Author

admin

Browsing

Here are some charts that reflect our areas of focus this week at TrendInvestorPro. SPY and QQQ are leading the market, but the tech trade is looking extended and ripe for a rest. Small-caps are still underperforming large-caps. Even though Utilities are not leading in percentage terms, XLU is leading on the chart as it confirms a bullish continuation pattern. Elsewhere, metals are leading in 2025 and the Home Construction ETF is hitting its moment of truth. 


A 20+ ATR Move for QQQ

In 14-period ATR terms, QQQ is up 23.65 ATRs in the last 65 days. This is the highest number ever. The indicator window shows the 65-day point change divided by ATR(14). The blue dotted lines show when this indicator exceeds 15, and this is the sixth occurrence in seven years. Values above 15 reflect strong upside momentum, and this is long-term bullish. Short-term, however, high values mean QQQ is overbought and ripe for a rest. This indicator is one of 11 indicators in the TIP Indicator-Edge Plugin for StockCharts ACP.


Healthcare is the Weakest Sector  

The Healthcare SPDR (XLV) is the most unloved sector over the last 200 days (since October 4th). SPY is up 10.72% with five offensive sectors leading the way (XLK, XLC, XLI, XLY, XLF). Healthcare is down 10.47%, and severely lagging. Elsewhere, Staples, Real Estate, Materials and Energy are down, but Utilities are up (3.68%).


XLV Becomes Long-term Oversold

The Healthcare SPDR (XLV) is long-term oversold and this could pave the way for a recovery, eventually. The chart below shows weekly bars with 40-week Rate-of-Change in the lower window. ROC(40) dipped below -10% for the fourth time in the last 12 years. After the first three dips below -10%, XLV was up over 20% in the following two years.


This week at TrendInvestorPro

  • Sentiment and seasonality indicators to watch in the coming months.
  • Breadth improves, but S&P 1500 indicators are short of bullish signals.
  • Bitcoin, Blockchain and Telecom ETFs break out.
  • Copper and Palladium ETFs follow through on breakouts.

Click here to take a trial and gain immediate access to our reports and videos.


XLU Leads with New High

Even though the Utilities SPDR (XLU) cannot keep pace with the Technology SPDR (XLK) and Communication Services SPDR (XLC), it is in a leading uptrend. XLU formed a cup-with-handle from November to July and broke to new highs the last two weeks. ETFs hitting new highs are in strong uptrends and should be on our radar.


Metal Mania in 2025

In a tribute to Ozzy, metals are leading the way higher in 2025. The PerfChart below shows year-to-date performance for the continuous futures for 12 commodities. Copper, Platinum and Palladium are up more than 45% year-to-date, while Gold is up 28.38% and Silver is up 35.30%. QQQ is up 10.52% year-to-date, but lagging these metals. The other commodities are mixed.


Multi-Year Highs for Silver and Copper

The next chart shows 11 year bar charts for five metals. Gold broke out in early 2024 and led the metals move with an advance the last 21 months. Silver and copper broke out to multi-year highs. Platinum broke above its 2021 high and Palladium got in the action with an 18 month high. There is a clear message here: metals are moving higher and leading as a group.  


Home Construction Hits Moment of Truth

The Home Construction ETF (ITB) hit its moment of truth as it rose to its falling 40-week SMA. Notice that ITB failed just below this moving average in August 2023. During the 2023-2024 uptrend, the 40-week SMA was more friendly as ITB reversed near this level in October 2023 and June 2024. ITB surged to the falling 40-week SMA in July, but the long-term trend is down and this area could be its nemesis.

Thanks for Tuning in!

See TrendInvestorPro.com for more…



JERUSALEM— The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is under growing pressure to extradite the self-confessed female Hamas terrorist Ahlam Aref Ahmad al-Tamimi, who engineered the terrorist bombing at a Jerusalem pizzeria in 2001 that murdered three Americans among 16 people, half of whom were children.

Frimet and Arnold Roth, the parents of Malki Roth, a 15-year-old U.S. citizen murdered in the 2001 Sbarro pizzeria bombing, held a virtual meeting on July 17, 2025 with Jeanine F. Pirro, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia. 

The U.S. State Department has a $5 million reward for information leading to al-Tamimi’scapture, even as reports claim Jordan’s King Abdullah II has played hardball, refusing to extradite the accused mass murderer. 

‘You have the capacity to push for her extradition, to ensure that the 1995 treaty is honored, to show Jordan and its population along with the watching world that harboring terrorists has consequences,’ Arnold Roth told Pirro during the meeting, according to a family press release following the meeting. 

The 24th anniversary of the Aug. 9, 2001 bombing is next month.

Roth added, ‘We’re here today to implore you to act. Jordan needs to know the U.S. cannot tolerate the protection of a murderer of American citizens. U.S. justice needs to be respected by the world and, without hammering this point too hard, by America’s lawmakers and senior officials.’ 

The Roths said that the meeting focused on the need for ‘concrete steps’ to advance the long-delayed extradition of al-Tamimi.  

Al-Tamimi’sterrorist bombing also killed Judith Shoshana Greenberg and Chana Nachenberg in the 2001 attack. ‘All the victims deserve justice,’ Arnold Roth said, stressing that Tamimi’s extradition should become a ‘true priority’ for the U.S. Department of Justice. 

When asked if the extradition of al-Tamimi was raised by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio in his Wednesday meeting with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi, a State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States has continually emphasized to the Government of Jordan the importance of holding Ahlam al-Tamimi, the convicted terrorist released by Israel in a 2011 prisoner swap, accountable in a U.S. court for her admitted role in a 2001 bombing in Jerusalem that killed 15 people, including Americans Malka Chana Roth, Judith Shoshana Greenbaum, and Chana Nachenberg. The United States continues to impress upon the Government of Jordan that Tamimi is a brutal murderer who should be brought to justice.’

The State Department referred Fox News Digital to the Department of Justice for more information about the U.S. criminal case against al-Tamimi.

The Justice Department and Pirro’s office did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital press queries.

Al-Tamimi is on the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list. She is the second female to appear on the terrorism list.

Frimet Roth told U.S. Attorney Pirro that ‘We cannot carry this fight alone any longer. Judge Pirro, please, be the voice for Malki and the other American victims. Be the advocate for justice that has been denied for too long. We beg you to act—not for our sake alone, but for the integrity of American law and the sanctity of every life lost to terror.’ 

The Roths also delivered a petition to U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee in May 2025, with some 30,000 signatures urging the Trump administration to press Jordan for al-Tamimi’s extradition. 

Arnold Roth told Fox News Digital that ‘No senior figure from State has ever, in all the years of our fight for justice, agreed to speak with us. Their treatment of us and of the Tamimi case is deplorable. Victoria Nuland, then one of the top-ranking figures in the State Department. Nuland wrote to us in the names of President Biden and then-Sec of State Antony Blinken, and told us that the Tamimi case was quote ‘a foremost priority’ for the U.S. And that they would keep us informed. She then [they] ignored every follow-up letter that I sent her, and of course so said Biden and Blinken.’

Jordan’s government is a major recipient of U.S. Foreign Military Financing (FMF).

According to a January 2025 U.S. State Department fact sheet, ‘Since 2015, the Department of State has provided Jordan with $2.155 billion in FMF, which makes Jordan the third-largest global recipient of FMF funds over that time period.  In addition, the Department of Defense (DoD) has provided $327 million to the Jordanian Armed Forces (JAF) under its 333 authority since 2018, making Jordan one of the largest recipients of this funding.’

