Archive

November 6, 2024

Browsing

Back in the day, I used to look at the weekly S&P 500 chart every weekend and ask myself the same three questions:

  1. What is the long-term trend?
  2. What is the medium-term trend?
  3. What is the short-term trend?

My goal was to make sure that I was respecting the broader market direction, and not fighting it by taking too many contrary positions in my portfolio.  I eventually realized through some trial and error that I could use a series of weekly exponential moving averages to get me to the same place, allowing me to spend more time focusing on what was coming next.

The Construction of the Market Trend Model

As I discussed with Mike Turner in a recent episode of the Market Misbehavior podcast, staying on the right side of market trends is arguably the most important role for any investor.  I realized that by comparing the 21 and 34-week exponential moving averages every week, I was able to clearly define uptrends and downtrends over long-term time frames.

Our short-term Market Trend Model turned bearish on November 1, 2024.

To try and address the lagging nature of such a long-form moving average combination, I added the 5 and 13-week exponential moving averages and found that the signals provided gave me a better signal to track what I consider the medium term time frame of about a couple months.  

I finally added a short-term signal, making a comparison of Friday’s weekly close to the 5-week exponential moving average.  As you can see from the chart above, the PPO indicator allows a very easy and visually attractive method to track these comparisons and recognize shifts from bullish phase to bearish phase.

The Short-Term Model Turned Bearish… Now What?

On Friday, November 1st, the short-term model turned negative for only the fourth time in 2024.  Previous bearish signals in August, July, and April had lined up quite well with tactical pullbacks within the fairly consistently bullish year of 2024.  But note how the medium-term and long-term models are still firmly in the bullish camp?

For now, the current configuration makes me comfortable labeling the current trend as short-term bearish but still long-term bullish.  As we’ve noted in recent weeks, the market breadth indicators I follow have certainly suggested a bearish tilt as they have trended lower into November.

But the point of the Market Trend Model is to show how short-term weakness can often occur within bullish primary trends.  The key is to differentiate between the garden variety “buy on the dips” pullback with a pullback that may be the beginning of a more significant drawdown.

Learning From Previous Market Cycles

Look back at 2021 for a similar example of long-term primary uptrend with a series of short-term bearish signals along the way.  Even as the S&P 500 a remarkably strong and low-volatility uptrend, there were a number of hiccups that caused the short-term model to turn negative.

The key in 2021 was that the medium-term and long-term models remained bullish, at least until they didn’t!  In January 2022, the short-term model turned bearish again, and a couple weeks later, the medium-term model pivoted to a negative signal as well.  The long-term model followed suit in May 2024. 

You can add the Keller Market Trend Model to your Market Dashboard!

For now, I’m watching the medium-term model closely for a potential bearish reversal.  If that comes to pass in November, that would mean that once again the market is resisting the normal seasonal tendencies and showing weakness where there is often strength.  But if the medium-term model remains bullish through year-end, that will tell me to remain positioned for potential further upside as the market trends remain positive.

I am a big fan of analyzing price action using subjective methods to evaluate trends based on the traditional tools of the technical analyst.  And I’m also a big fan of making life easier, using systematic trend-following models to make sure I’m on the right side of the primary trend in the markets!

RR#6,

Dave

PS- Ready to upgrade your investment process?  Check out my free behavioral investing course!

David Keller, CMT

President and Chief Strategist

Sierra Alpha Research LLC

Disclaimer: This blog is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as financial advice.  The ideas and strategies should never be used without first assessing your own personal and financial situation, or without consulting a financial professional.  

The author does not have a position in mentioned securities at the time of publication.    Any opinions expressed herein are solely those of the author and do not in any way represent the views or opinions of any other person or entity.

Red Mountain Mining Limited (“RMX” or the “Company”) is pleased to advise that it has received gold results for 91 rock grab samples collected during September from the Company’s 100%-owned Flicka Lake prospect in Ontario, Canada. The rock chip sampling was carried out in parallel with a soil sampling program. Approximately 400 locations were visited within the Flicka Lake claims and 91 rock grab samples and 283 soil samples were collected and submitted for multielement geochemical analysis, including gold by Flame Assay and a base metal suite by four acid digest with ICP-OES finish. Soil results assay results are expected before the end of November.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • Gold results from 91 rock chip samples collected from Flicka Lake received
  • Bonanza grade values confirmed for the Flicka Zone:
    • Flicka Vein #2 returned values of 24.2ppm (24.2 g/t Au) and 19.4ppm (19.4 g/t Au)
    • Flicka Vein #3 returned a peak value of 9.35ppm (9.35 g/t Au)
  • Results supported by historical desktop study as announced last week
  • 0.514ppm (0.514 g/t Au) returned for a pyritic vein sample 800m WSW of Flicka Zone, along the strike of the main shear, highlighting the potential for strike extension of high grade mineralisation
  • Soil assay results are expected to be received before the end of November

As outlined in RMX’s ASX announcement of 30 October 2024, the rock and soil sampling program was designed to test ten target zones defined using available geological and geophysical data for the Flicka Lake tenement. Zones sampled included the Flicka Zone, previously identified and sampled by Troon Ventures in the early 2000s.

