MONEY

Get the latest updates on stock markets, economic trends, business insights, personal finance tips, and more

Kinetic Treasury Arrives | Global Finance Magazine

New blockchain solutions are integrating corporate treasury and retail banking, and opening the transactions system to multiple issuers of tokenized deposits and stablecoins. But regulators worry these innovations could make the global system more fragile.

Tuesday, 2:14 PM GMT: Elena, the treasurer of a global logistics giant in Rotterdam, stares at a red alert on her dashboard. A supplier in Singapore demands an immediate $40 million settlement to release a shipment of semiconductors. The old banking system would tell her she’s out of luck; her euro liquidity is trapped in a T+1 settlement cycle and the foreign-exchange swap markets are too slow for an instant release.

But Elena’s treasury operations are kinetic. She hits “Execute.”

Four thousand miles away in Chicago, it is 8:14 AM: David, a retail banking client, is buying coffee. His phone buzzes with a silent notification: “Yield Generated: $4.20.”

He doesn’t know it, but in the last 18 seconds, J.P. Morgan’s Kinexys algorithm borrowed the digital title of his tokenized vacation home, which was sitting idle in his portfolio, then pledged it as collateral to mint $40 million in intraday stablecoins for Elena.

In less than a minute, the transaction is over.

Elena’s chips are released in Singapore.

The bank has managed its risk without touching its own balance sheet.

And David has paid for his morning coffee just by owning a house.

Two-tiered digital asset strategies, combining institutional/bank-led Tier 1 and retail/public chain Tier 2 transactions to merge corporate treasury and retail banking, are now a reality. Programmable money appears inevitable; the struggle is over who—banks or crypto-natives—will control this “kinetic” new world connecting retail assets with corporate liquidity.

“Our mandate for Kinexys by J.P. Morgan is to transform how information, money, and assets move around the world from an institutional perspective,” says Arif Khan, chief product officer for Kinexys Digital Payments. “Since inception, over US$3 trillion in transaction volume has been processed on the Kinexys platform, which processes on average more than US$5 billion daily in transaction volume.” Although Kinexys’s offerings are not aimed at retail clients, it enables banks to use retail assets as collateral for institutional clients.

Tony McLaughlin, a contributor to “The Regulated Liability Network,” a 2022 white paper and blueprint for bank-led digital money, left Citi last year after a two-decade career to found Ubyx, a stablecoin clearing system. He sees the November 2024 US elections as clarifying the route for banks to interact with public chains.

“This is because stablecoin regulation was more likely to pass, and stablecoins live on public chains,” he says. “It would be intolerable if only non-banks were able to offer stablecoins on public chains, so it would be necessary for banks to be able to enter the market.”

McLaughlin predicts the development of a “pluralistic market structure, just like we have in [credit] cards,” with “many issuers and many receivers” and a variety of issuers—including both banks and non-banks—offering tokenized deposits and a variety of stablecoins. The “great unlock,” he foresees, is building “a common acceptance network.” Corporate treasurers will utilize a mixture of tokenized deposits, stablecoins, and tokenized money market funds from different issuers.

Ubyx is working to get banks and fintechs to offer wallets for clients to receive stablecoins and tokenized deposits, ensuring transactions “are processed within the regulatory perimeter and go through KYC, AML, fraud, and sanctions checking,” McLaughlin says. The current situation, where “stablecoins are transacted across self-custodial wallets,” is less desirable, he says, since the supply of these unregulated wallets is “infinite” while the supply of regulated wallets is “essentially zero.”

McLaughlin blames regulators who have “placed a large ‘Keep Off the Grass’ sign on bank participation in public blockchain,” allowing the “vacuum” to be “filled by unregulated players.” Bank and fintech involvement will make these new transaction processes safer, he argues, and “dramatically increase the regulated nodes in these networks.” He draws a parallel to the evolution of streaming media; just as content piracy gave way to streaming TV and music from “reputable players,” so the transition to a more honest and reliable digital transactions system will come about on public blockchains.

