Tag: United States

The Federal Reserve Keeps Interest Rates on Hold

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in Iran, News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Today, the FOMC voted 11–1 to maintain its benchmark interest rate at 3.50%–3.75%, marking the second consecutive meeting of unchanged policy. The one dissenting vote came from Governor Stephen Miran, who called for a rate reduction of 25 basis points. Policymakers acknowledged that due to the Iranian conflict in the Middle East, they now face increased uncertainty on how this will impact the economy, with Chairman Powell stating in a post-meeting press conference, “The thing I really want to emphasise is that nobody knows.”

Inflation Outlook and Rate Cut Criteria

On the inflation front, officials have raised their outlook in 2026 from 2.40% to 2.70%, still above the Federal Reserve’s target of 2.00%, and analysts point to the fact that inflation figures have been above target for the last five years. Chairman Powell advised that they need to progress in reducing inflation in order to lower interest rates, saying that, “If we do not see that progress, then we won’t see the rate cut.” He went on to point to goods inflation that had increased due to tariffs, and indeed officials pointed to core inflation (excludes food and energy prices) which they also indicated will rise to 2.70%.

Energy Volatility and Meeting Deliberations

In the post-meeting press conference, Chairman Powell was questioned on rising oil prices. He noted that policymakers typically look through energy spikes, as such fluctuations often have only a transient impact on long-term inflation. The Chairman also advised that the possibility of a rate hike was discussed at some stage, but was quick to point out that most members of the FOMC did not see this as their base case. As usual, President Trump had called for a rate cut, but with the current events in the Middle East and current inflation figures, this seemed hardly likely to be on the FOMC’s agenda which of course was borne out by their vote. 

Market Expectations and the “Dot Plot”

Financial markets had priced in a near 100% bet that the FOMC would hold rates this time around. Currently, consensus pricing reflects a 94% to 95.7% probability of another hold at the upcoming April meeting. Experts suggest that money market sentiment will be only one more 25 basis points this year, most likely in either September or December. The FOMC uses the “Dot Plot”* as a major guide to future interest rate decisions, and currently analysts advise that consensus has shifted toward higher-for-longer with 14 of the 19  members now predicting no change or just one cut.

*Dot Plot – This is a chart that is published by the Federal Reserve that shows where each FOMC member expects interest rates to be in the future, with each dot representing one policymaker’s projection as to where the Federal Funds rate will be at the end of any given year, with the median dot receiving the most attention. Financial markets read and assess the implications of the dot chart and if the median dot shifts higher, then it may be interpreted as a hawkish stance. If it moves lower, it can be interpreted as a dovish stance. 

Leadership Succession and DOJ Investigation

Finally, and in a surprising statement regarding his immediate future, Chairman Jerome Powell stated that he had no intention of resigning as a member of the Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors until the investigation by the DOJ (Department of Justice) into the Fed’s building renovation is over. He went on to state that his Chairmanship ends this May, and if his already presidential nominated successor (Kevin Warsh) is not confirmed by the Senate by the end of his term, he will stay on as a chair pro tempore. In the past, the Federal Reserve has approved such a nomination. As one Senator has promised to withhold his vote until the DOJ investigation is dropped, no doubt this will increase President Trump’s angst towards Chairman Powell.

The On-Going Effect of the US-Israel-Iran Conflict

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in Iran, News & Reports. Leave a Comment

The on-going Iranian conflict is affecting many aspects of life across the globe, the most notable being the price of oil and its derivatives. The price of oil remains very volatile, a week ago today the price opened at circa $120pbl and closed at circa $81.50pbl, and today Brent Crude is trading at above $104pbl. 

The knock-on effect will be felt by consumers across the globe as prices go up for heating, fuel at the pumps, food etc. Governments will be keeping a watchful eye on their own CPI (Consumer Price Index), as inflation will once again begin to rise. However, as outlined below, it’s not just the cost of crude oil that the conflict is pushing up.

Fertilizer Crisis

Fertilizer is essential for food production, however, just before spring which is many farmers’ planting season, the Iran Conflict is pushing up the cost of nitrogen products such as urea and ammonia. Urea for example is primarily used as a highly concentrated nitrogen fertilizer that promotes vigorous plant growth and has a nitrogen content of 46%, an essential tool for modern farming. Due to the current conflict, the price of Urea has surged by circa 34% to $600/T, and this together with other essential raw material will mean higher prices in the supermarkets with farmers across the globe rushing to secure critical fertilizers. 

Palm Oil

Due to the on-going Iranian crisis, Palm Oil futures are now over $100pbl as prospective demand for biofuel feedstocks spike and is almost at a parity with gasoil*. Palm oil is a versatile vegetable oil found in nearly 50% of packaged supermarket products. It is also a key ingredient in cosmetics, cleaning supplies, and biofuels, and is frequently added to livestock feed, especially in the dairy industry, due to its exceptionally high energy content.

*Gasoil – (AKA red diesel or tractor diesel) is a low-duty, red-dyed fuel identical to regular road diesel but restricted to off-road industrial, agricultural and heating use. It is a middle distillate derived from crude oil refining, primarily powering machinery such as tractors, cranes and generators. 

Global Food Supply

Farmers across many regions including Europe and Asia, are vulnerable to an oil and gas crunch due to the Iran conflict, and the scarcity of fuel will make it difficult to operate essential farm machinery. For example, in Bangladesh, farmers are unable to start their irrigation pumps due to the lack of diesel. In Australia, it is almost the planting season, and farmers have been advised of fuel delivery cutbacks. In the Philippines, it is predicted that fishermen and boat owners will not be able to go to sea.

Europe is also vulnerable, for example in Germany 100 litres of diesel is up by EUR 30, and in Romania, farm diesel prices have jumped about 30%. A UK farmer highlighted that existing diesel stocks will be exhausted by mid-spring. Beyond that point, agricultural operations will be forced to pay the prevailing market rate, provided that fuel supplies remain accessible.