Al-Tamimi reportedly boasted about her terrorist operation in the Arab media and called for more terrorism against Israel. ‘Of course. I do not regret what happened. Absolutely not. This is the path. I dedicated myself to jihad for the sake of Allah, and Allah granted me success. You know how many casualties there were [in the 2001 attack on the Sbarro pizzeria]. This was made possible by Allah. Do you want me to denounce what I did? That’s out of the question. I would do it again today, and in the same manner,’ she said in 2011, according to a MEMRI translation.

In 2017, the U.S. Justice Department publicly announced that it had charged her with the Jerusalem suicide bombing. 

Fox News Digital sent multiple press queries to Jordan’s government and its embassies in Washington, D.C., and Tel Aviv.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

House Republicans are already discussing contours for a potential second ‘big, beautiful bill’ advancing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

The Republican Study Committee (RSC), the 189-member-strong group that acts as a de facto ‘think tank’ for the House GOP, is launching a working group to look at what a second budget reconciliation bill would look like, Fox News Digital has learned.

It’s the largest organized effort so far by congressional Republicans to follow through on GOP leaders’ hopes for a second massive agenda bill.

‘We must capitalize on the momentum we’ve generated in the first 6 months of a Republican trifecta in Washington,’ RSC Chairman August Pfluger, R-Texas, told Fox News Digital. ‘To fulfill the promises we made to the American people, conservatives must begin laying the groundwork for the second reconciliation bill to ensure we continue to drive down the cost of living and restore America’s promise for future generations.’

House Republicans left Washington on Wednesday to kick off a five-week recess period, where they’re readying to sell the benefits of their first massive agenda bill to their constituents. 

Meanwhile, Pfluger also directed lawmakers part of the new working group to begin reaching out to colleagues, conservative senators, and GOP organizations about potential policy proposals for a new bill, Fox News Digital was told.

The goal of the new group is to create a framework for what a second ‘big, beautiful bill’ could look like, and to recommend that framework to GOP leaders.

The first bill was a massive piece of legislation advancing Trump’s agenda on taxes, the border, immigration, defense, and energy.

It made much of Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) permanent, while imposing new work requirements on Medicaid and food stamps, among other measures.

After passing the House and Senate, Trump signed it into law during a celebratory event on the Fourth of July.

But the political fight to get just one reconciliation bill took Herculean political efforts across both the House and Senate, with debates and even heated arguments ongoing for months before the bill passed.

Notably, however, Republicans did get the legislation to Trump’s desk by July 4 – meeting a goal that many in the media and even within GOP circles thought impossible.

The budget reconciliation process allows the party controlling the White House and both chambers of Congress to pass massive partisan policy overhauls, while completely sidelining the other side – in this case, Democrats.

Reconciliation bills can pass the Senate with a simple majority rather than 60 votes, lining up with the House’s own passage threshold. But the legislation must adhere to a specific set of rules and only involve measures related to fiscal policy.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told ‘Sunday Morning Futures’ earlier this month that he was eyeing multiple reconciliation bills.

‘With President Trump coming back to the White House, and us having the responsibility for fixing every metric of public policy that Biden and Harris and the Democrats destroyed over the previous four years –  so the big beautiful bill was the first big step in that,’ he told host Maria Bartiromo.

‘But we have multiple steps ahead of us. We have long planned for at least two, possibly three, reconciliation bills, one in the fall and one next spring.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

Writing in the New York Times on Monday, longtime Democratic political strategist James Carville outlined a compelling message for Democrats to unite around ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Carville urged Democrats to delay the ‘civil war’ that will eventually erupt between the party’s moderate and progressive wings, and to coalesce around a single ‘oppositional message’ focused entirely on repealing President Donald Trump’s agenda.

With all due respect to Mr. Carville, his myopic focus on a strategy of resisting Trump above all else is simply too narrow to be truly effective.

Put another way, a Democratic agenda built entirely around repealing the Republican agenda may be enough for 2026, but it falls far short of what Democrats must do if they hope to take back the White House in 2028.

Indeed, nowhere in the Times piece is any description of actual policies that Democrats should advance as an alternative to what Republicans are offering, either next year or in three years.

There are no calls for an entirely new economic agenda, one that replaces Democrats’ tendency for profligate spending with a more fiscally conservative plan focused on managing the debt while also protecting the social safety net.

In many ways, Democrats today should look to former President Bill Clinton, who was able to reduce the debt, leave a budget surplus and still protect vital social programs.

Speaker Johnson: Everything is

Moreover, the word ‘immigration’ is not even mentioned. 

This comes despite 2024 election polling showing that immigration was a top issue for voters, and exit polls showing voters trusted Trump over former Vice President Kamala Harris by a 16-point margin (52% to 36%), per Fox News.

To that end, if Democrats hope to take back more than just one chamber of Congress, the party needs an agenda that prioritizes securing the border, combined with a pathway to citizenship for legal migrants and Dreamers.

And, while I do agree with Mr. Carville that the midterms will be decided based on kitchen table issues rather than foreign policy, that does not mean Democrats can afford to ignore this issue.

As a party, Democrats must advance an agenda that positively asserts democratic values at home and abroad. 

The Democratic Party is

This entails rejecting the belief of the far left – and increasingly the far right – that any use of American power is inherently bad.

To be sure, formulating an entirely new Democratic agenda takes time. And it will require the emergence of moderate candidates at a time when Zohran Mamdani’s win in New York City has energized the progressive wing of the party. 

Nevertheless, as the 2024 election made clear, Democrats cannot afford to run from the center toward the far left. What the party needs is a candidate who can win, not one chosen because they passed progressives’ ideological purity test.

Interestingly, Carville cites former President Clinton as a figure who emerged as Democrats’ ‘savior’ in 1992. 

James Carville takes aim at DNC vice chair as civil war escalates:

But Clinton was able to do so because, at a time when the party was moving further to the left, Clinton dragged the party toward the middle on the economy and crime.

Finally, the crux of Carville’s message – ‘we demand a repeal’ of Trump’s agenda – overlooks the core factor behind who Americans cast a vote for.

Voters choose candidates who have plans and policies that will improve their lives. 

Slogans, no matter how catchy, may work for the midterms, but if Democrats then fail to deliver actual change between 2026 and 2028, its unlikely voters will trust them.

Bill Maher warns Democrats: This looks like

Quite simply, voters want a strong economy, safe streets, a government that is not excessively bloated and secure borders, not candidates whose only agenda is resisting the president. 

Now, this is not to say that the agenda outlined by Carville will not be successful next year – it very well may.

Rather, it is to point out that even if it helps Democrats reclaim the House of Representatives, it will not be enough to take back the White House in 2028.

For that, the party needs to advance its own agenda, one that addresses the above issues and actually provides a real, viable alternative to the Trump-GOP agenda. 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

America runs on gas stations. The US has more gas stations than any other country in the world, around 196,000. These rest stops and corner pumps supply the country with the gas it needs for its commerce and road trips.

Not only do they fuel the wheels of the American economy, they have also been an icon in American culture. To the average person, the legal history of filling stations might seem boring, even pointless. But to the trained eye, the history of gas stations reveals a political economy shaped by public-private collusion, cronyism, and even violent attempts to eliminate competition.

Self-service laws, statutes that prevent customers from pumping their own gas, are almost obsolete in 2025. In fact, only one state, New Jersey, has this law on its books. For years, Oregon and New Jersey were the last remaining states to have self-service laws on the books, but the Oregon Legislature repealed them in 2023.

