Posted Nov 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

strated that they could destroy enormous quantities of food without dropping a bomb or firing a shot. Now they have gone after something far more dangerous. France’s national blood service has confirmed that hackers remotely manipulated refrigeration systems at three facilities storing blood plasma used for transfusions and pharmaceutical production. The attackers attempted to raise freezer temperatures to extraordinary levels, with reports indicating that some settings were changed from -30°C (-22°F) to as high as 110°C (230°F). We are no longer discussing spoiled groceries. We are discussing the ability to interfere with medical supplies that hospitals depend upon to keep people alive.

The attack occurred overnight between November 1 and 2, affecting facilities operated for the French Blood Establishment (EFS). Fortunately, monitoring systems detected the abnormal temperatures, and personnel transferred or secured the blood products before any damage occurred. No blood supplies were lost, and hospital services were not interrupted. But that outcome depended upon the vigilance of personnel and the availability of alternative refrigeration. What happens when the next attack occurs at multiple hospitals simultaneously, or when backup facilities are compromised as well? Blood plasma is essential for treating severe bleeding, trauma victims, and patients undergoing certain medical procedures. Destroying those reserves could have consequences extending far beyond the financial losses associated with ruined food.

This follows an extraordinary series of attacks on European supermarkets. In October, hackers reportedly compromised refrigeration equipment at as many as 700 French supermarkets, remotely manipulating temperatures and causing substantial food losses. Another wave struck retailers across Europe this week, affecting stores in Belgium, Ireland, Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and elsewhere. Some refrigeration systems were reportedly pushed to 50°C (122°F), destroying perishable inventory and leaving businesses with millions of euros in losses.

These are not sophisticated assaults nor are they harmless pranks. Investigators have identified vulnerabilities in internet-connected refrigeration controllers, including outdated equipment that no longer receives security updates. The devices were installed to make operations more efficient by allowing technicians to monitor and adjust temperatures remotely. Yet that same convenience can provide outsiders with access to equipment responsible for preserving food, medicine, and blood products. A hacker sitting thousands of miles away may be able to interfere with essential supplies without ever entering the country.

We have spent decades connecting practically everything to the internet under the assumption that greater automation necessarily represents progress. Refrigerators, warehouses, hospitals, water systems, transportation networks, and electrical infrastructure increasingly depend upon software and remote access. The problem is that every connection creates another potential point of failure. A vulnerability in one commercial supplier can expose hundreds of customers who may not even realize that their equipment is accessible from outside their own networks. The attack on the French blood facilities reportedly involved a refrigeration equipment supplier rather than a direct intrusion into the blood service’s central computer systems. That is precisely why this problem is so difficult to contain.

There is also a psychological dimension that governments should not underestimate. Empty supermarket refrigerators and reports of threatened blood supplies undermine public confidence in the ability of institutions to protect basic necessities. The European Commission has acknowledged that these incidents require a coordinated response, while national cybersecurity agencies are investigating. Yet the identity and motives of the attackers remain unknown. No group has credibly claimed responsibility, and there is insufficient evidence to conclude that a foreign government directed the operations. Some analysts suspect politically motivated sabotage, while others believe an individual or criminal group may be exploiting widely accessible vulnerabilities. The uncertainty itself is troubling because authorities cannot yet establish whether the attacks are coordinated or how far they may extend.

Traditionally, destroying a nation’s food or medical supplies required physical attacks against warehouses, transportation routes, or production facilities. Today, similar disruption may be achieved by manipulating the software that controls storage conditions. An adversary could theoretically target refrigerated medicines, vaccines, laboratory specimens, or other temperature-sensitive supplies. That does not mean these facilities have already been compromised, but the attacks in France demonstrate that the underlying danger is real. The distinction between civilian infrastructure and potential targets for sabotage is becoming increasingly blurred.

This should also concern Americans. In August, refrigeration failures at commissaries on several US military bases prompted an investigation into possible cyber interference. Authorities have not established that those incidents were connected to the European attacks, but the similarities warrant examination. The United States depends upon the same types of interconnected commercial technology used throughout Europe. An outdated controller does not become secure simply because it is installed on American soil.

