Australia pledged on Tuesday to increase investment in Pacific island nations, offering A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to support their financial systems. Some Western banks are cutting ties with the region because of risk factors, while China is trying to increase its influence there. Some Western bankers have terminated long-standing banking relationships with small Pacific nations, while others are considering closing operations and restricting access to dollar-denominated bank accounts in those countries. "We know that the Pacific is the fastest-moving region in the world for correspondent banking services," Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers said in a speech at the Pacific Banking Forum in Brisbane. "What's at stake here is the Pacific's ability to engage with the world," he said, with much of the region at risk of being cut off from the global financial system. Chalmers said Australia would provide A$6.3 million ($4.3 million) to the Pacific to develop secure digital identity infrastructure and strengthen compliance with anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing requirements. Experts say Western banks are de-risking to meet financial regulations, making it harder for them to do business in Pacific island nations, where compliance standards sometimes lag, undermining their financial resilience. Australia's ANZ Bank is in talks with governments about how to make its Pacific island businesses more profitable amid concerns about rising Chinese influence as financial services leave the West, Chief Executive Shayne Elliott said Tuesday. ANZ is the largest bank in the Pacific region, with operations in nine countries, though some of those businesses are not financially sustainable, Elliott said in an interview on the sidelines of the forum. "If we were there purely for commercial purposes, we would have closed it a long time ago," he said. Western countries, which have traditionally dominated the Pacific, are increasingly concerned about China's plans to expand its influence in the region after it signed several major defense, trade and financial agreements with the region. Bank of China signed an agreement with Nauru this year to explore opportunities in the country, following Australia's Bendigo Bank saying it would withdraw from the country. Mr. Chalmers said Australia was working with Nauru to ensure that banking services in the country could continue. ANZ Bank exited its retail business in Papua New Guinea in recent years, while Westpac considered selling its operations in Fiji and Papua New Guinea but decided to keep them. The Pacific lost about 80% of its correspondent banking relationships for dollar-denominated services between 2011 and 2022, Australian Assistant Treasurer Stephen Jones told the forum, which was co-hosted by Australia and the United States. “We would be very concerned if there were countries acting in the region whose primary objective was to advance their own national interests rather than the interests of Pacific island countries,” Mr. Jones said on the first day of the forum in Brisbane. He made the comment when asked about Chinese banks filling a vacuum in the Pacific. Meanwhile, Washington is stepping up efforts to support Pacific island countries in limiting Chinese influence. "We recognize the economic and strategic importance of the Pacific region, and we are committed to deepening engagement and cooperation with our allies and partners to enhance financial connectivity, investment and integration," said Brian Nelson, U.S. Treasury Undersecretary for Counterterrorism and Financial Intelligence. The United States is aware of the problem of Western banks de-risking in the Pacific region and is committed to addressing it, Nelson told the forum's participants. He said data showed that the number of correspondent banking relationships in the Pacific region has declined at twice the global average rate over the past decade, and the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank are developing plans to improve correspondent banking relationships. U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said in a video address to the forum on Monday (July 8) that the United States is focused on supporting economic resilience in the Pacific region, including by strengthening access to correspondent banks. She said that when President Biden and Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese met at the White House last year, they particularly emphasized the importance of increasing economic connectivity, development and opportunities in the Pacific region, and a key to achieving that goal is to ensure that people and businesses in the region have access to the global financial system.

LONDON, July 9 (Reuters) - U.S.-based hedge fund Elliott Associates on Tuesday urged a London court to overturn a verdict supporting the London Metal Exchange's (LME) cancellation of nickel trades partly because the exchange failed to disclose documents. The LME annulled $12 billion in nickel trades in March 2022 when prices shot to records above $100,000 a metric ton in a few hours of chaotic trade. Elliott and market maker Jane Street Global Trading brought a case demanding a combined $472 million in compensation, alleging at a trial in June last year that the 146-year-old exchange had acted unlawfully. London's High Court ruled last November that the LME had the right to cancel the trades because of exceptional circumstances, and was not obligated to consult market players prior to its decision. Lawyers for Elliott told London's Court of Appeal that the LME belatedly released documents in May detailing its "Kill Switch" and "Trade Halt" internal procedures. It also newly disclosed an internal report that Elliott said detailed potential conflicts of interest at the exchange. "It was troubling that one gets disclosure out of the blue in the Court of Appeal for the first time," Elliott lawyer Monica Carss-Frisk told the court. Jane Street Global did not appeal the ruling. "If we had had them (documents) in the proceedings before the divisional court, we may well have sought permission to cross examine." LME lawyers said the new documents were not relevant. "The disclosed documents do not affect the reasoning of the divisional court or the merits of the arguments on appeal," the exchange said in documents prepared for the appeal hearing. "Elliott's appeal is largely a repetition of the arguments which were advanced, and rightly rejected." The LME said it had both the power and a duty to unwind the trades because a record $20 billion in margin calls could have led to at least seven clearing members defaulting, systemic risk and a potential "death spiral". Elliott said the ruling diluted protection provided by the Human Rights Act and also wrongly concluded the LME had the power to cancel the trades.

