Shanghai aluminium hits nearly 9-month high on prospect of better China demand
SHFE aluminium rose 0.75% to 20,900 yuan ($2,913.26) a ton by 0702 GMT, or the highest since November 12.
'Aluminium fundamentals are the most solid among metals in China, especially being the only metal with a smelting capacity capped at 45 million tons, and alumina price surge has also been supportive,' a Shanghai-based metals analyst at a futures company said.
SHFE alumina gained 4.23% to 3,452 yuan a ton, or the highest since Feb 26, and aluminium stocks at the SHFE-monitored warehouses totalled 108,822 tons by July 18, or the lowest since February 2024 albeit three consecutive weeks of rebounds.
'The Chinese government's working plans to stabilize industrial growth and the launch of the giant Tibet hydropower plant are all positive signals to the metals market, with the prospect of the country's metals demand boosting the sentiment,' a Beijing-based futures analyst at a futures company said.
However, it's unclear how much actual demand will materialise, the analyst added.
A Shanghai analyst echoed the view, saying, 'Amid all the uncertainties, such news sounds definite and positive, which may support the commodities futures market for a while.'
On July 19, China began building the world's largest hydropower dam on the eastern rim of the Tibetan Plateau at an estimated cost of at least $170 billion.
Meanwhile, SHFE nickel gained 1.51% to 123,530 yuan a ton, tin rose 1.11% to 268,520 yuan, zinc grew 0.7% to 22,945 yuan, being the highest since April 2, copper added 0.61% to 79,740 yuan, while lead ticked down 0.21% to 16,900 yuan.
On the London Metals Exchange, the three-month zinc gained 0.14% to $2,842.5 a ton, tin inched up 0.1% to $33,845, and copper added 0.07% to $9,866.5, while lead ebbed 0.55% to $2,003.5, nickel fell 0.18% to $15,495, and aliuminium traded flat at $2,645.5.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
an hour ago
- Express Tribune
Sino-US rivalry — collusion, competition, conflict
The writer is a retired major general and has an interest in International Relations and Political Sociology. He can be reached at tayyarinam@ and tweets @20_Inam Listen to article The US-China competition remains the 'defining issue' of international politics. My last piece titled the "Sino-US rivalry" was published in this space on January 11, 2024, where some relevant writings of the CNN-famed Fareed Zakaria and others were discussed. Given the comparative National Power Potential (NPP), the world seems to be drifting from unipolarity, ushered in after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990s; to the 'present state' of bipolarity (the US and China); and to the likely future scenario of multipolarity (China, Russia, EU, India and Brazil). First, a bipolar comparison. Conventional view is that China is 'already a US peer or near-peer, economically'. However, as I had pointed out, in the present state of competition, China still needs to do a lot of catching up, as the American NPP — especially its military strength, power of alliances and its cosmopolitan, multicultural and educated demography — far outpaces China, the 'hesitant regional power' that is trying to become a more assertive superpower. The US GDP is almost twice as large as China's and some analysts believe that the Chinese official figures are fudged, with Beijing manipulating key economic metrics, including GDP. China is heavily dependent upon fuel imports; has almost 20% housing vacancy rates and over $1 trillion in debt from its 48,000 km high-speed rail networks. The US by comparison leads in key high-technology sectors like the IT/software and services sector (80% of global profit shares); aerospace and defence (66.35%); drugs and biotechnology (60%) and semi-conductors/chips (58%, compared to China's miniscule 2.6% share). Then there are studies indicating that in a full-blown trade war, 'decoupling' China from the international economic system (sanctions) will disproportionately hurt Beijing, if China has not undertaken economic hardening like Russia. Moscow, in anticipation of the West Plus's reaction to Ukraine, had taken on years of pre-emptive economy-hardening steps to mitigate the ill-effects of sanctions. China's other handicaps include demographic weakness (overpopulation, effects of one-child policy, aging population); lack of alliances; its lighter presence in important global regions (Europe, the Middle East); its comparatively subdued power to influence others; China's lack of experience and exposure to act big, unlike the US, having the benefit of history and multicultural pluralism; and China's nagging legacy of trouble-spots (Spratly Islands, Tibet, Turkestan, human rights, etc). So far, there is no alternative to US power. But that does not mean China is and will not catch up. Second, the prospect of a Sino-US conflict. One had disagreed with the likelihood of conflict, as Beijing is likely to blink first, because the global status quo is protective of its core interests. Additionally, China is not a 'spoiler state' like Russia. President Xi abandoning his 'lone-wolf diplomacy' has often asked the US to lift sanctions, especially on technology transfers. And President Trump recently lifted ban on the sale of America's Nvidia-made semiconductors (especially the H20) to China. US's I-Phone is designed in California and assembled in China by a Taiwanese company, Foxconn. And in more curious case of inter-dependence, China monopolises supply of rare-earths, needed for US-manufactured semiconductors, to be used in China's high-end products, for export to the US/Western markets. There are more anti-conflict indicators, especially about the much-touted US-China conflict over Taiwan. There is a great deal of soul-searching in the American policy establishment about the cost-benefit of a war to defend Taiwan against a Chinese invasion. The US rationale in defending Taiwan is to prevent China from gaining a new foothold to project power in East Asia and disrupt trade routes in the western Pacific, thus upsetting the western-dominated global economy. America's 'vital' interest, however, is to prevent China from regional hegemony in Asia. In reality, Taiwan does not confer any outsized military advantages to China, other than extending the range of its missiles, AD assets and surveillance systems by a couple hundred 'unneeded' kilometres. Beijing can still target US regional assets in Guam, Japan and Philippines. China's under-sea gains would similarly be modest. In sum, Beijing's control of Taipei hardly