The Cuban Embassy’s official X account reported that a Florida-registered speedboat illegally entered Cuban territorial waters. This prompted a maritime unit of Cuban border guards to intercept the vessel, after which a firefight erupted, leaving four people aboard the speedboat dead and six injured.

“The vessel, registered in Florida, United States, with registration number FL7726SH, approached to within 1 nautical mile northeast of the El Pino channel, in Cayo Falcones, Corralillo municipality, Villa Clara province,” Cuba’s embassy wrote on X, citing a note from the Ministry of the Interior.

The incident took place on Cuba’s north coast, near Cayo Falcones and the Corralillo area, along the edge of Santa Clara Bay.

The embassy included more details:

When a surface unit of the Border Guard Troops of the Ministry of the Interior, carrying five service members, approached the vessel for identification, the crew of the violating speedboat opened fire on the Cuban personnel, resulting in the injury of the commander of the Cuban vessel.

As a consequence of the confrontation, as of the time of this report, four aggressors on the foreign vessel were killed and six were injured. The injured individuals were evacuated and received medical assistance.

In the face of current challenges, Cuba reaffirms its determination to protect its territorial waters, based on the principle that national defense is a fundamental pillar of the Cuban state in safeguarding its sovereignty and ensuring stability in the region.

Note from the Ministry of the Interior:

On the morning of February 25, 2026, a violating speedboat was detected within Cuban territorial waters. The vessel, registered in Florida, United States, with registration number FL7726SH, approached up to 1 nautical mile northeast of the… pic.twitter.com/AEmwtAZ4lO

— Cuban Embassy in US (@EmbaCubaUS) February 25, 2026

What armed men aboard the Florida-registered speedboat were doing inside Cuban territorial waters remains a very open question at the moment. 

*Developing… 

At around 1300ET, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) halted trading of all metals and NatGas contracts (futures and options) due to ‘technical issues’.

Additionally, all day orders and GTDs with today’s date will be cancelled.

All GTCs that have been acknowledged will remain working.

Since the halt, spot prices for gold have declined…

NatGas futures trading has re-opened (lower)…

CME says that Globex Metals futures and options markets will Pre-open at 13:31 Central Time and Open at 13:45 Central Time.

Developing…

Among the most important foreign policy statements of President Trump’s during his annual State of the Union address to a joint session of the Senate and House of Representatives Tuesday night came in discussing his Iran red lines.

“We are in negotiations with them. They want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’” This ‘challenge’ underscores that at this point it may not matter at all what Iran actually says or does, as Washington is on the war path. See the words of Iranian Foreign Minister Seyed Abbas Araghchi issued before Trump’s speech – he laid out precisely this pledge using the “secret words” several hours before the world knew what Trump would say… 

2/4 Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people.

— Seyed Abbas Araghchi (@araghchi) February 24, 2026

The top Iranian diplomat had declared that it was “crystal clear” that “Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon. Araghchi followed with: “We have a historic opportunity to strike an unprecedented agreement that addresses mutual concerns and achieves mutual interests. A deal is within reach, but only if diplomacy is given priority,” in the statement on X.

Trump during his speech also agreed that his “preference” is “to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will never allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror, which they are by far, to have a nuclear weapon.”

Iran has after the fact slammed Trump’s statements as false, stressing that it has on several occasions very clearly pledged to never purse a bomb. Some pundits are saying Trump’s words were hyperbolic to express a point – that in reality it must be more than just a verbal pledge, as Washington is demanding a comprehensive legal commitment to not build a bomb.

“Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek, develop or acquire any nuclear weapons.”

—JCPOA (Preamble and General Provisions, para. iii)

Trump Tuesday night reiterated that Iran’s nuclear program had been ‘obliterated’ – and so it presents the contradiction of the US wanting to once again wipe out a nuclear program which the administration says is actually no longer there.

“We wiped it out and they want to start all over again,” Trump said in the address. “And they’re at this moment again pursuing their sinister ambitions.”

Of the June 2025 US and Israeli attacks on nuclear sites, Trump continued “they were warned to make no future attempts to rebuild their weapons program, in particular, nuclear weapons – yet they continue.”

