Stock Markets Today: EU economy, China GDP, Bitcoin, Squid Game

Economy

Stock Markets Today: EU economy, China GDP, Bitcoin, Squid Game

Published

3 years ago

October 18, 2021

Harry Miller

Good morning. Euro area economy vulnerable to shocks, China growth slows, Bitcoin rallies and Squid Game’s value. Here’s what’s moving markets.

Highly Vulnerable

European Central Bank President Christine Lagarde warned that the globalized nature of the euro area’s economy makes it highly vulnerable to systemic shocks from supply chain disruptions. Lagarde also said the current spike in inflation is unlikely to last, while vowing to continue aiding the euro-area economy as the fallout from the pandemic lingers. Supply bottlenecks, cost pressures, and a reopening letdown are already set to plague region’s third-quarter earnings season.

Slowing Growth

China’s economy weakened in the third quarter, weighed by multiple headwinds from a property slump to an energy crisis. Gross domestic product expanded 4.9% from a year earlier, down from a previously reported 7.9% in the preceding quarter. People’s Bank of China Governor Yi Gang said authorities can contain risks posed to the Chinese economy and financial system from the struggles of China Evergrande Group.

Bitcoin Rallies

Bitcoin rallied early Monday after falling over the weekend, ahead of an anticipated U.S. exchange-traded fund approval. It fell both Saturday and Sunday to nearly $59,000 before climbing over $62,000 on Monday. Bitcoin is in focus as the first futures ETF tied to the token may debut Monday, according to a filing. Analysts expect profit-taking and volatility surrounding the decision.

Squid Game

Netflix estimates that its latest megahit, “Squid Game,” will create almost $900 million in value for the company, according to figures seen by Bloomberg, underscoring the windfall that one megahit can generate in the streaming era. The show stands out both for its popularity, and its relatively low cost, at just $21.4 million, less than Dave Chappelle’s new special “The Closer”. The viewership details are likely to cheer investors, who have regained enthusiasm for Netflix after several bumpy months, partly because “Squid Game” has been so popular.

Coming Up…

European futures are steady while contracts on U.S. stock benchmarks are pointing lower after last week’s strong performance. Oil advanced after an eighth weekly gain with the market facing a global energy crunch ahead of winter. Meanwhile, Koninklijke Philips will be among the European companies announcing results on Monday while State Street will report in the U.S. Also, Apple will finally unveil its redesigned MacBook Pro, the first revamp in five years.

What We’ve Been Reading

This is what’s caught our eye over the past 24 hours.

And finally, here’s what Cormac Mullen is interested in this morning

Hedge funds have given up betting against short-term Treasuries, at least one gauge of positioning shows. Net leveraged-fund futures and options positions in two-year notes turned positive for the first time since April 2018, according to the latest Commodity Futures Trading Commission data. Two-year Treasury yields have surged some 25 basis points since early June as traders brought forward wagers on Federal Reserve rate hikes. The flip to net-long could suggest fast-money funds see a pause coming in the short-term yield spike, though some of the positioning is likely part of broader bets on the direction of the U.S. yield curve. In the interest-rate market, a full hike is now priced in for September next year, with traders about 50/50 in calling for one in June. That’s an aggressive move in a short space of time now given so much uncertainty over the path for inflation and growth until then.

Leveraged funds turn net long two-year Treasuries futures

Cormac Mullen is a cross-asset reporter and editor for Bloomberg News in Tokyo.

Source link

Economy

Climate Change Will Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion Every Year Within 25 Years, Scientists Warn – Forbes

Published

6 hours ago

April 17, 2024

Harry Miller

Topline

Climate change is on track to cost the global economy $38 trillion a year in damages within the next 25 years, researchers warned on Wednesday, a baseline that underscores the mounting economic costs of climate change and continued inaction as nations bicker over who will pick up the tab.

Key Facts

Damages from climate change will set the global economy back an estimated $38 trillion a year by 2049, with a likely range of between $19 trillion and $59 trillion, warned a trio of researchers from Potsdam and Berlin in Germany in a peer reviewed study published in the journal Nature.

To obtain the figure, researchers analyzed data on how climate change impacted the economy in more than 1,600 regions around the world over the past 40 years, using this to build a model to project future damages compared to a baseline world economy where there are no damages from human-driven climate change.

The model primarily considers the climate damages stemming from changes in temperature and rainfall, the researchers said, with first author Maximilian Kotz, a researcher at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, noting these can impact numerous areas relevant to economic growth like “agricultural yields, labor productivity or infrastructure.”

Importantly, as the model only factored in data from previous emissions, these costs can be considered something of a floor and the researchers noted the world economy is already “committed to an income reduction of 19% within the next 26 years,” regardless of what society now does to address the climate crisis.

Global costs are likely to rise even further once other costly extremes like weather disasters, storms and wildfires that are exacerbated by climate change are considered, Kotz said.

The researchers said their findings underscore the need for swift and drastic action to mitigate climate change and avoid even higher costs in the future, stressing that a failure to adapt could lead to average global economic losses as high as 60% by 2100.

!function(n) if(!window.cnxps) window.cnxps=,window.cnxps.cmd=[]; var t=n.createElement(‘iframe’); t.display=’none’,t.onload=function() var n=t.contentWindow.document,c=n.createElement(‘script’); c.src=’//cd.connatix.com/connatix.playspace.js’,c.setAttribute(‘defer’,’1′),c.setAttribute(‘type’,’text/javascript’),n.body.appendChild(c) ,n.head.appendChild(t) (document);

(function()
function createUniqueId()
return ‘xxxxxxxx-xxxx-4xxx-yxxx-xxxxxxxxxxxx’.replace(/[xy]/g, function(c) 0,
v = c == ‘x’ ? r : (r & 0x3 );

const randId = createUniqueId();
document.getElementsByClassName(‘fbs-cnx’)[0].setAttribute(‘id’, randId);
document.getElementById(randId).removeAttribute(‘class’);
(new Image()).src = ‘https://capi.connatix.com/tr/si?token=546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’;
cnxps.cmd.push(function ()
cnxps(
playerId: ‘546f0bce-b219-41ac-b691-07d0ec3e3fe1’,
storyId: ”
).render(randId);
);
)();

How Do The Costs Of Inaction Compare To Taking Action?

