The digital gold rush of the last two years has officially moved from the cloud to the streets.
In a series of high-energy appearances on CNBC this week, Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives declared 2026 the year of “Physical AI” – the moment where artificial intelligence sheds its screen-bound skin to inhabit robots, vehicles, and handheld devices.
Ives – known for his relentless bullishness on the US tech sector – argued that the “fourth industrial revolution” has reached a tipping point, and the following three “best in the world” names own the intersection of silicon and steel.
Tesla Inc (NASDAQ: TSLA)
For Dan Ives, the EV maker has ceased to be a mere car company – and has transformed into the preeminent physical AI play on the planet.
In a recent CNBC interview, Ives dismissed concerns over quarterly delivery fluctuations – urging investors to look at the “golden year” ahead.
He believes Tesla Inc.’s valuation is anchored by two transformative physical technologies: Full Self-Driving (FSD) and the Optimus humanoid robot.
Ives famously noted that while others see a car company, he sees an “embodied AI” powerhouse.
As FSD adoption leaps toward 50% and autonomous “Cybercabs” hit the streets in 30 cities by the end of 2026, Tesla’s margin story will shift from automotive to high-scale software, he concluded.
Nvidia Corp (NASDAQ: NVDA)
No discussion of physical AI is complete without the man Ives calls the “Godfather of AI”, Jensen Huang.
Ives reiterated on “Squawk Box” that Nvidia remains the bedrock upon which the entire physical AI ecosystem is built.
From massive compute power required to train autonomous fleets to the specialized chips driving industrial robotics, Nvidia’s hardware is the “oxygen” of the industry.
Ives argued that the company remains four to five years ahead of any serious competitor, creating a moat that is effectively impenetrable.
“It’s Nvidia’s world, and everyone else is paying rent,” Ives quipped – emphasizing that the shift toward physical robotics only deepens the global dependency on Nvidia’s hardware.
Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL)
While Tesla moves bodies and Nvidia moves data, Apple Inc is Ives’ pick for the “invisible” yet massive physical AI upgrade cycle.
Ives argues that 2026 is the “prove it” moment for Cupertino, as the multinational finally integrates generative AI into the pockets of billions.
He pointed to the expected formal partnership with Google Gemini and the launch of AI-enabled iPhone hardware as the catalysts for a historic upgrade cycle.
To Ives, the iPhone is the ultimate “physical AI device” because it serves as the primary interface between the average consumer and the AI revolution.
He predicts that this shift will unlock billions in recurring, high-margin revenue – potentially pushing AAPL’s valuation toward the $5 trillion mark as Siri transforms into a proactive, physical-world assistant.
The post Dan Ives names ‘best in the world’ stocks to bet on ‘Physical AI’ appeared first on Invezz
Silver’s vertical sprint to a record around $120 per ounce on January 29 has flipped into a punishing reversal.
The prices crashed on Friday as leveraged bets unwind and the dollar snaps back.
After some venues briefly printed intraday lows in the low-$90s on Friday, silver has since sliced through the closely watched $80 threshold.
Market mechanics: what broke and why it matters
The speed of the downdraft stunned even veteran metals desks.
Silver surged to all‑time highs near $120, capping an annual gain of roughly 300%, a 12‑month run that multiple analysts had started to describe as bubble‑like.
Then came the turn as a potential Federal Reserve pick seen as more hawkish, which helped the dollar rip higher, and metals that had been bid up on inflation and liquidity trades suddenly faced a powerful headwind.
Major outlets reported one of silver’s biggest single‑day percentage drops in decades on Friday, with front‑month futures tumbling more than 20% at the worst point of the session.
Dealers and strategists described a classic “deleveraging event”: as prices broke through successive technical support levels, stop‑loss orders, margin calls, and forced liquidations of crowded long positions amplified the fall.
Selling pressure also spilled into popular silver ETFs, where outflows and hedging added to futures volume.
Thinness in the underlying market made matters worse.
Exchange and industry data show exchange‑registered silver inventories have been come down sharply this month, leaving less metal readily available in vaults and making prices more sensitive to order flow.
Opportunity vs. risk: where analysts say to look next
With silver still well above pre‑rally levels but far off its highs, analysts are splitting into two clear camps.
The contrarian camp argues that any break toward or below $70-$75 would be a tactical buying zone for investors with a long‑term horizon.
They point to strong structural demand from solar panel makers, electronics, and electric‑vehicle supply chains, alongside repeated estimates of sizable annual market deficits in recent years.
