News related to
Japan

Singapore’s Monetary Authority has designated S$1.1 billion to three fund managers as the inaugural allocation of its S$5 billion Equity Market Development Programme. The scheme aims to invigorate the bourse and broaden market participation, focusing on smaller- and mid-cap equities.

MAS selected Avanda Investment Management, JP Morgan Asset Management and Fullerton Fund Management for the initial round. Fullerton is part of state-owned Temasek. MAS indicated that the providers were chosen based on alignment with EQDP’s goals and their capacity to enhance local asset‑management expertise. Over 100 applications were received, with MAS rolling out five‑year funding commitments in phases.

The EQDP was unveiled in February in coordination with the Financial Sector Development Fund. Its mandate is to deploy capital through Singapore‑based managers investing primarily in domestic listed equities, with an emphasis on diversifying participation outside large‑cap stocks.

Following the EQDP announcement in August last year, the Straits Times Index has surged 23.9% to July 18, 2025, according to MAS. Authorities believe that targeted investment injection could foster deeper liquidity, narrower bid‑ask spreads and more vigorous price discovery across the exchange.

Analysts welcomed the move. One equity strategist said the programme signals a critical shift: “MAS is using its balance sheet to catalyse private capital into under‑represented segments.” Market observers noted that while headline liquidity in the FTSE Straits Times Index is healthy, mid‑ and small‑cap names typically suffer from thin volume and wide spreads, deterring institutional and retail interest.

JP Morgan’s involvement is expected to bring global asset‑management experience to bear on local strategies. Avanda, a Singapore‑grown emerging‑markets specialist, and Fullerton, with sovereign backing, strengthen confidence that domestic competence will benefit from the infusion of global best practice.

Details of each manager’s mandate have not been disclosed, but MAS emphasised that performance will be measured not only by capital deployment but also progress in building domestic expertise in portfolio construction, trading infrastructure and market‑making behaviours. These elements are crucial to achieving sustainable liquidity gains.

Experts point out that Singapore’s programme mirrors efforts overseas, such as Japan’s ETF purchases by its pension fund, but with a distinctive twist: the EQDP partners with private asset managers rather than buying equities directly. That design aims to stimulate skill transfer and innovation in execution capabilities.

Further co‑investment rounds are expected later this year, with MAS reviewing submissions in stages to expedite capital deployment. The S$5 billion envelope is expected to span several tranches, signalling long‑term commitment to market enhancement.

Since introducing a broad stock‑market review in August last year, MAS and its review group have identified several friction points, including limited participation by retail investors, dominance by large‑cap counters and constrained institutional activity in smaller names. EQDP is one among several initiatives aimed at remedying structural imbalances.

Regulatory adjustments are also on the cards, with potential reforms covering short‑selling rules, stock‑lending frameworks and promoting algorithmic market‑making. MAS has indicated a willingness to consult key stakeholders, including retail brokerages and the Singapore Exchange, to create complementary regulatory enablers.

Market participants have pointed out that EQDP funding alone may not be sufficient. A private fund‑operations specialist commented: “Capital without market infrastructure enhancements risks being parked rather than deployed actively.” MAS’ selection criteria emphasise capacity building—suggesting this concern has been taken into account.

Beyond boosting trading volumes, the manoeuvre may help Singapore position itself as a regional equity hub. By fostering advanced trading strategies, tighter spreads and higher turnover, the city‑state stands to attract more international fund flows. Simultaneously, support for domestic managers reinforces Singapore’s ambition to strengthen its plug‑and‑play asset‑management ecosystem.

MAS confirmed that progress and outcomes will be tracked and disclosed periodically. Selected managers will have to report on liquidity metrics, investment activity and capability transfer milestones. This level of oversight reflects a strategic approach to ensure that public‑private collaboration delivers measurable structural improvements.

Swatch Group’s first‑half figures underscore a deepening crisis in its key Asian markets after the Swiss watch‑maker disclosed a 7.1 per cent drop in sales, generating CHF 3.059 billion, falling short of market forecasts of CHF 3.2 billion. Operating profit plunged 67 per cent year‑on‑year to CHF 68 million, signalling an urgent warning to investors and management alike.

China, alongside Hong Kong and Macau, remains the primary weak spot, contributing 27 per cent of total revenues. Falling demand across these regions continues to undermine core sales and profit performance. Despite encouraging double‑digit growth in North America and market share gains in countries such as Japan, India and the Middle East, these gains have yet to compensate for the shortfall from Greater China.

