The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) voted in favor of approving orders that allow authorized participants to create and redeem shares of cryptoasset exchange-traded products (ETPs) in kind, according to a statement from the institution.
According to the SEC, this represents a shift from the recently approved spot bitcoin and ether ETPs, which were limited to cash creation and redemption. Now, bitcoin and ether ETPs, like other commodity-based ETPs approved by the Commission, will be able to create and redeem shares in kind.
“It is a new day at the SEC, and a key priority of my chairmanship is to develop an appropriate regulatory framework for the cryptoasset markets,” declared SEC chairman Paul S. Atkins.
“I am pleased that the Commission has approved these orders allowing in-kind creation and redemption of a range of cryptoasset ETPs. Investors will benefit from these approvals, as they will make these products less expensive and more efficient,” he added.
For the SEC, these changes “continue building a rational regulatory framework for cryptocurrencies, leading to a deeper and more dynamic market that will benefit all U.S. investors. This decision aligns with standard practices for similar ETPs.”
Jamie Selway, Director of the Division of Trading and Markets, stated: “Today’s decision by the Commission marks a significant step forward for the growing market of cryptocurrency-based ETPs. In-kind creation and redemption provide flexibility and cost savings to ETP issuers, authorized participants, and investors, resulting in a more efficient market.”
The Commission also voted to approve other orders promoting a merit-neutral approach to cryptocurrency-based products, including exchange applications seeking to list and trade an ETP containing a combination of spot bitcoin and ether, options on certain spot bitcoin ETPs, Flexible Exchange (FLEX) options on shares of certain BTC-based ETPs, and an increase in position limits up to the generic limits for options (up to 250,000 contracts) for listed options on certain BTC ETPs.
In addition, the Commission issued two scheduling orders requesting comments for or against approval by the Division of Trading and Markets, under delegated authority, of proposals by a national securities exchange to list and trade two large-cap cryptocurrency-based ETPs.
Although no new rate cuts are expected to be announced by the monetary authority, this meeting is marked by somewhat weaker preliminary data, pressure from the Trump administration making headlines, and the market watching closely.
“While no change to the benchmark interest rate is expected, recent comments from some voting members of the Federal Open Market Committee have shown support for a possible cut. Furthermore, the trade agreement between the EU and the U.S. could further reduce the need for short-term stimulus,” note analysts at Muzinich & Co.
The forecast is that the interest rate will remain in the range of 4.25% to 4.5%, as there have been no clear signs either in the last meeting or since then that a rate cut is being considered. Instead, what will matter most are Powell’s remarks, as the goal is to temper market expectations, which currently assign a 60% probability to a rate cut in September.
“The market’s reaction to the press conference will be interesting. A week before the FOMC meeting, the market was pricing in a 65% chance of a cut in September. That probability will approach either 0% or 100% as we get closer to September 17. Will we see signs of such a move after the July meeting?” asks Erik Weisman, Chief Economist at MFS Investment Management.
For Vincent Reinhart, Chief Economist at BNY Investment, Fed officials will have to work hard to do nothing at this FOMC meeting. “This isn’t chess or tic-tac-toe. For the Fed to cut rates, three conditions must align: some concern about employment, signs that inflation will return to target, and enough clarity about the economy to be confident in those two premises. For now, we anticipate a 25-basis-point cut in December, and less than a 50% chance of anything happening before then. Essentially, the Fed would correct course if economic data worsens, acknowledging they may have misjudged the economy’s strength and the impact of tariffs on inflation,” notes Reinhart.
The Data the Fed Watches
Growth and inflation outlooks support the central bank’s more cautious approach. It’s worth recalling that in terms of inflation, the Fed’s preferred indicator (core PCE inflation) remains above target, at 2.7% year-over-year, and there are signs that tariffs are beginning to pass through to core goods prices. “Consumer expectations have declined from multi-decade highs, but remain high enough for the Fed to be hesitant about rate cuts in July,” says Michael Krautzberger, CIO of Public Markets at Allianz Global Investors.
In this context, Kevin Thozet, a member of the investment committee at Carmignac, notes that the Fed does not expect inflation to return to its 2% target before 2027, representing a six-year “deviation.” “And the latest inflation data are not particularly encouraging. We’re starting to see signs of import cost pass-through due to tariffs. Core goods inflation has already ticked up modestly, and the FIFO model that dominates the U.S. retail sector indicates that more price increases will come once tariffs are more broadly applied,” explains Thozet.
According to David Kohl, Chief Economist at Julius Baer, the weakening of the U.S. economic outlook suggests that a more accommodative monetary policy is likely in the second half of the year. However, he warns that “uncertainty around inflation following the rise in tariffs prevents a rate cut in July, as does the political pressure from President Trump to lower rates.”
The Pressure Mounts
Even though the data still support the Fed’s “wait-and-see” stance, the pressure to cut rates is increasing, both from the Trump administration and from within the Fed itself. On the political front, Fed Chair Jerome Powell has faced growing pressure to cut rates immediately, with President Trump even suggesting the possibility of replacing him before his term expires in May 2026. According to Thozet’s analysis, Powell has been under increasing political pressure, but any speculation about his replacement should be treated cautiously. “President Trump has little to gain from reshuffling Fed leadership just six months before Powell’s term ends. Moreover, the risks of undermining the Fed’s credibility on the dollar, inflation expectations, and long-term bond yields are too great. The central bank’s credibility has played a key role in anchoring long-term inflation expectations since their sharp rebound in 2022. Any move toward fiscal dominance or premature easing could jeopardize that hard-won stability, with significant negative ripple effects,” he comments.
