2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
1 päivä sitten
‧28 min
0,39 USD/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.8.
4,02%Tuotto/v
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
·2 t sittenBrent has completed the V-formation. Prices have reversed the entire downturn and are now in the breakout zone around 100+. Furthermore, the structure points towards either continuation towards 110–115 or a pullback to 95–97 before a new test.- ·2 t sittenTrump considers massive attack on Iran: What does that mean for the market? The Iran conflict has taken a new and more serious turn. According to Axios, Donald Trump stated on Thursday that he is considering an attack that would be larger than previous American military operations against Iran. He said that the USA is «close to making a decision» and that the country is «all set for it», while emphasizing that no final decision has been made. Two American officials are said to have confirmed, according to Axios, that no new military orders have been given yet, and that no final decision exists. The background is a strong escalation between the USA and Iran after a period of repeated attacks and retaliations. Trump has simultaneously stated that Israel could participate in any new operation on short notice, while Foreign Minister Marco Rubio has signaled a very tough stance towards Tehran. For the markets, the question is primarily how a further escalation will affect the energy market. Brent crude is now trading above 100 dollars a barrel, a sharp rise recently driven both by the Iran conflict itself and by Houthi attacks on tankers in the Red Sea. The Middle East still accounts for a significant share of the world's oil production and transport through important energy corridors like the Strait of Hormuz. A larger American attack could further increase the risk premium in the oil price, especially if the market starts to price in the risk of disruptions in oil exports. A higher oil price could simultaneously reinforce global inflationary pressure. This could make central banks' job more difficult, especially if energy costs remain high over time. The market might then have to price in higher interest rates longer than previously expected. For Oslo Børs, the picture is twofold. The energy industry, with companies like Equinor, could receive support from higher oil and gas prices. At the same time, a larger geopolitical conflict could weaken general risk appetite and hit more cyclical sectors. The question is therefore not only how high the oil price can go in the short term, but how long the market will price in a higher geopolitical risk premium. How do you think the market will react if Trump actually decides on a new and larger attack against Iran? Will oil stocks continue their rise, or will increased geopolitical risk weigh heavier? Sources: https://www.dagbladet.no/studio/80616-angrepet-mot-iran/12117793-trump-vurderer-massivt-angrep-p%C3%A5-iranhttps://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5986262-trump-iran-us-military-attack/ https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-says-hes-close-to-ordering-massive-attack-on-iran-they-haven-t-received-enough-pain-yet/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/trump-massive-attack-iran-war/https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil
- ·3 t sittenThe war with Iran is lasting longer than many expected, and new intelligence assessments from Washington indicate that a quick political solution is not necessarily in sight. According to the Washington Post, US intelligence assesses that the extensive attacks against Iran have so far not been enough to change Tehran's negotiating position. The USA and Iran are described as deadlocked in an unstable situation between war and diplomacy. This is important for the energy market because the oil price not only reacts to current production, but also to the risk of future disruptions. As long as the conflict continues without a clear end, the market must price in a geopolitical risk premium. A central factor is Iran's ability to withstand economic pressure. A previous CIA assessment is said to have concluded that Iran can withstand a US naval blockade for several months before the economic consequences become more severe. This means that the market cannot necessarily expect a rapid collapse in Tehran's ability to sustain the conflict. For oil investors, the question is therefore not only how long the war lasts, but how long the market is willing to pay for the risk. Historically, the oil market has often managed to absorb long-term conflicts as long as the physical flow of oil is maintained. The big test comes if the conflict goes from being a geopolitical risk to an actual supply crisis. The Strait of Hormuz is the decisive factor here. A significant proportion of the world's oil and gas supply passes through the area, and even limited disruptions to shipping traffic can have major consequences for prices. Previous episodes of attacks on ships and threats against Hormuz have already shown how quickly the risk premium can increase. At the same time, there is an important difference between fear and realized loss of barrels. If oil exports continue, the market may gradually begin to look through the conflict. If export volumes are actually affected, especially from the Gulf, the