Posted on

Japan: Why Should We Care

Japan: Why Should We Care

Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba has resigned. Sanae Takaichi has been nominated in his place. The issue deserves a focus. Why?

Japan, at this moment, deserves a deeper look. Here we will deal with a new figure in Japanese politics, Sanae Takaichi, a possible future Prime Minister, especially due to her ideas on economic policy. Let us not forget, in fact, that Japan is the fourth-largest economy in the world, with significant weight globally.

Japan: Let’s Quickly Give Some Context

In early September, Japan experienced a delicate moment regarding national politics: Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), resigned.

The LDP members chose Sanae Takaichi in his place, who could be the first woman in Japan to hold the role of Prime Minister. First, however, the LDP must find one or more partners with whom to form the coalition that will govern the country. This is because Komeito, literally the “Clean Government Party”, which for more than twenty years was a government ally with the LDP, declared it wanted to break the agreement. All this will make Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister slightly more complex.

Let us now see, in more detail, who Sanae Takaichi is and why these political dynamics should interest us.

Who is Sanae Takaichi?

The daughter of an office worker and a policewoman, Sanae Takaichi was born in Nara Prefecture in 1961. Before entering politics, Takaichi was a heavy metal drummer, an expert diver, and a television presenter.

She developed an interest in politics around the 1980s and entered the political game in 1992, when she tried to run for parliament as an independent. The attempt failed, but she did not give up: four years later she ran again with the LDP and was elected. From that moment she is considered one of the most conservative figures of the Liberal Democratic Party.

Moving on to her positions on economic policy, Takaichi is an absolute fan of Margaret Thatcher. Her goal, as she herself has declared, is to become the Iron Lady – the nickname given to Thatcher when she governed – of Japan. Furthermore, she was a protégé of former Japanese Premier Shinzo Abe, a very influential figure in her formation.

This last point is very important: Shinzo Abe, in fact, was the author and strong supporter of an economic policy based on a strong injection of money through fiscal stimuli and increased public spending. The aim was to revitalise the Japanese economy, at that moment in a deep crisis caused also by the shock of the 2008 financial crisis.

Specifically, Abenomics – a portmanteau of Abe and Economics – was founded on three arrows: expansive monetary policy to increase inflation (Japan was in a state of chronic deflation) and depreciate the Japanese Yen, favouring national exports; negative interest rates to incentivise money circulation in the economy; and structural reforms to increase Japan’s competitiveness. Sanae Takaichi has promised to relaunch her vision of Abenomics.

Let us therefore come to the central core of the article.

With Sanae Takaichi, Japan Could Join the Fiscal Stimulus Club

The Japanese Iron Lady seems to have clear ideas: “I have never denied the need for fiscal consolidation, which is naturally important. But the most important thing is growth. I will make Japan a vigorous land of the Rising Sun again”. In other words, economic growth comes before balancing public accounts.

Sanae Takaichi, indeed, has promised huge public funding for government-led initiatives in sectors such as artificial intelligence, semiconductors, and batteries. She then declared she wants to increase defence spending and announced new tax credits – i.e., fiscal bonuses – to increase workers’ net income, deductions for domestic services, and other tax breaks for companies offering internal childcare services. Finally, her programme envisages strong public investments in infrastructure.

Financial markets, naturally, like all this very much: fiscal stimuli and expansive policy are manna from heaven for businesses, which can access credit more easily, invest, innovate and, ultimately, increase profits, with more than positive consequences for share values. And the effects have already been felt.

Market Reactions: The “Takaichi Trade”

The Nikkei, the main Japanese stock index, proved particularly sensitive to developments regarding Takaichi’s nomination as Prime Minister. Retracing the sequence of events, it is patently obvious how the Japan 225 – another name for the Nikkei – strongly desires the Iron Lady governing the Land of the Rising Sun.

For example, Sanae Takaichi was chosen by the LDP as heir to the resigning Prime Minister Ishiba on the weekend of October 4th and 5th, with stock exchanges closed. On Monday the 6th, the Nikkei gained more than 5.5% in a single session – reaching up to 8% if we also count Friday the 3rd, when rumours were already starting to circulate. The “Takaichi trade”, in this sense, led the main Japanese index to touch new highs.

Equally but conversely, when Komeito broke away from the coalition, undermining Takaichi’s nomination, the market reacted very negatively: on October 10th, the Nikkei lost more than 5.6% on the stock exchange.

Since Komeito’s renunciation, Sanae Takaichi has moved to look for other parties that could support the government alliance, obtaining good results. As favourable news came out, the Nikkei reacted consistently: +5.4% in the week between Monday the 13th and Friday the 17th of October.

Finally, on Monday, October 20th, the leader of the right-wing party Nippon Ishin – the Innovation Party – announced that he will make official the agreement to support Takaichi’s choice as Prime Minister. Once again, the Japanese index shows its appreciation: +2% in one session and an updated All Time High.

What is the Moral of the Story?

So, even the fourth economy in the world could start spending, and heavily. With the new leader, Japan could switch to a regime of great public spending, large deficits, and expansive monetary policy, enormously increasing public debt. The goal: to ensure that economic growth exceeds debt growth.

We are in a historical moment where the top three world economies, with the fourth trailing, have launched fiscal stimulus policies founded on a massive increase in public debt.

The moral, therefore, is singular and very simple: if the main thought is “spend”, the method to realise it is printing money. The necessary consequence is the devaluation of money – or, in other words, inflation. In similar scenarios, the main protection instruments, the so-called debasement hedges, have historically represented a valid exit route for capital preservation.

And when one speaks of debasement hedges, the mind immediately runs towards two assets: gold and Bitcoin. All this is even more valid if we rethink the very recent statements of Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, released during an interview with the broadcaster CBS: “Markets teach you that you must always question your convictions. Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies have a role, just like gold: they represent an alternative”.

What awaits us in the near future? If you don’t know how to answer, don’t worry, nobody knows. However, to not miss updates, you could subscribe to our Telegram channel and Young Platform, given that we deal often and very willingly with these themes.The information reported above is for exclusively informative and divulgative purposes. It does not in any way constitute financial advice, investment solicitation, or personalised recommendation pursuant to current legislation. Before making any investment decision or asset allocation, it is advisable to contact a qualified consultant.

Posted on

Gold plummets: worst crash since 2013

Gold crashes: worst crash since 2013

Is gold reversing course? 21 October marks the worst decline in recent years and surprises investors. What happened and why?

On Tuesday, 21 October, the price of gold fell to levels not seen in about 12 years. The event left investors around the world speechless: added to the extent of the loss was the shock caused by the fact that the value of the precious metal had been rising steadily for months. So? It’s time to analyse the facts. 

The price of gold plummets: what happened?

In just over 24 hours, gold recorded its worst performance since 2013, losing almost 8.3% to reach $4,000, before rebounding and settling at a compound of writshock– in the range between $4,050 and $4,150. 

An incredible figure that testifies to the magnitude of the event is related to the loss, in terms of market cap, of the most noble of metals: this -8.3% corresponds, give or take a million, to approximately $2.2 trillion or, to put it another way, the entire market capitalisation of Bitcoin. 

The collapse of gold has also affected companies linked to the mining sector – some may notice interesting similarities. The two largest mining companies in the world, Newmont Corporation and Agnico Eagle Mines Limited, have in fact recorded sharp declines: from the opening of the stock markets on Tuesday 21st to the time of writing, the two companies are losing more than 10%.

Gold is not the only precious metal in trouble: silver is currently down 8.6%, while platinum, which is actually doing a little better, is down 7.2%.

The causes

If the price of gold is plummeting, as many analysts claim, the causes are mainly technical. In a nutshell, the sell-off could be a necessary consequence of the rally that, since January 2025, has seen the yellow metal gain more than 50%: quite simply, if an asset grows for a long time, it is likely that sooner or later someone will decide to take profits. 

To this argument, which certainly carries weight given the rise in gold prices, two variables of a more political and economic nature could be added. 

The first is related to the relationship between the United States and China, which appears to be easing: after the clashes on 10 and 12 October, which eventually triggered the worst sell-off in the history of cryptocurrencies, US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are expected to meet in Seoul on 31 October. The conditional tense is a must because The Donald has repeatedly shown that he changes his mind at the drop of a minute. 

Here is an example. On Tuesday 21st, the POTUS confirmed his intention to reach an agreement with the supreme leader: “I have a very good relationship with President Xi. I expect to be able to reach a good agreement with him,” but then added that the meeting “may not happen, things can happen, for example someone might say ‘I don’t want to meet, it’s too unpleasant. But in reality, it’s not unpleasant. It’s just business.” Pure unpredictability. 