Fuel Oil 

Fuel oil powers container ships and is the backbone of globalisation,  however, the price of this commodity is skyrocketing. Fuel oil is also known in the industry as the “bottom of the barrel”, and is usually cheap, flying under the radar compared to the more well-known fuels (that get distilled higher up petroleum distillation towers) such as gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. 

The shipping industry is now sounding the alarm as it’s not only the price of fuel oil that is worrying, some of the key ports across the globe may run out of stock forcing bulk carriers and container ships to halt in their tracks. Recent data released shows that fuel oil in two of the top three bunkering locations (Fujairah UAE and Singapore) are beginning to run very low on stocks. If the conflict continues for a couple months, fuel oil will become a major problem. 

Conclusion

Analysts warn that if geopolitical tensions are not resolved swiftly, the global cost-of-living crisis will intensify, potentially causing inflation to become entrenched across G7 economies once again. This means that central banks may be forced to increase interest rates, thereby increasing the cost of borrowing, energy and food, which will be very hard on consumers. 

Plan B for Trump Tariffs

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

The Section 301 Pivot: A New Framework for Trade Enforcement

Acting on behalf of President Trump, the U.S. Trade Representative is launching Section 301 investigations into more than twelve major economies. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade representative, stated that this action takes centre stage to replace the tariffs, which were struck down by the Supreme Court of the United States* and will focus on those economies that have alleged excess manufacturing capacity. Upon completion of the investigations, President Trump will be allowed to unilaterally place tariffs on those countries who are deemed to engage in unfair trading practices.

*Supreme Court Ruling – In a landmark 6–3 decision on Friday, February 20, 2026, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s global tariffs. The justices ruled that the President exceeded his constitutional authority by invoking a federal emergency-power law to unilaterally impose the levies.

Navigating Post-Ruling Volatility: The Administration’s Strategic Shift

These investigations are the administration’s attempt to replace the tariffs that were struck down by the Supreme Court in February this year. The landmark decision took away a central pillar of the Trump presidency, whereby the President could unilaterally impose tariffs and use them as leverage in negotiations with many countries, especially those who are key trading partners. Jamieson Greer also stated, “Our view is that key trading partners have developed production capacity that is really untethered from the market incentives of domestic and global demand.”

Geopolitical Risk: Major Trading Partners Under the Microscope

Economies that are under the microscope are China, the EU (European Union), India, Japan, Mexico, South Korea and Taiwan, all of whom represent some of the largest and leading trading partners. Experts predict that by targeting Mexico, the US-Canada-Mexico Trade Agreement that is currently under renegotiation could make existing tensions even worse. Interestingly, Canada is not among any of the nation’s being targeted by the administration’s new tariff drive, however, with an impending summit between the US and Beijing coming up shortly, the new tariff drive could well increase tensions between the two countries.

Sector-Specific Vulnerabilities: Addressing Global Overcapacity

In a Federal Register filing, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) alleges that the above-mentioned economies enjoy overcapacity. The filing singles out the EU, especially Ireland and Germany, regarding machinery, vehicles, and chemicals, while accusing Taiwan of overproduction in the semiconductor chips and electronics sectors.

The USTR is also citing examples of non-US firms expanding overseas, in particular the Chinese auto maker BYD Co. They continued by stating the other sectors that have over capacity, which are: aluminium, automobiles, batteries, electronics, machinery, paper, plastics, robotics, satellites, semiconductors, ships, solar modules and steel. 

The Future of Trade Policy: Implications for Global Supply Chains

With regard to the abovementioned sectors in the same Federal Register Filing, officials from the USTR have said, “In many of these sectors, the United States has lost substantial domestic production capacity or has fallen worryingly behind foreign competitors.” 

Experts suggest that the new wave of investigations has signalled an increase of trade enforcement, furthermore, the administration will be launching investigations on circa sixty countries relating to a ban on imports that are made with forced labour. Experts predict that the White House will continue down the tariff road with such expectations being borne out by Jamieson Greer, who has said, “The policy remains the same. The tools may change, depending on the vagaries of the courts and other things, but the policy remains the same.”

Global Market Jitters and Sell America

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

The Shift in Global Sentiment

The US Dollar is viewed as the world’s reserve currency; US Treasuries are among the top safe-haven assets, and US financial markets are regarded as the most liquid and exceptionally deep. However, there is a sentiment running through many major financial centres that perhaps it is time for global markets/investors to sell America. This narrative has not taken place this year, as analysts look back to 2nd April 2025, when they feel it began when President Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs and upended the global trading system as we knew it.

Geopolitical Tensions and Economic Implications

This feeling of sell America became more pronounced in January of this year when President Trump announced he wished to take over Greenland, which is part of Denmark and a NATO ally, which fired up more anti-American/Trump sentiment among Europe’s leaders. However, analysts advise that this sentiment has died down for the time being, but if there was a measured shift towards sell America, the implications for the US economy could well be severe. For many decades, the United States has enjoyed unparalleled faith in their currency and the treasury market from overseas investors who have ploughed funds into the US economy.

If sentiment moves away from US assets, as they are now considered not to be the safest of havens, experts advise that if overseas investors begin to sell, the US Dollar would weaken, and the availability of capital to both companies and the government would shrink considerably. Indeed, some experts fear that if US consumers face increasing costs as imports become more expensive, whilst at the same time borrowing costs go up, it could become an ongoing cycle where recession rears its ugly head as the federal deficit becomes less sustainable.