The pressure doesn’t come only from the White House—it also comes from within the institution itself. “The minutes from the June meeting showed that most committee members believe monetary policy is ‘well positioned’ as they wait for more clarity on growth and inflation outlooks. However, they also acknowledged the risk that tariffs could have more persistent effects. Still, internal divisions are starting to emerge within the Fed,” comments Krautzberger.
In recent weeks, Governor Waller called for a 25-basis-point cut in July, based on the following rationale: tariffs will cause an exceptional increase in prices; the economy has already been operating below potential during the first half of the year; and labor market risks are increasing. “Other Fed members, however, have expressed a desire not to cut rates preemptively, and Powell himself has suggested that it remains prudent to wait and see how macroeconomic conditions evolve,” adds the Public Markets CIO at Allianz GI.
Beyond July
Looking beyond July, the market anticipates no more than two rate cuts before year-end, depending on upcoming inflation data. However, heading into the Fed’s September meeting, political pressure to reduce rates could intensify, especially if consumer demand and the labor market weaken more than expected. “We believe current data support the Fed maintaining its monetary policy stance in July. However, unless there’s a significant inflation surprise, the September meeting could become an active turning point for resuming cuts, particularly if economic indicators weaken and political pressure reaches a level that forces the Fed to act,” says Krautzberger.
According to Julius Baer’s chief economist, the stagnation of private consumption and lower investment intentions, which point to reduced demand, would justify a less restrictive policy stance, even though inflation rates remain above target. “Political pressure makes it harder for the Fed to communicate rate cuts in upcoming meetings. We expect the Fed to resume its rate-cutting cycle at its September FOMC meeting,” states Kohl.
Experts agree that the overall data suggest the economy remains in good health, and there is a risk of an upward trend in inflation due to tariffs. According to Mauro Valle, Head of Fixed Income at Generali AM (part of Generali Investments), “the market expects the Fed to cut again between September and October, but no longer anticipates two cuts by year-end. Uncertainty about the economic outlook and the impact of tariffs is high, and the Fed will likely continue to take its time.”
In the view of Tiffany Wilding, Economist at PIMCO, interest rates could reach neutral next year. “Many investors are wondering about the direction of Fed policy, particularly in light of public dissatisfaction from Trump with recent decisions under Powell and the expiration next year of key Fed appointments. In our view, economic fundamentals and institutional dynamics point to a baseline policy outlook that is not significantly different from what would be expected under the current composition of FOMC participants—perhaps with a marginally faster return to a more neutral policy stance,” she concludes.
In a context of slowing global consumption, growing geopolitical tensions, and imminent trade disputes, High-Net-Worth Individuals (HNWIs) are adjusting their priorities, according to the new 2025 edition of Julius Baer’s Global Wealth and Lifestyle Report.
“Although data collection concluded before the U.S. announced its new tariffs, our findings still indicate a notable shift,” the report states. One of its main conclusions is that, for the first time since its launch, the report has recorded a 2% decrease, based on measurements in U.S. dollars—a surprising development in a segment that has traditionally outpaced average consumer price growth. “While services declined slightly by 0.2%, goods prices dropped by a significant average of 3.4%,” it clarifies.
As Christian Gattiker, Head of Research at Julius Baer, explains, “In light of current events and the uncertainty brought on by trade tensions and tariff escalations, our findings emerged before the truce declared by the Trump administration expires, so next year’s edition of the Wealth and Lifestyle Report will certainly offer relevant and fascinating data from a retrospective viewpoint.”
One of the report’s findings is that the city rankings remain highly competitive. In this regard, Singapore maintains its position as the most expensive city for HNWIs worldwide, followed by London, which rises to second place. Hong Kong rounds out the top three. However, significant movement is observed elsewhere, with Bangkok and Tokyo each climbing six places, and Dubai continuing its upward trajectory.
The EMEA Region
Focusing on the EMEA region (Europe, the Middle East, and Africa), its cities once again stand out, now representing more than half of the global top 10. London leads the region, rising to second place globally, while Monaco and Zurich each move up one position to fourth and fifth place, respectively. Dubai has climbed five spots to seventh, solidifying its position as a serious contender among traditional wealth hubs. Milan and Frankfurt maintained their positions, while Paris dropped slightly in the ranking. Johannesburg remains at the bottom despite some price increases.
“Price developments in EMEA have been moderate overall, with local currency prices stable or even falling in cities like Zurich. The most notable price increase in the region occurred in Paris, where higher travel and accommodation costs led to a 5% year-over-year rise. Private education costs in London also soared, driven by recent legislative changes,” the report explains.
Other Geographic Regions
The report’s authors note with interest that Singapore remains the most expensive city in the world, underlining the ongoing importance of Asia-Pacific. The region recorded only slight price decreases, averaging 1%, making it the most stable of all regions this year. In terms of rankings, Bangkok and Tokyo saw the greatest progress, each climbing six positions to 11th and 17th place, respectively. In contrast, Shanghai dropped from fourth to sixth place.
In Asia-Pacific, spending on goods remains high, though consumer preferences continue to evolve. Notably, technology prices dropped sharply (by 21.4%), while business class airfares increased by 12.6%. The growing wealth of the Asia-Pacific HNWI population, along with rising interest in health, wellness, and experiences, continues to shape spending patterns across the region.
In the Americas, New York remains the highest-ranked city in the region (eighth globally). Miami moved up two spots to 13th, while São Paulo and Mexico City dropped in the rankings.