Net profit attributable to owners collapsed to CHF 3 million, compared with CHF 136 million during the same six‑month period last year. This dramatic decline illustrates the scale of the downturn, making it Swatch’s worst half‑year performance in recent memory.

Analyst commentary has been scathing: Vontobel described this period as “an ugly half year for Swatch Group in all respects”. The fallout from slowed Chinese consumer activity has been compounded by negative currency effects—Swiss franc appreciation cut CHF 113 million from turnover relative to constant‑currency comparisons.

Adding fresh complexity, new U. S. tariffs threaten to raise costs on Swiss watch imports by up to 31 per cent. Industry stakeholders now warn that these levies could further weigh on margins, with retailers like Watches of Switzerland projecting a margin squeeze in the year ahead.

Beyond external pressures, a growing number of investors are scrutinising Swatch’s internal governance. Shareholder activism has surfaced, with calls for more oversight of the centrally controlled Hayek family, whose dual‑class voting structure remains a source of contention. Net profits collapsed by 75 per cent to CHF 219 million in 2024, but critics assert that this malaise runs deeper. GreenWood Investors, led by Steven Wood, has launched a push to join the board, advocating for brand revitalisation, governance reforms and a strategy pivot toward luxury exclusivity akin to Hermès and Ferrari.

Management, though addressing short‑term volatility, emphasises Swatch’s entrenched strengths. Its vertically integrated manufacturing, with over 150 production sites, and the success of the affordable MoonSwatch line demonstrate resilience. The company has pledged that cost‑cutting measures and a pipeline of new product launches—particularly in the U. S. and Japan—should drive a rebound in the second half of the year.

The first‑half slump follows broader downturns last year, when revenue declined 12.2 per cent to CHF 6.74 billion in 2024, and operating profit fell 75 per cent to CHF 304 million. That drop reinforced trading floor rumours of governance fatigue and brand dilution at high‑end labels like Omega and Breguet.

Economically, China’s consumer landscape remains unsettled. A combination of property market stress, slower GDP growth and official campaigns discouraging conspicuous consumption have dampened luxury spending. Swiss watch exports to China and Hong Kong plunged by double digits in early 2024, while only the lower‑priced Swatch line bucked the trend in the region, gaining 10 per cent in sales volume.

Swatch Group’s corporate ambition to maintain full production capacity and avoid layoffs during weak demand, while strategically commendable, has weighed on margins—especially in the production segment. Management asserts this decision safeguards long‑term capabilities and is now beginning to bear fruit, with production margins improving since June.

Mixed signs beyond China offer guarded optimism. North America posted record sales, Japan recorded robust growth, and emerging markets like India and the Middle East offered upside. These regions now form the central axis of Swatch’s recovery strategy.

China has introduced the world’s first oil tanker equipped with adjustable sails, marking a notable step in maritime decarbonisation. The 250‑metre vessel features automated sails that harness wind power, cutting diesel use by up to 14.5 tonnes per day—equivalent to around 5,000 tonnes of CO₂ emissions annually.

The ship was launched at a major Chinese port on 13 July 2025. Naval engineers report that the sails adjust in real time to wind conditions, seamlessly integrating with traditional propulsion systems. Under favourable conditions, the sails alone can provide up to 10% of the vessel’s forward thrust, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and trimming operational costs.

Industry experts describe this as a breakthrough. Dr Li Wei, a maritime technology specialist at a prominent Chinese university, observed that “this marks the first large‑scale application of intelligent sail technology in an oil tanker” and said that the design “could serve as a blueprint for future green tankers”. While alternative zero‑carbon fuels remain the focus of long‑term strategies, sail augmentation presents a practical interim solution.

The initiative aligns with global regulatory pressures. The International Maritime Organization has committed to halving greenhouse‑gas emissions from shipping by 2050. Flettner‑style rotor sails—used on vessels like the Viking Grace ferry—have shown up to 20% fuel savings on optimal routes. China’s innovation refines that concept by adding adjustable sail arrays tailored for large oil carriers, suggesting broader applicability.

Major energy and shipping firms are reportedly evaluating roll‑outs. A senior executive at a state‑affiliated shipping group noted plans to retrofit a fleet of oil and chemical tankers with adjustable sails by 2027, contingent on performance data. Initial trials aim to quantify actual fuel savings, spreadsheeting data on fuel burn, wind usage hours, and analytics from the ship’s sail‑control system.

