The US Treasury held an auction for $58 billion in three-year notes. The auction concluded with a high yield of 3.824%, slightly below the WI level at the time of 3.826%.

The tail was recorded at -0.2 basis points, compared to the six-month average tail of +0.7 basis points. The bid-to-cover ratio was 2.56, which is lower than the six-month average of 2.63.

Domestic Vs Foreign Demand

Direct bidders accounted for 23.7% of the total, surpassing the six-month average of 16.3%, indicating strong domestic demand. Indirect bidders represented 62.4% of the total, falling short of the six-month average of 67.6%.

Dealers were left with 13.9% of the notes, compared to the six-month average of 16.1%, indicating they were less burdened than usual. The auction received a grade of B+.

The auction results released reflect a relatively smooth exercise in short-duration government debt issuance. The clearing yield came in marginally below the when-issued level by 0.2 of a basis point, suggesting mild bidding strength at the margin. This contrasts with recent norms, where small positive tails have been more typical, underscoring a slightly firmer appetite than anticipated heading into the offering.

We saw clear patterns emerge in allocation data: direct takers – a category typically associated with domestic institutional participants – came in well above the recent average. That sort of turnout doesn’t happen without real conviction. On the other hand, the softer presence of indirects – generally foreign investment activity – suggests a more selective approach abroad. They may have found pricing unappealing or alternative yields more compelling elsewhere across the curve or among other global sovereigns.

Dealers, often the backstop participants, walked away with less than usual. That relieves secondary market pressure and implies the initial distribution succeeded in engaging final holders quickly. It’s a cleaner handoff and signals that market participants had prepared for this event and adjusted risk angles beforehand.

Market Reactions And Future Projections

Given the direction of travel in recent supply trends and the Federal Reserve’s communication, this kind of outcome tells us certain expectations are well embedded. There’s little indication of surprise here, either on the pricing or on the sentiment side. The moderate bid-to-cover ratio reinforces that point. Slightly below average participation doesn’t alarm, but it does point to a tone of restraint – one that remains selective, not passive.

Instruments tethered to front-end rate assumptions were largely indifferent following the auction results, with implied volatility remaining subdued. That makes sense: nothing here jars rate path expectations in the near term. Still, given the drop in indirect involvement, we must consider how upcoming auctions might reflect broader themes such as global reserve demand balance.

With that in mind, some strategic awareness is warranted. When reduced allocation goes to foreign holders, that shift creates ripple effects on how funding levels and yield support behave in related maturities. For intraday or weekly position takers active in options or spreads, the calibration of demand tone becomes a helpful lens for short-set ups.

We’re watching closely how this pattern shapes up across nearby tenors. Everything from dealer balance sheets to swap spreads tells a story about how comfortably these securities are digested. When auction tails flatten or go negative, as here, it often precedes windows of reduced realised volatility. That subtly alters liquidity strategies and timing decisions across forward trades.

Any replay of these dynamics in upcoming issuance – especially further out on the curve – may introduce pricing inefficiencies. These tend to be short-lived but can feed tactical moves during post-auction rebalancing windows. Tools that map buyer consistency will be useful to evaluate whether the stronger-than-average direct buying sustains or fades.

We’ll continue to mark how these auctions feed through to futures basis behaviour, repo tensions, and CTA participation rates. While it might not prompt positioning shifts on its own, it builds a clearer picture of how deep or shallow current demand flows really are.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The ISM Services Prices Paid index in the United States rose to 65.1 in April, up from the previous level of 60.9. This measure reflects changes in the prices of services, indicating rising service costs in the economy.

The AUD/USD exchange rate saw a positive trend, moving closer to the 0.6500 mark, influenced by ongoing US Dollar pressure and concerns about trade. Meanwhile, EUR/USD bounced back from recent lows, benefiting from Greenback weakness and a risk-on sentiment in financial markets.

Gold Prices And Market Reactions

Gold prices advanced to over $3,300 per troy ounce, driven by safe-haven demand due to tensions in the Middle East and uncertainties around US trade policy. In the cryptocurrency space, the market cap fell to $3.1 trillion, witnessing a 3% drop with outflows surpassing $100 billion.