The second, on the other hand, could be understood in part as a consequence of the first: the strengthening of the US dollar. The DXY, which measures the value of the dollar against a basket of the six most important foreign currencies, has gained 1.3% since mid-September. 

Is this a reversal of the trend or a temporary retracement?

Has the upward trend in gold come to an end, or are we witnessing a mere temporary halt? This is the question of questions, to which, of course, no one can answer.

What we can say, however, is that a change of course could be excellent news for Bitcoin. An interesting precedent can be found in 2020: when gold reached its market peak in August at £2,080, Bitcoin hit bottom at £12,250 – what times. 

From that moment on, gold moved sideways for about three years before beginning an upward trend that saw it double in value, while Bitcoin embarked on the epic bull run of 2020-2021: from £10,000 in September 2020 to £65,000 in April 2021. A veritable rotation of capital in favour of the King of Crypto. 

Citigroup assigns a strong ‘Buy’ rating to Strategy

In the event of a trend reversal, will the gold-BTC pattern repeat itself in 2025? Again, there is no way of knowing. However, banking investment giant Citigroup has officially started following Strategy (MSTR), Michael Saylor’s company that holds 640,418 BTC: its first recommendation to investors was ‘Buy’, forecasting a target price for the stock of £485. 

The interesting thing is that Strategy’s share price – at the time of writing – is around £280: if Citi sets a target price of £485, it means that it expects the stock to grow by around 70%. Citi analyst Peter Christiansen, who is monitoring MSTR, said that such a price increase “is with its base case forecast over the next 12 months, set at £181,000, a potential upside of 65% from current levels“.

Gold and itcoin, neck and neck?

We’ll have to wait and see what happens in the coming weeks. The data tells us that, over the last three years, more and more financial institutions – central banks in particular – have started to stockpile physical gold, partly to protect themselves from the devaluation of the dollar, accentuated by the Trump administration’s management.

On the other hand, we are witnessing an almost daily increase in showbero entities, both public and private, that are deciding to include Bitcoin in their treasuries and that, generally, no longer see the asset as an alternative, but as a choice.  

Finally, as always, we remind you that the information contained in this article is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute financial, legal or tax advice, nor is it a solicitation or offer to the public of investment instruments or services, pursuant to Legislative Decree 58/1998 (TUF). Investing in crypto-assets involves a high risk of loss – even total loss – of the capital invested. Past performance is no guarantee of future results. Users are invited to make their own informed assessments before making any financial and/or investment decisions.

Posted on

Fed: Who wants to be the new president?

Fed: Who wants to be the new president?

The Fed changes face: in May, Chairman Jerome Powell will end his second term, and Donald Trump will have to choose his successor. Who will it be?

After eight years, the Fed, the US central bank, will be led by a new chair: Jerome Powell, who currently holds the top job, will have to make way for a new figure. It will be up to the US President to choose his successor. Let’s take a look at the most likely candidates.  

The Fed prepares for a new Chairman.n

In May 2026, the Fed will undergo a significant structural change: the current Chairman, Jerome Powell, will step down after eight years and be replaced. The person who will head the US central bank will be chosen directly by Donald Trump: after the nomination, however, the Fed Chairman candidate will also have to be approved by the US Senate. 

As we shall see, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has released a list of five names, at least three of whom are potentially very close to being nominated. The only spoiler we can give is that Jerome Powell is not on Bessent’s list. Why? For at least two reasons. 

No chance for Jerome Powell: dura lex, sed lex

The first is legal in nature: although the law in force in the US – the Federal Reserve Act – does not set a term limit for the Fed Chair, Powell will leave the central bank due to a rather curious coincidence of events. 

Jerome Powell took office as Governor in May 2012 to complete Frederic Mishkin’s unexpired term – much like the very Trumpian Stephen Miran, who was appointed Governor last July following the resignation of Governor Adriana Kugler.

Two years later, in June 2014, Powell was officially appointed Governor for a full 14-year term, expiring on 31 January 2028. In 2018, Donald Trump, during his first term, promoted Powell to the role of Chair (i.e., President) of the Federal Reserve. Four years later, at the legal end of his term, he was confirmed by Joe Biden, who was President of the United States at the time. This brings us to the present day: in 2026, it will be four years since Biden’s confirmation and, as a result, the word ‘End’ will appear. 

But then, if the law does not set a maximum term limit for the Fed Chair, why can’t Jerome Powell be re-elected to that role? Because the Federal Reserve Act has a fundamental rule: the Fed Chair must also be a member of the Board of Governors, i.e. the central bank’s governors. 

This rule cannot be applied in Powell’s case: even if he were re-elected to the top position at the Fed until 2030, his status as Governor would lapse in 2028, as he would have reached 14 years of service since 2014. At that point, he would automatically be removed from the Chair role.  

The Trump administration’s dislike of Powell is well known

Even if this rule did not exist, the situation would not change: the chances of Powell being included in Bessent’s list would be close to zero. And here we come to the second reason, which is more ‘relational’ in nature: Trump and company do not like the current Chair, to put it mildly. 

As we have reported on several occasions, the President of the United States has often used harsh tones towards Jerome Powell, especially during the summer FOMC meetings, when the much-coveted rate cut was slow in coming. Because of this ‘slowness’, Donald Trump began to nickname him Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell and threatened to fire him on several occasions. 

With Powell now out of the running, let’s take a look at the names chosen by the US Treasury Secretary.

The most likely candidates

On Sunday, 26 October, while travelling on Air Force One to Tokyo, Scott Bessent told reporters that he had narrowed down the number of candidates to five following the first round of interviews, which is expected to be followed by a second round. 

The list includes Trump adviser Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, Fed Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, and BlackRock executive Rick Rieder. Let’s take a look at them one by one.

Kevin Hassett

He is a loyal supporter of Donald Trump: he served alongside the US President during his first term as Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors and still holds a position in the administration as Director of the National Economic Council. In addition, between the two terms, he worked for the investment fund of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law. 

Given this background, it would be reasonable to assume that Hassett could be Trump’s first choice, as he is a politician who places great importance on loyalty. However, there are a couple of strategic considerations. 

Firstly, the markets’ reaction to his appointment could be particularly harmful, as a Fed led by Hassett would be perceived as firmly subordinate to the will of the POTUS (President of the United States). 

Secondly, if the Federal Reserve were to make decisions that Trump did not like, with equally unwelcome macroeconomic consequences, the latter would find it much more difficult to blame one of his loyalists: the rhetoric he is using against Powell would have less effect. 

Kevin Warsh

A former Fed governor, he was a member of the Board of Governors during the 2008 financial crisis, before resigning in 2011 following the US central bank’s shift towards quantitative easing (QE) – i.e. a more expansionary monetary policy. He has been an executive director and vice president at Morgan Stanley and is currently a visiting fellow at Stanford University.

His impressive CV rightly makes him a potential successor to Powell. Added to this are his connections with the American conservative establishment: like Hassett, he also worked for the White House as an economic adviser to George W. Bush (also known as Bush Jr.), who later appointed him Governor of the Fed. Furthermore, the family of his wife, billionaire Jane Lauder, granddaughter of Estée Lauder, founder of the cosmetics company of the same name, with a market cap of £32 billion, is on excellent terms with the Trump family. 

However, here too, there are a couple of strategic considerations, starting with his views on monetary policy. Warsh is considered a ‘hawk‘ because, according to reports, he is fixated on controlling inflation, which was the main reason for his resignation as Governor in 2011. A Fed led by Warsh would therefore be more inclined to implement a more restrictive, or at least less expansionary, economic policy. 

In short, a very different attitude from that of the POTUS, who has been imploring Powell to cut rates for months. 

Christopher Waller 

Currently serving as Governor of the Fed, appointed by Trump in 2020, Waller has spent his life between university classrooms and the corridors of the US central bank. 

He has taught as a professor at various universities in the United States – Indiana, Washington and Kentucky – and in Germany – Bonn University. In 2009, he joined the Fed’s St. Louis office as Vice President and Research Director, where he helped create FRED (Federal Reserve Economic Data), a massive free database of economic and financial data managed by the Fed. 

