Oil rebounds on Trump threats on Russian crude buyers
Brent crude futures gained $1.11, or 1.6%, to $68.75 a barrel by 1119 GMT, while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude was up $1.12, or 1.7%, at $66.28 a barrel.
Both oil contracts fell by more than $1 on Tuesday to settle at their lowest in five weeks, marking a fourth session of losses.
"Prices bounced up on the potential higher tariffs on India but the market is waiting for some sort of a formal implementation as well as which elements in the market are to be affected," said Rystad analyst Janiv Shah.
Trump renewed threats to impose higher import tariffs on Indian goods over the country's buying of Russian energy. India, along with China, is a major buyer of Russian oil.
"Expectations appear that India may reduce its buying of Russian crude, but I can't see them doing so entirely as they have been making supernormal profits on buying cheap Russian crude," said Ashley Kelty, an analyst at Panmure Liberum.
U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow on Wednesday on a last-minute mission to seek a breakthrough in the Ukraine war, two days before the expiry of a deadline set by Trump for Russia to agree to peace or face new sanctions.
Rystad's Shah said that although the meeting could lead to some concessions, a planned supply increase from the OPEC+ group would offset a potential decline in Russian oil supply.
The market was also finding support from a fall in U.S. crude inventories last week, analysts said, as sources citing American Petroleum Institute figures said on Tuesday that stockpiles had fallen by 4.2 million barrels.
That compares with a Reuters poll estimate of a 600,000 barrels draw for the week to August 1.
"For all that has been thrown the oil market's way geopolitically, Brent futures have struggled to even hold the floor at $70 a barrel for any convincing length of time," said independent analyst Gaurav Sharma.
Brent is down 9.4% so far this year, which Sharma said was due to the market remaining well supplied at a time of uncertain demand. That, along with a cloudy macro-economic outlook, made the case for any lasting bullishness in crude unlikely, he added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
a minute ago
- The National
Apple stock jumps 5% after $100 billion US manufacturing pledge
Apple shares rallied more than 5 per cent on Wednesday after it committed $100 billion in US manufacturing, in a move that would help the company avoid President Donald Trump's upcoming 100 per cent tariffs on semiconductors. The world's third most valuable company settled 5.1 per cent higher at $213.28, after the pledge, which would bring its total investment in the US to $600 billion in the next four years, following a $500 billion commitment in February that also included hiring 20,000 workers. That helped Wall Street rally at the close. The tech-heavy Nasdaq Composite led gains, settling 1.21 per cent higher. The Dow Jones Industrial Average added 0.18 per cent, while the S&P 500 climbed 0.73 per cent. The White House announced on Wednesday that it will impose tariffs on "all chips and semiconductors coming into the United States", although they would not apply to companies that have made commitments to manufacture in the US, or, at least, are in the process of doing so. Apple's decision was a "good strategic poker move for [chief executive Tim] Cook and Cupertino", where Apple is based, said Wedbush managing director Dan Ives. The announcement came a day before Mr Trump's broader and sweeping tariffs, aimed at encouraging companies to bring their manufacturing to the US, came into effect on Thursday.
Zawya
31 minutes ago
- Zawya
Bank of England's long unwinding road: Mike Dolan
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) LONDON - An expected cut that will take the Bank of England's key interest rate to 4% this week will be merciful relief for an economy badly in need of a lift. But overwhelming caution and a split among policymakers mean the easing cycle is set to be one of the shallowest and most drawn out in modern history. The BoE, like its central bank peers, has had a torrid five years, but with numerous home-grown twists and turns to boot. With Brexit just kicking in, the COVID-19 pandemic hit in 2020 - forcing massive BoE balance sheet support for government rescues during the lockdowns. A supply shock from the post-pandemic reboot combined with massive monetary and fiscal stimulus to sow the first double-digit UK inflation spike in over 40 years - exacerbated by soaring energy costs after Russia invaded Ukraine in March 2022 and complicated by a government-inspired bond market blowout later that year. The scramble to hike borrowing costs ensued as early as 2021 and the BoE has only slowly pared them back over the past year. And inflation is still not sustainably back to its 2% target, U.S. trade barriers are now rising sharply and policymakers and investors alike are struggling to determine exactly what the new normal is. Given this backdrop, the central bank's recent mantra of 'gradual and careful' seems reasonable. Deutsche Bank economists Sanjay Raja and Shreyas Gopal sought to quantify that caution this week by pointing out that the slow and shallow BoE easing cycle so far is already the third-longest since World War Two. If their forecast for the BoE's official bank rate - of four-quarter-percentage point cuts to 3.25% by next February - turns out correct, then this easing cycle will be the longest since 1945. What's more, they calculate that no rate-cut cycle that's lasted more than two quarters has delivered less easing than the current one. The Deutsche team reckon this is all consistent with the central bank's 'softly softly' guidance, but is also likely a "reflection of a very divided MPC (Monetary Policy Committee) following four years of above-target inflation." BoE policymakers broke three ways back in May when the central bank last cut rates - with votes for the majority decision, a deeper cut and no change - and some think that split could re-emerge this week. GROPING IN THE DARK Financial market pricing chimes with Deutsche's take and tentatively prices a "terminal rate" for the cycle at about 3.25%, paring back less than half the hikes that took the rate from the near-zero level to 5.25% during the 2021-2023 period. And that's a quarter-percentage-point higher than where markets think the U.S. Federal Reserve's policy rate will end up late next year. If the BoE policy rate does settle there, it would be a quarter