UAE: Gold prices slip after jumping nearly Dh5 per gram yesterday
Gold prices dropped in Dubai on Wednesday morning after jumping nearly Dh5 per gram on Tuesday.
The Dubai Jewellery Group data showed 24K slipping Dh1.5 to Dh350.75 at the opening of markets in Dubai on Wednesday. Among the other variants, 22K, 21K and 18K opened lower at Dh326.25, Dh313 and Dh268.25 per gram, respectively.
Globally, gold was steady at $2,911.04 per ounce at 9.20am UAE time.
Samer Hasn, senior market analyst at xs.com, said gold's gains come amid the highest levels of uncertainty this year in the US market, whether for stocks or bonds.
'This coincides with the US escalating its trade war with Canada, Mexico and China, and the beginning of the effects of this trade conflict in the slowdown in economic activity,' he said.
The trade conflict escalated as new tariffs on Canada, and Mexico, and additional tariffs on China took effect. In response, China retaliated by imposing tariffs on American agricultural imports, specifically targeting soybeans, of which it is the largest importer, purchasing over $12 billion in 2024.
Additionally, China introduced export restrictions on certain products with both civilian and military applications.
Meanwhile, tariffs on American agricultural exports were one of the most prominent points that raised experts' concerns about the consequences of the trade war on the economy. China may also move to expand its restrictions on American companies, especially those in the technology sector, which is a source of concern for markets.
'The market is facing risks of an economic slowdown coupled with rising inflationary pressures, which could keep the state of high uncertainty about the path of monetary policy and could explain the heightened concerns in the bond market. This confusion could preserve gold's ability to recover,' added Hasn.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gulf Today
5 hours ago
- Gulf Today
Outrage over Trump's electric vehicle policies is misplaced
Ashley Nunes, Tribune News Service Electric car subsidies are heading for the chopping block. A tax bill recently passed by House Republicans is set to stop billions in taxpayer cash from being spent on electric vehicle purchases. If embraced by the Senate and signed into law by President Donald Trump, the bill would gut long-standing government handouts for going electric. The move comes on the heels of another climate policy embraced by Republicans. Earlier this year, Trump announced plans to roll back burdensome rules that effectively force American consumers to buy electric, rather than gas-fueled, cars. The Environmental Protection Agency has called that move the 'biggest deregulatory action in US history.' Not everyone sees it that way. Jason Rylander, legal director at the Center for Biological Diversity's Climate Law Institute, assailed Trump's efforts, noting that his 'administration's ignorance is trumped only by its malice toward the planet.' Other similarly aligned groups have voiced similar sentiments arguing that ending these rules would 'cost consumers more, because clean energy and cleaner cars are cheaper than sticking with the fossil fuels status quo.' Backtracking on EV purchasing mandates seems to have hit Trump haters particularly hard. That mandate — established by President Joe Biden — would have pushed US automakers to sell more EVs. Millions more. Electric cars currently account for 8% of new auto sales. Biden ordered— by presidential fiat — that figure to climb to 35% by 2032. If you believe the hype, the result would be an electric nirvana, one defined by cleaner air and rampant job creation. I'm not convinced. For one thing, cleaner air courtesy of electrification requires that EVs replace gas-powered autos. They're not. In fact, study after study suggests that the purchase of EVs adds to the number of cars in a household. And two-thirds of households with an EV have another non-EV that is driven more — hardly a recipe for climate success given that EVs must be driven (a lot) to deliver climate benefits. Fewer miles driven in an EV also challenges the economic efficiency of the billions Washington spends annually to subsidise their purchase. Claims of job creation thanks to EVs are even more questionable. These claims are predicated around notions of aggressive consumer demand that drives increased EV manufacturing. This in turn creates jobs. A recent Princeton University study noted, 'Announced manufacturing capacity additions and expansions would nearly double US capacity to produce electric vehicles by 2030 and are well sized to meet expected demand for made-in-USA vehicles.' Jobs would be created if there were demand for EVs. Except that's not what's happening. Rather, consumer interest in EVs has effectively cratered. In 2024, 1.3 million EVs were sold in the United States, up from 1.2 million in 2023. This paltry increase is even more worrying given drastic price cuts seen in the EV market in 2024. Tesla knocked thousands of dollars off its best-selling Model 3 and Model Y. Ford followed suit by cutting prices on its Mach-e. So did Volkswagen and Hyundai. Despite deep discounts, consumer interest in electrification remains — to put it mildly — tepid at best. So, when people equate electrification with robust job creation, I'm left wondering what they are going on about. Even if jobs were created, EV advocates are coy about how many of those jobs would benefit existing autoworkers. Would all these workers — currently spread across large swaths of the Midwest — be guaranteed jobs on an EV assembly line? If not, how many workers should expect to receive pink slips? For those who do, will they be able to find new jobs that pay as much as their old ones? Touting job creation for political expediency is one thing. Fully recognising its impact on hardworking American families today, another. Some Americans may decry Trump's actions on climate, but they have only themselves to blame. Many of the pro-climate policies enacted, particularly during the Biden era, deliver little in the way of climate benefits (or any benefit for that matter) while making a mockery of the real economic concerns businesses and consumers have about climate action. No more. In justifying climate rollbacks, the president says many of his predecessor's policies have hurt rather than helped the American people. He's right and should be commended for doing something about it.