From this perspective, a price slide driven by position unwinds and dollar swings, rather than a collapse in industrial demand, looks like an opportunity.
The caution camp counters that the technical damage is serious and may not be repaired quickly.
Bank and macro‑fund strategists who had warned that silver was becoming “overheated” now see the latest move as a necessary reset.
They flag three key risks: still‑elevated speculative positioning that could unwind further, rising real yields that pressure non‑yielding assets like precious metals, and the possibility that a stronger dollar trend persists.
In that scenario, a move through $80 could be the start of a broader re‑rating rather than a brief buying window.
For miners and industrial users, the focus is shifting to hedging decisions and physical supply.
Lower prices may prompt producers to lock in forward sales, while big buyers weigh whether to step in with longer‑dated contracts if spot drops further.
For shorter‑term traders, analysts suggest watching three indicators closely: the gold–silver ratio, COMEX open interest, and inventory flows at major exchanges.
The post Silver slips below $80: when does panic become opportunity? appeared first on Invezz
Markets are closing the day grappling with a sharp mix of policy, politics, and positioning risk.
Donald Trump’s nomination of Kevin Warsh for Fed chair is forcing investors to reassess the path for rates, liquidity, and asset prices.
That shift is rippling across gold, crypto, and the dollar, while geopolitical tensions, from the Panama Canal to US-China rivalry, add another layer of uncertainty to an already fragile global backdrop.
Trump’s Fed pick
Donald Trump has nominated former Fed governor Kevin Warsh to succeed Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve chair, signaling a potential shift toward a more hawkish policy stance.
Warsh has previously criticized ultra-loose monetary policy and could push for higher rates if inflation flares again, even as growth moderates.
Markets are already gaming out the implications: a Warsh Fed might be less tolerant of elevated asset prices and more focused on shrinking the balance sheet.
The nomination sets up a contentious confirmation battle in the Senate and injects fresh uncertainty into the outlook for interest rates, equities and the dollar.
Citi: Gold supported, upside capped
Citigroup expects gold to stay underpinned in the near term as geopolitical tensions, lingering recession risks and US political uncertainty keep safe-haven demand alive.
The bank says central-bank buying and strong investment interest should help limit downside, even if US rate cuts are slower than markets once hoped.
However, Citi sees some of those supports fading later in 2026 as growth stabilizes and risk appetite improves, potentially capping further upside.
Still, the bank argues any sharp pullbacks are likely to be used as buying opportunities, keeping prices elevated by historical standards rather than collapsing into a deep bear market.
Trump targets China’s Panama canal role
Donald Trump is once again raising alarms over Chinese influence at the Panama Canal, zeroing in on Hong Kong-based conglomerate CK Hutchison, which operates key ports at both entrances.
He is casting the issue as a strategic vulnerability for the US, arguing that Beijing’s grip over critical infrastructure could threaten national security and supply chains.
Panama and the company reject that framing, stressing they are commercial operators, not political proxies.
The flare-up comes as Washington and Beijing remain locked in a broader contest over trade, technology and global chokepoints, turning the canal into yet another flashpoint in that rivalry.
Bitcoin slides on hawkish Fed fears
Bitcoin slid toward $81,000 as traders quickly linked Trump’s pick of Kevin Warsh for Fed chair to a potentially tougher rates backdrop.
A more hawkish Fed, or even just the perception of it, challenges the easy-liquidity narrative that helped fuel crypto’s latest run.
Derivatives data showed leveraged longs getting squeezed, amplifying the downside as stop-loss orders kicked in and funding rates cooled.
Some in the market argue the move is an overreaction driven by headline algos, but others warn that if yields push higher and the dollar firms on Warsh’s nomination, speculative assets like bitcoin could stay under pressure.
The post Evening digest: Bitcoin slips towards $80K, Trump’s Fed pick upends markets, commodities crash appeared first on Invezz
Verizon (NYSE: VZ) has been a “disappointment” for investors in recent years. After flirting with $60 during the COVID pandemic, it bottomed out near $30 in late 2023 and is trading at about $44 currently.
As higher interest rates and fierce competition bruised the telecom giant, investors started viewing it more as a high-yield trap than a blue-chip staple.
However, 2026 has brought a dramatic reversal of fortune.
Under fresh leadership and a revitalized strategy, Verizon stock has transformed into a powerhouse “complete package” – blending robust growth with shareholder-friendly policies set to reward the patient.
