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.

The S&P Global Composite PMI for the United States registered at 50.6 in April, falling short of the forecast figure of 51.2. This data is vital as it indicates the performance and growth outlook of the US economic sectors.

In the foreign exchange market, AUD/USD showed upward momentum, nearing the 0.6500 mark. This movement is influenced by ongoing US Dollar selling pressure and renewed trade concerns.

Meanwhile, EUR/USD also gained, just shy of 1.1300, supported by a risk-on sentiment and a weakening US Dollar. Gold prices advanced above $3,300 per troy ounce due to increased geopolitical tensions and uncertainty surrounding US trade policies.

Cryptocurrency Market Trends

Cryptocurrency market capitalization dipped by 3%, with BTC prices slipping below $94,000. The market saw significant outflows exceeding $100 billion in the past 24 hours.

Despite peaking tariff rates, uncertainty persists, affecting market conditions. Easing conditions should not be confused with a resolved situation, as policy unpredictability remains a real risk.

Trading foreign exchange on margin remains high risk and unsuitable for some. Potential losses can exceed initial investments, and it is crucial to understand all related risks before engaging.

The latest S&P Global Composite PMI figure, sitting at 50.6 for April, suggests moderate expansion in the US economy, albeit more sluggish than anticipated. Falling short of 51.2, expectations around business activity have softened. This nuance matters—it edges sentiment away from strong optimism and leans us into a more restrained outlook on future demand, particularly in service-heavy and industrial segments.

We take this as an indication to revisit exposure across US benchmarks. Volatility may not yet be fully reflected in option pricing, especially with mixed signals continuing to emerge from regional data. This drop may support a measured approach to directional positions, focusing instead on spreads and straddles that offer asymmetric risk.

On the currency front, the Aussie dollar’s slight ascent toward 0.6500 is no isolated move. Continued pressure on the US Dollar reflects broader sentiment around Federal Reserve policy expectations and weaker economic indicators. What compels our attention here is not the level, but the momentum shift—it’s the pace of buyers stepping into AUD/USD amid this backdrop of trade uncertainty that adds weight. Derivatives tied to this pair might warrant recalibration, particularly in short-term straddles where implied volatility is not yet adjusting in line with the spot.

As for the euro, its approach towards 1.1300 isn’t simply reflective of dollar weakness—it also echoes regained appetite for risk assets. With volatility complexes across Europe priced near their month lows, this may suggest opportunities in longer-dated contracts where call-side interest is building below the surface. Options skew is shifting. That should be monitored closely—especially with Brussels adding more clarity around fiscal policies in coming sessions.

Gold And Commodity Movement

In commodities, gold breaching $3,300 is not a casual climb. This advance was neither disorderly nor speculative—it reflected funds repositioning due to geopolitical risks with clear triggers. Coupled with defensive FX stance globally, OTMs held during US session confirms steady positioning rather than speculative overreach. It suggests that a pullback doesn’t invalidate bullish structure for now, particularly if macro hedging demand continues to filter in.

Risk premiums are still visibly adjusted across crypto. Bitcoin descending below $94,000 against a backdrop of over $100 billion in capital flight isn’t incidental. The scale of these outflows has been abrupt enough to trigger liquidation of correlated alt positions. For now, longer-dated futures show staggered contango, which we interpret as cautious reinflation, not speculative re-entry. If using derivatives here, position sizing must reflect that any upside could remain capped near-term due to position overhang.

Trade conditions haven’t settled. Although headlines suggest tariffs have plateaued, their impact is lagged—not linear. Every effort to normalise trade frameworks introduces a fresh layer of interpretation risk. This keeps outcome probability bands wide. Calibration of delta-neutral exposures may serve better than aggressive directional bias, particularly as policy assumptions shift faster than pricing mechanisms can adjust.

In light of the above, risk structures must anticipate delayed responses. Price discovery is uneven. Moves in FX, commodities, and crypto have divorcing paces. When complex markets present multiple readings, it serves well to defer default assumptions and instead ramp focus on short-dated instruments that allow repositioning flexibility.