Gulf Today
a day ago
- Gulf Today
China's export curbs on rare earth minerals worry Europe
China is flexing its economic muscle in more senses than one. Its decision to restrict exports of the rare minerals and magnets has sent shivers down the spines of global automakers in Germany and in the United States. Rare earth minerals are needed in key sectors like car manufactures, semi-conductor industry, aerospace industry. The Chinese possess half of the global rare earth mineral reserves. The Chinese decision was mainly to counter US President Donald Trump's refusal to export crucial computer chips needed for AI, and the US' refusal to allow imports from Chinese chipmaker Huawei. More importantly, what has angered the Chinese is the refusal of student visas to Chinese students, and the cancellation of the visas of those who are students in American universities. Europe is caught in a crossfire in the trade war between the giants, the US and China. Europeans, as well as Americans, have suddenly realised that it is not such a good thing to depend on China for either rare earth minerals or even manufactured goods including cars. The West is desperately looking to reduce its dependence on China and it is seeking to diversify its supply chain. European Union (EU) Commissioner for Industrial Strategy Stephane Sejourne said, 'We must reduce our dependencies on all countries, particularly on a number of countries like China, on which we are more than 100 per cent dependent.' Meanwhile EU Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said that he was in touch with his Chinese counterpart and they had agreed to clarify the rare earth minerals situation. Major automakers like Mercedes and BMW are claiming that they have enough inventories and their production schedules will not be affected. But it is clear that shortages are looming on the horizon. The US-China trade talks are quite crucial, even as American President Donald Trump wrote on his social media platform, Truth Social, 'I like President Xi of China, always have, and always will, but he is VERY TOUGH, AND EXTREMELY HARD TO MAKE A DEAL WITH.' Trump is blaming China for breaking the deal made in Geneva to roll back the tariffs that each side had imposed on the other, Trump reduced the tariffs from 145 per cent to 30 per cent, and China reduced it from 135 per cent. Mercedes-Benz production chief Jeorg Burzer said he was talking to top suppliers of the company about building 'buffer' stocks anticipating trouble in the future. He said that Mercedes is well stocked for now and production schedules are not affected. But automakers in Europe and America have aired their worries about the curbs on Chinese exports of the rare earth minerals. Many of the captains of industry are lobbying with their governments to solve the deadlock. Wolfgang Weber, CEO of Germany's electrical and digital industry association, ZVEI, said in an emailed statement, 'Companies currently feel abandoned by politicians and are partly looking for solutions to their difficult situation on their own in China.' Trump's declaration of the tariff war against America's trade partners had mostly caused quiet murmurs, and many countries from the EU and other countries like Japan are trying to work out a trade deal without crossing swords with the US. But China was not willing to take Trump's tariffs passively. It is aware that it has power enough to counter American tariffs with tariffs of its own. The Chinese have always been defiant of the Western world, even when they did not have the economic power they now have. There is of course the harsh fact. China needs the Western countries to maintain its economic growth. It is its exports to Western countries that have made it rich and powerful. Europe and US need the cheap labour of China, and China needs the Western markets. They have to strike a deal with each other.
Dubai Eye
a day ago
- Dubai Eye
US announces pick for NATO's next Supreme Allied Commander
President Donald Trump's administration announced on Thursday its nomination for the next top US general in Europe and said the US military officer would also assume the traditional role of Supreme Allied Commander Europe. Trump's decision to nominate US Air Force Lieutenant General Alexus Grynkewich to both roles, which was first reported by Reuters, will relieve European NATO allies and even some of Trump's fellow Republicans amid concerns about a retrenchment in American military leadership of NATO. Grynkewich must be confirmed by the US Senate. The position of SACEUR, which oversees all NATO operations in Europe, has been filled by a US general since its creation after World War Two. US Army General Dwight D. Eisenhower became the alliance's first SACEUR in 1951. Still, since taking office in January, Trump's administration has pressured NATO allies to ramp up their defense spending, saying Europe should be primarily responsible for defense on the European continent. Trump has also said he wants NATO allies to boost investment in defence to 5 per cent of gross domestic product, up from the current target of 2 per cent. Speaking at NATO headquarters earlier on Thursday, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said he was confident that members of the NATO alliance would agree to a major boost in defense spending. No country is yet at 5 per cent, not even the US, but Hegseth said there was progress on agreeing to the target. "I'm very encouraged by what we heard in there," Hegseth said after a morning meeting of NATO defense ministers on Thursday in Brussels. "Countries in there are well exceeding 2 per cent and we think very close, almost near consensus, on a 5 per cent commitment to NATO." Grynkewich, who is now the director for operations at the US military's Joint Staff, would succeed Army General Christopher Cavoli, who has been in the role since shortly after Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, helping oversee billions of dollars in U.S. security assistance to Kyiv.
