Is comprehensive globalism over?
What the Iran War means for physical commodity traders 24 March 2026 The Financial Times has been asking hard questions about the structural shift now under way in global business – and the conclusions demand attention from anyone in physical commodities. FT chief economics commentator Martin Wolf is unambiguous: “The worst case is that this will be one of the biggest shocks in the postwar period.” Meanwhile, FT columnist Tej Parikh cuts to a deeper vulnerability: “Investors have committed trillions of dollars to the technology, one of the most power-hungry inventions ever, on the assumption of ample energy supplies and a slick chip production line that can cross more than 70 borders before reaching the final consumer. But the Iran war is exposing the fragilities in the AI supply chain.” If that assumption of frictionless global logistics is now in doubt for the digital economy, it raises an equally sharp question for physical commodity traders: is the model of seamless, borderless trade still viable? The honest answer is: not unconditionally. The effective closure of the Strait of Hormuz has demonstrated that a single chokepoint can simultaneously disrupt energy, fertiliser, industrial gases and shipping insurance markets. Supply chains engineered for efficiency rather than resilience are being exposed for what they are. Three conclusions stand out. Hyper-globalised sourcing is a liability without redundancy built in. Global trade is not over, but it is being repriced around risk. And those with established local distribution networks are navigating this crisis measurably better than those dependent on long, centralised chains. Jack Bardakjian, Group Managing Director of Gapuma Group, is direct on this point: “Every experienced commodity trader understands that price is only half the equation – the other half is access. When the architecture of global trade is under this kind of stress, access becomes everything. Local presence, local relationships, local knowledge – these are not peripheral considerations. They are the hard infrastructure of the business.” The world will trade again. But the terms on which it does so are being rewritten. Primary source: Financial Times, 12 March 2026, and related FT reporting
The 25-Year Gamble: Who Really Wins When Corporations Build the Roads?
Rates Waived, Questions Raised By: Shahab Mossavat 18 March 2026 A £4bn gigafactory. A 25-year business rates waiver. A council that says there is nothing to worry about. The announcement that Agratas – Tata Group’s battery business, building the UK’s biggest EV gigafactory near Bridgwater in Somerset – will fund £150m of local infrastructure improvements in lieu of paying business rates for a quarter of a century is being presented as a clean swap. Somerset Council borrows nothing. Agratas builds the roads. Everyone wins. But is it really that simple? The core question is one that economic development professionals should be asking far more loudly: does a single upfront corporate investment deliver better long-term value for a local economy than a sustained, predictable stream of tax revenue? And if the answer to that is genuinely uncertain – which it is – how can anyone responsibly sign off a 25-year calculation? Business rates, for all their much-criticised rigidity, are flexible in one crucial respect: they respond to revaluations. A thriving facility pays more as its rateable value rises. Rates revenue compounds with economic success. A fixed £150m infrastructure deal, agreed today, does not. Consider the variables that no one can reliably model over 25 years: inflation, interest rates, the pace of EV adoption, Tata Group’s strategic priorities, the shifting competitive landscape for battery manufacturing, the ongoing government review of the entire business rates system. The Transforming Business Rates interim report, published as recently as September 2025, acknowledged that the system itself is under fundamental redesign. Somerset is locking in a deal built on a framework that may look very different by 2030. Council leader Bill Revans says the deal eliminates a “small amount of risk” by removing the council’s exposure to interest rate movements on a loan. That is true, as far as it goes. But it substitutes one risk for several others: the risk that £150m of roads and training provision proves inadequate as the factory scales; the risk that Agratas’s needs evolve in ways Somerset’s infrastructure cannot accommodate; the risk – and this is the one rarely discussed openly – that a corporation’s priorities change. The Government’s own infrastructure analysis is instructive here. Large upfront costs deliver benefits that can take decades to materialise – and can just as easily fail to materialise at all. Japan spent trillions on prestige infrastructure and built bridges to nowhere. Spain constructed airports that saw no planes. The presence of steel and tarmac does not guarantee the economic activity that was supposed to justify it. None of this is to say the Agratas deal is wrong. A £4bn factory, up to 4,000 jobs, and an anchor role in the UK’s EV supply chain is a transformative prize for Somerset. The council may well have made the right call. But “the right call” and “a rigorously tested 25-year financial model” are not the same thing, and the distinction matters. As more corporations – often with the blessing of enterprise zone designations – look to substitute upfront infrastructure investment for ongoing tax obligations, local authorities need independent analytical frameworks to evaluate these deals properly. The asymmetry of information and negotiating power between a global conglomerate and a county council is considerable. The question we should all be asking is not whether Agratas is a good corporate citizen – by all accounts it is working hard to embed itself in the Somerset community. The question is structural: when a company writes the cheque for the roads it needs to operate, who is really getting the better end of the deal? Twenty-five years is a long time. It would be reassuring to know that someone has done the maths with genuine rigour – and published it.