Q4 earnings warrant buying Verizon stock
Verizon’s Q4 2025 earnings report, released today, was nothing short of a “mic drop” moment for the telecommunications firm.
The company didn’t just meet expectations – it shattered them by adding 616,000 postpaid phone subscribers – its best showing in six years.
This momentum is fueling a massive financial lift for 2026.
Verizon’s guidance for adjusted EPS of $4.90 to $4.95 is meaningfully “higher” than what analysts expected, proving it has finally figured out how to grow volume without sacrificing margins.
With free cash flow projected to hit at least $21.5 billion, the balance sheet is also looking healthier than ever, making VZ stock even more attractive for long-term investors.
VZ shares are worth owning on buyback announcement
Verizon shares are worth loading up also because the firm’s management is no longer just talking about “deleveraging”; it’s putting its money where its mouth is.
Alongside stellar earnings, VZ’s board authorized a staggering $25 billion stock buyback program. This is a massive psychological win for investors who have watched the share count stagnate for years.
By committing to repurchase at least $3 billion worth of its shares this year, Verizon is effectively creating a floor for the stock price.
This buyback plan signals management’s confidence that the heavy lifting of their “5G build-out” and Frontier acquisition is largely behind them.
Verizon shares pay a lucrative dividend
For income-focused investors, VZ shares have long been a go-to, but the “safety” of that yield was often questioned during the 2023 slump.
In 2026, those fears have vanished. Verizon bumped its quarterly payout to $0.7075 per share today – marking 22 consecutive years of dividend growth.
At current prices, this translates to a lucrative dividend yield of approximately 6.24%.
Unlike the “yield traps” of the past, this payout is backed by a comfortable payout ratio of roughly 57%, ensuring that the check in the mail is not just high but exceptionally secure for the long haul.
VZ stock is trading at an attractive valuation
Despite the aforementioned positives and the post-earnings surge, Verizon stock is currently going for about 8x forward earnings only – well below its historical average of nearly 12x.
Plus, it’s trading at a discount to peers, including AT&T, at a forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of nearly 11 as well.
Simply put, in VZ, investors are essentially getting a market-leading utility with growing tech-like cash flows at a bargain-bin multiple.
In a market where many stocks are looking overextended, Verizon shares offer a rare combination of safety and “coiled spring” upside potential that is hard to ignore.
The post Verizon stock: why it’s a complete package for investors after Q4 earnings appeared first on Invezz
One can’t move the male parent. One has to find one that commits. That’s the mismatch issue.
Harvard economist and 2023 Nobel Laureate Claudia Goldin wasn’t speaking about modern relationships in the abstract; she was diagnosing why birth rates are collapsing across the developed world.
In an email conversation with Invezz, she reveals an uncomfortable truth: falling fertility isn’t about cultural decline. It’s about economic systems built for families that no longer exist.
From Tokyo’s empty nurseries to Seoul’s vanishing children, the world faces a delayed demographic shock most governments are unprepared to handle.
The crisis already on the ground
In 2024, Japan recorded its sharpest population drop ever: 908,574 people in a single year, with 45 of the country’s 47 prefectures losing residents.
The working-age population (ages 15-64) dropped to 59.6%, remaining below 60% since 2018.
Construction sites faced 4.6 job openings for every applicant, a labor shortage so severe that it’s slowing infrastructure projects nationwide.
Then came the nursery school closures. In the first half of 2025 alone, 22 childcare centres shut down, a 70% jump from the previous year.
The reason wasn’t a lack of demand for childcare. There was a lack of children. With just 686,061 births in 2024, Japan’s fertility rate hit 1.15 children per woman.
Demographers project the workforce could shrink by 11 million people by 2040.
Illustration: Devesh Kumar
South Korea’s numbers are even more extreme. The country’s fertility rate dropped to 0.75 in 2024, the lowest in the world.
In Seoul, it fell to 0.64. The Bank of Korea now projects the economy could begin shrinking by 2047.
The government has spent heavily on pro-natal incentives, reaching KRW 42.9 trillion (approximately $32 billion) by 2021, with minimal impact on fertility rates. None of it has reversed the trend.
China’s demographic reversal is happening even faster. After decades of the one-child policy, fertility has collapsed to 1.2 children per woman.
The property market is under strain as demand softens in a country with fewer young families.
