Your summary with links, if you’d like to pick and choose
Nvidia hit $5 trillion, now bigger than most national stock markets. Huang’s global chip deals and AI dominance have pushed it to 9% of the S&P 500 — a concentration risk for index investors. Still, Wall Street remains bullish, with 90% “buy” ratings.
→ The stock is the AI bubble… or the economy’s new engine. Maybe both.
💣 Trump’s Trade Pressure Cooker
Trump strong-armed Japan ($550 bn) and South Korea ($350 bn) into US investment pledges in exchange for tariff relief. These deals strain their reserves (14% and 20% of GDP respectively) and risk currency fallout.
→ “Foxconn déjà vu”: grand promises, slow delivery, potential blowback.
🏦 Fed, QT & Rate Surprises
The Fed cut rates and ended quantitative tightening, keeping its balance sheet “neutral” to avoid market stress. But Powell cooled expectations, saying another December cut is “not a foregone conclusion.”
Markets barely flinched — Big Tech is carrying the show, not cheap money.
→ Powell’s tightrope: soothe Trump’s demands without lighting an inflation bonfire.
📉 K-Shaped America
Consumers are gloomy, yet credit data looks strong. The top 10% now drive half of all spending, masking weakness below. 23 states may already be in recession, but California and New York are holding the line.
→ The economy’s split: luxury thrives, the middle sweats, and lenders tread carefully.
⚡ Eskom & South Africa’s Energy Future
The new Integrated Resource Plan leans heavily on private power projects, set to add 13 GW by 2029, outpacing Eskom’s and government builds. Coal retirements accelerate, and gas projects lag in legal limbo.
→ The private sector is now the country’s real power plant.
🇺🇸 Shutdown & “Nuclear Option”
The US shutdown is now day 34 — the longest in history. Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBBA) would add $2.8 trillion to US debt, slash healthcare and green subsidies, and widen inequality. Republicans may use the Senate “nuclear option” to ram it through.
→ Fiscal fireworks meet political brinkmanship.
💰 Under the Hood (Cobie Le Grange)
Stress is emerging in US repo markets — the plumbing behind liquidity. The Fed halted QT to keep cash flowing and avoid bond volatility. Global liquidity remains high, a quiet tailwind for equities.
→ Liquidity is life — and right now, it’s still pumping.
Global Roundup in the last week
 |
Nvidia breaks the $5tn barrier
Nvidia Corp. achieved a historic $5 trillion market capitalisation on Wednesday as Chief Executive Officer Jensen Huang’s (born in Taiwan) spree of deals catapults the artificial intelligence frenzy to new heights.
Just a quick side note here:
Among the top 10 global tech companies, notable non-US-born CEOs include:
The shares in Nvidia rallied as much as 5.6% to $212.19, propelling Nvidia over the milestone. It’s only been four months since the company cracked the $4 trillion barrier, and the rally has accelerated as Huang forges new agreements to supply companies from Nokia Oyj to Samsung Electronics Co. and Hyundai Motor Group with chips.
Nvidia has become the most important stock in a bull market that’s been driven by optimism for AI to revolutionise the global economy. With a 50% gain this year through last Tuesday’s close, the stock is single-handedly responsible for nearly a fifth of the S&P 500 Index’s 17% advance in 2025. The next two biggest companies are Microsoft Corp. and Apple Inc., with valuations of about $4 trillion each.
Nvidia shares climbed last Wednesday after US President Donald Trump said he expects to speak with China’s Xi Jinping about the company’s Blackwell chip (he didn’t). Trump said months ago he’d consider allowing Nvidia to export to China a downgraded version of its Blackwell processor, and the hope is that such a deal might be on the table. Huang also announced a flurry of new partnerships and dismissed concerns about an AI bubble, saying the latest chips are on track to generate half a trillion dollars in revenue. The company also unveiled a new system to connect quantum computers with its artificial intelligence chips.
