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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