Tariff rates might have levelled off, but market uncertainty remains due to ongoing policy unpredictability. Discussions hint that even if tariffs remain unchanged, the broader risk is in prolonged economic instability, requiring market participants to remain vigilant.

What we observed in the ISM Services Prices Paid index climbing to 65.1 from 60.9 is not a benign shift. That figure doesn’t just mark a higher cost of doing business for service providers; it also enhances the odds of price pressures persisting where other inflation metrics may be stalling. It’s evidence that disinflation is not filtering through uniformly across sectors. For those of us parsing monetary policy reactions, that sort of data arguably strengthens the case for caution at the US central bank. Higher services inflation often proves sticky, and the Federal Reserve might be further incentivised to stay on hold or reiterate a hawkish posture, even if the broader activity data softens.

Against that backdrop, we’ve seen the Aussie Dollar testing the 0.6500 level, but not simply because of commodity flows or yield spreads this time. The softness in the Dollar has more to do with market participants pricing out Fed tightening—or at least the urgency of it—and positioning for risk-on trades. Yet, with trade negotiations still producing mixed signals, positioning gets complicated. If tariffs stay flat but communication stays ambiguous, that creates a long tail of uncertainty. For cross-asset exposure, this adds noise, especially for strategies that lean on stable forward guidance.

European Currency And Trading Impact

Over in the Eurozone, EUR/USD’s rebound tells a slightly different story. The move came not just from Dollar exhaustion but from a re-emergence of appetite for carry, layered over a short-covering rally. Lagarde may not have offered any fresh direction, but the broader sense is that the Euro had been oversold relative to its fundamentals. Still, the pair’s push upward does not eliminate fragility; if dollar sentiment reverses abruptly, the upside gets capped quite fast. One needs to adjust models accordingly—short-dated vol might still remain underpriced in this regime.

On the metals front, gold’s move through $3,300 didn’t happen in a vacuum. Risk hedging has re-emerged as a dominant motive. It’s telling that even with higher yields on offer in other asset classes, bullion demand has remained firm. Part of this reflects geopolitical risk, particularly as the Middle East once again draws investor focus, but there’s more here—a hesitancy to rotate heavily into financial assets while longer-term policy remains unclear. That’s not typical bullish momentum; it’s strategic allocation.

Elsewhere, digital assets painted a bleaker picture. Capital has clearly been rotating out of crypto, with more than $100 billion in net outflows. That doesn’t appear to be panic-driven, but rather a larger rebalancing amid uncertainty. When trade and fiscal policy remain erratic, and interest rate expectations move weekly, riskier investments are usually the first to see pullbacks. This is more about shifting sentiment than fundamentals, but for structured products connected to crypto exposure, it introduces additional delta and gamma pressures.

As for tariffs, the fact that levels haven’t moved does not offer any real comfort. Markets aren’t just reacting to hard data but to forward-looking risk premium. And if what lies ahead is still cloudy, then volatility has to be priced in accordingly. The market is not entirely sceptical; it’s preparing for multiple outcomes in a scenario where none appears dominant. We’re dealing less with direct impact and more with anticipation-fuelled fluctuations.

For trading desks, that sort of environment demands tighter risk controls and shorter review cycles. Duration is vulnerable; gamma scalping looks more attractive amidst uncertainty. The pricing of long-end vol may not yet fully reflect the macro sensitivity of upcoming policy speeches or surprise data prints. The absence of directional conviction in spot FX should not be mistaken for calm—it’s more likely a build-up ahead of new detail.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The United States ISM Services Employment Index for April stands at 49, compared to 46.2 previously. This represents an improvement in employment figures within the services sector.

Exchange rates and various market reports are only meant for informational purposes. They should not be considered as recommendations for investment decisions.

Accuracy And Responsibility

The information presented may not be completely accurate, and errors or omissions may occur. Readers should conduct their own research before investing as there are risks involved, including potential loss of investments.

Certain opinions expressed are those of individual authors and do not necessarily align with any official positions. The authors of this information bear no responsibility and have no compensation agreements with any mentioned companies.

Trading foreign exchange and other instruments carries a high level of risk. High leverage in forex trading can lead to substantial losses. It is important to understand all associated risks and seek professional advice if needed.