situation can change dramatically. The same applies to the Red Sea. If both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb are perceived as insecure transport corridors simultaneously, the risk of longer transport times, higher freight costs, and further pressure on the energy market increases. For oil stocks like Equinor and energy funds, the key question going forward is therefore how long the market can price in a high geopolitical risk premium without the conflict actually leading to a significant loss of oil production or exports. Roughly speaking, three paths lie ahead. If a diplomatic solution emerges, the risk premium can fall quickly and the oil price can correct downwards. If the conflict continues in its current deadlocked form, the oil price will probably remain higher than normal because the market demands compensation for the uncertainty. If, on the other hand, there is a real closure of Hormuz or major attacks on oil infrastructure, it could lead to a sharp price shock. Right now, the oil price is therefore less about how many days the conflict has lasted, and more about how long the market believes it can continue without the global energy flow being affected. Kilder: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/20/us-strikes-unlikely-move-iran-intelligence-reports-say/https://english.aawsat.com/world/5298770-us-intelligence-says-military-action-unlikely-change-iran%E2%80%99s-negotiating-positionhttps://news.am/en/news/1051008https://news.antiwar.com/2026/07/21/us-intelligence-assessment-says-the-us-cannot-bomb-iran-into-capitulation/https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-intelligence-report-said-to-assess-current-strikes-wont-change-irans-stance
- ·3 t sitten · MuokattuWhen the Red Sea and Suez are too risky: How the Africa detour impacts the oil market Unrest in the Red Sea and the increasing security risk around Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz mean that several shipping companies are considering longer transport routes. Ships that would normally sail through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal are increasingly being routed around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, because the security situation is still considered too uncertain for a broad return to the shorter routes. This does not necessarily mean that the world loses access to oil, but it creates a significant logistical challenge for the global energy market. A VLCC tanker that normally transports millions of barrels of oil from the Middle East to Europe or Asia faces a significantly longer journey when it has to go around Africa. The alternative route can add around 10 to 15 days of extra sailing time, and in some cases more. This results in higher fuel costs, more expensive insurance, and reduces how many transports each ship can complete during the year. The consequence for the oil market is that effective transport capacity may be reduced. Even if oil production continues, the market may experience a "hidden" supply tightening because more ships and more capital are tied up in the transport chain. For tanker shipping companies, this can be a positive development. When more ships are required to transport the same amount of oil, the demand for tanker capacity can increase and contribute to higher freight rates. For oil companies and refineries, longer transport routes mean increased costs. If the situation lasts over time, this could result in a higher transport premium on oil delivered to the market. For consumers, the consequence could be higher fuel prices and increased energy costs if the market prices in a more prolonged risk. The most important point is that the world's oil trade is not just about how much oil is produced, but also about how efficiently it can be transported. The Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal are among the world's most important transport corridors for energy. When several of these simultaneously become more uncertain, the vulnerability in the entire supply system increases. A situation where tankers increasingly have to go around Africa can therefore be an advantage for tanker shipping companies, but at the same time a burden for energy costs and global economic growth. The market therefore follows not only oil production, but also how quickly the world's fleet manages to move oil to where it is needed. Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/kuehnenagel-boss-sees-no-broad-return-normal-mideast-shipping-2026-07-23/https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/special_topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2026/03/01/me11-mecl-rerouting-cape-of-good-hope-march
According to Matt Randolph (Mr Global on TikTok), VLCC tankers also cannot go fully loaded through the Suez Canal; they must go with half load, which makes the economics even more unfavorable, if that is the case.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
1 päivä sitten
‧28 min
0,39 USD/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.8.
4,02%Tuotto/v
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·2 t sittenBrent has completed the V-formation. Prices have reversed the entire downturn and are now in the breakout zone around 100+. Furthermore, the structure points towards either continuation towards 110–115 or a pullback to 95–97 before a new test.
