This article was generated with the support of AI and reviewed by an editor.
This pretty much sums up the article. Deutsche Bank is BSing a claim to hike the price of copper. It’ll probably rise anyway, but there’s no reason to believe any of the numbers are accurate, and the market is far too volatile right now to say that any bets are safe.
I don’t know what you want me to do with these. If you wanted me to comment on these articles, then maybe you should have used them for the post rather than an AI generated summary of a statement made by Deutsche Bank. As things are, I couldn’t really care less which way copper goes in because I’m not invested in (nor interested in investing in) it.
It’s all speculative anyway, and anyone claiming to know the magic sauce of which way the market will go is either a conman or a fool. At the end of the day, everything is a bet, and all it takes is for Trump to stub his toe and declare more random tariffs, start another blockade, or overthrow another government before the market flips over itself again.
I won’t give financial advice, but I’ll quote advice I’ve been given. Diversify your investments.
We could have any number of things in 2027. I dislike heds like this, especially in the context of investing. It could also be $50,000 or $5,000. Commodities are gambling, not investing, unless you have insider data.
Commodities are gambling, not investing, unless you have insider data.
You need to research demand trends and set a level of confidence for the demand in 2027. Is the world increasing electrification? Definitely. Then you need to research mining outputs and allocation of who is buying that copper. It’s work. Reading investment articles like this is a waste of time, they are written by commodities brokers looking to pump.
That was my central point. The fundamentals obviously support higher prices, but this particular article is clickbait. Something can be correct while also being poorly sourced and formed. You don’t want to go long on futures based on a single “article.”
We could have any number of things in 2027. I dislike heds like this, especially in the context of investing. It could also be $50,000 or $5,000. Commodities are gambling, not investing, unless you have insider data.
For someone carrying a ‘freelance journalist’ tag, dismissing macroeconomics as mere ‘gambling’ is an embarrassingly lazy take. You don’t need ‘insider data’ when global economic blueprints, multi-decade green transition policies, and nuclear power projects consuming millions of tons of copper are literally public record. This is publicly accessible data every housewife can analyze if she possesses basic arithmetic skills. Failing to analyze basic supply deficits and capex cycles isn’t a market problem—it’s a journalism problem. You threw out a wild $5,000 figure yet failed to provide even a single fundamental scenario in which it actually falls that low, proving you’d rather hunt for cheap clickbait than read a balance sheet. Calling a structural commodity market change which is driven by supply/demand mechanisms a coin flip is just a classic coping mechanism when you mistake your laziness for having an educated opinion.
If your best response is an ad hominem, I see no reason to explain my position. $5,000 was obviously hyperbole. Buy as many copper futures as you like, and enjoy feeling superior.
If your best response is an ad hominem, I see no reason to explain my position. $5,000 was obviously hyperbole. Buy as many copper futures as you like, and enjoy feeling superior.
Your bio says you ‘read news so we don’t have to.’ This exchange perfectly proves why just reading headlines isn’t the same as understanding structural macroeconomics.
When asked to back up a massive $5,000 copper call, you tucked your tail, called it a ‘hyperbole,’ and hid behind ‘ad hominem’ defense. In commodity markets, millions are moved by capex cycles, supply deficits, and balance sheets—not by freelance opinions and passive-aggressive exits. Don’t blame the audience for holding a journalist to professional standards.
To the readers: when a commentator dismisses global structural changes as a ‘coin flip’ and cannot defend their own math, they aren’t giving you an educated critique. They are just proving that reading the news doesn’t mean you know how to analyze it.
You just don’t like that I’m not buying your shit. Which is fine. You looked up my profile. Which is fine. From there, you’re inventing stuff. This is a terrible “article” to prove the fundamentals. I’m not going to smile and nod as you peddle useless info as investing advice. And yes, I read news so others don’t have to; this is not news, so that’s not relevant to the topic at hand.
Just accept that not everyone is going to lap up bottom-of-the-barrel “investment” “news.” We aren’t particularly Trumpy in these parts.
Also, if you can’t see obvious hyperbole, that’s not a me problem. So take your projection machine and point it elsewhere.
You threw out a wild $5,000 figure yet failed to provide even a single fundamental scenario in which it actually falls that low
Investors decide en masse following the US midterms to pull out of AI. Over the next few months, datacenter projects become abandoned, contracts are shredded, and all the resources allocated for them (both for the datacenters themselves and for the electricity needed to power them) suddenly have nowhere to go. The market becomes flooded with these resources, including copper, and the value tanks.
Do I think this will happen? Probably not. Could it happen? Sure, why not?
I have breaking news for you: we need copper for much more things than AI related chips. Same with electricity especially in developing parts of the world. There is world outside of the United States of America. Tons of brass are needed in military alone.
we need copper for much more things than AI related chips. Same with electricity especially in developing parts of the world. There is world outside of the United States of America.
I fail to see how this is relevant. If all of the copper allocated for AI datacenters and their related infrastructure suddenly entered the market, the price would tank. At the very least, it would fail to reach Deutsche Bank’s projected price by a long shot.
The point is not that the price will reach or won’t reach some value. It’s that the headline makes no statement of value. It could have easily been “Deutsche Bank projects the price of copper to be as high as $22,050 per ton by mid 2027” which would have been a statement of fact at least, though wouldn’t be very interesting. Instead, we got the equivalent of “The price of copper maybe probably might potentially be $22,050 per ton possibly by maybe middish 2027 or so, probably” which is a completely useless statement.
I get the insider scoop on copper prices from how often the lights go out from all the tweakers stealing copper wiring from my neig
I’ve got bins of copper and brass left over from work. Should probably take it to the scrapyard some day.
so, go long BHP.ax or a synthetic like KCOP.bats?
I’m not your financial advisor.
