USA Archives

Major Banks Have Ditched the Net Zero Banking Alliance

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on July 16, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

The NZBA (Net Zero Banking Alliance) was convened in April 2021 by the UN (United Nations) Environment Programme finance initiative and led by banks whose mission statement was to support efforts to align lending, investment, and capital market activities with achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Founding luminaries of the banking world were Citigroup, Bank of America, HSBC Group, and NatWest Group and 39 other leading global financial institutions.

However, the NZBA is under pressure, as back in January this year a number of U.S. banks left the group and most recently HSBC Group has followed suit. The general feeling is that the American banks resigned from the NZBA* as they were under pressure from the then President Elect Donald Trump as he was pushing for higher production of oil and gas thus spurring a backlash against the Net Zero climate bodies. A number of pro net-zero activists have accused the banks of pandering to the political pendulum, and their current efforts are to avoid criticism from the then in-coming Trump administration.

*American Banks No Longer with the NZBA – Citigroup, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and JP Morgan all resigned before 1st December 2024.

Earlier this month, HSBC was the first British Bank to leave the NZBA, with the move perhaps a potential trigger for other British banks to follow suit. At the launch of the NZBA, the then CEO of HSBC Group Noel Quinn said it was “Vital to establish a robust and transparent framework for monitoring progress towards net-zero carbon emissions. We want to set that standard for the banking industry. Industry – wide collaboration is essential in achieving that goal”. Interestingly, HSBC’s new CEO, George Elhedery, confirmed back in late October 2024 that their Chief Sustainability officer Celine Herweijer had been removed from the bank’s top internal decision-making process, the “executive committee”. She subsequently resigned from HSBC shortly after being dropped from the executive committee.

Some experts have voiced little surprise that HSBC has resigned from the NZBA, citing not only have the top 6 US banks resigned but removing Celine Herweijer from her post on the executive committee may suggest that HSBC was taking a different path regarding climate control. CEO George Elhedery was quick to point out it was all part of a restructuring process and reaffirmed HSBC’s commitment to supporting net-zero. In January 2024, HSBC unveiled its first “net-zero transition plan” detailing its strategies to achieve its climate targets by 2050 (downgraded from 2030) plus its investment decisions it aims to undertake to facilitate decarbonisation across various sectors of finance. A number of senior voices in the net-zero world took issue with HSBC accusing the bank of profits at any cost.

Following their net-zero transition plan, the new Chief Sustainability Officer (not on the new Operating Committee) Julian Wentzel said back in February of this year that the bank would take a “more measured approach” to lending to the fossil fuel industry, giving way to concerns to the net-zero world that the bank would row back on its promises.

On HSBC’s website, it is written that targets for cutting emissions linked to their loan book “would continue to be informed by the latest scientific evidence and credible industry-specific pathways, which again bank detractors say is bank-speak for rowing back on its promises. Meanwhile in America, Republican politicians have instructed some banks to testify before the relevant policymakers who have accused them of unfairly penalising fossil fuel producers with their memberships of the NZBA and other similar groups. Experts point to the obvious political pressure put on banks to leave these organisations.

Elsewhere in the net-zero world and almost a decade on from the Paris Climate Agreement (under Trump the USA has withdrawn for the second time) the world’s largest companies who despite on-going promises and climate manifestos are still struggling to meet net-zero goals. A study produced by a well-known body suggests that only 16% of companies are actually on target to meet their 2050 net-zero goals and a well-respected senior voice in the climate control industry has said “to reach 2050 net-zero goals all of us need to move faster, together, to reinvent sustainable value chains using deep collaboration and transformative technologies”.

According to recently released data, global financing of fossil fuel companies has increased in 2024 (an increase of USD 162 Billion to USD 869 Billion) for the first time since 2021 with banks who have left the NZBA among the biggest funders. So where does this leave the NZBA in its efforts to get banks to increase financing for green projects? Obviously, the organisation is sad it has lost the previously mentioned banks but they still today have over 120 members and currently represents about 41% of banking assets.

Whilst some members have increased their fossil fuel financing some have made cuts to their financing with Santander making the largest single reduction in expansion finance (USD 2.2 Billion) and ING came top in terms of overall divestment slashing its annual fossil fuel financing by USD 3.2 Billion compared with their figure for 2023. Experts in the net-zero world say the NZBA is here to stay with many large banks still on the membership roll. Indeed, on April 15th this year in Geneva membership voted overwhelmingly in favour of backing plans to strengthen the support it provides to its members, marking a new phase for the Alliance’s work which is in line with the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Is the Russian Banking System Close to a Systemic Crisis?

