Meta boosts Texas AI data center spend to $10B
Source link
DBV Technologies GAAP EPS of -$1.05
Source link
Ion Beam Applications SA GAAP EPS of €0.43, revenue of €620.2M
Source link
Xos outlines 2026 guidance of $40M–$50M revenue and 350–500 deliveries while expanding hub and powertrain platforms
Source link
Here are the major earnings before the open Friday
Source link
gorodenkoff/iStock via Getty Images
North America’s small- and mid-cap industrial sector is entering a new phase of recalibration, as investors weigh resilient demand against uneven near-term upside, according to a March 26 report from J.P. Morgan.
In a sweeping review of 26 companies across
Nucor raised to Buy at UBS after 'excessive correction'
Source link
Yields on government debt across European countries and the United States have been rising since the start of the Iran war.
Investors are demanding higher yields as confidence in the global economy has cratered due to the severe negative impact of the conflict on energy markets, supply chains and Middle Eastern infrastructure.
The 2-year notes, sensitive to near-term rate expectations, have risen faster than their 10-year counterparts in a classic bear-flattening move, while longer-dated yields reflect worries over the economic drag caused by more expensive energy.
Speaking to Euronews, BCA Research’s Chief Fixed Income Strategist, Robert Timper, explained that “the aggressive bear flattening of yield curves reflects a hawkish monetary policy repricing in response to inflation fears stemming from the Iran war”.
“The front-end [2-year yields] is more sensitive to changes in monetary policy and has therefore risen more than the long-end [10-year yields] in response to investors’ anticipation of more hawkish central bank policy,” Timper added.
Historically, this specific curve behaviour often precedes an inverted yield curve, which is a well-recognised indicator of a potential economic recession.
The repricing has been most pronounced in Europe, with the UK bond market feeling the biggest pressure.
Since the start of the conflict, the 10-year UK gilt yield has risen from 4.2% to a high of over 5% while the 2-year note yield jumped from 3.5% to a peak of 4.6%.
Timper explained to Euronews that past inflation experience has proved decisive, stating that “rate hikes in the UK are more likely than elsewhere because inflation has been more elevated than elsewhere, and the risk of inflation expectations unanchoring is therefore higher.”
On Wednesday, AJ Bell’s investment director Russ Mould highlighted the UK-specific implications in a detailed press release, noting that the 10-year gilt yield is hovering near 5% for only the third time since 2008 while the 2-year gilt yield comfortably exceeds the Bank of England base rate.
Mould also explained that the gap between the 10-year gilt yield and the FTSE 100 dividend yield has widened to more than one-and-a-half percentage points, making UK equities relatively less attractive.
Elsewhere in Europe, bond yields experienced similar surges.
Germany’s 10-year bund yield increased from 2.65% to around 3%, nearing 15-year highs, while the 2-year note yield climbed from roughly 2% to 2.65%.
In France, the 10-year OAT yield jumped from 3.2% to above 3.7%, approaching 17-year peaks, while the 2-year note yield has risen from 2.1% to over 2.8%.
As for Italy, the 10-year BTP yield was at around 3.3% before the Iran war and has now surpassed 3.9%, approaching two-year highs, while the 2-year note yield has increased from roughly 2.15% to 3%.
In every single one of these bond markets, the yield on the 2-year notes has risen faster than their 10-year counterparts.
The 30 and 20-year bond yields are also all trading higher which denotes deteriorating confidence in the long-term growth prospect of the respective European economies.
Across the Atlantic, US Treasuries have followed a similar trajectory, though the sell-off has been less severe than in the UK for example.
The 10-year note yield has risen from around 3.9% to a peak of 4.4%, reached on Monday, and is currently trading at 4.37%.
Meanwhile, the 2-year note yield increased from 3.35% to a high of over 4%, and it is hovering 3.9% at the time of writing.
The yields on both notes have hit an 8-month high.
Timper’s analysis places US bond performance close to that of the euro area, reflecting broadly comparable inflation histories and policy outlooks. There is scant evidence of investors fleeing European bonds for US Treasuries as a safe-haven trade.
Speaking to Euronews, Timper explained that such shifting flows would be more visible in currency markets as the US dollar benefits from being the predominant denominator for energy exports.
For now the message from bond markets on either side of the Atlantic is consistent, the Middle East conflict has rewritten the near-term outlook for inflation, monetary policy and borrowing costs.
United Natural Foods a unique way "to play the healthy living trend"—Wells Fargo
Source link
EU lawmakers on Thursday approved the EU-US trade deal struck in Turnberry, Scotland, in 2025, while attaching a set of conditions to the agreement.
A broad majority of political groups backed the deal, which cuts EU tariffs on most US industrial goods to zero, with 417 votes in favour, 154 against, and 71 abstentions.
The European Commission and Washington had pushed for the deal’s implementation, but MEPs delayed backing it until last week amid tensions over Greenland and fresh US trade investigations that raised fears Washington could undermine the deal with new tariffs.
Initially criticized by MEPs as unbalanced and defended by the Commission as the best possible outcome, the deal sets US tariffs on EU goods at 15%, while the EU eliminates duties on most US industrial products.
MEPs introduced safeguards to rebalance the pact in the event of future threats from US President Donald Trump or violations by the United States.
“Of course, that’s imbalanced, but if we could improve it, maybe we can live with it,” Socialist German MEP Bernd Lange said ahead of the vote.
The European Parliament will now work with EU member states to find a common position and enable the tariff cuts, with the attached safeguards expected to be the main point of contention.
These include a “sunset clause” under which the deal expires in March 2028 unless both sides agree to extend it. It also includes a “sunrise clause” which would make tariff preferences conditional to the US respecting its Turnberry commitments.