This isn’t isolated to Asia. Italy’s fertility rate sits at 1.27. Spain’s at 1.32. Poland’s at 1.33. Even the United States has dropped to 1.6, below the replacement rate of 2.1.
It’s not theoretical anymore. It’s here.
Why people aren’t having kids, and culture isn’t the answer
The easy explanation is to blame cultural shifts: individualism, materialism, and young people prioritising careers.
But that ignores the economic reality millions face.
Housing costs have exploded faster than wages. In many major cities, homeownership is delayed into people’s 30s or 40s, if it happens at all.
Childcare is expensive. Healthcare is expensive. The cost of raising a child to adulthood in a developed economy can exceed $300,000.
Work intensity has also escalated. Japan and South Korea are infamous for brutal working hours, but the pattern is broader.
Parental leave, where it exists, is often minimal or unpaid. Remote work expanded during the pandemic, but many employers are pulling back.
And then there is the care burden. Despite women’s rising education levels and workforce participation, childcare and eldercare still fall disproportionately on mothers.
Goldin explains this isn’t about women’s choices in isolation; it’s about the lack of committed, equal partners in parenting.
“Jobs have characteristics that are easy to predict. One can move to the job with fewer hours, closer to home,” Goldin said.
That is what we know women have done to combine work and family.
Women adapt by taking jobs with shorter commutes or flexible hours. Men, on average, don’t. That structural mismatch makes having children increasingly incompatible with economic stability.
This is why fertility decline isn’t a moral failure. It’s a predictable response to economic systems built for single-earner households in an era when both partners must work.
The real hit comes later, and that’s what scares economists
The biggest economic consequences of today’s falling birth rates won’t arrive for another two decades.
Wolfgang Lutz, founding director of the Wittgenstein Centre for Demography, has been trying to explain this lag to policymakers.
“For the coming two decades, current fertility rates will not have many consequences since this will only affect the number of children and does not impact the number of adults yet,” Lutz told Invezz.
Fewer children being born today means fewer kids in schools. That actually reduces short-term costs. Governments spend less on education and childcare infrastructure.
But in 20 years, those missing children become missing workers. The labor supply contracts. GDP growth slows. Tax revenues decline. Social safety nets face a double squeeze: fewer workers paying in, more retirees drawing out.
Lutz sees a window of opportunity most governments are ignoring.
This window could also be used to increase the quality of education in terms of spending more on each child when there are fewer of them.
Smaller cohorts mean more resources per student. Better skills. Higher productivity. The problem is that most countries aren’t making those investments.
His key insight is about human capital.
“A key factor in all of this is going to be the education, human capital, and skills of the workforce,” Lutz said.
Many studies have shown that better skills and the associated higher productivity can to some extent, compensate for the smaller number of workers.
In other words, fewer workers aren’t necessarily a catastrophe if those workers are highly skilled and equipped to leverage new technologies. But that requires strategic investment now.
Why paying people to have babies doesn’t work
Invezz spoke with Ronald Lee, emeritus professor of demography at UC Berkeley, who has watched governments try to boost fertility for decades. His assessment is blunt.
Governments have been ineffective in their attempts to raise fertility at any level. At best, their policy interventions cause a short blip followed by a dip.
South Korea’s spending spree is the most dramatic example. Despite aggressive incentives, fertility kept falling.
France has the most generous family policy in Europe, and its fertility rate of 1.9 is the highest on the continent. But even that is well below replacement level and declining.
Cash bonuses create a brief uptick as couples time births to capture payments, then fertility falls back. Military exemptions, housing subsidies, and even luxury car giveaways have failed to reverse the trend.
Lee makes an important distinction about what’s actually at stake.
“Low fertility is not a big problem for per capita economic well-being until it drops below around 1.4 births per woman,” he explained.
But if the focus is instead on GDP growth rates, yes, those will drop roughly one-for-one as the growth rate of the working-age population drops.
Individuals may not feel poorer. But the overall economy grows more slowly, or not at all. That matters for government revenues and debt sustainability.
This is why the political response is often misaligned. Leaders chase GDP growth through higher birth rates, but raising fertility is effectively impossible. Adaptation is more realistic.
What actually works: Adaptation over reversal
If governments can’t reverse fertility decline, what can they do? The answer lies in building economies that function with fewer people.
Better childcare infrastructure is essential as an economic necessity for dual-earner households.
Countries with universal, affordable childcare don’t have higher fertility, but they do have higher female workforce participation. That matters when labor is scarce.
