Finance Desk

Published on
19/02/2026 – 17:39 GMT+1

The European Commission’s push to embed a so-called European preference in public procurement is triggering heavy lobbying from EU capitals and foreign partners, Euronews has learned.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The proposal, designed to counter Chinese and US competition, would see products made in Europe officially favoured in public contracts and support schemes. Critics have branded it protectionist, and several member states have sought to water down the definition of “made in Europe” to ensure access for like-minded countries.

According to EU officials, the Industrial Accelerator Act (IAA), which is set to define what made in Europe means, is likely to face another delay despite appearing on the Commission’s agenda for presentation on 26 February. The strategy was first delayed in November 2025.

A leaked draft of the IAA text seen by Euronews lists strategic sectors targeted for a European preference, including chemicals, automotive, AI and space. It also proposes EU-origin thresholds of 70% for EVs, 25% for aluminium and 30% for plastics used in windows and doors.

The draft has drawn intense pushback. Nordic and Baltic states warn that a strict made in Europe regime could deter investment and limit EU companies’ access to cutting-edge technologies from non-EU countries.

In a separate leak reported by Euronews last week, the Commission appeared to lean toward the German position: a European preference open to like-minded partners with reciprocal procurement commitments and those contributing to “the Union’s competitiveness, resilience and economic security objectives”.

Britain concerned about protectionism

The UK is among the partners wary of a protectionist turn, with British officials stressing that the EU and UK economies are highly intertwined.

“It’s not the moment to mess with what is already working,” one official told Euronews.

In particular, the EU remains the largest export market for British cars, while several European manufacturers produce vehicles in the UK, which in 2024 was the EU’s second-largest export destination after the US.

“Almost half of our trade is with the European Union. We trade almost as much with the EU as the whole of the rest of the world combined,” UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves said last week.

British sources also argue that London’s deep capital markets could help the EU secure investment to revive its industry – unless the bloc closes its market.

The Commission is weighing its next move, aiming to table a proposal ahead of March’s EU summit focused on competitiveness. But pressure is also mounting from within, with pushback from the Trade Directorate-General – traditionally a staunch defender of an open EU market.

Paris, a long-time champion of a made in Europe strategy, says the concept has gained sufficient traction in Brussels to become reality and that the debate has now shifted to its implementation.

EU industry chief Stéphane Séjourné, who is overseeing the file, said on Tuesday that the European preference “entails quite a change of Europe’s economic doctrine”.

“It is therefore no surprises that it takes time and efforts to get to a common and smart version,” he added.

Global Finance has named the 27th annual World’s Best Investment Banks in an exclusive report to be published in the April 2026 print and digital editions, as well as online at GFMag.com. 

Goldman Sachs has been chosen as the Best Investment Bank in the World for 2026.

This year, for the first time, Global Finance has chosen Sector Award Winners by Region where outstanding organizations deserved recognition

“The investment banking sector remains resilient with selective deal-making strength and advisory growth, even as it grapples with persistent macroeconomic headwinds, regulatory scrutiny, and evolving market conditions that are reshaping how firms compete and innovate,” said Joseph D. Giarraputo, founder and editorial director of Global Finance. “The 2026 World’s Best Investment Bank honorees are the organizations that best serve their clients by pairing trusted advice and global reach with innovation and disciplined execution, while setting the standard for excellence, resilience, and leadership across the global investment banking landscape.” 

Winners will be honored at Global Finance’s 2026 Investment Bank and Sustainable Finance Awards Ceremony on April 21st in London at Landing 42.

Global Finance editors, with input from industry experts, used a series of criteria to score and select winners, based on a proprietary algorithm. These criteria include: entries from banks, market share, number and size of deals, service and advice, structuring capabilities, distribution network, efforts to address market conditions, innovation, pricing, after-market performance of underwritings, and market reputation. Deals announced or completed in 2025 were considered.

For editorial information please contact: Andrea Fiano, editor, email: afiano@gfmag.com
###

About Global Finance

Global Finance, founded in 1987, has a circulation of 50,000 readers in 185 countries, territories and districts. Global Finance’s audience includes senior corporate and financial officers responsible for making investment and strategic decisions at multinational companies and financial institutions. Its website — GFMag.com — offers analysis and articles that are the legacy of 38 years of experience in international financial markets. Global Finance is headquartered in New York, with offices around the world. Global Finance regularly selects the top performers among banks and other providers of financial services. These awards have become a trusted standard of excellence for the global financial community.

Logo Use Rights 

To obtain rights to use the Global Finance Investment Bank Awards 2026 logo or any other Global Finance logos, please contact Chris Giarraputo at: chris@gfmag.com. The unauthorized use of Global Finance logos is strictly prohibited.

The United States spends more on its military than any other country. Military spending by the U.S. made up almost 40% of the total military spending worldwide in 2023, according to a report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). When adjusted to 2024 dollars, the U.S. spent $5.74 trillion on WWII alone. That’s more than WWI, Vietnam, Korean, or the post-9/11 Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

U.S. military spending is expected to increase by 10% over the next decade. Congress approved and signed the Department of Defense’s (DOD) new budget into law for fiscal year 2024, which included $841.4 billion in funding for the Air Force, Navy, Army, Marine Corps, National Guard, and more.

According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), military expenditures will reach $922 billion (in 2024 dollars) by 2038. Almost 70% of that increase will be for the operation and maintenance of military personnel. The DOD requested $850 billion for 2025 to spend on the military. That’s about 3% of the GDP and relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. The financial methods used to fund these expenditures will include increasing taxes and the national debt.

This level of military spending has national and global impacts and affects the economy.

Analyzing U.S. Military Spending from WWI to Post-9/11

Looking at military spending by war can show us how wars and defense spending affected the U.S. economy, factors that influenced military spending, and trends in defense spending over the years.

The total amount spent on each major U.S. war has been inflation-adjusted to 2024 dollars. All estimates are of the costs of military operations only and do not reflect the costs of veterans’ benefits, interest on war-related debt, or assistance to allies.

WWI (1917 – 1918): $466.91 Billion

The total cost of World War I was about $466.91 billion in 2024 dollars. When WWI began in 1914, the U.S. was in a recession. However, the economy began to recover and boom after European demand for U.S. goods increased during the war. 

This only intensified when the U.S. entered WWI in 1917, causing a massive increase in federal spending due to shifting the economy from peacetime to wartime production. Entering the war also created new manufacturing jobs and left more jobs open in the labor force, as many young men were drafted into the military. The government also funded the war by increasing taxes and selling Liberty bonds to Americans, who were later paid back the value of their bonds with interest. 