Price Trends
Another conclusion from the report is that while average prices of goods in U.S. dollars fell in the Americas, the region recorded some of the largest increases in business class flights (+39.3%) and hotel suites (+17.5%). These increases have significantly raised the cost of travel and hospitality, now 41% higher than the global average. Notably, local currency price increases were much steeper in Latin America, with Mexico City and Santiago experiencing rises of up to 16% and 15%, respectively.
In this sense, the 2025 Index reflects diverging trends across categories. The steepest global price drop was seen in technology (-22.6%), driven by falling prices on items like MacBooks. Conversely, business class flights saw the most significant price hike (+18.2%), fueled by changes in airline business models, limited aircraft supply, and sustained demand for premium travel. The cost of private education also rose considerably (+5.1%), especially in London following the British government’s VAT change on private school tuition. Watches experienced a 5.6% increase, reflecting continued demand for exceptional, high-quality models.
There are just four days left before the tariffs imposed by the U.S. come into effect for countries that have not reached a deal. The most recent to do so are the European Union, which has secured a provisional trade agreement under which most of its exports to the U.S. market will be subject to a 15% tariff, and Japan, which agreed to a flat 15% tariff on all its products. Beginning August 1, however, imports from Canada, Brazil, South Korea, Cambodia, and Bangladesh will face tariffs ranging from 25% to 50%.
Experts expect further announcements in the coming days—particularly regarding the preliminary agreement with China, and the ongoing negotiations with India, which have made progress but remain unresolved. Additionally, Mexico, Brazil, Canada, and South Korea still lack comprehensive agreements and may face further tariffs if negotiations don’t conclude soon.
On the recent deals with the EU and Japan, Philippe Waechter, Chief Economist at Ostrum AM, believes both were fighting the same battle: “The tariff is identical (15%), the exception on steel and aluminum remains at 50%, the market opens further to American companies, and Europe commits to investing $600 billion. Japan agreed to $550 million. So far, we don’t have the details on how the investment benefits will be distributed (in Japan’s case, 90% goes to the U.S.). Europeans will also purchase $750 billion worth of energy over the next three years, moving away from climate targets, and will spend heavily on American military equipment.”
According to Waechter, the EU and Japan agreements show that “to remain dependent on the U.S. market, Europeans and Japanese are willing to pay an exorbitant price, justified only by the risk of isolation.” He adds that these tariffs reflect a global cycle long dominated by U.S. consumers. “Once that situation consolidated, increased tariffs began trapping the rest of the world, which now must pay to maintain cyclical momentum.”
Jared Franz, economist at Capital Group, stresses that not all trade barriers are created equal. In this case, he argues that Trump is using tariffs for multiple purposes—the clearest being negotiation. “The U.S. president has made it clear that some tariffs are meant to pressure countries into helping the U.S. meet its political goals, such as fighting illegal immigration and curbing drug trafficking. These may be temporary,” he notes. In contrast, the cases of Europe, Japan, and Mexico are more about rebalancing. “Reciprocal tariffs are aimed at restoring balance with other trading partners and primarily reducing the U.S. trade deficit,” Franz adds.
He concludes, “These motives will heavily influence the long-term tariff landscape. Tariffs used for negotiation will likely be short-lived, while those tied to broader strategic goals could be more permanent.”
One More Agreement, Less Uncertainty
The terms of the EU–U.S. trade deal include a base tariff of 15% on nearly all EU imports, including key sectors like automobiles (currently taxed at 27.5%). Tariffs on EU steel and aluminum remain at 50% for now, though a quota system may replace them. The agreement also involves major spending commitments: the EU will purchase $750 billion worth of oil, gas, nuclear fuel, military equipment, and semiconductors during Trump’s second term. Meanwhile, European companies are expected to invest $600 billion in the U.S. during the same period.
So far, European equity markets have responded with optimism, as the deal reduces uncertainty. “There’s progress in trade negotiations, but risks remain. Investors are closely watching economic data for signals on tariff impacts and potential policy decisions. With tariff talks ongoing and global monetary policy at a turning point, the coming weeks could be pivotal for shaping investor expectations for the rest of 2025,” say analysts at Muzinich & Co.
From a European perspective, another positive factor is that EU goods are now on equal footing with those from similarly developed competitors like Japan and may receive better treatment than many emerging markets that have signed deals with the U.S. in recent weeks. However, if market optimism drives the euro higher, that could become a headwind for the eurozone, warns Gilles Moëc, Chief Economist at AXA IM.
Avoiding the Worst-Case Scenario
According to Apolline Menut, economist at Carmignac, the agreement prevents the worst-case scenario: Trump’s threatened 30% tariffs, chaotic retaliation, and a full-blown trade war. “Europe lacks the strategic economic and technological leverage that China holds over key industrial supply chains. True, U.S. manufacturers rely more on European suppliers of intermediate goods than vice versa, but in an escalating retaliation cycle, Trump could have expanded the fight to include restrictions on energy and digital services—areas where the EU is fully dependent on the U.S.,” she says.
What the EU Loses
Still, Waechter calls it “a sad day” for Europe: “Europe is so afraid of being isolated from the U.S. that the negotiations focused only on goods—not on the broader spectrum of goods and services, which are more balanced in trade terms. This means Europe has forfeited the chance to pursue technological independence. The imbalance in services is largely due to technology. Draghi’s hope of massive investment to close the tech gap with the U.S. is now just a dream. The ability to generate a strong income dynamic has proven a mirage. Income distribution will become a real power struggle within Europe, as the pie won’t grow significantly. It will have to be split among the active and inactive, and even among the active. Social dynamics will be interesting—but also very dangerous.”