While it may seem strange to some readers, the concept of self-service was not always the historical norm. In 1905, the first gas station was opened in St. Louis, Missouri. Fifteen years later, the United States experienced a boom in gas station construction, with roughly 20,000 service stations operating by 1920. Full-service stations, where an employee of the gas station pumps gas for the customer, were originally the norm. The concept of self-service did not emerge until the 1930s, and because of bans, self-service stations did not become widespread until the 1960s. But why was that the case? Simply put: the history of self-service laws is a history of rent seeking.

In 1930, Indiana became the first state to ban self-service at fuel stations. This ban did not occur in a vacuum; it was a direct response to the political entrepreneurship of businessmen. Following the opening of two self-service stations in 1930, the Indiana Petroleum Association lobbied the state fire marshal to ban self-service. This was done as this new model at the pump threatened the profits of full-service stations.

This story repeats itself across the country. In NJ, for example, a self-service ban was passed in 1949. According to Paul Mulshine, local full-service station owners had entered into a price-fixing agreement with each other. Naturally, this gas cartel was formed as a way of protecting their profits and keeping out competition. But a man by the name of Irving Reingold opened a self-service station offering gas at a few cents lower than the price-fixed rate. This drew in major business for Reingold, but the cartel was not happy. They shot up Reingold’s gas station, but he simply installed bulletproof glass. With this attempt not working, the cartel turned to lobbying and the Retail Gasoline Dispensing Safety Act was passed. Not only does this story show the public choice history of self-service laws, but also how easily cartels collapse under price competition.

Despite their popularity with the public, self-service threatened the profits of incumbent gas stations. Full-service stations saw their customers buy gas at the cheaper, newly opened self-service stations. Naturally, these businesses did not want to face this new competition, and all across the country, the lobbying of state fire marshals took place to eliminate self-service gas stations. In 1948, nine states had banned self-service.

Economists Ronald Johnson and Charles Romeo note in their article on self-service bans that “in 1968, only 27 states allowed the self-service dispensing of gasoline, and some of those states required that attendants be standing by.” Things began to change, however, and self-service laws were repealed, bringing back freedom of choice at the pump. By 1977, every state except for New Jersey and Oregon had removed self-service bans.

While many claim self-service laws were passed because of benevolent politicians’ care for the public interest, history shows these efforts had far more to do with cronyism than public safety. 

More than just a story in public choice, self-service bans also reiterate basic Econ101 principles.

Self-service bans make the market for gasoline less competitive. Firms must pay more for labor to comply with self-service laws. These higher costs act as a barrier to entry for new firms. These bans also have the distorting effect of making gas stations compete on narrower margins. Economist Vitor Melo notes that gas prices fall by 4.4 cents per gallon when self-service bans are repealed. While self-service bans may seem minuscule, they ultimately harm the common good by limiting competition, violating property rights, and making gas less affordable for consumers.

Self-service laws hold a more interesting history than initially perceived. This story of cronyism and rent seeking vs. entrepreneurship and innovation has played out millions of times across countries and years. Despite the claims by many that laws are passed in the name of the public interest, the history of self-service laws makes one take a step back to examine that claim. Just like other regulations, self-service laws were passed as a way of protecting business against competition.

To learn the full story, read my article published in the Independent Review on the topic.

Industrial researchers are sounding the alarm as thousands of AI companies are being eliminated in the wake of the first wave of AI fever sparked by OpenAI.

At the same time, however, prominent tech leaders and Silicon Valley CEOs such as Jensen Huang continue to promote the narrative of China’s technological leadership in AI. While it is understandable that hardware manufacturers may emphasize growth potential in China for commercial reasons, it is more puzzling to see segments of US media and academia amplifying what increasingly resembles a state-driven narrative. This disconnect warrants closer scrutiny — not just of China’s capabilities, but of how narratives around them are constructed and disseminated globally. 

It was the Soviet Union that launched the first artificial satellite Sputnik into space, on October 4, 1957. And then three months later, on January 31, 1958, the US launched the Explorer I, making it the second country in the world that could send a satellite into space. No one cares who was next, especially when the third country was France, and especially when its first satellite wasn’t launched until November 1965 — nearly eight years later. When I asked ChatGPT why this is the case, it put it simply: “History remembers the winner, not the runner-up, let alone the third place.” 

Fewer people remember that in the late 1950s, there was another country obsessed with launching satellites: China.  

At the time, under Mao Zedong, China was one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet my grandfather, who was a team leader in a rural production unit in northern China, recalled how everyone was talking about “launching satellites.” My grandfather was no college graduate or rocket scientist. And of course, they weren’t launching real satellites — they were referring to faking economic data. 

During the Great Leap Forward, “launching a satellite” became a euphemism for exaggerated production figures. If an acre of land supposedly produced 10,000 kg of rice, a satellite had been launched. If a pig farmer claimed he raised a pig the size of a Volvo car, and it made national headlines — another satellite was launched. And the worst part? Everyone believed it. Even Mao himself. 

That’s why, despite widespread famine, Mao refused to believe food shortages existed. Instead, he was more concerned about what to do with China’s “excess” agricultural production. And since China had “plenty” of food, he decided to send free grain to its Communist allies, such as Romania and Albania, even as millions of Chinese starved. That’s exactly what he did in 1960 during the three years of great famine which resulted in the death of approximately 20 to 40 million people.

Fast forward to today. Since DeepSeek CEO Liang Wenfeng was invited to a meeting with China’s Premier Li Qiang earlier this year, its chatbot has been widely talked about and considered a competitor of OpenAI’s ChatGPT. Meanwhile, my French colleagues and American friends kept asking me about Chinese AI products with strange names. And I couldn’t help but think of the Great Leap Forward and its “satellites.”  

As much as I’d wish China could lead in AI, I am not convinced.

Here’s a three-part explanation: 

What Does AI Mean to China? 

AI is a powerful tool, a symbol of technological advancement, and a potential driver of economic growth. But that’s not why China is investing heavily in AI. 

China is betting on AI for one reason: great power competition. 

In Silicon Valley, there’s a concept called FOMO — “Fear of Missing Out.” Investors fear missing the next big opportunity. But in geopolitics, nations fear missing the next big strategic advantage. China develops AI not because of domestic demand, but because the US is doing it. 

The same logic explains many of China’s past industrial pushes. Great power competition is why China developed its nuclear bombs and hydrogen bombs, why China also was blamed for overcapacity in solar panels and infrastructure of 5G telecommunication. In developing nuclear weapons, China was fearful that missing out would be equivalent to dying out. It had to develop its own nuclear weapons to survive in a volatile global environment. Fortunately, when it comes to overproducing solar panels or 5G base stations, what’s at stake is not life or death.  

AI in China is following the same pattern: a copycat breakthrough sparks mass investment, a semi-commercialized product grabs nationalist attention, but in the end: fraud is exposed, resources are wasted, and bubbles burst. 

China Faces Institutional Barriers to AI Leadership

Just like the roaring years of personal computers and the Internet, Silicon Valley tech geniuses, angel investors, and early adopters of cutting edge technology are indispensable in AI development. But many people in the West overlook the institutional environment for developing technology. Silicon Valley’s AI boom was not just about talent, money, or research. It was about a unique institutional environment that fosters risk-taking, open data, and creative destruction. 

