According to trade intelligence platform Kpler, since the Iran war began, more than 500 million barrels of crude and condensate have been knocked out of the global ⁠market, in what seems to be the largest energy supply disruption of modern history. Talking about the immediate impact, Iain Mowat, principal analyst at Wood Mackenzie, told Reuters that the lost fuel may end up curtailing the aviation industry’s energy demand for 10 weeks.

In the Middle East, countries lost about eight million barrels per day of crude production in March, nearly equivalent to the combined production of Exxon Mobil and Chevron, two of the biggest ‌oil companies ⁠in the world. As per Kpler, jet fuel exports from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Bahrain and Oman fell from about 19.6 million barrels in February, to just 4.1 million barrels for March and April so far combined.

“With crude prices averaging around USD 100 a barrel since the conflict began, those missing volumes represent roughly USD 50 billion ⁠in lost revenues,” said Johannes Rauball, a senior crude analyst at Kpler.

The ratio equates to a 1% cut in Germany’s annual GDP, or roughly the entire GDP of smaller European countries such as Latvia or Estonia.

Kpler even stated that the resumption of energy trade through the Strait of Hormuz would mean little for the global economy, as recovery of ⁠output and flows will remain slow. While global onshore crude inventories have fallen by about 45 million barrels so far in April, production outages, since late March, have reached roughly 12 million bpd.

“Heavier crude fields in Kuwait and Iraq could take four to five months to return ⁠to normal operating levels, extending stock draws through the summer. Damage to refining capacity and Qatar’s Ras Laffan LNG complex means full restoration of regional energy infrastructure could take years,” Rauball concluded.

The post USD 50 billion loss in 50 days: Iran war upends oil and gas flow appeared first on International Finance.

The latest estimate from the independent research and intelligence company marks a steep increase from its initial USD 25 billion projection, reflecting a broader scope of damage as ceasefire talks continue between the United States and Iran.

“Repair work does not create new capacity. It redirects existing ⁠capacity, and that redirection will be felt in project delays and into inflation far beyond the Middle East. The $58 billion bill is the headline, but the knock-on effects on energy ‌investment timelines ⁠globally may prove ⁠just as significant,” Rystad senior analyst Karan Satwani told Reuters.

Rystad sees total repair spending likely to average around USD 46 billion, with downstream refining and petrochemical assets accounting for ‌the largest share due to their ⁠complexity and extent of damage. Industrial, power, and desalination assets may add a further USD 3 billion to USD 8 billion in costs.

“Recovery timelines are starting to diverge between assets and countries, showcasing differences in domestic execution capabilities and access to supply chains. Iran faces the most widespread damage, with repair costs potentially reaching USD 19 billion, affecting gas processing, refining and export infrastructure. In contrast, Qatar’s impact ‌is more concentrated but technically complex, particularly at its ⁠Ras Laffan industrial hub, where repair work may overlap with ongoing LNG expansion projects,” Rystad said.

While engineering and construction will account for the largest share of spending, delays in procuring critical equipment will likely ‌determine recovery timelines. The biggest challenge, in Rystad’s opinion, will be procuring equipment and workers.

Rystad’s estimate also coincides with the assessment of Fatih Birol, the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), who believes that it will take about two years to recover the Middle East’s lost energy output. In an interview with German newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, the official said, “That will vary from country to country. In Iraq, for example, it will take much longer than in Saudi Arabia. However, we estimate it will take approximately two years overall to reach pre-war levels again.”

Birol has further warned the energy players, along with the broader global economy, against underestimating the consequences of a prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Shipments of oil and gas that were already en route to their destinations before ‌the ⁠war in Iran began have now arrived, mitigating the impact of shortages. But no new tankers were loaded in March. There were no new deliveries of oil, gas or fuels to ⁠Asian markets. This gap is now becoming apparent. If the Strait of Hormuz is not reopened, we must prepare for significantly higher ⁠energy price,” the IEA boss remarked.