- ·2 t sittenTrump considers massive attack on Iran: What does that mean for the market? The Iran conflict has taken a new and more serious turn. According to Axios, Donald Trump stated on Thursday that he is considering an attack that would be larger than previous American military operations against Iran. He said that the USA is «close to making a decision» and that the country is «all set for it», while emphasizing that no final decision has been made. Two American officials are said to have confirmed, according to Axios, that no new military orders have been given yet, and that no final decision exists. The background is a strong escalation between the USA and Iran after a period of repeated attacks and retaliations. Trump has simultaneously stated that Israel could participate in any new operation on short notice, while Foreign Minister Marco Rubio has signaled a very tough stance towards Tehran. For the markets, the question is primarily how a further escalation will affect the energy market. Brent crude is now trading above 100 dollars a barrel, a sharp rise recently driven both by the Iran conflict itself and by Houthi attacks on tankers in the Red Sea. The Middle East still accounts for a significant share of the world's oil production and transport through important energy corridors like the Strait of Hormuz. A larger American attack could further increase the risk premium in the oil price, especially if the market starts to price in the risk of disruptions in oil exports. A higher oil price could simultaneously reinforce global inflationary pressure. This could make central banks' job more difficult, especially if energy costs remain high over time. The market might then have to price in higher interest rates longer than previously expected. For Oslo Børs, the picture is twofold. The energy industry, with companies like Equinor, could receive support from higher oil and gas prices. At the same time, a larger geopolitical conflict could weaken general risk appetite and hit more cyclical sectors. The question is therefore not only how high the oil price can go in the short term, but how long the market will price in a higher geopolitical risk premium. How do you think the market will react if Trump actually decides on a new and larger attack against Iran? Will oil stocks continue their rise, or will increased geopolitical risk weigh heavier? Sources: https://www.dagbladet.no/studio/80616-angrepet-mot-iran/12117793-trump-vurderer-massivt-angrep-p%C3%A5-iranhttps://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5986262-trump-iran-us-military-attack/ https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-says-hes-close-to-ordering-massive-attack-on-iran-they-haven-t-received-enough-pain-yet/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/trump-massive-attack-iran-war/https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil
- ·3 t sittenThe war with Iran is lasting longer than many expected, and new intelligence assessments from Washington indicate that a quick political solution is not necessarily in sight. According to the Washington Post, US intelligence assesses that the extensive attacks against Iran have so far not been enough to change Tehran's negotiating position. The USA and Iran are described as deadlocked in an unstable situation between war and diplomacy. This is important for the energy market because the oil price not only reacts to current production, but also to the risk of future disruptions. As long as the conflict continues without a clear end, the market must price in a geopolitical risk premium. A central factor is Iran's ability to withstand economic pressure. A previous CIA assessment is said to have concluded that Iran can withstand a US naval blockade for several months before the economic consequences become more severe. This means that the market cannot necessarily expect a rapid collapse in Tehran's ability to sustain the conflict. For oil investors, the question is therefore not only how long the war lasts, but how long the market is willing to pay for the risk. Historically, the oil market has often managed to absorb long-term conflicts as long as the physical flow of oil is maintained. The big test comes if the conflict goes from being a geopolitical risk to an actual supply crisis. The Strait of Hormuz is the decisive factor here. A significant proportion of the world's oil and gas supply passes through the area, and even limited disruptions to shipping traffic can have major consequences for prices. Previous episodes of attacks on ships and threats against Hormuz have already shown how quickly the risk premium can increase. At the same time, there is an important difference between fear and realized loss of barrels. If oil exports continue, the market may gradually begin to look through the conflict. If export volumes are actually affected, especially from the Gulf, the situation can change dramatically. The same applies to the Red Sea. If both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb are perceived as insecure transport corridors simultaneously, the risk of longer transport times, higher freight costs, and further pressure on the energy market increases. For oil stocks like Equinor and energy funds, the key question going forward is therefore how long the market can price in a high geopolitical risk premium without the conflict actually leading to a significant loss of oil production or exports. Roughly speaking, three