Eroding the Foundations of US Investment 

Experts argue that since the early 1960s (if not earlier), overseas investors have been attracted to the United States due to several factors such as a stable US Dollar, a commitment to free trade, extremely deep capital markets, superior bond ratings, legal protections and an independent monetary policy ( independent Federal Reserve). If any of the above start being stripped away, analysts advise that financial markets would probably react negatively towards US assets and the greenback. An example of this is the debasement trade* where markets and investors sell currencies they feel are being devalued due to the incumbent government policies.

The Rise of the Debasement Trade

*Debasement Trade – A financial strategy where investors invest in assets such as Bitcoin and gold as a hedge against the devaluation of fiat currencies is known as a debasement trade, with key takeaways being rising sovereign or government debt, geopolitical instability, and inflation. Experts advise that investors have been selling major currencies and running to alternative assets such as gold (both physical and ETF), silver, Bitcoin, and even some collectables such as Pokémon cards, which in mid 2025 reached an all-time high.

Pressure on the Federal Reserve

President Trump’s continued attack on the current Federal Reserve, Chairman Jerome Powell, for not lowering interest rates and his rhetoric regarding the reduction of their independence has continued to spook financial markets. This was reflected in April 2025 when the stock markets (S&P 500, Dow, Nasdaq) fell by more than 2%, and the US Dollar plunged to a three-year low. The above was described by experts as a significant event and occurred after President Trump described Fed Chairman Jerome Powell as a ‘major loser’ as he increased his attacks on the central bank.

Market Volatility and the Greenland Conflict

Another example of global market jitters came on 20th January this year, following President Trump’s social media postings which threatened 10% – 15% tariffs on countries (including Denmark, France, Germany and the UK) if his European allies tried to block his takeover of Greenland. This triggered a sharp sell-off where the Dow Jones fell 1.8%, the S&P 500 fell over 2%, wiping off $1.2 Trillion in value, and the Nasdaq Composite fell by 2.4% with tech stocks leading the way. Investors fled to safe havens, helping to push gold beyond a new record of $4,000po. However, the markets bounced back the following day, as in Davos at the World Economic Forum, President Trump announced a de-escalation, stating he would not use force over Greenland and promised a future framework of a deal with NATO, plus he withdrew the imminent threat of tariffs.

Resilient Corporate Growth and Hedging Strategies

However, several experts advise that it might be difficult to “Sell America” where corporate earnings growth has seriously outpaced their peers in any other regions across the globe, and despite the current risks, the pull of the USA is hard to dismiss. In the Eurozone, for example, the governments would find it difficult to weaponise US assets such as bonds, stocks and shares as most of the ownership is held by the private sector. Another scenario being offered by some analysts is that investors may be choosing to hedge their bets in the United States. This is where investors continue to purchase bonds, stocks, etc., but at the same time hedge their investments by purchasing derivatives, which will protect them against future declines in the US Dollar. This can take the form of selling U.S. dollars forward in the F/EX markets, which can put downward pressure on the greenback despite funds still flowing into the country.

Positive Indicators and Global Dominance

Despite the calls for “Sell America” and de-dollarisation, the outlook on the United States remains somewhat positive. Earnings growth projected by analysts is 14% – 16% EPS  (earnings per share) for the S&P for this year, driven by corporate tax benefits and AI efficiency. US treasuries currently represent 68% of all global sovereign issuance and are still seen as a haven in times of financial markets and geopolitical stress, albeit slightly tarnished at the moment.

Future Outlook for the Reserve Currency

Analysts point out that emerging markets in Asia and Latin America are experiencing heavier inflows of capital as global investors seek to spread risk away from the United States. However, data released shows that the US Dollar accounts for circa 50% of trade invoices for global trade and remains the dominant currency in international transactions. Furthermore, the greenback accounts for circa 88% of all foreign exchange transactions and represents 58% of global foreign exchange reserves, so any thoughts of the USD losing its status as the world’s reserve currency can be put on hold for now. However, analysts have warned that “Sell or Hedge America” will still be uppermost in the minds of overseas investors in the United States.

What are the Consequences of a United States Invasion and Takeover of Greenland?

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

A Shift from Rhetoric to Reality

Once unthinkable, today the staggering reality is that the United States of America, under the leadership of President Donald Trump, could actually invade and claim ownership of Greenland, a country owned by its European ally, the Kingdom of Denmark. Last Friday, 9th January, President Trump increased his rhetoric by saying, “I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way. But if we don’t do it the easy way, we are going to do it the hard way.” In other words, he is willing to secure the territory by abusing international law by marching into Greenland and taking over.

The Shadow of Venezuela and the NATO Crisis

In the past, the musings of President Trump about taking over Greenland were not taken seriously by his European allies (members of NATO* – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation). The recent invasion of Venezuela has brought home the stark reality that President Trump could easily live up to his word and invade Greenland. As usual, when it comes to geopolitical and global economic surprises, the leaders of the EU (European Union) have been found wanting. Indeed, Mette Frederiksen, Prime Minister of Denmark, said an attack by the United States on Greenland could spell the end of NATO.

*NATO – the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a political and military alliance of 32 countries from Europe, North America and Great Britain. Founded in 1949 for collective security and mutual defence against aggression, NATO was created primarily to counter Soviet aggression, with its core principle being Article 5: an attack on one member is an attack on all, obligating members to assist. NATO provides a forum for defence consultation and cooperation, managing crises and ensuring the security of its members. Today, we have a scenario where the strongest member (the United States) potentially attacks a weaker member; the consequences to geopolitics and global economics are potentially devastating.

Strategic Objectives: Security and Resources

Experts now suggest that since the invasion of Venezuela, President Trump is now willing to deploy the U.S. military to achieve his foreign policy goals, with Greenland currently top of the President’s shopping list. In both his presidential campaigns, Trump’s table-thumping mantra of “America First” has never been more pertinent to both his enemies and his allies, but what is it about Greenland that has given President Trump his thirst for invasion? Experts say that the President wants America to own Greenland for national security reasons and not for rare earth minerals; however, in recent years, both Russia and China have become interested in the minerals that can be found in Greenland, not to mention the potential bonanza of oil and gas reserves.

