Juros futuros recuam pela 3ª sessão consecutiva com expectativa de acordo de paz no Oriente Médio – Money Times
A curva de juros futuros brasileira recuou, nos vencimentos de curto e médio prazos, pela terceira sessão consecutiva, com o mercado dando continuidade ao processo de retirada de prêmios da curva brasileira em meio à expectativa de que EUA e Irã possam encerrar a guerra em breve.
As taxa de Depósito Interfinanceiro (DI) para janeiro de 2027, de curtíssimo prazo, fechou a 14,035% ante 14,105% do ajuste anterior.
Já a taxa de DI para janeiro de 2029, de médio prazo, terminou a sessão a 13,675% ante 13,725% do fechamento anterior.
Já DI para janeiro de 2036, de longo prazo, encerrou o dia a 13,870% ante 13,855% do fechamento de da última terça-feira (31), com avanço de 0,15 ponto percenual.
Nos Estados Unidos, os rendimentos (yields) dos títulos do Tesouro norte-americano, os Treasuries, fecharam em alta.
O yield do Treasury de dois anos – mais sensível a política monetária – fechou em queda, a 3,805% ante 3,799% do ajuste anterior. Já o retorno do título de dez anos – referência global para decisões de investimento – subiu a 4,321% ante 4,311% da última terça-feira.
Combustíveis e Selic
Os investidores continuaram a manter os efeitos da guerra sobre a inflação brasileira, em função da disparada do petróleo, no radar.
Pressionada pelo cenário internacional, a Petrobras elevou o preço médio de venda do querosene de aviação (QAV) em cerca de 55% para as distribuidoras em abril. Os ajustes do QAV ocorrem todo início de mês, conforme previsto em contratos.
Em comunicado durante a tarde, a Petrobras informou que permitirá que as distribuidoras parcelem este aumento, em uma medida que também poderá ser adotada em maio e junho, para minimizar o impacto.
A disparada recente dos preços do petróleo, com impacto sobre o custo dos combustíveis no Brasil, vinha dando força à leitura de que o Banco Central não terá espaço para acelerar o ciclo de cortes da Selic no fim de abril.
Nesta quarta-feira, no entanto, a expectativa de um acordo para o fim da guerra fez o mercado elevar um pouco as apostas de corte de 50 pontos-base na próxima decisão do Comitê de Política Monetária (Copom), em abril.
Na B3, as opções de Copom precificavam na última terça-feira (31) –– na atualização mais recente, 37,50% de chance de o Copom cortar a Selic em 25 pontos-base, para 14,50% ao ano, mantém-se majoritária, com 48% de chance. Para manutenção dos juros a 14,75% a.a., a probabilidade de 15%.
Já probabilidade de redução de 50 pontos-base, para 14,25% a.a., era de 27%. Na atualização anterior, a chance era de 23%.
Antes da guerra, os percentuais eram de 77,50% para corte de 50 pontos-base em abril, 20,04% para redução de 25 pontos-base e zero para manutenção.
Conflito no Irã
No 32º dia de conflito no Oriente Médio, o mercado operou na expectativa de um acordo de paz entre os Estados Unidos e o Irã.
Pela manhã, o presidente Trump afirmou que o Irã pediu um cessar-fogo, em uma postagem no Truth Social. Mas o porta-voz do Ministério das Relações Exteriores do Irã e a Guarda Revolucionária do país negou as declarações.
Já no final da tarde, o presidente norte-americano disse que os EUA "sairão do Irã muito rapidamente" e poderão retornar para "ataques pontuais", se necessário, em entrevista por telefone à Reuters.
Trump fará uma atualização sobre a situação no Irã em um pronunciamento hoje às 22h (horário de Brasília), segundo a Casa Branca. Segundo a Bloomberg, ele deve reiterar o cronograma de 2 a 3 semanas para que as forças norte-americanas encerrem a guerra.
*Com informações de Reuters
Hover overTap highlighted text for details
Source Quality
Source classification (primary/secondary/tertiary), named vs anonymous, expert credentials, variety
Summary
The article uses a mix of tertiary sources (citing other media) and one named primary source (President Trump), but lacks direct expert commentary or multiple primary sources.
Specific Findings from the Article (4)
"*Com informações de Reuters"
The article cites Reuters as a source of information.
Tertiary source"Segundo a Bloomberg, ele deve reiterar o cronograma"
The article cites Bloomberg as a source for a claim.
Tertiary source"o presidente Trump afirmou que o Irã pediu um cessar-fogo"
The article directly quotes a statement from President Trump.
Primary source"o presidente norte-americano disse que os EUA "sairão do Irã muito rapidamente""
The article directly quotes a statement from President Trump in an interview.
Primary sourcePerspective Balance
Acknowledgment of multiple viewpoints, counterarguments, and balanced presentation
Summary
The article acknowledges conflicting perspectives on the ceasefire claim, presenting both the U.S. statement and the Iranian denial.
Specific Findings from the Article (1)
"o presidente Trump afirmou que o Irã pediu um cessar-fogo, em uma postagem no Truth Social. Mas o porta-voz do Ministério das Relações Exteriores do Irã e a Guarda Revolucionária do país negou as d..."
The article presents the U.S. claim and the Iranian denial, showing balance.
Balance indicatorContextual Depth
Background information, statistics, comprehensiveness of coverage
Summary
The article provides good contextual depth with specific financial data, historical market probabilities, and background on the conflict's timeline and impact.
Specific Findings from the Article (4)
"As taxa de Depósito Interfinanceiro (DI) para janeiro de 2027, de curtíssimo prazo, fechou a 14,035% ante 14,105%"
Provides specific financial data.