paths lie ahead. If a diplomatic solution emerges, the risk premium can fall quickly and the oil price can correct downwards. If the conflict continues in its current deadlocked form, the oil price will probably remain higher than normal because the market demands compensation for the uncertainty. If, on the other hand, there is a real closure of Hormuz or major attacks on oil infrastructure, it could lead to a sharp price shock. Right now, the oil price is therefore less about how many days the conflict has lasted, and more about how long the market believes it can continue without the global energy flow being affected. Kilder: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/20/us-strikes-unlikely-move-iran-intelligence-reports-say/https://english.aawsat.com/world/5298770-us-intelligence-says-military-action-unlikely-change-iran%E2%80%99s-negotiating-positionhttps://news.am/en/news/1051008https://news.antiwar.com/2026/07/21/us-intelligence-assessment-says-the-us-cannot-bomb-iran-into-capitulation/https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-intelligence-report-said-to-assess-current-strikes-wont-change-irans-stance
- ·3 t sitten · MuokattuWhen the Red Sea and Suez are too risky: How the Africa detour impacts the oil market Unrest in the Red Sea and the increasing security risk around Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz mean that several shipping companies are considering longer transport routes. Ships that would normally sail through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal are increasingly being routed around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, because the security situation is still considered too uncertain for a broad return to the shorter routes. This does not necessarily mean that the world loses access to oil, but it creates a significant logistical challenge for the global energy market. A VLCC tanker that normally transports millions of barrels of oil from the Middle East to Europe or Asia faces a significantly longer journey when it has to go around Africa. The alternative route can add around 10 to 15 days of extra sailing time, and in some cases more. This results in higher fuel costs, more expensive insurance, and reduces how many transports each ship can complete during the year. The consequence for the oil market is that effective transport capacity may be reduced. Even if oil production continues, the market may experience a "hidden" supply tightening because more ships and more capital are tied up in the transport chain. For tanker shipping companies, this can be a positive development. When more ships are required to transport the same amount of oil, the demand for tanker capacity can increase and contribute to higher freight rates. For oil companies and refineries, longer transport routes mean increased costs. If the situation lasts over time, this could result in a higher transport premium on oil delivered to the market. For consumers, the consequence could be higher fuel prices and increased energy costs if the market prices in a more prolonged risk. The most important point is that the world's oil trade is not just about how much oil is produced, but also about how efficiently it can be transported. The Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal are among the world's most important transport corridors for energy. When several of these simultaneously become more uncertain, the vulnerability in the entire supply system increases. A situation where tankers increasingly have to go around Africa can therefore be an advantage for tanker shipping companies, but at the same time a burden for energy costs and global economic growth. The market therefore follows not only oil production, but also how quickly the world's fleet manages to move oil to where it is needed. Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/kuehnenagel-boss-sees-no-broad-return-normal-mideast-shipping-2026-07-23/https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/special_topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2026/03/01/me11-mecl-rerouting-cape-of-good-hope-marchAccording to Matt Randolph (Mr Global on TikTok), VLCC tankers also cannot go fully loaded through the Suez Canal; they must go with half load, which makes the economics even more unfavorable, if that is the case.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt
Asiakkaat katsoivat myös
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti
UUTTA
1 päivä sitten
‧28 min
Tämän sivun uutiset ja/tai sijoitussuositukset tai otteet niistä sekä niihin liittyvät linkit ovat mainitun tahon tuottamia ja toimittamia. Nordnet ei ole osallistunut materiaalin laatimiseen, eikä ole tarkistanut sen sisältöä tai tehnyt sisältöön muutoksia. Lue lisää sijoitussuosituksista.
Yhtiötapahtumat
Datan lähde: FactSet, Quartr| Seuraava tapahtuma | |
|---|---|
2026 Q3 -tulosraportti 28.10. |
| Menneet tapahtumat | ||
|---|---|---|
2026 Q2 -tulosraportti 22.7. | ||
2026 Q1 -tulosraportti 6.5. | ||
2025 Q4 -tulosraportti 4.2. | ||
2025 Q3 -tulosraportti 29.10.2025 | ||
2025 Q2 -tulosraportti 23.7.2025 |
0,39 USD/osake
Irtoamispäivä 13.8.
4,02%Tuotto/v
Foorumi
Liity keskusteluun Nordnet Socialissa
Kirjaudu
- ·2 t sittenBrent has completed the V-formation. Prices have reversed the entire downturn and are now in the breakout zone around 100+. Furthermore, the structure points towards either continuation towards 110–115 or a pullback to 95–97 before a new test.