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on July 1, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Experts in the Russian banking arena, plus a number of Russian banking officials themselves, have advised that the banking system in Russia is close to a systemic* crisis. A number of officials within the Russian banking community have advised that bad debt on Russian banks’ balance sheets is in the trillions of rubles. Although official figures may mask the extent of the problem, an increasing number of retail and corporate clients are either deferring or defaulting on interest and principal loan repayments.

*Systemic Banking Crisis – this occurs when a significant number of banks within a country experience severe financial distress simultaneously, potentially jeopardising the entire financial system.

A timeline for this crisis of around 12 months is currently being bounced around by economists, experts, and Russian banking analysts. A number of officials have cited the alarm felt by banks over the non-payment of loan interest, as well as the non-repayment of loan principals. Many experts feel that the corporate and retail sectors within the Russian economy are struggling with high interest rates, with the key benchmark interest rate currently sitting at 20%. If circumstances fail to improve, a debt crisis may well spread through the whole banking community.

Experts contend that Russia’s two-tier economy is impacting the private sector as businesses have to contend with rising costs, slower demand, and decreasing prices for exports. On the other hand, huge benefits have been realised by massive state spending on Russia’s war machine and military industrial complexes. What is not well documented is the favourable loans that banks granted to help fund the war effort, and experts are hearing that there is more pressure on Russian banks as they seek repayments for these loans.

Headquartered in Moscow, ACRA is Russia’s rating agency which, in May of this year, warned of a “deterioration in the quality of loan debt”. They also went on to report that 20% of the entire Russian banking capital is tied up with borrowers whose creditworthiness is under severe scrutiny and may be downgraded due mainly to high interest rates. Furthermore, the military war machine’s appetite for more labour has severely impacted this market, resulting in massive labour shortages. At the same time, this has boosted the earnings of those in work, causing inflation to a peak at 10%.

At the recent St Petersburg International Economic Forum, the Russian Economy Minister said, “We are on the verge of slipping into recession”. However, in a speech the following day, President Putin said, “Some specialists, experts, point to the risks of stagflation and even recession. This, of course, should not be allowed under any circumstances”. A number of political experts read this statement as Putin essentially saying this has nothing to do with me, it is officials who need to put this right. However, Russia is in the middle of a credit crunch, with data showing that Russian banks’ corporate loan portfolio is set to decrease by Rubles 1.5 Trillion (USD 19 Billion) in Q1 of 2025.

In mitigation of the credit crunch, and for the first time in three years, the Central Bank cut its benchmark interest rate to 20%, with many experts and analysts saying that the rate is still far too high. However, earlier this month the Kremlin-linked CMASF (Centre for Macroeconomic Analysis and Short-Term Forecasting) said there is an increased likelihood of a run on Russian banks. The CMASF also went on to say that the MOEX (Russian Stock Market) is a good indicator of heightened economic uncertainty, and it experienced a sharp drop after new sanctions threats by President Trump and his taunt that Putin is crazy.

On the sanctions front, President Trump has so far held off on his threats as it appears he really does not want to go to war with Putin – especially through the non-military option of sanctions. However, the European Union is already in discussions about further sanctions on the Russian banking sector, which could negatively impact the sustainability of Putin’s war on Ukraine. However, without further sanctions, the current Russian economy definitely has a negative outlook and, with rising inflation, labour shortages, and declining growth, could severely hamper Putin’s ability to sustain the current war with Ukraine. However, if there is a full-blown banking crisis – all bets are off, and who knows what the Kremlin might do to sustain not only the current war, but the status quo with the Russian population.

United States and China Trading Update

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on May 21, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Without a doubt, President Trump’s tariff war has severely disrupted trade between the two economic powerhouses, and nowhere else is this as dramatically highlighted as Apple’s iPhone and mobile devices, where shipments to the United States in April 2025 are down to levels not seen since 2011. Customs data revealed that Smartphone exports slid 72% or circa USD 700 Million in April, outpacing by a long way an overall drop in Chinese shipments to the U.S. of 21%.