Trump asks of Iran that it must utter the ‘secret words’…

PRESIDENT TRUMP on IRAN: My preference is to solve this problem through diplomacy, but one thing is certain: I will NEVER allow the world’s number one sponsor of terror to have a nuclear weapon.

We have to be strong. It’s called peace through strength. pic.twitter.com/0CPKHtvQDt

— Department of State (@StateDept) February 25, 2026

While Iranian officials have this week said they’re willing to do anything for a deal, there’s also a creeping fear in Tehran that if they cede too much, the country’s enemies will smell blood in the water and attack anyway. Iranian leadership fears it’s in a lose-lose situation, and so if attack – however ‘limited’ a strike might be – would feel the need to hit back as hard as possible. This could be a recipe for stumbling into all-out war.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Ponder a $44,000 insurance bill. This does not count as inflation in the CPI.

Dysfunction in California’s Insurance Market

The Wall Street Journal reports A $44,000 Bill Shows the Dysfunction in California’s Home-Insurance Market

Glenn and Lorraine Crawford paid about $500 a month to insure their home in Agoura Hills northwest of Los Angeles when they bought it in 2012.

The Crawfords say they have little alternative but to pay the bill that arrived last month, which, at more than $44,000 a year, is almost as much as their mortgage bill. The only other insurer willing to cover their home, Lloyd’s of London, quoted them $80,000 a year.

More than a year after infernos tore through Los Angeles County, millions of Californians like the Crawfords are suffering through a home-insurance crisis that has rolled on for years with eye-watering rate increases, canceled policies and rejected claims.

Two of the biggest insurers, State Farm and Allstate, aren’t selling to new customers in the state, despite getting double-digit rate increases approved for their existing policyholders. A third, Farmers Insurance, has committed to cover more homes in fire-prone areas, but only a fraction compared with the drop in its overall number of policies since the crisis began.

The insurance dysfunction has spread to California’s housing market, the country’s biggest and most expensive, with nearly one-in-five real-estate agents reporting a canceled sale last year because of clients unable to find affordable insurance, according to a survey by the trade body California Association of Realtors.

The roots of California’s insurance crisis go back years. The state’s tough rate caps kept premiums low. But home insurers eventually balked, saying they couldn’t charge enough to cover rising wildfire and other losses, made worse by climate change and development. Insurers didn’t renew tens of thousands of policies, especially in fire-prone areas.

California’s uphill battle to draw insurers back could prove a template—or cautionary tale—for other disaster-prone states. New rules implemented last year, for instance, require home-insurers in the state to pledge to sell new policies in high-risk wildfire zones, in return for allowing them to charge higher rates.

As part of a request for a 6.99% rate increase, Farmers, the second-biggest home-insurer in the state, pledged to add at least 5,596 policies in high-risk areas by September 2028. That is less than a 10th of the 59,806 reduction in Farmers’ total number of California home-insurance policies in the previous two years, according to a Consumer Watchdog analysis.

Others continue to shun the state despite winning big concessions. California regulators approved a 34% rate increase for Allstate in 2024. Yet it has no “growth aspirations” in California home insurance, Chief Executive Tom Wilson said last year, adding that it would take time to fix the market. A spokesman said that remains Allstate’s position.

The disaster also almost felled California’s biggest home insurer, State Farm General. Lara last year backed an emergency 17% rate increase to keep the State Farm subsidiary afloat. “We’re on the Titanic, and we see the iceberg,” one of Lara’s lawyers told a hearing last year.

Truflation BS

Meanwhile, Truflation reports an absolutely absurd year-over-over year inflation rate of 0.87 percent.

@truflation pic.twitter.com/1vrtJkWMFJ

— Randy Woodward (@TheBondFreak) February 18, 2026

Faster Nonsense

Truflation is nothing but more timely nonsense. Like the BLS and BEA, Truflation does not factor in homeowner’s insurance or property taxes.

