BOBL TECHS: (U6) Approaching Resistance

• RES 4: 1.1645 Trendline resistance drawn from the Apr 17 high
• RES 3: 1.1576 50-day EMA 
• RES 2: 1.1496 20-day EMA
• RES 1: 1.1439 High Jun 23  
• PRICE: 1.1386 @ 06:20 BST Jun 29
• SUP 1: 1.1325 Low Jun 24
• SUP 2: 1.1299 2.000 proj of the Jan 27 - Feb 6 - 10 price swing
• SUP 3: 1.1210 Low May 29 ‘25
• SUP 4: 1.1111 50.0% retracement of the Feb 3 ‘25 - Jan 27 bull leg 

Short-term gains in EURUSD are considered corrective. A bear cycle remains in play highlighted by moving average studies that are in a bear-mode position. A key support at 1.1411, the Mar 13 / 16 low, has been breached. The break strengthens the bear theme and confirms a resumption of the medium-term downtrend. Sights are on 1.1299, the 2.00 projection of the Jan 27 - Feb 6 - 10 price swing. Firm resistance is 1.1496, the 20-day EMA.

• On current monetary policy he makes no explicit comments on Bank Rate but notes that "for the UK, at least, the current shock is not necessarily one that is big in terms of magnitude. Nonetheless, it is another challenge to the management of the UK economy in the aftermath of several challenges over the past few years."
• Pill's early speech has concentrated on the pros and cons of scenarios: "I think thinking about policy challenges in the form of scenarios has improved the quality of internal discussions within the Monetary Policy Committee."
• "This type of framework... allows us to accommodate and consider a greater variety of views than will be captured in a single model, and it's given a setting in which those can be articulated externally, and perhaps crucially, that framework has allowed us to consider different types of risk, not just risk that can be easily captured in the form of probabilities, but also risks that may have this more radical and uncertain character, and that's helped us think about policy... not as an optimal policy in the face of a relatively narrow, well-defined set of risks, but rather a robust policy that is able to perform well across a broader range of uncertainty in the uncertain and volatile world we face."
• On the cons: "By having the use of scenarios, I think we've tended to encourage members to focus on their own view, seeking to have their own scenario, which to some extent comes up the detriment to the detriment of the collective view of the committee, which ultimately drives the final decision. I think it's defined a space [where those] can take place in a structured way"
• "It's also true, I think, that the use of scenarios has tended to focus on a relatively narrow set of issues, so our recent communication of monetary policy has really focused pretty narrowly on how we're dealing with the consequences of events in the Gulf, but there are always other challenges out there, and I think that the challenge of making sure we have the breadth of opinion, the breadth of approach, where challenges emerging externally, when my point to El Nino is another form of challenge for commodity prices, and so forth, or challenges emerging domestically, be they fiscal or political, I think is also a risk, an issue around using scenarios adds to the dimensionality of the monetary policy problem."
• "I think there are some dangers that, if you have a scenario that is quite extreme, it is interpreted by policy makers as a sort of different world, a different story in this picture a second mode in the distribution of possible outcomes, where policy makers might decide to say, if we get into a difficult period where inflation is really rising, we will act aggressively in that world, but we will wait until we see it, and in the world we live in, where that risk is still there, it may encourage some prevarication in actually implementing that robust approach that can contain these upside risks."