Elsewhere in early May 2025, the busiest container hub in the United States, the Port of Los Angeles, saw a drop in shipments by circa 30% as the weight of Trump’s tariffs took their toll. Data released shows that retailers and importers were the most affected, especially those linked to China. Bilateral trade in 2024 between China and the U.S. was circa USD 690 Billion and investors feel that tariffs will significantly erode this figure.

Despite the temporary reprieve in tariffs between the two nations, data reveals that the trade war has left a deep unwelcome imprint on Chinese exporters with many looking to new markets away from the United States. Well known in the trade insurance arena, Allianz Trade having conducted a poll of Chinese exporters found 95% will or already are more determined than ever to double down on exporting their goods to non-U.S. markets.

China’s coastal city of Ningbo is host to China’s second largest port (Ningbo-Zhoushan Port) by cargo tonnage where local businesses, despite the de-escalation in tariffs still plan to reduce exports to the United States and “Go Global’. Senior experts and economists at the Economic Intelligence Unit confirmed this fact whilst also confirming Southeast Asia* remained the favoured destination among many businesses seeking to move production away from China.

*Southeast Asia – comprises eleven countries Brunei, Burma (Myanmar), Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Timor-Leste, and Vietnam. Note that many Chinese companies are somewhat wary of Vietnam with concerns over rising cost weighed against an attractive labour market. Indonesia appears to be the favoured destination.

Experts in the Sino – U.S. arena suggest that decoupling in the medium term seems to be the favoured outcome as Chinese exporters move away from the United States and American companies look to increase efforts to move production out of China with Apple already accelerating a shift in production to India. Apple was railed against by President Trump for not moving production back to the United States, experts close to the situation have said that scenario is unfeasible. The deal struck in Geneva between China and the United States brought tariff rates down to levels before the tit-for-tat tariff skirmish. But with time eating into the 90-day de-escalation agreement, the world will hold their breath whilst these two economic giants try and come to a sensible agreement.

Moody’s Downgrades the United States’ Sovereign Credit Rating

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on May 21, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

On Friday May 16th, 2025, the credit rating agency Moody’s downgraded the Unites States’ sovereign credit rating from Aaa (equivalent to AAA at Standard & Poor’s and Fitch) by one notch to Aa1 due to growing concerns over the nation’s USD 36 Trillion debt pile. Moody’s is the last of the three most important and recognisable rating agencies to downgrade the sovereign credit rating of the United States, with Fitch downgrading in 2023 and Standard and Poor’s downgrading in 2011. The United States has held a perfect credit rating from Moody’s since 1917, however the rating agency back in November when 2023 advised it might lower the U.S. credit rating when it changed its outlook from stable to negative.

The reaction from the White House was predictable, with spokesman Kush Desai saying, “If Moody’s had any credibility, they would not have stayed silent as the fiscal disaster of the past four years unfolded.” In another statement the White House advised that the administration was focused on fixing Biden’s mess. The White House communications director Steven Cheung also laid into Moody’s singling out their chief, Mark Zandi, who he said was a political opponent of President Trump, and is a Clinton donor and advisor to Obama. He went on to say, “nobody takes his analysis seriously and he has been proven wrong time and time again”.

Moody’s pointed out that in 2024, the government spending was higher than receipts by circa USD 1.8 Trillion, being the fifth year in a row where fiscal deficits have been above USD 1 Trillion. Debt interest has been growing year on year and eating into sizeable chunks of government revenue, with Moody’s pointing out that federal interest payments in 2021 absorbed 9% of revenue in 2021, 18% in 2024, and predict circa 30% by 2035. The GAO (Government Accountability Office), which is seen as an investigation arm of Congress has called the current situation unsustainable and went on to say that unless there is a change of policy debt held by the public will be double the size of the national economy by 2047.

After the announcement on Friday 16th, markets were unnerved on the following Monday morning, with stock markets recovering by the end of the day with experts confirming that markets had shrugged off the news, but some were advising that investors should be wary of complacency. However, some analysts advise the downgrade is a warning sign and may be the catalyst for profit taking after a huge run in the past month for equities. At the end of the day, United States Treasury Bonds are currently viewed by global investors as the safest investment in the world, and a downgrade by Moody’s is unlikely to stifle appetite for treasuries.