Truflation’s measure of rent are ridiculous. Truflation has too high a weight on new leases rather than existing leases. Existing leases are close to 90 percent of the market.

While the price of new leases is falling in some areas, existing leases are moving much slower.

Neither the BLS nor BEA weigh food properly. I strongly suspect Truflation doesn’t either.

I don’t doubt that Truflation has better and more timely collection methods than the BLS, but like the rest of the inflation models, it’s nonsense.

Economists don’t understand why people are upset. The answer is obvious. When you exclude real prices people pay, all you are offering is garbage.

We don’t need better measures of nonsense, we need better measures of reality, and Truflation sure isn’t it.

Food at Home vs Away

Note the BLS food weights for home vs away are reversed from where people actually spend their money.

For more details, please consider Where Do You Spend Money on Food? How Screwed Up Are the BLS Weights?

Does the BLS match your budget?

Homeowners Insurance

On August 11, 2025, I asked Is Homeowners Insurance Understated in the CPI? Shop Around!

Our Insurance went up by $2,000. Then another $2,000. Here’s our story.

What’s the Insurance Weight?

The BLS says shelter is 35.473 of the CPI. Of that, Tenants’ and household insurance is allegedly 0.414 percent.

Sound right?

If you own a home, what percent of your income is spent on your homeowners’ insurance?

Under 1/2 of 1 percent?

ON January 14, I noted The Fed Has Missed Its Inflation Target on Ten Different Measures

The Atlanta Fed tracks various inflation targets. Let’s have a look.

Does that match your experience or does Truflation?

And none of the measures include homeowners insurance. It’s all nonsense, yet economists believe it.

Billionaire natural resources investor Rick Rule, legendary short-seller Bill Fleckenstein, and veteran oil trader Erik Townsend join ZeroHedge this evening at 7PM ET to give their outlooks on three key commodities sectors: Gold, Oil, and Uranium.

Gold and silver have, of course, exploded in price over the last 52 weeks with gold’s price almost doubling and reaching a high of over $5500.

Silver’s price more than tripled at one point and now sits ($87.50) just under 3X where it sat in February of last year ($32.93).

Given the fast and intense rise, Rule recently reduced his silver position though remains long mining stocks.

Time to Rotate into Oil?

Oil on the other hand is down YoY, making it perhaps the most attractive commodity due to it being relatively cheap.

Oil stocks are Rule’s number one investment position due to what he says is decades of massive underinvestment, a thesis he will expand upon this evening.

Lastly, uranium mining stocks have seen a meteoric rise rivaling that of gold stock, broadly doubling with some names like Energy Fuels seeing an almost 400% increase YoY.

Townsend will speak to the emerging technology in the nuclear energy space and Rule will speak to the long-term bull case and whether the mining stocks have flown too high too fast.

We encourage commodity investors to tune in.

Visit the ZeroHedge homepage at 7pm ET tonight to watch live and commercial-free.

Or follow our Spotify and YouTube to watch after it airs.

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The recent rotation from growth to value is well documented. While the return divergences between, for instance, technology stocks and materials or industrials stocks are significant, they do not tell the whole story. There are also extreme return differentials between broad industries and their sub-industries.

In this article, we address one such divergence between the broad technology sector and the software-as-a-service (SaaS) sub-industry. The graph below shows the wide gap in returns between software, technology, the Nasdaq 100, and semiconductor stocks. Since the well-followed software ETF (IGV) peaked on September 19, 2025, it has fallen 30%. For context, the broad technology indexes (XLK and QQQ) are flat over the period, and the semiconductor ETF (SMH) is up 30%.

Narratives Drive Passive Flows

Behind every good stock or index move is a narrative. The narrative is the market’s collective explanation for why prices move. Most narratives have some truth, some degree of speculation, and include some falsehoods. The job of an individual or professional investor is to understand the narratives driving money flows, assess their accuracy, and trade accordingly.

As if evaluating the validity of narratives weren’t hard enough, we must also consider that many narratives are, to some degree, based on expectations, in which no one knows what the future holds with certainty.