Funding WWI increased the U.S. national debt to over $25 billion by the war’s end. However, the U.S. emerged from WWI as an economic world power. Going into the 1920s, the national debt decreased, the government had a budget surplus, and stock market returns increased. The effect lasted until the economy crashed in 1929, the beginning of the Great Depression.

WWII (1941 – 1945): $5.74 Trillion

The U.S. spent nearly $6 trillion on World War II in 2024 dollars. In the peak year of spending, WWII expenditures made up 35.8% of the national GDP. Federal government spending on WWII was unprecedented.

The U.S. had one of the most significant periods of short-term economic growth between 1941 and 1945, largely fueled by government spending on WWII. The government-funded WWII mainly by increasing taxes and taking on debt. Government debt grew to more than $258 billion by the end of WWII. Tax rates also increased sharply, resulting in even families in poverty having to pay taxes. The average tax rate for top incomes rose up to 90% as well.

War-time production also boomed during this time, with over 36% of the estimated GDP solely dedicated to producing war goods. Over this short period, the U.S. produced 17 million rifles and pistols, over 80,000 tanks, 41 billion rounds of ammunition, 4 million artillery shells, 75,000 vessels, and about 300,000 planes, among other equipment and services needed for the war. However, with so many resources going into war production, it became harder for families to purchase household items like washing machines, irons, water heaters, and food that had to be rationed.   

When the U.S. entered WWII, it was reeling from the effects of the Great Depression, the most severe and prolonged recession in modern world history, from 1929 to 1941. Many attribute government spending on WWII to the end of the Great Depression. However, this broken window fallacy challenges the notion that going to war is good for a nation’s economy.

The theory also suggests that a boost to one part of the economy can cause losses in another part. While WWII reduced unemployment from the Great Depression as many were enlisted or worked in factories, the standard of living declined because of rationing and high taxes. Private sector jobs and production fell, along with overall consumption and investment.

Korean War (1950 – 1953): $476.69 Billion

The U.S. spent about $476.69 billion on the Korean War in 2024 dollars. While it was technically a civil war between the two opposing sides of the Korean peninsula, the U.S. and the United Nations joined in 1950 to support South Korea in a clash over democracy versus communism.

The U.S. funded the Korean War by implementing higher tax rates, contrasting funding by debt as in WWII. To do this, the government enacted the Revenue Act of 1950, increasing income tax rates to WWII levels. Individual and corporate taxes were raised again in 1951.

This was a financially turbulent time as the government had to implement price and wage controls to respond to the inflation created by additional government spending. Consumption and investment, two key factors contributing to the GDP, slowed down during this time and did not go back to pre-war levels.

Vietnam War (1962 – 1973): $1.03 Trillion

The U.S. spent about $1 trillion on the Vietnam war between 1962 to 1973. Military operations for the Vietnam War ramped up more slowly than WWII and the Korean War, with troop deployments starting in 1965. However, the U.S. had been providing aid and military training to South Vietnam since 1954 when Vietnam split into communist North Vietnam and the democratic South.

President John F. Kennedy expanded military aid in Vietnam as the conflict escalated between the North and the South, and President Lyndon B. Johnson continued that trend after Kennedy’s assassination. Escalating U.S. involvement in Vietnam was, in part, due to fears of the domino theory—the belief that if communism took over in Vietnam, it would spread through all of Southeast Asia.

The U.S. funded the war effort mainly by increasing taxes and advancing an expansive monetary policy that eventually led to high inflation in the mid-70s. Non-military spending was also very high during this time (unlike in previous wars, where military spending was significantly higher than non-military spending), largely due to President Johnson’s Great Society social programs, which included domestic policy initiatives such as work-study, Medicare, Medicaid, increased aid to public schools, and more.

Financing the war through increasing taxes and expansionary monetary policy left a lasting effect on the economy. It fueled inflation and caused the market to stagnate, which eventually turned into stubborn stagflation.

Afghanistan and Iraq Wars (2001 – 2021): $3.68 Trillion

The U.S. spent a total of $3.68 trillion in 2024 dollars on the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars over two decades. Military spending reached record levels under President George W. Bush, who launched the war in Afghanistan and the War on Terror in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks and the Iraq War in 2003.

The Afghanistan and Iraq Wars began in weak economic conditions owing to the recession from 2001 to 2002 after the Dotcom Bubble burst. Since this was the first time in U.S. history when taxes were cut during a war, both of these wars were completely funded by deficit spending. The government used an expansionary monetary policy that included low interest rates and fewer bank regulations to help stimulate the economy, but it was unsustainable in the long term for the U.S. government’s finances. The Federal Reserve Board increased interest rates again in 2006 and 2007 to help curb the housing bubble before the Great Recession in 2008. 

Military spending on operations in the Middle East peaked at nearly $964.4 billion in 2010, although it decreased in 2012 after the Budget Control Act of 2011, which was enacted in part to limit military spending to help bring down the growing national debt. However, annual caps on military spending were removed as of 2021. The Iraq War ended in 2011 under President Barack Obama, while the Afghanistan War ended in 2021 under President Joe Biden.

Key Drivers Behind U.S. Military Spending

Breakdown of U.S. Military Spending Components

Every year, the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) proposes a total budget and its specific allocations, which then go through Congress for approval. 

Military spending includes many different categories. The largest category is generally operation and maintenance, including military training and planning, maintenance of equipment, and a majority of the military healthcare system. In 2023, $318 billion was spent on military operation and maintenance.

The next biggest spending category is military personnel, which goes toward pay and retirement benefits for service members. About $184 billion was spent on military personnel in 2023. Other military spending categories include acquiring weapons and systems, research and development of weapons and equipment, and smaller categories such as building military facilities and family housing.

Influences on U.S. Military Expenditure

Military spending can be influenced by several factors, such as wars, international tensions, and government expenditures. For example, military spending dropped significantly during the 1990s after the end of the Cold War before increasing again in the 2000s because of the War on Terror and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

A shift in government priorities can affect military spending. After the Budget Control Act of 2011 was passed, military spending decreased, placing annual limits on defense spending—although these limits no longer exist.

Due to the U.S.’s involvement in other countries’ economic and political landscape, humanitarian aid and development in other countries can further affect future military spending decisions. 

Advancements in science and technology influence military spending, too. Developments in medical research, artificial intelligence, and new technologically advanced military systems affect defense spending. The Defense Appropriations Act for FY 2024 approved $21.43 billion in funding for science and technology, about $3.6 billion above the budget requested by the DOD. The bill also included more than $100 million over the requested amount for adopting artificial intelligence.

Economic Impact of U.S. Military Spending

The U.S. government has historically used a combination of methods to help fund wars including increasing taxes, pulling back on non-military spending, debt, and managing the money supply. All of these methods have affected the economy in various ways.