percentage point above the average of the past 28 years of the central bank's operational independence - perhaps the clearest reflection of the big structural hit to both the domestic and global economies in recent years. But as the policymaker split is watched closely again on Thursday alongside the BoE's updated economic forecasts, some banks - such as Morgan Stanley - still assume the bank rate will eventually be eased much further to 2.75% by the end of 2026. To get there, the BoE will likely have to grope around in the dark a bit longer. In a speech last month, BoE policymaker Alan Taylor outlined his thoughts on the fabled "r-star" neutral real interest rate, the theoretical rate that neither spurs nor drags on economic activity and prices. His work suggested that a British r-star is now around 0.75%, which, after adding a 2% inflation rate, would imply that a BoE policy rate of 2.75% is indeed a reasonable landing point. That estimate hasn't changed much in 10 years, even though it's less than half of what it was on the eve of the 2007-2008 global banking crash. Indeed, Taylor underscored the very long-term trend of declining neutral rates in his presentation by highlighting a vast data set of interest rates from around the world clearly showing that interest rates had not just been falling steadily for the past 50 years, but the past 800 years. And yet even a BoE dove like Taylor knows how foggy it still is out there at the moment, especially given this year's expected UK inflation rebound and still punchy wage gains. "Optimism has faded and geoeconomic storms have blown in," he said before concluding on a philosophical note, "We know we will never see the end of the road, but we must always be looking for it." Central bankers everywhere may be trying to do just that, though few are likely seeing anything clearly right now. The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters -- Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI), your essential new source for global financial commentary. Follow ROI on LinkedIn. Plus, sign up for my weekday newsletter, Morning Bid U.S.
Zawya
31 minutes ago
- Zawya
Markets' tariff resilience challenges long-standing economic orthodoxy: McGeever
(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.) ORLANDO, Florida - Investors have been living in a real-time economic experiment ever since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House in January. Whether it's tariffs, "America First" isolationism, overt politicization of independent economic institutions, or upended global economic norms, markets are having to deal with challenges few investors have faced before. So how are they reacting to the leader of the free world ripping up the economic playbook that has shaped the global financial system for 40 years? Wall Street and world stocks are at record highs, U.S. high yield corporate bond spreads are the tightest since before the 2007-08 global financial crisis, and Treasuries are remarkably calm, with the 10-year yield below its average of the last two years. It's not all serene, of course. The U.S. "term premium" - a measure of the extra compensation investors demand for holding long-dated Treasuries over short-term debt - is the highest in over a decade. Inflation expectations and long-dated yields have shot up too. And one needs to acknowledge that the full impact of Trump's tariffs has yet to be fully felt. But, at this point there has been no U.S. recession, even if growth is slowing. And the market plunge on the back of Trump's April 2 "Liberation Day" tariff debacle lasted a few weeks. The powerful stock market recovery since then suggests investors were less bothered by the actual tariffs than the shock of the initial announcement, the chaotic way it was delivered, and the amateurish way the levies were calculated. This outcome is not what economic textbooks would have predicted. ONE FOR YOU, 19 FOR ME Tariffs are a tax. And the overall U.S. average effective tariff rate looks likely to be around 18%, according to the Budget Lab at Yale. That's down from an estimated 28% in May but still nearly eight times higher than the level in December. Who will ultimately pay this tax is up for debate, but if sustained at that level, the president of the United States will have effectively imposed a tax hike worth around 1.8% of GDP, one of the largest in U.S. history. But wait. Aren't higher taxes bad for business, markets and growth? Don't higher taxes sap consumers' spending power, stunt investment and hiring, and crush the private sector's entrepreneurial spirit? Markets' relatively speedy acceptance raises the question: What happened to the last 40 years of economic orthodoxy, symbolized by the so-called "Washington Consensus"? This was the set of principles drawn up in the late 1980s that broadly mirrored the views of the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, World Bank and U.S. Treasury, ostensibly to help direct policy in Latin America but which ultimately served as the economic framework for Western liberal democracies and global markets. They included support for privatization, deregulation, the free flow of capital, fiscal discipline, and lower taxes. They also entailed lower barriers to trade, a cornerstone of globalization. For years these tenets were regarded by policymakers, business leaders and investors as sacrosanct. Some, like rigid adherence to tight fiscal policy, were put to the test - and shown to be flimsy, at best - during the GFC and pandemic. So now that the tariff line has been crossed, what about other economic commandments? Could governments look to raise tax revenue from other sources, such as wealth taxes on the super rich, a "Tobin tax" on foreign exchange transactions, or other "soft" capital controls? These are obviously anathema to the doctrine of free market capitalism. But then so were tariffs. To be fair, we are just entering this new era. And as my colleague Mike Dolan observed earlier this week, even if tariffs don't send the economy or markets into a tailspin, they may still lead to a "slow burn," with many years of lost economic potential, elevated volatility and lower investment returns. But investors aren't looking that far ahead. What they see right now is a pretty resilient U.S. economy, solid earnings growth, and red-hot optimism around U.S. tech and AI. And some of the old orthodoxies may be in the rear-view mirror. (The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters) (By Jamie McGeever; editing by Mark Heinrich)
