Gold rebounds from 1-month low on renewed trade uncertainty
Spot gold was up 0.5% at $3,292.24 per ounce, as of 0230 GMT. Bullion hit its lowest level since June 30 at $3,267.79 on Wednesday.
U.S. gold futures fell 0.2% to $3,287.
'Gold at sub $3,300 levels has attracted buying interest from traders as a value play, particularly with the prevailing economic uncertainty, which goes hand in hand with Trump's secondary tariff threats,' KCM Trade Chief Market Analyst Tim Waterer said.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday issued a blitz of tariff announcements, ranging from changes to previously threatened levies on imports of copper and on goods from Brazil to ending an exemption from tariffs for small-value shipments from overseas.
Trump announced a deal with South Korea involving a 15% U.S. tariff on imports from the country, while confirming ongoing negotiations with India after declaring a 25% tariff on Indian goods effective Friday.
He also expressed optimism about trade talks with China, stating he expects a fair deal to be reached.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Federal Reserve held interest rates steady on Wednesday, while Chair Jerome Powell's comments dampened expectations of rate cuts in September.
Gold, often considered a safe-haven asset during economic uncertainties, tends to perform well in a low-interest-rate environment.
'Support around the $3,250 region is shaping as a key level to potentially protect against a move of more significance to the downside. But any breach could open the door lower to $3,200,' Waterer said.
The U.S. core PCE index data will be in focus later in the day, and is expected to rise 0.3% month-on-month and 2.7% year-on-year, per a Reuters poll.
Spot silver was down 0.3% at $37 per ounce, platinum rose 0.6% to $1,320.98, and palladium gained 2.5% to $1,234.77.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Recorder
5 hours ago
- Business Recorder
OPEC+ agrees in principle another large oil output hike, sources say
LONDON: OPEC+ agreed in principle to boost oil output by 548,000 barrels per day in September, two OPEC+ sources said on Sunday as the group finishes unwinding its biggest tranche of production cuts amid fears of further supply disruptions from Russia. A decision is expected at a meeting scheduled to begin at 1100 GMT, amid fresh U.S. demands for India to stop buying Russian oil as Washington seeks ways to push Moscow for a peace deal with Ukraine. Fresh EU sanctions have also pushed Indian state refiners to suspend Russian oil purchases. OPEC+, which pumps about half of the world's oil, had been curtailing production for several years to support the market. But it reversed course this year to regain market share, and as U.S. President Donald Trump demanded OPEC pump more oil. OPEC+ began output increases in April with a modest hike of 138,000 bpd, followed by larger hikes of 411,000 bpd in May, June and July and 548,000 bpd in August. If the group agrees to the 548,000-bpd September increase, it will have fully unwound its previous production cut of 2.2 million bpd, while allowing the United Arab Emirates to raise output by 300,000 bpd. Oil falls on worries about OPEC+ supply OPEC+ still has in place a separate, voluntary cut of about 1.65 million bpd from eight members and a 2-million-bpd cut across all members, which expire at the end of 2026. Sources have said previously the group had no plans to discuss other tranches of cuts on Sunday.
Express Tribune
6 hours ago
- Express Tribune
The new trade colonialism
On August 1, as the clock struck midnight Eastern Time, a new era in global trade was inaugurated — one that might be remembered not for its reciprocity or fairness, but for the brute leverage of American power. With the rollout of sweeping new reciprocal tariffs under President Donald Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' strategy, dozens of nations were forced into last-minute trade deals that, beneath the surface, bear a striking resemblance to the 'unequal treaties' of the 19th century. Only this time, they were not written at gunpoint, but under threat of economic coercion. The United States, claiming to be correcting trade deficits and restoring domestic manufacturing, has essentially coerced trading partners into accepting higher tariffs, ceding regulatory ground and committing to strategic economic realignments, all while ensuring minimal concessions on its own part. For countries such as Vietnam and Indonesia, and even the European Union, the consequences could be far-reaching, reshaping industrial policies, altering investment incentives and, most importantly, undermining economic sovereignty. The Trump administration's public rationale for this aggressive trade overhaul is the need to rebalance global trade deficits. The claim is straightforward: the US has been losing in trade and it's time to 'even the playing field.' However, this rhetoric masks a complex and asymmetric web of tariffs and conditions that belie the supposed principle of reciprocity. Take Vietnam, for instance. Under its deal with Washington, Hanoi agreed to a 20% tariff on most exports to the US, plus a staggering 40% levy on transshipped goods; a direct blow to Vietnam's unique status as a production hub for global giants like Foxconn, Apple, Intel, and Nike. With 71.7% of Vietnamese exports coming from foreign-invested enterprises, this transshipment clause is more than a customs technicality; it strikes at the heart of Vietnam's export-driven growth model. In return Vietnam was pressured into offering zero tariffs on select US imports, including large-engine automobiles, an almost negligible sector in Vietnam's domestic market but a significant win for US exporters. Indonesia, similarly, secured a slightly lower tariff rate — 19% instead of the initially threatened 32% — but only by agreeing to purchase US Boeing aircraft and remove or reduce various trade barriers. Beyond tariffs, the deals increasingly intrude upon the internal economic policies of sovereign states. Embedded in these trade arrangements are demands regarding "transshipment restrictions" and "supply chain security" — vague yet powerful instruments that allow the US to dictate how and where its partners manufacture goods. These clauses give Washington indirect influence over national industrial strategies, particularly in countries where foreign direct investment forms the backbone of growth. For the European Union, the stakes are no less severe. The deal demanded a $600 billion investment from EU states into the US economy, effectively exporting European capital and potentially jobs to American soil. Even more contentious is the clause requiring the EU to buy $750 billion worth of US energy over three years, a move that French officials bluntly called 'capitulation.' Energy policy, long considered