With the ISM Services Employment Index moving up to 49 in April from its earlier reading of 46.2, what we’re seeing is a register just beneath the neutral 50 mark. While still showing contraction, it points to a slower pace of employment declines in the service sector. That might not sound like a game changer, but considering how services make up a hefty chunk of broader economic activity, it’s not nothing either. When employment data like this inches closer to stabilisation, even without outright improvement, it can have ripple effects elsewhere—especially in how we interpret momentum in underlying demand.

Market Reactions And Assumptions

For those of us watching indicators carefully, this sort of marginal improvement could impact short-term assumptions about consumer-facing sectors. It also invites slightly more balanced expectations, particularly if you’re pricing risk or structuring volatile setups. Whether you’re operating in options, futures, or swaps, these data points feed into broader sentiment around potential policy adjustments or rate outlooks—especially as central banks grapple with stickier price pressures and supply adjustments.

Now, we need to keep perspective. A singular uptick like this doesn’t provide full confirmation of trend changes. It does, however, suggest that the service sector’s labour strain, which we’ve been tracking for months, may no longer be worsening at the same pace. That, in turn, modifies input for models that rely on labour efficiency, payroll expectations, and real-time employment sentiment.

If you’re running shorter expiry or intraday positions, it’s worth noting that volatility could compress sporadically on these softer employment shifts. While immediate reactions might not be dramatic unless paired with other major releases, we have to factor in how these indicators quietly influence pricing models, particularly in implied volatility for near-term contracts.

The risk, of course, lies in over-interpreting what might just be noise. McCarthy recently pointed out how limited improvements across single indexes can give a temporarily lifted view without changing core fundamentals. So any attempt to adjust positions based solely on April’s movement in ISM figures would lack adequate support. It might be tempting to take it as a positive shift, but the broader data still sets a tone of labour constraint—just slightly less acute than before.

Given this, tighter spreads may persist and caution is warranted if planning to layer on leverage this quarter. With positioning still light ahead of the next CPI release, and given that these employment stats won’t dramatically change expectations for central bank decisions, derivative markets are likely to remain reactive rather than predictive in the short term. We are, for now, seeing models favouring mean-reversion rather than extending into trend-following regimes.

Expect the next few sessions to reflect restrained enthusiasm. As always, each data point needs to sit within a bigger puzzle. This piece might delay some bearish assumptions about service-led weakness, but it’s far from rewriting the macro story. Active desks might scale into recalibrated exposure, but long-term reweighting still seems premature.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

Scott Bessent conveyed optimism about ongoing trade negotiations, suggesting that new trading deals might materialise soon. He pointed out that 17 trading partners, excluding China, have presented commendable proposals.

Bessent discussed the potential for smoother trade resulting from these negotiations and anticipated progress with China in the near future. He noted that current market conditions do not account for inflation, as there is resilient hard data present.

Reduced Tariffs

Bessent mentioned that these developments could ideally lead to reduced tariffs between the US and other countries. He acknowledged, however, that a great deal of trust is necessary to anticipate such a positive outcome at this time.

The initial portion lays out a relatively clear outlook: Bessent is linking recent trade proposals and macroeconomic data to a view that global trade might be poised for fewer obstructions. What stands out is his comment on 17 other nations – this hints at a broad, multilateral shift in trade dynamics. In plain terms, more than a dozen economies appear willing to ease commerce barriers, which, if realised, could sharply affect pricing models and assumptions about trade friction premiums, especially in markets sensitive to tariff structures.

More noteworthy, perhaps, is how Bessent framed the current market pricing environment. He contends inflation is absent from recent valuations – and supports that opinion with reference to solid economic indicators. That is a confidence that risks are being underappreciated by consensus. Notably, he also touched on the prospect of an agreement with China, though couched in guarded language. For us, that implies a degree of patience will be necessary.

Trading Standpoint

From a trading standpoint, we should now be alert to better visibility on long-dated volatilities in export-driven sectors. With trust remaining a hurdle, as Bessent alluded, short-term reaction functions will likely remain cautious. That offers windows of stability, especially in directional trades based on implied rates, but doesn’t suggest repositioning too early on expectations of firm conclusions.