Charles Percehron – Our Energy Expert Speaks to Le Monde
17 March 2026 Below is an article published by Le Monde. It features our colleague Charles PERCHERON, and Kpler and its work using the latest technology to help map energy flows; highly recommended reading in the current geo-political context in the Persian Gulf. https://lnkd.in/e6kgDGAn
Did you know you can trade lean hogs on the stock market? 🐷
25 February 2026 No, really. Alongside live cattle, oats, frozen orange juice and cocoa futures, lean hog contracts are genuinely traded on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange – in lots of 40,000 pounds, no less. We’re not making this up. It turns out the world of commodity trading goes way beyond the gold bars and oil barrels most people picture. Here are five “exotic” soft commodities that serious traders are watching right now: ☕ Coffee – A billion daily drinkers means relentless demand. But Brazilian soil moisture levels, Vietnamese harvest delays and tropical storms all move the price. Your morning flat white is a geopolitical event. 🍫 Cocoa – In 2024, Côte d’Ivoire cut its export contracts by 40% due to poor weather. Ghana fared little better. Two countries produce half the world’s supply — so when West Africa sneezes, the chocolate market catches a cold. 🌾 Oats – Grown across the EU, Russia, Canada and Australia, oats are more globally distributed than most soft commodities. But here’s the twist: disruption in one grain market tends to ripple across all grains, because they share the same growing regions, transport networks and storage systems. 🥩 Lean hogs and live cattle – Alternative proteins are getting all the headlines. Meanwhile, global meat consumption keeps rising. Livestock futures are a quiet corner of the market that demographic trends suggest won’t stay quiet for long. 🍊 Frozen concentrated orange juice (FCOJ) – Yes, it has its own futures market. In 2024, it hit all-time highs after disease-carrying sap-sucking insects devastated crops in Brazil (which produces nearly 70% of the world’s OJ) and a series of hurricanes compounded the damage in Florida. Extraordinary volatility in the most ordinary of breakfast staples. The common thread? These markets are driven by weather, disease, geography and human appetite — not by central bank policy or tech earnings cycles. For traders and commodity professionals who understand the supply side, that’s a very different — and potentially very interesting — kind of opportunity. Over to you. At Gapuma Group, we’re always curious about the commodity experiences that don’t make the standard textbooks. Have you ever dealt in something genuinely unusual — whether that’s a niche agricultural product, a regional soft commodity, or something else entirely that raised eyebrows at the trading desk?
US Tariff Uncertainty: The enemy of business isn’t the tariff. It’s the chaos surrounding it
24 February 2026 When the US Supreme Court struck down President Trump’s use of emergency powers under IEEPA to impose sweeping global tariffs, markets briefly exhaled. That relief lasted roughly 24 hours. Within a day, the administration had invoked Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act – a statute never previously used – to reimpose a 15% universal tariff rate. The EU, which had recently concluded what it believed was a settled trade agreement with Washington, was blunt in its response: “A deal is a deal.” It was also, apparently, an optimistic assumption. This is the central problem. Tariffs, as a tool of economic policy, are not inherently lethal to global trade. They raise costs, they distort supply chains, they disproportionately burden weaker economies – applying identical flat rates to Bangladesh and Germany is not a neutral act – but businesses can adapt to a fixed landscape. They reprice, they reroute, they renegotiate. What they cannot do is build rational strategy on shifting sand. Fitch Ratings has noted that despite any temporary respite, US corporates continue to face renewed uncertainty, with supply chain and margin planning effectively on hold. Reuters similarly observed that the Supreme Court ruling, whilst constraining presidential power, has not resolved the fundamental instability facing trading partners. The irony is that judicial intervention – designed as a corrective – has, at least in the short term, amplified the turbulence rather than contained it. Every legal challenge resets the clock without resetting the uncertainty. At Gapuma Group, we work across markets where predictability underpins investment decisions. What we are watching now is not the tariff level. It is the governance of trade policy itself – and that, at present, offers little comfort.