For most money managers and other global investors and market participants experts advise that the downgrade was probably seen coming for some time and lands in a market already wary of risks from tariffs and fiscal dysfunction. However, currently President Trump is pushing the Republican controlled Congress to pass a bill extending the 2017 tax cuts, a move some analysts predict will add many trillions to an already highly inflated government debt. However, hardline Republicans blocked the bill denuding deeper spending cuts. There was volatility in US Treasuries on Monday after the Moody’s announcement with 30-year treasuries breaking through the symbolic barrier of 5% (first time since October 2023) but slipped back to 4.937% by close of business. Experts suggest that the bond market had already priced in risk premium for government economic policy already in disarray, meaning Monday’s upward move in yields was just a knee-jerk reaction.

United States and China Agree 90-Day Trade Deal

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on May 14, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

On Monday 11th May 2025, both China and the United States agreed to de-escalate their trade war with each other by announcing a 90-day pause on tariffs. The United States agreed to cut tariffs on Chinese goods from 145% to 30% and China agreed to cut tariffs on American goods from 125% to 10%. After the agreement was announced in Geneva, the U.S. Treasury Secretary said, “neither side wanted a decoupling and we do want trade, we want more balanced trade, and I think that both sides are committed to achieving that”. In a joint statement it was announced it had been agreed “to establish a mechanism to continue discussions about economic and trade relations. These discussions may be conducted alternately in China and the United States or a third country upon agreement of the Parties”.

A spokesperson for the Chinese Commerce Ministry said of the joint statement, “it is an important step by both sides to resolve differences through equal-footing dialogue and consultation, laying the groundwork and creating conditions for further bridging gaps and deepening cooperation”. This is a surprising outcome and took markets by surprise as before the Chinese had taken a hard-nosed stance demanding that the United States remove ALL tariffs on China before agreeing to come to the negotiating table. However, several analysts have pointed to the fact that this is just a 90-day ceasefire and pointed out this may not be a lasting peace between the two countries.

Global stock markets rallied on news of the China/United States trade agreement, with the S&P 500 and Nasdaq futures rising 2.7% and 3.7% respectively, plus the US Dollar rose 1% against a basket of currencies. Elsewhere, gold retreated by 2.8% as investors negatively impacted safe haven assets and Brent crude oil futures gained 2.8% rising to $65.71pb. In Europe, both France’s CAC 40 and Germany’s DAX both up just under 1%, Europe’s STOXX 60 and STOXX 600 rose 1.9% and 1% respectively and London’s FTSE 100 only rose by circa 0.50%. In Asia, both China and Hong Kong’s benchmark indices rose, with China’s CSI 300 rising 0.6% and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index rising 0.8%.

Sadly, there are no guarantees that come 90 days, talks will have progressed further with further positive steps being announced between the two countries. Experts advise that many investors remain wary of the United States due to the flip flop policies of the Trump2 administration, plus President Donald Trump’s continued attacks on the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. Analysts advise that some institutions are acting like the risks have disappeared. If this is true, they must have been asleep since inauguration day, as many of their peers seem to be adopting a wait and see attitude. Analysts advise that in the past four weeks investors pulled $24.8 billion from U.S. stocks and with huge U.S. conglomerates such as Mattel Inc, United Parcel Service Inc and the Ford Motor Co recently withdrawing earnings guidance due to supply chain and tariff uncertainty being now extremely hard to navigate, there may be more unwanted surprises around the corner.

Donald Trump Tariffs Pushes India and Great Britain into a Landmark Trade Agreement

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on May 7, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

In the days since President Trump announced he would be hitting all imports into the United States, countries around the world have been talking with each other regarding free trade deals. As a result of the fallout over Trump’s tariffs, India and Great Britain yesterday sealed a historic multi-billion-pound trade deal. The trade deal will significantly slash Indian tariffs on key products such as medical devices, whisky and cosmetics and will lock in reductions on 90% of tariff lines on UK exports to India, with 85% of these exports becoming fully tariff-free within 10 years.

Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced that this is the United Kingdom’s biggest agreement since Brexit, whilst his counterpart Prime Minister Narendra Modi said this is the first deal of its kind with a European economy. This agreement is the culmination of three years of talks under four British prime ministers and was certainly helped over the line by President Trump and his protectionist policies. Experts advise that the two prime ministers are both seeking to to build barriers or insulate them against the Trump tariffs, whilst at the same time looking for favourable deals with the United States.