Analysts at Ebury acknowledge the negative economic impact but note that greater harm was avoided: “While many details of the agreement still need to be finalized—and tariffs will likely continue to weigh meaningfully on growth—investors are relieved that the worst-case scenario has been averted.”
Felipe Villarroel, portfolio manager at TwentyFour (Vontobel), sees similarities with the deal struck by the U.K.: “This is a suboptimal outcome for the U.S., the EU, and the global economy—but it’s one the economy can likely withstand without catastrophic macro consequences. Experts have already priced in a 10–15% tariff rate. Markets have had time to absorb what this result means for businesses and growth projections. The conclusion seems to be that certain sectors, such as autos, will take a hard hit, while others will suffer indirectly through slower growth—but can keep going,” he says.
European Equities in Focus
On a more positive note, Villarroel highlights that Europe managed to shield some key sectors from harsher tariffs (ranging from 25% to 50% or more): “The agreement lowers auto tariffs (from the 25% under ‘Section 232’ to 15%) and covers both semiconductors (threatened with a 25% tariff due to a pending BIS investigation) and pharmaceuticals (for which Trump floated potential tariffs of up to 200%). It significantly reduces trade policy uncertainty for European supply chains—though the devil is in the details, especially around ambiguous zero-for-zero tariff provisions.”
Lastly, Johanna Kyrklund, Group Chief Investment Officer at Schroders, continues to emphasize that Europe benefits from global investors’ search for diversification in equity portfolios. “We’ve seen strong demand for European assets—both equities and bonds. European stocks have performed well this year, and we still see value. So, I believe Europe has been the main beneficiary of global investors’ diversification push. There’s also been significant interest in European bonds, showing that investors aren’t cutting exposure but diversifying. Meanwhile, the euro has strengthened against the dollar. In fact, we believe there’s still upside in the euro and remain quite positive on European markets,” Kyrklund concludes.
ProShares, a specialist in leveraged and inverse funds and a pioneer in cryptocurrency-linked ETFs, has announced the launch of two exchange-traded funds: the ProShares Ultra Solana ETF (SLON) and the ProShares Ultra XRP ETF (UXRP). SLON aims to double the daily performance of Solana, and UXRP to double that of XRP, two of the largest cryptocurrencies in the world.
“As cryptocurrencies become more widely adopted, investors are turning to platforms like Solana and XRP for exposure to next-generation blockchain technologies,” said ProShares CEO Michael L. Sapir. “SLON and UXRP provide the opportunity to target leveraged exposure to Solana and XRP, allowing investors to overcome the challenges of gaining exposure to these cryptocurrencies.”
ProShares broke ground with the launch of the first U.S. bitcoin-linked ETF (BITO) in October 2021. Since then, it has introduced the first U.S. short bitcoin ETF (BITI); the first U.S. ether performance-oriented ETF (EETH), and the first U.S. short ether ETF (SETH), among other solutions. SLON and UXRP join a range of leveraged cryptocurrency-linked ETFs with over US$1.5 billion in assets under management.
All these exchange-traded funds do not invest directly in cryptocurrencies.
The ETF industry in Europe is growing rapidly, and Euronext aims to be a key player in it: it has advanced plans to launch a unified trading platform for European exchange-traded funds, Euronext ETF Europe.
It will be operational starting in September of this year, initially concentrating the liquidity of Euronext Paris and Euronext Amsterdam; Borsa Italiana (Euronext Milan) will be added in the “medium term.” Funds Society has learned the details surrounding its operation from Aurélien Narminio, head of Indices, ETFs and Securitised Derivatives at Euronext.
Narminio explains that the current situation in Europe means an ETF is listed an average of three and a half times on different exchanges. “There are Euronext-operated listing platforms that are quite significant in the European ETF market: these are the Euronext Amsterdam, Euronext Paris, and Euronext Milan locations,” he says.
Therefore, Narminio continues, although everything is traded in the same data center and through the same firm, teams, market rules, etc., ETF issuers must list multiple times on different Euronext markets in order to distribute a given ETF to all the target end investors, especially retail investors. “This means that, for example, to reach the French retail market, listing in Milan is often not enough, as their brokers operate in isolation for reasons related to post-trade.”
According to the expert, this implies that if a trade is executed on a certain platform, it is settled in a specific infrastructure based on where it was matched. Therefore, “what we are doing with Euronext ETF Europe is creating the conditions so that multiple or cross listings become irrelevant and unnecessary.”
With the launch of Euronext ETF Europe, a single listing on any Euronext platform will be sufficient, with the same price and operating conditions for any investor, regardless of the intermediary. To achieve this, Euronext will ensure that all exchange members trading ETFs are connected to all platforms so they can trade all products seamlessly. It will also ensure that post-trade chains are unified and optimized, thanks to Euronext’s own clearing house (Euronext Clearing) and central securities depository (CSD). Behind this entire operation is the goal of eliminating “one of the problems of the European ETF market: fragmentation.”
This situation “fragments order books and liquidity,” which, according to Narminio, “generates additional costs and inefficiencies between buyers and sellers.” Now, by concentrating all available liquidity at Euronext into a single order book per ETF, “it achieves spread compression and reduces trading costs for investors, while increasing efficiency and transparency.”
Ultimately, the project is an attempt to “radically simplify the market” while creating a “pan-European ETF market.” Moreover, it’s not a project that was designed “in a dark room,” but rather one that clients “have been requesting for a long time.” In fact, Narminio notes that “it’s one of the problems that likely holds back the growth of European ETFs compared to U.S. ones.”
