Latest News
-
Concerns about Iran's supply disruption drive up oil prices
The price of oil edged up on Tuesday as concerns about Iran and possible supply disruptions overshadowed the possibility of an increase in crude?supply coming from Venezuela. Brent futures rose 28 cents or 0.4%, to $64.15 per barrel, by 0101 GMT. They were hovering close to a two-month peak?achieved?in the prior session. U.S. West Texas Intermediate Crude rose by 28 cents or 0.5% to $59.78. This is the highest price since December 8, which was reached earlier in the session. Iran, a major producer of oil in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), is experiencing its largest anti-government protests in many years. Donald Trump, the U.S. president, warned of possible military action if the violence perpetrated against the protesters was lethal. Trump is expected to meet with senior advisers to discuss options regarding Iran on Tuesday, according to a U.S. official. The U.S. President said Monday that any country doing business with Iran would be subject to a 25% tariff on all business conducted with 'the United States. The development is important for the?oil market as Iran is a major producer sanctioned and any escalation in tensions could disrupt supply, or add geopolitical risks. Barclays stated in a report that "unrest in Iran added approximately $3-4/barrel to the geopolitical premium on oil prices." The markets are also concerned about the additional supply of crude oil that will hit the market as Venezuela is expected to resume exports. Trump announced last week that, following the ouster President Nicolas Maduro's, the government in Caracas was set to deliver up to 50 million barrels (oil) to the U.S., which would be subject to Western sanctions. The global oil trading houses are ahead of the U.S. energy majors in the race to control Venezuelan crude flow. Geopolitical tensions have escalated in other places as Russian forces launched Kharkiv, located in the northeastern part of Ukraine, was one of two cities attacked early Tuesday morning, according to Ukrainian officials. The United States has a wide range of Trump administration The Federal Reserve has redoubled its attacks against the Federal Reserve. This has heightened concerns about the independence of the central bank and increased uncertainty regarding future economic conditions and the oil demand. (Reporting by Anushree Mukherjee in Bengaluru; Editing by Jacqueline Wong)
-
Johnson & Johnson's $1 Billion loss from the robotics takeover is reduced by Delaware's top court
Johnson & Johnson persuaded Delaware's highest Court to dismiss part of a $1 billion damages award due to its breach of a 2019 agreement to buy Auris Health - a manufacturer of surgical robots. In a?unanimous ruling on Monday, Delaware’s Supreme Court set aside a part of the September 20,24 award made to former Auris investors who claimed that Johnson & Johnson had failed to support Auris’ iPlatform Technology and was too slow in gaining regulatory approvals for bringing?devices onto the market. After recalculation, damages and interest could be reduced by several hundred million dollars. Fortis Advisors, the company representing the shareholders, has accused J&J for fraudulently?inducing Auris into accepting payments contingent upon achieving certain'milestones' instead of receiving more money upfront. The deal valued Auris's shares at $3.4 billion. Justice?Abigail LeGrow, in an 87-page ruling, rejected a Delaware Chancery Court judge's conclusion that Johnson & Johnson was under an implied obligation to seek approval for an iPlatform abdominal procedure product by the end 2021. The Supreme Court upheld the majority of Vice-Chancellor Lori Will’s findings and ordered that she recalculate damage. Johnson & Johnson of New Brunswick, New Jersey said that it was evaluating the next steps. The company stated that it was pleased with the decision of the court to reverse the trial judge's improper substitution for its subjective opinions the parties' carefully negotiated agreement regarding milestone regulatory requirements. "We are disappointed the court did 'not follow the contract language in allowing the remainder of the trial courts decision to stand." Philippe Selendy is a lawyer at Fortis. He said that the ruling showed?that Johnson & Johnson had "inexcusably violated the merger agreement" and deprived Auris of its transformative, life-saving, surgical robot. It also revealed the J&J fraud against Auris.