Experts suggest that this agreement between India and the UK has huge potential for the future, especially in the alcohol sector where, for example, data released shows both Diageo and Pernod enjoy 12% of their revenue from India. The trade deal agreement shows that tariffs on whisky and gin will be reduced by 50% to 75% before being reduced to 40% by the 10th year, whilst in the automotive sector, tariffs will be reduced to 10% – under quota – from 100% over that period. Interestingly, part of the deal exempts Indian nationals working for less than three years in the UK from insurance payments.

Members of the main opposition conservative party immediately jumped on the national insurance agreement, saying the Prime Minister once again has put British workers last, having hiked national insurance payments on them whilst exempting Indian nationals. One member of the conservative party was heard to say, “Every time Labour negotiates, Britain loses”. Labour countered by saying that the tax break goes both ways and there would be no double taxation on Britons temporarily working in India, adding that this was just an extension of current agreements already in place with other countries.

India on the other hand, according to individuals close to the negotiations, has won reductions on circa 99% of tariff lines for goods exported to the United Kingdom. India according to the same individuals has also secured an agreement for access to services including Information Technology and have also secured recourse against those exports impacted by Europe’s carbon emission rules. Both India and the UK still have to iron out legalities before the agreement can be ratified through domestic ratification processes. Experts suggest the trade pact will take up to 12 months for the deal to come into effect.

According to analysts, the India/UK trade deal should in the long run increase bilateral trade by £25.5 Billion, UK GDP by £4.8 Billion and wages by £2.2 Billion. Furthermore, businesses in the United Kingdom will be able to enjoy a competitive edge over their international competition when entering the Indian market which is forecasted to be the world’s third largest by 2028. Analysts also suggest that, based on figures from 2022, India will be cutting tariffs by £400 Million when the deal comes into force which after 10 years will more than double to circa £900 Million. Whilst this is good news all round for importers and exporters alike, the reality is that the United Kingdom has to secure a decent trade deal with Donald Trump and if not, they will have to secure a similar pact with the EU (European Union) and other countries. However, the spectre of tariffs may push countries into trade deals that before they would not have contemplated.

United States Federal Reserve Holds Interest Rates

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on May 7, 2025. Posted in News & Reports, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

In the weeks leading up to today’s interest rate announcement by the FOMC (Federal Reserve Open Market Committee), President Donald Trump has viciously attacked the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell. In one damning statement the President said on his social media post to “cut rates pre-emptively to help boost the economy,” saying Powell had been “consistently too slow to respond to economic developments”.

President Trump also wrote “There can be no slowing of the economy unless Mr Too Late, a major loser, lowers interest rates now”. This criticism (he has also threatened to replace Chairman Powell) came after Powell’s warning that Trump’s import taxes were likely to drive up prices and slow the economy. Below, the vote on interest rates by the FOMC reflects Chairman Powell’s and the Federal Reserve’s commitment to that warning.

Today the FOMC voted unanimously to hold its key benchmark interest rate at 4.25% – 4.50% where it has remained since December 2024. Confirming the decision, Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell said that officials were not in a hurry to adjust interest rates adding that tariffs could lead to higher inflation and unemployment. Chairman Powell went on to say, “If the large increase in tariffs are sustained, they are likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth and an increase in unemployment”.

Experts suggest that the unpredictability of President Trump and his back and forth on tariffs makes it very difficult for the Federal Reserve to predict the future of the economy. However, the statements coming out of the Federal Reserve confirmed that currently the economy is resilient with improving job gains and the economy growing at a solid pace. At the same time, analysts suggest that the Federal Reserve is in a holding pattern as it waits for uncertainty to clear.

Several analysts and experts have said that the Federal Reserve’s monetary policy direction depends on how the risks develop on inflation or jobs, or in a more difficult scenario whether unemployment and inflation risks increase together. If both increase together, the Federal Reserve will have to choose which direction to take monetary policy as a weaker job market calls for rate cuts and higher inflation would call for a tightening of monetary policy.

In his post-statement comments Chairman Powell also added that inflation ignited by tariffs could be short-lived or long-lasting depending on how high tariffs go. Just before the FOMC released their interest rate statement President Trump indicated that he would not back down on the current duties of 145% imposed upon China. The wait and see element of Federal Reserve policy is here to stay for a while with some financial analysts suggesting a cut of 0.25% in interest rates will come in July 2025.