China’s biggest obstacles to developing technology have never been a lack of talent or resources, but the lack of a free environment. What holds China back is censorship, a lack of tolerance for failure, and an intrinsic disgust for entrepreneurship.  

Censorship also impedes AI growth. Chatbots such as ChatGPT can draw on 95 percent of the information on the Internet that is English, whereas its Chinese counterparts can only utilize a small portion of the information on the Internet due to the Great Firewall that isolates China from the rest of the world. There are complexities: few Chinese users speak English, the Chinese language is a high-context language, and the Chinese language has been highly polluted because of censorship (for example, there are over 3,000 ways of referring to a political figure without directly naming him). Chinese chatbots are a lot like a middle-aged political prisoner who constantly minces words, dodging sensitive topics, or simply refusing to respond. This environment also restrains the training sources for Chinese chatbots. As people say, garbage in, garbage out. If this is the kind of AI advantage we see in Chinese AI products, I don’t know what kind of intelligence we are talking about.

China has no shortage of technical talent. But AI isn’t just about technical skill — it’s about curiosity, questioning assumptions, and challenging authority. Whereas Silicon Valley thrives on disruption, China’s political culture fears it. Startups need freedom to experiment, but China’s AI strategy is heavily state-directed. 

China develops AI as if it were going through another Great Leap Forward. How do I know? I checked some white papers on AI development, and my oh my, can you believe that China had an AI development roadmap back in 1979? And can you believe that by the end of last year, there were over 4311 leading artificial intelligence enterprises in China? Yes, it is only high-performing Unicorns that lead, but 4,311? I bet most of these companies are not developing AI, just like many solar panel producers in the early 2000s were footwear producers before government subsidies and supportive policies kicked in. 

Therefore, I think China’s AI leadership is highly exaggerated.  

AI’s Application Compared to the Input is Infinitesimal.  

AI will not help China’s economy — it will hurt it. AI is created for a reason, and if that reason is to assist human beings, not surpass human beings, its application is reasonable and acceptable. AI is, at best, human-like in its capabilities, or at worst, a powerful tool like a computer or a calculator, or a self-driving car. AI will, for the foreseeable future, substitute for humans in doing tedious, repetitive, and non-essential tasks. If we use AI in factories, shops, or restaurants, fewer workers, cashiers, or waiters are needed. Good. But we wouldn’t want to use AI in situation rooms, in UN Security Council meetings, or in nuclear weapon facilities.   

In economic history, technological advances have driven higher productivity. The West became wealthy largely due to the Industrial Revolution, while China’s rise was primarily fueled by offshoring and outsourcing of those same functions. The West will need to get by with fewer workers, especially hard laborers, but in China, it is not a desirable thing to replace human labor with AI. China’s population numbers 1.4 billion, over half in cities and mostly without a high school education. At least one third of them need jobs — not high-paying programming jobs, but relatively low-paying, low-tech jobs — to survive.  

Recently, an article made its rounds in Chinese media with a title something like “AI civil servants take office, completing three months’ worth of work in just three days.” The civil servant who wrote this article soon realized the irony and withdrew it. Being a civil servant in China is a relatively fancier job than being a factory worker or a shopkeeper. But any economist will tell you that civil servants don’t create wealth — they live on taxpayer money. And Chinese civil servants spend most of their time not working for taxpayers’ interests, but attending meetings, study sessions, and writing journals listing how they have benefited from those study sessions. By far, the most effective use of AI in China, I dare say, is civil servants using chatbots to write pages and pages of “Party Member Study Notes.”  

Creating jobs, not reducing jobs with AI, is a more urgent issue for the Chinese government. If you’ve visited China, you might discover some very interesting and unfathomable jobs. For example, there are still “elevator operators,” people who press the button in an elevator. There are actually businesses called “Computerized Fortune Telling and Naming Services” (I swear I’m not making this up), where computers are used to predict fortunes or generate names for newborns — likely among the earliest commercial computer applications in China. You can still see such shops in big cities like Beijing or Shanghai. Such odd jobs indicate that the application of technology can be so different than what’s intended for the technology when it’s created. And China simply cannot afford to replace human jobs with AI.  

Shortly after the conclusion of the Two Sessions, the graduation season will arrive. According to forecasts from China’s Ministry of Education, 12.22 million university students are expected to graduate and enter the job market in the spring and summer of 2025. In 2024, China saw 11.79 million university graduates, marking what was already recognized as the “toughest job market in history.” With an even larger number of graduates in 2025, finding employment is expected to be even more challenging than last year. Many of these university graduates are not going to want to do factory jobs, they want to work in offices, but AI can increasingly replace office workers nowadays. Add the university graduates to the already underemployed workforce in China, and any rational decision maker will think twice before embracing AI.  

What Is China’s AI Future?

This round of AI fever might generate one of three scenarios for Chinese AI.  

  1. Application of AI is very much limited to certain areas, such as military or economic planning, stimulating another round of discussion about “socialist calculation” and the possibility of planned economy. In the meantime, a skeletal, censored version of AI is commercialized for the consumer market, isolated from the outside world, and heavily censored. How heavily? That is a top secret since officially, there is no censorship in China at all.  
  2. Regulations catch up, and AI is banned in labor-intensive industries to protect jobs. Discussions of whether a company should still be forced to pay into state pensions when they replace workers with AI or robots is already underway. It’s ridiculous, but it is happening.
  3. China treats AI like the Apollo Program — a political prestige project. The actual mechanics of AI are at least successful enough to bridge the hype until China moves on to its next ‘global leadership’ project (perhaps Mars exploration, just because the Americans are pursuing it) But AI will not be heavily put to use in schools, government agencies, or factories, as its appearance, rather than its functionality, will be paramount.  

True, China might be charging ahead in areas such as computer vision, facial recognition, and AI surveillance. Yes, Chinese companies such as Alibaba and Tencent have integrated AI deeply into daily life via e-commerce and fintech. And sure, China has heavily invested in AI talent and chips. But China is not going to lead in AI, because its powerful institutions do not allow it to lead, only to follow.

As the global economy shifts toward electrification and clean energy, lithium has emerged as a cornerstone of the energy transition, and the US is racing to secure its place in the supply chain.

Lithium-ion batteries are no longer just critical to electric vehicles (EVs); they’re becoming vital across sectors to stabilize power systems, particularly amid growing reliance on intermittent renewables.

According to Fastmarkets, demand for battery energy storage systems (BESS) is accelerating, driven by data centers, which have seen electricity consumption grow 12 percent annually since 2017.

In the US, where data infrastructure is heavily clustered, BESS demand from data centers alone could make up a third of the market by 2030, with a projected compound annual growth rate of 35 percent.

As the US works to expand domestic production and reduce import dependence, policy uncertainty, including potential rollbacks of EV tax credits and clean energy incentives, clouds the investment outlook.

1. Sociedad Química y Minera (NYSE:SQM)

Year-to-date gain: 10.43 percent
Market cap: US$10.82 billion
Share price: US$40.64

SQM is a major global lithium producer, with operations centered in Chile’s Salar de Atacama. The company extracts lithium from brine and produces lithium carbonate and hydroxide for use in batteries.

SQM is expanding production and holds interests in projects in Australia and China.

Shares of SQM reached a year-to-date high of US$45.61 on March 17, 2025. The spike occurred a few weeks after the company released its 2024 earnings report, which highlighted record sales volumes in the lithium and iodine segments. However, low lithium prices weighed on revenue from the segment, and the company’s reported net profit was pulled down significantly due to a large accounting adjustment related to income tax.