GREEN STEEL: SUBSTANCE OR SIGNAL?
19 Ferbuary 2026 By: Shahab Mossavat The steel industry accounts for roughly 7% of global greenhouse gas emissions. If we are serious about decarbonisation, it has to change. But is the emerging green steel market a genuine structural shift, or an expensive exercise in corporate optics? The numbers, right now, suggest something uncomfortably in between. 7% of Global Carbon Emission are Produced by Steel Makers Europe has what passes for an established green steel market — and it is struggling. Traded volumes for flat-rolled green steel remained below 200,000 tonnes throughout 2025, which is vanishingly small against a European market that consumes some 140 million tonnes annually. Fastmarkets’ green steel premium (for product below 0.8 tonnes of CO₂ per tonne of steel) has declined since the start of the year, and sources in the market describe buying as almost entirely project-based — nobody, as one Northern European buyer put it, buys green steel “back-to-back.” The spot market has been virtually non-existent since the start of 2026. That is not a market. That is a pilot programme with a premium attached. Part of the problem is definitional chaos. There is no common standard for what “green steel” even means, and buyers in some regions reportedly have no clear idea what they need. When the foundational vocabulary is contested, credibility suffers — and with it, the willingness to pay. The reduced-carbon tier (1.4–1.8 tCO₂ per tonne) saw its premium fall 50% in just three months to a meagre €25 per tonne, suggesting that when the environmental story becomes incremental rather than transformational, buyers simply revert to price. And yet dismissing green steel entirely would be equally wrong. The structural forces pushing towards it are real and are gathering pace. The EU’s Emissions Trading System is progressively withdrawing free allowances from blast furnace producers, and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, now entering its definitive phase, will impose equivalent carbon costs on imported steel. Analysis by CRU suggests that by 2032, the CBAM charge will have risen sufficiently to theoretically return profit-maximising output for EU mills to pre-ETS levels — meaning the economics of green production will tighten around conventional steelmaking from both ends. ArcelorMittal’s confirmation of a €1.3 billion electric arc furnace in Dunkirk, citing EU policy confidence, is a signal worth noting even if the investment was scaled back from its original ambition. EU is Withdrawing Incentive Schemes The forecasts point towards rising hot-rolled coil prices across all production routes to 2035, with the green premium narrowing but persisting — from roughly 23% today to around 8% by 2035 as EAF capacity expands and legacy blast furnace costs compound under regulation. The trading angle For those of us who remember steel as a traded commodity, there is a further wrinkle. Physical steel trading has largely disintermediated over the past decade; end-users go direct to mills, and the role of the merchant has contracted sharply. Green steel, paradoxically, may be reopening a gap. Because green steel is niche, project-specific, and negotiated on terms that vary considerably between transactions, the information asymmetries that once justified intermediaries are back. Mills producing green product need buyers who understand what they are actually purchasing. Buyers with Scope 3 obligations need supply that is verifiable and documented. That is not a spot market. That is a relationship market — and relationship markets have historically rewarded those who understand both sides of the transaction. Green Steel Sheets and Cold Rolls Whether that translates into a commercial opportunity depends on how quickly mandated demand — through green public procurement under the EU’s forthcoming Industrial Accelerator Act — moves from political intention to contracted reality. One mill source was blunt: large-scale demand for green steel can only be stimulated through public projects. Without that, it remains a niche. The honest verdict is this: green steel is not yet efficient as an environmental instrument, because its scale is too small to move the emissions needle. But the regulatory architecture being constructed around it is serious, and the cost convergence is real and mathematically predictable. The performative phase — buying a few thousand tonnes to put in the sustainability report — is giving way, slowly, to something more structural. The question for commodity-focused businesses is not whether green steel matters. It is whether they are positioned to participate when it does. Gapuma Group monitors developments across physical commodity markets. We welcome discussion from producers, buyers, and investors navigating the energy transition.