Are Critical Minerals China’s Trump Card?

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on April 30, 2025. Posted in News & Reports, Uncategorized. Leave a Comment

Among the many things coveted by President Donald Trump, experts suggest “Critical Minerals”* are somewhere very near the top of the list. The reason why critical minerals are so important is that they are essential in many products such as electric car vehicles, military hardware, iPhones, clean energy, and semi-conductors, to mention but a few. There is a sub-sector or subset of Critical Minerals known as REEs** (Rare Earth Elements) and both play a crucial role in various technologies.

*Critical Minerals – These are a broad group of minerals considered essential and deemed vital for national and economic security. They are deemed critical due to their importance in modern technologies including defence and energy sectors, and all major industries, but are vulnerable to supply chain disruption. Examples of critical minerals are copper, lithium, nickel, cobalt, graphite, silicon, tungsten, platinum group metals and rare earth elements.

** REEs / Rare Earth Elements – Often confused with Critical Minerals, this subset makes up a highly specific category within the critical mineral family and are made up of 15 elements in lanthanide series within the periodic table plus two who are outside the periodic table. These elements are known for their unique magnetic, catalytic, and other properties. The word rare is confusing because these elements are not so rare in the earth’s crust but found in relatively low concentration. China currently dominates the market in Rare Earth Elements.

When President Trump had finished slapping China with increase after increase in punitive tariffs, one of the responses from Beijing was to introduce controls in exports on certain elements in the Rare Earth Element category. Indeed, the Rare Earth Elements chosen by the Chinese government could be very disruptive to the United States as it is designed to have maximum impact on the American military-industrial complex. Currently, China has the greatest global control over supply of these elements and is being used as a negotiating tactic as the US/SINO trade war escalates.

Many experts are now saying that some of the tariffs introduced by President Trump are self-defeating, and this scenario is playing out in the critical mineral and rare earth element arena. China is recognised as far and away the major player within this sector, but it has an even bigger grip on the refining and processing of these minerals/elements (aka the mid-stream) rather than just the mining. Indeed, recent data released by the US Geological Survey showed that China led production in 33 of 44 critical minerals, and figures show that in 2023 China mined in excess of 75% of the world’s graphite which is the main element used in the anodes of batteries.

Whilst the western world and the United States sat back and did nothing, China has spent many years building up their dominance in the critical mineral market, not only through domestic availability (including processing) but by investing in infrastructure in overseas destinations, in return for securing supplies of minerals. Experts suggest that it will take years for the United States to build up critical mineral infrastructure in order to bypass China’s current hold in the marketplace, so to this end could Beijing hold the Trump Card in trade negotiations with the United States.

Are Tariffs Negatively Impacting America’s AI and Semi-Conductor Ambitions?

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on April 30, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

President Donald Trump has made his desire public for U.S. global dominance in the AI and Semi-Conductor (chips) markets; however experts suggest that his tariffs will hinder domestic chip production and put a stop to his ambitions of dominating the worldwide AI market. They are portraying the escalation in tariffs which will perhaps end in an all-out trade war will dramatically increase costs in American data centres and the building of semi-conductor fabrication plants, with some analysts predicting that tariffs will become the single largest barrier to supremacy in the A1 arena.

Tech experts and industry leaders suggest tariffs will inevitably hit global supply chains, thus negatively impacting and disrupting medium to very large AI computing projects. This will be a blow to major tech companies such as Meta, Google, and Amazon who between them have pledged just for 2025, USD 300 Billion on computing infrastructure which will underpin AI projects. Furthermore, TSMC (Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd) has already committed USD 100 Billion to increase the capacity of chip production in the U.S. which will underpin the above-mentioned AI ambitions.

Potential supply chain issues are at the top of the agenda for many big tech executives, with one executive currently attached to a USD 500 Billion data centre enunciating that the delay of one single component could affect the whole project as the supplier is making business decisions brought on by tariffs. One only has to look at other industries like the European Wine Sector where shipments may be halted because impending tariffs are stopping suppliers putting a price on future orders. Elsewhere in the steel pipe manufacturing arena, tariffs on Chinese built ships/bulk carriers effect on supply chains can be located in Germany where port workers should be loading a first round 16,000 MT of steel piping bound for a huge Louisiana energy project, however due to the proposed levies, the cargo is now sitting gathering dust in a German warehouse.