overturns the regional military balance. Military logic and economic considerations, hence, do not warrant direct US involvement to defend Taiwan. Taiwan's TSMC still produces 90% of the world's most advanced chips. However, by 2032, the US company, Boston Consulting Group, will be producing 28% of the most advanced semiconductors. Likewise potential blockade of the narrow sea-lanes in East and South China seas by China marginally affects the global sea trade, as bypassing options exist through Indonesian and Philippine archipelago. Similarly, the notion that Chinese invasion undermines the US credibility is also geostrategically flawed, as fighting China over Taiwan unnecessarily binds US resources, needed elsewhere for the bigger objective of containing China. The US military prioritises developing the 'second island chain' of Guam, Marshal and Northern Mariana Islands, Micronesia and Palau for this purpose. In the US reckoning, Taiwan certainly matters, but not enough to justify war with China, as composite deterrence would likely work to dissuade China. And if push comes to shove, PLA will prevail in a conflict with Taipei with or without the US, the former scenario being more costly for the US Armed Forces. The suggestions that Taiwan should become a 'porcupine' in its denial-focused strategy against Chinese invasion is also not likely to work, as the island just does not spend enough on its defence, and ignores acquisition of anti-ship defence, naval mines, uncrewed weapons and drones. Taiwan can make the invasion slow, long and costly but not impossible, as its geography, low and dwindling materiel stockpiles in case of a Chinese naval blockade would ultimately tilt the operational balance in China's favour. So, no wonder, Washington officially supports 'One China' policy, respects China's redlines and there is much noise in Washington about 'competitive co-existence' with China. Third, alliances and economic integration. China remains one of the most important markets for EU especially Germany's export-driven economy. It meanders carefully through bloc politics, tries to be a peacemaker in the Middle East and vies for leadership mantle in the Global South. It is wary of a conflict with the US and so is the US. So, collusion, competition short of conflict will persist and recur.
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
India accuses Walmart's Myntra of breaching foreign investment rules
BENGALURU: India's financial crime agency said on Wednesday it was investigating Walmart's fashion business Myntra Designs for allegedly breaching laws prohibiting foreign wholesalers from selling to consumers. The case comes amid growing scrutiny of e-commerce players in India. An antitrust investigation last year found Amazon and Walmart's other e-commerce platform, Flipkart, favoured select sellers and resorted to 'predatory pricing', hurting smaller retailers. The companies denied the allegations. Myntra, owned by Flipkart, sells fashion brands on its own e-commerce website. Detailing its findings from an investigation, India's Enforcement Directorate said that Myntra declared it was a wholesaler and received $192 million of foreign investment, but then sold most of its goods to a group entity that retailed those products to consumers. 'Myntra Designs Pvt. Ltd was actually carrying out multi-brand retail trading in the guise of wholesale cash & carry,' the agency said. Myntra said in a statement that it had not received documents related to the case from the authorities but that it remained 'fully committed to cooperating with them at any point of time'. Some Walmart garment orders from Bangladesh on hold due to US tariff threat Walmart did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a bid to protect domestic retailers and traders, India prohibits foreign companies engaging in wholesale business to make any direct sales to consumers. E-commerce business is also restricted, with foreign-owned companies like Myntra, Amazon and Flipkart allowed to operate marketplaces to connect buyers and individual sellers online, but not to stock goods or offer them directly to consumers. The Enforcement Directorate said it had filed a complaint against Myntra before an adjudicating authority, without giving details. Flipkart and Amazon have also faced allegations of breaching India's foreign investment rules. A 2021 Reuters investigation based on internal Amazon documents showed the company for years gave preferential treatment to small groups of sellers, and used them to bypass Indian laws. Amazon has denied wrongdoing. Amazon and Flipkart are leading players in India's e-commerce market, which was estimated to be worth $125 billion in 2024 and is set to top $345 billion by 2030, according to India Brand Equity Foundation. Founded in 2007, Bengaluru-based Myntra was acquired by Flipkart in 2014. Walmart bought a controlling stake in Flipkart in 2018 for $16 billion. Myntra reported revenues of nearly $600 million in 2023-24, up 15% on the previous year.
Business Recorder
6 hours ago
- Business Recorder
IndusInd Bank to raise up to $3.5 billion, allow Hindujas to nominate two board seats
India's IndusInd Bank will raise up to $3.47 billion and allow promoters to nominate two board directors, the private sector lender said on Wednesday, as it seeks to restore confidence after a $230 million accounting lapse. IndusInd is looking to secure 300 billion rupees in funding, comprising a 200 billion rupees debt issue on a private placement basis and a 100 billion rupees capital increase through issue or placement of securities. The bank's net worth took a $230 million hit in the fiscal year ended March 31 due to years of misaccounting of internal derivative trades, prompting the resignations of CEO Sumant Kathpalia and deputy Arun Khurana in April. The UK-based Hinduja family own a 15.82% stake in the bank and are listed as its promoters, a regulatory classification in India for large shareholders who control key decision-making. India's IndusInd Bank to consider raising funds The Hindujas can now nominate up to two directors on IndusInd's board, the bank said, adding that the move was approved by India's central bank. Promoters previously did not have representation on the board. IndusInd, currently run by an executive committee, has shortlisted three senior bankers - Rajiv Anand, Rahul Shukla, and Anup Saha - for the position of CEO, Reuters reported last month. Saha resigned as non-bank lender Bajaj Finance's managing director on Monday. IndusInd will report its first-quarter results on July 28.