- ·2 t sittenTrump considers massive attack on Iran: What does that mean for the market? The Iran conflict has taken a new and more serious turn. According to Axios, Donald Trump stated on Thursday that he is considering an attack that would be larger than previous American military operations against Iran. He said that the USA is «close to making a decision» and that the country is «all set for it», while emphasizing that no final decision has been made. Two American officials are said to have confirmed, according to Axios, that no new military orders have been given yet, and that no final decision exists. The background is a strong escalation between the USA and Iran after a period of repeated attacks and retaliations. Trump has simultaneously stated that Israel could participate in any new operation on short notice, while Foreign Minister Marco Rubio has signaled a very tough stance towards Tehran. For the markets, the question is primarily how a further escalation will affect the energy market. Brent crude is now trading above 100 dollars a barrel, a sharp rise recently driven both by the Iran conflict itself and by Houthi attacks on tankers in the Red Sea. The Middle East still accounts for a significant share of the world's oil production and transport through important energy corridors like the Strait of Hormuz. A larger American attack could further increase the risk premium in the oil price, especially if the market starts to price in the risk of disruptions in oil exports. A higher oil price could simultaneously reinforce global inflationary pressure. This could make central banks' job more difficult, especially if energy costs remain high over time. The market might then have to price in higher interest rates longer than previously expected. For Oslo Børs, the picture is twofold. The energy industry, with companies like Equinor, could receive support from higher oil and gas prices. At the same time, a larger geopolitical conflict could weaken general risk appetite and hit more cyclical sectors. The question is therefore not only how high the oil price can go in the short term, but how long the market will price in a higher geopolitical risk premium. How do you think the market will react if Trump actually decides on a new and larger attack against Iran? Will oil stocks continue their rise, or will increased geopolitical risk weigh heavier? Sources: https://www.dagbladet.no/studio/80616-angrepet-mot-iran/12117793-trump-vurderer-massivt-angrep-p%C3%A5-iranhttps://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5986262-trump-iran-us-military-attack/ https://www.mediaite.com/media/news/trump-says-hes-close-to-ordering-massive-attack-on-iran-they-haven-t-received-enough-pain-yet/ https://www.newsnationnow.com/world/trump-massive-attack-iran-war/https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/brent-crude-oil
- ·3 t sittenThe war with Iran is lasting longer than many expected, and new intelligence assessments from Washington indicate that a quick political solution is not necessarily in sight. According to the Washington Post, US intelligence assesses that the extensive attacks against Iran have so far not been enough to change Tehran's negotiating position. The USA and Iran are described as deadlocked in an unstable situation between war and diplomacy. This is important for the energy market because the oil price not only reacts to current production, but also to the risk of future disruptions. As long as the conflict continues without a clear end, the market must price in a geopolitical risk premium. A central factor is Iran's ability to withstand economic pressure. A previous CIA assessment is said to have concluded that Iran can withstand a US naval blockade for several months before the economic consequences become more severe. This means that the market cannot necessarily expect a rapid collapse in Tehran's ability to sustain the conflict. For oil investors, the question is therefore not only how long the war lasts, but how long the market is willing to pay for the risk. Historically, the oil market has often managed to absorb long-term conflicts as long as the physical flow of oil is maintained. The big test comes if the conflict goes from being a geopolitical risk to an actual supply crisis. The Strait of Hormuz is the decisive factor here. A significant proportion of the world's oil and gas supply passes through the area, and even limited disruptions to shipping traffic can have major consequences for prices. Previous episodes of attacks on ships and threats against Hormuz have already shown how quickly the risk premium can increase. At the same time, there is an important difference between fear and realized loss of barrels. If oil exports continue, the market may gradually begin to look through the conflict. If export volumes are actually affected, especially from the Gulf, the situation can change dramatically. The same applies to the Red Sea. If both the Strait of Hormuz and Bab el Mandeb are perceived as insecure transport corridors simultaneously, the risk of longer transport times, higher freight costs, and further pressure on the energy market increases. For oil stocks like Equinor and energy funds, the key