High gold grades for the Flicka Zone confirmed by rock chip sample results

The gold values returned for the 91 rock chip samples are shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2 and listed on Table 1. The best results were obtained from Vein #2 and Vein #3 of the Flicka Zone, with peak values of:

  • 24.2ppm (24.2 g/t Au) (Sample 1292085) and 19.4ppm (19.4 g/t Au) (Sample 1292094, shown in Figure 3) from Vein #2.
  • 9.35ppm (9.35 g/t Au) (Sample1292086) from Vein #3.

The RMX rock chip results are consistent with historical rock chip and channel sampling results reported by Troon Ventures for the Flicka Zone (Figure 2) that range up to 16.88ppm (16.88 g/t Au) for Vein #1, 12.96ppm (12.96 g/t Au) for Vein #2 and 20.067ppm (20.067 g/t Au) for Vein #3 (refer to RMX ASX Announcement 30 October 2024).

The gold results to date from the Flicka Zone veins are comparable to the recorded grade of the Golden Patricia Mine (refer to Figure 4), a steeply dipping narrow quartz vein system averaging only 40cm in width that is located approximately 25km NE of the Flicka Lake project area. Between 1987 and 1997, Golden Patricia produced 0.62Moz of gold from 1.22Mt of ore averaging 14.4ppm (14.4 g/t Au)1.

An additional pyritic vein sample, located ~800m WSW of the Flicka Zone along the strike of and striking approximately parallel to the main Flicka Zone shear (Figure 1) returned a value of 0.514ppm (0.514 g/t Au), which highlights the potential for the high-grade mineralisation sampled at the Flicka Zone to persist along the shear system.

Next steps

Following receipt of soil geochemistry and full base metal rock chip sample results, expected during November, RMX will evaluate the full dataset to prioritise targets within the Flicka Lake claims for further surface sampling, where justified and drill testing during the 2025 Canadian field season.

Click here for the full ASX Release

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Election Edge: Smart Investing Strategies for Volatile Times

How will the US election affect key markets from gold to crypto? Get exclusive insights and predictions from our experts.

✓ Trends ✓ Forecasts ✓ Top Stocks

Who We Are

At the same time, not a single word of the content we choose for you is paid for by any company or investment advisor: We choose our content based solely on its informational and educational value to you, the investor.

So if you are looking for a way to diversify your portfolio amidst political and financial instability, this is the place to start. Right now.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

Bitcoin-focused exchange-traded funds (ETFs) in the US saw significant outflows on Monday (November 4) as cryptocurrency market participants prepared for election-related uncertainty.

In total, a group of 12 American Bitcoin ETFs tracked by Bloomberg saw outflows of US$579.5 million that day. According to the news outlet, that’s the highest daily net outflow number seen to date.

Bitcoin-mining stocks also saw losses last week, indicating broader market stress within the sector.

MARA Holdings (NASDAQ:MARA), the largest Bitcoin-mining firm by market cap, fell around 9 percent last week, while Core Scientific (NASDAQ:CORZ) sank about 5.5 percent. Meanwhile, Riot Platforms (NASDAQ:RIOT), was down just under 5.8 percent during the period, and CleanSpark (NASDAQ:CLSK) dropped more than 10 percent.

Shares of Coinbase Global (NASDAQ:COIN), a company that runs a cryptocurrency exchange platform, dropped 14.28 percent last week, while MicroStrategy (NASDAQ:MSTR), a Bitcoin development company co-founded by entrepreneur and Bitcoin advocate Michael Saylor, saw a decrease of around 6 percent during the same timeframe.

These declines came even as the price of Bitcoin rose. The popular cryptocurrency was up about 1.5 percent last week, and jumped higher early in the trading day on Tuesday (November 5), breaching the US$70,000 level.

The disparity between Bitcoin’s performance and Bitcoin-related companies suggests that while the cryptocurrency has managed to maintain some stability, companies are reacting more sharply to market turmoil.

How will the US election affect crypto?

The current political climate in the US has created a complex landscape for digital asset traders.

As the race between Republican Donald Trump and Democrat Kamala Harris remains competitive, market participants are adjusting their strategies in anticipation of potential shifts in regulatory frameworks.

