Source: Insightful Commentary
JPMorgan Global Market Strategy: What Signals Are Commodities Sending Us? February 5, 2026
The chaotic start to February raises a question: Is the volatility in commodity markets a precursor to future trends, or merely an adjustment?
We believe this is a healthy adjustment, not a turning point, presenting buying opportunities for metals, while expecting further declines in the energy sector.
Although global growth is recovering and manufacturing activity is shifting, providing support on the demand side, the divergence between energy and metals primarily stems from different supply dynamics.
From gold and silver to copper and Bitcoin, all commodity prices plummeted last Friday, marking the most significant market turmoil since last November. Gold experienced its sharpest single-day drop since 1983, falling over 9%, while silver plunged 26%, its largest single-day decline on record. Grain and livestock futures also crashed amid the turmoil in the precious metals market.
The sell-off continued into Monday, pressuring energy markets: global natural gas prices collapsed, and oil prices recorded their largest drop in six months. Precious metals selling accelerated after U.S. and Chinese exchanges raised margin requirements, compounded by a wave of seasonal selling ahead of the Lunar New Year, exacerbating the decline.
Overall, commodities lost nearly 8% in a brutal three-day plunge, with U.S. natural gas prices plummeting 57%, silver falling 33%, gold dropping 13%, and both copper and oil declining 7%. This intense volatility persisted into mid-week, with prices falling again after a rebound due to choppy trading (Figures 1 and 2). The commodity decline dragged U.S. stock index futures lower, while Asian stocks suffered their worst two-day drop since last April on Monday.
Figure 1: Year-to-date performance of gold, silver, Shanghai copper, and Brent crude oil prices
Figure 2: 10-year z-score of cross-asset volatility
This week's chaotic start raises the question: Is the commodity sell-off a precursor to future trends, or merely an adjustment?
We believe it is not a turning point but a healthy adjustment, a buying opportunity for metals, with more selling expected in energy.
1. The first argument revolves around the recovery in global growth
Since the fourth quarter of last year, a clear pro-cyclical rotation has emerged in global markets, reflected in metals, equities, and foreign exchange. This recovery is a direct result of:
· Less restrictive monetary policies in developed countries (Figure 3)
· Expansionary fiscal policies in most major economies. In the U.S., the Congressional Budget Office predicts that legislative measures like the "Bundle of Goodness Act" will boost U.S. growth by 0.9%. Expansionary fiscal policy is not unique to the U.S. The IMF estimates that fiscal measures will push growth in Germany by 1% and Japan by 0.5% in 2026. Ultimately, fiscal policy in the G3 economies will be highly expansionary in the coming quarters.
· Significant upside catalysts for U.S. growth and inflation as headwinds from trade wars and immigration restrictions fade. Strong AI and data center spending, along with high AI stock prices, are boosting the wealth effect for consumers. Additional tailwinds include a weaker dollar and (until recently) falling oil prices, as well as economic stimulus from hosting the World Cup and activities related to the U.S. Semiquincentennial.
The "Bundle of Goodness Act" further supports the outlook by cutting taxes on overtime and consumption, increasing the child tax credit, and extending full expensing for equipment and plants, which is increasing household rebates and driving a capital expenditure boom (Figure 4).
Figure 3: Official policy rates in developed countries
Figure 4: U.S. non-defense capital goods (excluding aircraft) spending
2. Global manufacturing activity is turning
Recent PMI data confirm that a global growth rebound is underway and broadening, supported by global monetary easing and a surge in tech investment. The increase in the number of economies reporting higher output is particularly encouraging. In developed markets, the U.S. recorded its strongest ISM manufacturing data since August 2022, Japan showed significant improvement, and Western Europe clearly strengthened. While China's output PMI was largely unchanged, the key bellwether of emerging Asia ex-China saw substantial growth. Overall, the global PMI is running at a solid, above-trend pace, with rising new orders providing constructive signals for the sustainability of the recovery.
