Car owners in the United Arab Emirates may see a decrease in fuel prices for the second consecutive month in August; however, the expected reduction is likely to be significantly more modest than suggested by recent fluctuations in global crude oil markets.
This forecast comes as the average price of Brent crude in July stood at around $87 per barrel, compared to $85 per barrel in June. Prices remain volatile due to ongoing tensions involving Iran, disruptions in regional shipping routes, and uncertainty surrounding the Strait of Hormuz.
According to Vijay Valechi, Chief Investment Officer at Century Financial, the decline in crude oil prices should affect retail fuel prices in the UAE, but not completely or immediately. He noted that some of the crude oil price reduction this month might carry over to gasoline prices next month, but low product inventories and inherent market inertia are likely to cause the drop at gas stations to be slower and smaller than implied by crude oil price swings, with the risk leaning towards renewed spikes rather than a smooth decline.
Valechi added that if crude oil prices stabilize around $79 per barrel in July versus approximately $82 in June, 'this mathematically indicates a second consecutive drop at gas stations,' with Special 95 potentially reaching about 3.13 dirhams per liter, and Super 98 around 3.24 dirhams per liter.
Fuel prices in the UAE steadily rose over three months, from April to June, due to the conflict with Iran. In July, prices fell after the US and Iran announced a ceasefire. Last month, Super 98 cost 3.40 dirhams per liter, Special 95 was 3.29, and E-Plus was 3.21. Diesel fuel was priced at 3.60.
Nevertheless, analysts warn that the geopolitical backdrop remains fragile and could quickly alter the trajectory of oil prices. Madhur Kakkar, founder and CEO of Elevate Financial Services, believes that markets are largely influenced by geopolitical events rather than traditional supply and demand fundamentals.
Kakkar stated that Brent enters August near $90 after sharp fluctuations, and this is how the market should be viewed, as it trades on headlines, not balance sheets. He expects Brent to average between low to mid-$90s in August, adding that any new escalation could push prices above $100 per barrel.
Market participants are also closely monitoring the reaction of major economies to oil price swings. Joshua Owen, CEO of Lunaro Financial Services, reported that traders are increasingly focusing on the threshold where higher energy costs begin to impact inflation and economic policy. He noted that since the start of the conflict, the US has softened its rhetoric and genuinely called for a ceasefire when Brent approached the $100 mark, while tensions resumed when the price neared the pre-conflict level of $70.
This dynamic suggests that oil may continue to trade in a wide range, creating uncertainty for fuel pricing models used in the region. Saxo Bank shares a similar view, forecasting continued volatility instead of sustained growth or decline. Hamza Dwaiq, Head of Trading (MENA) at Saxo Bank, stated that the market is balancing risks to oil supply against signs of gradual normalization of export flows.
For consumers in the UAE, this means that fuel prices in August are likely to remain sensitive to events in the Persian Gulf. While lower crude oil prices and expectations of reduced fuel costs support the argument for another drop at gas stations, analysts point out that supplies remain constrained, and geopolitical tension continues to add a risk premium to oil markets.
A global downturn in the technology sector has occurred, leading to the loss of billions in market capitalization. Investors are reassessing the industry's prospects amid economic instability and shifting expectations regarding artificial intelligence and corporate profits.
The fall in tech stocks on Tuesday was triggered by investor concerns over the sustainability of the AI spending boom, as well as worries about Chinese competition in chip manufacturing. Shares of South Korea's Samsung Electronics dropped by more than 12 percent, while Japanese memory chip maker Kioxia fell by 18 percent, and Taiwanese giant TSMC lost 3.0 percent.
The decline in semiconductor company stocks on Wall Street on Monday followed a report from the tech publication The Information that a state-backed Chinese company had begun producing deep ultraviolet (DUV) lithography machines. These systems are capable of etching minute circuits onto silicon to create microchips necessary for both AI and everyday electronics.
DUV technology is less advanced than extreme ultraviolet (EUV), which is mastered only by the Dutch firm ASML. Although the sale of ASML's EUV machines to China is banned by US trade restrictions aimed at maintaining American technological leadership, reports indicate that China is also in the early stages of its own EUV production.