The China-Russia Security Threat

In the United States, many Republican lawmakers agree with President Trump that China and Russia pose a significant security risk—a threat that would increase dramatically if either country gained controlling influence over Greenland. Consequently, experts foresee two potential paths: President Trump could reach an economic agreement with Denmark for joint control, or he could simply leverage the military might of the United States to secure the territory, given that few could realistically stand in the way.

The European Response and Territorial Integrity

However, the Danish Prime Minister, Mette Frederickson, has warned that any attempt to take over Greenland would result in the end of the long-standing transatlantic alliance. Furthermore, she recently announced on Danish TV that Greenland belongs to Greenlanders, whilst European leaders have urged President Trump to respect the island’s territorial integrity and said it falls under the bloc’s collective security umbrella. 

The consequences of a move to Greenland by the United States will be far-reaching. Currently, in Europe, political analysts advise that the continent is paralysed, with no set strategy to address the threats from President Trump. Experts suggest that if the situation deteriorates even further, with one member of NATO turning against another, NATO will not survive. The EU (European Union) is not designed to step in militarily if NATO collapses. 

The “Donroe Doctrine” and Global Instability

President Trump has already deposed the President of Venezuela (citing the Munro Doctrine*), citing influence from Russia and China, plus drug flows, as his reasons. The United States has coveted Greenland on and off for over 150 years, and as President Trump ups the ante over Greenland, one expert suggests that transatlantic relations are now on the brink of a fundamental breakdown. On top of this, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Keir Starmer, has suggested putting British troops into Greenland. Imagine two NATO allies in direct conflict over Danish territory; the geopolitical implications are unthinkable.

*The Munro Doctrine – Declared by President James Munro in 1823, this was a U.S. foreign policy stating that the Americas were no longer open to European colonisation and warned against European interference in the Western Hemisphere, whilst the U.S. pledged non-interference in European affairs, establishing distinct spheres of influence and becoming a cornerstone of centuries of U.S. foreign policy. Key tenets include non-colonisation, non-intervention in European politics and separating American and European political systems and later expanded to justify intervention in “Latin America”.

Global Repercussions: Russia and Taiwan

On the global front, experts suggest that the United States/Greenland saga must be music to the ears of Russia’s President Putin, and not only will it legitimise in his eyes the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but also embolden him to further increase military and political pressure on the country’s leaders, hoping that they will sue for peace. Elsewhere, and as most people know, China’s leaders have always thought that the independent and sovereign state of Taiwan belongs to China, and the potential takeover by the United States of Greenland will surely embolden them to invade Taiwan. Several experts have agreed that these scenarios are a distinct possibility, and with the President of Venezuela already deposed, both China and Russia may view the potential invasion of Greenland as a green light for their own political ambitions.

The Semiconductor Crisis and the Cost of “America First”

Interestingly, Taiwan manufactures over 60% of the world’s semiconductors and more than 90% of its most advanced chips. Some experts suggest that, emboldened by President Trump’s actions in Venezuela or a potential move into Greenland, China may decide to invade Taiwan. Such a move would grant China control over nearly 90% of the global microchip supply, effectively making the United States and Europe dependent on China for everything from mobile phones and electric vehicles to basic household appliances like washing machines and tumble dryers. 

Analysts suggest that in order to compensate for this, the United States would have to develop increased chip-making facilities, which would need circa 50 critical minerals. Yes, Greenland has about 30 of these minerals, but with no industrial infrastructure or workforce, how long would it take the United States to catch up? All in all, President Trump’s ‘America First’ may well turn out to be a pyrrhic victory with China holding the trump cards on critical minerals and semiconductors/microchips. What concessions will then have to be made by the West to the potential upcoming political demands from China?

Stablecoins & New Regulatory Regimes: Tether’s USAT and the Future of Digital Money

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Why Stablecoins Matter

Stablecoins have long been a bridge between the volatile world of crypto and the predictability of fiat money. By offering digital tokens that maintain a 1:1 peg to a stable asset like the U.S. dollar, they provide traders, investors, and even ordinary consumers with a tool to move in and out of crypto markets without exposure to wild price swings.

For Tether — the world’s largest stablecoin issuer, with its flagship USDT consistently ranking among the most traded digital assets — the stakes are high. Stablecoins now underpin billions of dollars of daily transactions across exchanges, DeFi protocols, and cross-border payments. They have become the plumbing of the crypto economy.

Yet that central role has also attracted scrutiny. Concerns about the quality of reserves backing stablecoins, the risks of bank runs, and the potential for systemic contagion have prompted regulators to act.

The Push for Regulation

Until recently, stablecoins lived in a regulatory gray zone. In the U.S., questions about whether they were money market funds, payment instruments, or securities left issuers juggling multiple overlapping frameworks. In Europe, the new Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA) has taken a firmer step, requiring stablecoin issuers to be licensed, audited, and transparent about their reserves.

Other jurisdictions, from Singapore to Japan, are following suit. The common theme is clear: stablecoins will be allowed, but only within tightly defined guardrails. Regulators want to ensure that these digital dollars are as safe and reliable as the real thing — if not safer.

The U.S. is currently advancing draft legislation and regulatory guidance that would require stablecoin issuers to hold high-quality liquid assets (HQLA), submit to oversight, and ensure redemption at par. For an industry that grew up in the shadows, this represents a profound shift.

Enter Tether’s USAT

Against this backdrop, Tether’s move to create a new U.S.-based stablecoin, USAT, is strategic. Unlike USDT, which is issued by Tether Holdings and based offshore, USAT is being designed specifically to comply with forthcoming U.S. stablecoin rules.