Waller is a crypto-enthusiast and views the cryptocurrency sector in a positive light: on 21 October, at the Fed in Washington, he chaired the Payments Innovations Conference, a meeting which, in his own words, aimed to “bring together ideas on how to improve the security and efficiency of payments, listening to those who are shaping the future of payment systems“. The conference was attended by, among others, Sergey Nazarov, Co-Founder & CEO of Chainlink; Heath Tarbert, President of Circle; and Cathie Wood, CEO of Ark Invest. 

There is one problem with all this: Christopher Waller’s long experience within the Federal Reserve circles. The future Chair chosen by Donald Trump will also have to be a new figure, capable of reforming the Fed’s structure and making it less decisive in terms of economic management. Waller, on the contrary, may have internalised the very dynamics that Trump intends to dismantle, thus making him unsuitable for the role. 

Michelle Bowman

Michelle ‘Miki’ Bowman is the first of the two outsiders, i.e., those with a background different from the three candidates just examined. However, like Waller, Bowman is also a sitting governor appointed by Trump in 2018. Trump himself promoted her to Vice Chair of the Fed in January 2025, a role that places her just one step below Jerome Powell.

Why is she an outsider? Because, while Hassett, Warsh and Waller have a purely economic or high-finance background, Bowman has a degree in Advertising and Journalism and a master’s degree in Law. 

Before moving on to the last candidate, a note about Michelle Bowman: she is known for being someone who fights tenaciously to advance her agenda and achieve her goals, despite political pressure. For example, she has repeatedly expressed dissent towards many of the Biden administration’s measures. In September 2024, hers was the first dissenting vote by a Fed governor after two decades of unanimous voting on monetary policy. She is a strong-willed woman who would undoubtedly appeal to The Donald.  

Rick Rieder

Rieder is an outsider not so much because of his academic background, but because he is not a member of the Fed’s Board of Governors. He is, in fact, a senior manager at BlackRock with a deep understanding of the bond market, which is his speciality. 

Rieder is therefore not entirely unfamiliar with the workings of the central bank and the political subplots in Washington. Still, he is very familiar with high finance and the bureaucracy that surrounds it. In this sense, he could be considered the antithesis of Waller. 

Finally, Rieder is known for his gruelling work schedule: he is said to get out of bed every day at 3:30 a.m. to get a few hours’ head start on his competitors.     

What are the odds for each of the candidates?

Well, we have examined Jerome Powell’s potential successors; now it’s time to take a look at the bookmakers, namely Polymarket. 

At the time of writing, the odds for each name are: 

  • Kevin Warsh: 15%
  • Kevin Hassett: 15%
  • Chris Waller: 14%
  • Scott Bessent: 5%
  • Rick Rieder: not even listed
  • No announcement before December: 53%

Why is Scott Bessent even on the list? Because Donald Trump, on his trip to Tokyo at the end of October, told reporters that he was considering him as Fed Chair, but that Bessent himself would refuse because ‘he likes working at the Treasury‘. A few minutes later, he backtracked, saying, ‘We’re not actually considering him. ‘ 

So, who will win the race for Fed chair? Or, to quote the article’s headline: who wants to be the new chair?

Posted on

Mercosur: The EU Gives the Green Light to the Agreement

Mercosur agreement: a new era for global trade?

After 25 years of negotiations, Mercosur and the European Union are closer than ever to finalising a strategic partnership. So, what does this actually mean?

Mercosur and the European Union may be on the verge of signing a trade agreement that the European Commission itself has called “the biggest free trade deal ever signed”. The EU-Mercosur agreement involves countries that account for approximately $20 trillion in GDP and 700 million consumers.

What Exactly Is Mercosur?

The Mercosur—or Mercado Común del Sur (Common Market of the South)—is an organisation established in 1991 by the Treaty of Asunción. Its purpose is to “promote a common space that generates business and investment opportunities through the competitive integration of national economies into the international market”. The full members are Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay. Venezuela was also a full member but was suspended in 2016 due to anti-democratic practices. Bolivia is currently in the process of joining as the fifth full member.

Additionally, there are several associate members, who enjoy privileged status but are not part of the main bloc. These include Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru.

Mercosur is a common market with the goal of increasing the exchange of goods and services, as well as the free movement of people. This applies both regionally among South American countries and internationally through agreements with other blocs, such as the one with the European Union. To achieve this, member countries are working to mutually reduce customs barriers, thereby promoting economic integration.

In 2023, the Mercosur bloc generated $447 billion in exports and $357 billion in imports, which is equivalent to 10.9% of international trade. These figures include both internal trade among members and external trade with other countries.

What Does the EU-Mercosur Agreement Entail?

Negotiations between the EU and Mercosur have been ongoing for approximately 25 years, marked by periods of tension and détente. A breakthrough finally occurred on 6 December 2024 in Montevideo, Uruguay, when EU leaders reached an understanding with the South American bloc countries. This past Wednesday, the European Commission presented the treaties that will define the commercial agreement, representing another significant step towards its officialisation.

The agreement is a result of a shared desire to remove trade barriers, ensure a responsible and eco-friendly supply of raw materials—with a particular focus on addressing Amazon deforestation—and send a clear message in favour of regulated international trade and against all forms of protectionism.

Specifically, the agreement is based on a principle of reciprocity. European industries, primarily those in automotives, machinery, and spirits, will gain greater access to the Mercosur market. In return, Mercosur will be able to more easily export its agri-food products to Europe, including meat, sugar, coffee, and soy.

This latter point, in particular, has caused some concern among agri-food companies in France, Poland, and, to a certain extent, Italy. The primary fear is related to unfair competition. South American countries have less restrictive environmental and food regulations than the EU, allowing the use of antibiotics, pesticides, and hormones that are banned in Europe.

In any case, the agreement provides for a gradual easing of customs tariffs on 90% of goods traded between the two blocs. It also establishes preferential channels for both European and South American companies, giving them greater access to public tenders and investment opportunities.

According to the European Commission, the final result will be a 39% increase in EU exports to Mercosur and an estimated 440,000 new jobs created across Europe.

The Road Ahead

As anticipated, the EU-Mercosur agreement is not yet official. However, it represents a crucial phase in bringing the two blocs closer, especially as they seek protection from costly Trump-era tariffs.

This is an interim trade agreement, meaning it is provisional. As such, it does not require the approval of all 27 member states, but rather only the ratification of the qualified majority of the EU Council. This means at least 15 out of 27 countries (55%) that represent at least 65% of the population must vote in favour.

Posted on

Russia-Ukraine war: updates

Russia–Ukraine war: any updates?

It was a busy weekend for Donald Trump, who met with Putin, Zelensky, European leaders, and NATO representatives. What happened – and how did markets react?

It was an eventful and politically charged weekend: over the course of four days, a bold and unpredictable Donald Trump hosted Russian President Vladimir Putin, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, six European heads of state, including Giorgia Meloni, and NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte in the United States. The aim? To seek a potential solution to a war that has now entered its fourth year, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
Here’s a brief recap of what took place – and a final look at how the markets responded.

Trump and Putin: meeting in Alaska – 15 August

On 15 August, at a US military base near Anchorage, Alaska, US President Donald Trump met face-to-face with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the ongoing war in Ukraine. The lead-up to the meeting attracted global attention, mainly due to Trump’s surprisingly warm demeanour towards Putin: red carpets, handshakes, pats on the back, and broad smiles.

But one detail, in particular, made headlines: the US President spontaneously offered his Russian counterpart a ride in the iconic, armoured presidential limousine – known as “The Beast” – away from cameras and microphones. What was said during that ten-minute ride remains unknown. What is certain, however, is that the two men were seen laughing and chatting amicably, like old friends.

As for the press conference that followed – the quotation marks are deliberate – very little of substance was shared. The two leaders answered virtually no questions, instead offering vague and formulaic statements.

Putin opened with praise for the atmosphere of “mutual respect”, going so far as to remind attendees that Alaska was once a Russian territory. He then shifted to the main topic: the war in Ukraine. Once again, the Russian leader insisted that peace talks could only begin if certain preconditions were met – namely, international recognition of Russia’s claims over disputed regions, Ukraine’s demilitarisation and neutrality, a ban on foreign military presence, and new Ukrainian elections.

Then it was Trump’s turn. Notably restrained, the US President – usually known for his long-winded statements – kept things brief. “There were many points on which we agreed”, “great progress”, and “an extremely productive meeting” were among the few phrases he offered. In essence, a lot of diplomatic smoke and mirrors, followed by the admission that no concrete agreement had been reached – but that “we have a very good chance of getting there”.

Trump, Zelensky, Europe and NATO meet in Washington, D.C.