The post Middle East conflict: Rystad sees massive repair costs for damaged energy facilities appeared first on International Finance.

Ajay Banga said that the economic fallout from the conflict is already feeding into weaker global expansion, with both developed and emerging economies expected to feel the ripple effects in the coming days. It is worth mentioning that the ceasefire, announced by United States President Donald Trump last week, fell through as Tehran and Washington failed to reach a consensus in Islamabad.

“The risks deepen significantly if the conflict drags on. In a prolonged-war scenario, global growth could decline by as much as 1 percentage point, underscoring the fragility of the recovery and the sensitivity of markets to geopolitical shocks,” Ajay Banga said.

In fact, the World Bank sees emerging markets and developing economies bearing a disproportionate share of the global slowdown, with the projected growth rate now estimated at 3.65%, down from an earlier estimate of 4% made in October 2025. If the conflict continues, growth could fall sharply to 2.6%.

On the other hand, the emerging economies also need to deal with growing inflationary pressures, with the World Bank now forecasting the ratio at 4.9%, up from a previous estimate of 3%. In a worst-case scenario, inflation could surge as high as 6.7%, reflecting supply disruptions and higher energy costs linked to the Middle East conflict.

Ajay Banga’s comments come ahead of the crucial meeting in Washington, where top global finance professionals will meet to discuss the Iran war’s cascading effects, with a section of the analysts even calling the crisis the “third major shock,” after the COVID pandemic and the Russia-Ukraine war.

Top International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank officials will be downgrading their forecasts for global growth and raising inflation predictions due to the war, keeping in mind factors like higher energy prices and supply disruptions.

Before the beginning of the Iran war on February 28, both global institutions were expected to lift their growth forecasts given the resilience of the global economy. However, the regional conflict, which is now steadily leaving its global imprints, has changed the equations.

The post Middle East conflict: World Bank chief Ajay Banga sees massive global growth hit appeared first on International Finance.

However, the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders suggests the overall industry outlook is cloudy because most sales reflected orders placed before the Iran war began. The industry body also expressed concerns over consumer confidence and vehicle affordability.

“The headlines belie the costs incurred and the challenges involved,” said SMMT Chief Mike Hawes, noting that March is typically the busiest month in a financial year and that strong demand from private buyers boosted new car registrations.

However, the latest data shows the new vehicle market maintaining its sales uptick, which started in December 2025. Still, the Middle East conflict, now in a two-week ceasefire phase, pushed oil prices beyond the USD 100-barrel mark, creating clouds of uncertainty for economies worldwide.

“We expect the good run of form in the car registrations data will grind to a halt ‌in the ⁠coming months, as the weight of surging energy costs and the prospect of (rate) hikes from the (BoE) MPC curbs affordability,” said Elliott Jordan-Doak, a senior economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, while interacting with Reuters.

According to the United Kingdom’s SMMT, volatile geopolitics and the surge in fuel costs may increase demand for electric vehicles while risking higher energy and supply chain costs.

“Battery electric vehicles recorded their best month in terms of volumes in March, though their overall market share remained at 22.6%, well below the government‑mandated target, opens new tab of 33% for 2026,” the industry body remarked, while stating that Tesla’s new registrations in the European country rose 20% from a year earlier to 8,599 units, trailing Chinese peer BYD’s nearly 134% jump to 15,162 units.

“With uncertainty around the cost of fuel, electric vehicle enquiries are on the up, as consumers look to electric as an attractive alternative to petrol and diesel vehicles,” said Jamie Hamilton, automotive partner and head of electric vehicles at ⁠Deloitte.

The post Despite strong March sales data, United Kingdom automobile market stares at uncertainty appeared first on International Finance.

Fitch assesses liquidity using Bloomberg’s Liquidity Assessment (LQA) scores, which indicate security-level liquidity. The ratio can range from one to 100, with 100 signifying the highest liquidity. Generally, a score of 100 is assigned to securities with the lowest liquidation costs within an asset class, while securities with the highest costs get a score of one.