question going forward is therefore how long the market can price in a high geopolitical risk premium without the conflict actually leading to a significant loss of oil production or exports. Roughly speaking, three paths lie ahead. If a diplomatic solution emerges, the risk premium can fall quickly and the oil price can correct downwards. If the conflict continues in its current deadlocked form, the oil price will probably remain higher than normal because the market demands compensation for the uncertainty. If, on the other hand, there is a real closure of Hormuz or major attacks on oil infrastructure, it could lead to a sharp price shock. Right now, the oil price is therefore less about how many days the conflict has lasted, and more about how long the market believes it can continue without the global energy flow being affected. Kilder: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2026/07/20/us-strikes-unlikely-move-iran-intelligence-reports-say/https://english.aawsat.com/world/5298770-us-intelligence-says-military-action-unlikely-change-iran%E2%80%99s-negotiating-positionhttps://news.am/en/news/1051008https://news.antiwar.com/2026/07/21/us-intelligence-assessment-says-the-us-cannot-bomb-iran-into-capitulation/https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/us-intelligence-report-said-to-assess-current-strikes-wont-change-irans-stance
- ·3 t sitten · MuokattuWhen the Red Sea and Suez are too risky: How the Africa detour impacts the oil market Unrest in the Red Sea and the increasing security risk around Bab el-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz mean that several shipping companies are considering longer transport routes. Ships that would normally sail through the Red Sea and the Suez Canal are increasingly being routed around the Cape of Good Hope in South Africa, because the security situation is still considered too uncertain for a broad return to the shorter routes. This does not necessarily mean that the world loses access to oil, but it creates a significant logistical challenge for the global energy market. A VLCC tanker that normally transports millions of barrels of oil from the Middle East to Europe or Asia faces a significantly longer journey when it has to go around Africa. The alternative route can add around 10 to 15 days of extra sailing time, and in some cases more. This results in higher fuel costs, more expensive insurance, and reduces how many transports each ship can complete during the year. The consequence for the oil market is that effective transport capacity may be reduced. Even if oil production continues, the market may experience a "hidden" supply tightening because more ships and more capital are tied up in the transport chain. For tanker shipping companies, this can be a positive development. When more ships are required to transport the same amount of oil, the demand for tanker capacity can increase and contribute to higher freight rates. For oil companies and refineries, longer transport routes mean increased costs. If the situation lasts over time, this could result in a higher transport premium on oil delivered to the market. For consumers, the consequence could be higher fuel prices and increased energy costs if the market prices in a more prolonged risk. The most important point is that the world's oil trade is not just about how much oil is produced, but also about how efficiently it can be transported. The Strait of Hormuz, Bab el-Mandeb, and the Suez Canal are among the world's most important transport corridors for energy. When several of these simultaneously become more uncertain, the vulnerability in the entire supply system increases. A situation where tankers increasingly have to go around Africa can therefore be an advantage for tanker shipping companies, but at the same time a burden for energy costs and global economic growth. The market therefore follows not only oil production, but also how quickly the world's fleet manages to move oil to where it is needed. Sources: https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/kuehnenagel-boss-sees-no-broad-return-normal-mideast-shipping-2026-07-23/https://www.eia.gov/international/content/analysis/special_topics/World_Oil_Transit_Chokepoints/https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2026/03/01/me11-mecl-rerouting-cape-of-good-hope-marchAccording to Matt Randolph (Mr Global on TikTok), VLCC tankers also cannot go fully loaded through the Suez Canal; they must go with half load, which makes the economics even more unfavorable, if that is the case.
Yllä olevat kommentit ovat peräisin Nordnetin sosiaalisen verkoston Nordnet Socialin käyttäjiltä, eikä niitä ole muokattu eikä Nordnet ole tarkastanut niitä etukäteen. Ne eivät tarkoita, että Nordnet tarjoaisi sijoitusneuvoja tai sijoitussuosituksia. Nordnet ei ota vastuuta kommenteista.
Tarjoustasot
Ei dataa
Viimeisimmät kaupat
| Aika | Hinta | Määrä | Ostaja | Myyjä |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | - | - | - |
Huomioi, että vaikka osakkeisiin säästäminen on pitkällä aikavälillä tuottanut hyvin, tulevasta tuotosta ei ole takeita. On olemassa riski, että et saa sijoittamiasi varoja takaisin.
Välittäjätilasto
Dataa ei löytynyt