Between Sunday and Monday, Donald Trump held talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, before extending invitations to six European leaders – France’s Macron, Germany’s Mertz, Italy’s Meloni, Britain’s Starmer, Finland’s Stubb, and EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen – as well as NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte.

The main topic on the agenda was clear: the security and territorial integrity of Ukraine. For months, Zelensky, alongside European and NATO officials, has been urging President Trump to provide firm guarantees that any peace deal must respect Ukraine’s sovereignty, and that future agreements must act as a deterrent against further Russian aggression. The proposal? To allow Kyiv to build a modern, specialised and well-equipped army that would discourage any future invasions.

The problem? As we saw earlier, Vladimir Putin is wholly opposed to this and has made very different demands.

What’s Next?

It’s difficult to predict, given Putin’s elusive nature and Trump’s unpredictability. That said, on August 19, Trump confirmed that Putin had agreed to a direct meeting with Zelensky, which would be followed by a trilateral summit involving the US, Russia, and Ukraine.

In a post on his Truth Social account, Trump wrote:
“At the end of the meetings, I called President Putin and began organising a meeting, at a location to be determined, between President Putin and President Zelensky. After this meeting takes place, we will have a trilateral meeting, which will include the two presidents and Mme”

UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer and German Chancellor Mertz also confirmed this announcement.

How did the markets react? 

The reaction from traditional financial markets was largely positive. The three major US indices – the Nasdaq, Dow Jones, and S&P 500 – initially rallied on news of the Trump–Putin summit in Alaska, before easing back slightly. Analysts suggest investors were hoping for more concrete results, rather than vague diplomatic gestures.

A similar trend was observed across European markets, particularly in Paris, Frankfurt, and London, which have all been performing strongly since early August.

The crypto market, however, told a slightly different story.

Between August 13 and 14, Bitcoin surged to a new all-time high of $124,000, before pulling back to around $115,600 after again failing to break through the resistance zone between $121,000 and $123,000.

Ethereum also came close to surpassing its own all-time high, missing it by just $100. It’s currently trading at around £4,300, with a renewed breakout attempt looking likely – especially now that the previous resistance at £4,100 seems to have become support.

As for the Total Market Cap, since the announcement on Thursday, 7 August, it has risen from $3.7 trillion to approximately $3.85 trillion – a gain of around 3.8% (roughly $150 billion).

Lastly, Bitcoin dominance continues to slide. Over the past 12 days, BTC’s market share has decreased by more than three percentage points, currently standing at 59.7% at the time of writing.

Is there a glimmer of hope?

So, can Donald Trump really bring Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky to the same negotiating table? Are we genuinely moving towards peace, or is this just political theatre?

And what role will Europe play in the outcome?

Subscribe to our Telegram channel or sign up directly to the Young Platform below to stay up to date with all the latest developments.

Posted on

How the Stock Exchange works, explained simply

How does the stock market work?

NYSE, Nasdaq, LSE – what do these names mean? They refer to some of the world’s leading stock exchanges. But what exactly is a stock exchange, and how does it work?

The stock exchange, more commonly known as the stock market, is a financial marketplace where shares, bonds, and other securities are bought and sold. Once considered the domain of financial insiders, the stock market has now entered popular culture, thanks in part to numerous cult films that have graced cinema screens since the 1970s.

But what is the history of the stock exchange? What are its key components? And who are the leading players involved? Let’s take a closer look.

How and when was the stock exchange created?

The earliest recorded evidence of trading, lending, and deposit activities dates back to the second millennium BC, inscribed in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. Similar financial practices were also found among the ancient Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans.

However, these early forms of financial exchange cannot truly be considered a ‘stock market’ as we understand it today. The first genuine stock exchange was established in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, around the 17th century.

The Middle Ages

In the late Middle Ages, the world of finance began to take on a more structured form with the emergence of the first banking institutions. Italy – particularly the cities of Genoa, Venice, and Siena – was, for many years, the central financial hub of Europe.

Around the 14th century, a new trading centre emerged that attracted merchants from across the continent, helping to shape a financial system that was still quite rudimentary. This was in Bruges, Belgium, specifically in the Ter Buerse Palace, built by the aristocratic Van der Bourse family. It was here, where merchants gathered to exchange goods and currencies, that the name ‘Borsa’ (stock exchange) originated.

Later, essential exchanges were established in Antwerp, Lyon, and Frankfurt, marking a shift from private to public management, with increasingly clear and stricter regulations.

The Modern Age

In the 17th century, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange became the most important in Europe – and likely in the world. This period also saw the creation of the first joint-stock companies, which significantly boosted the trading of securities, including government bonds and commodities.

The 18th century witnessed the rise of international trade, as well as the emergence of speculative bubbles. The most famous was the South Sea Bubble in England (1710–1720), when share prices soared before collapsing, causing heavy losses. It led to the Bubble Act, a law aimed at curbing speculation by limiting the formation of new companies.

Meanwhile, in New York, a group of merchants began meeting under a plane tree on Wall Street to trade securities – a humble beginning for what would become a future global financial centre.

The Industrial Revolution and the modern stock market

During this period, the stock market became crucial not only for company growth but also for the economic development of entire nations. London and Paris became key financial markets, funding industrial projects, infrastructure, and even colonial and military ventures.

In 1817, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) was officially established. Over time, it would grow to become the world’s largest stock exchange by market capitalisation.

The 20th century: successes and severe financial crises 

By 1900, the stock market had become the beating heart of the capitalist system. Economics and finance were now deeply interconnected. It was a century marked by sharp contrasts, alternating between periods of remarkable economic growth – such as the Roaring Twenties and the post-World War II boom – and severe financial crises, including the Great Depression of 1929 and Black Monday in 1987.

This volatility highlighted the need for regulation. Supervisory authorities such as the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) in the United States and Consob (National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange) in Italy were established to oversee financial markets, which were now dealing with enormous capital flows.

In 1971, the Nasdaq was founded, marking the beginning of the stock market’s transition from a physical trading floor, filled with shouting and hand signals, to an electronic system driven by computers and algorithms.

The digital age

Fast forward to today: the rise of the Internet has transformed how the stock market functions. It has brought greater accessibility, instantaneous transactions, unprecedented capital mobility, and the emergence of entirely new markets.

Now that we’ve explored its history, let’s take a closer look at how the stock market works today.

How does the stock market work?

To understand how the stock market works, it’s first essential to understand what it is. The stock market can be described as the financial engine that links the world of businesses with that of savers and investors. On one side, companies seek capital to fund their growth – whether by opening new branches, developing new products, or hiring staff. On the other hand, individuals look for opportunities to grow their savings. This is where the concepts of primary and secondary markets come into play.

The primary market is where shares are created. When a company lists on the stock exchange for the first time, it sells its shares directly to investors – a process known as an IPO (Initial Public Offering). Investors, by purchasing these shares, provide the company with the necessary funds to grow.

The secondary market, on the other hand, is the market in which existing shares are bought and sold between investors on a daily basis. Companies do not earn money from these transactions, but the market allows investors to profit from rising prices.

But shares are not the only financial instruments traded on the market. A large portion of investments also involves bonds. Understanding the difference between the two is fundamental.

What are shares?

As mentioned earlier, shares represent small units of ownership in a company. Investors buy them with the hope of selling them later at a higher price. Even by purchasing a single share, an investor becomes a partial owner of the company.

This ownership grants specific rights, such as receiving dividends (a portion of the company’s profits, although not always guaranteed) and participating in shareholder meetings.

However, buying shares comes with risks. Share prices are closely tied to the company’s performance. If the business thrives, the price typically increases. If it struggles, the cost can fall – sometimes dramatically. In extreme cases, shares can become worthless.

This is because share prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand. The more people want to buy a share – perhaps because the company has released a revolutionary product or reported record profits – the more its price rises. If demand drops, the price falls.

A helpful analogy: how much would you pay for a bottle of water in a city? Probably not much – it’s easy to find. But how much would you pay for that same bottle in the middle of the desert?

What are bonds?

Bonds differ fundamentally from shares. When an investor buys a bond, they do not become a shareholder; instead, they become a creditor. What does that mean in practice?

Put simply, a company issues bonds to raise capital, just as it does when issuing shares, but the mechanism is different. Buying a bond is similar to lending money to the company. The investor agrees to lend a specific amount, understanding that it will be repaid after a set period (e.g., five or ten years). In return, the company pays the investor regular interest payments, commonly referred to as coupons.