3. Given the reassessment of global growth, the 2026 reflation trade has unfolded, with commodities, materials, and industrial stocks performing well
Based on the relationship between copper prices and the global manufacturing PMI over the past fifteen years, the magnitude of the recent copper price increase suggests a PMI reading near 53—well above the latest data of around 50.5 and more optimistic than any other cyclically sensitive market we track. While copper's year-on-year performance may exaggerate the market's pro-cyclical optimism, other markets also clearly show a degree of optimism. For example, a simulated basket of semiconductor stocks (showing similar explanatory power over the same period, R-squared around 0.42) suggests the PMI will rise to around 52 by the end of Q1 2026. The sustained bullish trend in this stock basket after breaking out of a multi-year range indicates that the pro-cyclical component of market trends remains strong, despite recent short-term reversals in metals (Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5: Copper price vs. global manufacturing PMI
Figure 6: Semiconductor stock basket vs. global manufacturing PMI
4. However, the similarities within commodities end here
The sharp correction in precious metals prices last week was triggered by a dollar rebound (following the nomination of Kevin Warsh as the next Fed Chair), but the severity of the pullback was more due to the rapid unwinding of massive long positions quickly built up after prices accelerated unsustainably and became overextended in the prior two weeks. In short, prices went too far, too fast, with short-term momentum indicators jumping to levels rare in precious metals markets.
In contrast, the 11% rise in Bloomberg Energy prices since the start of the year was driven by temporary factors like weather and geopolitical escalation. A massive winter storm and freezing temperatures in parts of the U.S. caused production disruptions and boosted heating fuel demand, while cold weather in Europe disrupted oil loadings and depleted gas storage. However, the most significant impact on oil prices was the escalation of tensions with Iran, which we do not expect to be lasting given this is a U.S. midterm election year.
Looking through the current volatility, we remain bullish on gold and copper while maintaining a lower outlook for energy prices—a divergence driven primarily by different supply dynamics.
5. Staying bullish on gold; copper's fundamental peak is still ahead
Staying bullish on gold. As we have seen over the past six months, this long-term rally in gold is not linear, nor will it be in the future, and we continue to view such pullbacks as healthy and necessary, not a challenge to our structural bullish view. In fact, as gold remains a dynamic, multi-faceted portfolio hedge with a clear structural story, we have already seen physical bargain-hunting emerge.
Beyond recent support from retail investors, we continue to expect central banks to remain steadfast as significant bargain buyers, and we now forecast official net purchases to reach 800 tonnes of gold this year, still 70% above pre-2022 levels (Figure 7).
Overall, we continue to see room for the gold diversification trend to run further, as in an environment where physical assets continue to outperform paper assets, we expect demand from both central banks and investors this year to be sufficient to ultimately push gold to $6,300 per ounce by the end of 2026 (Figure 8).
Figure 7: Central bank quarterly gold purchases
</section></div><script type=)
{"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What is J.P. Morgan's overall view on the recent commodity market sell-off, and what opportunities do they see?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"J.P. Morgan views the sell-off as a healthy correction rather than a trend reversal. They see it as a buying opportunity for metals like gold and copper, while expecting further declines in the energy sector."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"According to the report, what are the key factors driving the divergence between metal and energy commodities?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The divergence is primarily driven by different supply dynamics. Metals are supported by structural stories and central bank buying, while the energy price surge was fueled by temporary factors like severe weather and geopolitical tensions."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"What is J.P. Morgan's specific year-end price target for gold and the main reasons supporting this bullish outlook?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"J.P. Morgan maintains a bullish outlook on gold with a price target of $6,300 per ounce by the end of 2026. This is supported by expectations of strong demand from both central banks (forecasting 800 tons of net official purchases) and investors seeking portfolio diversification."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Why is the bank more cautious on silver compared to gold in the short term?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The bank is more cautious on silver because it is a smaller, more volatile market that lacks central banks as structural buyers. Its relatively higher valuation compared to gold makes it at risk for a deeper correction and two-way overshoot risk."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"How much geopolitical risk premium does J.P. Morgan estimate is currently priced into oil, and what is their expectation for it?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"J.P. Morgan estimates that oil prices contain about $7 per barrel of geopolitical premium, largely due to escalated tensions between the US and Iran. They expect this premium to fade, as they do not a lasting disruption to oil supply, allowing prices to fall back towards fair value."}}]}
Preguntas relacionadas
QWhat is J.P. Morgan's overall view on the recent commodity market sell-off, and what opportunities do they see?
AJ.P. Morgan views the sell-off as a healthy correction rather than a trend reversal. They see it as a buying opportunity for metals like gold and copper, while expecting further declines in the energy sector.
QAccording to the report, what are the key factors driving the divergence between metal and energy commodities?