A look at the day ahead in U.S. and global markets from Mike Dolan After an intense month focused on election risk around the world, markets quickly switched back to the more prosaic matter of the cost of money - and whether disinflation is resuming to the extent it allows borrowing costs to finally fall. Thursday's U.S. consumer price update for June is the key moment of the week for many investors - with the headline rate expected to have fallen two tenths of a percentage point to 3.1% but with 'core' rates still stuck at 3.4%. With Federal Reserve chair Jerome Powell starting his two-pronged semi-annual congressional testimony later on Tuesday, the consensus CPI forecast probably reflects what the central bank thinks of the situation right now - encouraging but not there yet. But as the U.S. unemployment rate is now back above 4.0% for the first time since late 2021, markets may look for a more nuanced approach from the Fed chair that sees it increasingly wary of a sudden weakening of the labor market as real time quarterly GDP estimates ebb again to about 1.5%. There were some other reasons for Fed optimism in the lead up to the testimony. The path U.S. inflation is expected to follow over coming years generally softened in June, amid retreating projections of price increases for a wide array of consumer goods and services, a New York Fed survey showed on Monday. Inflation a year from now was seen at 3% as of June - down from the expected rise of 3.2% in May - and five-year expectations fell to 2.8% from 3%. Crude oil prices are better behaved this week, too, falling more than 3% from the 10-week highs hit late last week and halving the annual oil price gain to 10%. The losses on Tuesday came after a hurricane that hit a key U.S. oil-producing hub in Texas caused less damage than many in markets had expected - easing concerns over supply disruption. Before Powell starts speaking later, there will also be an update on U.S. small business confidence for last month.

Taking the initiative to plead guilty to Boeing is not small, but it can avoid being exposed to more problems when it is publicly tried, which is a "minor penalty" for Boeing. So now the families of the crash victims are very opposed to the move, demanding that the trial continue to be open. But after all, Boeing is America's oldest industrial son, whether it is Trump or Biden, and finally have to gently put down, give a chance. The Justice Department had been seeking a guilty plea from Boeing as early as May, when it launched the investigation. After all, if you plead guilty, you only need to pay a fine, and if you really go to court, you don't know how many quality problems Boeing will be exposed by your witnesses. Boeing also knew it had too many flaws, and paying a $243.6 million fine and bringing in a third party to monitor its compliance for three years, totaling more than $400 million in additional expenses, is small change for Boeing. Given Boeing's style in the past few years, this fine may not even force Boeing to tighten production line management. Just this kind of "reconciliation" that completely excludes the victims of the crash can not get the families to agree. Paul Cassell, an attorney for the victims' families, said he plans to ask the federal judge overseeing the case to reject the agreement and "hold this case to an open trial so that all the facts of this case can be presented in a fair and public manner before a jury." The demand is reasonable, but the US judge will most likely side with Boeing.

US President Joe Biden signed an executive order on Wednesday restricting investments in China, intended to further stymie China's advances in three cutting-edge technology areas: semiconductors and microelectronics, quantum information technologies and certain artificial intelligence systems. The "decoupling" of high tech from China began under Donald Trump, and the Biden administration has continued that ambition. However, the new order doesn't target US investments already invested in China, but the new ones. The Biden administration has repeatedly claimed that the US restrictions will be narrowly targeted and will not "have a fundamental impact on affecting the investment climate for China." Biden's new executive order is still subject to consultation with the US business community and the public and is not expected to take effect until next year. The order has been brewed for a long time and has generated a lot of publicity. But almost no one believes that this executive order will deal a new practical blow to Chinese high technology, because almost everyone knows that China needs American technology more than American money. The order has gained much attention because it is seen as part of a broader trend of the US drifting away from China. The promulgation and brewing process of the executive order reflects the strong desire of American political elites to suppress China's high-tech development, as well as a fierce game between those supporting the executive order and the concerns of the technology and economic sectors about a potential backfire on the US. It is a kind of compromise. Washington obviously hopes that major allies will follow Biden's executive order. The UK's Sunak government has made cautious statements, stating that it is consulting business and the financial sector before deciding whether to follow suit. In fact, China also has the ability to influence the extent to which Biden's executive order is implemented, as well as the extent to which the US will go in terms of "decoupling" from China. We are definitely not just passive recipients of US policies. American political elites are eager to "decouple" from China as quickly and deeply as possible, but they fear two things: First, this will immediately damage the performance of relevant high-tech companies in the US, undermine their influence and further innovation. The current Biden administration, in particular, does not want to incur strong resentment from Silicon Valley and Wall Street toward the escalating "decoupling," which will ultimately lead to the loss of support for the Democratic Party. Second, they are afraid of pushing China toward more resolute independent innovation to achieve breakthroughs in key technologies such as chips. If the US "decoupling" policy gives birth to major technological achievements in China, it means that Washington will completely lose the gamble: They originally wants to stifle China's high-tech development, but ends up strangling their own companies. What China needs to do next is to fully unleash our innovation vitality, continuously reduce our dependence on high-tech products from the US, and prove that as long as we are determined to achieve independent innovation, we have the ability to accomplish things. We need to prove that being pressured by the US will only make us stronger. As long as there are several solid proofs of this trend, the US policy community will fall into unprecedented chaos, and their panic will be much more severe than when they saw the rapid expansion of the Chinese economy before Trump started the trade war. Regardless of the future of China-US relations, the current battle will be the key battle that determines the future competition between China and the US. China can only win and cannot afford to lose. High-tech products such as chips are not isolated. The innovation power of China's entire manufacturing industry and the creative vitality of the whole society are the foundation for shaping these key achievements. When pressured by the US, our society needs to generate confidence and resilience from all directions, and we need to accelerate and seize every opportunity, rather than shrink and simply defend. Otherwise, the US will gain the upper hand in momentum, and we will truly be in a passive and defensive position. We must see that the US is on the offensive, but its offensive is becoming weaker and weaker, and it is always hesitant with each step. What is presented to China are difficulties and risks, but also the dawn of victory.