According to Fitch, LQA is a data-driven model that produces a daily security-specific liquidity surface that captures the relationship between volume, cost, and time.

“The LQA decline for investment-grade sukuk has been less severe than for speculative-grade sukuk on average,” the agency stated further.

“While LQA scores have declined in most GCC debt capital markets since the Iran war’s beginning, as well as for sukuk issuers in Turkey, Egypt and Indonesia. On the other hand, many rated Malaysian, Omani, and supranational sukuk have shown resilience in their LQA scores,” Fitch noted.

“Sukuk in the ‘BB’ and ‘B’ categories have the lowest LQA scores among all Fitch-rated sukuk globally on average, with the steepest liquidity fall compared to other rating categories since the war began. Sukuk in the ‘F1sf’, ‘AAA’, ‘BBB’, ‘AA’, and ‘A’ categories held the highest liquidity of all rated sukuk, but also faced declines, except ‘F1sf’,” it stated.

Sector-wise, corporates, infrastructure and project-finance sukuk had the lowest LQA scores among all rated sukuk globally, with the steepest liquidity falls. Asset-backed, supranational and sovereign sukuk, in contrast, maintained the highest liquidity levels, except asset-backed sukuk, whose scores increased.

“Fitch also analysed liquidity for 52 comparable sukuk and bonds from the same issuers. Liquidity was broadly similar in 50% of cases, sukuk were less liquid than bonds in 31%, and more liquid in 19%. GCC US dollar sukuk and GCC US dollar bonds have displayed broadly similar liquidity trends, with both declining since the war began. The average LQA score for GCC US dollar sukuk fell to 45 on 23 March from 56 at the end of 2025. The average score for GCC US dollar bonds dropped to 48 from 53 in the same timeframe,” the ratings agency remarked.

“About 64% of Fitch-rated sukuk had an LQA score above 50 on 23rd March, down from 82% in January 2025 (excluding local ratings and sukuk without an LQA score). Investment-grade sukuk are generally more liquid, with an average score of 65 as of March 23 (January 2026: 73), compared to 33 for speculative-grade sukuk (January 2026: 48). Historically, GCC DCMs have rebounded fairly quickly when tensions eased following previous Middle East geopolitical episodes, but the impact this time will depend on the scale and duration of the war,” it concluded.

The post Fitch sees varying effects on Sukuk, Gulf debt market liquidity appeared first on International Finance.

While 21st century businesses have no other option but to take the volatile geopolitics into consideration while expanding their operations, the insurance sector faces the challenge of accurately assessing the possible outcome of damages and calculating appropriate premiums to charge.

As of 2026, war insurance remains an unknown quantity for insurance companies, with a high risk that a policy issued in this domain could lead to insolvency.

While industries like aviation and maritime trade still get specific war insurance options tailored to their needs, International Finance, using the ongoing Middle East conflict as a case study, examines how the broader War risk insurance industry has come under tremendous stress.

In Dire “Straits at Hormuz”

On February 28, 2026, the coalition of the US and Israel launched targeted air raids against Iran’s military and missile infrastructures, along with its decision-makers, repeating a similar act from 2025, killing the Western Asian nation’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many senior government and military officials.

Since then, Iran’s retaliatory missile and drone attacks across the Middle East have introduced chaos in the entire region. Apart from the American bases located in the region, energy production facilities are being attacked, while maritime trade through the Strait of Hormuz (one of the important shipping lanes) faces severe disruption.

While aviation and maritime trade are known for getting specific war insurance options, immediately after the conflict’s beginning, marine insurers started cancelling war risk coverage for vessels, as three tankers were damaged in the first week.