In late April, Chile’s competition watchdog approved the partnership agreement between SQM and state-owned copper giant Codelco aimed at boosting output at the Atacama salt flat. The deal, first announced in 2024, reached another milestone when it secured approval for an additional lithium quota from Chile’s nuclear energy regulator CChEN.

Weak lithium prices continued to weigh on profits, with the company reporting a 4 percent year-over-year decrease in total revenues for Q1 2025.

2. Lithium Americas (NYSE:LAC)

Year-to-date gain: 9.67 percent
Market cap: US$719.1 million
Share price: US$3.29

Lithium Americas is developing its flagship Thacker Pass project in Northern Nevada, US. The project is a joint venture between Lithium Americas at 62 percent and General Motors (NYSE:GM) at 38 percent.

According to the firm, Thacker Pass is the “largest known measured lithium resource and reserve in the world.”

Early in the year, Lithium Americas saw its share rally to a year-to-date high of US$3.49 on January 16, coinciding with a brief rally in lithium carbonate prices.

In March, Lithium Americas secured US$250 million from Orion Resource Partners to advance Phase 1 construction of Thacker Pass. The funding is expected to fully cover development costs through the construction phase. On April 1, the joint venture partners made a final investment decision for the project, with completion targeted for late 2027.

Other notable announcements this year included a new at-the-market equity program, allowing the company to sell up to US$100 million in common shares.

3. Lithium Argentina (NYSE:LAR)

Year-to-date gain: 8.46 percent
Market cap: US$467.28 million
Share price: US$2.90

Lithium Argentina produces lithium carbonate from its Caucharí-Olaroz brine project in Argentina, developed with Ganfeng Lithium (OTC Pink:GNENF,HKEX:1772).

The company is also advancing additional regional lithium assets to support EV and battery demand.

Previously named Lithium Americas (Argentina), the company was spun out from Lithium Americas in October 2023.

While shares of Lithium Argentina spiked in early January to a year-to-date high of US$3.10, the share price has been trending higher since June 19 to its current US$2.90 value.

Notable news from the company this year includes its name and ticker change and corporate migration to Switzerland in late January and the release of the full-year 2024 results in March.

In mid-April, Lithium Argentina executed a letter of intent with Ganfeng Lithium to jointly advance development across the Pozuelos-Pastos Grandes basins in Argentina. The plan includes a project fully owned by Ganfeng as well as two jointly held assets majority-owned by Lithium Argentina.

The company released its Q1 results on May 15, reporting a 15 percent quarter-over-quarter production reduction, which it attributed to planned shutdowns aimed at increasing recoveries and reducing costs.

Overall, the production guidance for 2025 is forecasted at 30,000 to 35,000 metric tons of lithium carbonate, reflecting higher expected production volumes in the second half of the year.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, currently hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Investor Insights

Rapidly emerging as Southeast Asia’s premier base and battery metals developer, Blackstone Minerals now holds two globally significant projects: the Ta Khoa nickel-cobalt project in Vietnam and the Mankayan copper-gold porphyry project in the Philippines. Both projects are critical to the company’s strategy to become a vertically integrated, low-cost, low-carbon producer of critical battery and base metals.

Overview

As the global economy accelerates toward net-zero emissions, the demand for critical minerals continues to rise, with nickel and copper positioned at the forefront of the energy transition. Historically used in stainless steel, nickel is now a core component in lithium-ion batteries; while copper, vital for electrification infrastructure, is similarly facing a looming supply crunch.

Blackstone Minerals (ASX:BSX,OTC:BLSTF,FRA:B9S) recognizes this strategic imperative and has positioned itself as a diversified, vertically integrated producer of low-cost, low-carbon battery and base metals.

Following its transformational merger with IDM International, Blackstone now controls two globally significant assets: the Ta Khoa nickel project in Vietnam and the Mankayan copper-gold project in the Philippines. Together, they represent a rare combination of scale, grade and strategic location in Southeast Asia, an increasingly vital region in the global clean energy supply chain.

View of Blackstone Minerals

The Mankayan copper-gold project is located in Northern Luzon, Philippines

The recently acquired Mankayan project adds substantial scale and diversification to Blackstone’s portfolio. One of the largest undeveloped copper-gold porphyry systems in Asia, Mankayan features over 56,000 meters of historical drilling and a resource of 793 million tonnes (Mt) at 0.756 percent copper equivalent (CuEq), including a high-grade core of 170 Mt at 1.049 percent CuEq. The project benefits from proximity to existing infrastructure and its location just 2.5 km from the operating Lepanto gold mine, owned and operated by Lepanto Consolidated Mining Company, and Far Southeast Gold Resources’ Far Southeast project.

The Ta Khoa project, meanwhile, includes both a past-producing underground nickel sulphide mine (Ban Phuc) and an advanced-stage refinery designed to produce battery-grade precursor cathode active material (pCAM). Vietnam’s low labor and energy costs, coupled with regulated power pricing and surging foreign direct investment, make it an ideal base for Blackstone’s vertically integrated strategy.

Blackstone is uniquely positioned to benefit from geopolitical tailwinds. Vietnam’s Free Trade Agreement with the European Union and the US Inflation Reduction Act are drawing significant interest from global partners and battery manufacturers. Meanwhile, the Philippines is undergoing a mining renaissance, with the government promoting foreign investment in responsible resource development. Mankayan has already been identified as a priority project by the Philippines’ Mines and Geosciences Bureau.

The company’s development strategy is underpinned by a commitment to ESG leadership. Blackstone is advancing renewable energy solutions for Ta Khoa via a direct power purchase agreement with Limes Renewables and is collaborating with Arca Climate Technologies to explore carbon capture through mineralization. At Mankayan, the company is focused on sustainable development in partnership with local communities.

Financially, Blackstone is well-capitalized to deliver on its dual-track growth plan. Following the merger with IDM, the company raised AU$22.6 million and holds AU$24.36 million in cash as of June 2025. The company’s experienced leadership team and strong partnerships provide a clear path to near-term value creation, as both projects progress toward definitive feasibility studies and long-term production.

Blackstone Minerals is now one of Southeast Asia’s leading battery and base metals developers, with a clear vision to supply responsibly sourced nickel and copper for the global energy transition.

Company Highlights

  • Diversified Portfolio: With Ta Khoa in Vietnam and Mankayan in the Philippines, Blackstone offers exposure to two critical and high-demand metal classes: nickel and copper-gold.
  • Strategic Southeast Asia Presence: Vietnam and the Philippines are emerging hubs for EV and mineral resource development, with robust government support and increasing foreign direct investment.
  • Infrastructure Advantage: Both projects benefit from existing infrastructure, including hydroelectric power, trained workforces, and government collaboration.
  • Sustainability Leadership: Blackstone is pursuing low-emission mining solutions through partnerships in renewable energy and carbon capture technologies.
  • Financially Strong: Blackstone raised AU$22.6 million post-merger, supporting an aggressive exploration and development strategy across both assets.

Key Project

Mankayan Copper-Gold Project – Philippines

Map of mining projects in Luzon, Philippines with highlighting Blackstone Minerals

Following its merger with IDM International, Blackstone now owns a 64 percent effective interest in the world-class Mankayan copper-gold project through Crescent Mining Development. Located in the prolific mineral belt of Northern Luzon, Philippines, Mankayan is one of Asia’s largest undeveloped copper-gold porphyry systems. It lies approximately 340 km from Manila by road, and just 2.5 kilometers from the operating Lepanto gold mine, which includes a 900 ktpa underutilized milling facility.