The rally means the stock’s weighting in the S&P 500 Index has reached nearly 9%, about two percentage points more than the next closest company. Bear this in mind: if you own a market cap tracker on the S&P, the risk of this abnormally high weighting is called share concentration. Its swelling valuation also makes the stock worth more than the combined value of stock markets in the Netherlands, Spain, UAE, Italy and Poland. In other words, it finds itself larger than all but five of the world’s stock markets: the US, China, Japan, Hong Kong and India, which it’s about $250 billion away from overtaking.
Wall Street analysts are still overwhelmingly bullish on the firm’s future prospects.More than 90% have given its stock a buy-equivalent rating, with only one — Seaport Global Securities analyst Jay Goldberg — rating it a sell.
Nvidia shares are priced at less than 34 times estimated earnings, below their five-year average of about 39, and not far from the Philadelphia Stock Exchange Semiconductor Index at 29 times.
 |
Donald Trump’s renewed trade offensive has come at a steep cost for Japan and South Korea. With little room to manoeuvre, both countries have been pressured by Washington to commit to investing hundreds of billions of dollars in the US in exchange for lower tariffs. The demands follow years of Japan and South Korea ranking among the top economies with the largest trade surpluses with the US. All is not lost, though. We all know how long it takes for investments actually to break ground.
Who remembers when Foxconn promised to build a massive factory in Wisconsin, USA, in Trump 1.0, in 2017, with expectations of investing $10 billion and creating up to 13,000 jobs? The plan was hailed as a major revival for American manufacturing at the time. The project did not unfold as promised. Foxconn scaled back its plans dramatically, reducing the investment to only $672 million and the promised jobs to about 1,500. The original manufacturing plans for large LCD screens were abandoned, partly because labour costs in the US were too high, and the global market for those screens changed. The facilities built ended up being used for storage, research, and other functions—not high-volume electronics manufacturing as originally promised. By 2025, Foxconn continues to do some manufacturing in the US, mainly AI server equipment in Houston, and is investing in automation and robotics there, but the Wisconsin site never became the kind of giant factory that was originally pitched.
The commitments last week helped seal trade deals for both Asian nations back in July, but the complexity of the investment pledges has led to months of wrangling over the size, scope and structure of the funds. Japan has now largely “finalised” its investment arrangement with the US, shifting the focus to specific investment projects under consideration. South Korea, meanwhile, continues to push back against US demands, citing the scale of the proposed investment and the potential impact on its currency market.
What has Japan agreed to?
Japan has agreed to invest up to $550 billion in the US through government-linked funding. Under the memorandum of understanding signed between the two countries in early September, the US has the right to consider raising tariffs again if Tokyo doesn’t provide funding for investment projects approved by Trump within 45 days. (Maybe he did learn from Foxconn?)
According to the MOU, Trump will choose projects based on recommendations from an investment committee led by US Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. The investment committee will incorporate input from Japan via a separate panel, with investments to be made by Jan. 19, 2029 — the end of Trump’s presidential term.
The US says it does not intend to raise tariffs provided Japan faithfully implements the deal and doesn’t fail to provide funding. The US president would be able to raise tariffs again if Japan fails to fund a project. Initial terms stipulate that profits from investments will eventually be shared 90:10 in Washington’s favour.
Don’t count on a Democrat win in the Senate to change things, a 66% majority is needed to override a Presidential veto. They would have to lick the can down the road and hope for a change in 2028/9.
What has South Korea agreed to?
South Korea has pledged to invest $350 billion, though how the plan will be carried out has yet to be finalised. President Lee Jae Myung said before Trump’s arrival in South Korea that the two sides were stuck on key points such as the size and timeframe of investments and the sharing of profits. The Japan deal and the conditions that were stipulated made policymakers in Seoul blanch. South Korea’s Prime Minister Kim Min-seok said that fulfilling the pledge would also deal a severe blow to the Korean economy. The arrest and shackling of hundreds of Korean workers in a US immigration raid on a Hyundai Motor Co. and LG Energy Solution Ltd. battery plant in Georgia in September also shocked South Korea, raising questions about its existing investments in the US.