AThe divergence is primarily driven by different supply dynamics. Metals are supported by structural stories and central bank buying, while the energy price surge was fueled by temporary factors like severe weather and geopolitical tensions.
QWhat is J.P. Morgan's specific year-end price target for gold and the main reasons supporting this bullish outlook?
AJ.P. Morgan maintains a bullish outlook on gold with a price target of $6,300 per ounce by the end of 2026. This is supported by expectations of strong demand from both central banks (forecasting 800 tons of net official purchases) and investors seeking portfolio diversification.
QWhy is the bank more cautious on silver compared to gold in the short term?
AThe bank is more cautious on silver because it is a smaller, more volatile market that lacks central banks as structural buyers. Its relatively higher valuation compared to gold makes it at risk for a deeper correction and two-way overshoot risk.
QHow much geopolitical risk premium does J.P. Morgan estimate is currently priced into oil, and what is their expectation for it?
AJ.P. Morgan estimates that oil prices contain about $7 per barrel of geopolitical premium, largely due to escalated tensions between the US and Iran. They expect this premium to fade, as they do not a lasting disruption to oil supply, allowing prices to fall back towards fair value.
Lecturas Relacionadas
Trend in US Stocks: A Post Triggers a 930-Point Rebound, Tonight Belongs to SpaceX
On Thursday (June 11, U.S. Eastern Time), Wall Street staged a textbook V-shaped reversal. The Dow Jones surged 929.97 points (+1.86%) to close above 50,000, while the Nasdaq and S&P 500 rose 2.54% and 1.75%, respectively. The rally occurred despite the hottest PPI report in years, with May data showing a 6.5% year-on-year surge, the highest since 2022. The market ignored the inflation data, focusing instead on reports that former President Trump called off a planned strike on Iran, hinting at a potential multi-party peace agreement draft. This sparked a sharp drop in oil prices, fueling hopes that inflation may have peaked.
Sector rotations were stark: previously battered AI hardware and cyclical stocks led the gains, while defensive sectors that hit record highs the prior day were sold off. Chip stocks like Micron and Intel saw sharp rebounds. In contrast, software giant Oracle plunged nearly 10% despite beating earnings, with concerns over cloud revenue and cash flow. Adobe also fell after hours despite raising guidance, as its CFO announced departure.
The rally's sustainability is questioned, driven largely by social media posts about unconfirmed geopolitical developments. Inflation risks remain, with pipeline pressures still high. Meanwhile, the market's risk appetite faces a major test with SpaceX's historic IPO. Priced at $135 per share, it aims to raise ~$75 billion with a $1.75 trillion valuation, becoming the largest U.S. IPO ever. It will join the Nasdaq 100 in 15 days, triggering massive index fund buying. However, critics cite extreme valuation (88x sales) and market liquidity concerns.
marsbitHace 24 min(s)
marsbitHace 24 min(s)
The Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?
Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Mega IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?
The capital market in 2026 is witnessing a highly anticipated wave of tech IPOs, centered on SpaceX, OpenAI, and Anthropic. Collectively valued at over $3.5 trillion, their potential listing represents one of the largest such waves in recent years. This raises concerns about market liquidity, valuation bubbles, and potential capital outflows from other assets like crypto.
SpaceX's valuation narrative has shifted from rocket launches to becoming a global infrastructure play via its Starlink satellite network, which now drives most revenue. Despite ongoing losses, investors focus on its long-term growth potential. OpenAI and Anthropic represent the core productivity engines of generative AI. Their public listings would offer the first direct investment opportunity in large foundation model companies, potentially triggering a repricing within the AI sector.
Market fears of a massive "capital drain" from these IPOs are likely overstated. Historical precedents like Alibaba and Saudi Aramco show that mega-listings primarily cause capital reallocation, not destruction, within the vast equities market. Systemic risk is rarely triggered by IPOs alone.
For stock markets, short-term volatility and sector repricing are expected, especially for AI concept stocks. Long-term, these listings could reinforce the tech sector's importance. For crypto, direct competition for speculative capital exists, particularly affecting AI-themed tokens. However, crypto's trajectory remains more tied to its own cycles, macro liquidity, and Bitcoin ETF flows rather than a single IPO event.
The real risk lies not in the listings themselves but in the sky-high growth expectations embedded in these valuations. If future revenue, profitability, or commercialization progress disappoints, significant valuation resets could follow, impacting high-growth tech stocks. Ultimately, the market's direction hinges on macroeconomic conditions and whether these companies can deliver on their ambitious promises.