Yet questions remain. Retrofit costs, structural modifications, and maintenance demand rigorous cost‑benefit analysis. Port infrastructure adaptation—such as clearance for sails and crew training—must also be addressed. Critics argue that, while useful, sail technology cannot fully eliminate emissions without complementary measures like low‑carbon fuels and electrification.

Nevertheless, China’s venture may shift the conversation. Shipbuilders in Europe, Japan and South Korea are racing to develop hydrogen‑ or ammonia‑powered vessels. China’s move showcases an alternative decarbonisation route by optimising existing diesel‑powered fleets. Multi‑source interviews show growing interest from global charterers, some of whom are signalling willingness to pay premium freight rates for lower‑emission vessels.

Maritime insurers are recalibrating risk models, acknowledging that adjustable sails could affect stability and route safety. The new tanker reportedly features advanced ballast‑control systems to compensate for wind forces and automated cut‑out mechanisms during storms.

Trade analysts say China’s state‑backed strategy gives it leverage in global standards talks. Should pilot data validate the 14.5‑tonne daily fuel savings estimate, Chinese shipyards could license or export the design. Such a trend could trigger wider international adoption, pressuring other nations to follow suit.

Shipowners are watching. A European tanker operator, examining images and footage, expressed interest but noted the need for “transparent data on lifecycle emission reductions and economic viability over 20‑year vessel lifetimes.”

Current trials will last six months to a year, tracking metrics like fuel consumption, sail uptime, and maintenance costs. A detailed performance report is expected by mid‑2026, after which retrofit plans may accelerate.

Oil traded in a narrow range as tariffs and sanctions threats unsettled global markets, weighing heavily on the outlook for energy demand. Brent hovered just above $70 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate stayed above $68. Futures markets weakened as U. S. equity-index futures dropped following fresh trade tensions between Washington and key global partners.

U. S. President Donald Trump escalated tariff threats, targeting both the European Union and Mexico with 30 per cent duties and flagging potential levies against Brazil, the Philippines, Japan, South Korea and others. Markets interpreted this as a risk to economic momentum, especially in energy‑sensitive regions of Asia, denting crude demand expectations. At the same time, Asian buyers adopted a cautious stance, amplifying downward pressure on oil.

Against this backdrop, investors are eyeing a scheduled “major statement” from President Trump concerning Russia. Anticipation of new sanctions against the country, a major oil producer, lent modest support to prices that might otherwise have fallen further. Still, this support was checked by rising output from OPEC+ and a pause in geopolitical flare-ups in the Middle East.

Data from the International Energy Agency signals that global oil markets remain relatively tight. Summer driving seasons and increased refinery activity have buoyed demand, although analysts note that elevated output from Saudi Arabia—above its OPEC+ quota—puts a dent in any sustained rally. The kingdom disputes claims of non‑compliance, stating marketed crude remains within agreed limits.

Market watchers also flag OPEC+ plans to hike production by approximately 548,000 barrels per day in August, potentially followed by another boost in September. ING warns these moves could put the market into surplus in the final quarter of 2025. Additionally, the group revised its global demand forecasts downward for 2026–29, citing weakening growth in China.

Further clouding the outlook, heightened tariff uncertainty is exerting macroeconomic drag. The IEA forecasts a meaningful drop in global oil consumption growth for 2025, down a third from earlier projections, due in part to Trump’s tariff measures. Analysts stress that inflationary pressures and slower global trade would dampen energy demand.

From a logistical standpoint, renewed Houthi tensions in the Red Sea have introduced another variable, interrupting shipping and supporting prices marginally. Still, Middle East volatility has largely receded compared with levels seen earlier this year.

Looking ahead, market players are set to digest a blend of geopolitical and macroeconomic signals. Key Chinese trade figures due soon may reveal shifts in demand. OPEC+ decisions on output will be scrutinised closely, as will the next moves in Washington’s trade and sanctions policy. Meanwhile, U. S. gasoline consumption remains robust, with the Energy Information Administration reporting a 6 per cent increase to 9.2 million barrels per day—signalling that underlying demand has not yet faltered.

Oil markets are caught between supportive fundamentals—such as strong summer demand, supply constraints from Russia and geopolitical flare‑ups—and sobering headwinds from proposed tariffs, elevated output and macroeconomic uncertainty. Traders remain cautious, awaiting concrete policy developments from Washington, data releases from China, and steps by OPEC+ to navigate a market landscape that is anything but stable.