While Trump characterised the deals as requiring the two countries to put up cash upfront, policymakers in Tokyo and Seoul said the pledges would take the form of loans and loan guarantees, with only a small amount of direct equity purchases.
The investment commitments helped both countries secure framework trade deals in July that brought across-the-board tariffs down from a threatened 25% to 15%. But a separate 25% duty specifically on cars and auto parts stayed in place, pending an executive order from Trump. The US used that extra pain on the auto sector to leverage more detailed investment commitments from both Japan and South Korea.
Japan moved faster on negotiations as then-Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba sought to secure lower auto tariffs while his political standing at home started to slip. Japan’s car sector accounts for almost 10% of the country’s GDP and employs about 8% of the nation’s workforce, according to industry estimates.
For Japan, the investment commitment amounts to about 14% of gross domestic product as of the end of 2024. The dollars required would represent just under half of the country’s foreign currency reserves. That is eyewatering, and probably unsustainable.
For South Korea, the relative burden is even heavier. Its pledge is equivalent to around 20% of GDP as of 2024 and roughly 80% of its foreign-exchange reserves.
Japan’s trade surplus with the US was the seventh-largest last year, at $68.5 billion. That means Tokyo’s pledge would be about twice the size of the US trade deficit with Japan during Trump’s second term, assuming the gap holds steady. The US shortfall with South Korea was only slightly smaller, at $66 billion.
Are they just calling his bluff?
To demonstrate that the funding was moving ahead, Japan’s trade ministry cited more than 20 projects under consideration during Trump’s October visit. The companies included SoftBank Group, Westinghouse and Toshiba Corp. According to the trade ministry, these companies are exploring ventures in energy, artificial intelligence and critical minerals. The size of the proposed projects ranges from $350 million to as much as $100 billion, and together they could total about $400 billion, according to Japan’s Trade Minister Ryosei Akazawa, who led the tariff talks with the US.
Market participants have speculated that such a surge in Japanese investments into the US would weigh on the yen. Akazawa, however, says the investments will be funded through a foreign-exchange special account, primarily using existing dollar holdings, thereby minimizing any impact on currency markets. Japan is already the biggest investor in the US and expanding that footprint through the new fund has also raised concerns that domestic manufacturing could suffer if companies increasingly opt to produce goods in the US rather than export from Japan. The government is considering measures to address those worries.
South Korea faces similar concerns, though the potential impact on its currency is viewed as even larger. The Bank of Korea has said the country can only provide up to $20 billion a year in funding without affecting the foreign exchange market. Local media have reported that Seoul is pushing for annual investment flows below that amount, while Washington continues to press for more.
The Fed and Quantitative tightening
The Federal Reserve announced a, not completely unexpected, 25-basis-point cut last Wednesday, as did the Bank of Canada.
The Fed also revealed that it would stop “quantitative tightening” (selling bonds from its portfolio in a manoeuvre that will tend to tighten financial conditions) as of the end of next month. These are significant developments, which had been widely expected.
Quantitative easing (QE) and quantitative tightening (QT) are opposing monetary policy tools used by central banks to stimulate markets if interest rates prove insufficient. QE involves injecting liquidity into the economy by purchasing long-term assets, while QT withdraws liquidity by selling assets or letting them mature off the central bank’s balance sheet. Each approach has distinct effects on interest rates, economic growth, and financial stability.
Here is the rub: The Treasury and Trump have been pushing for lower interest rates – so, done – but through QT, the Fed isn’t helping in this endeavour. It is important to note that QE/QT is a tool which the FED, and any other central bank, wants to use sparingly. For this reason, the FED has been at work attempting to reduce the size of its balance sheet. This has now in effect ended with the FED promising to keep its balance sheet neutral. More about this in the piece from Cobie.