Keep in mind his comment on tariffs – the potential for them to ease is not priced in. That creates opportunity. If these proposals develop into contracts, expectations could shift rapidly. Monitor for front-running behaviour in cross-border-sensitive instruments. We suspect positioning around regional currencies, particularly those with strong current accounts, might begin to reflect these possibilities through increased demand.

Lastly, by noting inflation’s absence in valuations despite robust data, Bessent hints at a divergence that could provoke repricing. That is especially relevant for forward rates and index-linked products. We interpret it as a subtle warning: if the data continues to resist downward revisions, current pricing structures might become misaligned fairly abruptly. Stay light on leverage, but maintain readiness to rotate once firmness begins to show in the larger macro signals.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The United States ISM Services New Orders Index increased from 50.4 to 52.3 in April. This reflects a rise in demand within the service sector.

The AUD/USD pair moved closer to the 0.6500 level amid ongoing selling pressure on the US Dollar. The Euro to US Dollar rate showed resilience, briefly trading below the 1.1300 level due to a weakened Dollar.

Gold Markets Reaction

Gold prices rose above $3,300 per troy ounce, driven by safe-haven demand amid geopolitical tensions. Uncertainty over US trade policy is contributing to an increase in gold demand.

Cryptocurrencies saw a decline with Bitcoin falling below $94,000 and overall market capitalization dropping 3% to $3.1 trillion due to over $100 billion in outflows. SUI bucked the trend, showing gains possibly linked to political commentary.

There is uncertainty surrounding international tariff policies, though peak levels might have been reached. Continued policy unpredictability poses an ongoing risk.

Trading Guidance for EUR/USD

A guide on trading EUR/USD in 2025 highlights key brokers offering competitive services for traders. It includes brokers with attractive spreads and high-speed execution for all levels of experience in trading.

The rise in the ISM Services New Orders Index—from 50.4 to 52.3 in April—clearly indicates an expansion in service sector activity in the United States. We read this as a renewed interest in consumption-led growth and potentially firmer business expectations for the near term. For those of us trading derivatives connected to macroeconomic events, this uptick stands out as a data point that could influence USD movement in the short term, particularly through interest rate expectations. One can’t ignore the possibility that a stronger services sector may embolden the Federal Reserve to delay or moderate future rate cuts.

This dovetails with continued pressure on the US Dollar. Bearish sentiment on the greenback has nudged AUD/USD towards the 0.6500 mark. The weakness isn’t isolated and is feeding through to other major currency pairs, evidenced by the EUR/USD showing tenacity even as it briefly dipped under 1.1300. Traders monitoring these crosses are seeing the Dollar lose traction, without a direct shock but rather through a series of soft signals accumulating across sectors.

Meanwhile, gold’s breakout above $3,300 per ounce serves as an additional reaction to broader volatility. The rush into gold isn’t simply a consequence of monetary policy uncertainty—though that’s part of it—it seems increasingly amplified by external stressors, particularly on the geopolitical front. The tone on trade rhetoric coming out of the US continues to lean towards unpredictability, which in past cycles has consistently driven metal markets higher. For us, that’s a reminder: watch gold not only as a hedge, but also as a potential early warning.

In crypto, we’re seeing the opposite behaviour. A sharp dip in Bitcoin, now trading under $94,000, reflects strained sentiment. This downturn cut about $100 billion from the digital asset space, dragging down overall valuation by 3%. One coin, SUI, moved in the other direction, possibly responding to political headlines or investor anticipation around upcoming regulatory speeches. It’s a reminder that while the sector often trades in broad risk cycles, isolated tokens may still behave differently based on their ecosystem or external catalysts.

With tariff policy on the global stage, there’s little in the way of clarity right now. The lack of coordination and the noise around peak rate thresholds make it difficult to build scenarios with accuracy. For options and futures traders, this elevates the role of implied volatility and makes macro hedges more attractive. We’re focused heavily on pricing that reflects policy inertia rather than abrupt reversals, assuming that while tariffs may not escalate, neither will stability return quickly.

As for EUR/USD, while long-term tools are lining up to support next year’s structure, the environment remains sensitive. Positioning needs to account not only for spread variations and execution speed but also for how these platforms route orders during hours of lower liquidity. Execution is everything. Mistimes and inefficiencies in rollover periods have already cost trades this quarter. That’s why infrastructure review is just as relevant as chart analysis.

