Ultra-Rare Metal Rides AI Boom as Commodities Star Performer
The Dutch Intersection Is Coming to Save Your Life
Advocates Fear US Agents Are Using 'Wellness Checks' on Children as a Prelude to Arrests
LA Homelessness Drops for Second Year
Manhattan, Chicago Murder Rates Drop in 2025, Officials Say
Ruthenium, a silvery gray mineral, has eclipsed the headline-grabbing rallies in other commodities like gold and silver by nearly doubling in price over the past year to $800 an ounce, according to metals refiner Johnson Matthey Plc. That matches its peak in 2021 and isn't far off the all-time high of $870 hit 18 years ago.
The platinum group metal is prized for its exceptional hardness, and versatility across electronics, energy storage, and chemicals manufacturing. But it's the AI revolution — particularly in hard disks — that's driven recent gains, according to SFA (Oxford) Ltd., a critical minerals consultancy.
'As AI rolls out, as data storage requirements increase, you need a technology which is still cheap, cost-effective and can store large quantities of data,' said analyst Sandeep Kaler. Technology that leans on other elements is still very expensive, which means demand for ruthenium will keep rising unless cheaper alternatives can be found, she said.
The metal is very hard to come by, and it's not traded on any exchanges. Traders are scrambling for any supplies they can get, and even major buyers are having trouble sourcing ruthenium, according to two traders who asked not to be named as the information isn't public.
Dwindling production is likely to provide further support to prices. Annual supply of the mineral, which is mostly derived as a byproduct of platinum, was just 30 tons last year, and is expected to fall due to a lack of investment after many lean years for prices, said Kaler. The market is likely to tip into a deficit next year, where demand outstrips supply, she said.
But the amounts used are minuscule. In hard disk drives, ruthenium allows for greater density of data and appears as a film less than a nanometer thick.
Growth in cloud computing is set to raise hard disk sales by 16% this year, according to figures from International Data Corp. cited by Bloomberg Intelligence, which will in turn fuel ruthenium consumption.
(Updates with details on scarcity in the 5th paragraph)
How Starbucks' CEO Plans to Tame the Rush-Hour Free-for-All
Forget DOGE. Musk Is Suddenly All In on AI
How Hims Became the King of Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs
The Quest for a Hangover-Free Buzz
Thailand's Changing Cannabis Rules Leave Farmers in a Tough Spot
©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Inicia sesión para acceder a tu cartera de valores
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Ohio Lets Tesla Sell Cars Direct—Rivian Wants the Same
Ohio Lets Tesla Sell Cars Direct—Rivian Wants the Same originally appeared on Autoblog. Automaker Claims Franchise Law Harms Consumers When Tesla bypassed traditional franchised dealerships over a decade ago and started selling its electric vehicles directly to customers it started a legal battle with the car-dealer lobby that continues to this day. This time it's Rivian's turn to skirmish. On Monday, Rivian filed a lawsuit against the registrar of Ohio's Bureau of Motor Vehicles (BMV) in federal court in order to be able to sell its EVs directly to consumers in that state. The lawsuit argues that the Ohio BMV is harming consumers by blocking direct sales, according to TechCrunch. Like Tesla, Rivian has been selling cars directly to its customers from the beginning. It's never used franchised dealerships, so it is not competing against its own franchisees, which is the argument behind franchise laws that prevent established automakers from engaging in direct sales. Rivian is currently able to sell cars in 25 states and the District of Columbia, but not Ohio. 'Irrational In The Extreme' "Ohio's prohibition of Rivian's direct-sales-only business model is irrational in the extreme: it reduces competition, decreases consumer choice, and drives up consumer cost and inconvenience—all of which harms consumers—with literally no countervailing benefit," Rivian's lawyers wrote in the suit. Rivian customers in Ohio currently have to buy their cars in other states that allow direct sales, after which they're shipped to a Rivian service center in the Buckeye State for delivery. Rivian is asking the court to grant it a dealership license so it can sell vehicles in the state. Such a license was previously granted to Tesla, which has been selling cars directly to customers in Ohio since 2013. The obstacle Rivian faces is a 2014 law, which the