Through the Strait, oil equal to about one-fifth of global demand is moved by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Iraq, Iran, and Kuwait, with tankers hauling diesel, jet fuel, gasoline and other products. While maritime insurance majors, including Gard, Skuld, NorthStandard, the London P&I Club, and the American Club, excluded Iranian waters, Gulf and adjacent waters from their War risk insurance commitments, Skuld is reportedly working on a buy-back option to reinstate cover.

This move has led to a situation where the costs of shipping oil from the Middle East to Asia, already at six-year highs, could put the global energy trade under tremendous financial stress.

By March 13, the rates for a weekly coverage reportedly stood around ten times higher than before the beginning of the conflict, raising the transportation cost in the shipping corridor as well.

Nick Francis, Partner with Kennedys Legal Solutions in Singapore and Hong Kong, told International Finance that the coverage rise should be viewed using the parameter called additional war risks premiums (AWRP).

“AWRP, as the name suggests, is driven by risk. The risk in the Persian Gulf and surrounding areas has obviously escalated dramatically since the Iran conflict began. As a sidenote, while AWRP has exponentially increased, so have charter rates for these vessels – particularly tankers – so owners/operators are willing to pay the AWRP (which is usually passed on to charterers of vessels under charterparties in any event),” said Nick.

According to the marine journal Lloyd’s List, as of March 13, high-risk voyages were being quoted at approximately 7.5% of the ship’s value. This ratio may rise to 10% or more. Before the war onset, additional premiums (AP) for voyages through the Middle East Gulf (MEG) typically ranged from 0.15% to 0.25%.

The geopolitical developments in the last three to four years (including those in Ukraine and the Suez Canal) have made one thing clear: the choking of shipping lanes will be the new normal. In that case, will it add pressure to the WRI industry?

Nick, a leading shipping and international trade lawyer, told International Finance, “The insurance industry is built on an ability to price risk. I think the market is well steeled for the current conflict, given the recent experiences with the Black Sea/Sea of Azov following the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea.”

Could the insurers have handled the Hormuz situation in a better manner?

Nick said, “The insurance industry is there to provide cover for various risks, which it does. It doesn’t create the risk.”

Shipping sector in a tight spot

Discussing risks, things are getting uncertain within the commercial marine industry itself, with a strong probability of hull rates rising. Dylan Mortimer, Vice-President of New York-based insurance player Marsh, told the Reinsurance News that there could be near-term rate increases for the Marine Hull line of businesses operating in the Gulf region by 25%-50%, with underwriters swiftly cancelling certain annual hull war policies under standard seven-day war clauses.

Stephen Rudman, head of marine for Asia at Aon, told Modern Diplomacy that the increase in hull war market rates should be seen as a quick response to the risk of significant losses if multiple vessels are attacked at the Strait of Hormuz. According to Rudman, there will be heightened underwriting scrutiny for voyages into or near sensitive (conflict) zones, including a potential requirement for prior approval.

Estimates by global investment giant Jefferies suggests that damages from seven reported vessels at the Strait (figures as of March 6) could lead to industry losses of up to USD 1.75 billion. Tankers valued at USD 200-USD $300 million could face new insurance rates of approximately 3%, translating to about USD 7.5 million in premiums, a significant rise from roughly USD 625,000 before the conflict.

Shedding further light upon the crisis, Nick noted, “When costs rise for the owner and operators of vessels, they will inevitably be priced into charter rates. Increased cargo premiums will obviously affect the landed value of goods – and will eventually be passed on to the end consumer.”

According to Sheila Cameron from the Lloyd’s Market Association, by March 6, about 1,000 vessels (mostly oil and gas tankers), with a total hull value exceeding USD 25 billion were in the Persian/Arabian Gulf region.

Stating that while most of these vessels are insured within the London market, she told Modern Diplomacy, “Reinsurers may respond to increased risks by adjusting the conditions under which their liability begins, potentially leaving main insurers with more risk and stress on their solvency levels.”