Trump’s campaign has been characterized by a supportive stance toward cryptocurrencies, while Harris has expressed her intention to create a more structured regulatory environment for digital assets.

But while the election may create short-term volatility, experts believe it will take time for its full impact to emerge.

“The biggest changes for mid-longer term crypto policy and direction won’t be seen until after the week has passed and seats around the president are filled or maintained,” Paul Howard, senior director at Wincent, told Bloomberg.

As voters head to the polls, analysts continue to monitor the potential impact of the election on regulatory approaches to cryptocurrencies, as well as the broader economic implications of the election outcome.

Click here for more on what a Trump or Harris victory could mean for the crypto industry.

Securities Disclosure: I, Giann Liguid, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

The oil market faced volatility throughout the third quarter as increased supply and weak demand forced Brent and West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude prices to contract over the three month session.

On the demand side, major economy China is facing lower manufacturing activity and a prolonged real estate downturn. At the same time, non-OPEC+ countries, including the US and Brazil, are expected to increase output.

Starting the quarter in the mid-US$80 per barrel range, both Brent and WTI experienced Q3 price highs early in the session, with Brent values rising to US$87.39 and prices for WTI hitting US$83.93.

For the rest of the quarter, downward pressure pushed prices into the US$70 range for Brent and US$60 for WTI.

By the end of September, Brent had shed 14.85 percent and WTI was down 16.14 percent.

On the natural gas side, robust supply kept price growth muted. However, gas used primarily to heat homes ended the quarter at US$2.92 per metric million British thermal units, up 18.22 percent from its July start position of US$2.47.

Some of the constricted price growth was the result of Europe implementing successful natural gas storage strategies to reduce winter supply concerns, while the US benefited from high inventory levels and lower cooling demands.

Even though the natural gas market fared slightly better in Q3, a quarterly energy survey from the Dallas Federal Reserve Bank identifies global uncertainty as the prevailing trend impacting both the oil and natural industries.

‘Overall the key point from the survey is that oil and gas activity edged lower in the third quarter as outlooks dim and uncertainty grows,’ Kunal Patel, senior business economist at the Dallas Fed, said during a webcast.

Oil market shaken as investors lose faith

Uncertainty took many shapes in the third quarter, for the oil segment it materialized as shifting sentiment.

“In early September, for the first time on record, the net position of hedge funds on the ICE exchange turned short from long. Oil demand from China is decelerating, but OPEC+ remains committed to hiking its output from December onward; the cartel’s unity is teetering, with Angola having left in January, the UAE fighting for a higher oil quota, and other members exceeding their allowed production levels,” he said.

Tense geopolitical dynamics as the Ukraine war continues and relations deteriorate in the Middle East paired with the looming US election further fueled uncertainty, factors that usually add tailwinds to the oil market.

However, surplus supply concerns outweighed any support during the third quarter. Prices dipped to a year-to-date low on September 10, touching US$69.21 (Brent), and US$65.69 (WTI).

All eyes on America for oil outlook

For Phoenix Capital CEO Adam Ferrari the weak oil prices may be indicative of larger trouble.

suppressed Q3 price movement coincided with a decline in the US’ red hot mergers and acquisitions segment, which registered its first quarterly decline after six consecutive periods of growth.

Between July and the end of September the US energy sector saw US$12 billion in M&A deals, a quarter-over-quarter drop from Q2’s US$54 billion, but still historically high.

“2024 was a big year for mergers and acquisitions—consolidation across the sector is at an all-time high. Prices softened in Q3, and we saw the US rig count dip. Producers here are moving cautiously, likely waiting to see what happens with the election,” Ferrari said.

Regardless of the short term turbulence, Ferrari and the Phoenix Capital team are optimistic about the market’s long term fundamentals.

“We’re still bullish on crude oil for the next two to five years,” he said. “ Global demand continues to surprise on the upside, even as many developed nations try to reduce their reliance on oil. The reality is, oil isn’t easily replaced, so worldwide demand keeps rising.”

Aside from the US economic outlook, Ferrari pointed to geopolitical strife as an ever present current in the market.

“Geopolitics are always part of the equation for oil,” he said. “The Middle East is crucial for global supply, and any political instability or potential military conflict there tends to push prices up. It’s about risk—there’s always a premium on oil because of that underlying geopolitical uncertainty.”

US natural gas prices inch higher in Q3

US natural gas prices held in the US$2.15 to US$2.92 range through most of Q3, despite slipping to a quarterly low of US$1.89 at the end of July.