The bearish software narrative, known as “SaaSpocalypse,” which is the market rationale for big drawdowns in many software stocks, has some truths, lots of speculation, and falsehoods. Let’s explore the narrative, some counterpoints, and assess whether software stocks are a steal or, as some claim, on their way to zero.

The SaaSpocalypse Narrative

The “SaaSpocalypse” story holds that the current AI wave poses a significant threat to traditional software companies because AI changes how software is built, delivered, and priced.

If generative AI can write code, automate workflows, and rapidly and cheaply create customized applications, the value of today’s established off-the-shelf software products declines, and in some cases, may approach zero. Instead of paying for software and recurring subscription fees, enterprises and individuals may soon be able to build their own software easily and cheaply.

As if that weren’t enough of a threat to traditional software companies, AI lowers barriers to entry, enabling more competitors to quickly replicate existing software. More competition should compress profit margins and weaken the “moats” that once protected large software firms.

Rebutting The Narrative

The primary rebuttal to SaaSpocalypse is that the value of software lies beyond the code. Enterprise SaaS companies derive their lasting power from durable moats such as network effects, high switching costs, proprietary data, compliance infrastructure, and trust. AI-created software or a competing software product from an AI-driven startup might replicate the look and feel of a software program, but it cannot recreate years of customer data, deep integration with other core systems, and, importantly, the confidence required for corporate deployments. Essentially, the rebuttal argues that the narrative fails to distinguish between the look and feel of software and the other attributes that can make it valuable.

Moreover, the narratives ignore that AI will help existing software companies improve their products, reduce costs, and, in some cases, make their moats even more durable. Current software producers have a huge leg up because they already have distribution networks, a customer base, and staff who understand the intricacies of their product and how customers use it.  

However, the rebuttal may not apply to all software companies. Each software product and company should be judged according to its own merits. Basic, generic products that can be easily programmed with AI are more likely to be replaceable than well-distributed products with significant usage and data connections within companies.

Strong Moats

We asked ChatGPT for examples of Saas companies with strong moats and received the following:

ServiceNow — Workflow + Enterprise System Depth

Why the moat holds up:

• Deeply embedded into ITSM, HR, security, and enterprise workflows — replacing it means re-architecting internal operations, not just swapping software.
• AI agents actually increase their value because orchestration becomes more important than standalone apps.
• Enterprise workflows contain thousands of hidden rules and dependencies that are hard for AI copilots to replicate. Research shows LLMs struggle with these types of opaque enterprise systems.

Salesforce — Data + Ecosystem Lock-In

Why it’s durable:

• Massive installed enterprise base + heavy customization.
• CRM data accumulation over many years = high switching friction.
• Ecosystem moat (partners, integrations, internal workflows, apps).

Even though AI can generate workflows or lightweight CRMs, enterprises still need:

• permission structures
• compliance layers
• enterprise data governance

Datadog — Observability Data Moat

Why this one stands out:

• Continuous telemetry ingestion creates a proprietary “data exhaust.”
• AI needs observability platforms — agents can’t fix or optimize what they can’t measure.
• Integrated logs + metrics + traces across thousands of systems = massive operational switching costs.

AI may help explain incidents, but it doesn’t replace the monitoring layer itself.

Opportunities In SAAS Stocks

We led this article with a graph showing the software ETF IGV’s gross underperformance relative to the broader technology sector. We now dig deeper to help form short-term return expectations for SaaS companies.

XLK vs IGV

The first analysis compares the software ETF IGV to the broad technology sector ETF XLK.  Within the top ten holdings of XLK, Microsoft and Palantir are the only two that are also in the top ten holdings of IGV.

The graph below shows the price ratio of the two ETFs (IGV and XLK). As shown in red/green, the most recent 100-day price ratio change is almost 4 standard deviations from the norm. 

The second graphic uses the last five years to also show how detached the sturdy relationship has drifted recently. Per the most recent weekly readings (green), either XLK is 10% overpriced, or IGV is 10% underpriced.

The statistical divergence is also significant when comparing IGV to SPY (S&P 500).