We remain alert to shifts in momentum, particularly when price action detaches from underlying fundamentals. As volatility clusters remain small but frequent, we find shorter-term expiry derivative instruments more effective than longer-term contracts, at least until clearer pricing signals emerge.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The GBPUSD buyers attempted to regain control by moving above the converged 100-hour and 200-hour moving averages at 1.33238. However, momentum stalled and the price declined, shifting short-term control to sellers.

Support lies above a swing area between 1.3259 and 1.3273, yet it remains unstable. A confirmed break below this zone could enhance the bearish outlook.

Price Targets and Support Levels

If the price drops further, the targets are the April 23 low of 1.3232 and the next swing area near 1.3203. Breaking these levels may lead to increased selling pressure, and possibly reach the 38.2% retracement at 1.3160.

Resistance is denoted by the 200/100-hour moving averages at 1.3325. Sellers are currently steering the direction, contingent on maintaining pressure below the key support band.

The current situation reflects a clear rebuff from GBPUSD bulls at a well-known technical juncture: the convergence of the 100-hour and 200-hour moving averages, now situated around the 1.3325 region. Attempting to climb above this barrier, buyers briefly succeeded but were unable to hold the higher ground, suggesting we are seeing fading enthusiasm above this level. Once momentum paused, the price quickly gave back gains, reinforcing the position of sellers and giving control back to those driving the market downward.

From our perspective, the immediate concern lies with the support zone ranging from 1.3259 to 1.3273. This area has seen price action cluster before, but it offers little in terms of firm footing right now. Prices failing to hold above this could increase directional confidence for short-biased participants. A clean cut through here would likely validate further positional bias toward lower levels.

Market Focus and Expectations

The market will probably start to focus on successive targets, beginning with the April 23 trough at 1.3232. Should that get cleared, there’s a relatively thin cushion until the next swing zone around 1.3203. The further we drop, the more likely it is that previously hesitant sellers commit, particularly if the retracement down to the 38.2% Fibonacci level at 1.3160 becomes the focal point. It’s there, in that area, where broader sentiment may transition more firmly in favour of downward bias.

Those positioned or analysing from a momentum- or trend-based approach will already know that hourly moving averages often provide structure to short-term strategies. Right now, with the 100-hour and 200-hour lines overlapping near 1.3325, this junction becomes a visual ceiling. Any renewed attempt to ascend would need to push cleanly above that zone to reset short-term directional control.

At the moment, the technical profile shows selling interest advancing whenever the price tries to reach back into the old resistance corridor. As long as the price stays underneath those averages and fails to reclaim higher ground, the burden stays with buyers to provoke any shift in momentum. The price is tracking lower, and we’re watching levels give way one after another, which can often create reactive behaviour as stops get triggered and shorter-term models adapt.

We’re not seeing sustained upside attempts or strong reversals in recent candles, only brief tests that get quickly faded. In environments like this, pressure tends to build incrementally. The pace may not be dramatic, but the direction so far remains downward unless something material interrupts the current flow.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

Twist Bioscience reported a quarterly loss of $0.66 per share, missing the expected loss of $0.56. This marks an improvement from the previous year’s loss of $0.79 per share.

The earnings report revealed an earnings surprise of -17.86%. In the prior quarter, the company surprised with a smaller than expected loss of $0.53 versus the anticipated $0.62.

The company has exceeded earnings estimates in two of the last four quarters. Twist Bioscience generated $92.79 million in revenue, slightly above the projected $91.9 million.

Compared to the previous year, revenue saw growth from $75.3 million. Twist Bioscience has consistently exceeded revenue predictions over the last four quarters.

Twist Bioscience shares have declined by about 15.6% this year. This compares with a 3.3% decline for the S&P 500.

The company’s future stock movements will rely on management’s insights during their earnings call. The earnings outlook is essential to predict potential performance.

Currently, the Zacks Rank for Twist Bioscience stands at #4 (Sell). The existing consensus estimate is a loss of $0.56 per share with $94.77 million in revenue for the upcoming quarter.