According to Angela Hartmanntas of Proactive Investors, 'China's domestic achievements in lithography completely bypass Western supply chains, which hits equipment manufacturers the hardest.' Despite DUV chip etching being 'slower, having lower yield, and more expensive than EUV production,' it proved sufficient for near-frontier chips, raising concerns among politicians and investors who anticipated stricter limitations on China.
Hartmanntas also noted that the price decline reflects broader concerns about valuations in the tech sector. For instance, AI-related stocks have surged sharply, with SK hynix increasing by over 500 percent in the last 12 months.
However, this has raised doubts about when the massive funds invested in AI development and new data center construction will start generating profits. Hartmanntas stated that 'high expectations surrounding AI infrastructure spending made the sector's rally vulnerable to profit-taking amid changing macroeconomic conditions.' Experts warn that if the AI bubble bursts, the consequences could be more severe than anything Wall Street has ever seen. Analysts also point to the problem of circular financing, where large tech companies invest in AI startups, which then use those funds to purchase products and services from the large tech companies themselves.
About six months ago, major tech companies were engaged in share buybacks, signaling excess cash and boosting their stock prices. Now, they are taking out loans to finance their AI development, which is a significant reversal and could become painful with rising interest rates.
Steven Innes of SPI Asset Management wrote that 'the first phase of the AI boom was financed by cash, confidence, and some of the strongest balance sheets in American corporations.' However, he cautioned that 'AI development is entering a steeper part of the journey while the gap between capital expenditures and internal cash generation is narrowing.' Innes cited a Goldman Sachs report forecasting the issuance of debt obligations by large tech companies to grow from approximately $250 billion in 2026 to around $400 billion next year.
Previously, record profits from supply chain giants like TSMC fueled stock market growth as investors heavily bet on the expansion of the AI industry. However, in mid-July, TSMC announced a 77 percent year-over-year increase in net income, yet its shares fell the following day.
Results from companies such as SK hynix, Samsung Electronics, and the Japanese investment fund SoftBank Group are expected to be released this week and next. Dylan Wu of Pepperstone told Bloomberg News that 'the bar is simply extremely high' for tech earnings. She added that 'part of what we are seeing today is traders trimming positions ahead of results, rather than waiting to find out.'
});Jeep has launched a significant promotion on the Compass Sport, the entry-level version of the mid-size SUV, offering a discount of R$ 27 thousand. With this bonus, the vehicle's price drops from R$ 174,990 to R$ 147,990, positioning it below well-equipped compact SUVs like the Fiat Pulse Impetus.
This offer is valid until August 4th or while supplies last, limited to 100 units, whichever comes first. There are some important specifications: the discount applies only to the 2026/2026 model year, in solid Black Carbon color, and the vehicle must be sold without options, as other colors or accessories incur additional costs. Furthermore, the manufacturer's campaign includes a trade-in appraisal at 100% of the Fipe table value and zero interest on certain selected versions.
Under the hood, the Compass Sport uses the 1.3 turbo flex T270 engine, identical to those found in the Longitude and Série S versions. This engine generates consistent power and torque with both ethanol and gasoline: 176 hp of power and 27.5 kgfm of torque. The vehicle features a six-speed automatic transmission and front-wheel drive (4x2).
Despite being the most affordable configuration, the SUV has several standard features. Externally, it features full LED headlights and taillights with signature lighting and automatic activation, rain sensor, 18-inch alloy wheels with 225/55 tires, a black roof rack, and a spare tire. Internally, the version offers an 8.4-inch multimedia center with wireless connectivity for Android Auto and Apple CarPlay, a 7-inch TFT color instrument cluster, dual-zone automatic digital air conditioning, upholstered seats with height adjustment for the driver, and a 60/40 split rear seat. Other features include keyless entry, electric steering, Start/Stop system, and electronic parking brake.
In terms of safety, the Compass Sport is equipped with six airbags (including frontal, side, and curtain), as well as traction and stability control systems. It is important to note that the driver assistance package (ADAS) is not part of this version, being reserved for higher models.
For direct sales buyers, the prices are different. In July, Jeep announced that the Compass Sport costs R$ 139,690 for people with disabilities, taking advantage of IPI exemption and the brand bonus, and R$ 147,866 for CNPJ. The Sport version remains the only Compass configuration eligible for the PCD modality. Jeep also promotes other offers, listing the Renegade Altitude for R$ 124,990 and the Commander Longitude, a seven-seater model, for R$ 188,990. Consumers should check color availability and the final price at the dealership, as the promotional stock is limited and unit distribution varies according to the network.