For example, WWII and the post-9/11 wars were largely funded by debt, whereas the Korean and Vietnam wars were financed by increasing taxes and inflation. One common thread between the wars, however, is that they increased pressure on inflation. Though inflation can be useful for reducing debt, the overall effects harm the economy and cause issues such as eroding purchasing power and reducing international competitiveness.

Military spending can also spur technological growth and innovation, creating demand and new jobs. However, some argue that defense spending on military research can divert talent away from other industries. High levels of military spending during WWII helped end unemployment and even increased income distribution. However, consumption and investment decreased because of resource redirection to the war effort. 

While military spending has had some positive effects over the years, the macroeconomic effects of military spending on major U.S. wars have been largely negative, according to an analysis by the Institute of Economics and Peace. War financing through debt, taxation, or inflation puts pressure on taxpayers, reduces private-sector consumption, and decreases investment.

U.S. Military Spending Relative to GDP

It’s important to note that while current U.S. military spending is higher than at any point of the Cold War (when adjusted for inflation), it is still low when considering defense spending as a percentage of the country’s GDP. The DOD has requested $850 billion in spending for 2025, which is about 3% of the GDP—that’s relatively low compared to other times in U.S. history. Looking at military spending in terms of GDP reveals that the U.S. economy has generally grown faster than military spending, so its share of the GDP has been lower. Military spending in the U.S. increased by 62% between 1980 and 2023, from $506 billion to $820 billion after adjusting for inflation. However, military spending still trails behind overall federal spending, which increased 175% over the same period.

The Bottom Line

The U.S. spends more on its military than any other country. The government has financed major wars by increasing taxes and debt and adjusting the money supply. Although military spending has reduced unemployment and has led to new developments in technology, the financing methods have increased inflationary pressures, causing negative long-term effects such as decreased purchasing power.

The larger macroeconomic consequences of large-scale military spending have included issues such as higher taxes, inflation, and larger government budget deficits.

Published on 18/02/2026 – 18:59 GMT+1•Updated
19:20

EU lawmakers have drafted a procedure to select the future host of the European Custom Authority, a new decentralised agency tasked with supporting and coordinating national customs administrations across the bloc.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The agency is expected to be set up in 2026 and operational in 2028. Many EU countries have put themselves forward as potential hosts for the new body, including Belgium, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Romania.

In a committee meeting in January, all the nine countries presented their candidacy, with Spain, France, Poland and The Netherlands receiving the majority of questions from EU lawmakers.

The need to establish a dedicated selection procedure arises from the fact that no predefined method exists for choosing the host country. As the location of an EU agency often becomes a politically sensitive contest among member states, the institutions have sought to design a detailed procedure aimed at ensuring the decision is as impartial and balanced as possible.

And with the business of customs management and trade surging in importance since US President Donald Trump imposed tariffs on countries worldwide, the debate over which country will host the future European Customs Authority has become particularly tense.

According to a draft procedure seen by Euronews, the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union will each independently select two preferred candidates. The two institutions will then meet in a joint session to reveal their selections. If at least one candidate appears on both shortlists, that overlapping candidate will be automatically declared the winner.

If there is no overlap, two or four candidates will move to three rounds of votes, all with different rules.

In the first round, a candidate who obtains a majority in both institutions will be elected immediately. But if no candidate achieves a majority in either body, additional scenarios will apply to determine who advances to the second round.

Specifically, if two candidates are tied with neither securing a majority, both will move forward to the second round. In a scenario with four candidates, the two receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, if there is a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, three candidates may advance to the second round instead.

In the second round, a joint vote of the two institutions will take place. A candidate must obtain a three-quarters majority to be elected; if no candidate reaches this threshold, the process will move to the third round.

If three candidates remain, the one receiving the fewest votes will be eliminated. However, in the event of a very close result between the second- and third-placed candidates, all three may proceed to the third round.

In the third and final round, the same joint voting procedure will apply, but the required threshold is lowered to a two-thirds majority. This vote may be repeated up to three times. And if no candidate secures the required majority after these attempts, the threshold will be reduced to a simple majority.

Published on
18/02/2026 – 17:27 GMT+1

Nexfibre, the UK full-fibre broadband venture backed by InfraVia, Liberty Global and Telefónica, is set to buy alternative network provider Netomnia.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

According to an announcement on Wednesday, the deal agreed values Netomnia’s parent company, Substantial Group, at £2bn (€2.3bn), and it is anticipated that it will attract around £3.5bn (€2.3bn) of international investment into the UK.

Shares of Liberty Global are trading over 10% higher following the announcement. As for the other two companies that make up Nexfibre, InfraVia is not publicly traded and Telefónica hasn’t seen much movement as it is down around 1% for the day.

The move consolidates two of the more credible independent fibre operators in the wholesale space and reinforces the market’s position as a top investment choice for long-term infrastructure at a difficult time for the alternative network provider sector.

Rising construction costs, overlapping rollout footprints and tighter credit conditions have squeezed smaller operators. However, Netomnia has built a meaningful full-fibre presence in mid-sized towns and cities beyond the major urban centres.

Folding it into Nexfibre gives the combined entity greater geographic reach and financial firepower.

Analysts have anticipated a shakeout among UK altnets for some time. This acquisition suggests that process is now firmly underway, with capital consolidating around platforms large enough to carry long-term build programmes to completion.

The deal remains subject to regulatory clearance.

Published on
17/02/2026 – 8:00 GMT+1

Four years after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the European Union is still importing Russian steel – and not everyone is happy about it.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Next week, MEPs and EU member states will begin negotiations on whether to ban Russian steel outright. What began as a sanctions debate has morphed into a high-stakes political fight.

Swedish lawmaker Karin Karlsbro is preparing to take on the EU council, which represents the member states, with Belgium, Italy, the Czech Republic and Denmark all arguing that they still need imports of unfinished steel for major construction projects.

“It is a big provocation that we haven’t done everything possible to limit Putin’s war chest,” Karlsbro told Euronews. “The Russian steel industry is a backbone of Russian war, it is the Russian war machinery.”

Finished Russian steel was banned in 2022, but semi-finished steel, a key input for further processing, was spared after a number of countries secured an exemption until 2028 to cushion the blow to their industries.

“Unfinished steel can’t be produced anywhere in the EU,” a European diplomat from one of those countries told Euronews, “while it is required for big infrastructures.”

Three million tonnes

Karlsbro says she was astonished to learn that EU imports of Russian steel amount to nearly 3 million tonnes a year, roughly equivalent to Sweden’s entire annual output and worth around €1.7 billion.

For her, the type of steel is beside the point.