This is significant for several reasons:

  1. Regulatory Alignment – By building a stablecoin under the U.S. framework, Tether signals its willingness to engage directly with regulators. This is not just about avoiding conflict — it’s about positioning USAT as a legitimate, regulated alternative that institutions can adopt without hesitation.
  2. Institutional Adoption – Large financial players, from banks to fintechs, have been hesitant to engage with unregulated stablecoins. A compliant U.S.-issued version could open the door to partnerships, integrations, and mainstream use cases.
  3. Market Competition – USAT is entering a field already eyed by competitors like Circle (issuer of USDC) and PayPal (with PYUSD). By leveraging Tether’s brand, liquidity, and distribution, USAT could capture significant market share, especially if it achieves rapid listings and integrations.

A Turning Point for Stablecoins

The introduction of USAT under a regulated regime is more than a branding exercise. It marks the beginning of a dual ecosystem:

  • Offshore stablecoins like USDT may continue to dominate in markets where regulation is looser, serving as global liquidity tools.
  • Onshore, regulated stablecoins like USAT will target compliance-minded institutions and consumers, particularly in the U.S. and allied jurisdictions.

This bifurcation mirrors developments in traditional finance, where offshore Eurodollar markets coexist alongside regulated domestic banking. The innovation here is digital: stablecoins move across borders at the speed of the internet, raising questions about how these two worlds will interact.

The Global Ripple Effect

Tether’s USAT is not happening in isolation. Other regions are watching closely:

  • Europe: Under MiCA, stablecoins must be backed by reserves held with EU-regulated institutions. This has already prompted issuers to adjust their business models. A U.S.-compliant Tether product could inspire a European equivalent.
  • Asia: Japan has approved legislation requiring stablecoins to be issued by licensed banks and trust companies. Singapore has leaned heavily on prudential regulation. USAT’s design may become a template for alignment across Asia-Pacific.
  • Emerging Markets: Stablecoins are increasingly used for remittances and as dollar substitutes in countries with volatile currencies. For these markets, regulatory approval in the U.S. could lend credibility and encourage adoption.

Challenges Ahead

Of course, the path forward is not without obstacles. Tether has faced criticism in the past over the transparency of reserves and regulatory compliance. Sceptics will demand proof that USAT truly embodies a new standard.

Questions remain:

  • Reserve Composition: Will USAT be backed exclusively by U.S. Treasuries and cash, as regulators may require, or will there be more flexibility?
  • Redemption Rights: How easily will holders be able to redeem USAT for dollars, and at what scale?
  • Oversight: Which U.S. regulatory body will oversee USAT, and how intrusive will the supervision be?

If Tether can answer these convincingly, USAT could reshape its reputation and position it as a partner to regulators rather than an adversary.

What This Means for Investors and Institutions

For businesses and investors, the rise of regulated stablecoins like USAT has several implications:

  1. Safer Infrastructure – Institutions can build on regulated stablecoins with more confidence, reducing counterparty risk.
  2. Mainstream Integration – Payment firms, banks, and asset managers may embrace stablecoins as part of their offerings.
  3. Competition and Innovation – With multiple regulated players, stablecoin markets could see lower fees, better transparency, and more diverse services.

At the same time, offshore stablecoins will remain vital for global liquidity and in regions where regulatory acceptance is still developing. The coexistence of both models may spur innovation in cross-border payments and financial inclusion.

The Future is Stable

Stablecoins began as a crypto-native experiment, a workaround to avoid volatility. They have now become the backbone of the digital asset economy and are poised to enter the regulated mainstream. Tether’s planned U.S.-based stablecoin, USAT, represents a watershed moment — one that could define the next chapter of digital money.

As governments move from ambiguity to clarity, stablecoins are transitioning from shadow players to recognised instruments of financial infrastructure. For consumers, investors, and institutions alike, this promises not only greater security but also greater opportunity.

The future of finance may not lie in the extremes of unregulated crypto or traditional banking — but in the stable middle ground that regulated digital dollars like USAT are now beginning to occupy.

Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Today, and for the first time since December 2024, the FOMC (Federal Open Market Committee) cut their benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points to 4.00% – 4.25%. This comes after literally months of sustained abuse from the President of the United States, directed at the chair Jerome Powell to slash interest rates. The FOMC voted by 11 – 1 to cut interest rates, with Governor Stephen Miran voting for a 50-basis point cut with the new benchmark interest rate now at its lowest since November 2022. The two governors, Waller and Bowman, who dissented at the last vote both voted with the majority this time round in what is seen as a victory for Chairman Powell as experts had predicted as many as four dissenters.

Chairman Powell commented “Job gains have slowed and the downside risks to unemployment have risen” and he suggested that it will be reasonable to expect Trump’s tariffs will lead to a one-time shift in prices. He went on to say “But it is also possible that the inflationary effects could instead be more persistent and it is a risk to be assessed and managed. Our obligation is to ensure that a one-time increase in the price level does not become an ongoing inflation problem”. Analysts confirmed the interest rate cut was due to the rise in unemployment and officials from the Federal Reserve hinted that there may be two more cuts before the end of the year.

Experts suggest that the Federal Reserve is facing a dichotomy in that lowering borrowing costs will indeed make money cheaper but there is a risk of potentially causing prices to rise and with prices already on the up and due to tariffs the price rises could be even more severe. Recently released data showed that inflation had risen to 2.9% in August having hit a low of 2.3% in April of this year. The director of the CBO (Congressional Budget Office – known to be non-partisan) announced on Tuesday of this week that tariffs have already negatively impacted prices and they were increasing at a faster rate than anticipated.