The attackers have now demonstrated that they can interfere with the systems preserving both food and lifesaving medical supplies. Fortunately, the French blood service prevented any loss of plasma, but that should not diminish the seriousness of what occurred. The next facility may not detect the intrusion quickly enough. The next supplier may have no alternative storage available. And the next attack may affect something that cannot be replaced before patients or consumers suffer the consequences.

Europe is discovering that its vulnerability extends well beyond military installations and government computer networks. The systems sustaining ordinary civilian life are increasingly exposed to remote interference. We have constructed a society dependent upon digital connections without adequately protecting the physical infrastructure those connections control. The attacks on supermarkets were a warning. The attempted destruction of blood plasma shows just how dangerous this form of sabotage could become. The frightening reality is that someone can now threaten a nation’s essential supplies without ever crossing its borders.

Posted Nov 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

Germany is preparing for the possibility of receiving 1,000 wounded NATO soldiers every day in a direct military confrontation with Russia. Siemens Mobility and Lufthansa Technik Defense have announced plans to develop military hospital trains capable of transporting more than 150 wounded personnel, including those requiring intensive care. Each train could accommodate approximately 90 medical personnel and operate without relying entirely on electrified railway infrastructure. Europe is once again planning for mass casualties on a scale not witnessed since World War II.

Germany’s Surgeon General, Ralf Hoffmann, previously warned that a large-scale conflict could produce approximately 1,000 wounded troops daily. That translates into 7,000 casualties in one week and 30,000 in a month if the rate persists. Germany has only five military hospitals and estimates that approximately 15,000 civilian hospital beds could be required to treat wounded NATO personnel. Civilian infrastructure would become an extension of the battlefield, with medical resources redirected toward a war the public never wanted.

The proposed hospital trains are modeled partly on Ukraine’s experience, where drones have made conventional battlefield evacuation increasingly dangerous. Wounded soldiers cannot always be retrieved without exposing rescue personnel to additional attacks. Ukraine has consequently converted passenger carriages into mobile medical facilities, and Germany is examining how to develop a similar system. Siemens would supply railway equipment, while Lufthansa Technik Defense would integrate medical systems compatible with military transport aircraft. The companies have signed a memorandum of understanding, but there is not yet a finalized procurement contract. Nevertheless, the planning reveals the scale of the conflict German officials are preparing to manage.

Germany’s geographical position makes it central to NATO’s military logistics. Troops and equipment would move eastward through German territory, while the wounded would be transported westward for treatment. Railways, highways, airports, hospitals, and industrial facilities would become essential military infrastructure. Those same networks could become vulnerable to sabotage and cyberattacks. Germany is already examining Cold War-era facilities, including an underground hospital bunker in Ulm built in 1979 to accommodate approximately 2,000 people during a nuclear emergency. Infrastructure constructed for a confrontation Europeans believed had ended is once again being reconsidered.

Defense Minister Boris Pistorius has warned that Russia could develop the capability to attack NATO territory by 2029. That is an assessment of potential military capability, not proof that Moscow has decided to launch such an attack. Yet Germany is already conducting exercises to test the evacuation of wounded soldiers from NATO’s eastern flank. The March 2026 Medic Quadriga exercise involved approximately 1,250 military and civilian personnel, while the Bundeswehr has discussed introducing medical trains by 2028. The government is moving beyond speeches about military preparedness and beginning to organize civilian resources around the possibility of sustained warfare.

There is something deeply disturbing about the return of this mentality to Europe. Germany has struggled with industrial weakness, expensive energy, and growing fiscal obligations, yet it must now consider how to finance military logistics, emergency healthcare, and the enormous economic disruption of a potential war. The country abolished compulsory military service in 2011 and has struggled to recruit sufficient personnel. Now its planners are contemplating casualty levels that would require a fundamentally different military structure. Equipment can be manufactured and trains converted, but experienced soldiers cannot simply be replaced. Nor can a country indefinitely divert productive resources toward warfare without damaging its civilian economy.