“There is absolutely no argument that this is special steel or highly qualified steel with any essential quality. There is simply no additional reason to buy this steel,” she said.

To bypass the unanimity required for the adoption of EU sanctions by the member states, Karlsbro inserted a ban on Russian steel into a separate European Commission proposal aimed at shielding the bloc from global steel overcapacity, as US tariffs divert excess supply toward Europe.

The European Parliament’s trade committee approved the move on 27 January.

The procedural shift is crucial. Unlike sanctions, the trade file requires onlythe support ofa qualified majority of EU countries, potentially sidelining governments that might otherwise veto a full ban.

“The Parliament is playing politics on this,” an industry source familiar with the file told Euronews.

Another diplomat from a country dependent on Russian semi-finished steel said the ban was important for his government, which is why the 2028 deadline has been set – highlighting the dilemma the EU faces as it balances industrial needs with the need to confront the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The talks are beginning as the fourth anniversary of Russia’s invasion approaches, and the clock is ticking. By June, the EU must adopt the Commission’s plan to shield its market from a glut of global steel.

One diplomat insisted the two files – banning Russian steel and protecting the EU market from overcapacity – pursue “totally different goals”.

Still, the same diplomat acknowledged the ban could pass, as there are not enough member states pushing to maintain a phase-out only by 2028.

Published on 16/02/2026 – 18:22 GMT+1•Updated
18:32

Failing to recognise that it is now essential to advance the digital euro is harming Europe, German Vice-Chancellor and Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil told journalists on Monday, ahead of a meeting of euro area ministers in Brussels.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The digital euro, a legislative proposal currently being discussed among the European Union’s institutions, is currently blocked in the European Parliament, where MEPs working on the file are struggling to come to an agreement.

“All I can say is that anyone who, in this situation, has not understood that it is now essential to advance the digital euro as quickly as possible is not serving Europe, but harming it. And everyone responsible for making decisions must be aware of that,” Klingbeil told journalists.

Spanish centre-right MEP Fernando Navarrete of the the European People’s Party (EPP), who is leading the work on the file, is now proposing a new design for the digital euro, which would essentially reduce the scope of the tool as outlined by the European Commission.

The EPP is divided over the digital euro, with the German delegation actively in favour. If the Parliament cannot agree a position on the file, the legislation will not be able to move forward.

What is the digital Euro?

The digital euro would be an electronic form of cash issued by the ECB, and would serve as an additional form of payment supplementing the cash and cards issued by commercial banks.

“We want to move the digital euro forward because it is important for the sovereignty of our continent, but cash will, of course, remain”, the vice-chancellor clarified.

Unlike everyday card payments, where payments are “private”, the digital euro would allow citizens a direct use of digital “public” money, now mainly available in the form of cash.

Under the European Commission’s proposal, the digital euro would include a digital wallet that could be used both online and offline, with payments not trackable.

An alternative to Visa and Mastercard

The digital euro proposal has surged in importance thanks to economic tensions between the EU and the US, offering as it does an alternative to Visa and Mastercard, the two US-based payment systems used in everyday life by most Europeans.

“Today, when a European customer makes a card payment, it is most often executed by a US firm”, Peter Norwood, senior research and advocacy from the NGO Finance Watch told Euronews.

In Europe, Mastercard and Visa account for 61% of card payments and nearly 100% of cross-border ones, according to data from the European Central Bank data from 2025.

“That gives foreign actors meaningful leverage over the day-to-day functioning of the European economy. A properly designed digital euro, with both online and offline functionality, would give Europeans a publicly backed digital payment option. One that keeps costs down, protects privacy and ensures European control over critical payments infrastructure”, Norwood added.

However, in Navarrete’s proposal, the digital euro would not be an alternative means of payment to Visa and Mastercard.

The European Parliament is expected to vote on the digital euro in May. If the legislation passes, there will begin negotiations between the European Commission, European Parliament and the Council of the EU.

Several Big Tech companies have reported earnings in recent weeks and provided estimates for their spending in 2026, along with leading analysts’ projections.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The data point that seems to have caught Wall Street’s attention the most is the estimated capital expenditure (CapEx) for this year, which collectively represents an investment of over $700bn (€590bn) in AI infrastructure.

That is more than the entire nominal GDP of Sweden for 2025, one of Europe’s largest economies, as per IMF estimates.

Global chip sales are also projected to reach $1tn (€842bn) for the first time this year, according to the US Semiconductor Industry Association.

In addition, major banks and consulting firms, such as JPMorgan Chase and McKinsey, project that total AI CapEx will surpass $5tn (€4.2tn) by 2030, driven by “astronomical demand” for compute.

CapEx refers to funds a company spends to build, improve or maintain long-term assets like property, equipment and technology. These investments are meant to boost the firm’s capacity and efficiency over several years.

The expenditure is also not fully deducted in the same year. CapEx costs are capitalised on the balance sheet and gradually expensed through depreciation, representing a key indicator of how a company is investing in its future growth and operational strength.

The leap this year confirms a definitive pivot that began in 2025, when Big Tech is estimated to have spent around $400bn (€337bn) on AI CapEx.

As Nvidia founder and CEO Jensen Huang has repeatedly stated, including at the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, we are witnessing “the largest infrastructure build-out in human history”.

Hyperscalers bet the house

At the top of the spending hierarchy for 2026 sits Amazon, which alone is guiding to invest a mammoth $200bn (€170bn).

To put the number into perspective, the company’s individual AI CapEx guidance for this year surpasses the combined nominal GDP of the three Baltic countries in 2025, according to IMF projections.

Alphabet, Google’s parent company, follows with $185bn (€155bn), while Microsoft and Meta are set to deploy $145bn (€122bn) and $135bn (€113bn) respectively.

Oracle also raised its 2026 CapEx to $50bn (€42.1bn), nearly $15bn (€12.6bn) above earlier estimates.

Additionally, Tesla projects double the spending with almost $20bn (€16.8bn), primarily to scale its robotaxi fleet and advance the development of the Optimus humanoid robot.

Another of Elon Musk’s companies, xAI, will also spend at least $30bn (€25.2bn) in 2026.

A new $20bn (€16.8bn) data centre named MACROHARDRR will be built in Mississippi, which Governor Tate Reeves stated is “the largest private sector investment in the state’s history”.

xAI will also expand the so-called Colossus, a cluster of data centres in Tennessee that has been described by Musk as the world’s largest AI supercomputer.

Furthermore, the company was acquired by SpaceX in an all-stock transaction at the start of this month.

The merger valued SpaceX at $1tn (€842bn) and xAI at $250bn (€210bn), creating an entity worth $1.25tn (€1.05tn), reputedly the largest private company by valuation in history.