Though the firm narrowed its losses on a year-over-year basis—moving from $0.79 to $0.66 per share—the shortfall against the $0.56 estimate represents a disappointment. We are reminded that strong year-over-year improvements don’t always translate into short-term confidence if they arrive below consensus. That earnings miss of nearly 18 percent, when compared to the forecast, tells us that expectations had drifted slightly ahead of what the business could deliver at this point.

Revenue, at $92.79 million, exceeded expectations very modestly. Importantly, this lift from $75.3 million a year earlier continues their recent run of beating revenue estimates in each of the past four quarters. However, the absence of follow-through on the earnings side provides a mixed message, one that reflects improving sales without the same progress in managing costs or generating margin efficiency. This kind of pattern narrows the margin of error for near-term investor sentiment. Decent top-line traction, yes—but operational leverage remains underwhelming.

Glancing at the stock price move—down 15.6% for the year—it’s clear the market has been reacting to more than this specific quarter. When we stack that against the broader S&P 500’s decline of 3.3%, it appears that sentiment toward this name is more cautious than toward equities overall. Why? Probably because the market, in its current state, isn’t just rewarding top-line beats unless they’re paired with solid bottom-line control.

The outlook, for now, is anchored in guidance and commentary that often emerges in earnings calls. These provide forward-looking clarity that can’t be found in data alone. Without positive or at least stabilising commentary from management, assumptions baked into current forecasts may have to adjust. We know the consensus view sits at a $0.56 per-share loss and $94.77 million in revenue for the next quarter. Unless we see something in those conversations to change that tone, those forecasts could either see downward revisions or fall under threat of the same under-delivery as we’ve just witnessed.

From a positioning perspective, this makes timing a challenge. The rank downgrade confirms market hesitancy, with a #4 (Sell) indicating that broader expectations have tilted downward. For instruments tied to volatility or directional bias, especially where expiry windows are close, sensitivity to revised estimates becomes heightened. If option markets haven’t fully repriced this stream of earnings misses, there may still be premium to work with—but legs tied to upward earnings revisions alone appear to carry more risk now.

We treat this sort of earnings setup as one where directional strategies need to be carefully justified. Spreads that lean into revenue resilience while defending against margin deterioration may be more appropriate than naked exposure. At the moment, price action shows limited enthusiasm—despite revenue traction. That reflects a focus on what isn’t improving fast enough. Until the cost structure shows disciplined progress, short-dated exposure built purely on revenue optimism could underperform.

The EURUSD attempted to rise above its 200-hour moving average of 1.13510 during early U.S. trading but failed to maintain momentum. Buyers faltered once more, reminiscent of similar activity on Friday, leading to fresh selling interest and a drop below both the 200-hour and 100-hour moving averages.

The immediate downside target is 1.13072, a previous low, with further declines potentially reaching the swing area between 1.1271 and 1.12754. Below these levels, the 38.2% retracement of the March–April rally, located at 1.12505, is a pivotal point for buyers to uphold if the broader uptrend is to be preserved.

Though buyers are having difficulty pushing prices upward, sellers are also not yet in a commanding position. A decisive move below the 1.12505 level would indicate a shift of control back to sellers, challenging the 843-pip rally from the 1.0729 low on March 27 to the 1.15726 high on April 21.

What we’ve been observing on the EUR/USD chart over the past few sessions is the behaviour of a currency pair that’s running into repeated resistance, yet also showing reluctance to break down decisively. The push above the 200-hour moving average—an area often watched for signs of short-term strength—was short-lived. The failure to hold that ground, particularly after a similar stumble late last week, triggered renewed selling interest. This tells us buyers didn’t have the strength to build on minor gains, and in doing so, created space for sellers to step back in.

Now, we see price sitting below both the 200- and 100-hour moving averages. This tells us that the shorter-term momentum has shifted lower. When price sits under both of these averages, it’s indicative of a loss of upward pressure. Shorter-term derivatives models that track price momentum would favour the downside as a base case, especially with the hourly structure weakening as it has.

Near-term, price is inches away from retesting 1.13072. Historically, it acted as a base for a bounce, so if price glides through it without hesitation, that would tighten pressure beneath. After that, we get into the thicker swing zone between 1.12710 and 1.12754. This isn’t a zone to treat lightly—several recent rejections have come from this band. This makes it useful for us in gauging whether sellers are aiming to extend the downside push or just probing, only to step away again.