“As is generally the case, US natural gas prices were largely influenced by domestic developments,” said FocusEconomics’ Cunningham, noting that Q3 values fell by US$0.10 on average quarter-on-quarter.

“Prices sank in July due to a combination of extremely high inventories and the closure of Freeport, a major LNG export terminal; however, since then, they have trended upward, aided by a hot summer, decelerating production amid a record-low gas rig count and the reopening of the Freeport LNG terminal,” he added.

These trends were further evidenced in the Dallas Fed’s survey, which notes, “the natural gas production index declined from 2.3 to -13.3, suggesting natural gas production decreased in the quarter.”

A Q3 reduction in natural gas output isn’t likely to push prices higher in the near term, according to Ferrari.

“In Q3, the story was all about supply. The US is sitting on an abundance of natural gas, and that’s keeping a lid on prices,” he said. ‘That said, the ongoing shift toward natural gas for power generation is a long-term positive. US producers have also been able to lock in higher prices through the futures market, allowing them to keep drilling.”

Global tensions keep natural gas prices on edge

Natural gas is also prone to geopolitical volatility, although less from the Middle East and more from in Ukraine.

“The impact on the US natural gas market from geopolitics is largely due to spillovers from the Asian and European natural gas markets; to fuel natural gas demand, these two regions rely heavily on LNG imports, including from the US. In particular focus is the war in Ukraine; Kyiv has refused to extend a gas-supply agreement with Russia — which remains a major supplier to Europe — beyond the end of this year,’ Cunningham explained.

Tensions will likely carry through as European countries are diversifying sources away from Russian gas after the country’s the invasion of Ukraine, leading to heightened reliance on LNG imports from the US and other allies.

Supply concerns have also been exacerbated by recent Middle Eastern conflicts, which are threatening key supply routes and adding price volatility. Additionally, export restrictions from countries like Norway have raised European energy security fears as winter demand nears.

What’s ahead for oil and gas in Q4?

When asked what oil market trends investors should watch through Q4 and into 2025, Cunningham pointed to the ongoing conflict.

“At the moment, the eye of most oil analysts is locked on the Iran-Israel conflict, with crude prices surging the most in over a year in the week to 4 October,” he said. “That said, traders will also be looking out for future OPEC+ meetings, along with economic data from China and monetary policy decisions by the U.S. Fed.”

On the gas side, the US reaction to the election is top of mind.

“In Q4 in the U.S., aside from the election, the weather will remain a key factor to watch; last winter was warm, supporting inventories and setting the stage for the relatively bearish market seen so far in 2024,” said Cunningham. “ A normal 2024/25 winter would help whittle down stocks to more typical levels, supporting a recovery in prices. In 2025, weather will remain key to track, along with geopolitics, U.S. economic growth and demand from Asia and Europe.”

The US election is also a main focus for Ferrari.

Q4 is all about the US presidential election. If Democrats take control of the House, Senate, and presidency, we could see U.S. oil supplies tighten, which would drive prices up. Beyond Q4, I’m focused on demand growth. People have been predicting a decline in oil demand for what feels like a decade, but aside from the COVID downturn, it just hasn’t happened. I don’t expect demand to soften for at least another 5 to 10 years,” he said.

When it comes to gas, he is taking a more long term view.

“I’m watching the long-term trend of shifting to more natural gas for power generation. If you look at grids that rely heavily on renewables, like California’s, power prices are significantly higher compared to states like Florida that use more natural gas. California’s power prices are double Florida’s, largely due to their renewable energy reliance,” said Ferrari.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com

With the election between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump less than three weeks away, polling is showing the candidates in a virtual dead heat.

In the resource sector, investors are wondering how the presidential race may affect the gold price. While diverse factors drive the gold price, the US — and by extension its leader — impacts many of them, including the global geopolitical environment, interest rates and the performance of the US dollar.

In 2020, Biden and Harris presented themselves as a team who would bring Republicans and Democrats together, challenging Trump’s divisive and populist rhetoric of making America great again. Although Trump ultimately lost that election, his popularity remained steadfast among his base.

During their terms, both the Trump/Pence and the Biden/Harris administrations have increased domestic oil production and increased tariffs on goods from overseas.

In the only debate planned between Harris and Trump, which took place on September 10, 2024, Harris focused on her platform’s key economic policies, including increased support for first-time home buyers, families and small businesses. She was also committed to investing in diverse forms of energy, including renewables and oil and gas, to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

Meanwhile, Trump maintained a focus on the key issues of his base including policing and immigration, but also discussed his economic plan that would see him increase tariffs on goods from China.

