[SMM Stainless Steel Daily Review] Futures’ Stop-Falling Fails to Shift Cautious Sentiment, Stainless Steel Spot Quotes Remain Steady SMM, June 11 - SS futures showed a trend of stopping falling and stabilizing. Supported by the stabilizing SHFE nickel futures, SS stabilized in tandem. As of the midday close, the most-traded SS contract was quoted at 14,380 yuan/mt. In the spot market, although supported by the stabilizing SS futures, overall stainless steel spot quotes remained stable, but spot traders lacked confidence and showed strong willingness to sell, leaving some room for bargaining and resulting in the emergence of some low-priced cargoes. The most-traded SS futures contract saw a pullback after earlier losses. At 10:15 am, SS2607 was at 14,405 yuan/mt, up 10 yuan/mt from the previous trading day. Spot premiums for 304/2B in Wuxi were in the range of 565-1,215 yuan/mt. In the spot market, the average price of Wuxi cold-rolled 201/2B coil was flat; the average price of cold-rolled rough-edge 304/2B coil was flat in Wuxi and flat in Foshan; the price of Wuxi cold-rolled 316L/2B coil fell by 175 yuan/mt; the price of hot-rolled 316L/NO.1 coil in Wuxi fell by 150 yuan/mt; cold-rolled 430/2B coil prices in both Wuxi and Foshan were stable. Stainless steel futures and spot markets experienced heightened volatility, with futures disturbed by macro news from outside China, rising first then falling, and the off-season characteristics of the market fully emerged. The industry has vague expectations for the future market, with a thick wait-and-see sentiment. Transactions saw sporadic recoveries but lacked sustainability, and traders faced rising pressure to sell, mostly boosting transactions by offering discounts. Overall, the market presents a game pattern where macro news disturbs futures, off-season demand weakens, supply marginally adjusts, and inventory stops falling and starts to build up...

2026-06-10 15:25PM UTC While markets have been focused on the recent sharp decline in gold prices, the broader precious metals sector has also experienced significant selling pressure, with platinum-group metals suffering some of the steepest losses, according to a report from Bank of America. Both platinum and palladium recently fell to their lowest levels of the year amid continued pressure from the global economic slowdown and geopolitical tensions. Global economic weakness and Middle East tensions weigh on platinum-group metals Commodity analysts at the bank said the rally in platinum-group metals lost momentum since late January, largely due to gold’s price action and persistent economic headwinds linked to the conflict in the Middle East, which continue to weigh on industrial metals demand. Despite the recent weakness, the bank maintained its positive long-term outlook for the sector, noting that it remains constructive on gold heading into the fourth quarter. A renewed gold rally could attract investors back into platinum-group metals and help support prices. Spot platinum fell to around $1,711 per ounce, down more than 2% during the session, while palladium traded near $1,203 per ounce, up roughly 0.5%. Since the sharp selloff on Friday, platinum has lost more than 9% of its value, while palladium has fallen over 6%. Higher price targets despite weak industrial and jewelry demand Despite current pressures, Bank of America still expects platinum to average around $3,000 per ounce by the fourth quarter of 2026 through the first half of 2027. Palladium is expected to average around $2,200 per ounce during the final three months of the year. Platinum-group metals delivered strong gains during 2025 as global trade tensions and threats of tariffs on precious metals created significant disruptions in physical market liquidity. However, analysts noted that most of those concerns eased after tariff threats failed to translate into broad implementation. According to the report, the absence of tariffs resulted in more than 200,000 ounces of platinum leaving NYMEX warehouses, roughly half of the inflows recorded during the second half of 2025. Palladium, meanwhile, saw outflows in late January before flows reversed after the US Department of Commerce imposed final anti-dumping duties of 133% and countervailing duties of 109% on Russian palladium. Structural shifts in demand The bank also highlighted structural changes in demand for platinum-group metals. Platinum is expected to record a modest supply deficit this year, while palladium is forecast to remain in a slight surplus. Analysts pointed to China’s accelerating transition toward electric vehicles as a major source of market volatility, given