-
How long can Wall Street ignore Trump's "visible hand"? McGeever
If the record high U.S. stocks prices accurately reflect the investors' assessment of Trump 2.0's first year, it is a glowing scorecard for the most intervening government in decades. The U.S. President, who has become the "activist in chief" of the markets, is yet another example of how the world's economy has gone topsy-turvy. He is questioning and even renouncing the global norms of the last 40 years. Under Donald Trump's leadership, the U.S. Government has taken direct equity stakes and demanded that CEOs be fired. It also tried to dictate compensation for CEOs. The government was assured of a cut in the exports of Big Tech chips, as well as a desire to fire Federal Reserve officials. Trump also ordered the purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities and directed U.S. companies to conduct business in Venezuela. He tried to stop defense firms from purchasing back shares until they increased production. And he called for an annual cap on credit card interest rates, as his Justice Department threatened to indict Fed Chair Jerome Powell. That's all in the last week. INEFFICIENT MARKET HYPOTHESIS? Imagine an alternate future in which Kamala Harris had won the U.S. Presidential election in 2024 and was approaching her first year in office. She would have pursued a similar controversial set of unorthodox policy. Would the markets shrug this off so easily if Kamala Harris won in 2024? Investors would likely have reacted strongly to the news. There has been almost no turmoil in the real world since Trump's "Liberation Day", tariff announcement, which took place in April. Last year was indeed a record-breaking year for stocks, and other asset classes. According to HFR, hedge funds, which are not a fan of government interference in the private and free market, saw their assets under management reach $5 trillion. William Henagan is a research fellow with the Council on Foreign Relations. He agrees that it's a bit of a "conundrum", given the Trump administration's interventionist approach towards Wall Street and Main Street. Henagan asserts that investors don't necessarily perceive the market interventions to be a substantial erosion of the rule of law or property rights which underpin the financial markets and economic system. Perhaps public markets aren't the most efficient or all-seeing. Investors ignore erosion of these fundamentals at their peril. CASE FOR THE DEFENSE The answer to the question "How confident are you in the market?" is usually binary. Investors are confident in the market structure and financial system as long as they remain so. Government intervention in the market economy is not a new thing, and it is also not a bad idea. Many sectors are in favor of it. It can be necessary for reasons like national security, energy safety, or providing a social security net. A year into Trump's second tenure, the "visible" hand of the president can be felt by many parts in USA Inc., pushing aside the invisible market hand posited by Adam Smith, an eighteenth century economist. Trump's capriciousness is still capable of causing volatility, however. Lockheed Martin shares fell 7% on Wednesday night after Trump announced he would stop defense companies from paying dividends or buying back stock. They then recovered 8% after-hours when Trump demanded that the defense budget be increased by 50% to $1.5 trillion. The broader market is continuing to rise, apparently unaffected by what has been the most interventionist government in decades. Wall Street did lag behind its global counterparts last year, but not by much. This could be a sign of Trump's visible hand unnerving investors. But, at least for now, there is no flashing warning light. You like this column? Open Interest (ROI) is your indispensable source of global financial commentary. ROI provides data-driven, thought-provoking analysis on everything from soybeans to swap rates. The markets are changing faster than ever. ROI can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn, X.
-
Officials in Ukraine claim that Russian missiles have struck Kyiv and killed one person in Kharkiv.
Ukrainian officials reported that Russian forces attacked two of?Ukraine?s?largest?cities early on Tuesday morning, killing one in Kharkiv, a city located to the northeast. Tymur Tkachenko is the head of Kyiv’s military administration. He said that missiles were attacking the capital. Mayor Vitali Klitschko confirmed that air defences are in operation. Witnesses heard "explosions" in the city but no word was immediately available on injuries or damage. Oleh Syniehubov, the Regional Governor of Kharkiv (which is 30 km from the Russian border, and is also a popular Russian target), said that one person had been killed in an attack on a outskirts. Syniehubov claimed that three people had been injured. Reporting by Valentyn OGIRenko in Kyiv, Lidia Kelly in Melbourne, and Ron Popeski. Editing by David Gregorio.
-
Sources say that Trafigura and Vitol offer Venezuelan crude oil to Indian and Chinese refiners in March for delivery.