Federal Reserve officials have said that the labour market is now their biggest concern, with Chairman Powell having stated at the end of August that the “Labour market is experiencing a curious kind of balance where demand and supply for workers had slowed” whilst warning that downside risks to the job market could see an increase in layoffs and unemployment. Chairman Powell also added, “Labour demand had softened and the recent pace of job creation appears to be running below the break-even rate needed to hold the unemployment rate constant. I can no longer say the labour market is very solid”.

Commentators have already suggested that the ¼ of 1% cut in interest rates will not even begin to appease President Trump who has hurled abuse at the Federal Reserve and very personal abuse at Chairman Powell for not drastically slashing interest rates. President Trump wants to return to the era of very cheap money but has so far lucked-out on his ambition to control the Federal Reserve. Indeed, his efforts to fire Governor Lisa Cook (a Biden appointee) for alleged mortgage fraud will now go to the supreme court. Trump has long coveted controlling the Federal Reserve and he has already got influence in the Supreme Court. If, as one expert commented, Trump did gain control over the Federal Reserve and cut interest rates to 1% there would indeed be an initial big boom but it would be followed by a massive bust.

How Tariffs are being Weaponised by President Trump

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

For years, international trade was as tranquil as it comes and within the offices of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) on the banks of Lake Geneva worked the trade lawyers and trade economists unencumbered by the problems of today. Sadly, the twin forces of geo-economic fragmentation and geo-political confrontation have undermined the balance of the global trade regime and what we witness today is the weaponisation of tariffs*. The most pronounced effect of tariffs in the present day has come from the White House with President Trump’s “Liberation Day” on 2nd April this year, where he announced punitive tariffs across the board on all of the United States’ trading partners.

*Tariffs – are defined as a tax on imported goods levied by governments typically as a percentage of the product’s value. It is designed to protect domestic industries, raise government revenues, or serve as a political tool in trade negotiations. Importers pay the tax which increases the cost of foreign products, potentially making domestic alternatives more attractive to consumers.

The return of Donald Trump to the White House has transformed the utilisation of tariffs into instruments of both economic and political coercion and in the process has reignited economic nationalism. Some experts argue that the weaponising of trade (via tariffs) is where existing trade relations are manipulated to advance political and geo-political objectives, the ultimate goal being to push another government to change its policies in favour of the country wielding the tariffs. The biggest offender in the new tariff war is the United States and as seen below, they have successfully employed tariffs to bend the will of certain governments to their way of thinking.

On the domestic front, (Trump’s efforts are not just confined to foreign governments), he is reshaping domestic supply chains and even threatening iconic power price points. However, there are downsides as the 50% increase in tariffs on imports of aluminium and steel*, (which came into effect on 3rd June 2025) have increased production costs for such brands as Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Lowes Proctor & Gamble and AriZona Iced Tea. Famed for its 99 cents cans AriZona sources most of its aluminium domestically, but tariffs on imported aluminium/steel distort the broader market increasing prices for all producers. The tariff will increase prices which will be passed on to customers, and in the case of AriZona this will undercut a key brand identity that has endured for decades.

*Aluminium and Steel Tariffs – The tariff on these two metals doubled to 50% on June 3rd this year with some counties getting exemptions and paying the original tariff of 25%. The impact of this increase in the US has potentially led to higher consumer prices and fewer jobs in downstream industries, including higher domestic commodity prices and supply chain disruption. Experts say the main reason for these tariffs are national security under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act 1962 to protect domestic industries from unfair foreign competition and to help correct trade deficits.

Elsewhere on the domestic front on the 6th of this month President Trump announced a plan to impose a 100% tariff on imported semiconductors*, with exemptions for companies that commit to manufacturing in the United States. The White House framed the policy as national security concerns with over-reliance on Asian countries such as Taiwan and South Korea for critical technology. This move was not about trade imbalances, it was about forcing multinational companies to expand manufacturing with the borders of the United States. Interestingly, Apple has been exempt from these tariffs after pledging to invest USD 600 Billion into U.S. based chip production and related infrastructure. This has now set a precedent where tariff relief can be bought through commitments that serve President Trump’s domestic industrial goals.

*Semiconductors – is a material with electrical conductivity that falls between that of a conductor (e.g., copper) and an insulator (e.g., glass). Their unique ability to be controlled make them essential components of modern electronics including computer chips, transistors and diodes.

Under the current administration in the White House, experts conclude that traditional legal frameworks are being bypassed with tariffs which were originally imposed on China, Mexico and Canada by invoking the IEEPA (International Emergency Economic Powers Act) citing security reasons. This is a classic example of weaponising tariffs in order for Donald Trump to bend counties to his will. It did not work with China but initial reactions from Mexico and Canada showed that Trump had certainly won the initial battle but Mexico has had a stay of execution and Canada and the U.S. are currently in negotiations.

Elsewhere in Europe, the member countries have agreed to increase defence spending to 5% of GDP for NATO in line with the wishes of President Trump. However, analysts suggest that the invasion of Ukraine by Russia on 24th February 2022 prompted the European Union members to raise defence spending but interestingly it was not agreed upon for just over three years when President Trump introduced punitive tariffs.

In another example of weaponising tariffs, on 6th August President Trump issued Executive Order “Addressing Threats to the United States by the Government of the Russian Federation imposing additional tariffs, currently 25%, on Indian Imports (circa USD 81.4 Billion 2023). Experts suggest that India has been targeted because of their direct and indirect purchases of Russian oil (averages a 5% discount), and now the Indian tariff is 50% on most goods imported to the U.S. which is seen as a penalty for facilitating Russia’s oil trade. However, the White Hopes the weaponising of tariffs against India will hopefully persuade them to reduce their dependency on Russian oil. Also, in the week ending 25th July 2025, the White House agreed tariff deals with Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines; granting them lower rates than previously threatened in exchange for them to sign up to national security commitments, the verbiage of which was somewhat opaque.