These coupons function like an interest rate, and the amount paid often reflects the company’s financial stability and trustworthiness. A well-established, transparent, and profitable company will typically offer a lower interest rate than a riskier, less stable one.

The same principle applies to government bonds, which a national government issues to finance public spending. For example, Italian government bonds tend to offer lower interest rates than Moldovan bonds, because Italy is generally considered more creditworthy and therefore less risky for investors.

Compared to shares, bonds are considered safer and more stable. However, this usually means they offer lower potential returns. As always, the general rule applies: higher risk, higher reward – lower risk, lower return.

What are indices?

This bonus section ties together both shares and bonds. So, what exactly is an index?

An index is simply a group or “basket” of listed companies (in the case of shares) or debt instruments (in the case of bonds), grouped according to specific criteria.

What kind of criteria? For example:

  • The S&P 500 includes the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
  • The NASDAQ-100 tracks the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the NASDAQ.
  • The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index includes 100 companies worldwide that are involved in the clean energy sector.

For bonds, indices might group securities by maturity date, such as all government bonds with a 10-year or 30-year term.

These indices are useful benchmarks. They help investors assess overall market performance, track sectors, and compare their portfolios against broader trends.

Who operates on the market? The main players

Now that we’ve explored the tools and rules of the stock market, it’s time to understand who actually takes part.

Listed Companies

First of all, there are the listed companies themselves – without them, the stock market wouldn’t exist. As we’ve seen, these companies launch themselves into the financial markets to raise capital for expansion, innovation, or operations.

Investors: institutional and retail

Next, we have the investors, who buy shares and bonds in the hope of growing their capital. Investors can be categorised into two main groups: institutional investors and retail investors.

  • Institutional investors are the heavyweights of the financial system. They manage enormous sums of money and can influence the price trends of individual companies. This group includes mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance companies, which invest their clients’ money to generate returns and earn management fees in the process.
  • Retail investors, on the other hand, are individual savers who invest their own capital in the hope of earning a return on investment. If you’re reading this, chances are you already are – or soon will be – a retail investor. If so, we recommend checking out our blog for helpful content on avoiding common mistakes, understanding diversification, and overcoming cognitive biases in finance.

Financial intermediaries

Let’s now turn to the players who make investing possible: the financial intermediaries.

These operators form the essential bridge between those who issue shares and bonds and those who buy them. For various technical, legal, and security reasons, it’s not possible to trade directly on the stock exchange without going through these entities. In practical terms, we’re talking about banks and online brokers, which provide access to financial markets in exchange for commissions.

You might wonder, perhaps with mild irritation, “Why am I forced to go through an intermediary just to buy a share in Coca-Cola?” The answer is simple: for the same reason you need a driving licence to operate a car. You can’t just jump behind the wheel and press the pedals at random.

You might rightly argue that once you’ve got your licence, you can drive yourself. True – but can you build the car?

That’s the point. Building the “car” in this case means having ultra-secure IT systems, legal authorisations, direct exchange connections, and regulatory compliance. It’s a complex, expensive, and highly regulated activity – which is why supervisory authorities require only authorised intermediaries to operate in this space.

Supervisory authorities

Speaking of oversight, let’s talk about the supervisory authorities – the referees of the financial world. If the stock market were a football match, these are the officials ensuring that the game is played fairly and in accordance with the rules.

These authorities may be national, such as the SEC in the United States, CONSOB in Italy, or the FCA in the UK, or supranational, like ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) in the EU.

Their key responsibilities include:

  • Investor protection – ensuring that intermediaries act reasonably and responsibly towards consumers;
  • Market transparency – requiring listed companies to publish relevant information such as financial reports, quarterly results, and even executive changes;
  • Fair trading – monitoring markets to detect and sanction unfair practices like insider trading, where individuals trade using confidential or privileged information.

But you never stop learning.

In this article, we aim to provide an overview of the stock market, outlining its key components and how it operates. That said, what you’ve just read is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

Suppose you’ve landed here fresh from watching The Wolf of Wall Street, dreaming of sipping Martinis on a sun lounger in a luxury resort in the middle of the Pacific within a year, just like the next self-proclaimed guru. In that case, our advice is this: stay grounded and start learning seriously.

In the meantime, why not subscribe to our Telegram channel or even sign up directly to the Young Platform by clicking below? We regularly share guides, tips, and financial updates to help you stay informed and avoid being caught off guard.

See you next time!

Posted on

How the Stock Exchange works, explained simply

How does the stock market work?

NYSE, Nasdaq, LSE – what do these names mean? They refer to some of the world’s leading stock exchanges. But what exactly is a stock exchange, and how does it work?

The stock exchange, more commonly known as the stock market, is a financial marketplace where shares, bonds, and other securities are bought and sold. Once considered the domain of financial insiders, the stock market has now entered popular culture, thanks in part to numerous cult films that have graced cinema screens since the 1970s.

But what is the history of the stock exchange? What are its key components? And who are the leading players involved? Let’s take a closer look.

How and when was the stock exchange created?

The earliest recorded evidence of trading, lending, and deposit activities dates back to the second millennium BC, inscribed in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi. Similar financial practices were also found among the ancient Greeks, Etruscans, and Romans.

However, these early forms of financial exchange cannot truly be considered a ‘stock market’ as we understand it today. The first genuine stock exchange was established in Amsterdam, in the Netherlands, around the 17th century.

The Middle Ages

In the late Middle Ages, the world of finance began to take on a more structured form with the emergence of the first banking institutions. Italy – particularly the cities of Genoa, Venice, and Siena – was, for many years, the central financial hub of Europe.

Around the 14th century, a new trading centre emerged that attracted merchants from across the continent, helping to shape a financial system that was still quite rudimentary. This was in Bruges, Belgium, specifically in the Ter Buerse Palace, built by the aristocratic Van der Bourse family. It was here, where merchants gathered to exchange goods and currencies, that the name ‘Borsa’ (stock exchange) originated.

Later, essential exchanges were established in Antwerp, Lyon, and Frankfurt, marking a shift from private to public management, with increasingly clear and stricter regulations.

The Modern Age

In the 17th century, the Amsterdam Stock Exchange became the most important in Europe – and likely in the world. This period also saw the creation of the first joint-stock companies, which significantly boosted the trading of securities, including government bonds and commodities.

The 18th century witnessed the rise of international trade, as well as the emergence of speculative bubbles. The most famous was the South Sea Bubble in England (1710–1720), when share prices soared before collapsing, causing heavy losses. It led to the Bubble Act, a law aimed at curbing speculation by limiting the formation of new companies.

Meanwhile, in New York, a group of merchants began meeting under a plane tree on Wall Street to trade securities – a humble beginning for what would become a future global financial centre.

The Industrial Revolution and the modern stock market

During this period, the stock market became crucial not only for company growth but also for the economic development of entire nations. London and Paris became key financial markets, funding industrial projects, infrastructure, and even colonial and military ventures.

In 1817, the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) was officially established. Over time, it would grow to become the world’s largest stock exchange by market capitalisation.

The 20th century: successes and severe financial crises 

By 1900, the stock market had become the beating heart of the capitalist system. Economics and finance were now deeply interconnected. It was a century marked by sharp contrasts, alternating between periods of remarkable economic growth – such as the Roaring Twenties and the post-World War II boom – and severe financial crises, including the Great Depression of 1929 and Black Monday in 1987.

This volatility highlighted the need for regulation. Supervisory authorities such as the SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission) in the United States and Consob (National Commission for Companies and the Stock Exchange) in Italy were established to oversee financial markets, which were now dealing with enormous capital flows.

In 1971, the Nasdaq was founded, marking the beginning of the stock market’s transition from a physical trading floor, filled with shouting and hand signals, to an electronic system driven by computers and algorithms.

The digital age

Fast forward to today: the rise of the Internet has transformed how the stock market functions. It has brought greater accessibility, instantaneous transactions, unprecedented capital mobility, and the emergence of entirely new markets.

Now that we’ve explored its history, let’s take a closer look at how the stock market works today.

How does the stock market work?

To understand how the stock market works, it’s first essential to understand what it is. The stock market can be described as the financial engine that links the world of businesses with that of savers and investors. On one side, companies seek capital to fund their growth – whether by opening new branches, developing new products, or hiring staff. On the other hand, individuals look for opportunities to grow their savings. This is where the concepts of primary and secondary markets come into play.