On Monday, several sources reported that Vitol and Trafigura had begun discussions with refiners from India?and China about the sale of Venezuelan crude oil for cargoes due to arrive in March. Global commodities traders confirmed Friday that they had reached agreements with the United States. The?government will help market Venezuelan oil that is stranded, just days after the interim Venezuelan government agreed to export 50 million barrels to the U.S. Their marketing efforts are expected to accelerate the sale and purchase of Venezuelan oil through the U.S. program, allowing OPEC producers to resume their exports that have been halted ever since President Nicolas Maduro was ousted. Trafigura CEO says it will load the first cargo for the U.S. in this week. PETROCHINA INDIAN RIFFINERS Two sources said that Vitol was approaching Indian refineries to sell oil. One of the sources?said that a trader had offered a cargo to ICE Brent at a discounted price of $8-$8.50 per barrel on a delivered basis. Sources told us last week that refiners Indian Oil Corp. and Hindustan Petroleum Corp. would be interested in buying Venezuelan crude oil. Both have not responded to our requests for comment. Reliance Industries said that it would re-consider a return to Venezuelan crude purchases if the sale of Venezuelan oil to non-U.S. customers is permitted by U.S. regulations. Three sources claim that Vitol, Trafigura, and PetroChina have all approached PetroChina to explore interest. PetroChina was a major purchaser of Venezuelan Merey heavy sour crude oil as well as fuel before the U.S. sanctioned began, they said. One of them stated that traders should first approach the large state oil traders, rather than teapots. Independent refiners are usually those who buy sanctioned cheap oil in China. PetroChina didn't immediately respond to our request for comment. Vitol refused to comment. Trafigura said it provides logistical and marketing support to facilitate the sale Venezuelan oil but declined to comment. Second-Half March Delivery A second source confirmed that Vitol and Trafigura have cargoes available for delivery during the second half of march. Shipping data on Kpler revealed that Vitol had loaded the first cargo of naphtha to Venezuela from the U.S. onto the Panamax-sized Hellespont Protector on Sunday. The ship is expected to arrive in the Port of Jose, Venezuela, on January 28. Venezuelan heavy crude oil is thinned with naphtha to make it easier to transport and process. The imminent return of Venezuelan oil has offset fears of a possible supply disruption in Iran that could cap gains on global oil futures. (Reporting from Nidhi verma in New Delhi; Siyi Liu in Singapore, Chen Aizhu in London, and Shariq Khan at New York. Additional reporting by Julia Payne and Shariq in New York. Editing by Jan Harvey.
-
After over a decade, Australia's Lynas rare earths CEO will retire
After 12 years, Lynas Rare Earths, an Australian company, announced that its Chief?Executive Officer and Managing Director, Amanda?Lacaze was retiring. Lynas, in a press release, said that the board had already started a search for a new leader to take over as 'the world's largest producer of rare earths outside China. The company said that Lacaze will remain with them until the end of the current fiscal year to ensure a smooth transition. Lacaze became the chief of the company in 2014, after working as a nonexecutive director for the miner. Lynas has become a dominant player in the production and sale of rare earths elements under her leadership. The stock price has increased more than 12 times since she became CEO. According to LSEG, its market capitalization has risen from A$15 'billion ($10.06 bn) to A$15 'billion (about $10.06 mn). Lacaze was previously the managing director of marketing for Telstra, Australia’s largest telecom company, and held positions at Nestle.
-
M&A boom unlikely to be disrupted by Japan's increased oversight of foreign investment
Experts say that the Japanese plan to allow authorities to order foreign investors retroactively to divest acquisitions aims to protect major companies and supply chains. However, it is unlikely to reduce increased M&A activity. Japan proposed Wednesday amendments to the foreign investment screening laws that would give authorities the?option of forcing foreigners to sell their investments deemed as posing risks to national and economic security. The proposals are being made as the administration of 'Japanese' Prime Minister Sanae Takayichi steps up its efforts to reduce risks posed by an inflow foreign money into Japan's economy and control over major supply chains. Currently, foreign investors who wish to purchase stakes in Japanese firms outside sectors critical to national or economic security do not have to notify the government beforehand, so officials are unable to intervene. These new powers are targeted at high-risk investors, such as those who might work with foreign powers for intelligence gathering. Since 2017, Chinese companies are required to?cooperate with the country's spy agencies. The period in Japan during which transactions may be reviewed rétroactively is around five years. Nicholas Benes of the Board Director Training Institute of Japan said, "Japan wants to prevent Chinese companies from purchasing top-quality Japanese technology and companies." A government source stated that the proposed changes include stricter requirements on indirect investments made by foreign parents in Japanese companies. This is to bring Japan up to par with its allies, such as the U.S.A, Britain, and Germany, in terms of security. According to documents from the Ministry of Finance, these countries can order divestitures retroactively. Benes, an expert in corporate governance, said that "in principle, this doesn't stand out as it is similar to other countries' practices." FIRST MAJOR OVERHAUL EVER SINCE 2019. Japan is making its first major overhaul of its foreign investment screening laws since 2019. The threshold for reviewing stock purchases by foreign entities has been lowered from 10% to 1%. The 1% threshold is a significant increase in the number of pre-transaction submissions that the Japanese government must deal with compared to other countries. However, the revisions will reduce the scope of the businesses subject to review. Yohsuke Higashi, a partner and M&A attorney at Mori Hamada and Matsumoto said that the scope of pre-transaction filing requirements needs to be significantly narrowed in order to achieve a balance. This is because post-closing interventions will be permitted and indirect investment requirements will be introduced. He said that Japan should also put more resources into enforcing the risk-mitigation requirements attached to approvals, and catching risky deals through post-closing intervention. The review team was overloaded. I understand the need to prioritize more important cases. Another lawyer who worked on inbound investment deals, but declined to be identified, as they weren't allowed to speak publicly, agreed. The changes to the foreign investments rules are a result of corporate governance reforms that were led by the Japanese government. These reforms?led to an increase in overseas interest in Japan, and helped to push the stock exchange to record highs. According to LSEG, inbound M&A activity jumped 45% compared to a year ago to $33 billion. Experts say that the proposed changes will not have a significant impact on foreign investment. Higashi stated that the changes will not discourage M&A involving Japanese companies or other direct investments in Japan. Yuki Kanemoto is a senior research scientist at the Daiwa Institute of Research. She also predicts little impact. He said that the relatively low number of cases that were formally rejected could lead some to believe Japan was more permissive at the moment than Europe or the United States. "But I suspect that there are a number of cases where an effective rejection was made behind the scenes." Japan has only rejected one deal in 2008 under its Foreign Investment Screening Law - the attempt to purchase Electric Power Development by London's Children's Investment Fund. (Reporting and editing by Sam Nussey, Thomas Derpinghaus and Anton Bridge. Additional reporting by Makiko Yamazaki)
-
FT reports that Italy is seeking damages of over $8 billion from ArcelorMittal for the ILVA Steelworks.
Financial Times reported 'on Monday' that the state-appointed administrators at Acciaierie d'Italia's Steel Plants are seeking 8?billion euro ($8.17 billion), in damages, from ArcelorMittal. The report stated that Acciaierie d'Italia, formerly known under the name ILVA has filed a lawsuit against the steelworks for alleged mismanagement. This complaint was made to a Milan court this month. Adolfo Urso, Italy's Minister of Industry in December, said that the plant commissioners would file a claim for damages against ArcelorMittal. The plant was taken over by the government in early 2024. The FT reported that "the forensic due diligence... carried out by the Commissioners showed that the 'company's financial... imbalances were?the result... of a wilful, precise, and long-term strategy aimed at systematically transferring financial resources to the parent company from the company." ArcelorMittal, and Italy's Economy Ministry?didn't immediately respond to an inquiry for comment. The steelmaker announced in September of last year that it had received 10 bids, but only two bidders, Azerbaijan’s Baku Steel Company and Azerbaijan Investment Company as well as India’s Jindal Steel International, were interested to purchase all the assets. ADI is a major headache to Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Melons because it is unable to maintain its production due rising energy costs and a?weak market.
Mike Dolan: Guns and gold will win in 2025 but other "safety" trades will bomb.
In 2025, precious metals outperformed all other "safe haven" investment options. This is remarkable, especially in an year that was marked by turmoil, conflict and artificial intelligence bubble concerns. The market landscape for this year was shaped by a number of factors: a booming economy, politicians pushing for easy money, fading recession fears, an AI frenzy, and rising geopolitical tensions. Precious Metals outperformed almost everything else. Silver and platinum have more than doubled and gold has risen over 60%. This is its biggest jump since 1979's oil crisis. This performance was far superior to the roughly 20% gain in global equity indices. It is not yet clear whether gold, silver and platinum are caught in their own speculative bubble. Their strength is boosted by central bank demand, and their role in the wider tech build-out. The oil glut has sunk the wider commodity indexes this year. The price of crude oil has fallen by 20% in one year despite several tensions in the Middle East and fears that it will reach $100 per barrel. The best investment for those worried about a global conflict was the defense sector. U.S. aerospace stocks and defense stocks saw gains of 36% by 2025 while European counterparts rose 55%, and Germany and Europe re-armed.
LAGGING BONDS & DEFENSIVES This year, most traditional buffers and defensives played a role as dead weights in portfolios rather than a protection. Even bitcoin, which is referred to by some as "digital currency", ended the year with a loss. Bonds also had a bad year. Global "risk-free' government bond indices lost about 1% on a dollar basis, but returned just over 6% in total. Bloomberg Multiverse benchmarks, which include government, supranational, agency, and corporate debts, performed little better with price gains around 1% and total returns near 7%.
This is less than half of the increase in MSCI's index of all-country stocks, which has been on course for its best year ever since before the pandemic.
Going defensive in equities was not a winning strategy. The S&P 500 as a whole, boosted by the tech megacaps and AI theme, posted annual gains of 15 %, as the strong U.S. economy rebounded and interest rates fell in the second half 2025. S&P 500 stocks that are considered "growth" soared 20%. This is more than twice the gain of stocks classified as "value". The S&P 500 total return was 5 percentage points higher than the equally-weighted index. Utility, healthcare, and financial stocks all had good years with gains of more than 10%, but they still trailed behind the main index. Consumer staples, which are at the bottom of the list, only managed to gain 2%. The Dow Industrials blue chip index also lagged behind the S&P 500 as well as the Nasdaq.
SAFETY IS LAST The yen of Japan and the franc of Switzerland are often viewed as safe currencies. However, one of these also disappointed at year's end.
The yen initially rose in value, as did the Swiss franc. However, the Japanese currency lost all of its gains after the dollar fell. Investors were worried about new fiscal stimulus, and the arrival of Sanae Takaichi as Prime Minister caused some unrest on domestic bond markets.
The yen has fallen by about 4% in real terms against Japan's major trading partners.
The franc held onto its gains in the early years and was, along with silver and gold, one of few safe havens that made good by 2025.
If you thought the dollar was a safe haven during times of geopolitical tension, you were wrong. The 'DXY' dollar index dropped 12% in some of the most turbulent months and continued to be weak throughout multiple flashpoints across the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and even the Caribbean. Investors who are wary of disruptions could have bought volatility indexes that track options to benefit from the wild swings in stock and bond prices.
These parachutes didn't open in 2025 either. The S&P 500 VIX "fear" index of implied volatility for one month ended the year at a two-point deficit from where it began, despite big swings during the spring. MOVE, the Treasury equivalent index, has fallen by more than two thirds from its opening level, and is now less than half of its peak in April. Also, the main currency market vol' gauges have fallen. This year, it didn't pay to be overly cautious.
Double or quit in 2026?
These are the opinions of the columnist, an author for.
You like this column? Open Interest (ROI) is your new essential source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Sign up for Morning Bid U.S., my weekly newsletter.
(source: Reuters)