When it came to the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, Harris pledged her support for both Ukraine and other US allies in Europe. While Trump did not say he supported Ukraine, he said he was also committed to ending the war, and planned to push Ukrainian funding to European partners while attempting to bring Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to the negotiating table.

The gold price has climbed significantly under both administrations. It’s been holding at historic levels above the US$2,600 mark, reaching an all-time high of US$2,672.51 on September 18, more than double its price when Trump took office in 2017.

Some of the recent rise in gold prices is attributed to a 50-point cut to interest rates following the Federal Open Markets Committee meeting on September 17 and 18. It is the last time the committee will come together before the November 5 election, as the next FOMC meeting is scheduled for November 6 and 7.

How does gold typically perform post-election, and how has it moved during Trump and Biden’s presidencies? While the past doesn’t necessarily dictate the future, reviewing gold price trends can help investors plan their election strategy.

In this article:

    How do US elections affect the gold price?

    Looking at past US elections can provide insight on how the gold price may move in the days and weeks following November 5. However, on a broad scale, changes post-election tend to normalize fairly quickly.

    In 2016, when Trump ran against Hillary Clinton, the gold price climbed by about US$50 in the weeks leading up to the November 8 election, peaking at just above US$1,300 per ounce on November 4. Following Trump’s win gold fell substantially, moving as low as US$1,128 in mid-December. Following that low point, the gold price began to rebound, and by the middle of January 2017 was once again above the US$1,200 level.

    Gold price, November 1, 2016, to January 30, 2017.

    Chart via Trading Economics.

    The 2020 election was on November 3, and in the week leading up to the vote gold was trading at around US$1,900, although it fell as low as US$1,867 on October 30. After the election, the gold price performed positively, spiking from US$1,908 on the day of the vote to US$1,951 on November 6.

    However, gold fell back down over the following weeks, and dipped briefly below US$1,800 as vote recounts in Georgia and several districts and legal challenges by Trump’s team dragged on.

    Gold price, November 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021.

    Chart via Trading Economics.

    Gold began to climb again in December ahead of January 6, 2021, when the electoral college met to formalize Biden’s victory. That day, the attack on the US Capitol building, which aimed to stop this process, caused the gold price to plunge from US$1,949 on January 5 to US$1,848 by January 8. The events of January 6 were the start of a decline in the gold price that continued until March 8, when gold bottomed out at US$1,674.80.

    Gold’s behavior at this time went against the usual trend whereby it performs well amid crisis and turmoil; the decline may been a reaction to the successful affirmation of Biden. Stock markets also reacted opposite to expectations, seeing strong gains on January 6 and 7 as investors and Wall Street believed an economic recovery was in sight.

    How did the gold price perform when Trump was president?

    The gold price rose substantially during Trump’s presidency, increasing from US$1,209 when he assumed office on January 20, 2017, to US$1,839 on his final day, which was January 19, 2021.

    While these gains can’t be directly attributed to Trump, his actions helped shape the geopolitical landscape both in the US and abroad. During his tenure, trade wars with both allies and competitors were in focus.

    China was a key target for Trump. While tariffs on Chinese goods were already in place, his administration applied new restrictions to more items, including steel, electric vehicle batteries and consumer goods. Also under Trump’s watch, relations with India fractured and the country lost its preferential trade status with the US. He also withdrew from the Iran nuclear treaty and imposed punishments on anyone who traded with Iran.

    These and other “America First” protectionist policies and sanctions implemented by the Trump administration tarnished the image of the US as a reliable trade partner, helping to push the BRICS nations — Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa — away from the US dollar as a global reserve currency.

    The BRICS have since expanded to include Iran, Egypt, Ethiopia and other emerging nations, and have increasingly turned toward gold. China and India in particular have increased purchases of gold through their central banks, leading some to speculate that they are attempting to create a new currency that is at least partially backed by gold.

    One other factor that drove the gold price during Trump’s term was the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic and government policies put in place to support citizens and the economy. For example, the former president oversaw multiple stimulus efforts, including packages announced in March 2020 and December 2020. These actions led many to turn to gold as a safe haven out of concern for a weakening US dollar.

    A second Trump term would likely bring more of the same protectionist policies. Indeed, his 2024 campaign has similarities to his 2016 and 2020 campaigns. He has reused his “America First” rhetoric and promised a fresh round of tariffs if elected. Singling out China, Trump has said he would look to implement a 60 percent tariff on all goods imported into the US, a move that would likely increase tensions and the likelihood of a widening division between the countries.

    How has the gold price performed with Biden and Harris in office?

    Gold has also seen sizable gains during Biden’s presidency. The price of gold was US$1,871 when he took over from Trump on January 20, 2021. And while Biden’s term as president is not over until January 2025, as of October 15, the gold price was trading at about US$2,665. It reached a new record on September 25 of US$2,672.51.