Statistic"Na B3, as opções de Copom precificavam na última terça-feira (31) –– na atualização mais recente, 37,50% de chance de o Copom cortar a Selic em 25 pontos-base"
Provides detailed market probability data.
Statistic"No 32º dia de conflito no Oriente Médio"
Provides temporal context for the conflict.
Background"Antes da guerra, os percentuais eram de 77,50% para corte de 50 pontos-base em abril"
Provides historical market context for comparison.
BackgroundLanguage Neutrality
Absence of loaded, sensationalist, or politically biased language
Summary
The language is consistently neutral, factual, and free from sensationalist or politically loaded terms.
Specific Findings from the Article (2)
"Juros futuros recuam pela 3ª sessão consecutiva"
Neutral, factual headline.
Neutral language"o mercado operou na expectativa de um acordo de paz"
Neutral reporting of market sentiment.
Neutral languageTransparency
Author attribution, dates, methodology disclosure, quote attribution
Summary
The article has clear author attribution, a date, and attributes quotes, but lacks explicit methodology disclosure.
Specific Findings from the Article (2)
"em entrevista por telefone à Reuters."
Attributes a quote to a source and the medium.
Quote attribution"segundo a Casa Branca."
Attributes information to a source.
Quote attributionLogical Coherence
Internal consistency of claims, absence of contradictions and unsupported causation
Summary
No logical inconsistencies, contradictions, or unsupported causal claims were detected in the article.
Logic Issues Detected
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 2
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P4"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 10
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P5"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 32
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P8"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 2
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P4"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 10
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P5"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 32
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P8"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 2
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P4"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 10
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P5"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 32
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P8"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 10
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P4 and P5"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 32
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P4 and P8"
-
Contradiction (high)
Conflicting values for 'the': 10 vs 32
"Heuristic: Values conflict between P5 and P8"
Core Claims & Their Sources
-
"Brazilian interest rate futures fell for the third consecutive session due to market expectations of a peace agreement in the Middle East."
Source: Market analysis/expectation presented as general fact. Unattributed
-
"President Trump stated that Iran requested a ceasefire, but Iranian officials denied the claim."
Source: Direct statements from President Trump and Iranian officials as reported. Primary
Logic Model Inspector
Inconsistencies FoundExtracted Propositions (12)
-
P1
"The DI rate for Jan 2027 closed at 14.035%."
Factual In contradiction -
P2
"The DI rate for Jan 2029 closed at 13.675%."
Factual In contradiction -
P3
"The DI rate for Jan 2036 closed at 13.870%."
Factual In contradiction -
P4
"The 2-year Treasury yield closed at 3.805%."
Factual In contradiction -
P5
"The 10-year Treasury yield closed at 4.321%."
Factual In contradiction -
P6
"Petrobras raised QAV prices by about 55% for April."
Factual -
P7
"Market probability for a 50bp Selic cut in April was 27%."
Factual -
P8
"The conflict in the Middle East is in its 32nd day."
Factual In contradiction -
P9
"Trump will give an update on Iran at 10 PM Brasília time."
Factual -
P10
"Expectation of a peace agreement causes caused Brazilian interest rate futures to fall."
Causal -
P11
"Recent surge in oil prices causes was strengthening the view that the Central Bank would not have room to accelerate Selic cuts."
Causal -
P12
"Expectation of a war-ending agreement causes made the market increase bets on a 50bp cut."
Causal
Claim Relationships Graph
Detected Contradictions (12)
View Formal Logic Representation
=== Propositions === P1 [factual]: The DI rate for Jan 2027 closed at 14.035%. P2 [factual]: The DI rate for Jan 2029 closed at 13.675%. P3 [factual]: The DI rate for Jan 2036 closed at 13.870%. P4 [factual]: The 2-year Treasury yield closed at 3.805%. P5 [factual]: The 10-year Treasury yield closed at 4.321%. P6 [factual]: Petrobras raised QAV prices by about 55% for April. P7 [factual]: Market probability for a 50bp Selic cut in April was 27%. P8 [factual]: The conflict in the Middle East is in its 32nd day. P9 [factual]: Trump will give an update on Iran at 10 PM Brasília time. P10 [causal]: Expectation of a peace agreement causes caused Brazilian interest rate futures to fall. P11 [causal]: Recent surge in oil prices causes was strengthening the view that the Central Bank would not have room to accelerate Selic cuts. P12 [causal]: Expectation of a war-ending agreement causes made the market increase bets on a 50bp cut. === Constraints === P1 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 2 P1 contradicts P5 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 10 P1 contradicts P8 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2027 vs 32 P2 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 2 P2 contradicts P5 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 10 P2 contradicts P8 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2029 vs 32 P3 contradicts P4 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 2 P3 contradicts P5 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 10 P3 contradicts P8 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2036 vs 32 P4 contradicts P5 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 10 P4 contradicts P8 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 2 vs 32 P5 contradicts P8 Note: Conflicting values for 'the': 10 vs 32 === Causal Graph === expectation of a peace agreement -> caused brazilian interest rate futures to fall recent surge in oil prices -> was strengthening the view that the central bank would not have room to accelerate selic cuts expectation of a warending agreement -> made the market increase bets on a 50bp cut === Detected Contradictions === UNSAT: P1 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P4 UNSAT: P1 AND P5 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P5 UNSAT: P1 AND P8 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P1 and P8 UNSAT: P2 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P4 UNSAT: P2 AND P5 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P5 UNSAT: P2 AND P8 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P2 and P8 UNSAT: P3 AND P4 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P4 UNSAT: P3 AND P5 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P5 UNSAT: P3 AND P8 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P3 and P8 UNSAT: P4 AND P5 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P4 and P5 UNSAT: P4 AND P8 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P4 and P8 UNSAT: P5 AND P8 Proof: Heuristic: Values conflict between P5 and P8