Now is less about what has moved, and more about noticing what hasn’t. Not all implied vol surfaces have adjusted in tandem. The carry from this week’s volatility may offer unusually clean premium if one adjusts exposure dynamically and not through static directional bias.

We watch Treasury markets next. Spread behaviours there will likely dictate the next domino. But until that point, instruments allowing for gamma scalping or time decay trading seem relatively better suited, especially if macro data remains slightly underwhelming.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

Resistance and Support Levels

Surpassing this resistance could lead to further gains, with the high from April at 0.60281 as the next target. If it climbs above 0.60281, the next milestone is 0.6037, a level not reached since November. This is near the 61.8% retracement from the 2024 high to the 2025 low.

The current bias is upwards as long as the price remains above the 200-hour moving average. However, moving below this average could shift focus to potential declines.

Key levels to watch include the 0.6000 resistance zone, 0.6028 high for 2025, and 0.6036-0.6037. Support is at the 200-hour moving average at 0.5951 and the 100-hour moving average at 0.5939.

The initial portion of the article outlines a short-term upward movement in NZDUSD, anchored by technical levels that tend to influence trading behaviour. What we’re seeing is a bounce off the 100-hour moving average near 0.5938, a level that has behaved like a springboard for buying interest. That bounce wasn’t simply a pause—it brought in fresh demand, which helped pull the price above the 200-hour moving average, situated at 0.59515. That cross above the longer-term average has historical weight: every time the price sustains above this average, buyers begin to defend their positions with more confidence.

Market Sentiment and Strategies

As we move further into the week, attention turns to the ceiling at 0.6000. That area has acted like a reinforced lid, capping progress several times recently. It’s a zone that, if broken, may lead to a broader shift in sentiment. Traders with positions aligned with the underlying direction should keep close tabs on whether momentum is building on attempts to pierce this level rather than faltering just below it.

After 0.6000, the next goal looks to be the peak reached in April, around 0.60281. It’s not just an arbitrary number—it marks the highest level seen in months and could be psychologically influential if breached. Beyond that, 0.6037 roughly matches the 61.8% Fibonacci retracement from the yearly high-to-low range, which places it in a technical position where some traders may start locking in gains. This level hasn’t been tested since November, which adds weight to its potential as a magnet for price.

The continued upward tone in NZDUSD hinges on whether the price holds above the 200-hour moving average. That average, positioned near 0.5951, now acts as a buffer—if price returns below this zone, sentiment should be reassessed. Derivative holders may need to consider reducing exposure or at least hedging in that scenario, particularly if it aligns with softening macro inputs.

On the other hand, if the zone around 0.6000 gives way and closes start registering above that point, positioning for a move toward the upper targets—namely 0.6028 and 0.6037—becomes justified. Cold, mechanical entry criteria should include observing price action around those clear thresholds, not simply chasing moves in progress. We find that premature long positions often unwind painfully when entered too close to stretched resistance levels without volume expansion or proper breaks on hourly closes.

What helps us here is the clarity of the levels. Resistance at 0.6000 is not ambiguous, nor are the markers at the April peak or the Fibonacci line. Key support lies at the 200-hour and 100-hour moving averages—down at 0.5951 and close to 0.5939, respectively. Losing both within a short timeframe flips the script and presents an altogether different picture for risk management. Traders with leveraged products need to be clinical at those points, taking cues from actual price performance rather than assuming a continuation of the directional move.

Through all this, it’s worth noting that the response around each of these areas—be it hesitation, acceleration, or rejection—will likely dictate how we approach the immediate sessions. We don’t forecast sentiment shifts, but we can measure positioning and structure around these known barriers. Observing the behaviour during North American trading hours, particularly as volume expands, may provide a stronger validation—or invalidation—of any intraday breakouts or reversals underway.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The United States S&P Global Services PMI fell to 50.8 in April, below the expected figure of 51.4. This slight decline indicates a minimal expansion in the services sector.

The PMI above 50 generally signifies growth, but the dip below expectations suggests a moderation in service activity growth. This data could influence economic assessments and market performances.

