分类: business

  • Trump says he’s lifting certain tariffs on Scotch whisky after royal visit

    Trump says he’s lifting certain tariffs on Scotch whisky after royal visit

    In a social media announcement made Thursday, former U.S. President Donald Trump revealed that he will lift specific tariffs on Scotch whisky, a decision that came just days after King Charles III and Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom completed an official visit to the White House this week.

    Trump posted that the British monarch and his wife convinced him to take a step no other political or diplomatic party had managed to push through, noting that the request barely required any formal asking on their part. He added that industry stakeholders across both countries have long pushed for this policy adjustment, particularly surrounding rules surrounding the wooden barrels used to age both Scotch whisky and American bourbon.

    This tariff announcement fits a longstanding pattern of the Trump administration using alcohol trade policies as a leverage point in international trade negotiations. Just one year prior, Trump made headlines threatening to impose a steep 200% tariff on imported European wine, a move that would have delivered a devastating financial blow to winemaking operations across France and Italy. That threatened tariff ultimately never took effect.

    In response to past U.S. tariff measures, foreign trading partners have repeatedly retaliated with their own targeted tariff threats against American bourbon and other U.S.-made goods. In a previous resolution that eased cross-Atlantic trade tensions, the Trump administration ultimately granted a full tariff exemption for cork, a decision that was widely celebrated by Portugal, the world’s top supplier of the material used to seal most wine bottles.

    Following Trump’s social media announcement, Chris Swonger, president and chief executive officer of the Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, confirmed that the policy change would remove the existing 10% tariff on whisky imported from the United Kingdom. In an official statement, Swonger applauded the former president’s move to reinstate what he called a tested “zero-for-zero” framework for fair, reciprocal trade between the U.S. and the UK. He added that the tariff removal will strengthen longstanding transatlantic economic ties, deliver much-needed market stability for spirit producers on both sides of the Atlantic, and create space for industry growth, capital investment, and job support at a time of global economic uncertainty.

  • Will UAE’s exit spell the end of OPEC?

    Will UAE’s exit spell the end of OPEC?

    After nearly six decades as a core member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the United Arab Emirates’ decision to withdraw from the oil cartel is far more than a symbolic rupture. This unprecedented move lays bare a widening rift between major producing nations over how to adapt to a rapidly shifting global energy landscape, and it will fundamentally erode the bloc’s ability to regulate international crude supplies.

    In the immediate term, the practical impact of the UAE’s departure will remain muted. Global markets still crave every available barrel of oil, and the UAE accounts for just 3 to 4 percent of total worldwide output. But the underlying forces driving the decision carry far greater weight than the exit itself, shaped by a convergence of long-simmering economic tensions and shifting geopolitical priorities that have been accelerated by the ongoing war in Iran.

    For more than a decade, the UAE has poured roughly $150 billion into expanding its crude production capacity, pushing its maximum potential daily output to nearly 5 million barrels. Yet OPEC’s quota system, which is overwhelmingly shaped by de facto bloc leader Saudi Arabia, has barred the UAE from fully utilizing this expanded capacity. Restricted to a daily output of around 3.5 million barrels to keep global supplies tight and prices elevated, the country has been forced to leave more than 1.5 million barrels of daily production capacity idle.

    This mismatch between investment and output has created deep, unresolved tension within the cartel: why pour billions into expanding production if regulatory limits prevent you from selling the extra oil?

    Abu Dhabi’s approach to this question stems from its fundamentally different economic model compared to other major Gulf producers. Unlike Saudi Arabia, which requires an oil price of roughly $90 per barrel to balance its national budget, the UAE can balance its fiscal accounts at prices just below $50 per barrel. This lower break-even point removes much of the incentive for the UAE to support production caps. Instead, the country has centered its strategy on maximizing oil export volumes in the near term.

    This priority is also rooted in long-term projections for global energy demand. as major economies including China rapidly accelerate the transition to electric transportation, long-standing steady growth in oil demand is slowing and is projected to plateau in the coming decades. The UAE is also further along in its own energy transition planning than Saudi Arabia, with a net-zero emissions target for 2050 compared to Riyadh’s 2060 target. From Abu Dhabi’s perspective, the greatest long-term risk is not falling oil prices, but leaving valuable untapped crude in the ground that will never find a buyer as demand declines.

    The timing of the exit is not driven by economics alone. It also reflects a major shift in the UAE’s political and security calculations, particularly in the wake of sustained heavy attacks on the country’s energy infrastructure during the war in Iran. In Abu Dhabi, a growing consensus has emerged that key regional partnerships such as the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) offered very little tangible support to the country during this period of crisis.

    Anwar Gargash, a senior presidential adviser to the UAE government, framed this disillusionment publicly when speaking to reporters. “The GCC’s stance was the weakest historically, considering the nature of the attack and the threat it posed to everyone,” Gargash said, adding “I expected such a weak stance from the Arab League … But I don’t expect it from the GCC, and I am surprised by it.”