Also, the International Group of P&I Clubs has ceased coverage for vessels operating in and around Iran. Without it, shipowners will face open-ended liabilities, often halting voyages in high-risk areas. Industry reports reveal that such war-risk exclusions in the past led to reduced traffic and higher freight costs, and the same pattern can now re-emerge in the Persian Gulf as well.

According to London-headquartered GlobalData, reinsurers are repricing exposures across sectors such as marine, aviation and energy, while maintaining coverage continuity wherever possible. The conflict is affecting the sector through both direct exposure to loss events and indirect pressures, including higher reinsurance costs, capital flows, and inflation.

If anything, the changing geopolitics have taught the 21st century global socio-economic order that businesses need to engage with insurers to address disruptions and risks tied to war-like events, without any laxity.

Expressing confidence in the sector’s resilience, Nick concluded, “War is not new. War risk insurers have been recently dealing with the events in the Black Sea/Sea of Azov, involving missile strikes on vessels and, later, numerous constructive total losses (following a 12-month deprivation period), and missile attacks by Houthis in the Red Sea – so they are well- prepared to deal with the current events in the Persian Gulf.”

The post IF Insights: Choking of Strait of Hormuz tests limits of war risk insurance appeared first on International Finance.

Around the same time, reports began circulating that the Michigan-based medical technology giant was facing a major cyber incident. A voicemail at its US headquarters referenced a ‘building emergency’ Internally, operations were disrupted. Externally, questions were mounting.

Then came the claim. A hacktivist group known as Handala Hack Team, believed to have links to Iranian intelligence, posted a lengthy statement on Telegram, claiming responsibility for a large-scale data-wiping attack. According to the group, more than 200,000 systems, servers, and devices across 79 countries had been wiped. No ransom demand, negotiation, just erasure.

Right now, it is still unclear how much damage has actually been done, and the claims haven’t been independently confirmed. But even the possibility of an attack at that scale targeting a company so deeply embedded in global healthcare has sent ripples far beyond the organisation itself. Because Stryker is not just another corporate name.

Its products sit inside operating rooms. Its systems support surgical workflows. Its supply chains feed directly into hospitals, clinics, and critical care environments. So, when something like this happens, the impact does not stay contained; it spreads.

Not Just Another Breach

For years, cyberattacks have followed a familiar pattern. Break in, encrypt systems, demand payment. Ransomware became almost routine, but this incident doesn’t quite fit that mould. There is no clear financial motive. No demand. No obvious attempt to monetise the breach.

Instead, what is being described if the claims hold is something more destructive. A wiper-style attack, designed not to extract value, but to remove it entirely. That distinction matters.

Errol Weiss, Chief Security Officer at Health-ISAC, sees this as part of a broader shift.

“We are absolutely seeing a shift toward disruption-focused attacks in healthcare, and it is tightly linked to the broader geopolitical tensions. Iran-aligned and sympathetic hacktivist groups have been increasingly targeting US and Israeli critical infrastructure to make political statements and retaliate for actions against Iran since the war escalated in late February,” Weiss told International Finance.

In other words, what he meant was that the timing isn’t random. The digital world is increasingly reflecting real-world tensions, including those involving Iran and the United States. Healthcare, somewhat unexpectedly, is becoming a part of that equation.

Weiss puts it plainly: “Destructive activity against healthcare and its supply chain is not just about money anymore. It is about sending a message, and creating maximum operational and psychological impact.”

Authorised Tools Used In Unauthorised Ways

If the intent is shifting, so are the methods. One of the more striking aspects of this incident is the reported use of Microsoft Intune, a legitimate enterprise device management platform, to carry out system wipes. No obvious malware, no dramatic breach signature, just authorised tools, used in unauthorised ways. It’s subtle, quiet, and incredibly effective.

Weiss explains why this approach is so difficult to defend against: “Abusing legitimate tools like Microsoft Intune is a classic ‘living off the land’ tactic, and it is incredibly hard to spot because it looks like normal administrative and IT activity.”