链捕手Hace 40 min(s)
链捕手Hace 40 min(s)
Trillion-Dollar Valuation Test: Are the Three Super IPOs a Tech Stock Frenzy or a Crypto Market Nightmare?
Title: Trillion-Dollar Valuations at Stake: Super IPOs of SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic – Tech Boom or Crypto Nightmare?
TL;DR:
A wave of mega-tech IPOs is approaching, featuring SpaceX (targeting a $1.75 trillion valuation), OpenAI (~$852B), and Anthropic (~$965B), with a combined potential valuation exceeding $3.5 trillion. This tests the market's pricing of innovation and sparks debate on liquidity impact.
* **SpaceX**'s valuation is now driven more by its Starlink global communications infrastructure than its core rocket business.
* **OpenAI & Anthropic** offer the first major public investment opportunities in foundational AI models, potentially repricing the entire AI sector.
* Concerns about a market-wide "liquidity drain" are likely overblown; history shows large IPOs mainly cause fund reallocation, not disappearance, and rarely trigger systemic risk.
* Crypto markets, especially some AI-themed tokens, may face short-term fund competition, but their long-term trajectory depends more on macro liquidity, regulation, and Bitcoin cycles.
* The real risk lies not in the IPOs themselves, but in whether these companies can justify their sky-high valuations with future revenue growth and profitability. Unmet expectations could lead to significant repricing pressure.
Ultimately, these IPOs represent a massive market pricing of next-gen tech infrastructure, not a prelude to a market crash. The broader market direction will be determined by macro conditions, corporate earnings, and risk appetite.
marsbitHace 40 min(s)
marsbitHace 40 min(s)
Who Will Take Over After SpaceX's IPO?
SpaceX is set to go public on June 12 with a $1.8 trillion valuation, but only about 5.56 billion shares (4.2% of the total) will be initially available for trading. Buy-side pressure is expected in three distinct waves. First, the IPO subscription at a fixed $135 per share, which is oversubscribed by nearly 4 times. Second, immediate secondary market trading post-listing. Third, and most significant, the forced buying by passive index funds. The Nasdaq 100 index has modified its rules to include SpaceX just 15 trading days after its IPO, despite its small float, which will compel hundreds of tracking funds to buy large quantities of stock.
However, this initial supply shortage will not last. A staged lock-up release is designed for the approximately 54% of shares held by VCs, early employees, and other insiders (excluding Elon Musk's 42%, which is locked for 366 days). Releases begin after the Q2 earnings report, with subsequent unlocks at multiple intervals up to 180 days post-IPO. This means selling pressure from insiders will gradually increase throughout the latter half of the year. A key counterbalance is scheduled for mid-December during the Nasdaq 100's annual rebalancing. By then, the public float will have expanded significantly, forcing index funds to buy more shares, potentially providing institutional support after months of insider selling.
marsbitHace 1 hora(s)
marsbitHace 1 hora(s)
Anthropic Apologized, But the Business of 'Safety' Hasn't Stopped
On June 11, Anthropic apologized not for a model failure, but for a lack of transparency. Its new Claude Fable 5 model was found to be secretly rerouting requests from users engaged in advanced AI model development to a weaker version, Opus 4.8, without any notification. The company's response—promising future notifications for such "downgrades"—was met with user skepticism.
The article argues the core issue isn't technical but commercial: Anthropic's "safety" measures are primarily a business strategy. A key feature, the "intelligent safety classifier," marketed as user protection, is described as a tool for "competitive defense" to protect Anthropic's market lead by limiting rivals' research capabilities. This covert mechanism was designed for low "false positives," precisely targeting AI researchers.
Anthropic's model involves a calculated three-step process: publishing alarming security research to amplify public anxiety, offering its Fable 5 model with a "safety classifier" as a premium-priced solution, and cashing in through a planned high-value IPO. This contrasts with OpenAI's more direct "tool-and-traffic" approach.
The apology, merely changing a secret downgrade to a visible one, is seen as a business "patch" rather than a principled shift. The incident risks damaging Anthropic's "safest AI" reputation among the developer community, which underpins its valuation and appeal to government and corporate clients. Ultimately, the article concludes that for Anthropic, safety is a business, and the apology is merely customer service for that business.
marsbitHace 1 hora(s)
marsbitHace 1 hora(s)