    This experience has reinforced the UAE’s push for a more independent foreign policy. Over recent years, the country has deepened security and economic ties with the United States and Israel, building on the 2020 Abraham Accords it signed alongside other Gulf states. Abu Dhabi views its relationship with Israel not only as a direct bilateral economic and security partnership, but also as a key channel for expanding its influence within U.S. political circles. At the same time, bilateral relations between the UAE and Saudi Arabia have grown increasingly strained, with public divisions emerging over both regional conflicts in Yemen and Somalia and conflicting national energy strategies. Against this backdrop, exiting OPEC serves both as an economic adjustment and a clear signal of the UAE’s growing geopolitical independence.

    The UAE’s departure also raises urgent questions about the future cohesion and relevance of OPEC itself. At the height of its power, the cartel controlled more than half of global crude production. Today, that share has fallen to no more than 35 percent, and internal disagreements over production quotas have grown far more pronounced. Quotas, which have long been the core of OPEC’s collective strategy, are increasingly viewed by smaller members as unfair, uneven constraints rather than shared commitments that benefit the entire bloc. Today, only Saudi Arabia holds significant spare production capacity, giving it disproportionate influence over the bloc’s decision-making. The result is an organization that still shapes global market sentiment, but is far less cohesive and unified than it was in previous decades.

    Contrary to some analysis, the UAE’s exit is not an unambiguous win for the United States. Many observers have framed the move as a victory for former U.S. President Donald Trump, who repeatedly criticized OPEC for keeping crude prices elevated. A weaker, more fragmented OPEC would likely lead to higher overall output and lower gasoline prices for U.S. consumers in the short term. However, sustained lower prices would also put significant pressure on higher-cost U.S. shale producers, which have emerged as one of OPEC’s most formidable competitors in recent years. U.S. producers actually benefited from the cartel’s production restraint, which kept prices high enough to support the high costs of shale extraction. What looks like a short-term geopolitical win could therefore turn into a major economic challenge for the U.S. oil sector over time.

    For the moment, the UAE’s exit will not dramatically reshape global oil markets. Current demand is strong enough to absorb the extra supply the UAE can bring online, particularly as global markets rebuild inventories following the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz after the war in Iran. But the deeper significance of the decision lies in what it reveals about the coming transformation of global oil markets.

    Oil producers are no longer united around a single collective strategy. Some, led by Saudi Arabia, continue to prioritize managing scarcity to keep prices elevated. Others, like the UAE, are racing to monetize their existing reserves before demand peaks and their oil becomes stranded, unusable assets. This strategic divergence is only expected to deepen in the coming years, and it may ultimately prove more consequential for global energy markets than any single country’s departure from the OPEC cartel.

    This analysis is by Adi Imsirovic, a lecturer in energy systems at the University of Oxford, republished with permission under a Creative Commons license.

  • Oil strikes 4-year peak, stocks rise

    Oil strikes 4-year peak, stocks rise

    Global financial markets swung through volatile trading on Thursday, driven by dual forces: escalating geopolitical tensions in the Middle East that pushed crude oil prices to a four-year high, and mixed signals from central bank policy and quarterly corporate earnings that left major stock indexes split across regions.

    Crude prices surged more than 7% early in the session, lifting the international benchmark Brent crude to $126 per barrel—its highest level since Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine—before retreating. By 1330 GMT, Brent had fallen 3.7% to $113.72 a barrel, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude dropped 2.5% to $104.23 per barrel.

    The sharp run-up in energy prices stemmed from growing fears that Middle East hostilities will escalate and disrupt global oil supplies. Multiple sources confirmed to Axios that U.S. President Donald Trump is set to receive a briefing from U.S. Central Command head Admiral Brad Cooper on plans for potential new military strikes against Iran, while Trump has warned that an ongoing U.S. blockade of Iranian ports could extend for months. Negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program remain completely stalled, and Iran maintains full control over the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic waterway that carries roughly one-fifth of the world’s daily oil trade.

    “With no sign of any peace talks and fears mounting about an escalation, oil prices have continued their gains,” Jim Reid, Deutsche Bank managing director, noted ahead of the price peak. “Investors are pricing in a more protracted conflict,” he added.

    Beyond energy markets, investor attention remained fixed on major central bank decisions, one day after the U.S. Federal Reserve announced it would hold interest rates steady in the face of war-fueled elevated inflation. The European Central Bank and Bank of England followed the Fed’s lead on Thursday, also keeping rates unchanged. However, the ECB warned that risks to the eurozone’s growth and inflation outlooks have “intensified” due to Middle East tensions and energy supply disruptions, while the Bank of England downgraded its forecast for UK economic growth.