For fundamental context, we share the graph below from the Daily Shot. The P/E ratio of the software sector has fallen rapidly over the last few months, from 34 to 24. For context, the utility sector has a P/E ratio of 21.

Lastly, we present the year-to-date returns of IGV’s top 10 holdings. Based solely on the returns below, the market is betting that INTU and APP have the weakest moats and that PANW and CRWD are potentially the least negatively affected by potential AI competition.

Summary

Like most narratives, the SaaSpocalypse has some truth and some falsehoods. There is also a large degree of speculation buried within it. Furthermore, the truth shouldn’t be applied broadly to all software companies and their products. In fact, AI will make some software companies more profitable and strengthen their moats. Other companies may fail as competition becomes fierce. The goal for an investor is to figure out who the winners and losers will be. Such is not a simple task, but doing so can provide significant rewards if your research proves correct.

We caution that market rotations have been volatile, with many relationships, like those shown earlier, statistically very stretched. While that may provide comfort for some, we are also aware that in markets like this, where narratives are as strong as they are, relationships can become even more divergent. If you are inclined to buy into the software sector, we recommend taking small starter positions with a stop-loss level in mind. This way, if you are early, the losses are minimal. If the rotations start favoring software stocks and the narrative fades, such evidence may warrant increasing the starter positions. Trade with caution.

As usual, the opposing party was ready with a rebuttal to the President’s State of the Union address last night. 

Speaking from the House of Burgesses in Colonial Williamsburg, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger focused on affordability and immigration.

“As we watched our nation’s lawmakers gather for a joint session of Congress, we did not hear the truth from our president,” she said, adding that Trump had “offered no real solutions to our nation’s pressing challenges.” 

“The United States was founded on the idea that ordinary people could reject the unacceptable excesses of poor leadership, band together to demand better of their government, and create a nation that would be an example for the world,” she continued. “This year, as we celebrate 250 years since America declared independence of tyranny, I can think of no better place to speak to you as we reflect on the current state of our union tonight.” 

Spanberger, a former US representative and member of the House Intelligence Committee, became the governor of Virginia last November by a 15-point margin. 

Last night she asked: “Is the president working to make life more affordable for you and your family? Is the president working to keep Americans safe, both at home and abroad? Is the president working for you?”

As the Epoch Times notes further, Spanberger covered the following topics:

Economics

Most of Spanberger’s speech focused on economic issues, with the governor describing Democrats as being “laser-focused on affordability.”

First, Spanberger decried what she described as Trump’s “reckless trade policies.”

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent decision overturning Trump’s authority to unilaterally impose certain kinds of tariffs, Spanberger said, “The damage to us, the American people, has already been done.”

Spanberger said these new tariffs represent “another tax hike on you and your family.”

“Republicans in Congress, they remain unwilling to assert their constitutional authority to stop him,” she said. “They’re making your life harder. They’re making your life more expensive.

Trump had said that tariff costs would not be passed onto consumers and that foreign countries are taking up the burden. He said tariffs can protect American businesses and jobs by addressing unfair trade practices and boosting domestic manufacturing.

Recently, an analysis of economic data by the Kiel Institute for the World Economy found that Americans paid 96 percent of Trump’s tariff fees in 2025. The non-partisan Tax Committee found that this added up to about $1,000 in new taxes per household in 2025.

Meanwhile, the annual inflation rate slowed to 2.4 percent in January, the lowest level since May, according to new Bureau of Labor Statistics data released on Feb. 13.

Core inflation, which strips out volatile energy and food prices, also eased to a 12-month rate of 2.5 percent, the lowest level since March 2021.

Spanberger also linked the affordability issue to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which included a nearly $1 trillion cut to Medicaid, a primary source of revenue for many of these types of hospitals.

“They’re even making it more difficult to see a doctor,” she said, citing rural hospital closures.

Immigration and Safety

Spanberger also discussed immigration enforcement and broader national security concerns.

Democrats’ concerns over the behavior of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents under Trump have been one of their primary objections to the administration.