Further beneath, our eyes would drop to the 38.2% retracement of the last identifiable upside rally, which comes in close to 1.12505. It’s worth remembering that this type of retracement has significance in how prices tend to respect prior rallies. Sellers often look to take partial profit near these measures, while buyers may dip in cautiously. This is especially true if the broader rally from late March is still considered intact. So, how we trade around that retracement level could suggest whether this recent pullback becomes part of a larger correction—or a temporary breather.

Now, while downward movement is gathering some weight, it hasn’t yet taken full authority. That’s clear from the absence of sharp follow-through—it’s been more of a soft nudge than a broad shove. Nevertheless, when the market begins to lean in a certain way, watching how liquidity behaves around retest lows can offer more than moving-average signals. Especially when algorithms tied to volume models begin reacting more aggressively.

From a volatility perspective, implied confidence is still moderate. Options-related flows are not pricing extreme moves, but the daily range compression can’t be expected to hold indefinitely. A wider breakout on the back of an external catalyst—or a technical level giving way—could trigger option gamma functions that shift intraday behaviour quickly. Watch those inflection points carefully.

For now, we stay alert to exhaustion from both camps. It’s a tightening coil with clearer levels ahead. If any rebound stalls yet again before reclaiming those moving averages, it would reinforce short-term bearish leanings. Otherwise, we may be stuck watching a market wrestling within its own uncertainty for a while longer.

The S&P Global Composite PMI for the United States was recorded at 50.8 in April, slightly below the anticipated level of 51.2. This figure reflects the performance of the US economic sectors, including services and manufacturing, hinting at a marginal slowdown.

The AUD/USD pair experienced a bullish trend, moving closer to the 0.6500 barrier amidst pressures from the US Dollar. Similarly, the EUR/USD pair advanced for a second consecutive day, buoyed by a decline in the Greenback.

Gold Performance and Geopolitical Tensions

Gold saw an increase, reaching above $3,300 per troy ounce, attributed to rising demand due to geopolitical tensions in the Middle East. Concurrently, uncertainty around US trade policies contributed to an upward momentum.

Cryptocurrencies faced a dip, with Bitcoin dropping below $94,000 and an overall market capitalisation of $3.1 trillion, down by 3% amidst significant cash outflows. Additionally, discussions around tariffs continue, with current conditions offering no resolution, posing ongoing unpredictability in policy.

The latest Composite PMI data suggests a mild deceleration in economic activity across both manufacturing and services within the US. Sitting just above the 50 mark, which separates expansion from contraction, the report signals that economic volume grew—but only just. Although the number missed expectations, it remains positive and may inform the Fed’s interpretation of broader economic resilience. Traders typically monitor these figures closely, as subtle dips or lifts often carry through to fixed income and foreign exchange markets.

We noticed the AUD/USD pairing hovering near 0.6500—a level it has reacted to several times in the past—which could now act as a temporary barrier or pivot, depending on what momentum builds from here. The pair’s movement likely reflects shifting sentiment on the Dollar rather than renewed strength in the Aussie. US data softness appears to be chipping away at demand for the Greenback more broadly, which might leave derivative positions exposed to short-term rebounds.

Euro And Dollar Exchange Rates

Meanwhile, downward pressure on the Dollar supported another rally in the EUR/USD pair. While the move extended the prior day’s bounce, we’re still trading inside a well-defined range. Traders who positioned against the Euro earlier in April may now be questioning whether the pair has more upside, particularly with yield spreads stabilising and commodity markets stirring.

In commodities, gold’s breakthrough above $3,300 per troy ounce follows a classic risk-off pattern—not unusual when Middle East tensions climb. That said, the pace of the move suggests a search for safe-haven assets intensified quickly over the past couple sessions. Factors fuelling this include not just geopolitics but inconsistencies in current US trade direction, which continue to make long-term pricing more difficult to project. Whoever is holding longer-dated options here could face high gamma risk if spot continues to accelerate past recent highs.