This new platform will be available to both retail and institutional investors, he explains. The goal of the project is that any connected member anywhere in Euronext can access ETFs in the same way, at the same cost, and with the same post-trade configurations. “Obviously, there are nuances due to the numerous technical specificities, but that is essentially the model,” he states, going further to say that with this solution applied to a specific product like ETFs, “we are, in a way, implementing the vision of a single savings and investment union.”
The platform’s operability—whose technical aspects are handled internally by Euronext through its Optiq trading system—is ready for a hypothetical short-term implementation of T+1 settlement. “It’s not a determining factor nor has a significant impact,” he states, explaining that with Euronext ETF Europe, settlement is simplified and the number of instructions in the market is reduced: “it’s a small step in the right direction.”
One of the consequences of the implementation of Euronext ETF Europe is that the number of ETFs listed on Euronext will be streamlined. Narminio explains that they currently have around 4,000 ETFs with a single listing, but admits there are products with double and triple listings. “The idea now is to gradually reduce the number of products with double and triple listings because the model is one listing per product,” he clarifies.
Starting in September, issuers with ETFs listed on multiple Euronext locations will choose which domestic Euronext venue they want to remain listed on. The new platform will then combine liquidity with the other Euronext venues.
At this point, he admits that they are working “closely” with issuers to streamline their portfolios. “We will do it gradually, so everything is properly tested, and we can ensure that client access works correctly,” says the executive, who, although aware that it will be a time-consuming process, is confident that starting in September, it will begin with the major issuers.
Narminio explains that the good thing about the ETF market is that there is significant market concentration; there are dozens of issuers, some of them quite large, with whom they are collaborating because they share interests: “For us, it’s about reducing trading costs and improving ETF trading conditions in Europe. For them, it means improving their distribution by gaining greater leverage through a single listing and lowering access costs to their products for their investors,” he explains, concluding that “this is a major coordinated change at the industry level.”
The Bloomberg Commodity Total Return Index rose 5.5% in the first half of the year, with most of the gains concentrated in just four contracts: gold, silver, copper, and live cattle. Additionally, outside of this index, platinum soared nearly 50%. According to experts, persistent forces such as deglobalization, decarbonization, increased defense spending, dedollarization, demographic shifts, urbanization, and climate change continue to lay the groundwork for a potential commodities bull market.
Kerstin Hottner, head of commodities and portfolio manager at Vontobel, takes a cautious view and considers that we are seeing isolated sectoral movements driven by very specific factors. “We have seen cyclical and geopolitical impulses that have raised the prices of certain assets, but the current dynamics are much more determined by supply and demand, speculative flows, and technical factors. In a global context marked by geopolitical tensions, uncertain monetary policies, and a transitioning economic cycle, I see commodities regaining a central role in investment strategies,” says Hottner.
Precious metals
In this regard, each commodity rally has been explained by specific factors. For example, gold, which has been hitting highs for several weeks, has found an equilibrium point around $3,350/oz. “Although its role as a safe haven asset has slightly weakened due to a lower perception of risk, I still see several catalysts that could push it toward $3,500/oz by year-end. Among them are possible Fed rate cuts, likely starting in September; U.S. fiscal uncertainty tied to the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ debate; continued central bank purchases (which I estimate at about 1,000 tons annually); and a greater tolerance for the opportunity cost of holding non-yielding gold in the face of rising sovereign risk,” explains Hottner.
From WisdomTree, they point to multiple macroeconomic risks supporting its valuation. Specifically, they cite trade uncertainty, debt trajectory, institutional quality, geopolitical risks, and ambiguous dollar policy.
“After its intraday high of $3,500/oz on April 22, 2025, gold has fluctuated between $3,180 and $3,400/oz. The lower end aligns with the 76.4% Fibonacci retracement level, and while our forecasts suggest a potential short-term break below this level, we anticipate strong support near the 61.8% level ($3,024/oz), paving the way for a rebound. For Q2 2026, we project that gold could reach $3,850/oz based on consensus macroeconomic data. We view the current period as a ‘loading spring’ phase, setting the stage for a strong upward move in gold prices,” says Nitesh Shah, head of commodities and macroeconomic research at WisdomTree.
The Vontobel expert also adds that, unlike gold, both silver and platinum have risen sharply, though more due to investment flows than strong fundamentals. “In the case of silver, the recent surge stems from growth in the solar sector, but there are regulations in China that could slow that momentum. As for platinum, the enthusiasm is fueled by shifting Chinese consumer preferences, although I believe prices may already be overextended,” she adds.
Industrial metals
For Carsten Menke, head of next generation research at Julius Baer, several factors also lie behind the price jump in iron and steel. “With prices significantly above their early summer lows, sentiment in the Chinese iron ore and steel markets appears to have shifted. One reason is the expectation of supply-side reforms in the steel industry, which cannot benefit both markets at the same time, as lower steel production implies reduced iron ore consumption,” says Menke.
It is worth noting that in 2024, China produced over 1 billion tons of steel—more than half of global output—of which it exported nearly 120 million tons, far more than any other country. According to Menke, sentiment in the Chinese iron ore and steel markets seems to have changed in recent weeks. “Prices have risen between 10% and 20% from their early summer lows. Since the structural overcapacity in the steel market is affecting global trade and tariffs, supply-side reforms in China would be essential to restore balance to the global market,” he explains.
Copper also deserves mention, as it climbed back above $10,000 per ton in early July. In this case, Menke suggests what might be attributed to easing trade tensions and reduced recession risk is actually driven solely by tariffs.