Work reform means flexible schedules, genuine remote work options, and parental leave for both parents. Japan is experimenting with four-day work weeks. Some European countries mandate paternal leave to equalize care burdens.
Immigration is the most direct offset to labor shortages. Japan’s foreign worker population hit 3.5 million in 2025, a record high.
But immigration is politically contentious almost everywhere, and even high immigration only partially offsets natural population decline.
Productivity and automation offer another path. Japan is investing heavily in robotics for eldercare, agriculture, and construction.
AI and automation can’t replace all human work, but they can extend the productivity of a smaller workforce.
Investment in education and skills is Lutz’s central recommendation. Fewer workers with higher skills can maintain economic output.
This requires rethinking education systems and continuous upskilling throughout careers.
Care economy investment is unavoidable. Ageing populations need eldercare, healthcare, and social services.
Countries that invest early in care infrastructure will fare better than those that wait until the crisis is acute.
Illustration: Devesh Kumar
The window is closing
Population decline is not an overnight catastrophe. It’s a slow-motion structural shift that gives societies time to adapt. But that time is finite.
The children not born in 2025 and 2026 are the workers who won’t be available in 2045. They are the taxpayers who won’t be funding pensions, the consumers who won’t be driving demand.
The demographic math is already locked in for the next two decades.
Countries that treat this as a distant problem will face the sharpest economic pain. The labor shortages will hit harder. The fiscal squeeze will be tighter. The care crisis will be deeper.
But countries that use the next 20 years strategically have options. Invest in education now, and the smaller workforce of 2045 can be more productive.
Reform work structures now, and dual-earner families can better manage the transition. Build immigration pathways now, and labor shortages can be partially offset.
The question isn’t whether populations will shrink. In much of the world, that’s already locked in.
South Korea, Japan, Italy, Spain, and dozens of other countries will have smaller populations in 2050 than they do today.
The question is whether governments will use the window they have, roughly two decades, to build economies that can function with fewer people, or waste that time pretending the decline can be reversed with cash bonuses and patriotic appeals.
Claudia Goldin identified the core problem: a mismatch between economic structures and modern family realities. Ronald Lee documented the failure of pronatalist policies. Wolfgang Lutz mapped the timeline and the opportunity.
The research is detailed. The data is clear. The warning signs are already visible in empty nurseries and unfilled job openings.
What’s missing is the political will to act on what we already know.
The post Falling birth rates could upend global economy in 20 years: here’s what to expect appeared first on Invezz
Tesla is retiring its Model S and Model X as it reallocates resources toward autonomous driving, robotics, and artificial intelligence.
The shift, driven by CEO Elon Musk, highlights a broader strategy to prioritize software and automation over legacy models.
Shares also moved higher intraday on reports of potential tie-ups among Musk’s companies, putting market attention on Tesla’s investment plans and the risks and rewards of its next chapter.
Tesla retires Model S and Model X, demand shifted to newer models
The Model S and Model X helped establish Tesla’s brand and showed that electric vehicles could compete with traditional cars.
Over time, however, demand for the two models fell as newer, lower-priced vehicles like the Model 3 and Model Y gained traction.
According to the company’s framing of the decision, dropping the S and X aligns with a long-term pivot toward AI and self-driving.
The company’s overall revenue sales slipped 3% last year from 2024, with the higher costs of the S and X and lower demand making them less central to the current growth plan.
Autonomy, robots, and AI infrastructure move to the forefront
Tesla is concentrating on driverless vehicles and robotics, including its Optimus humanoid robot, which the company views as an extension of the AI systems used in self-driving technology.
Musk announced Tesla will be investing $2 billion into xAI and signaled it is likely to build a semi-conductor manufacturing facility to support this vision.
Management sees transportation shifting from car ownership to autonomous services over time.
These ambitions carry regulatory and spending risks, but they represent where Tesla believes the greatest long-term potential lies.
Stock jumps on merger headlines, though details remain speculative
Tesla stock rose by as much as 5.6% today after Bloomberg and Reuters reported a possible merger with SpaceX, with discussions also taking place between SpaceX and Musk’s AI company, xAI.
The move is more speculative than fact-based, reflecting investor interest in Musk’s ecosystem and the role capital markets could play in funding growth.
Source reporting outlined potential synergies, such as Tesla’s energy storage supporting SpaceX satellites and starships, and the Optimus robot working in SpaceX facilities or on missions.