“We believe that both private and public blockchain options will coexist moving forward,” says Khan. “Institutional firms that want to keep their money movements on a private permissioned network will still benefit from the 24/7, 365-day, programmable benefits that blockchain infrastructure provides.”

Arif Khan J.P. Morgan
Arif Khan, Chief Product Officer for Kinexys Digital Payments, J.P. Morgan

The Interoperability Imperative

While banks pitch kinetic treasury as a liquidity upgrade, regulators and wealth strategists warn it may introduce new fragility into the global transactions system. Without a public digital currency, Fabio Panetta, governor of the Bank of Italy, has warned, the payments market will be dominated by “closed-loop” private solutions, such as proprietary stablecoins or Big Tech platforms, that do not interoperate, fragmenting the monetary system and threatening the “singleness” of currencies.

J.P. Morgan’s Khan counters that interoperability between deposit tokens and other digital cash will be essential for scale and adoption.

“We are proactively working with other actors in the industry, such as DBS in Singapore, to develop a framework for interbank tokenized deposit transfers across multiple blockchains,” he says. “This would potentially allow the institutional client bases of each bank to pay each other, exchanging or redeeming their deposit tokens across either bank’s platform and across borders with real-time, around-the-clock availability.”

For example, a J.P. Morgan institutional client would be able to pay a DBS institutional client using JPM Coin on the Base public blockchain, which the recipient could exchange or redeem for equivalent value via DBS Token Services.

“This aims to uphold the singleness of money,” Khan argues, “where deposit tokens across banks and blockchains are fungible and represent the same value: a key principle that is imperative in an increasingly multi-chain, multi-issuer world.”

The Clearing House, which owns and operates core payments system infrastructure in the US, is currently discussing and analyzing stablecoins and tokenized deposits. President and CEO David Watson suggests that tokenized deposits could be a more significant development than stablecoins, especially for large multinational corporations and wholesale banking.

That’s because tokenized deposits are viewed as “truly a fiat instrument,” he argues, while a stablecoin is merely a “representation of an instrument.” This directly impacts the risk profile for corporate treasurers. “If you’re a multinational corporate treasurer,” Watson asks, “how much of the company’s balance sheet are you willing to hold in different stablecoins, with all that exposure, versus fiat money backed by the issuing government?”

The concerns about trust and risk that Watson highlights, directly inform initiatives like JPM Coin, which Khan notes was driven by clients seeking to make public blockchain payments using a trusted, familiar bank product. With Kinexys Digital Payments, treasurers can pre-define rules that automatically trigger payments, foreign exchange conversions, and liquidity movements in real time. Decisions are executed without manual intervention and are not subject to banking cut-off times.

BMW Group uses Kinexys Programmable Payments for fully pre-programmed euro-to-US-dollar FX transactions and corresponding fund movements. Since both the FX and payment settlement occur instantly on the same blockchain platform, the process operates 24/7 without human intervention or traditional settlement windows. This allows BMW to optimize global liquidity, reduce idle balances, and execute near-instant, multi-currency cross-border payments.

The traditional method for large multinational corporations to manage liquidity—relying on extensive multi-currency buffers and manual fund transfers—is inherently capital-inefficient and complex, Khan contends. Blockchain-based infrastructure, by contrast, offers a fundamental shift, enabling a new, more dynamic model that moves beyond the limitations of conventional settlement windows.

“We are going to see a new paradigm emerge,” McLaughlin predicts. “We are going to move from the age of bank accounts to the age of tokens, chains, and wallets.”

Source link

Delaying digital euro harms Europe, German vice-chancellor says

Published on Updated

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.

Source link

Analysis: Will Big Tech’s colossal AI spending crush Europe’s data sovereignty?

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.

Source link

What Is an Olympic Gold Medal Really Worth? What About Silver and Bronze?

Key Takeaways

  • Olympic gold medals aren’t solid gold, but they’re still worth thousands based on metal content alone.
  • Most U.S. Olympians no longer owe federal taxes on medal-related prize money, easing a long-standing financial burden.
  • The real value of a medal often comes after the podium, through exposure, endorsements, and career opportunities.