Global Growth Steady at 3% – So Why Is Britain Lagging Behind?
12 February 2026 The global economy is maintaining a resilient 3% growth trajectory in 2026, according to the ACCA Global Economic Outlook. Yet Britain’s economy tells a starkly different story. The EY ITEM Club’s Winter Forecast projects UK GDP growth of just 0.9% this year – one of the weakest performances in the G7. More concerning for those of us in physical commodities: business investment is forecast to contract by 0.2% in 2026, a sharp downgrade from November’s 0.8% growth prediction. The contrast is striking. Whilst the US leads G7 growth and emerging markets demonstrate surprising resilience despite unprecedented tariff disruptions, Britain splutters. GDP per capita grew by merely 1% in 2025 after zero growth in 2024 – hardly the transformation promised eighteen months ago. What’s holding the UK back? Persistent policy uncertainty, weak business confidence, and a construction sector in the doldrums despite ambitious housing targets. For commodity traders, the implications are clear: whilst global trade adapts to new realities and maintains momentum, UK domestic demand remains anaemic. The government’s fiscal tightening, frozen income tax thresholds, and employer National Insurance increases are weighing heavily on growth. Meanwhile, our global competitors press ahead. As EY notes, the Bank of England may deliver one final rate cut in April, but monetary policy alone cannot overcome these structural headwinds. For Gapuma Group and the wider commodities sector, the message is unambiguous: opportunity lies in global markets showing genuine dynamism, not in a UK economy stuck in low gear. The world economy is proving adaptable and resilient. Britain needs to match that energy – urgently.
TRUMP’S GREENLAND GAMBIT: RARE EARTHS OR GEOPOLITICAL THEATRE?
21 January 2026 President Trump’s year-long campaign to acquire Greenland has crystallised around a stark claim: America needs control to secure critical minerals vital for military and economic security. From a commodities trading perspective, this narrative demands scrutiny. The mineral case appears compelling at first glance. Greenland holds two of the world’s largest rare earth deposits, including heavy rare earths like dysprosium and terbium that are essential for missile guidance systems and jet engines. China controls up to 90% of rare earth processing capacity, making supply chain diversification strategically sound. Yet the economic reality is sobering. Greenland is relatively open to investment – the US could mine there now. Only one American entity has even applied for mining permits. The challenge isn’t access; it’s mining in an incredibly harsh environment. Mining sites are remote, largely unsettled, and face local opposition. More tellingly, established supply chains already exist in the US, Canada, Australia and Brazil – markets may simply not need Greenland’s minerals. Meanwhile, 85% of Greenlanders oppose becoming American, with party leaders across the political spectrum united in rejecting US advances. The real story? Trump’s “method” reveals a strategic intent to re-establish American dominance over the western hemisphere, dividing the world into three spheres of influence. China views this as proof the US-led order is in turmoil – creating opportunities Beijing welcomes. For ESG-conscious traders, Greenland exposes the tension between resource nationalism rhetoric and commercial reality. When acquisition costs exceed value creation, and geopolitical theatre overshadows economic fundamentals, markets should take note.
Is China Winning Because of Tariffs, Not Despite Them?
14th January 2026 China’s record $1.19 trillion trade surplus for 2025 poses an intriguing question: are tariffs inadvertently strengthening Beijing’s global position? Whilst Trump’s levies successfully reduced US-China trade, they’ve seemingly accelerated an unintended consequence: China’s pivot towards emerging markets. As weaker economies struggle with rising input costs and disrupted supply chains, China has expanded aggressively into Southeast Asia, Africa, and Latin America—regions where competitors lack its manufacturing scale and infrastructure depth. According to the Financial Times, China’s export machine has proved “remarkably resilient,” with green technology and AI products driving growth in new markets. The Economist notes that whilst other exporters face margin pressure from tariffs, China’s vast domestic production capacity allows it to absorb costs and undercut rivals who cannot. This creates a troubling dynamic: tariffs intended to level the playing field may actually consolidate China’s dominance. Smaller economies face a double burden—higher costs from tariffs whilst simultaneously losing market share to Chinese alternatives in third countries. Bloomberg data shows Chinese goods penetrating markets previously served by Southeast Asian manufacturers, as buyers seek the lowest prices amidst global inflation. The paradox is striking. Punitive measures meant to constrain China may be eliminating its mid-tier competition instead. With a weak yuan, overcapacity from its property crisis, and unmatched scale, China can weather storms that sink smaller vessels. The question for businesses isn’t whether to prepare for a China-dominated supply landscape—it’s whether current trade policies are accelerating rather than preventing it. Perhaps scale, not sanctions, determines who survives the tariff era.