Cost is a major sticking point when it comes to concrete action on climate change and money has become a key lever in making climate a “culture war” issue. The costs and logistics involved in transitioning towards a greener, more sustainable economy and moving to net zero are immense and there are significant vested interests such as the fossil fuel industry, which is keen to retain as much of the profitable status quo for as long as possible. The researchers acknowledged the sizable costs of adapting to climate change but said inaction comes with a cost as well. The damages estimated already dwarf the costs associated with the money needed to keep climate change in line with the limits set out in the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement, the researchers said, referencing the globally agreed upon goalpost set to minimize damage and slash emissions. The $38 trillion estimate for damages is already six times the $6 trillion thought needed to meet that threshold, the researchers said.

Crucial Quote

“We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer,” said study author Anders Levermann. The researcher, also of the Potsdam Institute, explained there is a “considerable inequity of climate impacts” around the world and that “further temperature increases will therefore be most harmful” in tropical countries. “The countries least responsible for climate change” are expected to suffer greater losses, Levermann added, and they are “also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts.”

What To Watch For

The fundamental inequality over who is impacted most by climate change and who has benefited most from the polluting practices responsible for the climate crisis—who also have more resources to mitigate future damages—has become one of the most difficult political sticking points when it comes to negotiating global action to reduce emissions. Less affluent countries bearing the brunt of climate change argue wealthy nations like the U.S. and Western Europe have already reaped the benefits from fossil fuels and should pay more to cover the losses and damages poorer countries face, as well as to help them with the costs of adapting to greener sources of energy. Other countries, notably big polluters India and China, stymie negotiations by arguing they should have longer to wean themselves off of fossil fuels as their emissions actually pale in comparison to those of more developed countries when considered in historical context and on a per capita basis. Climate financing is expected to be key to upcoming negotiations at the United Nations’s next climate summit in November. The COP29 summit will be held in Baku, the capital city of oil-rich Azerbaijan.

Canada's budget 2024 and what it means for the economy – Financial Post

Published

8 hours ago

April 17, 2024

Harry Miller

THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES

Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.

Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O’Connor, Gabriel Friedman, Victoria Wells and others.
Daily content from Financial Times, the world’s leading global business publication.
Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.
National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.
Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.

Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.

Access articles from across Canada with one account.
Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.
Enjoy additional articles per month.
Get email updates from your favourite authors.

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link

Economy

Opinion: Canada's economy has stagnated despite Trudeau government spin – Financial Post

Published

10 hours ago

April 17, 2024

Harry Miller

Growth in gross domestic product (GDP), the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy annually, is one of the most frequently cited indicators of economic performance. To assess Canadian living standards and the current health of the economy, journalists, politicians and analysts often compare Canada’s GDP growth to growth in other countries or in Canada’s past. But GDP is misleading as a measure of living standards when population growth rates vary greatly across countries or over time.

Article content

Federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland recently boasted that Canada had experienced the “strongest economic growth in the G7” in 2022. In this she echoes then-prime minister Stephen Harper, who said in 2015 that Canada’s GDP growth was “head and shoulders above all our G7 partners over the long term.”

Article content

Unfortunately, such statements do more to obscure public understanding of Canada’s economic performance than enlighten it. Lately, our aggregate GDP growth has been driven primarily by population and labour force growth, not productivity improvements. It is not mainly the result of Canadians becoming better at producing goods and services and thus generating more real income for their families. Instead, it is a result of there simply being more people working. That increases the total amount of goods and services produced but doesn’t translate into increased living standards.

Let’s look at the numbers. From 2000 to 2023 Canada’s annual average growth in real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) GDP growth was the second highest in the G7 at 1.8 per cent, just behind the United States at 1.9 per cent. That sounds good — until you adjust for population. Then a completely different story emerges.

Article content

Over the same period, the growth rate of Canada’s real per person GDP (0.7 per cent) was meaningfully worse than the G7 average (1.0 per cent). The gap with the U.S. (1.2 per cent) was even larger. Only Italy performed worse than Canada.

Why the inversion of results from good to bad? Because Canada has had by far the fastest population growth rate in the G7, an average of 1.1 per cent per year — more than twice the 0.5 per cent experienced in the G7 as a whole. In aggregate, Canada’s population increased by 29.8 per cent during this period, compared to just 11.5 per cent in the entire G7.

Starting in 2016, sharply higher rates of immigration have led to a pronounced increase in Canada’s population growth. This increase has obscured historically weak economic growth per person over the same period. From 2015 to 2023, under the Trudeau government, real per person economic growth averaged just 0.3 per cent. That compares with 0.8 per cent annually under Brian Mulroney, 2.4 per cent under Jean Chrétien and 2.0 per cent under Paul Martin.

Recommended from Editorial

Canada is neither leading the G7 nor doing well in historical terms when it comes to economic growth measures that make simple adjustments for our rapidly growing population. In reality, we’ve become a growth laggard and our living standards have largely stagnated for the better part of a decade.

Ben Eisen, Milagros Palacios and Lawrence Schembri are analysts at the Fraser Institute.

Bookmark our website and support our journalism: Don’t miss the business news you need to know — add financialpost.com to your bookmarks and sign up for our newsletters here.

Share this article in your social network

Adblock test (Why?)

Source link