    Again, it’s hard to say how many of the Biden administration’s policies directly influenced these gains. Geopolitical conflict and black swan events outside of his control all affected the gold market during this time.

    For example, Biden and Harris entered office one year after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. Inflation was ballooning, which typically leads to higher gold prices. The US Federal Reserve has worked to counteract inflation and strengthen the US dollar by raising interest rates beginning in 2022, a move that tempered the gold price for a time. The anticipation of rate cuts and the 50 point cut that came in September were factors in driving gold to its record highs in recent months.

    Biden came into office on a promise of restoring the US’ place in the global community, and while his administration did close rifts among important trading partners like Canada and the EU, tensions with China remain. This rift is a holdover from the Trump administration’s more isolationist policies, but has also been representative of a more competitive global trade landscape as the BRICS nations seek to move away from the US dollar and America’s influence on world economics.

    Biden has attempted to at least partially mend the US’ relationship with China, including by meeting with President Xi Jinping in the summer of 2023. However, a key sticking point in negotiations between the two has been Biden’s continued stance that the US would support Taiwan if China were to invade it; at the same time, he has said that the US does not support Taiwan’s independence. Both of these stances are in line with the US’ longtime position on the matter, but escalating tensions between China and Taiwan have brought this to the forefront.

    Harris is unlikely to shift policy when it comes to Taiwan. In a September 2022 meeting with South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol, she said the US was committed to opposing unilateral actions by China and would maintain the status quo in the South China Sea. The White House added that peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait was essential to a free Indo-Pacific region.

    Harris discussed trade routes in the region again when she attended the ASEAN summit in Jakarta, Indonesia, in September of 2023. She told CBS’s Margaret Brennan that it’s not about pulling out of Southeast Asia, but about de-risking the region and ensuring that American interests were protected.

    On an economic level, the Biden administration has distanced itself from China with policies such as the Inflation Reduction Act and Chips Act, which support the development of western supply chains for a variety of industries, including clean energy, electric vehicles and semiconductor chips, in part by introducing subsidies for companies that don’t rely on China for their supply chain.

    Meanwhile, China has accelerated its de-dollarization efforts, dumping roughly US$50 billion worth of US Treasuries and agency bonds during the first quarter of this year.

    Additionally, Biden’s role in implementing a strict set of sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 deepened a divide between the US and Russia, as well as the other BRICS nations.

    Among other sanctions, the US limited Russia’s access to SWIFT, a communications network that helps facilitate the global movement of funds. The US Department of the Treasury also implemented controls that effectively cut off Russia’s central bank and key funds and personnel from accessing the US financial system. Some analysts believe the move may work to undermine the US dollar as the global reserve currency in the long term, as it sent a signal to the rest of the world that the US is willing to effectively weaponize the US dollar.

    What will happen to gold after the election?

    Though this year’s presidential election may have a limited effect on the price of gold, a rate decision by the Fed could impact the metal’s price in the days that follow the election. Decisions made by the US central bank, which is not controlled by the president, have a strong impact on the US dollar and thus often impact the gold price as well.

    The Federal Open Market Committee, which is the board that ultimately decides whether to increase or decrease interest rates, is set to meet from November 6 to 7, just one day after the November 5 election.

    Gold tends to rise when rates are lower and fall when they are high, but this year gold has reached all-time highs in the face of elevated rates. While strong expectations for cuts at the beginning of 2024 didn’t pan out, gold prices grew in the lead up to the September meeting of the committee, when the first cut finally came.

    So what will happen to gold after the election? A post-election interest rate cut could boost gold, but it’s not yet clear how the November meeting will play out.

    Investor takeaway

    Historically speaking, returns for gold under Democrat and Republican presidents have averaged 11.2 percent and 10.2 percent, respectively. But that might not be the data point investors should focus on.

    Which party controls Congress, which is comprised of the House and Senate, has had a far stronger influence on the gold price. Under Democrat-controlled Congresses, gold has averaged a 20.9 percent gain, compared to just 3.9 percent when Congress is controlled by Republicans. In cases where neither controls Congress, gold has averaged 3.5 percent.

    With that in mind, investors should consider the effects of policies enacted not only by the executive branch of the US government, but also by Congress and the Senate. Those hoping to use the immediate aftermath of the election outcome to their advantage should also proceed with caution — when it comes to gold, past elections haven’t provided great investment opportunities, with losses and gains typically being short-lived.

    Securities Disclosure: I, Dean Belder, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    A Nigerian court freed 119 people including minors on Tuesday, after the authorities dropped charges against them arising from deadly protests in August against economic hardship.