If future investment follows, it could reinforce Tesla’s plans, including the $20 billion in capital spending recently announced to support robotaxi and Optimus growth.
What to watch from here
In the near term, the stock may remain volatile as Tesla increases spending to build autonomy, robotics, and AI at scale.
Over the long term, the outcome will depend less on retiring legacy vehicles and more on whether Tesla executes its strategy to become a leader in autonomous technology and artificial intelligence.
The decision to end the S and X underlines Tesla’s willingness to move on from products that no longer fit its vision, while betting that software, automation, and AI infrastructure can drive the next phase of growth.
The post Tesla stock in focus as Model S and X retire, merger talks draw attention appeared first on Invezz
The financial world shifted on its axis this Friday as President Donald Trump officially nominated Kevin Warsh to succeed Jerome Powell as Chair of the Federal Reserve.
This appointment is far from a mere administrative baton-pass; it represents a fundamental pivot in the world’s most powerful economic engine.
Warsh, a former Fed governor and Wall Street veteran, enters the fray at a time when the central bank’s independence and its approach to liquidity are under intense scrutiny.
For financial markets, the “Warsh Era” signals a departure from the status quo, promising a cocktail of aggressive rate-cut advocacy mixed with a disciplined, “tough love” approach to the Fed’s balance sheet that could fundamentally reshape the performance of risk assets in 2026.
Kevin Warsh – a double-edged sword for risk assets
The immediate market reaction to the Warsh news was a sharp “risk-off” move, with stock prices declining and Bitcoin facing selling pressure as well.
This stems from Warsh’s reputation as a “reformed hawk”.
While he’s aligned with Trump’s demand for lower interest rates to spur growth – a move that typically benefits stocks and cryptocurrencies – he simultaneously advocates for a significantly smaller Fed balance sheet.
This creates a paradox for risk assets: while lower nominal rates are a tailwind, a reduction in global dollar liquidity is a massive headwind.
As Stephen Brown of Capital Economics noted, Warsh is a “relatively safe choice,” but his conviction that “the Fed should operate with a much smaller balance sheet” could put persistent upward pressure on long-term bond yields, making non-yielding assets like stocks and crypto less attractive.
Valuation over liquidity: the death of the “Fed Put”
For years, equity markets have leaned on the “Fed Put” – the belief that the central bank would reliably inject liquidity at the first sign of trouble.
Warsh, however, is a vocal critic of the Fed’s tendency to “pamper” markets. His “valuation-over-liquidity” framework means risk assets like high-growth tech and Bitcoin can no longer rely on central bank largesse to mask weak fundamentals.
In a recent interview, Warsh argued that the Fed’s “bloated balance sheet” should be reduced to “support households and small businesses” rather than just the largest financial firms.
This shift forces a Darwinian transition: companies with real earnings will thrive under lower rates, but “zombie” stocks and speculative bubbles that survived solely on excess market liquidity may face a harsh reckoning as the Fed’s safety net is pulled away.
How to play risk assets amidst the new economic climate
Ultimately, Kevin Warsh views the Fed not as a “pampered prince” of the economy, but as a disciplined steward of the currency.
His belief that artificial intelligence will act as a “significant disinflationary force” suggests he may feel emboldened to cut rates without fearing an immediate inflationary spike, a scenario that could ignite a massive rally in small-cap stocks.
However, the cost of this growth will be the removal of the experimental stimulus measures that defined the last decade.
As we move toward May 2026, the transition from Powell’s “cautious guidance” to Warsh’s “structural reform” means the era of easy, liquidity-driven gains is likely over.
In this new landscape, the winners will be those who prioritize real productivity over the temporary highs of central bank cash injections.
The post What Kevin Warsh’s Fed nomination could mean for stocks, crypto, and risk assets appeared first on Invezz
On Thursday, benchmark copper on the London Metal Exchange soared to a record high, surpassing $14,000 per metric ton.
The copper surge was primarily driven by speculation, following mine disruptions that could potentially lead to supply shortages.
Fueled by aggressive speculative buying from bulls in China, copper surged to a new record, climbing past $14,531.70 per ton in its largest single-day gain in years.
At the time of writing, the three-month copper contract on LME was at $14,354.33 per ton, up a whopping 9.4% from the previous close.
This significant investor interest is driving capital into base metals, stemming from optimistic forecasts for stronger economic expansion in the US and increased worldwide investment in critical areas like data centers, robotics, and power infrastructure, according to Neil Welsh, head of metals at Britannia Global Markets.