Interest rates and the Canadian and Fed surprises
The surprise north of the US border came when the BOC (Bank of Canada) offered forward guidance that suggests it will soon be done with cutting, with its president, Tiff Macklem, saying rates were “at about the right level to keep inflation close to 2%.”
The bigger surprise south of it came when Fed Chair Jerome Powell chose to say that another cut in December is “not a foregone conclusion.” He even added: “Far from it.” This change in tone is meaningful and unexpected, and it was this unexpected statement that moved the markets:
The two-year yield had its biggest daily rise in four months and jolted above its short-term trend.
Perhaps the more important point is the relative lack of impact on stocks. The S&P 500 was exactly flat for the day (down by less than 0.01%), while the Nasdaq Composite gained 0.55%. The stock rally relies more on Big Tech’s extraordinary adventures in artificial intelligence (more on that below) than on cheap rates, which is encouraging. Big Tech is generating it’s own cash, that’s one of the big differences between now and 2000.
The stock rally (with the S&P up 17% for the year despite all manner of turbulence along the way) has continued despite disappointment on rates, the mini-jolt this time round has been those short term rates.
In September 2024, when the Fed initiated its loosening cycle with a “jumbo” cut of 50 basis points, the futures market expected the fed funds rate to end this year below 3%. Now it’s not sure it will get that low even by the end of 2026.
Tariffs continue to have a subtle impact. They are viewed, rightly or wrongly, as inflationary for the US while likely to depress growth elsewhere. Exhibit A comes from the Bank of Canada, where the expected rate for the end of this year has been cut by more than 75 basis points over the course of the year. There is the possibility that policymakers could force the country into stagflation.
Make no mistake, the structural damage caused by the trade conflict reduces the capacity of the economy and adds costs. This limits the role that monetary policy can play to boost demand while maintaining low inflation.
As with so much else, how that tariff/inflation dynamic works its way through the global economy over the next 12 months is hugely important, and there is a lack of precedents to guide us. For the near term, futures still price a December Fed cut as likely (69%) but no longer certain.
 |
Dissent and Independence in the Fed
One refreshing note is that Powell faced barely any questions about the Fed’s independence at his press conference. Governor Lisa Cook voted with him and attracted almost no attention. Before the last FOMC meeting, the government made a last-ditch legal attempt to stop her from voting, arguing that the president had the right to fire her over allegations of mortgage fraud. Removing her was critical to any broader plan to remould the entire committee.
That might explain another intriguing development. For the first time since September 2019, there were dissents in both directions. Stephen Miran, formerly an economic adviser to President Trump, voted to cut by 50 basis points, as expected, while Jeffrey Schmid, the president of the Kansas City Fed, voted for no cut at all. That can be seen as Powell losing control over the committee as he enters the lame-duck stage of his tenure. He must stand down in six months. But it also suggests that the Fed’s existing leadership is keen to show markets that it won’t necessarily do everything the president wants.
It’s a complicated economic picture, and there are many different strands of opinion. The next six months are going to be complicated. That’s probably healthy.
In the tussle between the importance of the Fed and the Treasury, the balance is shifting to the Treasury.
 |
American consumers are feeling downbeat. Their sentiment is at one of its lowest levels in 73 years and unemployment-rate expectations for the next year are as bleak as any non-recession period since 1978. Yet for all the gloom, consumer credit is holding up.
Indeed, among banks and credit-card issuers that reported earnings over the past two weeks, card losses came in uniformly lower than analyst estimates. In many cases, banks even released reserves they’d put aside for a potential consumer slowdown. With monthly delinquencies running lower than at the same point last year, the immediate outlook seems rosy — in contrast to the experience in several banks’ commercial loan books where “cockroaches” have recently emerged – we discussed this last week and Cobie mentions it in his piece below.