Many companies only realize the problems associated with information technology downtime after systems cease to function. At that moment, the financial loss caused by interrupted transactions, slowed performance, employee and customer dissatisfaction due to waiting becomes evident.
A more complex risk forms even before an incident occurs. Systems begin to run slower, alerts are not adequately addressed, backups are taken for granted, and teams create temporary workarounds that subtly become part of daily business processes. Productivity declines long before an official incident is declared, so downtime should be viewed as an operational risk, not merely a technical inconvenience.
A study by Splunk estimates that unplanned downtime costs companies in the Global 2000 list $600 billion annually, with an average cost of $15,000 per minute. The same study points to broader negative consequences, including lost revenue, customer churn, regulatory risks, and an average stock price decrease of 3.4% following a downtime incident.
Although these figures pertain to large global enterprises, similar operational patterns are observed in small businesses that rely on system stability for trading, customer service, and decision-making.
In South Africa, where many small and medium-sized enterprises have small IT teams and critically depend on a limited number of systems for billing, customer service, and operations management, downtime can quickly turn into a problem with cash flow, servicing, and reputation.
Many organizations mistakenly view downtime only as a major failure, whereas a much more common issue is performance degradation that accumulates over time. Downtime does not necessarily need to lead to a complete system shutdown to damage a business. It often starts with reporting delays, unavailability of customer data, slowdowns in warehouse operations, or manual workarounds adopted by employees due to lack of alternatives.
Over time, these minor glitches become costly due to overtime, rework requirements, failure to meet service levels, billing delays, and diversion of management attention from growth tasks. For example, a two-hour slowdown of a warehouse system every morning may not qualify as downtime, but if it delays assembly, shipping, invoicing, and customer information updates, the business is already paying for downtime before the technical outage.
IT support based on a reactive principle often gives companies a neat record of problems instead of creating a more resilient operating environment. Tickets are closed, but root causes remain unresolved. When the same problems arise again, the organization does not eliminate the downtime; it merely learns to live with it.
Waiting for user reports of issues is not a support model; it is a delay. Infrastructure must be monitored before a failure occurs, and backups must be tested before the business needs them. Otherwise, the organization is simply hoping that basic functions will work.
An analysis by Uptime Institute for 2026 showed that 57% of respondents reported that their last major downtime cost more than $100,000, and one in five cost more than $1 million. The same analysis notes that failure to follow established procedures remains the main cause of human-factor related failures.
Many incidents are caused not by a single dramatic technical failure, but by complexity, weak processes, unclear role distribution, and issues that should have been identified earlier. The goal of managed IT is not to make impressive promises about eliminating all incidents, as no serious provider should claim to do so.
The essence lies in reducing the frequency, severity, and duration of problems by managing the environment before users feel them. This includes monitoring infrastructure health, verifying backup integrity, timely patching of endpoints, proper access management, alert analysis, documentation, and tracking recurring issues until the root cause is eliminated. None of this is glamorous, but this is where a significant part of business continuity is protected.
A 2026 Splunk study shows that downtime events are not caused by a single category of failure. It links 43% to network or IT environment issues, 32% to cybersecurity, and 24% to application or infrastructure failures. This underscores the need for businesses to have visibility across the entire environment, rather than limiting themselves to narrow reactions to recent problems.
Management does not need to be inside the IT function to hold it accountable. It only needs sufficient awareness to know whether risks are being managed before they turn into business failures. Leadership must understand whether IT finds problems proactively or waits for user reports. It is also important to know which systems pose the greatest operational risk, whether backups have been tested, and if recurring incidents are being resolved or just closed.
If IT spends most of its time recovering from the same things, the business has a resilience problem, not a support problem. Downtime concerns not only availability but also confidence. When systems are stable, teams work faster; when systems are unreliable, everything slows down, even if no one calls it downtime.
According to Frik van der Westhuizen, CEO of EQPlus, managed IT must prove its value before the business begins to feel frustration, through quiet discipline in monitoring, managing, and solving problems before small issues become expensive. Companies cannot prevent every incident, but they can choose whether they will discover problems early through disciplined management or late through a failure. This difference is where the true cost lies.