“The expectation that the U.S. will impose tariffs on copper imports has caused a sudden increase in U.S. imports. This has turned a balanced market into a tight one. That said, copper will be restocked in the market at some point. We continue to project a market with sufficient supply this year, but we remain concerned about demand prospects due to U.S. importers’ early buying ahead of potential tariffs on China,” Menke concludes.
Oil and industrial metals
Finally, experts point out that oil has been at the center of significant volatility, with conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine driving brief price spikes, particularly following Israeli attacks on Iranian facilities and direct U.S. involvement.
“For the second half of 2025, I anticipate a bearish scenario with expanding global supply: non-OPEC production continues to grow, with projects in Brazil, Guyana, Angola, the U.S., and Norway, and OPEC+ may reverse some of its cuts, adding 0.5 million barrels per day in September. Moreover, demand this year will be weaker than usual, leading to oversupply after the summer,” says Hottner.
Finally, the expert from Vontobel notes that, on the agricultural front, the first half of the year was relatively calm, but he sees the second half as presenting interesting opportunities and significant risks. “Record corn harvests in the U.S. and Argentina, along with possible trade realignments with China, will be key factors. Toward the end of 2025, the focus will shift to weather conditions in South America and regulatory decisions such as new biodiesel blending mandates under EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) rules in the U.S.,” he concludes.
Man Group, the global alternative investment management firm, has announced that it has reached an agreement to acquire Bardin Hill, a U.S.-based private credit manager with approximately US$3 billion in assets under management.
Headquartered in New York City, Bardin Hill is an opportunistic and high-yield credit manager. Its opportunistic credit platform focuses on investments in special situations and distressed companies, as well as sponsorless direct lending in the United States. Its high-yield credit platform focuses on large-scale syndicated loan CLOs.
Led by a senior team with deep experience and an average industry tenure of 22 years, Bardin Hill has strong expertise in managing credit strategies and serves a sophisticated global client base that includes pension funds, endowments, foundations, insurance companies, and consultants.
Jason Dillow, CEO of Bardin Hill, will remain at the helm of Bardin Hill’s business with the support of his nine partners, including executive committee members Philip Raciti and Jacob Fishelis. Bardin Hill’s investment committee, investment team, and investment processes will remain intact, while Man Group’s global distribution capabilities will enhance the firm’s access to new investors.
The acquisition further strengthens Man Group’s global credit platform, which currently has nearly US$40 billion in assets under management; more than 10 specialized investment teams; and over 100 credit professionals, by adding opportunistic and high-yield credit strategies designed to consistently deliver risk-adjusted returns.
Bardin Hill’s investment capabilities will complement Man Group’s existing private credit offering, which includes direct lending, credit risk sharing, and residential real estate lending strategies. The acquisition also further expands the firm’s presence in the United States, in line with the company’s strategic priority to grow its footprint in North America.
Steven Desmyter, president of Man Group, stated that this acquisition “adds new and important capabilities to our growing credit platform, further broadening and diversifying our offering to clients, in line with the strategy we laid out last year. Following the acquisition of Varagon in 2023, we are excited to be able to offer our clients another high-quality, specialist team with strong credentials, a rigorous and selective investment process, and experience across market cycles. We see real growth potential in both opportunistic and high-yield credit and look forward to working with Jason and his team to capture it.”
For his part, Jason Dillow, CEO of Bardin Hill, said they are “very excited to join Man Group as part of its rapidly growing U.S. private credit platform. Man Group’s broad distribution network, sophisticated institutional platform, and leading-edge technology will help us strengthen our opportunistic and return-driven credit strategies for Bardin Hill’s current investors while also offering new investors access to Bardin Hill products. Given the persistence of volatility and dislocation in credit markets, we believe there is a significant opportunity to leverage our combined strengths to deploy capital and deliver attractive returns to clients.”
The Integration of Artificial Intelligence Is a Reality Across Many Industries—Including Finance. Its use opens the door to streamlining numerous processes, but it also brings challenges, as Elena Alfaro, Head of Global AI Adoption at BBVA, explains in this interview. Among them: “managing the balance between the speed of innovation and the need to comply with a very strict regulatory environment,” or “managing perception: explaining that AI is not here to replace, but to enhance.” This also explains why, during implementation, they sometimes encounter uncertainty or caution, although Alfaro believes that “when people understand AI’s potential and see how it improves their work, they become its strongest advocates.”
The expert, who will take part in the Funds Society Leaders Summit to be held in Madrid next September 10, explains in this interview how BBVA understands AI (“as a lever for transformation to redesign how we work: it’s not just about doing the same things faster, but about changing the way we think, create, and collaborate”) and how they are implementing it in a cross-functional way: “Generative AI is just as useful for someone who needs to draft a complex note as it is for someone analyzing credit risk, helping prepare proposals for private banking clients, or generating investment ideas,” she notes.
But always with the principles of sustainability and ethics front and center: “AI cannot advance disconnected from the bank’s strategic commitments, and one of the most important is sustainability; furthermore, we work with an ethical approach from the design stage: we are concerned with how decisions are made, what data is used, how we ensure fairness, and how we explain the results to our clients,” she explains. Indeed, in the face of increasing automation, Alfaro defends the human role: “Our focus is on preparing people to coexist with AI and make the most of that collaboration.” In her view, “organizations that manage to integrate AI with purpose and values will be the ones to lead this new cycle sustainably.”
Don’t miss the full interview below.
AI adoption seems to be a must for organizations and institutions across many sectors. Why is it essential in the financial sector, and specifically at BBVA? How can AI—and generative AI in particular—help improve processes?
In the financial sector, the ability to anticipate, process large volumes of data and information, and personalize services is fundamental. AI, and particularly generative AI, allows us to transform complex and repetitive tasks into faster, more efficient, and more creative processes. At BBVA, we are using it as a lever for transformation to redesign how we work. It’s not just about doing the same things faster, but about changing the way we think, create, and collaborate. Generative AI helps our teams make better decisions, generate valuable content, automate processes and document generation, prepare meetings, and much more. We’ve seen how it can improve work quality, increase productivity, and free up time for higher-impact tasks. And through it all, we never lose sight of the fact that the heart of this change isn’t the technology—it’s the people.
Which areas of the bank have you prioritized for implementation? Is it equally useful for analyzing clients for credit approval, for example, or for helping manage investment portfolios (asset management), or to better connect with private banking clients?
From the outset, we committed to a cross-functional approach. This means that AI isn’t limited to technical or analytical areas—it’s reaching nearly all teams: from Talent and Finance to Commercial Banking, Asset Management, or Risk. We jointly prioritized areas where we saw the greatest opportunity for impact and scalability, always with a logic of supporting each area, listening to their needs and real use cases. In this sense, generative AI is just as useful for someone who needs to draft a complex note as for someone analyzing credit risk, helping prepare proposals for private banking clients, or generating investment ideas. Its ability to adapt to different contexts gives it enormous potential across all lines of business.
Particularly in asset management and private banking/advisory… how can AI help improve both process efficiency (portfolio management, risk reduction, systematic management, etc.) and client experience?
In these areas, AI can make a difference in two key fronts: operational efficiency and service personalization. On the one hand, it allows us to automate tasks such as drafting market reports, portfolio analysis, updating client content, or preparing meetings—freeing up time and reducing errors. On the other hand, it allows us to tailor the message and product to the client’s specific profile, which improves the experience and strengthens the trust relationship.
A concrete example: some teams are already using generative assistants to synthesize complex technical documentation and transform it into understandable, personalized communication for each client. This combination of speed, clarity, and relevance provides very powerful differential value in a field as competitive as wealth management.
Is your AI strategy aligned with the bank’s global objectives—for example, in terms of sustainability? And along these lines: do you advocate for ethical AI use, and what does that mean in your case (eliminating bias, transparency, etc.)?
AI cannot advance disconnected from the bank’s strategic commitments, and one of the most important is sustainability. We are already applying AI models to analyze our own carbon footprint and that of our clients, support sustainable investment decisions, or improve the energy efficiency of our operations.
But we also work with an ethical-by-design approach: we are concerned with how decisions are made, what data is used, how we ensure fairness, and how we explain the results to our clients. This translates into governance frameworks that ensure auditability, bias elimination, and transparency—of course aligned with regulation but aiming to go beyond it. It’s not just about regulatory compliance: client trust in intelligent systems is key to making this technology sustainable in the long term.
What have been the main challenges in implementing AI in an organization as regulated as a bank? And in this sense, what risks do you see in its deployment (staff reduction, operational risks…)?
One of the biggest challenges is managing the balance between the speed of innovation and the need to comply with a very strict regulatory environment. Unlike other industries, in banking everything must be perfectly controlled and documented, which complicates the rollout of new tools unless there’s a clear governance strategy. Another major challenge has been managing perception: explaining that AI is not here to replace, but to enhance. Of course, there are associated risks, such as misuse of models, technological dependency, or potential impacts on certain roles. That’s why we focus on responsible adoption, accompanied by training, controls, and a transformation of roles that ensures human talent remains the main driver.
Are you developing AI tools internally or with external providers? Are there risks in the latter? How do you ensure the quality and governance of the data feeding your models, and data security and protection?
We are adopting a hybrid model. On the one hand, we collaborate with technology leaders such as OpenAI or Google to offer our employees the best tools available on the market. On the other hand, we develop specialized internal assistants tailored to our needs, under a very demanding security and privacy framework.
The key is governance: we have a centralized model that sets standards for quality, data use, security, and version control. This allows us to scale confidently and with traceability, without jeopardizing the bank’s standards. We also work closely with areas such as Non-Financial Risks, Legal, and Cybersecurity to ensure every new development aligns with our values and current regulations.
Is there any resistance—internal or external—to AI implementation in organizations, and specifically in yours?
Rather than explicit resistance, what we’ve encountered is uncertainty or caution, especially in the early stages. That’s natural—we’re talking about a very new technology that changes the way we work and may raise concerns about its medium-term impact. That’s why, from the start, we committed to a clear communication strategy, continuous training, and close support. We’ve created internal communities, trained thousands of employees, and built spaces for experimentation. What we’ve seen is that, when people understand the potential of AI and see how it improves their work, they become its strongest advocates. The key is building trust, listening closely, and showing that the change is not imposed, but co-created.
What AI trends will have the most impact on banks in the coming years? And what do you think the human role will be in this revolution—how will AI and human talent coexist?
We see a clear evolution toward increasingly autonomous agents that will be able to carry out tasks proactively, connecting data, tools, and decisions in a single flow. This will radically change operational models. It will also be key to integrate AI with internal data to deliver truly intelligent, personalized, and contextual solutions. But in the face of increasing automation, the human role will be more important than ever: supervising, giving meaning, contextualizing, providing empathy. Rather than replace, AI forces a redefinition of the skills required. Professionals who know how to collaborate with these tools will have a very high differential value. Our focus is on preparing people to coexist with AI and make the most of that collaboration.