There are also reports that SpaceX intends to IPO sometime this year, with Morgan Stanley allegedly in talks to manage the offering that now includes exposure to xAI.

Elon Musk stated that the goal is to build an “integrated innovation engine” combining AI, rockets and satellite internet, with long-term plans that include space-based data centres powered by solar energy.

Conversely, Apple continues to lag in spending with “only” a projected $13bn (€10.9bn).

However, the company announced a multi-year partnership with Google last month to integrate Gemini AI models into the next generation of Apple Intelligence.

Specifically, the collaboration will focus on overhauling Siri and enhancing on-device AI features. Therefore, one could say that Apple is outsourcing a lot of the investment it needs to be competitive on AI development.

As for Nvidia, it will report earnings and release projections on 25 February.

The company is primarily in the business of selling AI chips, and is expected to get the lion’s share of the Big Tech’s spending. Particularly, for the build-out of data centres.

In last August’s earnings call, CEO Jensen Huang estimated a cost per gigawatt of data centre capacity between $50bn (€42.1bn) and $60bn (€50.5bn), with about $35bn (€29.5bn) of each investment going towards Nvidia hardware.

The great capital rotation

Wall Street has had mixed feelings about the enormous spending Big Tech companies have planned for 2026.

On the one hand, investors understand the necessity and urgency of developing a competitive edge in the artificial intelligence age.

On the other, the sheer scale of the spending has also spooked some shareholders. The market’s tolerance hinges on demonstrable ROI from this year onwards, as the investments are also increasingly financed with massive debt raises.

Morgan Stanley estimates that hyperscalers will borrow around $400bn (€337bn) in 2026, more than double the $165bn (€139bn) that was loaned out in 2025.

This surge could push the total issuance of high-grade US corporate bonds to a record $2.25tn (€1.9tn) this year.

Currently, projected AI revenue for 2026 is nowhere near matching the spending, and there are valid concerns. For instance, the possibility of hardware rapidly depreciating due to innovation, and other high operational costs such as energy usage.

It can be confidently stated that the numbers have a heavy reliance on future success.

As Google CEO Sundar Pichai acknowledged this month, there are “elements of irrationality in the current spending pace”.

Back in November, Alex Haissl, an analyst at Rothschild & Co, became a dissenting voice as he downgraded ratings for Amazon and Microsoft.

In a note to clients, the analyst wrote “investors are valuing Amazon and Microsoft’s CapEx plans as if cloud-1.0 economics still applied”, referring to the low-cost structure of cloud-based services that allowed Big Tech firms to scale in the last two decades.

However, the analyst added “there are a few problems that suggest the AI boom likely won’t play out in the same way, and it is probably far more costly than investors realise”.

This view is also shared by Michael Burry, who is best known for being among the first investors to predict and profit from the subprime mortgage crisis in 2008. Burry has argued that the current AI boom is a potential bubble pointing to unsustainable CapEx.

Big Tech’s AI race is funded by a tremendous amount of leverage. Whether this strategy will pay off, and which companies will be the winners and the losers, only time will tell.

At the moment, Nvidia certainly seems to be a great beneficiary. Moreover, Apple has a distinct approach by increasing third party reliance, through a partnership with Google, instead of massively scaling their spending. It is a different trade-off.

Europe’s industrial deficit

Amid all this spending, urgent questions have also been raised about Europe’s ability to compete in a race that has become a battle of balance sheets.

For the European Union, the transatlantic contrast is sobering. While American firms are mobilising nearly €600bn in a single year, the EU’s coordinated efforts do not even match the financial firepower of the lowest spender among the US tech titans.

Brussels has attempted to rally with the AI Factories initiative, and the AI Continent Action Plan launched last April, which aim to mobilise public-private investments.

However, the numbers tell a stark story. Total European spending on sovereign cloud data infrastructure is forecast to reach just €10.6bn in 2026.

While this is a respectable 83% increase year-on-year, it remains a rounding error compared to the US AI build-out.

Last year, at the time when the initiatives mentioned were being discussed, the CEO of the French unicorn Mistral AI, Arthur Mensch, stated that “US companies are building the equivalent of a new Apollo program every year”.

Mensch also added that “Europe is building excellent regulation with the AI Act, but you cannot regulate your way to computing supremacy”.

Mistral represents one of the only flickers of European resistance in the AI race. The French company is employing the same strategy as most of Big Tech and aggressively expanding its physical footprint.

In September 2025, Mistral AI raised a €1.7bn Series C at a valuation of almost €12bn, with the Dutch semiconductor giant ASML leading the round by singly investing €1.3bn.

During the World Economic Forum in Davos last month, Mistral’s CEO confirmed a €1bn CapEx plan for 2026.

Just last week, the company also announced a major €1.2bn investment to build a data centre in Borlänge, Sweden.

In a partnership with the Swedish operator, EcoDataCenter, the facility will be designed to offer “sovereign compute” compliant with the EU’s strict data standards, and leveraging Sweden’s abundant green energy.

Set to open in 2027, this data centre will provide the high-performance computing required to train and deploy Mistral’s next-generation AI models.

This is an important move for the company, as it is the first infrastructure project outside France, and it is also a core venture for European data sovereignty.

Meanwhile, US tech titans are attempting to placate European regulators by offering “sovereign-light” solutions. Several Big Tech projects have been rolled out for “localised cloud zones”, for example in Germany and Portugal, promising data residency.

However, critics argue these remain technically dependent on US parent companies, leaving the European industry vulnerable to the whims of the American economy and foreign policy.

As 2026 unfolds, the stakes are clear. The US is betting the house, and its credit rating, on AI dominance.

Europe, cautious and capital-constrained, is hoping that targeted investments and regulation will be enough to carve out a sovereign niche in a world increasingly run on American technology.

With the Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 in full swing, attention extends beyond the competition itself to a practical question: what is an Olympic medal actually worth?

The answer depends on how you define “worth.” There’s the literal value of the metal, the tax implications that could follow, and then the much bigger value that comes from status, visibility, and opportunity.

Are Olympic Gold Medals Actually Solid Gold?

Despite the name, Olympic gold medals are not solid gold. Even though the tradition of a solid gold medal was established in 1904, forging the medals 100% out of gold didn’t last long, as it became too costly after World War I. As a result, the top medal hasn’t been made of solid gold since the 1912 Olympic games.

Today, gold medals are primarily made of silver, with a relatively thin coating of pure gold on the surface. The exact specifications vary slightly, but the general formula has remained consistent. A modern Olympic gold medal typically contains 523 grams of sterling silver, with approximately six grams of gold plated on top. This allows it to look like gold and feel substantial, while also carrying enormous symbolic weight.