The Mankayan deposit spans roughly 1,100 meters of strike and 600 meters in width, with mineralization open to the north, south and at depth. Over 56,000 meters of diamond drilling has been completed to date, and the deposit hosts a JORC 2012-compliant mineral resource estimate of 793 Mt at 0.37 percent copper and 0.40 grams per ton (g/t) gold, equating to 0.756 percent CuEq. This includes a high-grade core of 170 Mt at 0.48 percent copper and 0.59 g/t gold (1.049 percent CuEq), offering valuable optionality.

Gold and copper cross-sections of Blackstone Minerals

Drilling results support Mankayan’s classification as a globally significant resource. Notable historic intercepts include:

  • 911 meters at 1 percent CuEq, including 253 meters at 1.43 percent CuEq
  • 543 meters at 1.08 percent CuEq, including 277 meters at 1.43 percent CuEq
  • 1,119 meters at 0.86 percent CuEq, including 352 meters at 1.15 percent CuEq
  • 754 meters at 1.03 percent CuEq, including 430 meters at 1.21 percent CuEq

In July 2025, Blackstone confirmed significant new surface mineralization through historical rock chip samples returning grades up to 6 g/t gold and 1.9 percent copper, and a standout recent drill hole – 432 meters at 1.25 percent CuEq (including 210 meters at 1.60 percent) – further underscoring the project’s scale and growth potential.

A key strategic advantage of Mankayan is its dual development pathway. The high-grade core supports a low-capex startup via selective mining methods, while the bulk of the deposit can be exploited through larger-scale mining scenarios that benefit from lower operating costs and economies of scale. This tiered approach allows Blackstone to balance capital efficiency with long-term growth.

Regulatory and community engagement milestones have also been achieved. The project’s 25-year mineral production sharing agreement was renewed in 2022, and a memorandum of agreement with local Indigenous Peoples was signed in 2024, making Blackstone the first mining company to obtain IP consent in the area. The Mines and Geosciences Bureau of the Philippines has since designated Mankayan as a priority development project.

Mankayan stands out globally when benchmarked against peer porphyry systems. A comparative analysis of undeveloped copper-gold projects ranks it near the top in terms of grade and copper equivalent tonnage, reaffirming its strategic and economic potential on the world stage.

Scatter plot comparing gold and copper grades of at Blackstone Mineral

In 2025 and beyond, Blackstone will continue metallurgical testwork, geophysics (including magnetics, IP and electromagnetics), environmental baseline studies, and further drilling to refine and expand the resource. These efforts will support upcoming mining studies and a targeted prefeasibility study.

Ta Khoa

Blackstone Mineral

Ta Khoa nickel project in Vietnam

Blackstone Minerals holds a 90 percent interest in the Ta Khoa nickel project, located in the Son La Province of northern Vietnam, about 160 km west of Hanoi. The project comprises the Ban Phuc underground nickel sulphide mine – a modern operation built to Australian standards that operated between 2013 and 2016 – and the adjacent Ta Khoa refinery, currently being developed to produce battery-grade precursor cathode active material (pCAM).

The Ban Phuc mine is currently under care and maintenance but is poised for recommissioning alongside the construction of a concentrator and refinery. The broader Ta Khoa asset base contains probable reserves of 48.7 million tonnes (Mt) at 0.43 percent nickel, equivalent to 210 kilotonnes (kt) of contained nickel. The mining inventory totals 64.5 Mt at 0.41 percent nickel, containing 265 kt of nickel. This figure excludes additional developing prospects such as Ban Khoa.

Over the planned 10-year mine life, Ta Khoa is expected to produce an average of 18 kt of nickel concentrate annually, with the potential to extend well beyond this horizon through integrated refining. The existing infrastructure onsite, including a 450 ktpa mill and a mining camp, provides significant capital efficiency and accelerates time to production.

A recent 12-month pilot program, conducted in partnership with ALS and Wood, successfully demonstrated that Ta Khoa’s hydrometallurgical flowsheet can convert concentrate into nickel sulphate at 99.95 percent purity and 97 percent recovery. This success positions the refinery as a credible supplier to the Asia-Pacific battery supply chain.

The project is further distinguished by its low emissions profile. Independent assessments by Digbee, Minviro, Circulor and an audit by the Nickel Institute have confirmed Ta Khoa as the lowest-emitting pCAM flowsheet in the industry, with carbon intensity of just 9.8 kg CO₂ per kg of pCAM, with opportunities for further reduction.

Blackstone’s development strategy includes flexible feedstock acceptance – from nickel concentrate to black mass – and is strengthened by partnerships with Cavico Laos for third-party supply, Arca Climate Technologies for carbon capture via mineralization, and Limes Renewables to supply clean wind energy. Additionally, the company has secured byproduct offtake arrangements for manganese sulphate and sodium sulphate with VinaChem, PVChem and Nam Phong Green, reinforcing its commitment to full-cycle resource utilization and ESG leadership.

Management Team

Hamish Halliday – Non-executive Chairman

Hamish Halliday is a geologist with over 20 years of corporate and technical experience. He is also the founder of Adamus Resources Limited, an AU$3 million float that became a multimillion-ounce emerging gold producer.

Scott Williamson – Managing Director

Scott Williamson is a mining engineer with a commerce degree from the West Australian School of Mines and Curtin University. He has over 10 years of experience in technical and corporate roles in the mining and finance sectors.

Geoff Gilmour – Non-executive Director

Appointed following Blackstone’s merger with IDM, Geoff Gilmour brings deep experience in Southeast Asian mining ventures. He has held senior roles in exploration and development across copper and gold projects in the Philippines and broader Asia-Pacific.

Tessa Kutscher – Executive

Tessa Kutscher is an executive with more than 20 years of experience in working with C-Level executive teams in the fields of business strategy, business planning/optimisation and change management. After starting her career in Germany, she has worked internationally across different industries, such as mining, finance, tourism and tertiary education.

Lon Taranaki – Executive

Lon Taranaki is an international mining professional with over 25 years of extensive experience in all aspects of resources and mining, feasibility, development and operations. Taranaki is a qualified process engineer from the University of Queensland Australia. He holds a Master of Business Administration, and is a fellow of the Australian Institute of Company Directors. Taranaki has established his career in Asia where he has successfully worked (and lived) across multiple jurisdictions and commodities ranging from technical, mine management and executive management roles.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The copper price was volatile during the second quarter of 2025, but remained elevated compared to the price point near the start of the year.

Several factors were at play for copper during the second quarter, most notably the ongoing threat of tariffs on several sectors with close ties to the red metal. This also caused significant fallout in global financial sectors, with economists early in the quarter raising the spectre of a widespread recession.

Uncertainty, fear, and speculation were primary price drivers as metal traders, market movers, and investors tried to determine the best investment strategy against the backdrop of a chaotic economic landscape.

What moved the copper price?

Copper started the quarter in freefall.

After reaching an all-time high of US$5.22 per pound on the COMEX on March 26, the price plummeted to US$4.06 on April 8. Although it wouldn’t stay there long, by April 11, it had climbed back above US$4.50 and continued to US$4.88 on April 22.

Copper price chart, April 01 to July 23, 2025

via TradingEconomics

From the end of April, all of May and much of June, the copper price was volatile but range-bound, trading between US$4.50 and US$4.80.