To conclude, and as a final reflection, we’d like your broad vision on the opportunities and risks of AI—its implementation across society and industries, and the challenges it may present.
AI is probably the most transformational technology of the coming decades. It can help democratize knowledge, improve global productivity, accelerate scientific innovation, and personalize essential services like health and education… But it also carries significant risks: poor implementation could increase inequality, generate technological dependency, eliminate jobs without alternatives, or reinforce invisible biases. That’s why it’s essential to move forward with ambition—but also with humility. It’s not just about innovating faster, but about innovating better. Regulation, ethics, inclusion, and transparency must be at the center. Organizations that manage to integrate AI with purpose and values will be the ones to lead this new cycle sustainably.
The political tension from Donald Trump, President of the U.S., toward Jerome Powell, head of the U.S. Federal Reserve (Fed), regained prominence after Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent avoided confirming whether Powell will be removed. According to experts, this is a new chapter in a story we’ve been hearing for just over a month. Just last week, these same rumors disrupted the markets.
“Despite the tense backdrop with the Fed, Bessent avoided giving opinions on the possible dismissal of Chairman Jerome Powell, whose term ends next May, hinting that the final decision lies solely with President Trump. However, recent reports from The Wall Street Journal stated that Bessent had privately warned Trump about the negative impact on markets if Powell were removed—something the president emphatically denied through his official account on X, insisting that ‘no one explains anything to him’ and taking personal credit for the market’s record highs,” says Felipe Mendoza, financial markets analyst at ATFX LATAM.
In this context of pressure on the Fed, financial markets tend to react initially to headlines by taking refuge in defensive assets such as U.S. Treasury bonds and gold, while the U.S. dollar weakened and stocks experienced brief volatility before stabilizing following Trump’s clarification. According to UBS, prediction markets assigned a probability of approximately 21% that Powell will not continue in his position in 2025. Furthermore, the dollar has recently reached its lowest level in three years, weakened by headlines about a potential early leadership change at the Fed.
“While we continue to consider the probability of a change in Fed leadership to be low, recent events have drawn increased attention from policymakers and investors. Although the situation remains speculative, global investors should take into account the possible implications of a challenge to the Fed’s independence, the legal considerations for removing its chair, and the political implications for monetary policy,” UBS states in its report.
The Consequences According to the document, a move to dismiss the Fed chair could raise doubts about the long-term credibility of U.S. monetary policy and about the Fed’s independence, which has historically been considered a fundamental pillar of the financial system. “This comes at a time when there are already concerns about the U.S.’s fiscal sustainability, inflation, and the dollar as a store of value. Such an event could lead investors to demand higher risk premiums on U.S. public debt, especially if it generates greater uncertainty about inflation or interest rate policy. Aggressive rate cuts under political pressure might not translate into lower yields across the curve, as investors could begin to anticipate greater inflationary risks. These developments could also negatively affect the U.S. dollar’s role as a global reserve currency,” warns UBS.
In the opinion of Deborah Cunningham, Chief Investment Officer for Global Liquidity at Federated Hermes, one of the many costs of President Trump’s attacks on Fed Chair Powell is presenting monetary policy as black or white, with no middle ground. “It might have seemed that way decades ago. Before Chair Bernanke opened it up to the public, the Federal Reserve was a black box. It communicated mainly through Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) statements and daily market operations, rather than through speeches, press conferences, and congressional testimony. But monetary policy is as gray as anything in economics, involving both opinion and data,” she explains.
In her view, Trump’s tirades also drain healthy debate about the central bank. “Had he not issued a rant after the FOMC held rates steady last month, the main story could have been a growing unease among officials. It actually should be. No participant dissented from the decision, but the June Statement of Economic Projections (SEP) changed subtly compared to March’s, suggesting a possible split. While the median federal funds rate remained at 3.9%—implying two quarter-point cuts this year—seven voters indicated zero cuts, compared to four in March,” Cunningham adds.
Their Different Points of View According to the Market Flash from Edmond de Rothschild AM, beyond the pretext of poor management of the bank’s renewal plans, the episode illustrated two radically opposing views on U.S. inflation and growth. “On the ‘rear-view mirror’ side, we find Donald Trump and the candidates to succeed Jerome Powell as Fed Chair. With inflation trending toward 2%, they advocate for urgent rate cuts to halt the economic slowdown and deteriorating labor market. The ‘windshield’ side, which includes Adriana Kugler, a Powell supporter and member of the Fed’s Board of Governors, encourages the bank to keep rates where they are, as tariffs should push inflation above 3% by the end of 2025,” they explain in their report.
The financial institution is anchored in a “wait-and-see” stance pending the impact of the new trade policy of the Trump Administration. According to Edmond de Rothschild AM experts, the Fed had expected the trade war to have only a fleeting effect on inflation, but Donald Trump’s recent announcements—delaying the 200% tariffs on pharmaceuticals until 2026—could prolong the impact and cause a de-anchoring of long-term inflation expectations.
“The data seem to suggest that Jerome Powell’s side is right: weekly jobless claims, excluding seasonal effects, indicate that the economy is at a cyclical high, yet showing resilience. Consumer spending remains strong: retail sales have rebounded sharply after a disappointing start to the year. The latest CPI reading revealed a significant increase in goods inflation, particularly in areas sensitive to tariffs like electronics, although overall inflation still appears to be under control thanks to shelter trends. Donald Trump expected that the tariff hikes would be absorbed by exporters to the U.S., but the fact that import prices have only fallen slightly suggests that U.S. businesses are bearing most of the increases,” they note.