Silver medals are indeed solid, made of 525 grams of sterling silver. Bronze medals meanwhile contain no precious metals at all, typically containing 90 percent copper and other alloys, such as tin and zinc.

As a result, the true value of each medal comes more from the prestige of being a medalist and the opportunities it may offer than from the raw materials that comprise each medal.

What Gold, Silver, and Bronze Medals Are Worth at Today’s Metal Prices

Metal prices fluctuate constantly, so any estimate is a snapshot in time. Using current pricing, gold is trading around $5,000 per troy ounce, and silver around $80 per troy ounce. Six grams of gold works out to be worth about $965 at current prices, while the silver portion of a gold medal, about 523 grams, is worth about $1,345. Added together, the raw metal value of a gold medal currently lands around $2,310.

Silver medals, made of 525 grams of sterling silver, would be worth around $1,350, while bronze medals are worth far less from a materials standpoint. With copper currently priced at about $0.37 per ounce and a bronze medal comprising 495 grams of copper, the third-place medal would be worth less than $7 at today’s prices.

Do Olympic Athletes Have To Pay Taxes on Their Medals?

Fortunately for U.S. athletes, the tax picture has changed over time. In the past, medals and associated prize money were treated as taxable income, meaning athletes could owe federal taxes on both the cash bonuses and the fair market value of the medal itself.

That shifted in 2016, when Congress passed the United States Appreciation for Olympians and Paralympians Act of 2016. The legislation allows most U.S. Olympic and Paralympic athletes to exclude medal-related prize money from federal income taxes if their overall income falls below a certain threshold. The intent was to prevent athletes, many of whom train for years with limited financial support, from being hit with tax bills simply for winning.

Why Medals Are Worth Far More Than the Raw Materials

If medals were only worth their metal content, they’d be impressive keepsakes, but not life-changing ones. The real value comes from what the medal represents and what it unlocks.

An Olympic medal can raise an athlete’s profile overnight, leading to endorsements, sponsorships, and paid appearances that weren’t on the table before. The impact often lasts well beyond competition, opening doors to coaching, leadership roles, and media opportunities long after the Games are over.

Those opportunities don’t look the same for every medalist—or arrive all at once. For some athletes, especially gold medalists, the exposure of winning on the sport’s biggest stage can translate quickly into major endorsement deals. For others, the payoff is more gradual, showing up as smaller sponsorships, speaking fees, or a clearer path into post-competition careers built on recognition and trust.

Winning multiple medals can also amplify the effect, creating a sustained spotlight that brands and audiences tend to value more than a single podium finish.

While the metal in an Olympic medal may only be worth a modest sum, the visibility it brings can reshape an athlete’s earning potential in ways that far outlast the Games themselves—making its true value less about what it’s made of, and more about what it makes possible.

Published on
12/02/2026 – 14:57 GMT+1

European shares extended gains to new highs by early afternoon on Thursday, as strong corporate earnings from luxury and industrial groups fuelled a broad rally across the region’s equity markets.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

The pan-European STOXX 600 was up about 0.5% to 624.67 points by midday, holding near the all-time high level as investors digested a heavy slate of earnings updates.

Major benchmarks also hovered near record levels, with France’s CAC 40 up more than 1.4% on the day and London’s FTSE 100 trading around a record intraday high near 10,535 points.

Luxury stocks were among the biggest drivers of gains, with the sector rising about 1.5%.

Shares in Hermès climbed to a near one-month high after the French fashion house reported stronger-than-expected quarterly sales, backed by robust demand in the United States and Japan.

The results helped lift sentiment across the high-end consumer segment, which has faced concerns over slowing growth in China and more cautious spending among middle-income shoppers.

AI-adjacent industries jump

Industrial companies linked to artificial intelligence and data-centred demand were another key pillar of the rally.

French electrical equipment maker Legrand jumped about 5.8% after reporting strong demand tied to data-centre projects.

German engineering giant Siemens also rose sharply, climbing more than 6% after raising its full-year profit outlook, citing strong orders linked to AI-driven automation and digital infrastructure.

Analysts say the surge in AI-related industrial stocks reflects expectations that global spending on data centres, automation and electrification, will continue to accelerate as companies invest heavily in artificial intelligence capacity.

Stronger-than-expected corporate earnings updates were seen as the main catalyst for the rally.

Broader market sentiment was also supported by a robust US jobs report, which eased concerns about a slowdown in the world’s largest economy and reinforced expectations that growth will remain steady.

Published on
11/02/2026 – 17:52 GMT+1

Spotify stocks spiked 6% higher at market opening this Wednesday, later paring down some of its gains, after the company released its earnings report on Tuesday.

The popular music platform closed 2025 with a little over €2.2bn in net profits which represents a 94% increase, almost double what was achieved the year prior.

The positive result reinforced the historic turnaround the firm accomplished since 2024, when it became profitable on the year for the first time. Before then, Spotify operated at a loss for almost two decades after being founded in 2006.

Last year, the music streaming platform grew in users by 11% and in paying subscribers by 10%. Additionally, Spotify also cut costs and increased prices in several markets achieving a 33.1% profit margin, the highest in its history.

A substantial part of the success in 2025 occurred towards the end of the year, when the company hit a total of 751 million monthly active users (MAUs), after its biggest quarterly increase in activity.

For the first quarter of 2026, Spotify is projecting a continuation of this trajectory. The report points to around €4,5bn in revenue and 759 million MAUs.

The Swedish executive chairman and founder, Daniel Ek, who resigned from the CEO position last month, stated in the earnings call that Spotify has “built a platform for audio but increasingly to all other ways in which creators connect to the public”.

The new CEO, Alex Norström, also declared that “after a year of execution, 2026 will be the year of elevating ambition”.

Music industry and AI

The impact of Spotify’s growth in 2025 was also felt outside the company, in the music industry as a whole.

The firm paid out more than €11bn to artists last year which the earnings report states is “the largest annual payment to music creators by any platform in history”.

Moreover, the Swedish company stated that “we also helped artists generate over one billion dollars in ticket sales, connecting fans to live events”.

Going forward, one of Spotify’s biggest bets is on AI integration, as is the case for most tech companies.

The firm has accelerated the launch of tools such as a playlist generator based on prompts, and a personalised agentic DJ, which have already been used by millions of paying subscribers.

However, artificial intelligence is also presenting new problems for Spotify such as AI-generated music. In the earnings call, the co-CEO, Gustav Söderström, stated that “the issue isn’t new but it has scaled”.

Söderström added that the company is working closely with the music industry to allow artists and record labels to include disclaimers specifying the production methods.

Two competing visions for the EU’s economic future are set to collide on Thursday, when the bloc’s leaders gather for an informal retreat to discuss reviving the bloc’s competitiveness.