Service Sector Performance

We’ve just seen the latest S&P Global Services PMI for the United States dip to 50.8 in April. It’s still above the 50-point threshold that separates expansion from contraction, but by coming in below the consensus estimate of 51.4, it implies that the sector is not growing as briskly as forecast.

To put this in context, this index is one of many that helps to gauge the pulse of the services sector—an area that makes up a large portion of the U.S. economy. The fact that it is still inching higher suggests there is growth, yet the weaker-than-expected reading hints at softer demand or reduced business confidence. From earlier prints this year, where expansion was more robust, this downward movement could act as a cue for repositioning or reassessing exposure in rate-sensitive trades.

From our perspective, it’s not only the headline PMI print that matters, but also the shift in sentiment driving purchasing managers’ decisions. When the pace of services activity begins to flatten, it might reflect that companies are becoming more cautious with future spending, potentially impacting broader consumption trends. That could help explain the recent pullback in pricing elsewhere—particularly in interest rate swaps or short-term volatility structures.

These kinds of differences between actual figures and consensus expectations often carry weight in how traders position going forward. In this instance, the market may start inching towards pricing lower growth assumptions into forward-looking contracts. That can also weigh on the prospect of tighter monetary policy tightening, at least in the near term.

Market Implications and Strategy

Given the services sector’s sensitivity to consumer activity and labour markets, we will also be watching May’s figures closely. A follow-up decline would suggest a more persistent slowdown building, and that would likely feed into positioning for both front-end rates and mid-curve volatility.

In practical terms, we’re taking a more detailed look at relative positioning across macro hedging strategies. Anything that benefits from reduced expectations for growth or delay in policy tightening might begin to attract attention again, especially where macro funds have lightened up. Longer-end implied vols are already indicating less appetite to hedge sharp moves in either direction—this data might support that trend in the immediate term.

For spread traders and those active in derivatives, nuance in these data points tends to become more relevant when other macro signals are mixed or noisy. The market’s response to this report was modest, but when viewed with upcoming employment and inflation data sets, the combination could drive greater differences in rate expectations. How skew behaves between fixed income instruments deserves close watching.

As a next step, we’ll be looking carefully at implied probabilities in options markets related to June and July policy meetings, particularly changes in pricing after each data release. Since real acceleration in growth appears elusive, trades built around a slower glide path for activity might start to make more sense. The adjustment won’t be immediate, but over the next two to three weeks, any reaffirmation of this trend could gradually shift pricing dynamics across the curve and into equity volatility, particularly in the cyclical names.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

USDCAD trades with a bearish inclination, as the 100-hour (1.38197) and 200-hour (1.38394) moving averages limit upward movements. Attempts to rise have stalled near these levels, acting as a resistance barrier.

Downside momentum is modest, with lows edging slightly lower. Sellers maintain control as long as the price remains below these moving averages.

Consolidation Range and Support Levels

A break above 1.38394 could alter the bias, though current rallies present selling opportunities. The daily chart suggests a target below Friday’s low at 1.37415, aligning with a 61.8% retracement from 2023 lows and mid-October swing lows.

The broader daily chart places USDCAD within a consolidation range from September 2022 to November 2024.

Key levels include resistance at 1.38197 (100-hour moving average) and 1.38394 (200-hour moving average), with support at 1.3781 (April 14 low), 1.37698 (April 30 low), and 1.37593 (May 2 low).

The information above outlines the current condition of the USD/CAD currency pair from a technical analysis standpoint. Essentially, what is being shown is that upward movement in the pair is repeatedly running into selling interest near the 100-hour and 200-hour moving averages—markers often taken as near-term trend indicators. These two averages, at 1.38197 and 1.38394 respectively, are restricting gains, effectively forming a ceiling that the price struggles to breach.

The price action remains contained beneath these moving averages, and traders have been showing a preference to sell into short lived rallies. Downward pressure isn’t forceful, but there’s a persistent drift lower in recent sessions, which reflects control by those on the sell side. As long as the price remains capped beneath those two levels, the technical sentiment stays tilted to the downside.