TRUMP’S IRAN TARIFF GAMBIT: A CALCULATED RISK THAT COULD RESHAPE GLOBAL TRADE
13 January 2026 Amid the chaos continuing to envelop and ravage Iran, where a large-scale protests sparked by currency collapse have been met by a brutal crackdown by authorities—with large-scale deaths and mass arrests reported—President Trump has announced immediate 25% tariffs on nations conducting business with Iran. The move introduces a new element of uncertainty into global commerce, with potentially significant ramifications for the hard-won US-China trade détente. The tariffs target major economies including China, India, Turkey, the UAE and Brazil—all substantial Iranian trading partners. China faces particular exposure, having imported approximately 90% of Iran’s oil exports through independent refineries whilst maintaining over $9 billion in documented trade. The new levy could push cumulative US tariffs on Chinese goods from the current 30.8% to approximately 56%, threatening the fragile truce established at last October’s South Korea summit that granted Washington access to critical rare earth minerals. The policy’s ambiguity—Trump provided no details on what constitutes “doing business” or how enforcement will proceed—creates immediate complications for global supply chains. India’s $1.34 billion bilateral trade with Iran, Turkey’s $5.68 billion commerce across their shared border, and Brazil’s $3 billion agricultural exports all fall within potential scope. The UAE’s role as a re-export hub for Iranian goods adds further complexity to implementation. For China specifically, the stakes extend beyond trade metrics. Beijing secured rare earth export agreements and a presidential visit to China scheduled for April as part of the détente. Trump administration adviser Peter Navarro previously cautioned against escalating Chinese tariffs further, warning “we don’t want to get to a point where we hurt ourselves.” Whether carve-outs emerge remains unclear, though the White House has yet to publish legal authority or implementation details for the Iran-related levies. As businesses navigate this evolving landscape, the incident underscores how rapidly geopolitical developments can reshape commercial calculations, requiring organisations to maintain strategic flexibility in an increasingly volatile trading environment.
Wellbeing or Work Perk? Rethinking Connection Through an ESG Lens
7th January 2026 At a time when workforce wellbeing is increasingly in the spotlight, a novel trial in Sweden has captured global attention: a major employer is experimenting with a paid “friendship hour” — a dedicated slice of the working week for staff to nurture social relationships beyond the office. Participants are given time during paid hours, plus modest financial support, to connect with friends or strengthen personal networks. Early self-reported outcomes suggest small boosts to happiness and life satisfaction. It’s a provocative idea, and one that resonates with a deeper reality: loneliness, social isolation and low workplace engagement are by no means confined to Nordic climes. Recent polling and workplace research in the UK has pointed to troubling trends in worker wellbeing and connection, with many citing stress, disengagement and a lack of meaningful interaction as part of their professional experience. As an organisation, Gapuma Group welcomes innovation in how employers think about people — especially where it aligns with our ESG commitments to mental wellbeing, inclusion and a supportive workplace culture. We champion initiatives that encourage genuine connection and mutual support, from informal coworker gatherings to structured wellbeing programmes, because strong human relationships are at the core of healthy teams. Yet it’s worth asking whether formalising friendship through corporate policy is a necessity or a symptom of broader social shifts? The pandemic, remote and hybrid working, and the blurring of work–life boundaries have reshaped how and where people interact. Does this make traditional office attendance more important, or simply impractical in an era that values flexibility? Should employers nudge people towards social connection, or trust teams to find their own balance? There are no simple answers — but one principle remains clear: belonging at work matters. At Gapuma, we will continue to explore and share practices that build authentic community, wherever our people choose to work.