“Our president has sent poorly trained federal agents into our cities where they have arrested and detained American citizens and people who aspire to be Americans, and they have done it without a warrant,” Spanberger said, citing the use of administrative warrants by ICE rather than court-granted judicial warrants to enter homes.

These agents, Spanberger said, “have ripped nursing mothers away from their babies. They have sent children, a little boy in a blue bunny hat, children, to far off detention centers,” Spanberger said. “They have killed American citizens in our streets, and they have done it all with their faces masked from accountability.”

More briefly, Spanberger also cited international concerns.

Trump, she said, “continues to cede economic power and technological strength to Russia, bow down to China, bow down to a Russian dictator, and make plans for war with Iran.”

She said that “through [Department of Government Efficiency] mass firings and the appointment of deeply unserious people to our nation’s most serious positions, our president has endangered the long, storied history of the United States of America being a force for good.”

Andrew Moran contributed to this report.

David Tepper, the billionaire behind Appaloosa Management, blasted Whirlpool’s board in a sharply critical letter, accusing the appliance maker of eroding shareholder value and demanding a strategic reset, according to CNBC, who viewed the letter.

Tepper said he watched with “a certain astonishment” as Whirlpool moved ahead with what he described as a sizable and avoidable equity issuance that diluted investors. He argued the capital raise carried a cost of more than 10% — far above the company’s tax-adjusted borrowing costs of under 5% in public markets — despite management’s stated aim of cutting leverage.

“Over the years this management team has destroyed hundreds of millions of dollars of shareholder value. Enough is enough. There can be no more excuses,” Tepper wrote in the letter, first reported by CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin.

The share sale triggered a sharp market reaction. Whirlpool stock fell 14% Tuesday after announcing plans to raise about $454.9 million through a common stock offering and $508.1 million via depositary shares.

The company also placed 435,000 shares with Guangdong Whirlpool Electrical Appliances at a discounted $69 apiece in a private deal. Whirlpool was Appaloosa’s eighth-largest position at the end of the fourth quarter, valued at $282 million, according to Verity data.

CNBC noted that shares later rebounded nearly 1%, though they remain down roughly 36% from a 52-week high reached in July.

Tepper also criticized Whirlpool for not fully leveraging tariffs imposed during the Trump administration, suggesting it consider alliances or mergers with foreign competitors disadvantaged by trade policy to improve its footing.

“We encourage the Board to (i) remember their fiduciary responsibilities and not accept management acting purely in its own self-interest, and (ii) invite domestic entities or foreign corporations who want to create American jobs and increase shareholder value to take an interest in Whirlpool,” the letter said.

Tepper, who founded Appaloosa in 1993, is known for aggressive, event-driven investing and outspoken activism.

He previously ran a successful distressed-debt strategy, bought the NFL’s Carolina Panthers in 2018, and has built a reputation as one of Wall Street’s most influential hedge fund managers.

Authored by Eva Sun-Wai via BondVigilantes.com,

The dollar’s slide last year looks less like a sudden break and more like the culmination of pressures that have been gathering for a while. The fading of US exceptionalism has sat quietly in the background, and once the narrative started to normalise, the cracks became clearer: softer growth expectations, slower capital inflows, and valuations that had been leaning heavily on the idea that the US could keep outperforming indefinitely. The currency came into the year heavily owned and reliant on that growth premium, and when it began to erode, the dollar suddenly felt far more exposed to shifts in sentiment and positioning than it had for some time.

At the same time, the policy backdrop has turned more awkward for the currency. Markets expect the Fed to continue cutting, and the prospect of a more politically influenced leadership has introduced a small but noticeable risk premium around credibility. That is happening just as fiscal policy remains unanchored, with deficits showing little sign of narrowing and spending likely to rise into the election cycle. The steepening we’ve seen in the curve has not offered the dollar much support. Even when nominal yields tick higher, the lack of a credible fiscal path blunts the rate‑differential argument the currency would otherwise be able to lean on.