What is especially troubling is the contrast between the scale of these preparations and the difficulty European leaders have had maintaining direct diplomatic communication with Moscow. Finland and Norway recently demonstrated that communication with Russia can take place without abandoning support for Ukraine. Negotiation does not require accepting an adversary’s demands. It is precisely how governments attempt to prevent disagreements from escalating into catastrophe. Yet Europe is investing enormous effort in preparing for the consequences of a wider war while the diplomatic effort to prevent one remains deeply constrained.

The figure of 1,000 wounded soldiers every day should haunt every European leader discussing military confrontation. These would be young men returning without limbs, suffering permanent injuries, or never returning home. Their families would carry the consequences for generations, while governments accumulated debts to finance the destruction. The economic and human costs would extend far beyond the front lines, affecting every aspect of civilian life.

Germany’s hospital trains may save lives if the worst occurs, and preparing medical infrastructure is a legitimate responsibility of government. But the broader picture is ominous. The railways are being evaluated, hospitals are being incorporated into military planning, and old Cold War facilities are receiving renewed attention. Europe is preparing the machinery necessary to manage mass casualties. Its leaders should be devoting equal determination to ensuring those casualties never occur.

Categories:War

Posted Nov 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

Vice President JD Vance has openly blamed the war with Iran for the Republican Party’s devastating defeat in the November 3 midterm elections. Vance wrote on November 4 that the central reason Republicans lost was the war itself. He challenged those defending the intervention to explain whether sacrificing control of the Senate was worth the price and acknowledged that voters who supported Trump and Vance in 2024 had crossed over to the Democrats.

Vance cited polling showing that former Trump supporters wanted the government to “End the war,” “Focus on cost of living/inflation,” “Put America First,” and “Change our relationship to Israel.” The Republican Party has traditionally treated support for Israel as a political obligation, yet Vance is publicly acknowledging that a portion of Trump’s own electorate wants that relationship reconsidered.

When Trump was asked whether he regretted the war, he told the Wall Street Journal, “I did the right thing. I would have done it again.” The president is defending his decision while his vice president is emphasizing its political consequences. Trump campaigned on ending America’s endless wars and avoiding another prolonged conflict in the Middle East. Yet the United States entered a direct war with Iran alongside Israel in February 2026.

I wrote back in July how Vance was positioning himself for 2028 by separating himself from the administration’s Middle Eastern policy. At the time, Vance had criticized Israeli officials who opposed negotiations with Iran and questioned their belief that military force could resolve every regional security problem. He asked what alternative they were proposing and pointed out that Israel, a nation of approximately nine million people, could not simply eliminate every threat through military operations. He also urged Israeli leaders to recognize the enormous support the United States had already provided. Those were unusually direct comments from an American vice president, and they demonstrated that disagreements over the war had developed well before the midterm defeat.

Vance had privately opposed the February military operation and had sought independent assessments from American military commanders. According to the New York Times, he became concerned about depleted munitions, the resilience of Iranian forces, and the difficulty of achieving the administration’s objectives. Yet Vance publicly defended Trump after the decision was made. In March, he expressed confidence that the president would avoid the mistakes of previous administrations. Vance may have opposed the war privately, but he remained part of the administration carrying it out.

"The initial founding vision was that we were going to use technology to change the whole world and basically over-turn the monetary system of the world... the basic idea was that we could never win an election on getting certain things because we were in such a small minority... But maybe you could actually unilaterally change the world-without having to constantly convince people and beg people and plead with people who were never going to agree with you-through technological means... technology is this incredible alternative to politics."
-Peter Thiel, 2010

However, nobody should mistake Vance for an independent outsider who reached Washington without powerful financial backing. His political career is closely connected to billionaire Peter Thiel. Vance worked at Thiel’s Mithril Capital, and Thiel helped support the venture capital firm Vance later co-founded. When Vance entered the 2022 Senate race, Thiel contributed $15 million to a super PAC supporting his campaign. That money helped establish Vance as a national political figure. Trump supplied the endorsement that helped him secure Republican voters, but Thiel’s financial support was instrumental in launching his political career.