The primary market is where shares are created. When a company lists on the stock exchange for the first time, it sells its shares directly to investors – a process known as an IPO (Initial Public Offering). Investors, by purchasing these shares, provide the company with the necessary funds to grow.

The secondary market, on the other hand, is the market in which existing shares are bought and sold between investors on a daily basis. Companies do not earn money from these transactions, but the market allows investors to profit from rising prices.

But shares are not the only financial instruments traded on the market. A large portion of investments also involves bonds. Understanding the difference between the two is fundamental.

What are shares?

As mentioned earlier, shares represent small units of ownership in a company. Investors buy them with the hope of selling them later at a higher price. Even by purchasing a single share, an investor becomes a partial owner of the company.

This ownership grants specific rights, such as receiving dividends (a portion of the company’s profits, although not always guaranteed) and participating in shareholder meetings.

However, buying shares comes with risks. Share prices are closely tied to the company’s performance. If the business thrives, the price typically increases. If it struggles, the cost can fall – sometimes dramatically. In extreme cases, shares can become worthless.

This is because share prices are determined by the balance of supply and demand. The more people want to buy a share – perhaps because the company has released a revolutionary product or reported record profits – the more its price rises. If demand drops, the price falls.

A helpful analogy: how much would you pay for a bottle of water in a city? Probably not much – it’s easy to find. But how much would you pay for that same bottle in the middle of the desert?

What are bonds?

Bonds differ fundamentally from shares. When an investor buys a bond, they do not become a shareholder; instead, they become a creditor. What does that mean in practice?

Put simply, a company issues bonds to raise capital, just as it does when issuing shares, but the mechanism is different. Buying a bond is similar to lending money to the company. The investor agrees to lend a specific amount, understanding that it will be repaid after a set period (e.g., five or ten years). In return, the company pays the investor regular interest payments, commonly referred to as coupons.

These coupons function like an interest rate, and the amount paid often reflects the company’s financial stability and trustworthiness. A well-established, transparent, and profitable company will typically offer a lower interest rate than a riskier, less stable one.

The same principle applies to government bonds, which a national government issues to finance public spending. For example, Italian government bonds tend to offer lower interest rates than Moldovan bonds, because Italy is generally considered more creditworthy and therefore less risky for investors.

Compared to shares, bonds are considered safer and more stable. However, this usually means they offer lower potential returns. As always, the general rule applies: higher risk, higher reward – lower risk, lower return.

What are indices?

This bonus section ties together both shares and bonds. So, what exactly is an index?

An index is simply a group or “basket” of listed companies (in the case of shares) or debt instruments (in the case of bonds), grouped according to specific criteria.

What kind of criteria? For example:

  • The S&P 500 includes the 500 largest publicly traded companies in the United States.
  • The NASDAQ-100 tracks the 100 largest non-financial companies listed on the NASDAQ.
  • The S&P Global Clean Energy Transition Index includes 100 companies worldwide that are involved in the clean energy sector.

For bonds, indices might group securities by maturity date, such as all government bonds with a 10-year or 30-year term.

These indices are useful benchmarks. They help investors assess overall market performance, track sectors, and compare their portfolios against broader trends.

Who operates on the market? The main players

Now that we’ve explored the tools and rules of the stock market, it’s time to understand who actually takes part.

Listed Companies

First of all, there are the listed companies themselves – without them, the stock market wouldn’t exist. As we’ve seen, these companies launch themselves into the financial markets to raise capital for expansion, innovation, or operations.

Investors: institutional and retail

Next, we have the investors, who buy shares and bonds in the hope of growing their capital. Investors can be categorised into two main groups: institutional investors and retail investors.

  • Institutional investors are the heavyweights of the financial system. They manage enormous sums of money and can influence the price trends of individual companies. This group includes mutual funds, pension funds, and insurance companies, which invest their clients’ money to generate returns and earn management fees in the process.
  • Retail investors, on the other hand, are individual savers who invest their own capital in the hope of earning a return on investment. If you’re reading this, chances are you already are – or soon will be – a retail investor. If so, we recommend checking out our blog for helpful content on avoiding common mistakes, understanding diversification, and overcoming cognitive biases in finance.

Financial intermediaries

Let’s now turn to the players who make investing possible: the financial intermediaries.

These operators form the essential bridge between those who issue shares and bonds and those who buy them. For various technical, legal, and security reasons, it’s not possible to trade directly on the stock exchange without going through these entities. In practical terms, we’re talking about banks and online brokers, which provide access to financial markets in exchange for commissions.

You might wonder, perhaps with mild irritation, “Why am I forced to go through an intermediary just to buy a share in Coca-Cola?” The answer is simple: for the same reason you need a driving licence to operate a car. You can’t just jump behind the wheel and press the pedals at random.

You might rightly argue that once you’ve got your licence, you can drive yourself. True – but can you build the car?

That’s the point. Building the “car” in this case means having ultra-secure IT systems, legal authorisations, direct exchange connections, and regulatory compliance. It’s a complex, expensive, and highly regulated activity – which is why supervisory authorities require only authorised intermediaries to operate in this space.

Supervisory authorities

Speaking of oversight, let’s talk about the supervisory authorities – the referees of the financial world. If the stock market were a football match, these are the officials ensuring that the game is played fairly and in accordance with the rules.

These authorities may be national, such as the SEC in the United States, CONSOB in Italy, or the FCA in the UK, or supranational, like ESMA (European Securities and Markets Authority) in the EU.

Their key responsibilities include:

  • Investor protection – ensuring that intermediaries act reasonably and responsibly towards consumers;
  • Market transparency – requiring listed companies to publish relevant information such as financial reports, quarterly results, and even executive changes;
  • Fair trading – monitoring markets to detect and sanction unfair practices like insider trading, where individuals trade using confidential or privileged information.

But you never stop learning.

In this article, we aim to provide an overview of the stock market, outlining its key components and how it operates. That said, what you’ve just read is likely just the tip of the iceberg.

Suppose you’ve landed here fresh from watching The Wolf of Wall Street, dreaming of sipping Martinis on a sun lounger in a luxury resort in the middle of the Pacific within a year, just like the next self-proclaimed guru. In that case, our advice is this: stay grounded and start learning seriously.

In the meantime, why not subscribe to our Telegram channel or even sign up directly to the Young Platform by clicking below? We regularly share guides, tips, and financial updates to help you stay informed and avoid being caught off guard.

See you next time!

Posted on

Lithium: what is it used for? Batteries, medicines and other uses

Lithium

What is lithium used for? What are lithium batteries? How does lithium work as a medicine? Let’s find out why this metal is in such high demand!

Lithium is a silvery-white metal that, in recent years, has become a critical resource in high demand by world superpowers and beyond. The reasons behind this incredible growth in demand can be found in its many uses: batteries, medicines, ceramics, lubricating greases and more. In this article, we will explore a mineral that has become so popular in just a few years. Let’s get started!

Lithium: what it is, who controls it and who is fighting over it

Lithium is the lightest and least dense alkali metal on Earth. It is silver-white and oxidises on contact with water or air, taking on a darker colour. It has unique physical characteristics that make it highly sought after in various fields, as we will see below. Among these, lightness, high energy density – i.e. the ability to store a lot of energy in a small space – and reactivity are the most important for the industrial world. 

But how does the lithium supply chain work? What is the geopolitics behind this metal? To answer these questions, we have read and studied the report by the IEA (International Energy Agency) entitled ‘Global Critical Minerals Outlook’, published in May 2025. What do the experts tell us?

Who are the leading producers of lithium?

The first significant figure that highlights the importance of this metal concerns its production: in 2024, global lithium extraction recorded a substantial increase of 35% or more, for a total of 255 kilotonnes (kt) – by way of comparison, the world’s tallest skyscraper, the Burj Khalifa, weighs around 110 kt. The top five lithium producers in the world are unusual, as they include countries that are not often heard of. 

Australia ranks first, with 90 kt of lithium extracted in 2024, taking the gold medal by a wide margin. According to the IEA, this gap is set to widen: by 2030, mining of this metal is expected to grow by a further 30-35%, reaching 124 kt. Second place goes to China, with 57 kt in 2024, while the last step on the podium goes to Chile, which produced 49 kt of lithium last year, earning the status of dominant producer in Central and South America. For fourth place, we have to move to the African continent, more precisely to Zimbabwe, with 23 kt. Finally, in last place is another South American country, Argentina, which extracted 13 kt of lithium from its mines. In this regard, the IEA reports that this country increased production by 65% in 2024, to become an even more important player by 2030. 

