[ad_1]
Feb 20 (Reuters) – London copper prices slipped on Monday, as a firmer U.S. dollar made greenback-priced metals more expensive to holders of other currencies, while rising inventories signalled continued weak demand in top consumer China.
Three-month copper on the London Metal Exchange CMCU3 eased 0.1% to $8,977 a tonne by 0140 GMT and lead CMPB3 declined 0.2% to $2,061.50 a tonne, while aluminium CMAL3 rose 1.4% to $2,420.50 a tonne, zinc CMZN3 advanced 0.2% to $3,065 a tonne and tin CMSN3 increased 0.6% to $26,000 a tonne.
The most-traded March copper contract on the Shanghai Futures Exchange SCFcv1 was up 0.1% at 69,050 yuan a tonne, tracking gains in London prices in the previous session on supply disruption issues.
SHFE aluminium SAFcv1 increased 1.3% to 18,755 yuan a tonne, zinc SZNcv1 climbed 1.8% to 23,280 yuan a tonne and lead SPBcv1 was up 0.2% at 15,160 yuan a tonne, while tin SSNcv1 fell 2.9% to 207,800 yuan a tonne and nickel SNIcv1 shed 0.7% to 203,500 yuan a tonne.
The dollar was on the front foot, supported by a strong run of economic data out of the United States that traders bet will keep the Federal Reserve on its monetary policy tightening path for longer than initially expected.
Meanwhile, copper inventories in SHFE warehouses CU-STX-SGH rose again by the end of last week. The stocks have been building up every week since the end of last year, although the weekly gain on Friday was the smallest in nearly two months.
Analysts have forecast Chinese copper consumption to rebound strongly in March.
Production and export disruptions in mining countries like Peru, Indonesia and Panama have also lent support to copper prices.
For the top stories in metals and other news, click
TOP/MTL or MET/L DATA/EVENTS (GMT)
1500 EU Consumer Confid. Flash Feb
(Reporting by Mai Nguyen in Hanoi; Editing by Subhranshu Sahu)
((mai.nguyen@thomsonreuters.com; Reuters Messaging: mai.nguyen.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))
The views and opinions expressed herein are the views and opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Nasdaq, Inc.
[ad_2]
Source link