    Fresh economic data released Thursday reflected the growing ripple effects of the conflict. Eurozone first-quarter growth slowed to just 0.1%, while U.S. gross domestic product expanded at a 2% annual rate—slower than analysts had projected—as consumer spending cooled. The Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation gauge also rose 3.5% in March, driven largely by spiking energy costs. Even with the slowdown, Briefing.com analyst Patrick O’Hare said the U.S. data reinforced confidence in the economy’s resilience despite rising prices.

    On Wall Street, major U.S. stock indices opened higher and ended the day in positive territory, lifted by stronger-than-expected quarterly corporate earnings. The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.5% to close at 49,108.93, the S&P 500 added 0.4% to 7,167.28, and the Nasdaq Composite rose 0.6% to 24,829.53. Big tech stocks delivered a mixed performance: Alphabet, Google’s parent company, saw shares jump more than 5% after investors praised the firm’s successful AI transition and strong revenue across core divisions, while Meta shares slumped more than 9% over concerns about its massive planned AI investment.

    Overall, quarterly results have beaten analyst expectations by a wide margin, pushing the estimated average earnings growth for large U.S. companies from 15% to 26%, O’Hare said. “That is just massive, and it is the trajectory that has had the stock market looking confident in the face of the Middle East tumult and rising oil prices,” he added.

    European markets were similarly split: London’s FTSE 100 rose 1.4% and Frankfurt’s DAX gained 0.8%, while Paris’s CAC 40 dipped less than 0.1%. Most Asian markets closed lower, with Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 falling 1.1% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index dropping 1.3%; only Shanghai’s Composite index eked out a 0.1% gain.

    In currency markets, the Japanese yen surged more than 2% against the U.S. dollar after Japan’s finance minister strongly signaled that Tokyo was prepared to intervene in currency markets to prop up the yen, which had fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since mid-2024. By the end of the trading window, the dollar fell to 156.69 yen from 160.23 yen on Wednesday.

  • US first-quarter growth rebounds less than expected as inflation surges

    US first-quarter growth rebounds less than expected as inflation surges

    New government data released Thursday reveals that U.S. economic growth rebounded less than analysts projected in the first quarter of 2026, as soaring inflation driven by Middle East conflict-related energy price shocks cooled consumer spending and exposed deep divides in the country’s economic performance.

    The world’s largest economy saw gross domestic product expand at an annualized rate of 2.0% between January and March, according to the Commerce Department’s advance estimate. That marks a sharp improvement from the 0.5% growth recorded in the final quarter of 2025, but still underperforms the 2.2% expansion economists had predicted ahead of the report.

    The uptick in overall growth was primarily fueled by a jump in business investment and a rebound in federal government spending, which recovered after a disruptive government shutdown in the fourth quarter of 2025. White House spokesperson Kush Desai quickly framed the result as a win for the Trump administration’s policy agenda, crediting the president’s tax cuts and deregulation efforts for driving what he called an “astonishing surge in business investment.”

    Despite the headline growth number, economic observers warn that strengths in the economy are narrowly concentrated in the booming AI sector, while millions of ordinary households are already showing signs of financial fatigue from rising costs. The conflict-driven energy shock that began after U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran on February 28, which prompted Tehran to block traffic through the strategic Strait of Hormuz – a critical global transit chokepoint for energy and fertilizer – has sent energy prices soaring worldwide. Data from the American Automobile Association shows the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in the U.S. has already spiked to $4.30, eating into household budgets that were already stretched.

    Inflation data released alongside the GDP report confirms the sharp upward shift in prices: the personal consumption expenditures (PCE) price index, the Federal Reserve’s preferred inflation metric, jumped to 3.5% year-over-year in March, up from 2.8% in February. Even when stripping out volatile food and energy prices, core inflation still rose 3.2% annually, far above the Fed’s long-term 2% target.

    Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union, described the current landscape as a “split-screen economy.” On one side, AI-focused companies and investors are thriving, driving the capital investment boom that lifted the headline GDP number. On the other, middle- and low-income households are grappling with persistent cost-of-living increases. Long noted that nearly half of larger annual tax refunds issued this year have already gone toward covering higher fuel costs for most families, and flagged the slowdown in consumer spending growth to just 1.6% in the first quarter as a “big warning sign” of deeper trouble ahead.

    Oliver Allen, senior U.S. economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, echoed this assessment, pointing out that underlying economic momentum is “anemic” outside of the AI investment surge. He added that multiple headwinds are already weighing on U.S. consumers: a cooling labor market, subdued consumer confidence, sluggish growth in real household income, and the depletion of excess savings accumulated during the COVID-19 pandemic have all combined to dampen spending.

    The combination of slowing consumption and rising inflation also carries significant political risks, as the Republican Party prepares to defend its majority in November’s midterm elections. Steeper everyday costs are likely to become a top campaign issue for voters, and could erode support for the incumbent administration.

    While some financial analysts, including Chris Zaccarelli, chief investment officer at Northlight Asset Management, believe the U.S. economy has enough resilience to absorb short-term global shocks, Zaccarelli cautioned that growing risks point to a much more challenging outlook for the global economy in the coming months, raising concerns about broader spillover effects from the Middle East energy crisis.

  • Australia’s budget ‘sugar hits’ are running out, economists warn

    Australia’s budget ‘sugar hits’ are running out, economists warn

    Australia’s national debt has posted an unexpected near-term decline, but leading economic analysts warn this seemingly positive trend rests on fragile, temporary factors rather than lasting fiscal progress – and the nation is running out of good luck to prop up its budget.

    The temporary drop in debt has been fueled by two external shocks: the ongoing conflict in the Middle East (Iran) and skyrocketing cost-of-living pressures that have lifted inflation across the country. According to the latest Deloitte Access Economics Budget Monitor report, these forces have delivered what senior partners describe as “sugar hits” to government revenue: higher prices across energy and commodities translate directly into higher tax collections, which have shrunk near-term deficits and allowed for a one-off $40 billion debt repayment in April 2026. Total gross national debt currently sits at $962.6 billion following this repayment.

    Deloitte Access Economics partner Stephen Smith argues that these one-off revenue gains have papered over deep, long-standing structural flaws that leave Australia in a precarious fiscal position. “Higher inflation and the Middle East conflict are all quite good for the budget in the short term because higher prices mean more tax revenue,” Smith explained in an interview with NewsWire. But this quick boost to revenue carries major long-term risks, he warned: a sustained oil supply shock from regional conflict could sharply slow domestic demand, while persistent inflation may force the Reserve Bank of Australia to raise interest rates even higher than markets currently expect. These risks will only grow if the government opts for heavy-handed short-term household relief in the upcoming budget, Smith added.

    The short-term fiscal picture has indeed improved more than many forecasters expected. Deloitte projects the underlying cash deficit will come in at $33.2 billion, a $3.6 billion improvement from the Mid-Year Economics and Fiscal Outlook (MYEFO) projections. Commonwealth Bank (CBA) is even more optimistic, forecasting the deficit will fall to $29 billion this fiscal year and $22 billion the next, marking a significant upgrade to the nation’s fiscal outlook.

    But despite these near-term gains, Deloitte warns upward cost pressures will erase much of the revenue windfall in coming years. Elevated inflation automatically lifts indexed federal payments, including welfare support for jobseekers and age pensions, while higher interest rates also increase the government’s debt servicing costs. Even with strict controls on new spending, growth in existing mandatory spending will offset most of the extra revenue, Smith noted. The fastest-growing spending areas – defense, the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), aged care, health, and debt interest – are all core government responsibilities, but their current growth rates are outpacing revenue at an unsustainable pace.

    To rein in runaway NDIS costs, the federal government has already proposed legislative changes to crack down on “scheme inflation,” tighten eligibility rules, and root out system rorting. Current projections show the scheme would cost more than $70 billion annually by 2030, but the reforms are expected to cut that figure by $15 billion over the forward estimates period.

    CBA chief economist Luke Yeaman identifies three core challenges the government must address in its upcoming budget to put public finances on a sustainable path: tax system reform to spread the burden more fairly across generations, avoiding new spending that would further stoke already high inflation, and managing growing uncertainty from the ongoing Iran conflict. “Achieving all of this in one budget – major reform, big spending cuts, national resilience and supporting households – is quite the ask,” Yeaman said. “We expect the government to try to thread the needle. To pull this off, they will need to meet several tests.”

    Treasurer Jim Chalmers has already acknowledged the difficult context, describing the government’s budget strategy as “hostage to economic turmoil.” He has pledged the upcoming budget will deliver substantial savings while remaining ambitious, with a core focus on addressing intergenerational inequity in the tax and housing sectors.

    A growing number of analysts expect the government will finally advance long-discussed reforms to the capital gains tax (CGT) discount and negative gearing, long considered untouchable “sacred cows” of Australian tax policy. Currently, investors receive a flat 50% discount on capital gains for assets held longer than one year, a policy that disproportionately benefits wealthy asset holders. Reports indicate the government will shift to an indexation model that only taxes real inflation-adjusted capital gains, a change framed as a measure to improve housing affordability and intergenerational equity rather than a broad tax increase. CBA projects the reform could save the budget around $2 billion over four years if implemented as rumored.

    While Deloitte calls CGT reform a solid first step, the firm argues the government needs to go further with broader structural tax reform: shifting the tax burden away from income taxes toward consumption and land taxes. Under Deloitte’s proposal, the tax-free threshold would be raised to $35,000, with a 33% marginal rate for incomes up to $300,000 and a 40% rate for incomes above that threshold. “From an economics point of view if you are taxing income you are discouraging people from working, so the less we can tax labour the more we encourage people to work and that can really boost the economy,” Smith said. He added that the current system is unfair to younger generations: as Australia’s population ages, wealthy retirees pay a disproportionately small share of total tax, while working-age Australians bear the bulk of income tax burdens. Taxes like the GST are far more efficient, he noted, because they are shared across all members of society regardless of age or employment status.

  • Inflation hits 3% in Europe as Iran war spreads oil price shock

    Inflation hits 3% in Europe as Iran war spreads oil price shock

    FRANKFURT, Germany — The ongoing conflict between Iran and coalition forces has sent global oil markets into turmoil, creating a toxic economic mix for the 21-nation eurozone that pushes the bloc closer to stagflation, new official data shows.

    On Thursday, the European Union’s statistical body Eurostat released figures showing annual inflation across the euro currency area climbed to 3.0% in April, up from 2.6% recorded in March. The sharp uptick was almost entirely driven by a 10.9% month-over-month jump in energy prices, triggered by massive supply disruptions stemming from the Iran war. Since the outbreak of hostilities on February 28, international benchmark crude prices have surged from around $73 per barrel to above $120 a barrel, as Iran’s blockade of the Strait of Hormuz cut off a critical global oil chokepoint. Approximately 20% of the world’s total oil trade passes through the waterway, connecting Persian Gulf producing nations to global markets. The price shock has already hit consumers directly, with higher costs showing up immediately at gasoline pumps and in jet fuel prices for air travel.

    Alongside the unwelcome inflation surge, the eurozone also delivered underwhelming growth figures for the first quarter of 2025. The bloc recorded only a marginal 0.1% increase in output compared to the final quarter of 2024, a result that fell far short of analyst expectations.

    This dual pressure of stagnant growth and above-target inflation has put the European Central Bank (ECB) in an extremely difficult policy position. The ECB has a long-standing inflation target of 2%, and conventional economic policy calls for raising benchmark interest rates to cool overheating prices. However, hiking borrowing costs would further dampen already weak economic growth, creating a risk of a full-blown recession.

    Policymakers widely expect the ECB to leave its key benchmark interest rate unchanged at its Thursday meeting, a position that aligns with other major global central banks that have also hit a policy pause amid the uncertainty. The U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of Japan both held interest rates steady at their respective monetary policy meetings earlier this week, and the Bank of England is also projected to keep rates unchanged as it assesses the ongoing fallout from the Iran war. The ECB has kept its main policy rate fixed at 2% since June 2025.

    The dilemma for central bankers hinges on whether the current inflation surge will prove temporary. If price pressures are transitory, moving to hike rates now would unnecessarily harm growth, as interest rate changes take months to filter through to the broader economy. But if policymakers wait too long, higher energy costs could push up prices for food, manufactured goods and prompt demands for higher wages, embedding persistent inflation into the economy. Once inflation becomes entrenched, central banks are forced to implement even more aggressive, economically painful rate hikes to bring prices back under control.

    Right now, major central banks around the world remain stuck in a holding pattern, cautiously monitoring the inflation shock as it works its way through the global economy, with no room to either cut or raise rates in the current uncertain environment.

  • ASX hit by supermarket slump and oil price fears in eighth day of losses

    ASX hit by supermarket slump and oil price fears in eighth day of losses

    The Australian Securities Exchange has booked its longest continuous losing streak in eight years, as skyrocketing global crude prices stoke fears of wider inflationary pressures that will erode household grocery budgets and cut into corporate profit margins. On Thursday, the benchmark ASX 200 declined 21.20 points, or 0.24%, to close at 8665.80, while the broader All Ordinaries index dropped 28.10 points, or 0.32%, to settle at 8887.60. This eighth consecutive day of declines marks the local bourse’s worst performance since 2018, with the Australian dollar also sliding 0.19% to trade at 71.14 U.S. cents by market close.

    Against the overall downward trend, eight out of 11 tracked market sectors finished the trading session in positive territory, with the broad market decline pulled down primarily by heavy losses in consumer staples and materials. The steepest drop in the consumer staples segment came from national supermarket giant Woolworths Group, whose shares plummeted 7.78% to $34.39. While the retailer reported a 4.5% year-over-year rise in sales to $18.1 billion, CEO Amanda Bardwell warned that spiking fuel costs driven by the global oil price surge are creating cascading pressure across the entire supply chain. Woolworths confirmed that multiple suppliers have already begun moving to pass higher energy-driven operational costs onto retailers, a shift that will eventually flow through to higher prices for consumers at checkout. Rival leading supermarket chain Coles followed suit, with shares falling 3.62% to $22.11, while other consumer-focused firms including A2 Milk and Endeavour Group also recorded moderate losses.

    Industry analysts say the current market downturn stems from a dual pressure of sky-high crude prices and growing expectations of another incoming interest rate hike from the Reserve Bank of Australia. Josh Gilbert, lead analyst at multi-asset trading platform eToro, explained that the current market shift is a direct reflection of how energy price shocks ripple through the entire economy. “When 20 per cent of the world’s oil supply is at risk, it doesn’t just impact energy prices, it flows through to everything from petrol at the pump to grocery bills, and Woolworths’ profit warning today is exactly that story playing out in real time,” Gilbert noted. As of Thursday, financial markets were pricing in a 77% probability that the RBA will raise interest rates at its next policy meeting, leaving Australian households caught between rising living costs and higher borrowing costs that squeeze disposable income.

    The global oil price surge that triggered the latest market jitters comes amid escalating geopolitical risk that has threatened key global shipping chokepoints. Brent Crude futures jumped to a fresh four-year high this week, briefly touching $US126 per barrel after U.S. officials warned they are bracing for an extended disruption to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, a critical route that carries roughly a fifth of global oil supplies.

    The elevated oil prices pulled down share values for Australia’s big three iron ore miners: BHP fell 2.24% to $53.72, Rio Tinto declined 1.99% to $167.40, and Fortescue Metals dropped 2.82% to $19.61. Spot iron ore prices held steady at $US107.20 per tonne through the session. Gains in the energy sector partially offset these market declines, with top Australian oil and gas producers posting solid growth: Woodside Energy rose 1.51% to $33.55, Santos gained 2.96% to $8, and fuel retailer Ampol closed up 1.71% at $35.17.

    A handful of positive corporate announcements also delivered isolated gains in other segments. ASX Limited itself saw shares jump 5.10% to $60.80 after announcing Darren Yip as its new interim chief executive. Mineral Resources also climbed 2.96% to $63.71 after the mining firm upgraded its full-year production guidance for its Onslow iron ore project, as well as its Wodgina and Mount Marion lithium operations.

  • The Bank of England is expected to keep interest rates on hold as it weighs the impact of Iran war

    The Bank of England is expected to keep interest rates on hold as it weighs the impact of Iran war

    LONDON – As geopolitical turbulence from the Iran war ripples through global energy markets, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee is widely projected to hold its benchmark interest rate steady at 3.75% when it announces its latest policy decision on Thursday. Policymakers are treading carefully amid ongoing uncertainty over the conflict’s long-term economic fallout, particularly after Tehran effectively shut down the Strait of Hormuz – a critical global oil chokepoint through which roughly 20% of the world’s crude oil supplies flow during periods of peace.

    Before the outbreak of hostilities between the U.S.-Israel coalition and Iran on Feb. 28, financial markets had been pricing in a potential interest rate cut, with analysts forecasting that U.K. inflation would ease back to the central bank’s 2% target by spring. That outlook has been completely upended by the conflict, which has sent global energy prices surging and forced policymakers across major economies to rewrite their economic projections.

    While the majority of the nine-member policy panel is expected to back a rate hold, insiders and economists suggest one or two members could push for a 25-basis-point hike as a preemptive strike against mounting inflationary pressure. Economists also note the committee is likely to signal that future rate increases remain on the table if the Middle East conflict – currently held in check by a fragile ceasefire – fuels further upward pressure on U.K. consumer prices.

    Sandra Horsfield, a senior economist at global investment firm Investec, emphasized that the economic fallout from the conflict remains acute, with no clear path forward for geopolitical stability in the region. “The repercussions of the conflict are still keenly felt and uncertainty about how the situation could evolve also remains high,” Horsfield noted.

    Beyond the immediate rate decision, all eyes will be on the central bank’s quarterly economic forecast, released alongside the policy announcement, and the subsequent press conference led by Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey. These projections will be the first published since the war began, and economists broadly expect the bank to upgrade its inflation forecasts while downgrading estimates for GDP growth.

    New official data released last week already underscored the inflation threat the conflict has brought to the U.K. Annual consumer price inflation rose to a three-month high of 3.3% in March, up from 3% in February, driven largely by a sharp spike in gasoline and diesel prices stemming from global energy supply disruptions. Economists warn inflation could climb even higher in coming months, potentially hitting 4% as elevated energy costs flow through to household utility bills and broader consumer prices.

    Unlike the energy price shock that followed Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine – which pushed U.K. inflation to a four-decade peak above 11% – most analysts do not expect a return to those extreme levels this time around. Oil and gas prices have not seen the same dramatic spike, and interest rates are already far higher than they were two years ago, which acts as a brake on broad price growth.

    Even so, Bank of England policymakers are closely monitoring for secondary inflationary effects, such as wage increases as workers adjust to higher prices, which could lock in elevated inflation long after the immediate energy shock fades. They are also waiting to see what measures Britain’s Labour government will roll out to buffer households and businesses from rising costs.

    Treasury Chief Rachel Reeves has already acknowledged that the conflict has derailed the government’s progress on easing the cost of living for U.K. households. “This is not our war, but it is pushing up bills for families and businesses,” Reeves said, confirming that the Middle East crisis has thrown U.K. economic policymaking off its pre-war trajectory.

  • China’s factory activity expands for a second month despite shocks from the Iran war

    China’s factory activity expands for a second month despite shocks from the Iran war

    HONG KONG – For the second consecutive month in April, China’s manufacturing sector held onto expansion, defying widespread expectations that rising energy costs sparked by the Iran conflict would drag down industrial output, official data released Thursday shows.

    The National Bureau of Statistics reported that the official manufacturing purchasing managers’ index (PMI), a closely watched gauge of factory sector activity, edged down marginally to 50.3 in April from March’s 50.4 reading. On the 0–100 PMI scale, any reading above 50 signals that activity is expanding rather than contracting. This minor pullback still outperformed the consensus forecast from economists, painting a more resilient picture of Chinese manufacturing than many analysts predicted.

    Breaking down the sub-index components reveals a mixed performance across key metrics: the new orders sub-index slowed to 50.6, down from 51.6 in March, but the production sub-index inched up slightly to 51.4, signaling ongoing output growth amid steady demand.

    Leah Fahy, senior China economist at Capital Economics, noted in a recent research note that elevated global oil prices driven by Middle East tensions have so far failed to dampen China’s industrial momentum. She attributes the recent acceleration in factory output primarily to surprisingly strong export demand, which has continued to prop up manufacturing activity even as domestic headwinds persist.

    Fahy added that the global surge in oil prices has created an unexpected tailwind for China’s clean energy industry. As countries around the world accelerate their transition away from fossil fuels to offset volatile energy prices, demand for green technology has jumped. This benefits Chinese manufacturers, who hold a dominant global position in the production of solar panels, wind turbines, batteries and other clean energy equipment.

    A separate private-sector PMI, compiled by S&P Global in partnership with Chinese credit analysis firm RatingDog, offered an even more optimistic outlook. The survey, which over-samples smaller, export-focused private firms that are often underrepresented in the official reading, recorded a jump in factory activity to 52.2 in April, up from 50.8 in March.

    Additional factors are pointing to potential further strengthening of Chinese exports in the coming months. Earlier this year, a U.S. Supreme Court ruling struck down key parts of former President Donald Trump’s broad tariffs on Chinese goods, leading to a reduction in U.S. duties on many Chinese imports. Fahy notes that this policy shift could open the door to rising Chinese shipments to the U.S. in the second half of the year.

    Planned diplomatic progress may also support trade stability. A long-scheduled visit to Beijing by Trump to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled for next month, which could extend the one-year trade truce that the two leaders agreed to in late 2024.

    China’s broader economic performance also outperformed expectations in the first quarter of 2025, with gross domestic product expanding at an annual rate of 5%, up from the previous quarter’s growth rate and beating the consensus forecast from private-sector economists. Chinese policymakers have set a full-year growth target of 4.5% to 5% for 2025, the lowest annual target set since 1991, reflecting ongoing structural challenges in the world’s second-largest economy.

    One of the most persistent headwinds remains a years-long downturn in the country’s property sector, which has continued to weigh on domestic investment and consumer confidence. Even with soft domestic demand, however, exports have remained a strong pillar of growth: China recorded a record-breaking $1.2 trillion annual trade surplus in 2024, highlighting the global strength of its manufacturing exports.

  • The ‘Polar Bear Capital’ with Arctic gateway ambitions

    The ‘Polar Bear Capital’ with Arctic gateway ambitions

    Nestled in Canada’s sub-Arctic region, the Port of Churchill on the shores of Hudson Bay spends most of the year shrouded in snow and locked in ice, open to commercial shipping for just four to five months annually. For this remote Manitoba town of barely 1,000 residents, however, this long-overlooked Arctic deep-water port holds the promise of transformative economic opportunity — and national leaders are betting big on its potential to reshape Canada’s trade future.\n\nGeography is Churchill’s greatest asset. Positioned directly on Hudson Bay with an unobstructed path through the Labrador Sea to the North Atlantic, the port cuts days off shipping times for Canadian resources bound for Europe, Africa, and South America. Connected by rail to resource-rich western Canada, and already the country’s only Arctic deep-water port capable of accommodating ultra-large container vessels, oil tankers, and LNG carriers, the site has long been tied to Canadian Arctic maritime ambitions that never came to fruition.\n\nA century of unfulfilled plans\n\nOpened nearly 100 years ago, the Port of Churchill long served as an export route for prairie grain, until collapsing grain shipments in 2016 led producers to shift to cheaper southern routes. The port fell into severe disrepair under decades of poor private management by a Denver-based firm that took ownership in 1997, with no meaningful investment in port infrastructure or connecting rail lines. It reopened in 2019 after a 2018 ownership transfer to Arctic Gateway Group, a consortium of Indigenous and local community groups that sought to take control of the region’s economic destiny.\n\nSince the transfer, the Canadian federal government has invested C$320 million ($235 million) into maintenance, restoration, and modernization of the port and its connecting railway. The site notched its first milestone in 2024, when it delivered its inaugural shipment of critical minerals to Belgium. Today, it is being framed as a cornerstone project by Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government, which aims to double Canada’s non-U.S. exports over the next decade, reduce the country’s heavy trade reliance on its southern neighbor, and capitalize on shifting global market demands driven by three major forces: accelerating Arctic climate change, U.S. tariff pressures, and Europe’s ongoing energy shortage following global geopolitical conflicts.\n\n”Canada has an abundance of resources, and this port expansion will mean we can ship more to the world,” Carney said earlier this year, adding that the project has the potential to fundamentally transform Canada’s national economy. For local residents, the benefits are equally clear: expanding port operations could create hundreds of jobs in a region that has long relied exclusively on seasonal polar bear and northern lights tourism, Churchill’s signature industry that draws visitors from across the globe each late summer and autumn.\n\nBarriers to year-round operation\n\nThe biggest obstacle to unlocking the port’s full potential is its limited seasonal access, and the question of whether year-round operation is even feasible. Proponents have set an ambitious goal to launch LNG exports from Churchill by 2030, but climate researchers warn that ice-free year-round shipping will remain impossible in the region this century, even under the most aggressive global warming scenarios.\n\nDr. Alex Crawford, an Arctic climate systems researcher at the University of Manitoba leading a study of regional open-water shipping for Arctic Gateway Group, explained that inconsistent ice formation across Hudson Bay makes unescorted shipping nearly impossible for most of the year, and icebreaker escorts are prohibitively expensive. Unlike Russia, which operates a fleet of powerful nuclear-powered icebreakers to maintain year-round shipping along its Northern Sea Route, Canada’s icebreaker fleet is small and outdated, with decades of plans for new vessels derailed by bureaucratic delays and limited funding. While Ottawa has recently launched a program to build new icebreakers capable of cutting through 10-foot thick ice year-round, the technology needed to keep Hudson Bay open to shipping is not yet in place.\n\nEconomic and environmental questions also loom large. Maritime trade expert Jean-Paul Rodrigue, a professor at Texas A&M University’s Galveston campus, notes that Arctic shipping requires specialized, costly vessel modifications for frigid conditions, and constant demand for resources like LNG requires 12-month port operation. Even with shorter shipping times to Europe, Rodrigue questions whether companies will be willing to absorb the extra costs of operating at a seasonal Arctic port to shave just a few days off transit times.\n\nEnvironmental activists and local community members also warn that port expansion could threaten the fragile Arctic ecosystem that supports Churchill’s booming tourism industry, which draws visitors seeking beluga whales, caribou, polar bears, and the northern lights. Mayor Mike Spence, who also serves as co-chair of Arctic Gateway Group, acknowledges the concerns, saying ongoing community engagement will prioritize balancing economic development and environmental protection. He notes that climate change is already shifting polar bear migration patterns and tourism seasons, making economic diversification a necessity for the town’s long-term survival.\n\nA shifting geopolitical landscape creates new opportunity\n\nWhile the project remains a high-risk bet, shifting global politics have given Churchill’s ambitions new momentum. Spence points to major geopolitical shifts following Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, which has pushed Canada to actively diversify its trade partners beyond its southern neighbor. Rising U.S. tariffs have made southern trade routes more expensive, and Europe’s urgent search for new energy and critical mineral suppliers has created new demand for Canadian exports.\n\nThe port has already secured international backing: earlier this year, operators signed a collaboration agreement with Belgium’s Port of Antwerp-Bruges to work on infrastructure design, business development, and future trade routes. While the expansion project is not on the Canadian federal government’s immediate shortlist for new funding, meaning its future is not yet guaranteed, experts see a potential niche for the port even without full year-round operation.\n\nRodrigue argues that the Port of Churchill could serve as a critical hub for stockpiling and exporting strategic critical minerals mined in western Canada, meeting growing global demand for the materials needed for clean energy and technology manufacturing. Canada finds itself at an inflection point, Rodrigue says, where shifting geopolitical and economic conditions could finally turn this long-held national ambition into a reality that benefits both the small remote town and the entire country’s trade future.