automaker says came after intense lobbying by the Ohio Automobile Dealers Association (OADA) that essentially shut the door behind Tesla, allowing that firm to keep its dealer license but blocking other manufacturers from obtaining one. The Fight Continues Tesla's Ohio situation is a result of the state-by-state legal battles the automaker fought in the its early days of volume sales. It was able to win concessions for itself, in some cases, but state dealership lobbies were too entrenched to achieve any broad concessions in favor of direct sales. That leaves Rivian and other upstart automakers to re-fight these battles. Rivian, along with Lucid, was granted a dealership license in Illinois in 2021, and the automakers successfully fended off a legal challenge from that state's dealer association to block direct sales. In 2022, Lucid also filed a lawsuit in Texas challenging that state's direct-sales ban. That suit was unsuccessful, but Lucid has appealed, according to federal court records. Not every automaker has gone the direct-sales route. Polestar adopted a hybrid approach, with company-owned showrooms and online sales, but servicing handled by Volvo dealers. Vinfast initially planned for direct sales only, but later pivoted and signed up some franchised dealers. The Volkswagen Group's new Scout Motors brand has discussed direct sales, but is already facing legal challenges from the VW Group's franchised dealers. Ohio Lets Tesla Sell Cars Direct—Rivian Wants the Same first appeared on Autoblog on Aug 9, 2025 This story was originally reported by Autoblog on Aug 9, 2025, where it first appeared.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investing Your First $1K vs. Your First $100K: 4 Changes You Should Make
One of the basic principles of investing is that you should adjust your goals and strategies as you get older. But that also applies to the amount of money you have to invest. Explore More: Read Next: No matter how old you are, your investment strategy should evolve based on your financial situation. Here are four changes you should make when it comes to investing your first $1,000 versus your first $100,000. Also see the 10 worst investing mistakes to avoid at all costs, according to Tae Kim. Time Horizon Putting $1,000 aside for investments often means you have a specific goal in mind, such as a down payment on a car or home. In most cases, you have a fairly short time horizon of one to five years, depending on the goal. With limited time and only $1,000 to invest, you want to ensure the most reliable return. Truist recommended putting your money in safe assets, like money market accounts, certificates of deposit (CDs) or low-risk index funds. With $100,000 to invest, you might be thinking more long term, such as building your retirement fund or eventually starting your own business. A longer time horizon means you can widen your investment options into a more aggressive mix of assets that includes stocks, mutual funds and real estate. Check Out: Tax Strategy When you attain the kind of wealth that lets you invest $100,000, then it's time to change up your tax strategy. One goal should be to minimize your income tax burden to free up more money for investments, according to a blog from Dominion Asset Protection. You should also adopt the kinds of tax-efficient strategies you didn't have to worry about when you had only $1,000 to invest. Improper tax planning could leave you with a big tax bill that diminishes your investment returns, according to Avidian, a Texas-based investment firm. To reduce this risk, Avidian recommended considering strategies such as tax-loss harvesting and utilizing tax-advantaged accounts, such as 401(k)s and IRAs. Risk Tolerance and Capacity With only $1,000 to invest, you don't have much margin for error. One bad move — such as putting the entire amount into a high-risk investment — could wipe out the entire amount. In this case, you might not have much risk tolerance. Again, consider investing in safe assets like CDs and money market accounts. Having $100,000 to invest gives you a lot more leeway. This is when you should put more thought into your risk capacity, which SmartAsset defines as the 'amount of risk that's necessary for you to meet your goals.' With $100,000 to invest, you can (and probably should) gravitate toward higher-risk, higher-reward assets, such as stocks, mutual funds and alternative investments. Alternative Investments Speaking of alternative investments, Dominion Asset Protection recommended moving beyond just stocks and bonds when you reach a certain level of wealth. For example, with $100,000 to invest, it might make sense to move more of your money into real estate, private equity, hedge funds, commodities and collectibles. Doing so spreads your money around, which reduces your risk and increases the potential for higher returns. More From GOBankingRates New Law Could Make Electricity Bills Skyrocket in These 4 States I'm an Economist: Here's When Tariff Price Hikes Will Start Hitting Your Wallet 5 Strategies High-Net-Worth Families Use To Build Generational Wealth 5 Cities You Need To Consider If You're Retiring in 2025 This article originally appeared on Investing Your First $1K vs. Your First $100K: 4 Changes You Should Make 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