On one side stands France; on the other, a newly aligned Germany and Italy.

Paris made a last-minute move to join an informal pre-summit scheduled by Berlin and Rome ahead of the retreat on Thursday morning in an unusual bid to coordinate their positions before leaders convene.

The French intervention followed remarks on Tuesday from President Emmanuel Macron to several European media outlets, and amounts to an effort to assert Paris’ agenda in response to a document circulated in recent days by Germany and Italy that lays out a sharply different vision for the EU economy.

In doing so, the French president has flipped the script and introduced firmly on the table one of the most divisive matters for EU leaders: pooling debt to prop up the bloc.

The timing is no coincidence either.

Earlier this month, Mario Draghi, called on the EU to work as a true union and urged leaders to implement a “pragmatic” federalist approach to survive in a new, more brutal world.

The retreat in Alden Biesen, Belgium comes a year and a half after a landmark report by Draghi warned of a bleak outlook for Europe’s economy unless decisive steps were taken to boost competitiveness.

Since the report’s publication in 2024, the global geo-economic landscape has shifted dramatically, with the US and China’s aggressive agendas adding pressure on the EU’s 27 countries.

Macron is the most loyal to Draghi’s ambitions but also the weakest leader at home compared to Meloni and Merz.

Divisions expected on eurobonds

During the retreat, leaders will focus “on strengthening the Single Market, reducing barriers to growth and enhancing Europe’s strategic autonomy,” according to the agenda presented by the Cypriot EU presidency.

Draghi, along with another former Italian prime minister, Enrico Letta – who published his own landmark report on the Single Market the same year – will attend parts of the discussions.

Still, a senior EU official said the time for diagnosis was over, and that leaders now need to take “concrete measures” to move the EU’s economic agenda forward.

Reaching consensus, however, will be difficult. The EU’s Franco-German engine appears to be sputtering, with Paris now facing a fresh Berlin-Rome alliance. On 23 January, Germany and Italy agreed to coordinate their push to deregulate industry.

The first flashpoint is expected to be Macron’s call, made Tuesday, for issuing common EU debt – eurobonds – to finance the massive investments needed to lift competitiveness. Draghi’s report in 2024 put those needs at between €750 billion and €800 billion a year.

“We have three battles to fight: in security and defence, in green transition technologies, and in artificial intelligence and quantum technologies. In all of these areas, we invest far less than China and the United States,” Macron said, adding: “If the EU does nothing in the next three to five years, it will be swept out of these sectors.”

Berlin, however, has long resisted repeating the joint borrowing used to fund the €750 billion post-Covid recovery plan.

Instead, Germany and Italy are expected on Thursday to call for expanded venture-capital financing and stronger exit options for investors. The document circulated by Rome and Berlin suggests “the creation of a pan-European stock exchange, a pan European secondary market, and a review of capital requirements for lending without impeding financial stability”.

On eurobonds, Nordic countries have traditionally sided with Germany.

Still, the same senior EU official noted that “when the European Union needs to take those decisions, it has taken so,” adding that joint borrowing remains an option after the bloc again turned to it at the end of 2025 to support Ukraine. “There is no dream of European debt. There is European debt out in the markets and we’ve just increased by 90 billion last December.”

In a letter sent to leaders on Monday, Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen did not mention joint borrowing, doubling down on cutting excessive regulation and integrating the 27-nation single market.

In the run-up to a meeting with European industry leaders, she also appealed to establish the so-called 28th regime to harmonise rules for companies operating across Europe.

Germany’s strict conditions

France is also pressing for a long-standing priority: a European preference, or “Made in Europe,” policy that would favour EU-content products in public procurement.

“It’s defensive, but it’s essential, because we are facing unfair competitors who no longer respect the rules of the World Trade Organization,” Macron said on Tuesday.

While the idea has gained traction in EU capitals and at the European Commission, Nordic and Baltic countries as well as the Netherlands warned in a non-paper circulated ahead of the summit that the European preference “risks wiping out our simplification efforts, hindering companies’ access to world-leading technology, hampering exchange with other markets and pushing investments away from the EU.”

Germany, meanwhile circulated a document seen by Euronews in December as part of discussions among the 27 laying out strict conditions. Berlin wants the European preference to be time-limited, broadly defined, and applied only to a narrow list of products. It also favours a “Made with Europe” approach, open to countries with EU free-trade agreements and other “like-minded” partners.

Italy, the EU’s third-largest economy, has sided with Germany. Both countries say their priority is not only to support European businesses but also “to attract new business from outside the EU,” according to their document to other capitals.

Macron appeared to partially align with that view on Tuesday, saying the European preference should focus on limited sectors such as clean tech, chemicals, steel, automotive or defence. “Otherwise Europeans will be swept away,” he said.

Berlin and Rome want more deregulation

At the retreat, Berlin and Rome are also set to push a deregulatory agenda. As the European Commission rolled out several simplification packages in 2025, the two countries are calling “for further withdrawals and simplifications of EU initiatives across the board”.

They also propose an “emergency brake” allowing intervention if legislation raises “serious concerns regarding additional administrative burden both on enterprises and on national authorities”.

Last but not least, the Mercosur trade agreement looms large. During the retreat, the Commission plans to consult EU countries on its provisional implementation after a judicial review triggered by the European Parliament suspended ratification of the deal, signed with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay.

France remains firmly opposed to the Mercosur agreement, citing farmers’ fears of unfair competition from Latin American imports. But the deal nonetheless won backing from a majority of member states in January after Italy gave its support.

Berlin and Rome leave little room for doubt in their document: “We call for an ambitious EU trade policy taking full account of the potentials and needs of all economic sectors, including agriculture. The finalisation of the EU-Mercosur Agreement was an important step in that direction.”

By Euronews with AP

Published on
11/02/2026 – 9:18 GMT+1

Cardi B was part of Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl halftime show. But exactly what she did during that show turned into a perplexing question for two major prediction markets.

At least one Kalshi trader filed a complaint with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission over how the prediction market handled Sunday’s appearance by the Grammy-winning rapper. The result of a similar event contract on Polymarket also drew the ire of some users on that platform.

Prediction markets provide an opportunity to trade — or wager — on the results of future events. The markets are comprised of typically yes-or-no questions called event contracts, with the prices connected to what traders are willing to pay, which theoretically indicates the perceived probability of an event occurring.

The buy-in for each contract ranges from $0 to $1, reflecting a 0% to 100% chance of what traders think could happen.

More than $47.3mn (€39.69mn) was wagered on Kalshi’s market for: “Who will perform at the Big Game?” A Polymarket contract had more than $10mn (€8.39mn) in volume.