Another figure worth mentioning concerns the concentration of mining activities: while in 2024 the top three producers accounted for 77% of global lithium production, by the end of this decade, the IEA expects this share to fall to 67%. Such a change indicates a certain geographical diversification, reflecting a widespread desire to enter this market. Analysts believe that by 2030, the share produced by the ‘rest of the world’ will rise from the current 17 kt to 49 kt. In addition, the amount of lithium extracted globally will double over the next five years, reaching a total of 471 kt. 

Once lithium has been extracted, who is responsible for refining it?

In 2024, according to the report, global production of refined chemicals was 242 kt. The discrepancy between lithium extracted (255 kt) and refined lithium is, of course, due to the inherent and inevitable inefficiencies of purification processes. In any case, 96% of these activities are concentrated in the top three countries in the refiner rankings, but it is believed that by 2030, the oligopoly will lose some market share, falling to 85%. Speaking of rankings, let’s take a look at the top five.

In first place is China, in a position of absolute dominance, which in 2024 processed 170 kt of lithium chemicals: the People’s Republic alone controls 70% of total global refining. It has no intention of stopping, as this figure is expected to rise to 277 kt by 2030. Second place goes to Argentina, which refines the same amount of lithium that it extracts, i.e. 13 kt. The bronze medal goes to Australia, a country that is only interested in extraction. Only 4.5% of the lithium collected in the fantastic land of kangaroos is refined, i.e. 4 kt. In fourth place are the United States and South Korea, with 3 kt of lithium each. With 1 kt produced in 2024, the last place in this special ranking goes to Japan.

Returning quickly to China, the IEA states that, despite having a near-monopoly on refining processes, the Dragon could lose a significant share of the market in ten years. Specifically, its share could fall from 70% to 60% by 2035. This is also because, according to forecasts, Argentina and the United States are expected to increase their refined lithium kt by 270% and 800% respectively, i.e. from 13 to 49 kt and from 3 to 27 kt.

The lithium market: what is the demand? 

In 2024, lithium saw a 30% increase in demand: the energy sector, of course, drove this increase, precisely because of the fundamental role this metal plays in the construction of batteries, electric machines and components for renewables. 

As for future demand, the IEA envisages three different scenarios with three different types of output. These scenarios are called STEPS, APS and NZE: the STEPS (Stated Policies Scenario) is the baseline scenario and represents the future as a continuation of the present, with current energy policies remaining in place; the APS (Announced Pledges Scenario) assumes that governments will achieve their energy and climate targets, such as phasing out fossil fuels and increasing renewable energy; the NZE (Net Zero Emission) scenario depicts a future in which the global energy sector has achieved net zero emissions by 2050.

In the first scenario – STEPS – lithium demand is expected to rise to 700 kt by 2035 and 1,160 kt by 2050, growing almost fivefold compared to 2024. In the second and third scenarios – APS and NZE – demand would be 30% and 20% higher than in the baseline scenario, reaching 1,500 kt and 1,400 kt, respectively. 

And the price? 

The price of lithium is a topic that may seem counterintuitive at first glance: since 2023, the value of this metal has fallen by 80%. One might wonder how this is possible, given that there was a 30% increase in demand in 2024 alone and that demand is set to increase fivefold over the next twenty years. The answer, as the law of supply and demand dictates, lies precisely in supply, which has grown exponentially and is set to continue on this trend.

Lithium is the 25th most abundant material on Earth and, unlike gold and Bitcoin, it is not scarce. This means that if demand rises, even by 30% in a year, supply adjusts more or less easily, and the price remains stable or even falls in the event of overproduction. However, to give a couple of figures, the cost of lithium in a typical 57 kWh battery – a battery for a common medium-sized electric car – has fallen from $67 to $15.   

Since we were talking about batteries and electric cars, let’s move on to the next section, which covers the main use cases.

What is lithium used for? The main use cases

As we have pointed out several times, lithium owes its popularity mainly to the energy sector, the primary driver of demand, particularly for electric car batteries. However, there are other, less well-known but essential applications. The pharmaceutical industry, for example, uses lithium as a drug in the treatment of specific psychiatric disorders. In contrast, the manufacturing sector uses it in glass and ceramics processing, as well as in machine lubrication. Let’s look at each case individually. 

What are lithium batteries?

Lithium batteries, or more correctly, lithium-ion batteries, are highly functional batteries because they are smaller, lighter, and more powerful than traditional batteries, such as lead batteries. This type of battery is such an important innovation that in 2019, its three inventors received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. 

Today, lithium batteries power smartphones, laptops, electric cars and more, precisely because this metal has a particular physical characteristic that gives it a significant advantage over its competitors: high energy density. Put simply, this means that, for the same weight or volume, lithium batteries can store and release much more energy than older, more conventional batteries. What’s more, they are rechargeable—a win on all fronts. 

How does a lithium battery work? Without going into too much detail, these batteries work thanks to lithium ions, which is why it is more accurate to call them lithium-ion batteries: an ion, in a nutshell, is an atom that has lost an electron and therefore takes on a positive charge. The battery is composed of two main elements, the cathode and the anode. What happens, explained in straightforward terms, is that during the discharge phase, when the battery supplies energy, the lithium ions move from the anode to the cathode, generating electricity. 

In short, thanks to the invention of three scientists, we are now able to produce increasingly compact, lightweight and efficient technological devices. 

Lithium as a drug 

Lithium is mainly used in medicine to treat bipolar disorder, a psychiatric condition characterised by extreme mood swings, in which the patient alternates between states of intense euphoria and irritability – episodes of mania and hypomania – and periods of deep depression. Thanks to its properties, this particular metal is used to reduce the switches between the two moods as much as possible and thus stabilise mood. 

The effectiveness of lithium as a drug in this field was discovered in the late 1940s by John Cade, an Australian psychiatrist who was captured by the Japanese during the war. The doctor noticed that some of his cellmates, due to poor nutrition, were exhibiting unusual behavioural reactions. After the war, Cade resumed his studies and discovered that lithium carbonate had a calming effect on laboratory animals. He tried this chemical compound on himself and ten patients and, documenting the treatment, noticed significant improvements in the psychiatric condition of the subjects. However, the discovery went unnoticed, but twenty years later, Danish psychiatrist Mogens Schou decided to revisit the discovery and validate it scientifically, following experimental methods. In 1970, the research was finally reviewed, accepted and validated: lithium was undoubtedly an effective drug for the treatment of bipolar disorder. 

Lithium: side effects

Like all drugs, lithium is not without side effects. The less serious ones, which do not require immediate medical attention, include stomach ache, indigestion, weight loss or gain, swollen lips, excessive salivation and itching. There are other effects for which it is advisable to seek medical attention quickly, such as severe thirst, swelling of the legs, difficulty moving, fainting, abnormal heartbeat, and severe headaches. Finally, those that require immediate medical attention include severe dizziness and blurred vision, slurred speech, severe drowsiness, nausea and vomiting. 

Other uses 

As already mentioned, lithium is also used in other sectors, such as manufacturing, industry and chemicals. Here are some examples: 

  • Glass and ceramics: Lithium is used to lower the melting temperature of glass and ceramics, resulting in significant energy and cost savings. It also has positive effects on the strength, durability and shine of the final products.
  • Lubricating greases: the industrial and automotive sectors use lubricating greases containing lithium because they are highly resistant to water and high temperatures. 
  • Organic chemistry and polymers: Some lithium compounds are frequently used by the chemical industry because of their powerful reactivity. In particular, they are essential for the manufacture of synthetic rubber.

We have come to the end of this long journey to discover this metal and the infrastructure behind its production, refining, distribution and demand. Will lithium remain as important in the future? Will other technologies replace it?

Posted on

Cobalt: The Story of an Artistic Metal

cobalt

Cobalt-chrome alloys are biocompatible and wear-resistant, making them ideal for prosthetics — both orthopaedic (knee and hip) and dental (crowns and implants).

Now, let’s move to a more relaxing subject: cobalt in art.

Cobalt Blue: A Colour That Made History

Cobalt blue was first created in the early 1800s in France, driven by both artistic and economic motives.
Until then, blue was far from a “democratic” colour. The most prized — and widely recognised — shade was ultramarine, considered the ultimate blue. However, it was extremely expensive because it was made from lapis lazuli, a precious stone imported from Afghan mines — hence “ultra-marine” — and literally worth its weight in gold.