So, how to explain the divergence between sentiment and credit performance?
One explanation lies in the “K-shaped” theory of the economy.
Instead of businesses, we’re talking about the top 10% of earners being behind roughly half of all US consumer spending (up from about a third in the early 1990s) so that economic indicators become less sensitive to the behaviour of the majority.
So while 23 US states could already be in recession, representing a third of gross domestic product, the impact on credit data may be slow to filter through.
Whether the national economy suffers a downturn appears to rest on the big California and New York economies. Neither economy is in recession, but both are struggling to gain traction. De-globalisation, including the trade war and highly restrictive immigration policy, is a headwind to growth, but artificial intelligence and the boost it is providing to investment and the stock market, household wealth, and spending is a tailwind to growth. How these cross-winds play out in these states may hold the key to how the national business cycle will unfold.
Unemployment is a strong driver of credit quality; but what matters more is the flow of newly unemployed. Because of the government shutdown (now, officially the longest in US history) we haven’t had an update recently, but when the Bureau of Labour Statistics last released data, the number of people unemployed for five weeks or fewer was running flat; any increase in the unemployment rate was due to a swelling in the ranks of the long-term unemployed.
If people lose their job, they first go through severance, then they go through unemployment, and then the real financial struggle starts if they haven’t replaced their job. So, there’s always a lag with regard to unemployment.
One thing to watch is loan growth. With so much uncertainty, it may not be an opportune time for lenders to push credit to their customer base. In fact, loan growth among major card issuers was weak in the third quarter, in some cases as part of a deliberate pullback. Capital One – which recently bought Discover – is explicitly disinvesting from “high-balance revolvers”, a segment it says fared worst in the 2008 recession, after Discover had built share in that segment.
Sentiment is souring and unemployment worries are rising, but bills are still being paid. If job losses broaden, losses will follow. For now, lenders’ restraint on growth and discipline on risk are buying time.
Eskom and the Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)
South Africa will rely heavily on private companies to build power generation as coal-fired plants that produce the bulk of its electricity are gradually retired, according to the nation’s latest energy blueprint, the Integrated Resource Plan. New private generation capacity will outpace power procured by the government from independent producers as well as stations planned by state-owned Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd. over the next few years, the Integrated Resource Plan showed. It was gazetted last Tuesday.
The private projects will help to replace a “significant reduction” of 8 gigawatts of coal capacity between 2029 and 2030 after decades of use, the plan showed. South Africa relies on fossil fuels to produce more than 80% of its electricity and is transitioning to cleaner sources of energy.
Private projects outpace the capacity procured by the government, state utility, as shown above. Note: This excludes the rooftop solar estimate. Eskom’s committed projects are those under construction, fully funded.
Over a shorter term, a pipeline of 13 gigawatts of private generation capacity is expected to come online through 2029. The projects have already secured permits and licensing, and are at an advanced stage of securing grid access, according to the IRP.
The private build overshadows about 5.7 gigawatts of capacity expected during the same period from government programs to procure power from private developers. Eskom has 4.4 gigawatts of committed capacity, which includes a 3,000 megawatt gas-fired project that has been delayed as South Africa’s Supreme Court of Appeal set aside an environmental authorisation for the plant last month. But the commissioning of 6 gigawatts of gas projects through 2030 is designed “to avoid shortfalls as the older baseload power stations reach end of life,” according to the IRP.
US Government shutdown impasse – the nuclear option
A few weeks ago, I wrote a piece explaining the US government Filibuster, and mentioned the ‘nuclear’ option that the Republicans have in the Senate. This refers to a parliamentary procedure in the United States Senate that allows the majority party to change rules—especially those concerning the filibuster—by a simple majority vote, rather than the normally required two-thirds or three-fifths supermajority. The filibuster is a Senate tradition that requires 60 votes to end debate on most legislation, providing the minority party significant blocking power.
Invoking the nuclear option would effectively eliminate the filibuster for certain actions (up to now, judicial and executive nominations) or, if expanded, for all legislation, allowing a simple majority (51 votes) to pass bills.
Historically, both parties have resisted fully abolishing the legislative filibuster, citing concerns over losing power should the majority switch, a real possibility as soon as the midterms next year.
Calls for the nuclear option tend to surge during crises or deadlocks. For example, President Trump and others have recently urged Senate Republicans to use the nuclear option to end the current government shutdown by scrapping the filibuster and allowing legislation to pass with a simple majority, but many Senate leaders remain opposed, warning that its elimination could eventually disadvantage whichever party is in the minority. The shutdown is now in day 34, the longest in history, with neither side willing to budge.
The nuclear option has already been used for presidential nominations in 2013 (for all except the Supreme Court) and again in 2017 (Trump’s term, for Supreme Court nominees), but not yet for ordinary legislation (and we can see the damage that it has caused). Attempts to extend it further—such as for contentious bills or to break funding stalemates—continue to stir up intense debate within the Senate and across the political spectrum. If the Republicans choose this option, it could backfire spectacularly should they become the minority in the Senate.
The biggest issue which is swaying the public, because it is immediate, is the cessation of SNAP benefits, aka food stamps, affecting 42 million people, 15% of the population.
The benefit is $190 per person per month. In the long term, the Democrats are digging in their heels over medical aid, specifically the subsidisation of the Affordable Care Act (24 million people), also known as Obama Care, which ends in December and has been slashed by Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill”. The ‘sticker price’ of Obamacare is $600 a month; the subsidy brings it down to $130 per person. The monthly wage for someone on minimum wage is $1250.
This week is going to test the mettle of the US lawmakers. Trump wants this bill to be ‘one and done’ for the rest of his tenure, never one for phasing in anything.
For us non-‘Mericans, let’s have a little look at this “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, or OBBBA).
Budget Deficit and National Debt: The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates the bill will increase the national debt by about $2.8 trillion by 2034. This increase in debt is expected to raise interest rates and crowd out private investment, slowing long-term GDP growth. Debt-to-GDP could rise to 194% by 2054, substantially higher than without the bill.
Tax Structure and Distributional Effects: The bill permanently extends individual tax cuts(mostly to very HNW individuals) from Trump’s first term in 2017, increases the state and local tax deduction cap temporarily, and adds some new deductions. However, the wealthiest 10% would see income rises (about 2.7%) primarily from tax savings, while the lowest 10% could see incomes drop by around 3.1% due to cuts in social programs—creating one of the most regressive tax and spending packages in recent decades, effectively transferring wealth upward. The tax cuts to the billionaires are worth $4bn over 10 years.
Health and Social Safety Net: The bill makes the largest-ever cuts to Medicaid spending (12% reduction), threatening healthcare access for millions and rural hospital closures. CBO estimates 10.9 million Americans will lose health insurance coverage. Expanded work requirements for SNAP benefits also tighten the safety net, shifting some costs to states.
Environmental Policies: It phases out many clean energy tax incentives introduced by prior administrations, favouring fossil fuels over renewable energy sources. This is expected to derail clean energy job growth, reduce investment in green technologies, and potentially harm U.S. global competitiveness in climate and clean energy sectors. Of course, Donald Quixote Trump has already stalled windmill projects.
Immigration Enforcement: The bill dramatically increases funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to over $100 billion by 2029, enabling expanded detention, deportation, and enforcement activities, raising concerns about social and humanitarian impacts.
Government and State Impacts: The bill’s tax changes and spending cuts may trigger state budget shortfalls and complicate multi-state business taxation. States already anticipate revenue declines in late 2025, amplifying fiscal challenges.
You can see why this is a highly contentious and polarising package with major long-term consequences for government finances, health coverage, inequality, and climate policy and why the Democrats are fighting against the ‘one and done’ implementation.
Author: Dawn Ridler
Last week, Dawn wrote about the emerging stress in mid-size US banks. Both Zions Bancorporation and Western Alliance faced intense market scrutiny following the disclosure of problematic loans and subsequent financial actions.
Following on from this, there is evidence of pressure in the Repo market. This was confirmed by the Fed Chair as he presented the FOMC’s 0.25% interest rate reduction decision. Whereas most people would stop reading once they know the interest rate decision, there was a lot more going on at the press conference.
Dawn has gone into the mechanics of this in more detail above, but the Federal Reserve ensures the smooth functioning of money markets, making sure that ample liquidity is available to settle trades. This they do through their balance sheet. There are times when they are net purchasers of Treasury debt, leading to an expansion in their balance sheet and visa versa.
Up to now, there has been a policy of Quantitative Tightening, where they have allowed for maturing treasuries to roll off the balance sheet without reinvesting the proceeds. They, in effect, are then no longer buyers of treasuries, leaving this function to the markets.
But repo markets are showing signs of strain. This can be seen in spreads widening and, importantly, in the SOFR rate.
The Secured Overnight Financing Rate (SOFR) is the benchmark interest rate for overnight borrowing secured by U.S. Treasury securities in the repurchase agreement (repo) market. It reflects the cost for banks and financial institutions to borrow cash overnight collateralised by US government bonds.
In 2019, there was a liquidity squeeze in the Repo markets, forcing the rate 300bps higher than the prevailing rate at the time. The FED was left scrambling, forcing liquidity back into markets. This time around, given their experience before and the uptick in the SOFR rate, they want to be fully prepared.
Their plan is to stop Quantitative Tightening and reinvest the maturing proceeds of their debt into new Treasury issuances. This, in effect, means that their balance sheet stays neutral but that they continue to be active purchasers of treasuries. If they failed to act here, the next stress point would probably have been in the bond markets as volatility started picking up. Exactly what the US Treasury doesn’t need as they attempt to refinance their debt.
Equity markets are supported by liquidity. For now, global liquidity continues to drive higher, led by the PBOC in China. With the FED embracing balance sheet neutrality, this can only aid liquidity and, by default, markets.
Author: Cobie Le Grange
EXCHANGE RATES:
 The Rand/Dollar closed at R17.31 (R17.25, R17.38, R17.50, R17.22 , R17.35, R17.33, R17.37, R17.58, R17.65, R17.44, R17.61, R17.74, R18.15,R17.76, R17.72, R17.90, R17.58, R17.89, R17.99, R17.92, R17.77, R17.95, R17.88, ) |
The Rand/Pound closed at R22.76 (R22.96, R23.34, R23.37, R23.19, R23.22, R23.35, R23.55, R23.73, R23.84, R23.53, R23.84, R23.84, R24.09, R23.88, R23.76, R24.22, R24.08, R24.49, R24.22, R24.35, R24.05, R24.18)
The Rand/Euro closed the week at R20.02 (R20.06, R20.26, R20.33, R 20.22, R20.30, R20.35, R20.38, R20.61, R20.62, R20.44, R20.56, R20.64, R21.04, R20.86, R20.61, R20.93, R 20.70, R20.91, R20.74, R20.68, R20.24, R20,37)
Brent Crude: Closed the week $64.66 ($65.04, $61.27, $62.14, $64.28, $69.67, $66.57, $66.80, $65.52, $67.38, $67.73, $66.08, $66.07, $69.46, $68.29, $69.21, $70.58, $68.27, $67.39, $77.27, $74.38, $66.56, $62.61, $65.41)
Bitcoin closed at $109.936 ($112,492 ($106,849, $111,888, $124,858, $109,446, $115,838, $115,770, $110,752, $108,923, $114,916, $117,371, $118,043, $113,608, $118,139, $118,214, $117,871, $108,056, $107,461, $103,455)