In the GPU (Graphics Processing Unit)* market, Nvidia’s most advanced model is utilised Microsoft and Amazon in their cloud service providers platform, however these GPUs arrive in the United States as racks of servers or just a single rack which have been assembled in a number of different countries according to data released by Z2Data (supply chain data analysis platform). This is where the economics get blurred because although GPUs have been exempt from tariffs, the many components which make the GPU have not been exempt. Experts suggest that importers in the U.S. will be hit with huge costs as component and product categories are massive and it is suggested that even the smallest component can bring the supply chain to a halt.

*Graphics Processing Unit – is a specialised electronic circuit designed to accelerate computer graphics and image processing. The GPU is essential for AI, particularly for tasks like training deep learning models and handling complex computations. Their parallel processing capabilities and high memory bandwidth allow AI to significantly accelerate their workloads.

Experts are saying that even if chips were produced in the United States, they would be more expensive to produce despite the 32% proposed tariff on chips produced by Taiwan’s TSMC, as tariffs would push up prices on all key tools and materials. They went on to say the biggest loser would be American producers of chips, as despite tariffs it will still be cheaper to factories and manufacturing capacity outside the United States, dashing Trump’s dream of domestic chip manufacturing. This is a catch 22 situation for President Trump, for once he cannot have it both ways having his cake and eating it, and analysts wait to see how he will solve this particular conundrum.

Confidence in U.S. Government Bonds Can No Longer be Taken for Granted

Written by IntaCapital Swiss on April 16, 2025. Posted in News & Reports. Leave a Comment

Amongst the financial carnage inflicted on the global markets by the introduction of punitive tariffs by President Donald Trump, global investors have been fleeing to safe haven assets, which for the first time in living memory does not include Treasuries or U.S. Government Bonds. Treasury bonds have had a tradition of being first in line for investors during adverse conditions which was true during the Global Financial Crisis, on 9/11, and even when the United States’ credit rating was cut, where Treasuries were seen to rally.

However, in today’s markets, and as Donald Trump has declared war on global trade, US Treasuries are now being questioned as the world’s best safe haven as can be seen in their surging yields*. Many experts and analysts agree that US Government Bonds and the US Dollar (which has in recent days plunged), rely on the world’s confidence in the financial and political systems of the United States in order to get their strength.

*Treasury Yields – Yields and Treasury prices have an inverse relationship as when Treasury prices rise yields fall and vice versa. Therefore when investors sell treasuries the yield rises and when they buy the yield falls.

The faith in the systems of the United States is now being tested as Thursday saw foreign investors en masse retreating for US assets with equities, treasuries, and the USD Dollar all falling together. The US Dollar fell against the Swiss Franc and the Euro by the most in 10 years, whilst 30-year Treasury yields headed north to 4.87% surging by 13 basis points. The point here is that when investors in the United States and from global markets sell off stocks, they usually find safety in U.S. Government bonds, so following the stock market route yields on treasuries rose, which is totally the opposite of trends in the near and distant past.

Economists have noted that the problems in the U.S. Government Bond market will have deep implications for the global financial system, because as Treasuries are (or were) regarded as “Risk Free Asset” they are utilised as a benchmark determining the price of stocks, mortgage rates, sovereign bonds, nearly everything including collateral for intra-day lending in the amount of trillions of US Dollars. US assets in general now appear to be being repriced as sentiment towards the U.S. as a safe haven diminishes.

There are however some dissenting voices who have concluded not everyone is losing faith in the United States’ political and financial systems. Indeed, some experts expound that long-end Treasury sell-offs are due to technical factors such as hedge funds unwinding leverage trades, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent backing these views. There was even an auction of USD 22 Billion 30-year bonds on Thursday with investors, despite tariff driven volatility, showing solid demand as they did for the sale of 10-year bonds on Wednesday.

However, whatever views are held it is generally believed by experts that a message has been delivered to The White House that confidence in U.S. Government bonds can no longer be taken for granted. The lack of clarity in this administration’s policies together with their President antagonising allies and enemies alike, including their largest creditors, through his determination to rewrite the financial and trading global rules, will in the eyes of many see the rest of the world in the long run look elsewhere for safe haven assets.

Tag: USA