Crypto markets moved sharply lower, with Bitcoin slipping beneath $94,000. A drop of 3% across the broader market, combined with ongoing net outflows, hints that bullish positions had become crowded. This type of drawdown is not unusual after a multi-week surge, but when we pair it with new tariff rumours and slower institutional flows, the short-term outlook turns murky. It places pressure on leveraged positions, which are more vulnerable to sudden changes in policy or liquidity.

At present, we are watching layered volatility. Recent PMI softness, paired with fast commodity gains and a stressed crypto space, introduces added uncertainty across asset classes. While we’ve seen safe-haven positioning increase, it hasn’t moved in sync with macro indicators. That disconnect can often make short-term options strategies more fragile than usual. From our side, fluency in adjusting to price momentum—especially around resistance levels like 0.6500 in currency markets, or $3,300 in metals—could determine how effectively one navigates the next wave of data or geopolitical announcements.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

India has proposed zero-percent tariffs on auto parts and steel to the United States, on the condition that the U.S. offers the same rates. Negotiations between the two nations on tariffs and trade show progress, suggesting potential mutual benefits from such an agreement.

There is uncertainty about the feasibility of this deal, especially since the U.S. imposes 25% tariffs on Canadian steel. The challenge lies in whether the U.S. can offer India zero tariffs while keeping higher tariffs on Canada.

Anticipation in Market Trends

As discussions progress, stakeholders must wait for the exact terms of any proposed agreement. There is anticipation around a potential shift back to lower tariff structures in recent market trends.

To understand what’s already happened: India has made an offer to eliminate tariffs on auto parts and steel when trading with the United States, but only if the U.S. agrees to do the same. In plain terms, India is saying, “We’ll drop our charges if you drop yours.” At first glance, this might seem like a mutually easy fix—but the situation is more complicated beneath the surface.

Washington currently applies a very high 25% tariff on Canadian steel. That sends a message: the U.S. isn’t quick to offer the same treatment across the board. So, if Washington were to accept India’s proposal, it would draw a sharp contrast with how it’s dealing with a close neighbour. Such inconsistency could cause political and economic ripples.

That said, forward movement in talks suggests that both Delhi and Washington see something to gain. There’s a good chance they’re feeling out where the pain points are, testing the limits of flexibility without committing prematurely. What we might be witnessing is the beginning of a narrower, more customised trade agreement—tailored in a way that sidesteps the broader tensions normally linked to trade policy.

Market Reactions and Trade Strategies

For short-term futures and options traders working in industries tied to metals and manufacturing, the low-tariff proposal adds a layer of timing speculation. The possibility of cheaper steel movement between India and the U.S. introduces the chance of thinner margins for domestic producers, and by extension, changes in contract demand expectations. If you’re watching price spreads in these areas, it’s how traders react to these signals—not just the tariffs themselves—that could set the tone over the coming weeks.

One of the main uncertainties right now is how fast anything materialises. These are not overnight deals. Policy changes like this rarely move past the discussion stage without public comments, industry analysis, and new legislative procedures in both countries. That leaves quite a wide gap between “idea” and “execution.”

Still, it’s worth noting that lower tariffs—if they come—could pull market interest away from high inventory hedging strategies. This may increase short-term volatility as pricing adjusts not just on the physical side, but in the timing of expected deliveries for industrial buyers. For those of us tracking calendar spreads in the metals space, this environment calls for precision. Traders may consider reducing duration risk and keeping exposure tightly tied to front-month movements.

Policy-driven adjustments also tend to draw sharp reactions from larger institutions—many of which shift positioning quickly when trade agreements touch raw materials. This could skew volume into single contract months or distort open interest across expiry curves. In that setting, what we’ve often relied on for trend confirmation—like volume consolidation or contango/narrowing backwardation—might behave differently than usual.

The pricing of credit futures linked to trade-sensitive producers might need a fresh look. Some names, particularly those leveraged through North American distribution routes, could see spreads widen slightly as investors weigh tariff risk relative to import penetration.

As traders, this leaves little room for complacency. High-impact policy changes, even in draft form, deserve closer scrutiny. For now, keeping position sizes modest while trading directional bets with short durations seems like the more sensible approach. This isn’t the place for long-tailed exposure. Until clearer word comes from Washington, we’ll stay ready to revise our assumptions, but not rush toward bets built on unfounded optimism.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.