Trading Strategy and Risk Management

A move beyond the 200-hour average, the higher of the two levels, would disrupt this structure, opening the door to a shift in tone. That said, so far, attempts to push above it have been used as opportunities to sell rather than signs of strength. This should not surprise anyone watching the pair’s longer-term tendencies.

Looking at the daily timeframe, the broader context shows the pair continuing to move within an extended range that’s held since September of 2022. While that range suggests uncertainty at higher levels, recent action has pointed towards the lower edge. Notably, the price is drawing closer to Friday’s trough at 1.37415. That level isn’t arbitrary—it’s lined up with the 61.8% retracement level from the rise seen from the 2023 low. Familiarity with Fibonacci retracement zones tells us that if this one gives way, the doors open to more persistent declines.

Beyond that point, traders will be keeping their eyes on the lower supports around 1.3781, 1.37698, and 1.37593—levels that came into play on specific dates in April and early May. Breaks below each one would add to bearish conviction, especially since none of them have yet prompted sustained buying pressure.

From our side, the strategy remains consistent. We’ve been watching how failed breakouts near the two hourly moving averages create repeatable conditions. Hills of price failure near those levels have created a short set-up that can be tracked plainly. If the current trend holds, short positions with tight risk controls just above these resistance levels allow entries with favourable reward-to-risk profiles. Targets below 1.37415 appear well defined.

The playbook doesn’t require guessing, just following the reaction to these established areas. Risk is clear; so is the path if the pressure persists. As long as price is penned below those averages, the path of least resistance stays downward.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

Financial Performance Overview

The projections do not suggest an earnings beat for CNQ, with the Earnings ESP standing at 0.00% and a Zacks Rank #3. Other energy companies like Calumet, Pembina Pipeline, and Talen Energy are expected to post strong earnings growth.

Given the outlined financial setup and shifting variables surrounding Canadian Natural Resources Limited in the upcoming quarter, it’s clear we’re not looking at a straightforward recovery or breakout. The expected year-over-year rise in earnings by over 43% appears compelling at a glance. However, that figure must be read in context. The previous year’s comparables were weighed down by depressed gas prices and hefty cost burdens, which makes the current bump less impressive when placed against the wider energy sector’s rebound. Analysts have little reason to revise their earnings assumptions upward, especially with an Earnings ESP of 0.00% and a middling analyst ranking, indicating neutral expectations.

The revenue forecast, while up by more than 11%, is likewise not enough to suggest a strong tailwind. While the boost from the Athabasca acquisition adds some volume heft—640,000 barrels per day is nothing to ignore—the associated costs may dampen the benefit. That Shell transaction, while favourable from a strategic reserves perspective, also adds complexity and overhead during a period where breakeven economics are shifting underfoot.

Risks and Opportunities

We can’t overlook how the North Sea and Offshore Africa regions are likely to weigh on margins. North Sea operating spend is projected to surge by 81%, and that’s not a line item that balances out easily, even with increased throughput. Offshore Africa, not quite as large, but still material, shows a delta in costs that remains difficult to square with stable output. These aren’t anomalies. As we’ve seen in similar upstream-heavy portfolios, geographic diversification helps only when the cash flow from those areas offsets development and maintenance schedules. Here, they appear to stack the other way.

What’s presenting more risk than opportunity in the short term are the yearly maturities running up to 2027. The market doesn’t currently punish companies for refinancing, but that depends heavily on commodity spot prices holding damp volatility. Crude and gas have both shown recent instability as geopolitical variables and storage stats jostle market confidence. Even a modest widening in bond spreads could mean that rolling over upcoming maturities will erode free cash flow. The pattern of consistent refinancing pressure year after year isn’t ignorable, especially when costs are climbing in tandem.

Other names in the same sector appear to be faring better from a forward trajectory standpoint. Strong earnings outlooks from firms like Pembina and Calumet might start drawing capital allocation away from neutral stories like Canadian Natural, particularly among institutional allocators seeking margin clarity. That contrast becomes critical when viewed from a hedging or spread strategy position. If one leg of a pair is flat-lining while others firm up their cost structures and show upside via earnings upgrades, it becomes incrementally harder to justify open long exposure there.

From where we sit, we should be thinking about implied volatility pricing relative to earnings scenarios. With no edge on the earnings beat, and cost-side pressures escalating, the short-dated option premiums may be underpricing downside risk in the 1-2 month window. The absence of surprises is not the same as stability when you’re modeling scenarios. The cost of carrying these risk exposures without conviction on either side starts to make more sense only if other legs inside a portfolio can absorb softness attributed to refining, nat gas or offshore outputs.

Timing remains important. The production uplift from Athabasca looks better the further out you go, but front-month exposures don’t benefit from theoretical reserves. What’s seen right now is cost execution and balance sheet management. There’s not yet enough visibility on whether refinancing efforts in 2025 and beyond will be offset by free cash flow expansion or sustained product pricing, leaving derivative positions vulnerable in either direction depending on CPI and rate curve changes.

It would make sense for us to tread carefully this week, particularly with respect to calendar spreads and any short gamma positions that anticipate stability. We aren’t seeing enough compression in risk to warrant aggressive theta harvesting either. Instead, we’d advise forks in strategy only when it’s absolutely clear that margin expansion won’t get reversed by ongoing capex drift or financing costs rising faster than realised pricing improves.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

Former President Trump plans to impose a 100% tariff on foreign-produced movies entering the United States. He claims this is a response to incentives by other countries to lure American filmmakers, which he sees as a threat to national security and the domestic industry.

The Department of Commerce and the U.S. Trade Representative are tasked with initiating the tariff process. This may affect the economics of the entertainment industry, international relations, and stock values of media and film production companies.

Impact on Companies

Companies involved in international film production may face increased costs and potential revenue losses. In contrast, domestic studios might benefit from reduced foreign competition.

The announcement raises questions about the policy’s specifics, such as the treatment of films partially produced abroad. Uncertainty also surrounds whether international TV series and streaming content will fall under the tariff.

This proposed tariff stems from discussions at Mar-a-Lago with actors like Jon Voight and Mel Gibson, focusing on declining U.S. entertainment jobs. The tariff may aim to shift production back to the U.S.

Ongoing scrutiny and debate over the tariff’s details should be expected, and responses from major media and streaming companies with international interests are anticipated. The policy could change global media market dynamics.

Proposed Policy Details

What we’ve seen laid out so far is a proposed policy with direct, measurable intent: to penalise foreign-manufactured films entering the U.S. with a 100% tariff, apparently in retaliation against what’s described as overseas government incentives drawing production away from American soil. The rationale behind the move hinges on two primary points—economic defence and national security—woven together with concern over domestic job losses in the entertainment sector.

Based on current details, the policy process shifts into the domain of the U.S. Department of Commerce and USTR, meaning formal steps are now likely underway. Given their standard procedures, any tariff resulting from this will not materialise instantly. There’s typically a multi-stage inquiry, followed by hearings and consultations, which could span weeks or months. Derivatives markets tied to entertainment equities, therefore, are looking at a trading window characterised by headline risk rather than hard figures.

Studios managing asset portfolios across borders now face mounting questions. Those with stakes in companies that rely on international co-productions or licensing may see short-term volatility, particularly if investors begin pricing in weaker international revenue. Stock options in companies with extensive overseas pipelines could reflect increased delta and vega sensitivity as uncertainty over costs grows.

From our side, this opens an opportunity to scrutinise exposures more precisely. Where implied volatility begins to diverge sharply from realised in film-related equities or broader media baskets, it makes sense to reweight accordingly or consider calendar spreads where expiration cycles might capture announcement timelines. For those with directional bias, it’s also possible that premiums become attractive for protective puts as regulatory suspense continues.

Notably, this measure goes beyond old narratives around trade imbalances—it targets culture as a commodity. That’s where market interpretation may split. While S&P 500 constituents with limited exposure may adjust only modestly, index-linked derivatives could still experience stress through correlated sentiment shifts, especially if perceived as a barrier precedent for other creative industries. It’s not just about action; it’s about sentiment propagation.

How international streaming platforms are categorised under the policy could swing implied correlation expectations amongst media conglomerates. If series titles produced between locations or with multinational crews qualify for tariffs, pricing assumptions for content origin could shift. We shouldn’t overlook the mechanical implications of policy definition on benchmark media indices. Particle changes lead to collective repricing.

Voight and Gibson, mentioned as present during the discussions, are moving from actors to actors in policy. That shift influences perception just as much as statements do. If the market starts reading this as the beginning of cultural trade alignment rather than a one-off gesture, longer-dated options on affected ETFs might begin to widen spreads. Historical correlations may become less applicable as global narratives become fragmented by regulatory shifts.

As always, clarity is going to come in pieces. We watch for rate changes in media speculation volume and increased sensitivity to public comments from congressional or committee members tied to trade oversight. This type of noise historically drives short-term momentum plays but also creates space for mispricing.

In terms of positioning, we advocate watching where term structure flattens or steepens in contract expiration schedules—this will show where risk concentration is moving. Volatility buyers may step in if perceived ambiguity persists longer than expected. Until then, we treat headlines as directional cues, not trigger points. Options that expire near key procedural deadlines become informational assets just as much as instruments.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The S&P 500 rose by 1.47% on Friday, spurred by a better-than-expected Nonfarm Payrolls report. Despite this, there are growing tariff concerns that may affect corporate earnings in the future.

U.S. stock futures suggest a 0.7% lower open for the S&P 500 today, reducing some of Friday’s gains. Attention is on trade-related news and the upcoming FOMC rate decision on Wednesday.

Bearish Sentiment Persists

The AAII Investor Sentiment Survey indicates bearish sentiment at 59.3%, with only 20.9% feeling bullish. This sentiment comes as the S&P 500 nears its late March local highs.

The S&P 500 increased by 2.92% last week, building on the prior week’s 4.6% rally. However, uncertainty persists about whether this marks a new uptrend or a correction within a broader downtrend.

The Nasdaq 100 rose by 1.60% on Friday but is expected to fall back to the 20,000 mark, with futures showing a 0.9% decline. New 100% tariffs on movies produced outside the U.S. are impacting stocks like Netflix and Disney.

The VIX declined to as low as 22.34, suggesting a reduction in market fear. However, a lower VIX raises the probability of a market downtrend, with support for S&P 500 futures at 5,600.

Market Direction Uncertain

What we’ve seen over the past fortnight is a market attempting to find direction, but doing so under the shadow of policy risk and economic data that remains difficult to frame with any strong conviction. Friday’s bump in the S&P 500—driven by an unexpectedly positive Nonfarm Payrolls report—was encouraging on the surface. It added 1.47% in a single day, which brought some short-term optimism. Employment growth generally gives markets a shot in the arm, as it hints at economic resilience. But this particular jobs data might now raise the odds of holding rates higher for longer, which rarely bodes well for risk assets over an extended stretch. The initial rally may have been more about relief than renewed confidence.

Early pre-market indicators point to a downward opening—S&P 500 futures off by around 0.7%—which is unwinding part of last week’s gains. Markets are clearly uneasy. We interpret the retreat not as a sharp reversal, but as pricing in uncertainty ahead of Wednesday’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting. Powell and company have been measured, opting to wait for more decisive signs inflation is retreating. That caution will now be tested. Any deviation from the expected neutral stance would likely lead to outsized moves in both directions.

Sentiment data remains heavily skewed, with the AAII survey showing nearly three bearish investors for every one who’s bullish. At 59.3% bearish and just 20.9% bullish, it’s one of the more tilted readings we’ve seen in recent quarters. When such a majority leans one way, there’s often the potential for a surprise in the opposite direction. It might not happen overnight, but the ingredients for a short-term squeeze are in place, especially if traders have positioned heavily against near-term upside.

Despite a two-week rally pushing the S&P 500 almost 8% higher, there’s simmering doubt over whether we’re witnessing the start of a durable rebound or simply another bounce in a weaker medium-term trend. The Nasdaq 100, which gained 1.6% on Friday, now faces renewed pressure—futures suggest a retreat back to the 20,000 mark. Confidence across high-growth sectors remains highly sensitive to both regulatory updates and unpredictable policy moves.