However, the end of June saw a surge in momentum in the market, as the price began to climb, and on June 30, it reached US$4.97 per pound.

Since then, the price has soared. Setting a new all-time high of US$5.65 per pound on July 10.

Supply and demand by the numbers

Over the past few years, a growing imbalance has developed in the copper market, as demand growth has outpaced the expansion of primary and secondary supply lines.

According to a June 24 press release, data from the International Copper Study Group (ICSG) showed a 3.2 percent growth in refined production, with a combined gain of 4.8 percent from China and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the two largest producers globally. Further increases came from Asia, where output was 3.5 percent higher.

The increased levels were offset by Chile, where smelter output fell 9.5 percent, due to smelter maintenance shutdowns.

However, the refined production outpaced mining production, which rose just 2 percent during the period. Peru accounted for a 5 percent year-over-year growth due to increased output at MMG’s (OTC Pink:MMLTF) Las Bambas, Anglo American (LSE:AAL,OTC Pink:AAUKF,OTC:NGLOY) and Mitsubishi’s (OTC Pink:MIMTF) Quellaveco and Chinalco Mining’s (OTC Pink:ALMMF) Toromocho mines.

Likewise, production in DRC surged by 8 percent, attributable to the expansion of the Ivanhoe Mines (TSX:IVN,OTC:IVPAF) and Zijin Mining’s (OTC Pink:ZIJMF,HKEX:2899,SHA:601899) joint venture Kamoa-Kakula mine.

Demand continued to grow at a higher rate than refined output during the first quarter of 2025, with the ICSG suggesting a 3.3 percent increase in copper usage.

The largest segment came from Chinese markets, which required 6 percent more copper than in 2024, but this demand occurred during an 11 percent decline in net refined imports into the country. China is the world’s largest consumer of copper, accounting for approximately 58 percent of global demand.

Outside of China, demand was essentially flat, with high demand from Asian, Middle Eastern and North African countries being offset by weak demand in Europe and North America.

Overall, the data provided by the ICSG indicated a 233,000 metric ton surplus of refined copper through the first four months of 2025, a slight decrease from the 236,000 metric tons during the same period in 2024.

Outside the numbers

“Yes, we believe we have moved into a supply deficit in 2025 and that the market is currently in deficit. Uncertainties in the financial markets (trade, growth and inflation) have had a negative impact on copper demand, but this has been offset as copper is becoming less tied to global economic growth and more tied to industries that provide structural growth to the market,” he said.

White went on to explain that AI data centers, emerging economies and the energy transition are all putting increased stress on copper supply.

Furthermore, the supply outlook was not expected to keep pace with demand this year. Q1 2025 mined copper production has indicated low production, and the copper supply outlook for this year has already worsened with the first major disruption of the year,” he added.

The shutdown referred to by White was at the Ivanhoe-Zijin Kakula-Kamoa mine in the DRC.

Ivanhoe reported a temporary interruption of underground mining at the Kakula mine on May 2. The company cited seismic activity and initiated a partial shutdown of operations at phase 1 and 2 concentrators, utilizing surface stockpiles.

Operations at the mine were suspended until June 11, when the company announced it had initiated a restart. It also stated that it was slashing production guidance by 28 percent due to the impact, with the revised number falling between 370,000 and 420,000 metric tons, down from the previous range of 520,000 to 580,000 set in January.

The difference in guidance accounts for more than half of the projected surplus in the ICSG report, demonstrating just how tight the copper market has become.

The Trump effect

Volatility has been present since the start of the year, with much of it attributed to uncertainty stemming from an ever-shifting US trade policy under President Donald Trump.

Commodity prices plummeted at the start of the second quarter, with copper losing 22 percent between its quarterly high of US$5.22 on March 26 and April 8, when it fell to US$4.06.

The drop came alongside the fallout from the “Liberation Day” tariffs Trump announced on April 2, which applied a 10 percent baseline tariff to imports into the United States from all but a handful of countries. It also threatened the imposition of more significant retaliatory tariffs to take effect on April 9.

Additionally, the United States initiated a tit-for-tat tariff war with China in early April, starting with a 34 percent tariff on Chinese imports, which quickly rose to 145 percent on Chinese imports and 125 percent on US exports to China.

The effect of the tariffs caused significant declines in major US indices, with the Dow losing 9.5 percent, the S&P 500 shedding 10 percent, and the Nasdaq losing 11 percent in two days. More than $6 trillion was wiped from the markets over two days, the most significant such loss in history.

More importantly, the uncertainty seeped into the US bond markets, causing yields on the 10-year Treasury to rise sharply to 4.49 percent as investors began to dump US bonds. The rising rates came as China and Japan both sold holdings back into the market in an attempt to counter Trump’s trade plans.

The combined effect led analysts to suggest that a recession was imminent, prompting broad sell-offs in the commodity markets as traders worked to dispose of stockpiles of high-value inventories.

Copper is susceptible to recessions due to its wide range of applications, which are heavily dependent on consumer spending.

Ultimately, a sliding stock market and spiking bond yields prompted Trump to announce a 90-day pause on the retaliatory tariffs, stating that it would allow countries to come to the table and negotiate a deal with the United States.

Although the rout of the copper market was short-lived, it demonstrated the push-pull that tariffs and trade policy can have on copper prices.

In February, Trump signed an executive order which invoked section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act to initiate an investigation into the impact of copper imports on all forms of national security.

In the order, Trump noted that while the US has ample copper reserves, its smelting and refining capacity has declined. China has become the world’s leading supplier of refined copper, commanding a 50 percent market share.

“The supply and demand imbalance has recently been catalyzed with the US trade actions, where copper stocks have moved into the US on speculation that the Section 232 investigation into copper may result in a copper tariff,” White said.

He explained that the global inventory system has become fragmented. With the supply deficit, it has become increasingly difficult to source physical copper, resulting in drastically lower inventories on the London Metal Exchange (LME) and Shanghai Futures Exchange (SHFE).

The administration reached a decision early in the third quarter, and on July 8, Donald Trump announced a 50 percent tariff on all copper entering the United States.

The move caused prices on the COMEX to spike to record highs, triggering more panic buying among traders as they raced to transfer above-ground copper stocks into US-based facilities to avoid the additional tariff costs.

While ICSG hasn’t published numbers since May, it was already demonstrating then that significant stockpiles were being moved between international warehouses and the US. It reported that stocks at the LME had declined 122,900 metric tons from the start of the year, while stocks at the COMEX and SHFE had both posted gains of 80,970 metric tons and 31,619 metric tons, respectively.

“Copper is globally fungible. It’s like oil. The sanctions don’t work on Russian oil or Iranian oil, because it just flows around. Copper can do that, too. So it’s incorrect to think that a copper tariff, therefore, copper is up, and all copper stocks have to go up. If you’re a copper miner in Chile selling to China, then the US tariff has no direct bearing on your business whatsoever,” he said.

Tigre also explained that the US imports 50 percent of its copper needs, and there is no way that tariffs are going to fix that overnight.

“The mines just aren’t there. The help he’s (Trump) provided with permitting is highly relevant, and it has already helped; that’s okay. You get the permits, and then you have to build the mine, right? So it’ll be years before the incentives create more US production. Meanwhile, it’s Dr. Copper. It goes in everything, so consumers, manufacturers, everybody’s got this added cost,” he said.

Where does copper go next?

Beyond the tariffs, the fundamentals remain, as Tigre pointed out, the world is dependent on copper and demand for the red metal has been increasing faster than supply.

