U.S. crude oil prices fall more than 4% after OPEC+ agrees to surge production in June
U.S. crude oil futures fell more than 4% on Sunday, after OPEC+ agreed to surge production for a second month.
U.S. crude was down $2.49, or 4.27%, to $55.80 a barrel shortly after trading opened. Global benchmark Brent fell $2.39, or 3.9%, to $58.90 per barrel.
The eight producers in the group, led by Saudi Arabia, agreed on Saturday to increase output by another 411,000 barrels per day in June. The decision comes a month after OPEC+ surprised the market by agreeing to surge production in May by the same amount.
The June production hike is nearly triple the 140,000 bpd that Goldman Sachs had originally forecast. OPEC+ is bringing more than 800,000 bpd of additional supply to the market over the course of two months.
Oil prices in April posted the biggest monthly loss since 2021, as U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs have raised fears of a recession that will slow demand at the same time that OPEC+ is quickly increasing supply.
Oilfield service firms such as Baker Hughes and SLB are expecting investment in exploration and production to decline this year due to the weak price environment.
"The prospects of an oversupplied oil market, rising tariffs, uncertainty in Mexico and activity weakness in Saudi Arabia are collectively constraining international upstream spending levels," Baker Hughes CEO Lorenzo Simonelli said on the company's first-quarter earnings call on April 25.
Oil majors Chevron and Exxon reported first-quarter earnings last week that fell compared to the same period in 2024 due to lower oil prices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into…
The Shell (LSE SHEL) share price looks cheap right now, with a price-to-earnings ratio of just 8.95. That's well below the average FTSE 100 P/E of 15 times. There's a reason for that, of course. Shell shares have fallen with the oil price, slumping almost 10% in 12 months. They're still up 67% over five years though. That's less than half the drop suffered by FTSE 100 rival BP. Shell seems to have a better idea how to navigate the push to net zero, but with the oil price hovering around $65 a barrel, it's still struggling. It's far from a done deal that Shell can bounce back from today's lows and make investors rich all over again. There is little sign the oil price is about to recover. With OPEC+ increasing production, it could fall further, especially as China struggles and Donald Trump brings volatility. Then there's the push towards net zero, which could go either way. Theoretically, building a new line of renewable energy will threaten fossil fuel behemoths, but we need them to help us push through the transition. This is particularly true given exponentially rising energy demand, thanks to AI and the rest. Shell's first-quarter results, published on 2 May, showed adjusted earnings of $5.6bn. That's a big drop from $7.73bn a year earlier but ahead of analyst expectations of $4.96bn. The company also announced another $3.5bn quarterly share buyback programme, marking the 14th consecutive quarter of at least $3bn in buybacks. Cash flow from operations came in at $9.3bn, slightly below consensus expectations of $9.6bn. So what about that dividend? A trailing yield of 4.4% is okay, but not exactly to die for. It's expected to creep up in 2026, but only to 4.49%. Shell isn't the dividend superstar it once was. Over the last 15 years, I would have expected shareholder payouts to compound at a decent clip. Instead, it's fallen by an average of 2.88% a year. The board didn't just slash its full-year dividend from 188 US cents in 2019 to 65.3 cents during the 2020 pandemic. It rebased it. While payouts have climbed at a decent clip since, they started from that lower level. In 2024, the total dividend was 139 US cents. That's at levels last seen in 2007. The 19 analysts serving up one-year share price forecasts have produced a median target of around 3,027p. If correct, that's a handsome increase of around 21.5% from today. Combined with that yield, this would give investors a total return of 26%. Based on that, if somebody invested £10,000 in the stock today, it would grow to £12,600 in a year. Obviously, nobody can predict the future like that. I use it only as a guide to market thinking. Here's another. Of the 32 analysts giving one-year stock ratings, an impressive 23 name Shell a Strong Buy. Four say Hold and five say Sell. Shell continues to face risks, as the oil price slows, net zero spreads confusion, and the global economy struggles. It may look cheap, but there's no guarantee its shares will suddenly close the valuation gap. But for those wanting exposure to energy, today's low valuation does make Shell worth considering. More so than BP, in my book. The post Prediction: in 12 months the dirt-cheap Shell share price could turn £10,000 into… appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Harvey Jones has positions in Bp P.l.c. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Goldman Sachs Upgrades Bayer (BAYRY) to Buy
On Thursday, Goldman Sachs analyst James Quigley upgraded Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC:BAYRY) to Buy from Neutral, while setting a price target of EUR 33. Quigley indicated that the stock's risk/reward profile appears positive as it approaches H2 2025, with potential catalysts that could drive a re-rating in the medium term. A closeup of pills in a pharmacy, representing the high quality medications of the company. This upgrade follows Bayer's strong operational start to the year, characterized by cost discipline in its Crop Science division and robust momentum in its underlying Pharmaceuticals business. Goldman Sachs suggests that these factors indicate Bayer may have reached the bottom of its negative earnings revision cycle. In key business developments, Bayer's EPS stood at EUR 2.49 in Q1 2025, keeping the company on track to achieve EUR 4.50 to 5.00 at constant currencies for the full year. While sales in the company's Crop Science division declined by 3% due to regulatory impacts affecting higher-margin sales, the Pharmaceuticals segment sales grew by 4% due to an 80% year-over-year increase in Nubeqa and Kerendia sales. Nubeqa is a prostate cancer drug, while Kerendia is used to treat chronic kidney disease associated with type 2 diabetes. The Consumer Health segment sales also increased by 2.5%. Bayer Aktiengesellschaft (OTC:BAYRY) is a global life science company. The company operates through Pharmaceuticals, Consumer Health, and Crop Science segments. While we acknowledge the potential of BAYRY as an investment, our conviction lies in the belief that some AI stocks hold greater promise for delivering higher returns and have limited downside risk. If you are looking for an extremely cheap AI stock that is also a major beneficiary of Trump tariffs and onshoring, see our free report on the best short-term AI stock. READ NEXT: and . Disclosure: None. This article is originally published at Insider Monkey. Related Content OTC Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The only ‘Made in America' smartphone maker has a message for Apple about manufacturing in the Trump tariff era
Todd Weaver has an important message for Apple as it faces growing demands by President Donald Trump to reshore some of its smartphone production: Don't listen to the conventional wisdom. Experts have long said that manufacturing iPhones in the U.S., rather than Asia, as Apple does, would be logistically impossible and ridiculously expensive. But Weaver argues companies can indeed do it successfully, and at a similar or only slightly higher cost—if given several years to navigate the inevitable complications. Weaver should know: His startup, Purism, is among the few, if not the only business, that assembles smartphones in the U.S. In fact, the U.S. pedigree is the main selling point of his company's Made in America device, the Liberty Phone. 'It is challenging to do this in the U.S.,' Weaver acknowledges. 'It's probably the reason I'm the only one.' And yet, he says his company has managed to make it work and has been profitable for the last two years—a real world example of what's possible on a hot-button topic in which political talking points and vested interests often dominate the debate. President Donald Trump recently put U.S. smartphone production in the spotlight as part of his global trade war. On May 23, he used social network Truth Social to publicly attack Apple for importing iPhones into the U.S., rather than making them domestically, and then threatened the company with a 25% tariff if it continued to do so. Whether any of the import taxes will become permanent is unclear given Trump's whiplash decision-making and court challenges by third parties. Still, Apple has long assembled its iPhones overseas, mainly in China, and has resisted relocating any of that production to the U.S. In April, when Trump announced his tariffs, Apple went so far as to shift the sourcing of most U.S.-bound iPhones to India, which faced lower import taxes. U.S. assembly was never publicly mentioned as a possibility. In the past, Apple CEO Cook explained the reluctance by saying the abundance of skilled labor and top-notch suppliers overseas would be difficult to reproduce at home. Weaver's company, of course, is no Apple, which has sold more than 2 billion iPhones globally since introducing the first models in 2007. The devices unleashed a new era in the tech industry in which mobile devices became the prime focus. Purism, in contrast, has sold just tens of thousands of phones since debuting its first model in 2018, according to Weaver. And the company is barely-known outside the world of tech nerds. Its Liberty Phone, manufactured near San Diego, comes with U.S.-made electronics installed on a metal chassis from China. It retails for $1,999. Another phone, the Librem 5, is mostly the same design, except it's made in China with Chinese parts, and costs $799. The company also produces tablet computers, laptops, and servers. Purism pitches its Made in America device as more secure and privacy friendly than those from major manufactures like Apple. Because all the critical parts and assembly are domestic, it's easy to verify that they haven't been tampered with by a foreign adversary that wants to snoop or stuff them with explosives. The phones also run on a Linux-based open source operating system. Anyone with technical know-how who is worried about the security can review the code—unlike with more popular phones, which come with operating systems that can't be easily inspected. Additionally, Purism's phones come with three kill switches that lets users physically disconnect their device from cell service, Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, along with its microphone and camera. When turned on, the switches sever the electrical circuit to the features they control and make it impossible for them to be accessed by hackers, Weaver said. Toggling on Airplane Mode, as users often do on more mainstream phones, is less secure, he said, because it's a purely software feature that doesn't cut power to the device's chips. Customers who are especially security conscious can pay extra to have their devices shipped with 'tamper evident tape' on the packaging, among other options, to flag any monkey business during transit. Purism's biggest customers are government agencies, many of which require high security, and individual consumers. The company's clients, Weaver said, include the FBI and the House Select Committee on Intelligence. Weaver said the cost of manufacturing the Purism's two phones is largely the same, despite one being made overseas and the other domestically. The phone that's made in China costs around $600 for parts, manufacturing, and assembly while the U.S.-made one comes in at $650. 'Producing goods in China vs. the U.S. is the same plus or minus 10%,' said Weaver, based mostly on automation. The difference between what Purism charges customers for its two phones is partly due to the higher profit margin the company collects for its U.S.-made device. People who want stronger security are often willing to pay extra for it, Weaver said. It also covers the extra overhead from some customers wanting to verify that Purism's supply chain is secure and the small additional cost of U.S. manufacturing. Purism's assembly line is in Carlsbad, Calif., where up to a dozen workers put together devices. The area is home to a pool of skilled labor thanks to the local defense industry and manufacturing for other mobile carriers. That relatively modest assembly line is a major contrast to the factories that make iPhones, operated by contract manufacturers, mostly in China. Those facilities can be the size of several football fields and employ over 100,000 people who work around-the-clock shifts. Weaver said the U.S. is at a huge disadvantage to China when it comes to skilled workers, who make up a significant part of the workforce in smartphone factories. The only way to reverse the shortage and lay the groundwork for companies to reshore their production is to encourage more people to learn skills that are useful in the manufacturing process, he said. 'If you go over to China you can find buildings and buildings of thousands of electronics engineers. If you look here, you can find maybe five total,' Weaver said. Apple, for example, would risk a catastrophe if it suddenly, in 2026, needed to ramp up staffing in the U.S. to produce millions of iPhones, he said. Training enough people for such a massive undertaking would take years. Weaver said Purism, founded in 2014, took several years to develop its domestic supply chain. The company's small size means it only needs limited quantities of components, which makes it impossible to achieve the economies of scale that come from producing huge numbers of devices. Manufacturing in the U.S. also comes with higher labor costs than in China. But with the help of automation, those extra costs can be kept to a minimum by reserving human labor for tasks performed after production is complete, such as soldering, assembly, repairs, and testing. Apple, on the other hand, would need vast amounts of components to keep its assembly line humming. While the company would likely be able to cut deals with domestic suppliers for most iPhone parts, some, such as high-quality cameras, may be impossible to quickly source in the U.S. and it would therefore have to import them, Weaver said. One analyst has said iPhones could end up costing $3,500 if made in the U.S., to account for the extra costs and hassles. Weaver agrees that it would cost Apple substantially more to produce iPhones in the U.S., if it had to move production quickly. But given enough time, Apple could substantially reduce the cost after developing a new supply chain, finding enough workers, and by relying on extensive automation. For Apple, opening a domestic manufacturing plant would therefore need to be a years' long process, Weaver said. That's why he criticized Trump's tariffs for taking effect almost immediately. Yes, many of those tariffs have since been delayed. But the takeaway for businesses is that they can't plan ahead. And yet, that's exactly what's required for something as complex as shifting manufacturing to the U.S. Trump's tariffs would be far more effective if phased in over many years, Weaver said. In that scenario, companies would have a clear and increasing incentive to reshore production—without being punished right off the bat. Weaver argues his U.S. manufacturing effort is already paying off and that it will gain momentum over time. He hopes the recent scandal involving U.S. officials using the chat app Signal to discuss a military strike against Yemen, and then accidentally inviting a journalist to join them, will help lift sales by encouraging the federal government to focus more on security. Weaver wouldn't get into the specifics of Purism's financials other than to say it has millions in annual revenue and turned profitable in 2023. The Liberty Phone is its biggest seller. Wayne Lam, an analyst with market research firm TechInsights, gave a mixed take on Purism's prospect. In an email, he said: 'They can be a successful niche player, but the odds of success are lower thanks to the bigger brands. They won't be able to compete in the consumer market but government/enterprise/military are all niche markets they can address.' To fund the expansion of his business, Weaver is trying to raise additional investment after taking in $16 million in funding over the years. Some of that money would go to fixing a shortcoming with his phones. Because they don't use Apple's iOS or Google's Android operating systems, they are incompatible with many of the most popular mobile apps like Uber. To get such apps work on its devices, Purism must make technical tweaks for each one. Purism can at least claim one small advantage over the giant companies that dominate the smartphone industry. If Trump's tariffs become permanent, it won't feel much impact from its U.S.-made phone, while the big players and their foreign-made devices could be hammered. This story was originally featured on