Conclusion

President Trump has shown even his closest allies are not immune from weaponised tariffs and neither are historical neutral trading partners such as Switzerland who were recently hit with a 39% punitive tariff on Swiss goods, mainly pharmaceuticals, watches and luxury

goods. It appears that currently no country is safe from the Trump trade war machine which uses tariffs as a blunt instrument to beat other countries into submission.

In his second term, Donald Trump has elevated tariffs from a traditional economic safeguard to an overt instrument of political leverage. Whilst tariffs have long been used to protect domestic industries the current approach is far more aggressive as they are being imposed and lifted not purely on economic grounds, but as bargaining chips in corporate negotiations and diplomatic manoeuvres.

U.S. Investment Surges into European AI – A Swiss Perspective

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Since pulling back during 2023’s tech downturn, U.S. investors are once again muscling into deal flows in Europe – and AI is the magnet. Data released by PitchBook* shows the U.S. share of deal making in Europe is once again climbing, and the standout category which is pulling American investors back into the market is AI. Experts suggest that from a global perspective, the capital base is there as U.S. private investment in AI in 2024 was circa USD 109 Billion with ample dry powder** to deploy into the European markets when the time is right.

*PitchBook – Is the premier resource for comprehensive, best-in-class data and insights on the global capital markets.

**Dry Powder – This refers to unallocated cash reserves or highly liquid assets held by investment firms, venture capital funds, hedge funds, and private individuals which in this case is ready to be deployed for investment purposes.

A Brief Overview

From a Swiss vantage point there are three forces which are converging and the first is a dense research-to- start-up pipeline anchored by ETH Zurich and EPFL.

ETH Zurich is a public research university and is widely regarded as a leading institution known for its strong focus on science and technology, significant research contributions, and prestigious academic standings.

Based in Lausanne, EPFL is Europe’s most cosmopolitan university and it welcomes students, professors, and collaborators from more than 120 different countries. EPFL has both Swiss and international vocation and focuses/specialises on three different missions being teaching, research, and innovation.

The second force is regulatory clarity via the EU AI Act, with Switzerland chartering a lighter sector-based path.

The third force is Switzerland’s world-class infrastructure and their electricity reliability which makes the country (and its neighbours) a first-class destination to build and run AI.

Why Switzerland Hits the Sweet Spot

Talent and Spin-Out Velocity

ETH Zurich’s AI ecosystem is a massive magnet to investors as in 2024 ETH spinoffs raised CHF 425 Million across 42 rounds, a ten year ten times increase and a powerful sign that even in choppy markets the pipeline to start-ups is in a healthy state. Indeed, the ETH A1 centre’s network of affiliated start-ups spans applied robotics, industrial AI, and model reliability which according to experts is exactly where corporates from the United States are looking to invest their capital.

Regulatory Readability

As opposed to the EU’S (European Union) horizontal* AI Act**, Switzerland’s Federal Council chose a more sector-specific approach, integrating AI duties into existing laws whilst planning to implement the Council of Europe’s AI convention. This they felt would be more beneficial, rather than passing a sweeping one size fits all AI law, which for founders and investors reduces the legislative shock whilst still tracking the usual international norms on safety and rights. It should be noted that the EU AI Act is highly relevant to Swiss companies who are selling into the Eurozone/single market, as for example obligations for general purpose AI (GPAI)*** and the EU is ensuring that timelines do not slip. All in all, the dexterity and agility of the Swiss together with the EU-grade clarity on market entry makes investment decisions by U.S. investors much easier.

*Horizontal in Law – This refers to the ability of legal requirements meant to apply only to public bodies to affect private rights. It arises where a court dealing with a legal dispute between two private entities interprets a legal provision to be consistent with certain legal norms in such a way as to affect the legal rights and obligations of the parties before it.

**EU AI Act – On 12th July 2025 this Act was published in the Official Journal of the European Union and entered into Law and became binding on 1st August 2025. This Act refers to the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence, a comprehensive regulation aimed at governing the development and use of artificial intelligence systems within the EU. It is the first major AI regulation of its kind, and focuses on risk assessment, and categorisation of AI systems to ensure safety and ethical development.

***GPAI – This refers to all General-Purpose AI models as defined within the EU AI Act. These are powerful AI models trained on broad datasets****, capable of performing a wide range of tasks, and potentially integrated into various downstream AI systems. The EU AI Act places significant obligations on providers of these models, especially those with systemic risks.

****Datasets – This is a structured collection of data used to train and test artificial intelligence models. These datasets provide the raw materials for AI algorithms to learn patterns, make predictions, and perform tasks and can, simply put, be viewed as a textbook from which AI models can learn.

Infrastructure Gravity

The Alps supercomputer at the CSCS (Swiss National Supercomputing Centre) is a critical component offering significant processing power for AI applications and is a key part of the AI initiative at positioning Switzerland as a leading hub for trustworthy AI development. Overall, the build-out of AI in Europe is accelerating fast with San Francisco’s Open AI Inc launching their Stargate Norway, the first AI data centre initiative in Europe. Whilst this build does not situate itself in Switzerland, its proximity and any grid stability across the region changes the equation as to where to build AI-heavy companies and experts suggest that Switzerland is primed as a European hub that U.S. investors will back for “near-compute*” opportunities.

*Near-Compute – This refers to the concept of placing processing units (like CPU’s – central processing unit or GPU’s – graphic processing unit) closer to memory or even within the memory itself, rather than relying solely on traditional computing architectures. This approach aims to minimize data movement between memory and processing units which can significantly reduce latency and energy consumption.

Switzerland has enjoyed a number of AI deals such as Meteomatics in St Gallen, a USD 22 Million to scale high-resolution AI-enhanced weather models and drone systems selling into the automotive, aviation, and energy sectors. Another success is Daedalean the Zurich avionics-AI pioneer has just entered into (subject to closing a USD 200 Million acquisition by Destinus a big player in the European aerospace sector, who pioneer autonomous flight systems. Other successes included Zurich’s LatticeFlow, an AI governance and reliability model and ANYbotics which operates in the robotic sector and industrial AI.