Thiel represents a different concentration of economic power. He co-founded Palantir, which has become deeply involved in American military intelligence, surveillance, and government data systems. Palantir has received substantial federal contracts, including an Army agreement with a potential value of $10 billion over ten years. The company provides technology used by military and intelligence organizations, while other businesses associated with Silicon Valley investors depend upon artificial intelligence, data centers, semiconductor manufacturing, and access to international capital. These industries have their own priorities, and a prolonged disruption to global energy markets creates significant economic risks.

The distinction is not that Thiel’s companies oppose all military spending. Palantir benefits from defense and intelligence contracts, and warfare can generate demand for precisely the technologies it develops. But there is a difference between selling advanced military software and supporting a conflict that drives energy prices higher, threatens supply chains, and increases the cost of capital. Artificial intelligence requires enormous electricity consumption. Data centers, semiconductor fabrication facilities, and advanced manufacturing depend upon reliable power and continued investment. A sustained energy shock can damage the broader technology economy even when individual defense contractors benefit.

Now consider the financial relationships surrounding Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and an important participant in Middle Eastern diplomacy. Kushner’s investment firm, Affinity Partners, has received substantial financing from Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds, including Saudi Arabia. Bloomberg reported that the firm’s assets reached approximately $6.2 billion at the end of 2025. Kushner also has longstanding political and business relationships with Israel, developed partly through his role in negotiating the Abraham Accords during Trump’s first administration.

CNN reported in October that Affinity Partners held the largest stake in Phoenix Financial, an Israeli financial services company with investments in businesses supplying Israel’s military. Public filings identified hundreds of millions of dollars in Phoenix investments involving military-linked companies, including Elbit Systems. Affinity reportedly realized a substantial return when it sold part of its Phoenix position. CNN found no evidence that Kushner’s diplomatic activities influenced those investments, and his representatives denied that he directed Phoenix’s investment decisions. Nevertheless, these relationships raise legitimate questions about financial conflicts of interest when private investors participate in negotiations involving governments and industries connected to their investments.

This is where the difference between Trump and Vance becomes particularly interesting. Trump’s administration has maintained close relationships with Israeli leadership while pursuing military objectives against Iran. Kushner’s network is deeply involved in Middle Eastern diplomacy and regional investment. Vance, meanwhile, emerged from the Silicon Valley investment community and has increasingly emphasized the economic and political costs of continuing the conflict. These relationships do not prove that either man’s foreign-policy position is dictated by a financial patron. They do demonstrate that powerful interests surrounding the two politicians are not identical.

Vance’s statement suggests that he understands the political damage this has caused. He is acknowledging that voters who supported Trump in 2024 were unwilling to continue supporting a government they believed had abandoned its original promises.

Vance may oppose the foreign policy interests pushing Washington toward continued confrontation with Iran, but his own political network includes investors whose companies profit from government intelligence and military technology. Vance cannot credibly present himself as independent of powerful financial interests merely because his patrons differ from those surrounding Trump.

The question for 2028 is whether Vance represents a genuine change in American foreign policy or simply a different collection of interests competing for control of Washington. Trump’s political relationships are closely connected to Israel and the traditional national security establishment. Vance has powerful connections to Silicon Valley, military technology, and the expanding surveillance industry. Neither network is free of economic interests, and neither should be exempt from scrutiny.

The American people voted for an end to endless wars and a government that would place domestic prosperity first. They now face the consequences of another Middle Eastern conflict, while politicians and their financial supporters position themselves for the next election. Vance is trying to distinguish himself from Trump’s decisions, but he still needs to prove his political independence. Another interesting aspect is that Peter Thiel portrays himself as a “conservative libertarian” within the Republican Party. I now wonder: will Vance be the third-party candidate our computer has been hinting at who may appear in the 2028 U.S. presidential election?