Oil prices have shifted sharply this week, with demand forecasts now under pressure from escalating trade tensions fuelled by fresh tariffs. Brent crude is trading in the high‑60s per barrel, while benchmark WTI hovers around mid‑60s, reflecting growing investor caution. Analysts point to revised supply and demand projections as indicators of a changing market landscape.

An International Energy Agency monthly report has cut its global oil‑demand growth forecast for 2025 to 700,000 bpd, the slowest pace since 2009 outside the pandemic, down from 720,000 bpd last month. The downgrade reflects weaker consumption in emerging markets and a cooling US‑China trade outlook. Supply continues to outpace demand as OPEC+ ramps up production; global output in June rose by about 950,000 bpd to reach 105.6 mbpd.

The IEA notes the oil market remains technically in surplus, with inventories building globally—even as regional stock draws persist. Oil runs at refineries have slowed, particularly in the US and China, enabling downward revisions in demand projections. Enverus Intelligence Research offers a counter‑view, pointing to balanced OECD inventories and sustained summer demand north of 1 mbpd, which may support higher prices.

The US Energy Information Administration expects US crude oil production to plateau at roughly 13.4 mbpd in 2025, dropping modestly later this year as lower prices curb drilling activity. Despite this, producers remain vulnerable to profit erosion unless prices stabilise in the $65–70 range.

President Trump’s trade moves have reignited fears of another global trade war, with new tariff letters dispatched to Brazil, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines and others this week. Threats of 50% duties on exports such as copper, semiconductor components and auto parts are weighing heavily on commodity‑linked equity markets and raising recession risk concerns. Oil prices dropped more than 2% on Thursday as benchmark futures responded to the potential hit to economic growth.

While some market participants remain in “wait‑and‑see” mode, given Trump’s unpredictability and history of policy reversals, the overarching effect is to dampen demand forecasts. Onyx Capital’s head of research, Harry Tchilinguirian, cautions against overreaction but acknowledges that tariffs are adding to inflationary pressures and may reinforce Federal Reserve caution.

Geopolitical flashpoints in the Middle East continue to influence sentiment. Oil surged in June as Iran threatened to close the Strait of Hormuz, which handles almost 20% of world oil shipments, but prices eased once the waterway remained open. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia raised official prices to consumers, citing strong demand in China’s post‑pandemic recovery, though refiners are reporting margin squeezes.

Financial institutions have started to reflect this shifting environment in their projections. A Reuters‑polled group of 40 analysts revised Brent average forecasts for 2025 to $67.86 per barrel—up marginally from May—while predicting demand growth of only around 730,000 bpd. JP Morgan cut its annual Brent estimate to $66, citing rising OPEC+ output and sluggish consumption. TD Economics trimmed its forecast further, expecting 2025 WTI to average near $62, warning of sustained downward pressure from trade risk and oversupply.

Two factors loom large over the coming months. First, the path of trade tensions: further tariff escalations or retaliatory actions could erode industrial activity and fuel sales. Second, OPEC+ strategy: with the bloc unconstrained in raising output, additional production could overwhelm tepid demand, pushing prices below current levels. The IEA projects supply growth for 2025 at 2.1 mbpd, while demand is seen rising just 700 kbpd.

On the financial front, hedge fund positioning has turned cautious, registering the sharpest drop in bullish sentiment since February. Traders are forecasting narrower price ranges ahead, with elevated volatility as tariff developments hit market headlines.

Forward‑looking forecasts remain mixed. EIA projects Brent to average $68.89 in 2025 and $58.48 in 2026, marking a seasonal decline. Enverus suggests the upside remains intact if demand holds steady, especially with summer driving season underway. Market watchers also note that rising gas‑to‑oil switching costs, refinery restarts and diminished spare capacity could temper price declines.

China’s consumption is also under scrutiny. While Beijing seeks to stimulate growth through fiscal and monetary tools, investor sentiment remains fragile. Saudi’s decision to push prices higher was based on perceived strengthening in Chinese demand, but many analysts caution that any slow‑down could rapidly tip the balance.

Emerging long‑term trends offer some balance. IEA’s long‑term outlook suggests oil demand will continue rising through the late 2020s, driven by non‑OECD economies and slower clean‑energy adoption, delaying peak demand beyond 2030. Nonetheless, short‑term price direction seems firmly tied to macroeconomic risks and geopolitical dynamics.