Lawmakers moved to shield the deal from fresh US tariffs after the Supreme Court struck down 2025 US tariffs in February, prompting the White House to impose new duties on EU goods and launch an investigation into alleged unfair trade practices that could lead to further tariffs.
MEPs also linked the tariff cuts on steel and aluminium to equivalent actions by the US.
Published on
Lille will host the European Custom Authority, a new decentralised agency tasked with supporting and coordinating national customs administrations across the bloc.
The decision was made on Wednesday in Brussels, after EU lawmakers from the European Parliament and the Council of the EU voted on the matter in three rounds.
“France is one of Europe’s leading customs nations, [considering] one in three parcels entering the EU passes through French territory,” Dutch MEP Dirk Gotink, rapporteur on the customs reform, said in a press statement.
“Lille’s strategic location at the crossroads of Europe makes it the natural hub for this authority,” the EU lawmaker continued.
Italy, with Rome as its candidate, was the runner-up in the voting rounds.
Other contenders included Belgium with Liège, Croatia with Zagreb, the Netherlands with The Hague, Poland with Warsaw, Portugal with Porto, Romania with Bucharest, and Spain with Málaga.
Customs management and trade have taken on renewed urgency after former US President Donald Trump imposed sweeping tariffs shortly after taking office.
Amid growing global trade uncertainty, the EU has stepped up engagement with international partners. This week, it signed a new agreement with Australia, while the EU–Mercosur deal is set to apply provisionally from 1 April.
The establishment of the new authority is part of the overall reform of the EU customs framework, with key negotiations expected to take place on Thursday.
The reform also aims to tackle the rising pressure from increased trade flows, fragmented national systems and the rapid rise of e-commerce.
The agency is expected to be set up in 2026 and could become operational in 2028 according to a draft schedule which is still be subject to significant changes.
Analysts expect continued slow growth this year, with inflation moderating. But the region’s biggest economies present a mixed outlook.
The US operation to capture and oust Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power in January put Latin America back in the spotlight. But the surprise intervention has not yet translated into larger political or economic shifts in the region.
Instead, a familiar, business-as-usual outlook appears to be trending: modest growth; economies linked to external demands for commodities; and persistent structural vulnerabilities tied to public debt, infrastructure, and diminishing but persistent legal and political risk. The silver linings: stabilizing macro indicators and a broad trend toward moderating inflationary pressure. The key question is: Which way will the region head?
Sustainable growth and development remain elusive. Upcoming electoral contests in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru add to the backdrop of geopolitical realignment, along with US tariffs and the evolving roles of the US, China, and Europe in the region. Cautious optimism related to economic indicators and innovation remains overshadowed by structural fragility.
The baseline expectation is continuity rather than acceleration, with growth projections by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank converging toward a 2.2%-2.3% average, respectively—positive, but not transformative.
Patricia Krause, chief Latin America economist at Coface, a French trade-credit insurance company, expects regional GDP to grow at 2.3% this year. The figure matches forecasts by the UN Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and is slightly more optimistic than those announced by Goldman Sachs (1.9%) and Fitch Solutions’ BMI (1.7%).
“We see a more challenging economic environment for the region,” says Ash Khayami, senior country-risk analys for Latin America Country Risk at BMI, “although growth is broadly in line with prepandemic run rates, going from 2.1% in 2025 to 1.7% in 2026, mostly driven by weaker growth in Brazil and Mexico.”
Political volatility remains a central theme in Latin America, and BMI expects a shift toward more conservative or right-of-center governments across the region. “We see a broad turn to right-wing governments in most elections we cover,” says Khayami. “More-conservative governments with stronger fiscal discipline should boost investor sentiment domestically.”
According to a recent study by the Eurasia Group political-risk consultancy, while political volatility has long been considered Latin America’s defining risk, the character of that volatility is now increasingly episodic instead of ideologically linked. For financial markets, this is good, since episodic risk can be priced more easily than structural regime changes.
Perhaps the most underappreciated regional trend—and success story—is inflation normalization as major Latin economies are returning to or remaining within target ranges.
Regional commonalities are only part of the story. The economic outlook for major Latin American economies is varied.
“Argentina is entering an investment-driven cycle supported by commodity exports and lower taxes, which underpins our positive outlook,” says Khayami. “The country risk is down 500 base points, the lowest since 2018. Still, the growth rate is slowing down from 4.3% to a consensus rate of approximately 3.2% this year.”
The Central Bank of the Argentine Republic’s hard-currency accumulation and narrowing country-risk spreads are major positives, he adds: “The central bank accumulating over $1 billion in January is a strong signal from an external-accounts perspective.”
Brazil’s growth should slow slightly this year compared to last, says Krause, mainly due to still-elevated interest rates. The market expects the central bank’s Selic benchmark interest rate to begin declining: It’s still projected to end the year at 12.25%, down from its current 15%. Household consumption is expected to support growth, helped by labor market resilience, lower inflation, and tax relief measures. “Trade tensions with the US had some impact on Brazilian exports after tariff measures,” Krause observes, “but the effect was mitigated by exemptions and diversification toward other export markets, including Argentina, Canada, and India.”
The country remains a slow-growth anchor economy, according to Khayami’s analysis, saddled by fiscal rigidity and a high tax burden. But a contrary trend may be taking hold, where public spending gradually shrinks as a share of GDP through 2028.
Colombia is currently the oddball among major Latin economies, according to BMI, with fiscal concerns and inflation being particular issues.
“As we move toward more conservative presidents, we expect stronger fiscal discipline and more probusiness policy stances to boost investor sentiment,” says Khayami. “Political risk—including relations with the US and also election dynamics—is a major macro driver.”
Colombia’s inflation risk is currently driven by domestic policy decisions rather than external factors, Krause argues. “Inflation was above the 3% target at 5.1% in 2025,” she observes. “The expectations worsened following a sharp minimum wage increase of 23% in December. As a result, [the inflation forecast] is revised upwards to 6.4% this year, and the country moved in the opposite direction of its regional peers by raising interest rates.”
Mexico’s economy barely grew in 2025—estimated at between 0.2% and 0.6%—but is expected to expand about 1.5% this year. That affects perception across the region, Khayami observes.
“Mexico, because of its relationship with the US, is a pillar of regional foreign direct investment [FDI],” he says, “and there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding that relationship right now. FDI flows into Latin America last year were approximately $160 billion. Mexico captured 25% of that. If Mexico is not doing well, the regional outlook weakens.”
Khayami describes the local business environment as “uncertain due to overlapping risk factors, including trade-framework uncertainty, potential security escalation tied to cartel violence, and possible US intervention scenarios.”
Peru’s outlook reflects modest macro stability alongside persistent structural weaknesses, according to independent strategic consultant Andrés Castillo. GDP is expected to grow roughly 2.8% in 2026 with inflation near 2% according to a report by BCP banking group, in line with the central bank of Peru’s targets. Fiscal metrics remain comparatively strong, with the deficit projected near 1.8% of GDP and public debt around 36%, according to Trading Economics, low by regional standards.
But macro stability masks deeper structural risks, Castillo cautions. “Peru’s economy is supported by mining, agriculture, and fishing; but coca production and now illegal mining have also become significant economic forces,” he says. “Mining alone accounts for about 8.5% of GDP and nearly 64% of exports, underscoring commodity dependence.”
Venezuela remains Latin America’s elephant in the room.
Maduro’s ouster sparked hopes of regime change and a new economic lifeline for Venezuelans. Most analysts at the time expected Washington to immediately initiate a transition phase, opening the door to major oil and energy investments. But so far, only a trickle of those expectations are being realized. Oil production is expected to increase in the short term only if sanctions ease and investment resumes. Khayami says that the path to a more robust energy sector will be long.
Jorge Jraissati, a Venezuelan expatriate and president of Economy Inclusion Group, points to two possible scenarios for the country. In the bad-case scenario, reforms exist on paper but political uncertainty persists. In this case, oil recovers modestly but non-oil investment remains minimal, locking the economy into a suboptimal equilibrium, which can deteriorate even more after the next presidential cycle in the US.
“In the ‘good’ scenario,” Jraissati says, “US policy sustains pressure for measurable institutional democratization, market opening, and concrete security guarantees that reduce risk pricing. If these conditions are met, foreign capital—especially in energy and infrastructure—will begin to commit rather than speculate.”
Published on
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen on Tuesday sealed a free-trade agreement with Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, slashing tariffs on most EU goods and farm exports.
The deal marks another win for Brussels as it races to diversify trade ties and lock in strategic partners amid rising global tensions.
The pact will save the EU €1 billion a year in duties, the Commission said, with exports projected to climb as much as 33% over the next decade.
Agriculture proved a flashpoint, with EU farmers already pushing back against the Mercosur trade agreement and a legal challenge from MEPs threatening ratification.
Tariffs will eventually fall to zero on products including cheese (over three years), wine, some fruit and vegetables, chocolate and processed foods.
On the toughest issues — beef and sheep, which sank talks in 2023 — Australia agreed to quotas of 30,600 and 25,000 tonnes a year, respectively.
A safeguard mechanism will allow the EU to shield sensitive sectors if a surge in Australian imports harms the bloc’s market.
Beyond agriculture, the agreement opens access to Australia’s critical raw materials, including aluminium, lithium and manganese.
Brussels also failed to scrap Australia’s luxury car tax. Instead, 75% of EU electric vehicles will be exempt.
The Commission expects strong export gains in key sectors, including dairy (up to 48%), motor vehicles (52%) and chemicals (20%).
Brussels has prioritized the deal as it builds partnerships in the Indo-Pacific, where China’s influence has become central. A security and defence partnership with Canberra was also announced Tuesday.
“The EU and Australia may be geographically far apart but we couldn’t be closer in terms of how we see the world,” von der Leyen said, adding: “With these dynamic new partnerships on security and defence, as well as trade, we are moving even closer together.”
Since Donald Trump returned to power in 2025, trade agreements have taken on sharper geostrategic weight for the EU as it seeks new markets.
In 2025, Brussels struck deals with Mexico, Switzerland and Indonesia. The Mercosur pact was also signed earlier this year and will be provisionally applied from 1 May despite a European Parliament legal challenge.
More could follow. Talks are ongoing with the Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, the United Arab Emirates, and countries in Eastern and Southern Africa, von der Leyen told EU ambassadors on 9 March.
The “so hot right now” meme from Zoolander has found an unlikely avatar in Cashea. As Venezuela’s preeminent Buy-Now-Pay-Later (BNPL) solution, Cashea isn’t just a startup. It is a macroeconomic bellwether. By some estimates, its transaction volume accounts for roughly 4% of Venezuela’s GDP, a staggering concentration of financial flow for a single private entity.
But being “hot” attracts different kinds of heat.
Recently, a “robotic-like” user, @VecertRadar, reported a massive data breach at Cashea. The leak was forensic in its damage, exposing 29 million store records, 15,227 partner business details, and a complete history of 79 million transactions. Shortly after, the “catch-up arc” of Venezuelan tech hit another snag: Yummy, the nation’s super-app pioneer, suffered a targeted strike on its Yummy Rides vertical, compromising rider data. When tourism wholesalers like BT Travel Solutions are also hit, a pattern emerges.
Venezuela is returning to the world stage, but it is entering through a side door left unlocked. These incidents are the canaries in the coal mine for an ecosystem that has focused heavily on consumer-facing solutions, like FinTech, Crypto and Ride-Hailing, while neglecting the unglamorous, high-margin infrastructure required to protect it.
In the big leagues of global business, cybersecurity is often viewed as a vitamin (a nice-to-have) until a breach turns it into a painkiller (a necessity). For Venezuela, the transition (not THAT one) from vitamin to painkiller is happening overnight.
While the regional Latin American cybersecurity market is projected to reach between $14 billion and $23 billion, these figures often omit the Venezuela factor: a market ripe for the taking because it is basically uncontested. This is a classic innovation’s Blue Ocean business opportunity. While some local entrepreneurial efforts remains obsessively focused on crypto-wallets and payment gateways, a massive structural deficit in data protection has created an opening for sustainable, high-margin business models.
Consider the EBITDA margins (a proxy for operational cash generation). In the software-as-a-service (SaaS) cybersecurity sector, operational health is robust, with margins often hovering around 40% (good). In a country where traditional industries grapple with heavy physical overhead and regulatory friction, these light-CAPEX models offer a much cleaner path to profitability.
Venezuela’s primary competitive advantage isn’t just its lack of competition, it’s the cost of its potential defensive talent.
Historically, the country was not considered a deep pool of digital labor by companies abroad. As regional talent-pool peers like Argentina outprice themselves and Colombian talent reaches its cost-advantage ceiling, Venezuelan developers and security analysts bring a potential high-value, cost-efficient resource. This creates a price-competitive entry point for local startups to build software that can eventually scale.
Furthermore, Venezuelans have spent a decade experimenting and building solutions to protect wealth in one of the most volatile financial environments on earth. This has fostered a unique brand of technical sophistication. Our talent isn’t just coding, they are battle-testing systems against systemic instability. If this talent can be harnessed to move from protecting personal crypto-wallets to protecting corporate data infrastructure, the exit opportunity for these ventures becomes very attractive for local and international investors alike.
Venezuela does not need to reinvent the wheel. It only needs to be efficient in catching-up. Our regional peers have already proven that Latin American cybersecurity can bring international venture capital to the table:
The message is clear: the market is wide open for “champions” who can protect the data of both governments and the private sector.
The Cashea leak is a flagship reminder: size attracts.
For founders looking to enter this light-CAPEX space, always use the Speedboat approach. Rather than spending two years building a complex digital product in a sandbox, entrepreneurs can start as high-level consultancies. By offering assessments, due diligence, and compliance audits to major corporations or big family businesses first, a team can establish a brand of trust while identifying the exact pain points of the market. Build a custom solution, learn, MVP (minimum viable product) and pivot to a robust software solution. For my mapping of opportunities, I already stumbled with players like Niblion to begin to test these waters, but the ocean remains largely empty.
Regulation also plays a big role in this market. I’m not an expert, nor I want to focus on regulation for I see the business perspective, but doing a quick search, Venezuela does have a law centered in cybersecurity. However it does lack a unified data protection law for consumers and businesses. The current law focuses on defense and cyber-sovereignty. Maybe looking at Brazil, Colombia and Mexico, who have already done the legwork on legislative frameworks, may make our job easier.
The Cashea leak is a flagship reminder: size attracts. As big companies like Zinli (Mercantil’s own digital wallet play) and small players Coco Wallet (facilitating crypto-to-fiat transitions) continue to expand, to name a few, the surface area for attacks grows exponentially.
The typical Venezuelan focus on protecting wealth via crypto and FinTech has been successful, but with its own set of risks. Without a robust cybersecurity layer, these ventures become sitting ducks for maligned players.
For investors, the opportunity lies in light-CAPEX models with high margins and a desperate client base. For founders, the opportunity is to build the champions that will protect the next decade of Venezuelan growth. Sometimes building a startup isn’t about changing the world, but making a good and profitable solution, while making a buck down the road.The catch-up arc will be hard, but for those providing the shields, it will be incredibly profitable.e
RCB sale enters final stage as EQT and Pai-led consortium remain, with Glazers and Poonawalla exiting high-stakes IPL bidding race
After a blockbuster clash of global sports titans, the sale process of Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) has entered its final stage.
At least five parties initially expressed interest, but two serious bidding groups remain: Swedish private equity firm EQT and a consortium that includes Ranjan Pai of Manipal Hospitals, US private equity firm KKR and Singapore’s Temasek. A consortium of the Aditya Birla Group and Blackstone executive David Blitzer, who also co-owns the New Jersey Devils ice hockey team, is reportedly circling RCB, according to Moneycontrol.
Other high-profile contenders—including the Glazer family, co-owners of Manchester United, and Serum Institute CEO Adar Poonawalla—have withdrawn. Lancer Capital, the Glazers’ investment vehicle, had previously submitted a non-binding $1.8 billion bid, while Poonawalla had signaled serious intent on social media before exiting the race.
Moreover, Glazer’s bid targeted an acquisition of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited (RCSPL), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Diageo’s United Spirits Limited, which owns both the men’s RCB IPL team and the women’s premier league team.
Glazer faced stiff competition from other elite bidders. In addition to EQT and Pai, various other private equity firms expressed interest, including Premji Invest, Blackstone, and Carlyle. Poonawalla, Times of India Group, non-banking financial firm Capri Global, and US tycoon Sanjay Govil, owner of Major League Cricket’s Washington Freedom and Welsh Fire in Hundred, also considering buying RCB.
RCB’s allure stems from its breakthrough 2025 IPL title, Virat Kohli’s global stardom, over 100 million fans, $14.8 million in sponsorships for the 2025 financial year, and IPL’s highest brand valuation of $269 million.
This unlocks $55 million/year guaranteed media cash flows, two to three times resale potential over five years, and untapped US digital licensing.
This surge is amplified by the IPL’s $18.5 billion ecosystem, a 15% compound annual growth rate, and $6.2 billion media rights cycle (2023-27).
Diageo’s United Spirits’ larger strategic realignment within the company to focus on its core alcohol business and divest from non-core sports assets, ignited this frenzy in November 2025 via a full-stakes RCSPL sale process managed by Citigroup, with over 50 non-disclosure agreements (legal contracts prohibiting sharing of confidential information) signed by bidders for due diligence, targeting closure by March 31.
In 2021, Glazer had bid for Ahmedabad/Lucknow IPL teams but lost, pivoting to Desert Vipers (ILT20 UAE) in 2022. Meanwhile, Glazer’s ambitions extend beyond RCB, joining Capri Global, tech entrepreneur Kal Somani, Sanjay Govil, and Times of India Group in the race for acquiring Rajasthan Royals, another IPL cricket team, signalling a broader IPL consolidation wave in the wealthiest cricket event, and the second-richest sports league by revenue, trailing the National Football League.
Published on
The European Commission on Monday took final steps to provisionally apply the Mercosur trade deal from 1 May, covering Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay.
The move uses a special procedure to ensure the deal takes effect despite a judicial review launched by the European Parliament after a pivotal 21 January vote suspended ratification.
“The priority now is turning this EU-Mercosur agreement into concrete outcomes, giving EU exporters the platform they need to seize new opportunities for trade, growth and jobs,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said, adding: “Provisional application will allow us to begin delivering on that promise.”
The agreement liberalises trade flows between the EU and Mercosur countries, creating a free-trade area of more than 700 million people.
The Commission signed off on the deal and secured backing from EU member states despite strong opposition from EU farmers, who fear unfair competition from Mercosur imports.
But at the European Parliament, opponents secured a majority to refer the agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union to assess its legality.
Pressed by supporters including Germany and Spain, which are seeking faster access to new markets amid rising geoeconomic tensions, the Commission opted for provisional application.
To proceed, it had to wait for at least one Mercosur country to ratify and notify the agreement before launching provisional implementation with that country. Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay have done so, while Paraguay ratified the deal last Tuesday and “is expected to send its notification soon,” the Commission said.
On Monday, the Commission sent a “verbal note” to Paraguay, the legal guardian of Mercosur treaties, completing the final procedural step.
“Provisional application ensures the removal of tariffs on certain products as of day one, creating predictable rules for trade and investment,” the Commission said.
“It will create more resilient and reliable supply chains, crucial in particular for the predictable flow of Critical Raw Materials.”
Gold’s reputation over the past year as the go-to refuge in a crisis is taking a battering as war rages and threatens to expand in the Middle East and financial markets buckle.
Spot gold plunged to a 2026 low near $4,100 in early trading on Monday before recovering sharply to above $4,400 after US President Donald Trump announced he was postponing military strikes against Iranian power plants for five days following “very good and productive conversations” with Tehran — a swing of around $300 in the space of hours.
The metal has still shed more than 20% since hitting a record high of $5,594.82 an ounce on 29 January.
Silver has lost nearly half its value since hitting an all-time high of $121.67 in January, in one of the more violent collapses in the precious metal’s modern history.
Spot silver was down 8.9% at $61.76 — a year-to-date low and almost half of its $117 level on 28 February, when the Iran war began.
The counterintuitive sell-off has rattled investors who piled into precious metals expecting them to hold firm.
The dollar dropped against the euro after Trump’s comments and traded around $1.1572 to the euro on Monday afternoon, while the pound was up at a rate of $1.3341. The yen traded at around ¥159.47 per dollar.
The main culprit is the oil shock. As crude surges past $100 a barrel, bond yields are climbing and the US dollar is strengthening, making precious metals far less attractive to investors bracing for higher interest rates.
The dollar has emerged as one of the clearest safe-haven winners, strengthening over 2% so far this month.
For a non-yielding asset like gold, that is a double blow.
The prospect of higher interest rates as a result of the war is also boosting government bonds among investors, at the expense of precious metals.
Yet seasoned observers urge caution before declaring the gold story over.
Russ Mould, investment director at AJ Bell, points out that gold is in the middle of only its third major bull run since 1971 and that the previous two also caused stomach-churning fluctuations.
“Neither interest rates staying higher for longer nor a stronger dollar may help the investment case for precious metals, but both the 1971-1980 and 2001-2010 bull runs saw several retreats which did not ultimately nullify or prevent major gains,” Mould said.
“So it may be too early to give up on gold just yet,” he continued.
During the first bull run, triggered by Richard Nixon’s decision to decouple the dollar from the gold standard in 1971, gold surged from $35 to a peak of $835 an ounce by January 1980, but not before enduring three mini bear markets and five corrections of 10% or more along the way.
The second run, which began in 2001 amid the wreckage of the dotcom bust and gathered pace through the 2008 financial crisis, was equally volatile, featuring two bear markets and another five double-digit corrections before gold peaked near $1,900 in 2011.
This third advance has been no smoother.
“A swoon of more than 20% caught some bulls off guard in 2022, as the world emerged from lockdowns, and 10%-plus corrections in each of 2016, 2018, 2020, 2021 and 2023 [gold peaks] warned that volatility was never far away,” Mould noted.
The paradox at the heart of the current sell-off is that the very crisis that might once have sent investors flooding into gold is now working against it.
Rising oil prices fuel inflation fears, inflation fears fuel expectations of higher interest rates and higher rates make gold — which pays no dividend and costs money to hold — less appealing.
“Gold’s status as a haven may now be tarnished in the eyes of some,” Mould said, “as the precious metal is falling in price even as war roils the Middle East and financial markets alike.”
But not everyone is convinced the metal’s moment has passed.
The inflation and stagflation of the 1970s, partly triggered by the oil shocks of 1973 and 1979, ultimately made gold the standout portfolio pick of that decade.
A prolonged conflict that stretches government finances — pushing welfare costs up and tax revenues down, on top of surging defence spending — could yet revive that dynamic.
If central banks respond to recession with fresh rate cuts and quantitative easing, the case for gold as a store of value comes roaring back.
“The war in Iran and its effect on oil and gas prices is stoking fears of inflation and how that could force central banks to raise interest rates,” he concluded.
Asian stock markets saw major declines on Monday as gold futures dropped 8% and crude oil prices continued to climb amid heightened uncertainty in the Middle East.
As the effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz continues to choke global supply, benchmark US crude rose above $100 a barrel on Monday morning in Europe.
Brent crude, the international standard, went up to more than $113 a barrel. The price of Brent crude has zigzagged lately from about $70 per barrel before the war began to as high as $119.50.
European stock indexes opened with losses, with the FTSE in London losing 1.5%, the CAC-40 in Paris being down by 1.6%, and the DAX in Frankfurt dropping by 2% at the opening.
Earlier on Monday, the International Energy Agency warned that the global economy faces a “major, major threat” because of the Iran war and that at least 40 energy assets across nine countries were damaged.
Meanwhile, the de-escalation of the conflict is nowhere near in sight.
Trump warned over the weekend that the US would “obliterate” Iran’s power plants if it does not fully open the Strait of Hormuz within 48 hours, prompting Tehran to say it would respond to any such strike with attacks on US and Israeli energy and infrastructure assets in the region.
“Trump’s ultimatum and Iran’s retaliatory warnings point to a widening conflict that keeps energy disruption and market volatility elevated, with no clear off-ramp in sight,” said Ng Jing Wen, analyst at Mizuho Bank in Singapore.
In Europe, the benchmark natural gas futures were trading above €60 per MWh at the market open.
This follows last week’s gains as escalating threats to Middle Eastern energy facilities heightened fears of deeper supply disruptions.
In Asia, stock markets were also significantly impacted by the uncertainty around the Middle East crisis, with Japan’s benchmark Nikkei 225 dropping 3.5%. In Taiwan, the Taiex shed 2.5%, South Korea’s Kospi dropped 6.5%, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng slipped 3.8% and the Shanghai Composite declined 3.6%.
Higher oil prices, which also shook stock markets on Friday, dashed hopes for a possible upcoming cut in interest rates by the Federal Reserve, analysts said. Before the war, traders were betting that the Fed would cut rates at least twice this year. Central banks in Europe, Japan and the United Kingdom also recently held their interest rates steady.
The S&P 500 fell 1.5% Friday to close its fourth straight losing week, its longest such streak in a year.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 443 points, or 1%, and the Nasdaq Composite tumbled 2%.
On Wall Street, roughly three out of every four stocks in the S&P 500 fell on Friday.
Stocks of smaller companies, which can feel the pinch of higher interest rates more than their bigger rivals, led the way lower. The Russell 2000 index of smaller stocks fell a market-leading 2.3%.
In the bond market, the yield on the 10-year Treasury finished last week with a jump to 4.38% Friday from 4.25% late Thursday and from just 3.97% before the war started.
The two-year Treasury yield, which more closely tracks expectations for what the Fed might do, rose to 3.88% from 3.79%.
In currency trading, the US dollar rose to 159.53 Japanese yen from 159.22 yen. The euro cost $1.1526, down from $1.1571.
When the United States and Israel launched joint strikes on Iran on February 28, the Strait of Hormuz—the narrow waterway through which roughly one-fifth of the world’s oil passes each day—effectively ceased to function as a shipping corridor. Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps responded by warning off tanker traffic, and within days maritime transit had fallen to nearly zero. The consequences were immediate and severe: Brent crude has not dropped below the $100 threshold since March 13 and touched $119 on March 19 following Israeli strikes on Iran’s South Pars gasfield and retaliatory Iranian attacks on energy infrastructure in Qatar and the UAE. For Venezuela, a country sitting atop the world’s largest proven reserves but producing around 900,000 to one million barrels per day (a fraction of its historical capacity of over 3 million in the late 1990s) the disruption arrived at a peculiar moment. It was not a crisis of Venezuela’s making. But how Caracas responds to it may define the country’s energy trajectory for years to come.
On paper, the arithmetic is striking. Alejandro Grisanti, director of Ecoanalítica, estimates that Venezuela receives approximately $400 million in additional revenue for every extra dollar in the average crude price. This figure, at current price levels, represents a fiscal windfall without precedent in the post-Maduro transition. Venezuelan crude exports had already rebounded sharply in February to around 788,000 barrels per day (up from a depressed 383,000 bpd in January, when the post-Maduro-arrest disruption had frozen trade flows), with US refineries absorbing the majority of shipments directly through Chevron or energy intermediaries. Of course, production and exports are different things: Venezuela produces roughly one million bpd but consumes some 230,000 bpd domestically, meaning effective export capacity sits considerably below gross output.
The Hormuz disruption accelerated the export recovery dynamic: with Gulf supply stranded and Asian buyers scrambling for alternatives, Venezuelan crude became a more attractive proposition. Washington has responded in kind. On March 18, the US Treasury issued a broad license authorizing established American entities to conduct transactions with PDVSA directly, a landmark shift after years of near-total sanctions isolation, explicitly framed as a supply-side response to the Iran war. There are structural constraints baked into the relief: payments cannot flow directly to sanctioned Venezuelan entities but must pass through US-controlled accounts, and transactions involving Russia, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, or designated Chinese entities remain prohibited. The US will allow the oil trade, but it will control the cash flow.
The production ceiling, however, remains a formidable obstacle, and not merely a financial one. Venezuela’s Orinoco Belt produces extra-heavy crude with an API gravity typically in the 8–16° range and high sulfur content, which cannot simply be blended into a market substitute for the medium-sour grades displacing from the Persian Gulf. To reach export markets, Orinoco crude must either pass through an upgrader—facilities like Petropiar, which converts it to a synthetic crude of around 26° API—or be diluted with imported naphtha or lighter crude to create exportable blends like Merey. This means Venezuelan barrels serve a specific refinery profile: predominantly the cooking-capable refineries along the US Gulf Coast, which are well-suited to process heavy, sulfurous feedstocks. They are not a drop-in replacement for Middle Eastern crude, but a complementary supply for a defined segment of global refining capacity.
The US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.
ExxonMobil, whose assets were expropriated twice under chavismo, announced it would send an evaluation team to Venezuela within weeks, with Senior Vice President Jack Williams acknowledging the company’s heavy oil expertise from Canadian operations in Kearl and Cold Lake. The caveat was pointed: “Today it’s uninvestable,” CEO Darren Woods had said in January, and Williams’ more cautious optimism reflects the institutional memory of a company burned twice.
Chevron and PDVSA have meanwhile agreed on preliminary terms to expand Petropiar into the adjacent Ayacucho 8 block of the Orinoco Belt, while Shell is in advanced talks to develop the Carito and Pirital fields in eastern Monagas. These are among the few areas that produce the light and medium crude needed as diluent and blendstock for Venezuela’s heavy exports. Delcy Rodríguez has projected fresh oil investments of $1.4 billion for the year under the amended hydrocarbons law. These are meaningful steps. But a preliminary deal and a production ramp are different things. Rystad Energy estimates that simply holding production flat at around 1.1 million bpd requires $53 billion in upstream investment over 15 years, and getting to 2 million bpd by 2032 would demand $8–9 billion per year in sustained capital.
What has shifted—materially and quickly—is market sentiment about Venezuela as an investable destination, and the trajectory is meaningfully positive. Dozens of US hedge funds, asset managers, and energy investors are organizing trips to Caracas in the coming weeks: Signum Global Advisors is running a two-day conference in Venezuela from March 22–24 with 55 participants, roughly half of whom are bondholders who own or have recently purchased Venezuelan government and PDVSA debt (both in default since 2017).
Separate delegations invited by Trans-National Research and other groups are arriving, with agendas featuring meetings with Rodríguez and PDVSA CEO Héctor Obregón. The interest marks a sharp break from the isolation of the Maduro years. Country risk, while still elevated in absolute terms, has been repriced substantially since January: the US military backstop, the reformed hydrocarbon law, and now the broad PDVSA sanctions relief have together reduced the perception of expropriation risk and policy reversal that kept capital at bay for two decades.
Venezuela’s challenge is to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.
What investors are now stress-testing is no longer whether Venezuela is open for business, but whether the legal and institutional architecture is durable enough to support long-horizon commitments. As analysts at Debatesiesa have noted in examining Venezuelan financial markets, sentiment can shift on headlines, but binding investment decisions require structural reforms and credible enforcement mechanisms. The framework is improving; the question is whether it improves fast enough, and on a stable enough trajectory, to convert this geopolitical moment into a genuine investment cycle.
The deeper question the Hormuz crisis forces is one of timing and durability. Oil prices are now trading above $110 per barrel and analysts at Wood Mackenzie and Rystad are no longer dismissing scenarios above $150 while the conflict shows no sign of imminent resolution, with Pete Hegseth signaling the “largest strike package yet” against Iran on March 19. The EIA, in its latest forecast issued prior to these newest escalations, projected Brent to remain above $95 through the next two months before falling below $80 in the third quarter of 2026 if supply flows gradually normalize. Whether that normalization materializes is the variable on which everything else depends. Venezuela’s challenge is not simply to capture today’s price premium, but to use this window of geopolitical necessity to lock in investment commitments, debt restructuring negotiations, and production agreements that survive the normalization of oil markets.
The country has rarely faced a more favorable confluence of factors: surging global demand for its barrels, a reformed legal framework for private investment, an unprecedented degree of US political and financial backing, and prices that make otherwise marginal projects viable. Whether Caracas—and the Rodríguez administration in particular—has the institutional bandwidth to convert a crisis into structural recovery, rather than another cycle of windfall and waste, is the defining question of Venezuela’s energy sector in 2026.
Article content
CALGARY, Alberta — With wildfire season underway, three Alberta electric utilities are working together to deliver the safe, reliable electricity that Albertans depend on.
THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.
REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.
Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.
or
Article content
The Government of Alberta’s recently released Alberta Wildfire Mitigation Strategy highlights the important role utilities play when it comes to wildfire mitigation. As wildfires become more frequent and severe, the owners and operators of the electric transmission and distribution networks in Alberta’s highest-risk areas – AltaLink, ATCO Energy Systems and FortisAlberta – have formed the Alberta Wildfire Utility Coalition. The Coalition is aligning efforts to reduce wildfire risk and strengthen system resilience.
Article content
Article content
Article content
The Alberta Wildfire Utility Coalition is committed to reducing wildfire risk associated with utility systems and to ensuring effective preparedness and response when wildfire events occur. The Coalition’s work is guided by four priorities: prevention, resilience, collaboration and response.
Article content
Top Stories
Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.
By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.
Thanks for signing up!
A welcome email is on its way. If you don’t see it, please check your junk folder.
The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.
We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again
Article content
Proactive actions to reduce risk and ensure public safety
Article content
Each utility has wildfire mitigation plans grounded in data and informed by evolving industry standards and best practices. Through the Coalition, utilities are working collaboratively to standardize wildfire mitigation approaches that emphasize public safety, wildfire prevention, resilience, collaboration and responsible investment.
Article content
Common wildfire mitigation activities include strengthening and upgrading assets, enhancing vegetation management near power lines, increasing inspections in higher‑risk areas, protecting assets with fire-resistant materials, and using advanced weather monitoring and other technologies to improve situational awareness and support proactive operational actions to protect communities and keep people safe.
Article content
One component of a comprehensive utility wildfire mitigation plan is a Public Safety Power Shutoff (PSPS), used as a last resort to keep people and communities safe. During extreme conditions where a single spark could ignite a fire, a utility may proactively shut off power to impacted power lines until conditions improve and it is safe to restore service.
Article content
Enhancing resilience through collaborative emergency preparedness and response
Article content
Effective communication and coordination before, during and after emergencies are critical to strengthening response and resilience. The Alberta Wildfire Utility Coalition is focused on enhancing emergency preparedness through ongoing engagement with industry partners, government agencies, emergency services and community leaders to support coordinated action and clear communication during wildfire events.
Article content
How Albertans can prepare for wildfire season and stay informed
Article content
As wildfire season begins, the Alberta Wildfire Utility Coalition encourages Albertans to stay informed, understand the potential impacts of wildfires and power outages, and take steps to prepare for emergencies:
Article content
Article content
Article content
“Wildfire risk is a growing challenge, one that no single utility can address on its own. By working together through the Alberta Wildfire Utility Coalition, we are sharing best practices, aligning our approaches and advocating for reasonable and consistent industry standards to ensure that electric utilities can take effective steps to protect against wildfire risk for the benefit of Albertans.”
Article content
Gary Hart, President and Chief Executive Officer, AltaLink
Article content
“Electric utilities play an important role in reducing wildfire risk, but we also need to be prepared to act decisively when conditions become extreme. Through this Coalition, we’re coordinating our operational practices, learning from events here and in other jurisdictions, and working closely with communities and first responders to support safe and effective wildfire response.”
Article content
Jason Sharpe, Chief Operating Officer, ATCO Energy Systems
Article content
“
Article content
Alberta’s electric utilities have effectively managed wildfire-related risks for decades, helping to provide peace of mind to the communities they serve. As our operating environments continue to evolve, utilities must remain focused on making carefully considered investments in infrastructure and technology that will help reduce the overall risk of wildfire ignitions; an outcome that will benefit all Albertans. The Coalition is pleased to contribute to, and help guide, discussions with stakeholders on this important topic.
Article content
”
Article content
Janine Sullivan, President and Chief Executive Officer, FortisAlberta
Article content
About AltaLink
Article content
Headquartered in Calgary, with offices in Edmonton, Red Deer and Lethbridge, AltaLink is Alberta’s largest electricity transmission provider, with approximately 13,400 kilometres of transmission lines and more than 310 substations. AltaLink is partnering with its customers to provide innovative solutions to meet the province’s demand for safe, reliable and affordable energy.
Article content
About ATCO Energy Systems
Article content
ATCO Energy Systems builds, operates and maintains electric and gas transmission and distribution networks, serving over 1.6 million customers across Canada. We’re modernizing our grids, investing in new infrastructure to meet the growing needs of our customers and partnering with Indigenous communities to support reconciliation and prosperity. As energy needs evolve, we remain committed to safe, reliable, and sustainable solutions—working with communities to deliver long-term value.
Published on
The European Parliament’s trade committee agreed Thursday to cut EU tariffs on US goods to zero, as set out under the EU–US agreement struck in July 2025 after multiple delays over tensions with the Trump administration.
EU Lawmakers had resisted for weeks implementing the deal signed by EU Commission’s President Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump last summer, following threats over Greenland and fresh tariffs imposed by Washington on EU goods after a pivotal February ruling by the US Supreme Court ruled illegal the 2025 US tariffs.
On Thursday, the committee adopted a legislation by 29 votes in favour, paving the way to eliminate EU duties on most US industrial goods as agreed in the Turnberry deal.
The lopsided agreement, clinched after weeks of trade tensions triggered by the White House’s nationalist trade agenda, imposes 15% US tariffs on EU goods while the bloc agreed to scrap its own duties and ramp up investment in the US.
Thursday’s vote opens the door to full approval by the European Parliament. However, adoption may slip to April or May as EU lawmakers still need to negotiate implementing legislation with EU member states.
Amendments introduced by MEPs could complicate talks with capitals, including a “sunset” clause that would reinstate EU tariffs after 18 months if the agreement is not renewed, and a so-called “sunrise clause” making tariff cuts conditional on Washington meeting its commitments.
Lawmakers unfroze the deal on Tuesday following US pressure and calls from the European Commission to move ahead.
They had sought clarity after the White House imposed fresh duties following the ruling of US top judges. New investigations into EU goods launched last week by Washington also raised concerns among MEPs, who called for predictability for European businesses.
US officials, meanwhile, have grown increasingly impatient after repeatedly assuring EU counterparts they would stick to the deal, which also spares sectors such as EU aerospace, if the bloc does the same.
“EU tariffs on US goods haven’t changed,” U.S. ambassador to the EU Andrew Puzder said on X on Tuesday, adding: “We understand that the EU must follow its process. But we’re hopeful that, after 6 and a half months, the time has come – and we’ve respectfully requested that – the EU finalize the deal so we can mutually unlock the potential for positive collaboration – for the betterment of our economies and our joint security.”