That is the uncomfortable reality. The attack does not look like an attack. It looks like a routine admin action, which means traditional detection methods, the ones designed to spot malicious software, don’t always work. That leaves organisations exposed in ways they are not always prepared for.

Weiss points to a critical gap. He says, “For high-risk actions, like issuing a device wipe, there should be built-in controls such as dual-admin approval, so a single compromised account cannot trigger a catastrophic event.”

One account, one mistake, one breach, and suddenly, thousands of systems can disappear.

Not Entirely New, But Potentially Escalating

Chester Wisniewski, Global Field CTO at Sophos, offers a slightly more cautious take on whether this marks a definitive shift.

“Overall, no, but in this case, we might begin to see this shift. Historically, Iran has utilised ‘wiper’ attacks. If they ramp up their activity. These attacks might become more prevalent,” he told International Finance.

While disruption-focused attacks are not yet dominant, the conditions are there, and they may be evolving.

On the use of legitimate tools, Wisniewski is clear that this is not new.

“Living off the land has been very common for at least a decade now. This technique was even used during the Target breach in 2013,” he said.

“What’s changed is the context, and the scale. Looking for common strains of malware is still important, but careful monitoring of behaviour and unusual tool usage is essential for an effective defence,” he added.

In other words, organisations need to rethink what ‘normal’ looks like inside their own systems, because attackers are already doing that.

The Ripple Effect Nobody Talks About

When a company like Stryker is disrupted, the immediate assumption is straightforward: hospitals will feel the impact. But Weiss highlights something more nuanced and, in some ways, more concerning.

He says, “The healthcare supply chain is deeply interconnected, but paradoxically, much of the downstream fallout we see is actually self-inflicted.”

It’s a surprising statement, but it makes sense.

“Hyper-conditioned to fear a ransomware or malware outbreak, many organisations default to a knee-jerk reaction: proactively severing B2B connections. That instinct to isolate, disconnect, protect is understandable, but it can backfire,” he said.

“That panic is what frequently escalates a targeted incident into a widespread service disruption. The damage doesn’t just come from the attack. It comes from the reaction to it. In a sector like healthcare, where timing and coordination matter, those reactions can have real consequences,” he added.

A Sector Under Pressure

There is an ongoing debate about whether healthcare is being specifically targeted or simply exposed.

Weiss says, “Healthcare is a prime target because its disruption creates immediate, tangible panic and maximum pain at a very personal level. Hospitals aren’t just infrastructure; they’re emotional infrastructure. Disrupt them, and the impact is immediate and visible.”

“The historical underinvestment in cybersecurity and reliance on complex, fragile supply chains make the health sector a highly vulnerable pressure point during global conflicts,” he added.

However, Wisniewski takes a more measured stance: “I am not sure there is evidence for this…the majority of attacks are opportunistic.”

It’s a subtle difference in interpretation, but perhaps both can be true. Healthcare may not always be the intended target, but it remains one of the most impactful ones.

Where It Breaks: Identity And Trust

If there is a single thread running through incidents like this, it is identity. Who has access, who can act, and who is trusted.

Wisniewski points to a striking statistic: “Almost 70% of incidents we responded to in 2025 were the result of some sort of identity compromise. That is not a technical failure. That is a trust failure.”

Credentials stolen, access abused, systems misused. Once inside, attackers don’t need to force their way through; they just walk.

Highlights another dimension of the problem, Weiss said, “Too many healthcare organisations still treat their centralised device management platforms as inherently trusted infrastructure rather than primary attack surfaces.”

This assumption that certain systems are safe creates blind spots, and attackers tend to find those first.

Recovery Isn’t Just About Numbers

The scale of the alleged attack – tens or even hundreds of thousands of systems – sounds overwhelming, and it is. But not all systems are equal.

As Chester Wisniewski explains, “It is important to differentiate quantity from importance.”