Categories:PoliticsWar

Posted Nov 5, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

QUESTION: Marty –

I am still in shock by the Democratic sweep of Texas. Lieutenant Governor, Dan Patrick has been very popular yet it seems everyone just voted Democrat. I have to question if this was a clean election. I would be curious about your thoughts.

While the war in Iran did not help, the hispanic community was the swing vote. The removal of the traditional hard working immigrants turned the hispanic community. While I support canceling any funding for immigration including housing and healthcare for refugees, as well as expelling convicted criminals, they detained hard working immigrants who have been here for decades. Immigrants have been scared to go to church in fear of being detained. They suggested they would round up the criminals but they rounded up everyone likely for political reasons.

Texas is now a blue state ?

LF

REPLY: You have a Spanish governor and you can thank Stephen N. Miller and his ICE that simply went too far. Even I have one staff member who they refuse to grant a visa just to come to our annual conferences. We are an international company and they have abused their power going to extremes. Americans didn’t like the open border, but Miller harassed people who have been here for decades and disrupted companies like mine. He probably SINGLE-HANDEDLY secured the Spanish vote in Texas.

Well, I must say, Florida is still Red. It was close. Yet, Florida did not pass a no property tax measure. Instead, Amendment 3 was approved, which increases property tax exemptions for homeowners, but does not eliminate property taxes entirely. That was a surprise, but it would have only benefited permanent residents, so it is strange why that would be defeated I assume it was Democrats assuming it benefits only the rich.

The main reason Texas was attracting so many companies was that there was also no corporate income tax. That may con under attack and the Democrats are just on a warpath of vengeance, which is probably the start of what the computer projects that the US will eventually separate because the differences are just too stark much like the Russia Revolution of 1917.

Texas has had 26 governors since 1903 and only 5 were republican. However, this Republican Era has been only since 1995. Cyclically, you hit the Pi Cycle. It was 31 years until 2026. Sorry, but the computer showed a Directional Change in 2026. I warned our Institutional clients who inquired about moving to Texas vs Florida. Part of our job is corporate restructuring from the long-term cyclical perspective. The Texas Constitution does NOT explicitly prohibit a corporate income tax; the relevant prohibition applies ONLY to personal income taxes. Texas does not have a corporate income tax, and it is one of the few states without one. However, this is a matter of legislative policy and statute, not a constitutional ban. The state instead imposes a franchise tax (often called a “margin tax”) on businesses. We MUST take everything into consideration when asked. Texas was due for a change based on the Pi Cycle

George W. Bush (1995–2000), Rick Perry (2000–2015), and Greg Abbott (2015-2026) was what I have always said, reactions as 2 to 3. This Republican era was, unfortunately, a reaction.
Now, to put this in perspective, Texas did embrace the Progressive Era when it began, but its version was selective, largely urban-based, and concentrated in the first two decades of the twentieth century (roughly 1900–1920). The period from the 1890s through the 1910s saw real reform in areas like prohibition, women’s suffrage, municipal government, and regulation, but Texas remained fundamentally rural and agricultural, and many progressive impulses faded or turned conservative by the 1920s.Where Texas honestly embraced progressivism was when Texas ratified the 18th Amendment (Prohibition) in 1918 and approved a state prohibition amendment in 1919. The suffrage movement gained ground through the Texas Woman Suffrage Association, winning the right for women to vote in the 1918 Democratic primary and ratifying the 19th Amendment in June 1919.The Municipal Reform in Texas cities became laboratories for progressive governance. Galveston pioneered the commission form of city government after the 1900 hurricane, a model that spread to hundreds of cities nationwide as a “businesslike” antidote to corruption. Urban progressives pushed for lower taxes and weakened machine politics.

The early rise of progressivism was the 1890s overall, but in the 1892 election of reformist Governor James Stephen Hogg, this was truly the beginning of Texas progressivism, and the state produced national Progressive-era figures like Edward M. House and several members of Woodrow Wilson’s Cabinet.