a pillar of national sovereignty, is now subordinated to bilateral trade enforcement mechanisms. In trade diplomacy, access to the US consumer market is perhaps the most coveted prize. The Trump administration has weaponised this leverage to extract far-reaching concessions. For some countries, the alternative to signing a deal is punitive: Mexico faces a 25% blanket tariff and Canada, a top US trading partner, could see tariffs of up to 35% on goods not compliant with the existing USMCA. Meanwhile, India — despite being dubbed a 'friend' by Trump — has been hit with a 25% tariff across the board, plus an unspecified penalty tied to its energy dealings with Russia. Such measures reinforce the view that these 'agreements' are less about trade and more about aligning partners with US geopolitical objectives. Even where countries managed to avoid worst-case tariffs, the deals were often asymmetrical. South Korea, for example, agreed to a 15% tariff rate on its exports while pledging $350 billion in US investments and granting zero tariffs on American agricultural and automobile exports. These are not trade negotiations in the traditional sense. They are economic ultimatums wrapped in diplomatic language. Ironically, while these deals are framed as a win for American workers, they may end up harming US consumers and industries. According to the Yale Budget Lab, the average US household could face $2,400 in additional annual costs due to higher prices on imported goods — effectively a hidden tax. Moreover, American industries that rely on foreign components, like electronics, pharmaceuticals, and textiles, will face disrupted supply chains and rising production costs. This suggests that the primary beneficiaries of these aggressive trade deals are not US consumers or workers, but rather a political narrative built around economic nationalism and short-term geopolitical gains. What makes these modern trade pacts so unsettling is how closely they echo the 'unequal treaties' of colonial history. In the 19th century, Western powers extracted lopsided agreements from Asian nations, forcing them to open ports, accept foreign jurisdiction and buy unwanted goods. Today, the US is not demanding extraterritorial rights, but it is imposing conditions that interfere with national industrial policies, force purchases of US products, and limit the autonomy of states to craft their own trade strategies. In the longer term, this coercive trade strategy may backfire by undermining the very multilateral institutions that have governed global trade for decades. The World Trade Organisation, already weakened, is increasingly sidelined as bilateral power politics dominate. Meanwhile, countries that feel cornered by US tactics may seek alternative trading blocs, perhaps turning to China, regional groupings, or even forming counter-alliances. Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, chief economist at the IMF, warned this week of the broader risk: 'Restoring stability in trade policy is essential to reduce policy uncertainty… Collective efforts should be made to restore and improve the global trading system,' Al Jazeera quoted him as saying. His words are a plea not just for economic sanity, but for the preservation of a rules-based order. While the US has every right to renegotiate trade terms that it deems unfair, fairness must be mutual. These new 'agreements,' far from establishing equitable exchange, are imposing a 21st-century version of the unequal treaty — a shift that may have profound consequences for global diplomacy, development and international economic cooperation.
Express Tribune
8 hours ago
- Express Tribune
India undeterred by Trump threats
Listen to article India will keep purchasing oil from Russia despite US President Donald Trump's threats of penalties, two Indian government sources told Reuters on Saturday, not wishing to be identified due to the sensitivity of the matter. On top of a new 25% tariff on India's exports to the US, Trump indicated in a Truth Social post last month that India would face additional penalties for purchases of Russian arms and oil. On Friday, Trump told reporters he had heard that India would no longer be buying oil from Russia. But the sources said there would be no immediate changes. "These are long-term oil contracts," one of the sources said. "It is not so simple to just stop buying overnight." Justifying India's oil purchases from Russia, a second source said India's imports of Russian grades had helped avoid a global surge in oil prices, which have remained subdued despite Western curbs on the Russian oil sector. Unlike Iranian and Venezuelan oil, Russian crude is not subject to direct sanctions, and India is buying it below the current price cap fixed by the European Union, the source said. The New York Times also quoted two unnamed senior Indian officials on Saturday as saying there had been no change in Indian government policy. Indian government authorities did not respond to Reuters' request for official comment on its oil purchasing intentions. However, during a regular press briefing on Friday, foreign ministry spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal said India has a "steady and time-tested partnership" with Russia. "On our energy sourcing requirements ... we look at what is there available in the markets, what is there on offer, and also what is the prevailing global situation or circumstances," he said. The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment. India's top supplier Trump, who has made ending Russia's war in Ukraine a priority of his administration since returning to office this year, has expressed growing impatience with Russian President Vladimir Putin in recent weeks. He has threatened 100% tariffs on US imports from countries that buy Russian oil unless Moscow reaches a major peace deal with Ukraine. Russia is the leading supplier to India, the world's third-largest oil importer and consumer, accounting for about 35% of its overall supplies. India imported about 1.75 million barrels per day of Russian oil from January to June this year, up 1% from a year ago, according to data provided to Reuters by sources. But while the Indian government may not be deterred by Trump's threats, sources told Reuters this week that Indian state refiners stopped buying Russian oil after July discounts narrowed to their lowest since 2022 — when sanctions were first imposed on Moscow — due to lower Russian exports and steady demand. Indian Oil Corp, Hindustan Petroleum Corp, Bharat Petroleum Corp and Mangalore Refinery Petrochemical Ltd have not sought Russian crude in the past week or so, four sources told Reuters. Nayara Energy — a refinery majority-owned by Russian entities, including oil major Rosneft, and major buyer of Russian oil — was recently sanctioned by the EU. Reuters