Many endpoints, such as laptops and desktops, can be rebuilt slowly and with significant effort, but in a relatively predictable way. What’s far more challenging to restore are the on-premise servers and cloud infrastructure that sit at the core of operations.

Those systems are different. They are not just devices; they represent the functioning backbone of the business. Restoring them is not simply an IT exercise; it becomes a business-critical process that can define how quickly an organisation recovers.

Are We Ready for What Comes Next?

This is where the conversation shifts from analysis to something more serious. Because if this incident is not an outlier, but a preview of what is coming, then the question becomes unavoidable: are we actually ready?

Errol Weiss doesn’t hesitate in his response, stating, “Candidly, the healthcare sector is drastically underprepared. Which brings us to the part that is difficult to ignore: If hospitals are left fighting these large-scale fires alone, people could die.”

This is not framed as a distant possibility. It reads more like a warning.

What Needs To Change

There is no single fix here, no silver bullet that can eliminate the risk. But there are clear starting points.

Wisniewski keeps it simple: keep firewalls and VPNs updated, enforce strong MFA, and watch closely for identity misuse. Basic steps, but they only matter if you actually stick to them.

At the same time, Weiss argues for stronger safeguards and a more collaborative approach.

He said, “Organisations should immediately lock down their administrative environments, but defence cannot happen in a silo. Because attackers are already sharing knowledge and evolving together, defenders need to do the same.”

More Than Just a Cyber Incident

The claims surrounding this attack may ultimately turn out to be exaggerated. It’s also possible that the disruption will be contained. In a few weeks, this may just become another case study in a long history of cyber incidents. However, it doesn’t quite feel that way, because this incident represents something much larger.

Cyberattacks are not just about data or money anymore. They are about disruption, sending a message, and hitting systems people depend on most. When something like this hits a company like Stryker, it doesn’t stay online; it spills into hospitals, supply chains, and real life.

The post Why Microsoft Intune’s role in Stryker cyberattack is a scary prospect appeared first on International Finance.

The news also comes against the backdrop of rising oil prices fuelling inflation concerns and lifting expectations of further European Central Bank (ECB) rate hikes. While Iran has dismissed United States President Donald Trump’s talks of negotiations as “fake news,” reports claiming administration insiders as sources stated that Washington would continue its strikes against the Western Asian nation.

Talking about Bund yields, Germany’s 10-year government bond yield, ‌the euro area’s benchmark, ⁠dropped 0.5 ⁠basis points to 3.01%. A couple of days back, it reached 3.077%, its highest level since June 2011.

Money markets have fully priced ‌in two European Central Bank interest rate hikes ⁠by July 2026, along with a deposit facility rate at 2.65% by year-end. The ratio currently stands at 2%.

According to Reuters, Germany’s two-year yields, more sensitive to expectations for policy rates, were down 1.5 bps at 2.60%. They hit 2.764% the day before, their highest level since July 2024. Italy’s 10-year government bond yields fell one bp to 3.91%, after recently reaching 4.119%, their highest since July 2024.

The yield gap of ⁠Italian government bonds versus Bunds was at 85 bps. It was at 63 bps before the attacks against Iran and hit 53.50 in mid-January this year, its lowest level since August ‌2008. The French spread, on the other hand, was at 69 bps ⁠from 58 bps before the conflict.

Discussing the existing money market mood, Commerzbank rates strategist Hauke Siemssen said, “Markets look set to remain in sell-off mode as latest headlines out of the Middle East point to prolonged energy price increases.”

Goldman Sachs also expects the ECB to deliver two 25 basis point interest rate hikes in April and June 2026.

“At the April meeting, only a few data pointers for March will be available, which would render a potential hike a risk management exercise and a sign of commitment to stay ahead of the inflation curve. More hawkish-leaning council members seem in favour of an April hike, while centrist council members ‌should ultimately tip the balance,” Siemssen concluded.

The post Bund yields near 15-year high as investors remain cautious appeared first on International Finance.