the reduced demand for internal combustion engine vehicles that rely heavily on platinum-group metals in catalytic converters. Electric vehicles are expected to account for roughly 40% of China’s light-vehicle production this year, surpassing conventional combustion-engine vehicles for the first time. Traditional vehicles are projected to represent 36% of production, while hybrids account for 24%. Production of internal combustion vehicles in China has already fallen to approximately 14 million units in 2025, down from 21 million in 2020. By contrast, the transition to electric vehicles remains slower in Europe and the United States, particularly after Washington scaled back some of its earlier electrification initiatives. Weak jewelry demand in China Demand for platinum jewelry has also slowed, especially in China, where elevated inventories accumulated during the manufacturing boom of mid-2025 continue to pressure the market. Although some of those inventories have already been recycled, retailers still hold large stockpiles while consumer demand remains weak, raising the risk of a significant contraction in Chinese jewelry manufacturing volumes this year. Energy costs threaten South African production Despite uncertainty surrounding global demand, Bank of America believes supply-side risks could become increasingly important. The bank noted that ongoing Middle East tensions, higher energy prices, and inflationary pressures could negatively affect production, particularly in South Africa, one of the world's largest producers of platinum-group metals. South Africa relies heavily on imported oil, has limited domestic production capacity, and faces ongoing refining constraints, leaving its mining sector highly exposed to rising fuel costs. Diesel remains widely used across mining operations, transportation networks, and backup power generation, especially given the country's persistent electricity shortages. Diesel prices have surged since the conflict began, while state utility Eskom raised electricity tariffs by 8.76% beginning in April 2026, significantly increasing mining costs. In this context, Sibanye-Stillwater reported a 13% year-over-year increase in unit operating costs during the first quarter, citing persistent inflationary pressures, including higher labor and energy expenses. In trading on Wednesday, spot palladium rose 1.5% to $1,249 per ounce as of 16:14 GMT. Source： https://www.economies.com/commodities/palladium-news/palladium-attempts-to-recover-losses-as-bank-of-america-maintains-a-bullish-outlook-49044

Europe's renewable energy market is undergoing structural acceleration in 2026. Utility-scale storage projects are breaking ground at pace, and solar installations continue to expand — but supply chain pressures are intensifying in parallel. Lithium carbonate price swings have yet to fully transmit through to system-level pricing, and the cost mechanisms across the cell and integration layers are still being recalibrated. At the same time, grid connection queues in Europe are lengthening, permitting timelines are growing less predictable, and project delivery schedules are under real strain. How Chinese supply chains respond to Europe's shifting market structure, and how European developers balance cost pressure with project momentum, have become defining questions for the entire value chain. To address these challenges head-on, SMM is hosting the 2026 SMM Germany Solar & Energy Storage Forum on 23 June 2026 in Munich, running alongside Intersolar Europe & ESS Europe. The forum brings together senior industry leaders from GCL, LONGi, Gokin Solar, Farasis Energy, Verkor, Greenvolt Power, AKU-BAT CZ, RES Group, Power Capital Renewable Energy, and more, for a focused dialogue on European ESS project realities, China's PV supply chain dynamics, and the path forward for China-Europe collaboration. Venue: Hotel Novotel München Messe, Munich, Germany Date : 23 June 2026 | 14:00–18:0 Forum details: https://www.metal.com/events/conferences/2026-SMM-Germany-Solar--Energy-Storage-Forum/969 Register for free : https://bd.smm.cn/s/HDq2UoEI For enquiries, please contact: Joanne Xu | +86 150 0197 5312 | joannexu@smm.cn