The broad-based advance in metals came after a gauge of the US currency sank to its lowest level in more than four years. US-Iran geopolitical tensions continued to escalate, with the US stepping up action warnings.
Copper’s unprecedented surge
A weaker dollar makes commodities priced in the greenback cheaper for overseas buyers.
Copper’s price surged last year, rising 42%, and has continued to climb, gaining another 12% in January.
The metal is a key indicator of the global economy, as it is widely used in power, construction, and increasingly in data centers for AI and the global clean energy transition.
However, some investors are concerned about a potential dip in industrial demand.
Copper’s increase is partly attributed to a broader interest in hard assets, which has pushed gold and silver to record highs, with traders citing geopolitical tensions as a contributing factor.
This rise occurred even as physical spot demand weakened in China, the largest consumer market.
Evidence of this weak demand is the Yangshan copper premium, a measure of Chinese appetite for imported copper, which dropped to $20 a ton on Wednesday, its lowest point since July 2024 and significantly down from $55 in December.
Aluminium jumps
Aluminium prices have soared, climbing 27% in the last six months to reach their highest level since April 2022. This metal is widely utilised across various sectors, including transport, construction, and packaging.
A wider metals rally, fueled by a weaker US dollar and increasingly constrained supply, is the backdrop for this latest price surge in aluminium.
Shanghai prices saw a significant jump of nearly 6%, while London prices climbed close to 2%.
China, the world’s leading producer, is under scrutiny because its output last year reached the government-mandated annual limit of 45 million tons.
The aluminium market is projected to enter a deficit in 2026, primarily due to ongoing supply limitations. Production expansion remains sluggish globally, with the notable exception of Indonesia.
“China continues to show discipline on capacity additions, and neither Europe nor the US is seeing meaningful smelter restarts,” Ewa Manthey, commodities strategist at ING Group, said in a note.
Aluminium prices have also drawn support from the broader rally in copper.
At the time of writing, the three-month aluminium contract was at $3,322.50 per ton, up 1.6% from the previous. Prices had risen to $3,355.35 per ton, a level not seen since 2022.
The post Copper tops $14,000 mark as speculation, mine disruptions fuel metals surge appeared first on Invezz
From Keir Starmer’s pragmatic reset with Beijing, to the unintended battlefield consequences of Western tech in Ukraine, to Denmark’s symbolic show of sovereignty in the Arctic, the week underscores a continent hedging risk on multiple fronts.
Big money, fragile alliances, and uneasy geopolitics collide as Europe balances economics, security, and identity in a world where old assumptions no longer hold.
Starmer pitches economic pragmatism over politics
Prime Minister Keir Starmer wrapped up his Beijing summit with Xi Jinping, looking to flip the script on eight years of frosty relations.
The two leaders agreed to build a “long-term strategic partnership,” swapping diplomatic jabs for handshake opportunities.
Starmer brought 54 business executives to underscore the mission: unlock trade, not lectures about human rights.
The economic angle is hard to ignore; China sits as Britain’s fourth-largest trading partner at $137 billion.
Yet the visit carries political weight too. With Trump threatening tariffs and rattling geopolitical cages, Starmer is quietly hedging Britain’s bets, pivoting from Conservative skepticism to Labour pragmatism.
Both sides are pushing deals on small boat smuggling, AI collaboration, and investment.
Ukraine’s Starlink problem: Can’t win with Russia using it
Ukraine’s got a nightmare on its hands; the very tech keeping its military connected is now arming Russian drones.
Defense Minister Mykhailo Fedorov confirmed “hundreds” of Starlink-equipped Russian attacks on Ukrainian cities this month.
A 500-kilometer reach means most of Ukraine and chunks of NATO allies sit in the crosshairs.
The irony stings: SpaceX rushed Starlink to Ukraine in 2022 as a lifeline against Russian jamming. Now Moscow’s weaponized it. Fedorov immediately contacted Elon Musk, who apparently agreed to block Russian access.
But here’s the catch: you can’t exactly turn off a satellite. Starlink terminals are already in Russian hands, likely smuggled through third countries.
It’s a tech cat-and-mouse game with no clean solution, and civilians are paying the price.
AstraZeneca’s $15B China bet
AstraZeneca just threw down the biggest card on Starmer’s Beijing table, a whopping $15 billion through 2030 for Chinese manufacturing and R&D.