In 1915, the legislature created supplemental equalization funds for “country schools,” marking the first time state funds were targeted to a specific set of needy schools, though the reliance on local property taxes baked in inequalities that persisted for decades.

Texas remained predominantly rural and agricultural throughout the period. Industry was sparse and confined to mainly lumber, railroads, and oil. The Progressive Era “left Texas relatively unchanged” in its fundamental economic structure. Most Texas women, despite winning the vote, still lived in the countryside and filled traditional roles.

Racial and Ethnic Exclusion. Progressive reforms were largely shaped by white, native-born Texans. Prohibition support was centered among rural, old-stock white residents, while Black, Hispanic, and German populations largely opposed it. The era also saw the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan in the 1920s, which many Texans endorsed.

There was a Conservative Backlash that surfaced during the 1920s. By the 1920s, the reform impulse had largely spent itself. Texas politics in that decade were marked by conservative and sometimes reactionary resistance to change, despite rapid industrialization and urbanization. The progressive energy that had animated the 1900s and 1910s gave way to complacency and reaction.

Then came the 1930s–1950s. The Progressive Era is generally dated to about 1900–1920. The decades after 1920 saw different dynamics in the face of the Great Depression, New Deal programs, World War II, and the early civil rights movement. While some reform impulses persisted, such as state support for junior colleges beginning in 1941, these were not part of the original Progressive movement. By 1950, Texas was undergoing profound economic change, transitioning from agricultural to industrial, but this transformation was driven by war and modernization rather than progressive reform ideology.

In short, Texas embraced progressivism where it aligned with the interests of its dominant white, rural, and urban middle-class constituencies, prohibition, suffrage, municipal efficiency, and some school funding. However,  Texas never fully embraced the broader social or economic transformations that defined national progressivism, and the movement’s influence waned significantly after 1920.

Don’t for get that Democrat Kennedy selected Lyndon B. Johnson was from Texas as his running mate primarily to balance the ticket geographically and add experience. Johnson’s Texas roots were seen as crucial to offsetting Kennedy’s Northeastern appeal, and his veteran political career added age and gravitas to the younger candidate’s campaign

Categories:Uncategorized

Posted Nov 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

COMMENT: Hi Marty, Even the Lakota from 1976 knew better about our Congress.

REPLY: Compromise does lead to corruption the same as coalition governments.​ We lack integrity, ethics, and principles.

Posted Nov 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

This is what to expect for the next two years. This is why I say that the system is destined for failure. As long as there are no term limits, there is nobody on either side who will ever address the long-term. The Democrats did block that legislation to stop members of Congress from trading stocks like Pelosi. They will pass it claiming they are fighting corruption next year. The system as it stands is hopeless. This is no way to run a country.

When someone enters office, the become addicted to power and think they will be their forever. They are just a renter – they don’t own the property.

Posted Nov 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

COMMENT: Hello Martin, Here’s a video of Zelensky saying that“Europe is very strong” and that,“with this unity, Europe is several times stronger than today’s Russia. You are stronger. Don’t forget it.”

It looks like he’s feeding the neocons in Europe, especially Macron, the petit Napoleon, what they want to hear – that they are stronger in Russia and that they are able to step in, invade, and get all the $75 trillion in natural resources.

Kind regards,

P

REPLY: Zelensky has been playing the Democrats to ensure there was a blue wave to circumvent Trump who has been trying force a peace deal. That will be off the table and the Democrats want Putin’s blood all for revenge for Hillary. As long as he can play this game, there are no elections. Claiming Europe is 7 times strong than Russia is a real joke.

This is the guy world leaders respect and listen to? Zelensky’s claim that “Europe is several times stronger than Russia” is not a rigorous military data comparison, but a political statement with a clear purpose. He said this in different occasions with different premises, the core logic being: Europe possesses enormous potential (industry, economy, population), but only if it achieves genuine unity and incorporates key military forces like Ukraine, Turkey, and the UK, can this potential be translated into military power surpassing Russia.