June 10, 2026 The price of gold has triggered a technical warning signal by falling below its 200-day moving average. If upcoming U.S. inflation data reinforces expectations of persistently high interest rates, market observers warn that the precious metal could face an extended correction down to $4,000 per ounce. While short-term momentum is clearly weakened, many observers believe the long-term, structural investment thesis for gold remains intact. Technical sell-off accelerates After the gold price failed to establish itself permanently above the $4,500 mark, the subsequent break of the closely watched 200-day moving average has noticeably intensified selling pressure. Analysts at FOREX.com, for example, view this as having permanently damaged the short-term chart picture. The next critical support level is now a long-term upward trend line in the $4,230 range, followed by the annual lows from March at around $4,100. Should this zone also fall, the market will lack solid technical support levels, making a pullback to the psychologically important $4,000 mark likely. A look at the historical pattern in September 2023 highlights the relevance of this signal: At that time, the price plummeted by another 5 percent after breaking the 200-day moving average. Whether the bears retain control will thus be decided primarily by the key zone between $4,230 and $4,100. U.S. Inflation and a Restrictive Fed as Headwinds The fundamental headwind for the non-interest-bearing precious metal comes primarily from U.S. monetary policy . The upcoming US Consumer Price Index is eagerly awaited, with core inflation forecast to rise by 2.9 percent year-over-year. A hotter data point is likely to reinforce expectations that the Federal Reserve will have to keep interest rates at elevated levels for longer, which strengthens the US dollar and weighs on gold via rising opportunity costs (US Treasury yields). Other analysts also expect continued volatility with a moderate downward trend in the short term, given the robust U.S. labor market and persistent inflationary pressures. As long as bond yields remain high and hopes for rate cuts fade, only extreme geopolitical upheavals are likely to be able to reverse this macroeconomic trend. Structural drivers support the long-term outlook Despite the gloomy short-term outlook, experts advise against losing sight of the long-term perspective. They point to the ongoing diversification of global central bank reserves, as central banks worldwide are increasing their gold holdings to specifically reduce their dependence on the U.S. dollar. Additionally, drastically rising government debt, fiscal risks in major industrialized nations, and geopolitical instability act as reliable, strategic drivers of demand. In this context, it is emphasized that the fundamental investment thesis remains intact. Systemic risks in the global financial system and real inflationary pressures persist. Two different time horizons are thus currently colliding in the gold market: While the technical picture and the interest rate environment point to further turbulence in the short term, gold remains supported in the long term by central bank purchases and systemic currency risks. Source: https://goldinvest.de/en/gold-under-pressure-how-hard-will-the-correction-hit

[SMM Stainless Steel Daily Review] Stainless Steel Futures Extend Pullback, Spot Market Confidence Weakens SMM, June 10. SS futures are trending lower and probing downside. Dragged further by the overall weakness in nonferrous metals futures, SS futures extended their pullback. As of the midday close, the most-traded SS contract was quoted at 14,410 yuan/mt. In the spot market, affected by the successive declines in SS futures, the support level that the market had originally pinned hopes on at 14,500 yuan/mt was broken, after which market confidence weakened significantly. Traders’ willingness to sell and destock increased notably, low-priced cargoes frequently emerged in the market, buying interest was clearly insufficient, and overall transactions remained mediocre during the day. The most-traded SS futures contract declined and pulled back. At 10:15 am, SS2607 was reported at 14,395 yuan/mt, down 75 yuan/mt from the previous trading day. Spot premiums for 304/2B in Wuxi were in the range of 575-1,225 yuan/mt. In the spot market, the average price for cold-rolled 201/2B coil in Wuxi was flat; for cold-rolled raw-edge 304/2B coil, the average price in Wuxi fell 50 yuan/mt and in Foshan fell 25 yuan/mt; the price of cold-rolled 316L/2B coil in Wuxi was unchanged; for hot-rolled 316L/NO.1 coil, the quotation in Wuxi fell 100 yuan/mt; cold-rolled 430/2B coil prices in both Wuxi and Foshan held steady. Stainless steel futures and spot experienced heightened volatility. The futures were first boosted then weighed down by macro news from outside China, and the off-season characteristics fully emerged. The industry holds vague expectations for the future market, with a strong wait-and-see sentiment. Transactions showed sporadic recoveries lacking sustainability, and selling pressure on traders mounted...