CEO Pascal Soriot wasn’t messing around: this is the Anglo-Swedish drugmaker’s largest China investment ever, signaling a hard pivot toward what the company calls its “second-largest market.”
The cash flows into cell therapy, radioconjugates, and expanded facilities in Wuxi, Taizhou, and Beijing.
Translation: AstraZeneca’s betting that China’s innovation engine rivals the West.
With over 17,000 employees already there, growing to 20,000-plus, the company’s essentially hedging geopolitical risk by anchoring deep into Beijing while simultaneously pledging $50 billion in the US.
It’s a calculated play to tap Chinese biotech talent, avoid Trump’s tariff friction, and lock in market share before regulatory walls climb higher.
Greenland morale mission
Denmark’s King Frederik X announced a February 18-20 trip to Greenland, delivering a timely political message as Trump continues his Arctic power play.
The symbolism cuts deep: Frederik’s arrival to lift spirits among Greenlanders rattled by months of US acquisition talk and online threats.
The island’s government just launched a mental health survey, unprecedented, citing Trump’s takeover rhetoric as fueling “insecurity and concern.”
Frederik said it plainly: “They’re worried, and I want to meet them.”
Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen doubled down, insisting Greenlanders would choose Denmark over the US if forced to pick.
While Trump softened his tone last week (backing away from military seizure), the damage lingers.
Frederik’s visit isn’t just royalty showing up; it’s Denmark asserting sovereignty when Arctic geopolitics are anything but quiet.
The post Europe bulletin: UK’s ‘long-term’ China play, war tech problems, AstraZeneca’s $15B bet appeared first on Invezz
Microsoft stock (NASDAQ: MSFT) plunged over 12% on Thursday, erasing $450 billion in market value after the company reported earnings that beat Wall Street’s expectations.
Despite solid numbers, Microsoft disappointed investors on the biggest question they wanted answered: Will this capital expenditure explosion actually pay off?
The stock fell sharply despite revenue of $81.3 billion (beating the $79.5–$80.6 billion consensus) and a 24% earnings-per-share increase at $4.14 versus the $3.93 expectation.
CNBC’s Jim Cramer pushed back against the panic, framing the sell-off as a classic investor overreaction.
Cramer, who owns Microsoft in the CNBC Investing Club portfolio, reminded viewers that the market’s initial shock to strong earnings often creates a bargain.
The real issue behind Microsoft stock collapse
The headline numbers initially appeared strong on the surface.
Microsoft Cloud revenue crossed $50 billion for the first time ever, hitting $51.5 billion and growing 26% year-on-year.
Yet beneath this strength lay the culprit as Azure and other cloud services grew 39% year-on-year, compared to 40% the previous quarter.
This deceleration came as a major red flag for investors who concluded that even with record capex spending, cloud growth is moderating.
More damaging was the capex shock.
Microsoft spent $37.5 billion on capital expenditures in the October-December quarter, a 66% year-over-year surge that landed roughly $3 billion above consensus.
About two-thirds went to GPUs and compute infrastructure to power its AI buildout.
Moreover, Microsoft has a $625 billion demand backlog, but roughly half is tied directly to OpenAI, raising concentration risk in analysts’ minds.
If OpenAI stumbles raising capital or hits deployment delays, Microsoft’s revenue certainty takes a hit.
Why Jim Cramer thinks this is a buy opportunity
Jim Cramer has consistently argued that the sell-off misses the bigger picture.
In an analysis, he noted Microsoft “is doing fine” and that Azure’s projected slowdown may stem purely from supply constraints, not weakening demand.
His idea is that investors are conflating near-term capex pain with long-term value destruction.
He frames buying weakness as the classic investor discipline of separating temporary sentiment from durable business fundamentals.
Cramer acknowledges the risks. Slower Azure growth than historical norms, rising capex without margin payoff yet, and OpenAI concentration all warrant close monitoring.
His criteria for confidence are that Azure must show acceleration and management must signal capex budget discipline going forward.
Here’s what investors should watch next quarter: Does Azure growth reaccelerate as supply constraints ease?
Does capex guidance stabilize or resume climbing? And does Microsoft’s commanding backlog and Copilot adoption deliver revenue upside that justifies the spending?
For Cramer’s view, the current price weakness isn’t a red flag; it’s an entry point.
The post Jim Cramer says Microsoft’s sudden drop could be a buy: here’s why appeared first on Invezz