“There aren’t enough copper projects on the pipeline, not ones big enough to matter. So I’m extremely bullish on copper. All those reasons to be bullish on copper are still on the table in front of us, and when I first made the call, copper was around four bucks or something, and now, if we’re going there at five, almost six, and all that tailwind is stil to come and push it higher,” Tigre said.

While he remained positive on copper’s long-term outlook, he declined to say where the price would end up at the end of the year.

Even though copper may be one of the safer commodity bets owing to its staggering demand and low supply, investors should keep in mind the broad economic landscape when entering into a position with a metal that can change quickly with consumer spending.

Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The second quarter of 2025 was a period of dynamic evolution within the biotechnology and pharmaceutical sectors.

Critical factors like escalating policy pressures, pipeline pivots by leading companies and the increasingly transformative impact of artificial intelligence (AI) shaped the landscape and presented both challenges and opportunities for growth.

Escalating policy and tariff pressures

The biopharmaceutical industry is currently grappling with significant headwinds, primarily driven by an evolving and unpredictable tariff landscape. This uncertainty has already impacted market activity, with only two initial public offerings in Q2 compared to five in Q1.

Regulatory shifts and concerns of an imminent trade war caused a nearly nine percent drop in the SPDR S&P Biotech ETF nearly nine percent in the first week of April, following US President Donald Trump’s announcement of a 10 percent global tariff on nearly all goods entering the US.

Subsequent discussions have led to a dynamic and often unpredictable landscape. Throughout May and June, negotiations saw a temporary de-escalation, with some of the more severe tariffs being paused or substantially reduced for many goods until mid-August; however, a cumulative tariff of up to 245 percent on certain Chinese active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs) has been in effect since April, significantly impacting the pharmaceutical supply chain.

Lingering uncertainties have also persisted; as of mid-July, while direct negotiations are ongoing, the US has signaled an intent to potentially increase the baseline reciprocal tariff rate to 15-20 percent and has threatened a hike of 35 percent on goods currently subject to the 25 percent fentanyl tariff, effective August 1.

Further intensifying the pressure, Trump has recently proposed a dramatic 200 percent tariff on imported finished pharmaceutical products, as well as 30 percent tariffs on the EU and Mexico, slated to begin on August 1.

For pharmaceuticals, the higher import costs for APIs and finished drugs are forcing companies to continuously re-evaluate their supply chains and brace for potential price increases.

Tariffs on steel and aluminium could also increase costs for stainless-steel bioprocessing equipment, lab equipment and medical devices.

Picton Mahoney’s 2025 Mid-Year Report discusses the risks associated with tariffs, including increased recession odds, stagflation risks and the possibility of renewed protectionist policies creating ripple effects across global equity markets. The authors add that building pricing pressures in the US from new tariffs and a weaker US dollar could exacerbate negative economic trends.

The report also highlights that policy uncertainty is bad for corporate planning and could lead to a pause in spending.

Evaluate Pharma’s World Preview 2025 report, released in June, states that mergers and acquisitions (M&A) activity in the biopharmaceutical industry is “off the pace so far in 2025”, with the slowdown attributed to uncertainties surrounding US tariffs and drug pricing policy. An unnamed former Big Pharma CEO is quoted as saying, “I’d be holding off dealmaking for 3-6 months until this [tariff framework] plays out”.

The report also indicates that the deals that are happening are “heavily risk-mitigated” and often involve late-stage or marketed assets or, if programs have not yet been finalized, include contingent payments.

M&A trends and pipeline expansion

Despite a slowdown in the market, pharma and biotech companies continued to pursue M&As in the second quarter, seeking to strengthen their product pipelines with a focus on bolt-on acquisitions.

Notably, there was a trend of European pharmaceutical giants acquiring US-based biotechnology firms, such as GSK’s (NYSE:GSK) acquisition of Boston Pharmaceuticals’ subsidiary, BP Asset IX, to gain access to its live disease drug, efinofermin, in a deal valued at up to US$2 billion.

Significant investments were also directed toward immunology, rare diseases and neurodegenerative disorders, underscoring a broader trend in the industry toward targeted pipeline expansion and addressing unmet medical needs across a range of complex conditions.

Sanofi’s (NASDAQ:SNY) US$9.5 billion acquisition of Blueprint Medicines garnered considerable attention due to the startup’s very specific and strong focus within the rare disease space. Many industry observers expect the deal will help grow Sanofi’s portfolio of rare disease treatments.

The acquisitions were diverse in their therapeutic focus, but Merck’s (NYSE:MRK) acquisition of SpringWorks Therapeutics, which specializes in rare and genetically defined cancers, highlighted the ongoing dominance of oncology.

Healthcare policy changes under Trump

AI-driven solutions are continuing to have an impact on life science industries. Several panels at Web Summit Vancouver highlighted how investors are increasingly focused on AI’s potential for significant productivity gains in life sciences, particularly in drug development and synthetic biology, despite challenges in regulation and data integration.

Wesley Chan of FPV Ventures highlighted life sciences as a sector where AI offers significant productivity gains, citing Strand Therapeutics’ AI-developed mRNA cancer therapy as an example of a generational investment opportunity available through the convergence of biology and AI.

Tom Beigala, founding partner at Bison Ventures, said he believes AI and next-generation computational technologies are driving innovation across the entire healthcare system, from making drug discovery easier and more cost-effective to optimizing data utilization and significantly increasing labor and clinical productivity.

Eric Hoskins, partner at Maverix Private Equity, identified AI-guided personalized medicine as one of the “fast movers” poised to bring an abrupt and immediate change to healthcare.

Reflecting this accelerating integration of AI into clinical practice and patient care, Sanofi and Regeneron (NASDAQ:REGN) partnered with Viz.ai, an AI healthcare firm, in May to integrate AI into COPD management.

Looking ahead

As the biotech and pharma sectors head into the third quarter, the outlook remains clouded by policy uncertainty, rising input costs and shifting global trade dynamics. Yet opportunities remain for firms that can navigate the complexity. Large-cap leaders like Novartis (NYSE:NVS), Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) and Sanofi have demonstrated that strong fundamentals and strategic pipeline development can drive outperformance, even in turbulent markets.

As far as policy goes, the Trump administration’s inclusion of enhanced orphan drug incentives under the “Big Beautiful Bill” could act as a catalyst for rare disease innovation.

AI remains a transformative force across the industry. As generative models begin to inform pipeline design and clinical trial optimization, companies with robust data strategies and smart manufacturing capabilities are expected to gain a competitive advantage.

“For us, we really like applications of AI where you’ve got proprietary data, in many cases, probably off the shelf for lightly modified AI models, and then going after super high value applications,” said Beigala, a founding partner of Bison Ventures, which has a portfolio spanning AI-enhanced drug discovery, advanced life science tools for pre-clinical testing and synthetic biology applications.

Similarly, investment in domestic CDMO infrastructure and real-time manufacturing analytics will be crucial for supply chain resilience in an increasingly protectionist trade environment.

Looking ahead, commercial-stage differentiation will become more critical than ever. Investors will be watching closely for companies that can combine clinical results, cost control and regulatory readiness to stand out in a cautious market.

“That’s what we look for, these application models where the team is so thoughtful and smart and so uniquely positioned to understand and have access to data that nobody else has,” Chan explained.

Biopharma’s next phase will be defined by measurable progress. In Q3, adaptability, resilience and clear-eyed execution will matter more than ever.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com