    The accused had faced charges including treason and inciting a military coup and had been arraigned in batches of 76 and 43 last Friday. One of the charges carried the death penalty.

    President Bola Tinubu on Monday ordered the release of all minors detained during anti-government protests in August and dropped the charges against them.

    “The case has been struck out and the 119 protesters have been released,” Deji Adeyanju, counsel to the protesters, told Reuters.

    “Now we are asking for their rehabilitation and compensation by their various state governments.”

    The country’s attorney general took over the case from the police and dropped the charges after bringing forward the matter due to be heard in January.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fired Defense Minister Yoav Gallant after months of clashes over domestic politics and Israel’s war efforts.

    In a recorded statement Tuesday evening, Netanyahu said that “trust between me and the minister of defense has cracked.”

    Israel Katz, currently the foreign minister, will become defense minister. Gideon Sa’ar will replace Katz as foreign minister, the prime minister’s office said Tuesday. Neither has extensive military experience, though Katz has served in the cabinet throughout the war.

    The move came as voters in the United States, Israel’s most important ally, voted for their next president. Gallant is a close interlocutor for the US administration, and has been said to have daily conversations with US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin.

    The reshuffle also comes as Israel awaits a potential retaliatory attack from Iran.

    Gallant responded to the decision shortly after it was made public, posting on X that the “security of Israel has been and will always be my lifelong mission.”

    Netanyahu said that he had “made many attempts” to bridge differences with Gallant, but that they “kept widening” and “came to the public’s knowledge in an unacceptable manner.” He continued: “Worse than that, they came to the knowledge of the enemy – our enemies enjoyed it and greatly benefited from it.”

    Minutes after Netanyahu made the announcement, opposition leaders called for Israelis to take to the streets in protest. Protestors outside Netanyahu’s residence in Jerusalem shouted “shame!” In Tel Aviv, families of hostages held in Gaza chanted “Bibi is a traitor,” using the prime minister’s nickname. When Netanyahu first sought to fire Gallant last year, over his opposition to proposed judicial reforms, it led to mass nationwide demonstrations.

    Israel’s political class has long speculated that Netanyahu would fire Gallant and replace him with a political ally to shore up his domestic power. Netanyahu has struggled to maintain a hold over his fragile governing coalition, a muddle of competing interests, whose collapse could spell the end of his leadership.

    Clashes over the war and domestic politics

    The relationship between both men was rarely cordial and often caustic. There was little love lost between them – over the state of negotiations with Hamas, Israel’s military strategy and Netanyahu’s bid to bring in a sweeping overhaul of the judiciary in 2023.

    Netanyahu and Gallant have often disagreed over the war in Gaza. In August, Gallant told a closed-door Knesset committee that Netanyahu’s goal of “absolute victory” in Gaza was “nonsense,” according to Israeli media. Netanyahu then took the extraordinary step of releasing a press statement accusing Gallant of adopting an “anti-Israel narrative.”

    Gallant was also highly critical of Netanyahu’s emphasis on controlling the Gaza-Egypt border, known as the Philadelphi Corridor. He said that prioritizing its control over a ceasefire and hostage deal was a “moral disgrace.” In the cabinet, he voted against continued occupation there. “If we want the hostages alive, we don’t have time,” he said.

    But it may be domestic politics that ultimately played the biggest role.

    Netanyahu on Tuesday was forced to withdraw draft legislation that would have allowed ultra-Orthodox Israelis to get government subsidies for daycare even if the father of the children does not serve in the Israel Defense Forces, as all other Jewish Israelis must do. Netanyahu relies on ultra-Orthodox parties to govern, and they have threatened to upend his coalition if they are forced to serve in the military en masse.

    Gallant had been outspoken against the idea that ultra-Orthodox Israelis be exempt from service, saying that “the security system under my leadership will not submit it to legislation.”

    Sa’ar, whom Netanyahu has tapped for foreign minister, is thought to be an influential interlocutor to the ultra-Orthodox parties. Netanyahu, in his statement, said that Sa’ar’s appointment “will enhance the stability of the coalition and the stability of the government, and these are very important at any time, but especially at wartime.”

    Also on Tuesday, Israeli police announced that a criminal investigation had been opened “concerning events at the outset of the war,” without offering further details.

    Gallant has repeatedly called for an official inquiry into Hamas’ October 7 attack. It is the second investigation this week that threatens to ensnare Netanyahu. On Sunday, a court revealed that police had arrested a top Netanyahu aide for allegedly leaking classified and faked intelligence to foreign media.