The price was so prohibitive that painters of the time would only use it for their most important works. Whenever possible, they replaced it with a cheaper pigment, azurite. But the result was far from identical — a bit like drinking a Campari Spritz made with a knock-off Campari at a third of the price. The need was clear: a blue with the same qualities as ultramarine, but at a much lower cost.

Why and How Cobalt Blue Was Born

Enter Jean-Antoine Chaptal, the French Minister of the Interior, who tasked renowned chemist Louis-Jacques Thénard with finding a cheaper alternative to ultramarine. In 1802, Thénard discovered that by sintering cobalt monoxide with aluminium oxide at 1,200°C, he could create a mixture that met the Minister’s requirements.

From that point on, artists could experiment with a colour that had previously been too expensive to waste. The importance of having cobalt blue in large quantities was such that the famous painter Pierre-Auguste Renoir is said to have remarked: “One morning, since one of us had no black, he used blue instead: Impressionism was born.” Such a thing would have been unthinkable with ultramarine.

Monet and Renoir began to use cobalt blue consistently for shadows, abandoning black. Beyond Impressionism, other great painters embraced it in their masterpieces: Van Gogh in The Starry Night, Kandinsky in The Blue Rider, Miró in Figures at Night Guided by the Phosphorescent Tracks of Snails, to name a few. A true revolution.

An Interesting Thought: What Links Cobalt to Bitcoin?

Beyond art, the story of cobalt prompts a reflection that touches on a theme close to us at Young Platform: the centralisation of supply chains and the risks that such oligopolies bring. In short, it’s a parallel between the shift from ultramarine to cobalt blue and the transition from the gold standard to the fiat currency system.

From Ultramarine to Cobalt Blue

As we’ve seen, the introduction of cobalt blue in 1802 had a positive impact on the art world, making experimentation possible with what had been an elitist colour. However, this shade — still widely used today — is heavily dependent on cobalt extraction and refining, which are concentrated in the hands of very few players.

Leaving aside the critical ethical issues — such as child labour and human rights violations, sadly ignored by countries like the Democratic Republic of Congo and China — the logistical reality is this: 81% of global cobalt extraction and 89% of refining are controlled by just three companies.

This is dangerous because it makes the system vulnerable to both internal shocks (political instability, domestic economic issues) and external shocks (natural disasters, wars). If any of these actors halt production, the global supply chain suffers. The result is a heavy dependence on a handful of players who can effectively dictate terms.

From the Gold Standard to the Fiat Standard

Similarly, on 15 August 1971, US President Richard Nixon announced the end of the Gold Standard — the “Nixon Shock” — ending the convertibility of the US dollar into gold and moving to a fiat currency system.

In this system, still in place today, the value of a currency like the US dollar is backed only by the economic and political trust in the issuing government — in this case, the US government.

This shift, much like the cobalt example, created a more “democratic” and flexible environment. Previously, governments struggled to finance large public projects due to the gold constraint; now, they had full control over the money supply. But again, the power is centralised in the hands of a few actors — namely, central banks such as the Federal Reserve or the European Central Bank.

While such centralisation can help manage inflation and crises, it’s not without risks, especially because it relies heavily on human judgement, which is inherently fallible, as the 2008 subprime mortgage crisis demonstrated. The fate of the global economy can depend on the decisions of a handful of high-ranking officials. When those decisions are good, great. But when they’re bad…?

The Moral of the Story: Bitcoin and Decentralisation

Concentrating too much power in too few hands is never a good thing. Politics, economics, finance, housing committees, university group projects, and even five-a-side football teams work poorly when a single entity makes all the decisions.

Bitcoin was created precisely to address this: to return power to individuals and remove — or at least limit — the influence of central authorities. Its decentralised nature allows for a more democratic system, where people interact directly, without intermediaries who could control or restrict their choices.

Of course, this is just one of Bitcoin’s many qualities and real-world use cases. If this introduction has sparked your curiosity, we recommend reading our article on the history and workings of BTC to get a complete picture of the revolutionary potential of the king of cryptocurrencies.

Posted on

Who are the 9 richest women in the world? The 2025 ranking

The Richest Women in the World: Updated 2024 Ranking

Richest women in the world: the ranking updated to 2025

Who are the richest women in the world in 2025? Have there been any changes at the top compared to previous years? Below is the updated ranking based on net worth, which is calculated by subtracting liabilities from the total value of assets owned, including real estate, investments, cash, and businesses.

To compile this list of the world’s richest women, we refer to data from Forbes, which annually updates its rankings of the wealthiest billionaires. It’s also worth noting the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, which provides a real-time snapshot of billionaire wealth. As a result, the rankings of some of these women may fluctuate throughout the year.

Here are the 9 richest women in the world in 2025.

9. Marilyn Simons

Marilyn Simons, the widow of the renowned mathematician and investor Jim Simons, who founded the hedge fund Renaissance Technologies, served as the president of the Simons Foundation until 2021. The Simons Foundation is one of the largest philanthropic organisations in the United States.

The foundation provides scholarships and grants to support research and development in four main areas: science and mathematics, autism and neuroscience, society and culture, and life sciences.

8. Miriam Adelson

After the death of her husband, Sheldon Adelson, in 2021, Miriam Adelson inherited the majority of shares in the casino giant Las Vegas Sands. The Adelson family owns five casinos in Macau and one in Singapore, which are among the world’s wealthiest locations. With assets totalling $32.1 billion, Miriam is also a prominent philanthropist who has donated over $1 billion to medical research to date.

7. Abigail Johnson

Abigail Johnson is the seventh richest woman in the world, with assets totalling $32.7 million. She serves as the face of Fidelity Investments, the third-largest investment fund in the world, which manages approximately $5.3 trillion in assets. In January and July 2024, Fidelity, along with other investment funds, launched two exchange-traded funds (ETFs) focused on Bitcoin and Ethereum, respectively. This event marked a significant milestone for the cryptocurrency industry. Additionally, Fidelity recently announced the launch of two stablecoins in collaboration with World Liberty Financial, a decentralised finance (DeFi) project supported by the Trump family.

Discover the crypto market!

6. Savitri Jindal

Savitri Jindal, with assets totalling USD 35.5 billion, is the richest woman in India. She serves as the chairman of the Jindal Group, a major player in the steel, energy, and infrastructure sectors. In addition to her business ventures, she is also involved in politics. Following the death of her husband in 2005, she was elected to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha, representing the Hisar constituency.

5. Rafaela Aponte-Diamant

Rafaela Aponte-Diamant and her husband, Gianluigi, co-founded the Mediterranean Shipping Company (MSC) in 1970. Due to their vision, MSC has become the largest shipping line in the world. Rafaela currently oversees a fleet of approximately 900 ships, with assets valued at $37.7 billion. 

4. Jacqueline Mars

Jacqueline Mars, the fourth-richest woman in the world and heir to the confectionery and food empire Mars, Inc., has a fortune of approximately $42.6 billion. She runs the family business alongside her brother, John. Mars Inc. is renowned for its popular snack brands, including M&M’s and Snickers, as well as the pet food brand Pedigree.

3. Julia Koch

Julia Koch and her children inherited a 42% stake in Koch Industries after the death of her husband, David Koch, in 2019. With assets totalling $74.2 billion, Julia Koch now leads one of the world’s largest private conglomerates, the second-largest in the United States. The company operates in various sectors, including oil, paper, and medical technology.

2. Françoise Bettencourt Meyers

Françoise Bettencourt Meyers, the heiress of the cosmetics giant L’Oréal, has lost her title as the world’s richest woman after holding it for five years. However, her fortune remains substantial at approximately $81.6 billion. She owns 35% of the L’Oréal group, which has experienced a 20% drop in share value this year due to a significant decline in sales, particularly in China. Additionally, after 20 years, Françoise Bettencourt Meyers has announced her retirement from the company’s board, handing over the reins to her son, Jean-Victor Meyers.

1. Alice Walton

Alice Walton, the daughter of Walmart founder Sam Walton, has seen her wealth increase to $101 billion, largely due to a 40% rise in the company’s stock value. Unlike her siblings, she has not taken an active role in managing the family business; instead, she has focused on her passion for art. Walton founded the Crystal Bridges Museum of American Art, which features works by renowned artists such as Andy Warhol, Georgia O’Keeffe, and Mark Rothko.

This ranking highlights how some of the world’s richest women have diversified their investments across various sectors, including technology, fashion, mining, and art. Whether they are successful entrepreneurs or heirs to substantial fortunes, these women continue to make a lasting impact in the global business world.

You might be interested in: