Alejandro Gambirazio and Jesús Urrutia, former J.P. Morgan bankers, have officially launched Centrica, a new independent firm registered as an Investment Adviser (RIA). After more than a decade at J.P. Morgan, the founders left the firm in April to pursue a more entrepreneurial and client-centered approach to wealth management.
Centrica already manages approximately $500 million in client assets and offers personalized wealth advisory and investment services to clients in Latin America and the United States. With offices in Miami, the group seeks to expand its presence in Latin America and plans to open offices in Lima and Mexico City. According to the founders, the firm positions itself as a trusted partner for families, entrepreneurs, and institutions seeking personalized financial strategies with global execution capabilities.
The founders bring over 40 years of combined industry experience, with a proven track record of excellence in private banking and global wealth management across different regions. Jesús spent 12 years at J.P. Morgan Private Bank advising high-net-worth families in Switzerland and Miami, while Alejandro brings more than 30 years in the financial industry, including 17 years in leadership roles at Banco Santander, followed by 12 years at J.P. Morgan. Together, they offer specialized capabilities in global investment management, family governance, and cross-border wealth structuring.
According to them, Centrica’s business model is based on independence, alignment, and long-term partnerships, providing clients with access to institution-grade solutions while maintaining the flexibility of an owner-managed firm.
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.
Dynasty Financial Partners announced the appointment of Shawn Shook as Legal Advisor.
Shawn Shook brings over ten years of legal and regulatory experience in the financial services sector, particularly with registered investment advisors, broker-dealers, and professionals transitioning to independence. In his new role, he will oversee Dynasty’s legal strategy across all corporate initiatives and support the network’s 57 partner firms in regulatory, transactional, and compliance matters.
“Shawn brings valuable experience that strengthens our legal team as we continue to grow,” said Shirl Penney, CEO and Founder of Dynasty Financial Partners.
“His judgment and insight will help us continue supporting independent advisors in building their businesses,” she added.
Shook previously worked at Kestra Financial, where he negotiated documentation for several acquisitions and advised on corporate governance, regulatory compliance, and other strategic initiatives. Before Kestra, he served as Associate General Counsel at Edelman Financial Engines, where he worked on matters related to mergers and acquisitions, commercial agreements, advisor onboarding, and risk management.
In his new position at Dynasty Financial Partners, he will report to Shirl Penney, CEO of Dynasty, and work from the firm’s headquarters in St. Petersburg, Florida. Shook succeeds Jonathan Morris, who is taking on a new role as Executive-in-Residence after more than a decade as General Counsel.
“I want to thank Jon Morris for his incredible guidance and contribution as our General Counsel over the past 12 years. Jon has been an exceptional friend, business partner, and trusted advisor to the firm and our entire network. I am very pleased that Jon will remain at Dynasty as an advisor to the firm and as our new Executive-in-Residence,” said Shirl Penney.
Shawn Shook holds a Juris Doctor from George Mason University and a bachelor’s degree in Political Science from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
The Santander Private Banking International team in Miami has a new member: Alvaro Bueso-Inchausti, the new Director of Alternative Investments, according to an announcement made by the Spanish bank on LinkedIn.
Bueso-Inchausti has been working at the Spanish institution since 2023, and until his appointment in Miami (dated July of this year), he held the position of product specialist at the alternative investment management division of Santander Asset Management.
Bueso-Inchausti comes from A&G, where he was responsible for a new business line dedicated to alternative asset fund-of-funds.
Previously, he served for five years as Executive Director at Altamar Capital Partners, within the Private Debt team, where he worked since the firm launched its first private debt fund-of-funds in 2017. He also spent four years in the infrastructure subsidiary of Grupo ACS, Iridium, on the finance team, and earlier in the Leverage Finance department at CaixaBank Madrid and at Commerzbank in London. He holds a degree from CUNEF.
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced that it will host a roundtable, scheduled for September 18, 2025, to debate the trade-through prohibitions in the equity and listed options markets of the National Market System (NMS).
Specifically, the discussion will focus on the trade-through ban under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (Reg NMS). “The NMS Rule and its Rule 611 have not been effective for investors or for brokers, given the market distortion and resulting manipulation by those seeking to exploit the structure of the NMS Rule,” stated Chairman Paul S. Atkins, justifying the agency’s decision to hold the roundtable.
“The Commission must provide the public with the opportunity to weigh in on aspects of our regulations that deserve updating, and I look forward to the input we will receive on various aspects of the direct trading prohibition under Rule 611 as it applies to NMS stocks, and the analogous NMS plan prohibition applicable to listed options,” the official explained.
What Does the Trade-Through Ban Under Rule 611 Consist Of?
The trade-through ban under Rule 611 of Regulation NMS (Reg NMS) is a rule by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission designed to protect retail investors and promote fair competition among stock markets.
This rule applies to the National Market System (NMS), which includes the major exchanges where stocks are traded in the U.S., such as the NYSE and Nasdaq.
Rule 611, also known as “the Order Protection Rule,” prohibits an exchange or trading center from executing an order at a price worse than the best price available on another exchange. This phenomenon is known as a trade-through.
Rule 611 is intended to ensure that institutions automatically route orders to where the best available price is. This protects the investor from overpaying (or underselling) when a better offer exists on another market.
According to the SEC, the roundtable will be open to the public and will take place at SEC headquarters, located at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C., on September 18. The discussion will be streamed live on SEC.gov and a recording will be made available afterward. Information about the agenda and roundtable speakers will be published prior to the event.
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.