Trade policy hasn’t helped clarify matters either. Ordinarily, higher tariffs would tighten the inflation narrative and lend support to the dollar, but the market seems to be treating recent announcements with a degree of caution. The reversals, the unpredictability, and the simple fact that these things take time to feed through the system have meant the FX impact has been surprisingly muted. Rather than helping the dollar, tariff headlines have added to the broader sense of uncertainty.

Source: M&G, Bloomberg intelligence.

All of this has fed into the gentler tone around inflation expectations. Long‑dated breakevens suggest a market that is comfortable (perhaps too much so) with the idea that inflation pressures will remain contained. For the dollar, that matters: when inflation is assumed to stay under control, rate differentials compress, and one of the currency’s key supports weakens. A shift in those expectations, whether driven by tariffs or other factors, could prompt a repricing. The more challenging scenario would be one where inflation starts to firm again, yet the Fed continues to ease. That combination would weigh heavily on real yields and raise questions about policy direction and central‑bank independence at a moment when confidence is already fragile.

Against this backdrop it’s no surprise that traditional valuation anchors feel less dependable. Too many competing forces such as policy, flows, and politics, are pulling at once. If the Fed keeps cutting and differentials narrow, a softer dollar is the natural outcome unless other central banks ease more aggressively and/or for longer than expected. And while this doesn’t yet resemble a structural rotation away from the dollar, the combination of drivers could support a gradual diversification at the margins. Reserve managers are still operating within clear limits with USD markets remaining the core of the system, but increased accumulation of alternatives, particularly gold, fits with the broader theme.

Taken together, this episode looks both political and structural. Politics has accelerated the move, but the foundations were already in place: the normalisation of US exceptionalism, the awkward policy mix, and the evolving inflation and reserve‑management dynamics. How long those forces persist will shape the dollar’s path into the next decade.

It doesn’t yet feel like a dramatic turning point, but nor does it look like an interruption that will snap back quickly.

The more plausible path is a slower, uneven adjustment as the market works out what the right premium for the US actually is.

Via Remix News,

Opponents of Brussels’ deal with Latin American countries to import agricultural products are being proven right, unfortunately. Meat containing a banned growth hormone has shown up in the EU, a Dutch authority has reported, leading Polish authorities to order urgent inspections by the relevant inspectorates.

EU farmers and multiple groups warned that the lack of safety regulations in use across the Mercosur countries would lead to such outcomes.

The Dutch Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority announced that it had detected Brazilian beef contaminated with estradiol, a growth hormone used to stimulate estrus in cattle that is banned in the European Union, writes Do Rzezcy.

Four contaminated shipments, containing a total of 62,781 kilograms of meat, were imported by two European companies.

A significant portion of the meat was distributed to several buyers and introduced into the EU market.

Two remaining shipments of beef from Brazil (each containing approximately 25 tons of frozen meat) were blocked by Dutch authorities from being released for distribution, the Farmer.pl website reported on Monday.

The website stressed that the detection of contaminated beef imports could become another argument for opponents of the EU trade agreement with Mercosur, a bloc of South American countries.

According to the RMF FM radio station, EU member states, including Poland, were informed by the European Commission about the distribution of contaminated meat from Brazil as early as November 11 of last year. The European Commission detected the irregularities during an audit at the end of October 2025. By Jan. 21, contaminated beef had been detected in approximately 10 countries, including the Czech Republic, Germany, and Italy.

And yet, that same day, on Jan. 21, despite the European Parliament voting to have the ECJ review the legality of the Mercosur deal, leaders in Brussels were urging for the deal to be formalized, including the German president of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, and German Chancellor Friedrich Merz as well.

“We are convinced of the agreement’s legality. No more delays. The agreement must now be applied provisionally,” Merz posted on X at the time.

The Polish Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development has ordered inspections of beef imported from Brazil.

“Due to reports of estradiol (a growth hormone) being detected in batches of Brazilian beef imported to the EU, we have ordered urgent inspections by the relevant authorities. We are monitoring the inflow of products into Poland and verifying all signals.”

“At this time, there is no information that the indicated batches have reached the Polish market. We are taking preventive measures to ensure full food safety,” Deputy Minister Małgorzata Gromadzka announced on X.

Read more here…