech valuations, while healthcare's strength hints at investor interest in more defensive, long-term growth plays.Semiconductors Resilient: Bucking today's tech trend, Nvidia (NVDA) rose 1.40%, supported by ongoing demand in AI applications.Financial Sector: Showed slight gains, with Visa (V) up by 1.13% and JPMorgan Chase (JPM) climbing 0.20%, reflecting stable financial market conditions.? Strategic RecommendationsInvestors should consider the volatility in the tech sector as a signal to evaluate their portfolios, perhaps trimming overvalued stocks. Meanwhile, the strength in healthcare suggests potential for growth and stability. Diversification remains key—investing in sectors with strong fundamentals like healthcare and select financials may provide both stability and growth. Staying alert to further regulatory developments affecting tech companies is advisable.For additional analysis and real-time updates, visit InvestingLive.com.? This article was written by Itai Levitan at investinglive.com.

The price of Meta Platforms gapped sharply lower following its April 29 earnings release, as investors reacted negatively to the company’s increased capital spending plans — a development that triggered aggressive selling pressure. On the day of the earnings reaction, the stock fell decisively below its 100-hour moving average, 100-day moving average, and 200-hour moving average, signaling a significant deterioration in the technical picture.Since that break lower, the stock has attempted several corrective rebounds, but sellers have consistently regained control at key technical resistance levels. On both April 30 and again on May 7, rallies stalled near the 200-hour moving average, reinforcing the bearish bias. The May 7 rebound also failed near the 38.2% retracement of the rally from the March 27 low, which came in at $626.10. The high price that day reached $624.98 before rotating lower. The inability to break above both the 38.2% retracement and the 200-hour moving average gave sellers the green light to reassert downside momentum.On Friday, the decline found temporary support near the 50% retracement level at $605.89, with the stock closing at $610.25. However, in today’s trading, the stock gapped back below that midpoint level. The rebound high reached just $604.91 — roughly one dollar short of the broken 50% retracement — allowing sellers to lean once again against former support turned resistance.From a technical perspective, buyers need to reclaim the $605.89 level just to gain a modest short-term foothold. Beyond that, the hurdles become much more difficult. The stock would still need to move back above the broken 38.2% retracement at $626.10 and the rising 200-hour moving average near $630.92 to shift control away from sellers. Ultimately, the 100-hour and 100-day moving averages near $641 remain the larger upside targets that buyers would need to retake to improve the broader technical outlook.Until those resistance levels are reclaimed, sellers continue to hold the stronger hand technically. While short-term rebounds remain possible, the path of least resistance still points lower unless buyers can begin to chip away at the growing list of overhead resistance levels between $605 and $641. This article was written by Greg Michalowski at investinglive.com.