Cameo appearance

Cardi B joined singers Karol G and Young Miko and actors Jessica Alba and Pedro Pascal on a starry front porch during the halftime spectacle. She danced to the music, but it was unclear whether she was singing along during the show, which included performances by Ricky Martin and Lady Gaga.

Due to “ambiguity over whether or not Cardi B’s attendance at the 2026 Super Bowl halftime show constituted a qualifying ‘performance,’” Kalshi cited one of its rules in settling the market at the last price before trading was paused: $0.74 for No holders and $0.26 for Yes holders. The platform returned all the money to its users.

Polymarket’s contract was resolved as Cardi B had performed, but the Yes was disputed. A final decision on the contract is expected to be announced on Wednesday.

In the CFTC complaint — first reported by the Event Horizon newsletter and posted by Front Office Sports — the trader alleges that Kalshi violated the Commodity Exchange Act with how it resolved the Cardi B contract. The trader — a Yes holder — is seeking $3,700 (€3,104).

Spike in Super Bowl trading

The Super Bowl capped a big NFL season for prediction markets.

Kalshi reported a daily record high of more than $1bn (€839mn) in total trading volume on the day of the game, an increase of more than 2,700% compared to last year’s Super Bowl.

The season-long total for all Super Bowl winner futures was $828.6mn (€695.32mn) up more than 2,000% from last year.

The increased activity on Sunday caused some deposit issues. Kalshi co-founder Luana Lopes Lara posted on X on Monday that the “traffic spike was way bigger than our most optimistic forecasts”.

She said the platform had reimbursed processing fees on the affected deposits and added credits to users who experienced delays.

Robinhood Markets highlighted the strength of its prediction markets when it announced its financial results for the fourth quarter and full 2025 on Tuesday.

“I think we are just at the beginning of a prediction market super cycle that could drive trillions in annual volume over time,” CEO Vlad Tenev said during an earnings call.

“This year is going to be a big year. The Olympics are going on right now. The World Cup is coming in the summer.”

Published on 10/02/2026 – 17:37 GMT+1•Updated
17:51

The Vatican Bank has announced this Tuesday the launch of two equity indices, both in the US and in the eurozone, selecting stocks from firms that purportedly respect and adhere to Catholic tenets.

The initiative was set up in partnership with Morningstar and represents an abnormal association between the Vatican and the financial sector.

The Vatican Bank is officially known as the Institute for the Works of Religion (IOR) and these new indices are labelled as the Morningstar IOR US Catholic Principles and the Morningstar IOR Eurozone Catholic Principles.

Each of these indices holds 50 medium and large-cap companies, including Big Tech and major financial firms, that the Vatican Bank argues are “consistent with Catholic teachings on life issues, social responsibility and environmental protection”.

According to Morningstar, the fund’s top American holdings feature companies like Meta and Amazon, while its European counterpart includes firms such as ASML, Deutsche Telekom and SAP.

This partnership between the Vatican Bank and Morningstar comes after initiatives to rehabilitate the IOR’s image, which had been damaged over the years through various scandals involving fraudulent activities such as misappropriation of funds.

The late Pope Francis had already ratified a series of reforms to address those problems.

ESG outflows and Catholic-based investing

This move by the Vatican Bank also occurs during a period when ESG funds are experiencing substantial outflows.

However, the concept of Catholic-based investing is not new or unique. These new indices already face rivals in the sector.

For example, there is a US-based ETF named S&P 500 Catholic Values Index structured in a similar way and worth over $1bn (€840mn).

Additionally, a US-based family fund named Ave Maria Mutual Funds reported over $3.8bn (€3.2bn) in assets under management last year. This fund also claims to follow a Catholic-based investment strategy.

Forty-eight EU lawmakers added a passage in support of the digital euro in an annual report on the European Central Bank (ECB) that will be voted on Tuesday.

Although the document has no legislative effect, the vote on the amendment will publicly show where support for the digital euro stands.

The digital euro would be an electronic form of cash issued by the ECB, and would serve as an additional form of payment supplementing the cash and cards issued by commercial banks.

Unlike everyday card payments, where payments are “private”, the digital euro would allow citizens a direct use of digital “public” money, now mainly available in the form of cash.

Under the European Commission’s proposal, the digital euro would include a digital wallet that could be used both online and offline, with payments not trackable.

The digital euro proposal has surged in importance thanks to economic tensions between the EU and the US, offering as it does an alternative to Visa and Mastercard, the two US-based payment systems used in everyday life by most Europeans.

EU’s legislative politics

The proposal has already been backed by EU countries in the Council, leaving the Parliament as the last co-legislator to take a position on the file.

However, the Parliament is experiencing a political deadlock, with the MEPs working on the proposal having difficulty agreeing on a common vision for the digital euro’s design.

In particular, the leading rapporteur on the file, centre-right Spanish MEP Fernando Navarrete, is proposing to reduce the digital euro’s scope, for instance by designing it solely for offline use. In that scenario, the digital euro would not be an alternative means of payment to Visa and Mastercard.

While the centre-right European People’s Party will likely be divided over the proposal in the vote, many far-right parties have expressed sharp disagreement to the proposal. Last week, the Spanish far-right party Vox asked the European Commission to withdraw it altogether.

In the passage that will be voted on Tuesday seen by Euronews, signatories ask for support for “an online and offline digital euro” that “should contribute to safeguarding universal access to payments” and not rely on solely private and non-European providers.

The signatories describes the design and the scope of the digital euro as in the European Commission proposal: “a complement to cash and private banking services […] to strengthen European monetary sovereignty, reduce fragmentation in retail payments and support the integrity and resilience of the single market”.

Supporters of the amendment

The passage in the report, which supports the original proposal of the European Commission with a larger scope for the digital euro, was proposed by Italian MEP Pasquale Tridico of the Five Stars Movement, which currently sits in The Left group at the European Parliament.

“Today we are totally dependent on the big American players – Visa and Mastercard – and this makes the EU weak and dependent on Trump’s decisions,” Tridico told Euronews, adding that delays and boycotts by minorities at the European Parliament are “counterproductive”.

“If the American president woke up one day and decide to cut Europeans off from digital payment circuits, European citizens would no longer be able to make purchases using credit cards, which are by far the most widely used means of payment today.”

The amendment in support of the digital euro has attracted the support of MEPs from several political groups, including the centre-right European People’s Party, the Socialists and Democrats, Renew Europe, the Greens and The Left.

Brothers of Italy, the party of the Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni in the European Conservatives and Reformists group (ECR), will vote in favour of the amendment, according to a Parliament official who spoke to Euronews in condition of anonymity.

At the time of publication, no other MEPs from ECR, Patriots for Europe or Europe of Sovereign Nations have expressed support.