After several rounds of sharp lithium price volatility, companies across the battery supply chain have become increasingly focused on raw-material risk management. Long-term agreements, spot procurement frameworks, futures and standard options are gradually becoming part of the procurement toolkit. At the same time, a more complex type of structured product has also attracted attention from industry participants: the Accumulator . At first glance, an accumulator contract offers a procurement opportunity at a price below the prevailing market level. In a range-bound or moderately rising market, it can indeed help reduce average procurement costs. However, the discount is not free. By obtaining a more favourable purchase price, the company is effectively selling part of its downside protection to the counterparty: it receives a limited procurement discount in exchange for assuming tail risk if prices fall. This article examines the basic mechanics of accumulators, their potential applications in the battery supply chain, their transmission effects on market prices and inventories, and the key issues companies should consider when using such instruments. 1. What Is an Accumulator? An accumulator is not a single standardized option. It is an over-the-counter structured contract under which the reference price is observed on a daily, weekly or monthly basis and procurement volumes accumulate over time. Under a typical structure, a downstream buyer agrees with a bank, trader or financial institution to purchase a specified quantity of raw-material exposure at a fixed price over a defined period. The agreed purchase price is usually below the prevailing spot price at inception, making the structure appear attractive from a pricing perspective. However, the contract normally includes two important features. The first is the knock-out mechanism . If the market price rises to a predetermined level, the contract terminates early. The buyer retains the discounts already obtained but can no longer continue purchasing at the discounted price. The second is the volume-multiplier mechanism . If the market price falls below the agreed strike price, the buyer is required to continue purchasing a larger quantity. A common structure is a doubling of the purchase volume, although other multipliers may also be agreed. This creates a clear asymmetry: Market Scenario Outcome for the Buyer Prices rise moderately but remain below the knock-out level The buyer continues purchasing at a price below spot and benefits from the discount Prices rise rapidly and reach the knock-out level The contract terminates early; previous discounts are retained, but the buyer must return to the spot market for future procurement Prices fall below the strike price The buyer must continue purchasing at the agreed price and at a higher volume, usually double the original quantity Prices continue to fall High-cost purchases accumulate, inventory pressure increases and cash-flow exposure expands; theoretical losses are uncapped The defining feature of the accumulator is therefore not simply price locking. It is the exchange of limited procurement discounts for downside tail-risk exposure. 2. Why Would Downstream Battery Companies Consider This Type of Structure? Several characteristics of the battery supply chain make accumulator structures attractive under certain conditions. First, raw-material prices can be highly volatile. Lithium prices have experienced both rapid increases and prolonged declines. For cathode-material producers and battery-cell manufacturers, changes in lithium carbonate prices can quickly affect product costs and profit margins. Second, there is a clear timing mismatch across the supply chain. Companies often need to secure raw materials in advance, while downstream orders and actual deliveries remain uncertain. When prices rise, buyers worry about insufficient procurement coverage. When prices fall, they worry about having locked in excessive volumes at elevated prices. Third, some downstream companies prefer not to pay the explicit upfront premium associated with standard options. An accumulator embeds knock-out and volume-multiplier provisions, converting part of the visible premium into conditional risk. This can make the initial pricing appear more attractive. However, this does not mean accumulators are suitable for every company. They are more appropriate for companies with stable raw-material demand, strong cash-flow capacity, mature risk-management systems and professional derivatives teams. For companies with volatile demand, limited inventory capacity or significant funding pressure, accumulators can materially amplify operating risk. 3. A Simplified Scenario: How Does an Accumulator Work? Consider a cathode-material producer. At the time of signing, the spot price of lithium carbonate is RMB 100,000 per tonne. The company is concerned about a possible price rebound and wants to lock in part of its future procurement cost. A simplified accumulator structure could be designed as follows: Contract Term Illustrative Setting Spot price at inception RMB 100,000/tonne Accumulator strike price RMB 90,000/tonne Knock-out price RMB 110,000/tonne Base purchase volume 100 tonnes per month Purchase volume if price falls below strike 200 tonnes per month Contract tenor 12 months Scenario 1: Prices Rise Moderately The lithium carbonate price rises from RMB 100,000 to RMB 105,000 per tonne but does not reach the knock-out price of RMB 110,000 per tonne. The company continues purchasing at RMB 90,000 per tonne and gains a procurement advantage of RMB 15,000 per tonne. This is the most favourable environment for an accumulator: prices remain range-bound or rise moderately, allowing the buyer to continue benefiting from discounted procurement. Scenario 2: Prices Rise Rapidly and Trigger the Knock-Out The lithium carbonate price rises to RMB 110,000 per tonne, triggering the knock-out mechanism. The contract terminates early. The company retains the discounts already achieved but must return to the spot market for future purchases, now at a higher price level. This demonstrates that an accumulator provides only limited protection against extreme upside risk. Scenario 3: Prices Fall Below the Strike Price The market price falls to RMB 70,000 per tonne. The company must still purchase at RMB 90,000 per tonne, and the monthly purchase volume doubles from 100 tonnes to 200 tonnes. The monthly cost disadvantage reaches RMB 4 million. If the price falls further to RMB 50,000 per tonne, the monthly cost disadvantage increases to RMB 8 million. If actual production demand is insufficient, the additional volumes cannot be consumed immediately and will become involuntary inventory. The core risk of an accumulator is therefore not price volatility alone. It is that the company is forced to expand its exposure precisely when market prices move against it. Procurement volumes, inventory pressure and cash-flow risk rise at the same time. 4. How Can Accumulators Affect Lithium Market Prices and Inventories? When a market contains a meaningful volume of outstanding accumulator contracts, physical orders alone may no longer fully explain procurement behaviour. Traditional supply-demand analysis usually focuses on mine output, lithium chemical production, cathode-material production schedules and end-use demand. However, financial instruments can influence physical procurement patterns around specific price levels, creating signals that do not fully reflect underlying fundamentals. When accumulator contracts are concentrated around a particular price range, three phenomena may emerge. First, Downstream Procurement May Increase as Prices Fall Falling prices would normally suggest weakening demand. However, if accumulator contracts trigger volume multipliers, downstream companies may be required to increase purchases. Some market participants may interpret this as restocking or demand recovery. In reality, part of the additional procurement may be driven by contractual obligations rather than improved end-use demand. Second, Inventory Composition May Change High-cost inventory accumulated through contractual obligations may not immediately return to the market. However, it can reduce companies’ willingness to make additional discretionary purchases and create destocking pressure when prices recover. Inventory analysis should therefore go beyond total volume. It should also examine how inventory was accumulated and at what cost. Third, Liquidity May Become Distorted Around Key Price Levels If a large number of contracts are concentrated near similar trigger prices, volume multipliers, margin changes and dynamic hedging by counterparties may jointly affect market liquidity. This can create short-term volatility that appears disconnected from the underlying supply-demand balance. It is important to emphasize that the price impact of accumulator structures is not necessarily one-directional. The effect depends on whether contracts are physically settled, how counterparties hedge their positions, whether contract sizes are sufficiently large and whether exposures are clustered around similar price levels. For analysts, periods of significant lithium price volatility require closer attention to procurement behaviour, unusual increases in transaction volumes during price declines and signs of involuntary inventory accumulation. An increase in procurement during a falling market should not automatically be interpreted as a recovery in real demand. 5. Lessons from the 2023–2024 Lithium Price Downturn Lithium carbonate prices declined by more than 80% from their peak during the 2023–2024 downturn. This provides a useful stress-test scenario for evaluating the risks embedded in accumulator structures. If downstream companies had entered large accumulator positions with relatively high strike prices during the elevated-price period, a prolonged decline would have amplified the pressure through volume multipliers, high-cost inventory accumulation and cash-flow requirements. The key lesson is that the knock-out mechanism terminates gains during price increases, while the volume-multiplier mechanism magnifies losses during price declines. This structural asymmetry can become particularly severe in highly volatile commodity markets. A company may have stable physical demand, but stable physical demand does not automatically mean that its financial exposure is safe. Because accumulator contracts are generally customized over-the-counter instruments, public markets rarely provide complete information on individual companies’ positions, strike prices or contract tenors. It is therefore more appropriate to view the 2023–2024 downturn as a risk scenario rather than as confirmation of any specific company’s actual transaction behaviour. 6. How Should Companies Use Accumulator Structures Prudently? Accumulators are most suitable for managing a portion of highly certain procurement demand. They should not replace the overall procurement framework. A more appropriate approach is to integrate accumulators into a layered procurement system rather than use them as the primary tool. Demand Category Characteristics More Suitable Instruments Base demand Supported by confirmed orders and rigid procurement needs Long-term agreements, spot frameworks and futures hedging Flexible demand Order probability is relatively high, but delivery timing may vary Staged spot procurement, futures or standard options Strategic demand The company can tolerate some volume variation and seeks to optimize average procurement cost Small-scale accumulator positions In practical terms, companies should focus on at least four constraints. Link the Structure to Real Procurement Demand The base volume under the accumulator should remain materially below confirmed procurement requirements. Even after the multiplier is triggered, the company should still be able to absorb the resulting volume through actual production. If a company needs 500 tonnes per month, it should not set the base accumulator volume at 500 tonnes. Once doubled, the required purchase volume would materially exceed actual consumption. Link the Structure to Inventory Limits Companies should define inventory limits in advance, including: Maximum inventory volume; Maximum inventory days; Maximum proportion of high-cost inventory; Warehouse capacity; Working-capital requirements. If the additional purchase volume triggered by a price decline would exceed these limits, the company should not expand its accumulator exposure. Conduct Stress Testing Before signing, the company should model scenarios in which prices fall by 20% or 40%, remain below the strike price for six consecutive months, downstream orders fall short of expectations and inventory turnover slows. Only companies that can maintain cash-flow safety under extreme scenarios should consider using accumulator structures. Ensure the Pricing Benchmark Matches the Physical Exposure Battery materials are not fully standardized products. If the specification or delivery location of the company’s physical lithium carbonate procurement differs from the settlement benchmark used in the derivative contract, basis risk may arise and reduce the effectiveness of the hedge. The contract should clearly define: Reference product; Product specification; Delivery location; Settlement benchmark; Price source; Quality differentials. Companies should not focus only on whether the strike price appears attractive. 7. What Problems Cannot Be Solved by Accumulators? Accumulator structures can help reduce a portion of procurement costs, but they cannot eliminate all supply-chain risks. First, they cannot solve physical supply shortages. If the market experiences resource constraints, logistics disruptions or supplier defaults, a cash-settled accumulator cannot provide physical material. Second, they cannot fully protect against extreme price increases. Once the knock-out level is triggered, the company must return to the spot market. Third, they cannot replace inventory discipline. Even a discounted purchase price can become a burden if the company lacks effective inventory management. Fourth, they cannot create real demand. Financial instruments do not generate physical orders. Companies should not expand procurement merely because a discounted purchase opportunity exists. Fifth, they cannot eliminate basis risk. Differences in product specifications, quality, geography and trading terms may still reduce hedging effectiveness. Conclusion Accumulator contracts are not inherently unsuitable, but they must be placed within a strict procurement-management framework. They can serve as a complementary tool alongside spot procurement, long-term agreements, futures and standard options. In range-bound or moderately rising markets, they may help companies optimize average procurement costs. However, the discount comes from risk transfer rather than risk elimination. The buyer receives a limited price advantage while assuming the obligation to expand purchase volumes, increase inventory and absorb greater cash-flow pressure when prices fall. From the perspective of lithium market analysis, accumulators introduce an important additional dimension: An increase in procurement during a falling market does not necessarily indicate real demand recovery. An increase in inventory does not necessarily indicate active restocking. Around key lithium price levels, the impact of financial contracts on physical procurement behaviour deserves close attention. Disclaimer: This article provides an analysis of market mechanisms based on commonly used industry structures and publicly available information. It does not constitute confirmation or implication of any specific company’s actual positions, trading activities or financial condition. Lesley Yang Senior New Energy Analyst, SMM yangle@smm.cn