Gizmodo
24 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
The SEC Just Quietly Surrendered in Its Biggest Crypto Battle
The crypto world's biggest and most consequential legal war is finally over. Ripple Labs, a fintech giant, has just closed the book on its nearly five-year battle with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, ending a fight that had become a proxy for the future of cryptocurrency regulation in America. The surprise settlement is being hailed as a landmark victory for the crypto industry and a significant blow to the SEC's controversial 'regulation by enforcement' strategy. The 'SEC announces joint stipulation to dismiss appeals, resolving civil enforcement action against Ripple and two of its executives,' the regulator said in a statement on July 7. Ripple is a company that uses its cryptocurrency, XRP, to make international money transfers faster and cheaper than traditional banking systems. In 2020, the SEC sued Ripple, alleging that XRP was an unregistered security. In simple terms, a security is an investment contract, like a share of stock. If a crypto token is deemed a security, it must follow the same strict registration and disclosure rules, a standard most crypto projects have not met. An SEC victory could have effectively outlawed XRP in the U.S. and set a precedent to cripple hundreds of other tokens. On August 7, the fight officially ended. The SEC announced a 'joint stipulation to dismiss appeals, resolving civil enforcement action against Ripple,' while Ripple agreed to drop its cross-appeal. The final judgment from the lower court—including a $125 million penalty—will remain in effect, but the war is over. While Ripple is paying a penalty—$50 million—, the company is walking away with a far more valuable prize: a game-changing legal precedent. A 2023 ruling from Judge Analisa Torres dealt the SEC a major blow by finding that Ripple's sales of XRP on public exchanges—where buyers are anonymous and not dealing directly with the company—did not qualify as securities transactions. That part of the decision remains intact. This is a huge deal. It creates a crucial distinction that other crypto projects can now use in their own legal battles, potentially shielding them from the SEC's claim of blanket authority over the market. By choosing to settle rather than risk having this ruling upheld by a higher court, the SEC has shown the limits of its 'regulation by enforcement' playbook: its strategy of creating rules through individual lawsuits instead of issuing clear guidelines for the industry. As Ripple's chief legal officer, Stuart Alderoty, wrote on X, it's 'the end… and now back to business.' Following the Commission's vote today, the SEC and Ripple formally filed directly with the Second Circuit to dismiss their appeals. The end…and now back to business. — Stuart Alderoty (@s_alderoty) August 7, 2025While both sides can claim partial victories, the biggest winner is arguably Main Street, or the everyday investors and developers who have been caught in the regulatory chaos for years. The brutal legal battle forced a court to confirm that not all digital assets are automatically securities, especially when traded by the public. This provides a clearer, though still incomplete, set of rules. For investors, it reduces the risk that their holdings could be declared illegal overnight. For innovators, it provides a slightly clearer path to building compliant projects in the U.S., moving the industry one step closer to mainstream legitimacy. The SEC has spent years trying to define the crypto industry through litigation. The Ripple case shows that strategy is losing steam. The agency's decision to settle rather than risk another courtroom loss could embolden other crypto companies to fight back rather than agree to quick deals. This marks the start of a new chapter in the crypto-Washington standoff, one where legal and political pressure may finally be forcing a long-overdue rethink of how America regulates digital assets.