Categories:European UnionUkraine

Posted Nov 4, 2026 by Martin Armstrong |

ASIA:

The major Asian stock markets had a mixed day today:

• NIKKEI 225 decreased 893.23 points or -1.42% to 62,188.63

• Shanghai increased 78.075 points or 2.16% to 3,686.173

• Hang Seng increased 393.53 points or 1.67% to 23,919.50

• ASX 200 decreased 52.30 points or -0.59% to 8,834.50

• SENSEX increased 383.55 points or 0.50% to 77,301.40

• Nifty50 increased 149.75 points or 0.63% to 23,960.60

The major Asian currency markets had a mixed day today:

• AUDUSD increased 0.00437 or 0.63% to 0.70099

• NZDUSD increased 0.00355 or 0.64% to 0.56205

• USDJPY decreased 0.262 or -0.17% to 158.421

• USDCNY increased 0.00396 or 0.06% to 6.67406

The above data was collected around 12:05 EST.

Precious Metals:

•  Gold increased 136.26 USD/t oz. or 3.47% to 4,067.94

•  Silver increased 2.476 USD/t. oz. or 4.97% to 52.268

The above data was collected around 12:08 EST.

.

EUROPE/EMEA:

The major Europe stock markets had a green day today:

•  CAC 40 increased 157.58 points or 1.96% to 8,177.89

•  FTSE 100 increased 190.78 points or 1.79% to 10,829.21

•  DAX 30 increased 573.05 points or 2.22% to 26,437.67

The major Europe currency markets had a mixed day today:

• EURUSD increased 0.0039 or 0.35% to 1.12311

• GBPUSD increased 0.00549 or 0.41% to 1.34692

• USDCHF decreased 0.00423 or -0.52% to 0.81657

The above data was collected around 12:11 EST.

AMERICAS:

US Markets:

• DJIA advanced by 1,569.4 points (3.03%) to 53,356.12
• S&P 500 advanced by 119.7 points (1.58%) to 7,688.62
• NASDAQ advanced by 364.5 points (1.44%) to 25,736.513
• Russell 2000 advanced by 44.51 points (1.58%) to 2,856.953

Canada:

• TSX Composite advanced by 809.12 points (2.28%) to 36,341.4
• TSX 60 advanced by 49.62 points (2.35%) to 2,163.18

Brazil:

• Bovespa advanced by 1,996.88 points (1.21%) to 167,525.8

ENERGY:

The oil markets had a mixed day today:

•  Crude Oil decreased 7.616 USD/BBL or -7.93% to 88.474

•  Brent decreased 8.742 USD/BBL or -8.44% to 94.858

•  Natural gas increased 0.0484 USD/MMBtu or 1.67% to 2.9434

•  Gasoline decreased 0.2001 USD/GAL -6.82% to 2.7354

•  Heating oil decreased 0.3336 USD/GAL or -7.36% to 4.1970

The above data was collected around 12:13 EST.

•  Top commodity gainers: Silver (4.97%), Palladium (6.96%), Platinum (4.84%) and Milk (17.45%)

•  Top commodity losers: Crude Oil (-7.93%), Brent (-8.44%), Heating Oil (-7.36%) and Gasoline (-6.82%)

The above data was collected around 12:19 EST.

BONDS:

Japan 2.8180% (+4.6bp), US 2’s 4.58% (-0.056%), US 10’s 4.9030% (-7.1bps); US 30’s 5.29 (-0.042%), Bunds 3.2806% (-2.95bp), France 4.8210% (-11.7bp), Italy 4.3190% (-14.07bp), Turkey 35.90% (+276bp), Greece 4.1730% (-6.66bp), Portugal 3.7250% (-3.51bp); Spain 3.8460% (-8.4bp) and UK Gilts 5.1615% (-8.61bp)

The above data was collected around 12:22 EST.

Categories:Market Talk