“In the coming days, we may unsanction the Iranian oil that’s on the water. It’s about 140 million barrels. So, depending on how you count it, that’s 10 days to two weeks of supply,” the senior official told the country during Fox Business ‌Network’s “Mornings with Maria” programme.

According to Scott Bessent, the addition of sanctioned Iranian oil ‌into global ⁠supplies would help keep oil prices down for ⁠the next 10 to 14 days. Discussing oil prices, it has been above USD 100 per barrel for much of the past two weeks, with Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz and tankers carrying energy consignments getting attacked frequently.

The United States Treasury has already taken a similar step, by allowing the sale of sanctioned Russian oil stranded in tankers, which has reportedly added 130 million barrels to stretched global supplies.

Scott Bessent noted that the Trump administration ‌would take other actions to increase oil supply, including a unilateral release of stocks from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve above the recent coordinated joint G-7 release of 400 million ⁠barrels.

He said the Treasury would “absolutely not try to intervene in oil futures markets, but would take actions to increase physical supplies to try ‌to make up for the 10 million to 14 million barrel-per-day deficit caused by the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.”

“So, to be clear, we’re not intervening in the financial markets. We are supplying the physical markets,” the Treasury Secretary noted, while stating that China had become an “unreliable” supplier of refined products, as it has stopped exporting jet fuel and other products to other Asian countries.

Confirming the news, a Reuters report claimed that if the Trump administration eases sanctions on Iranian oil, one option would be a waiver similar to one used for Russian oil, allowing sales of crude already stranded at sea and confined to a narrow time frame.

“A potential waiver could accelerate the diversion of oil already destined for China into global markets more broadly, helping ensure adequate supply and blunting Iran’s leverage over the Strait of Hormuz,” a source familiar with the US Treasury’s planning told the media outlet.

Meanwhile, Trump lauded Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi during a White House meeting on March 19 for “really stepping up to the plate” ⁠on Iran. The Asian giant has joined European nations, in taking steps to stabilise energy markets, apart from ensuring safe passage for ships through the Strait of Hormuz.

The post Middle East conflict: Trump administration official teases US’ next move for oil market appeared first on International Finance.

“Japanese Minister of Finance Satsuki Katayama and South Korean Minister of Economy and Finance Koo Yun-cheol expressed serious concern over the sharp depreciation of the Korean won and the Japanese yen. Furthermore, they reaffirmed that they will closely monitor foreign exchange markets and continue to take appropriate actions against excessive volatility and disorderly movements in exchange rates,” said a media note after the officials met in Tokyo.

The yen touched its lowest in 20 months on 13th March, nearing the line of 160.00 to the dollar that the market analysts think might prompt Tokyo to intervene to support the currency. ‌The ⁠won, on the other hand, breached a psychological barrier of 1,500 per dollar this month for the first time since March 2009.

The Iran war has also driven ⁠the dollar higher on safe-haven demand, apart from battering the currencies of countries heavily reliant on imported oil.

The currency is also gaining as traders reduce expectations for how much the US Federal Reserve might cut borrowing costs in 2026, as worries over rising inflation have reduced the likelihood of interest rate cuts from two before the war to none now.

Tokyo and Seoul shared the view that significant volatility had emerged in financial markets, including foreign exchange, Satsuki Katayama told a press conference after the meeting.

“The Japanese government ⁠is fully prepared to respond at any time, bearing in mind the impact that currency moves may have on people’s livelihoods amid surging oil prices, and I believe both ⁠sides share that understanding,” she added.

Yen, due to its huge trade surplus and enormous net international investment positions, was once used to enjoy unconditional safe-haven status.

However, that position is under threat now, as Joey Chew, head of Asia FX research at HSBC, told Reuters, “The yen can be vulnerable to potential oil supply shocks – it also weakened last year in mid-June amid Israel-Iran tensions.”

The post Japan, South Korea share volatile currency concerns as Yen faces stern test appeared first on International Finance.