    Netanyahu had faced pressure from far-right members of his cabinet to dismiss him, with National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir saying in September that he had been demanding Gallant’s ouster for months “and the time has come to do so immediately.”

    His relationship with Gallant deteriorated when the prime minister threatened to fire him in March 2023, after he criticized the government’s judicial overhaul legislation. The bill, which provoked widespread popular protests in Israel, would have granted the ruling coalition more sway in selecting judges.

    Gallant was the first minister to oppose it, saying: “The deepening split is seeping into the military and security agencies – this is a clear, immediate and real danger to Israel’s security. I will not facilitate this.”

    Netanyahu said he would fire the defense minister, but reversed his position following pressure. The rancor between the two men has persisted and grown since the Hamas attack last October.

    This is a developing story and will be updated.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com

    A series of Israeli raids and airstrikes in towns and villages in the occupied West Bank that stretched overnight from Monday into late Tuesday have killed at least eight people, according to Palestinian authorities and local residents.

    Qatari-owned Al Araby TV alleged that Israeli fire in Qabatya also injured a Palestinian employee working there. Rabe’e Al-Munir, a photojournalist, is now hospitalized in stable condition, it said.

    The bloodshed comes as violence surges in the West Bank, where the Israeli military has intensified incursions following the Hamas-led October 7 attacks.

    Since October 7, 2023, Israeli troops and settlers have killed at least 775 Palestinians, including 167 children, in the occupied West Bank and Jerusalem, the Palestinian health ministry reported on Tuesday.

    Earlier on Monday, Israeli settlers vandalized and set fire to vehicles in the city of Al-Bireh, in what Ramallah governor Laila Ghannam warned “could have ended in a massacre.”

    The West Bank, a territory that lies between Israel and Jordan, is home to 3.3 million Palestinians living under Israeli military occupation, as well as hundreds of thousands of Jewish Israelis who began settling there some 57 years ago.

    In total, nearly 1,600 settler attacks against Palestinians have been recorded since October 7, the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) said on October 31.

    This post appeared first on cnn.com

    As the election results roll in and America holds its breath, Chinese state media hasn’t missed the chance to accentuate US political polarization – and play up the threat of post-vote turmoil in its democratic superpower rival.

    Beijing has long bristled at Washington’s criticism of its one-party authoritarian rule. Under leader Xi Jinping, who has cleared the way to rule for life, its mouthpieces have increasingly scoffed at the American political system and liberal democracy.

    In a string of election day news reports and commentaries, state media has attempted to portray the vote as a reflection of deep social divisions and political dysfunction in the United States, amid broad sentiment in China that no matter who wins, tense bilateral ties are unlikely to improve.

    “US Election Day voting begins amid fears of violence, unrest,” declared a headline in nationalist tabloid Global Times.

    On state broadcaster CCTV, a reporter’s dispatch from Washington, DC focused on boarded up businesses, increased police patrols and metal fences erected around the White House and Capitol Hill to “prepare for the worst-case scenario of chaos,” while playing down the millions of people peacefully exercising their democratic rights.

    “The US election, once considered a highlight of the so-called ‘beacon of democracy,’ may now become the starting gun of ‘social unrest,’” the state-run Beijing Daily claimed in a commentary on social media.

    “The election feels like theater, filled with controversies. The root lies in the extreme polarization and division between the two parties, which has already created a sharply divided electorate.”

    On Chinese social media, the US election featured high among the trending topics throughout Tuesday and Wednesday. On microblogging site Weibo, a popular quip goes: “The country is so divided, they might as well break into US-A and US-B.”

    But for many Chinese watching the run-up to the vote, the focus was more on spectacle than substance – with a sense that no matter who wins, the tensions of the US-China relationship will remain.

    Part of the reason for that may well be a consensus in China – from policymakers down to regular citizens – that the die is cast for a US administration that wants to constrain China’s rise on the global stage, regardless of whether Vice President Kamala Harris or former president Donald Trump wins.

    Trump’s last term saw the Republican slap tariffs on hundreds of billions worth of Chinese goods, launch a campaign against Chinese telecoms giant Huawei and use racist language to describe the virus that causes Covid-19, which was first identified in China.

    The past four years under President Joe Biden have seen a tone shift and effort to stabilize communication. But US concern about China’s threat to its national security has only deepened, with Biden targeting Chinese tech industries with investment and export controls, as well as tariffs.

    Biden has also appeared to sidestep long-standing US policy in voicing support for Taiwan – a “red line” issue in the relationship for Beijing, which claims the self-ruling island democracy as its own.

    “(It) doesn’t matter who it is (that wins),” one social media user wrote in a popular comment on Weibo. “Their containment of China won’t ease.”

    This post appeared first on cnn.com