A recent announcement around 100% tariffs on foreign-made entertainment has already delivered marked selling in companies like Netflix and Disney. The impact isn’t just symbolic—investors are reassessing the earnings potential of firms with global supply chains, especially those exposed to discretionary consumer spending. We expect hedging demand to pick up for names in these sectors, as the tariff fallout is unlikely to be short-lived.

Volatility readings continue to ease, with the VIX falling to 22.34—a level we haven’t seen in weeks. This softening could easily tempt some to believe that downside risks have exited the conversation. Yet the move may be misleading. Lower volatility tends to coincide with complacency, and when that emerges in the presence of unresolved macro risks, the setup for sharper downturns increases. We find that the S&P 500 futures now look to 5,600 as the next area into which downside flows could concentrate.

Looking ahead, positions should remain fluid. The careful eye should be kept on policy signals, potential earnings revisions from tariff-exposed firms, and whether market breadth begins to deteriorate once again. The key is not to overcommit to either direction while so many macro variables remain unresolved.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.

The USDCHF has been struggling to maintain upward momentum after failing to break key resistance levels last week. Attempts to surpass the high at 0.8333 and the 38.2% retracement at 0.83505 were thwarted, leaving gains limited.

On Friday, the pair found support in the swing area between 0.8195 and 0.8212 before moving towards the convergence of the 100-hour and 200-hour moving averages at 0.8257 and 0.8263. Earlier today, it briefly rose above these moving averages before descending back below them.

Usdchf Current Outlook

Currently, the USDCHF trades below the moving averages, indicating a bearish outlook. It occupies the lower half of its recent range, reinforcing the downward trend. The focus now shifts to the support zone at 0.8195–0.8212.

Failure to maintain gains above crucial averages suggests continued seller dominance, with the potential for a break below the support zone, possibly leading to further lows from late April. Key technical levels include resistance at 0.8257 and 0.82636, and support between 0.8195 and 0.8212.

What we’ve witnessed in recent sessions is a clear struggle for the USDCHF to regain any sustainable upside. After failing to breach the highs around 0.8333 and stalling at the 38.2% retracement near 0.8350, the pair has faltered, slipping steadily and showing little strength in any rebound attempts. That sellers have kept a firm grip, especially when fresh attempts to rally are met with swift rejection, reflects their readiness to act near these levels.

Friday’s bounce off the support area between 0.8195 and 0.8212 provided a temporary foothold, but it lacked follow-through. When price action rallied into the 100-hour and 200-hour moving averages around 0.8257 and 0.8263 earlier today, we saw a brief flicker of bullish energy — one that faded quickly, which removed any doubt about the prevailing sentiment. The market didn’t just dip back below those average lines; it settled beneath them, staying confined in the lower portion of its recent range.

Trend Direction And Key Levels

That tells us something simple: momentum favours the downside. The failure to stay above these moving averages isn’t just a technical miss — it’s a repeated rejection that traders should take note of.

From our point of view, attention now turns back to the support zone between 0.8195 and 0.8212. It’s been tested before, and held — just — but another attempt, especially under current conditions, could crack it. Without upside effort to defend the averages, the weight of price action leans heavily towards a shift lower. Should support give way, it could bring April’s lows back into view rather quickly.

Traders focusing on short-term positioning will likely continue to treat failed rallies into the moving averages as opportunities to re-enter or add to bearish stances. The levels are not just references — they’re visible signals of where buyers continue to hesitate and where sellers seem confident. With price hovering below both 100- and 200-hour averages, and little sign of recovery, selling strength into these zones remains a probable strategy. If we move lower past 0.8195, the market could accelerate that momentum, bringing wider levels into play.

Watching whether the pair can reclaim the moving averages and hold will remain key in assessing any change in bias. But for now, with the pair struggling below resistance and leaning into lower support, the technical outlook remains pointed in one direction.

Create your live VT Markets account and start trading now.