Conclusion

Whilst Switzerland’s overall start-up funding cooled in 2024 (down CHF 2.3 Billion which is -15% Y-O-Y), interestingly AI rounds doubled accounting for 22% of all rounds, and is uniquely placed due to infrastructure, power/electricity, the ability to build AI with EU-Act readiness, the ability to stand next to compute, and the ability to use the country’s events and clusters as magnets for U.S and global investment. The macro capital tide is unmistakable with generative AI venture capital setting a new pace in Q1 and Q2 in 2025, and Switzerland sits first and third in Europe and globally respectively for Deep Tech venture capital funding per capita, which, according to experts indicates a strong international interest in the country’s AI ecosystem.

Furthermore, Microsoft has made substantial investments in Switzerland’s AI and cloud infrastructure including a USD 400 Million investment (announced in June of this year) to expand its datacentres near Zurich and Geneva which will meet growing demand for AI services whilst keeping data within the country’s borders. As mentioned before, the companies from the United States are taking bigger and bigger slices of the European AI action, and Switzerland will, according to experts, massively benefit because it pairs deep technical IP and enterprise-friendly regulation with direct access to the Eurozone’s markets.

Trump Hits Switzerland with 39% Tariffs

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on . Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

The highlight of Switzerland’s summer calendar is the national holiday (Switzerland’s birthday), which fell last Friday, 1st of August, but all of Switzerland, including the government, woke up to the headlines that President Donald Trump had hit the country with punitive tariffs of 39%. The tariffs cover all Swiss imports to the United States and in 2024, according to data released by the United Nations COMTRADE data base totalled USD 72.88 Billion, leaving America with a trade deficit of USD 38 Billion, (though other figures suggest it’s as high as USD 47.4 Billion,) the 13th largest of any nation with the USA. This has obviously caught the eye of President Trump who has made it clear that he wishes to eradicate trade imbalances with all of America’s trading partners.

This has come as a huge shock for both the politicians and the business elite as only a few weeks ago the government was exuding confidence regarding its tariff negotiations with the United States. Indeed, back in May, Switzerland hosted the United States and China in the hope of preventing a trade war which gave Switzerland’s President Karin Keller-Suter the opportunity to meet with Scott Bessent, the United States Trade Secretary. It appeared that the meeting was successful having been told that Switzerland was second in the queue after Great Britain to strike a trade deal with the U.S. at potentially a 10% tariff, much lower than the 31% as unveiled by President Trump back in April’s “liberation day”.

Therefore, the 39% has come at a complete shock and politicians are divided as to the negotiation tactics, with some saying the government were too obsequious, and others saying they were too tough, while many just said the negotiation tactics were not up to scratch. However, the trade deficit according to officials is the sticking point, and basically the Swiss sell more to the U.S. than it buys, and the population of just 9 million quite frankly just do not like U.S. goods such as their cheese, chocolates, and cars. However, the Swiss have tried to compensate for the trade deficit by reducing their own tariffs on imported U.S. industrial goods to zero, and many of the Swiss companies have multibillion dollar investments in U.S. plants. Data suggests that Swiss investment in the U.S has created circa 400,000 jobs, furthermore Trump has ignored service industries which would bring the deficit down to USD 22 Billion, but sadly President Trump is just fixated on trade imbalances.

Analysts point to one problem which is where on earth did the 39% come from, which makes it appear that President Trump is just arbitrarily picking out numbers from thin air. There appears to be little wiggle room in negotiations, but Switzerland could import LNG (Liquified Natural Gas) from the U.S. plus they can also point out they are committed to investments in the United States totalling USD 105 Billion. In Q1 two thirds of the trade deficit was due to shipments of gold bullion, this was due to the price of gold not due to any added value by the Swiss refineries. Experts point out that gold is not manufactured in Switzerland but reprocessed into bars and one offer to Trump could be a one off tariff of 50% on gold.

This Thursday, 7th August is deadline day for tariffs and experts point out that the Swiss government will be moving heaven and earth to get an extension. Indeed, officials from the Swiss State Secretariat for Economic affairs have already contacted their counterparts in the United States to try and negotiate a way forward, plus the President of Switzerland herself is flying to Washington (without an invitation) to meet face-to-face with Trump in the hope of avoiding the increase in tariffs. Trump is known for flip flopping at the last minute so the President of Switzerland can only hope they can extend the current deadline and get a reprieve, otherwise the damage to their economy could be quite serious. Experts point out that the key to the current tariff impasse would be that instead of dealing with Trump’s negotiators is instead to win over the man himself.

For Switzerland’s export-driven economy, the impact could be significant. Key industries—including luxury watchmaking, pharmaceuticals, and precision engineering—depend heavily on access to the U.S. market. Higher tariffs risk eroding profit margins, raising prices for American consumers, and prompting Swiss firms to reassess their U.S. expansion plans. Politically, the move is a shock to a nation that prides itself on neutrality and stable bilateral relations. It signals that even close, low-conflict partners are not immune from politically motivated trade actions.

The tariffs also complicate Switzerland’s position within the EU-Swiss economic framework, as Brussels weighs its own responses to Trump’s trade policy. In the short term, Swiss exporters may absorb some costs to maintain market share, but over time, the pressure could accelerate efforts to diversify export destinations and invest in U.S.-based production—ironically, one of Trump’s intended outcomes.

Head office

IntaCapital Swiss SA,
Rue du Rhône 80 - 84,
CH - 1204 Genève,
Switzerland

Other facilities

Enquire

Legal

IntaCapital Switzerland | Copyright © 2025 | All Rights Reserved