Copper is above EMA200 and EMA50 on the 4-hour timeframe and is moving in its descending channel. An upward correction of copper will provide us with a good risk-reward selling position. If the downtrend continues, we can buy copper in the next demand zone.
The Monthly Metals Index (MMI) for copper remained largely range-bound, experiencing a slight decline of 0.65% from December to January. Meanwhile, copper prices continue to react to the new U.S. administration and potential shifts in trade policies.
Ahead of President Trump’s inauguration, copper prices on the Comex exchange began breaking out of their previous range. By mid-January, copper prices had reached their highest levels since early November. This movement was likely driven by traders anticipating the impact of potential tariffs, some of which could affect the copper market. In contrast, prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) saw only modest gains, creating a temporary price divergence between the two exchanges.
Typically, Comex and LME copper prices move in tandem, making any significant deviations between them noteworthy. Since 2019, the two markets have shown a correlation of 99.76%, with Comex prices averaging a $19 per ton premium over LME prices. However, by January 14, this premium had widened to $402 per ton. It remains uncertain whether this premium will persist in the coming years or revert to historical levels, as seen in previous instances.
Historically, such price divergences have been temporary. One notable example was a short squeeze on Comex in late May, which marked the end of the Q2 2024 rally in base metals. During this period, the price gap between LME and Comex surged to $688 per ton, with Comex copper prices reaching a record high of $11,257 per ton.
However, this spread quickly narrowed due to shifts in trade flows toward the U.S. market. Although Comex copper contracts attract similar market participation as LME, lower inventory levels make them less liquid. Consequently, when stockpiles decrease, Comex prices become particularly susceptible to sudden surges.
Another factor contributing to price divergence was the October port strike, which led to a significant increase in Comex prices. Before the three-day strike began, Comex copper prices had already risen sharply, pushing the spread to $292 per ton until mediators brokered a resolution.
Market volatility remains a key risk for copper prices as traders await more details on which products and countries will be affected by new trade barriers. This uncertainty could either drive further price increases or trigger sharp declines if reality fails to align with market expectations.
Some of the tariffs proposed by President Trump are likely to serve as negotiation tactics, meaning they may not be fully implemented or could be abandoned if alternative trade agreements are reached. Meanwhile, reports suggest that the Trump administration is considering a phased approach to tariff implementation, which may help mitigate market reactions.
A closer look at Trump’s latest stance on China indicates a willingness to de-escalate tensions and increase engagement. However, his previous trade policies were highly aggressive, often involving heavy tariffs on Chinese imports.
The Monthly Metals Index (MMI) for copper remained largely range-bound, experiencing a slight decline of 0.65% from December to January. Meanwhile, copper prices continue to react to the new U.S. administration and potential shifts in trade policies.
Ahead of President Trump’s inauguration, copper prices on the Comex exchange began breaking out of their previous range. By mid-January, copper prices had reached their highest levels since early November. This movement was likely driven by traders anticipating the impact of potential tariffs, some of which could affect the copper market. In contrast, prices on the London Metal Exchange (LME) saw only modest gains, creating a temporary price divergence between the two exchanges.
Typically, Comex and LME copper prices move in tandem, making any significant deviations between them noteworthy. Since 2019, the two markets have shown a correlation of 99.76%, with Comex prices averaging a $19 per ton premium over LME prices. However, by January 14, this premium had widened to $402 per ton. It remains uncertain whether this premium will persist in the coming years or revert to historical levels, as seen in previous instances.
Historically, such price divergences have been temporary. One notable example was a short squeeze on Comex in late May, which marked the end of the Q2 2024 rally in base metals. During this period, the price gap between LME and Comex surged to $688 per ton, with Comex copper prices reaching a record high of $11,257 per ton.
However, this spread quickly narrowed due to shifts in trade flows toward the U.S. market. Although Comex copper contracts attract similar market participation as LME, lower inventory levels make them less liquid. Consequently, when stockpiles decrease, Comex prices become particularly susceptible to sudden surges.
Another factor contributing to price divergence was the October port strike, which led to a significant increase in Comex prices. Before the three-day strike began, Comex copper prices had already risen sharply, pushing the spread to $292 per ton until mediators brokered a resolution.
Market volatility remains a key risk for copper prices as traders await more details on which products and countries will be affected by new trade barriers. This uncertainty could either drive further price increases or trigger sharp declines if reality fails to align with market expectations.
Some of the tariffs proposed by President Trump are likely to serve as negotiation tactics, meaning they may not be fully implemented or could be abandoned if alternative trade agreements are reached. Meanwhile, reports suggest that the Trump administration is considering a phased approach to tariff implementation, which may help mitigate market reactions.
A closer look at Trump’s latest stance on China indicates a willingness to de-escalate tensions and increase engagement. However, his previous trade policies were highly aggressive, often involving heavy tariffs on Chinese imports.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.
Disclaimer
The information and publications are not meant to be, and do not constitute, financial, investment, trading, or other types of advice or recommendations supplied or endorsed by TradingView. Read more in the Terms of Use.