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.

Important

The exemption applies only to certain medal-related income and doesn’t extend to endorsement deals, appearance fees, or other earnings that often follow Olympic success.

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.

Good News for Olympians Starting in 2026

For the first time in history, every U.S. Olympic athlete is getting something they’ve never had before: guaranteed financial support just for making a team. Thanks to a $100 million gift from financier Ross Stevens, every U.S. Olympian and Paralympian competing in the Milan-Cortina Games will be eligible for $200,000 in future benefits, whether they medal or not, providing a long-term boost for careers that often pay little during competition.

Source link

Luxury and AI stocks drive European markets to record highs

Published on

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.

Source link

World’s Best Trade Finance Providers 2026

Digitalization, AI, and tokenization are the most visible changes, but sustainability and a new focus on market and segment specialization are now fundamental as well.

Trade finance is undergoing a deep, multi-faceted transformation, shifting from its historic reliance on paper and manual processes into a future dominated by digital ecosystems, AI, and new technological instruments. Defining the field today are rapid innovation, a concerted push for sustainability, and a strategic focus on connecting emerging markets to global supply chains.

The strongest near-term trend is digital transformation and automation, whereby institutions are going “digital to the core” to eradicate paper-heavy tasks and eliminate centuries-old bottlenecks.

Initiatives like DBS Bank’s DBS DigiDocs, which reduces document processing time, and UniCredit’s harmonization of core processes across 18 countries, underscore a global commitment to operational efficiency. Software providers like CGI, with its Trade360 SaaS platform, and Surecomp, with its trade finance-as-a-service (TFaaS) solution, are building core interoperable, cloud-based infrastructure that allows multiple banks to share investments and streamline back-office operations.

Building on digitization, AI integration is becoming central to competitive advantage. Banks like DBS are leveraging sophisticated AI intelligence layers to power real-time credit approval and complex internal processes, including data-driven account planning and generative AI systems for automating intricate operational tasks. Standard Chartered is piloting an AI engine for augmented document checking, focused on helping clients detect and fix discrepancies before submission, while Surecomp offers AI-powered text validation for bank guarantees and letters of credit. Innovations such as these are dramatically increasing operational speed and accuracy while mitigating risk.

In parallel, blockchain and tokenization are rewiring even the most traditional trade instruments, promising a future in which they are secure, digital, and self-executing. Citi’s pilot Citi Token Services for Trade aims to replace traditional bank guarantees and letters of credit, utilizing tokenized deposits held in a smart contract where the payment is programmable. Once verified trade data, such as a shipping confirmation, is fed into the system, the smart contract instantly triggers the release of funds, providing near-instant liquidity and eliminating long settlement delays associated with manual document verification.

Beyond Tech

The transformation of trade finance is not only technological. Sustainable finance, as a component of ESG strategies, is now a fundamental element of trade strategy. While the initial rapid momentum toward sustainable trade finance is encountering practical, geopolitical, and economic challenges, major institutions are maintaining significant, long-term commitments.

Societe Generale is aiming for €500 billion in sustainable trade finance by 2030, offering instruments such as green bank guarantees and sustainability-linked facilities. Standard Chartered has established a regularly updated Transition Finance Framework, which guides clients toward a low-carbon economic model and sets specific, tailored expectations for emerging markets—where sustainable finance is growing fastest—to ensure trade finance aligns with global climate and social objectives.

The future of trade finance is also likely to reflect a specialized focus on key markets and segments.

DBS supports small and midsized enterprises with solutions focused on supply chain resilience and financing access. Ecobank acts as a pan-African bridge, managing risk across 33 countries alongside its Structured Trade & Commodity Finance service while Alteia Fund facilitates Middle East-Sub-Saharan Africa trade. Banks are also leveraging specific regional corridors, including Santander (Europe-Latin America), Raiffeisen Bank International (Central and Eastern Europe), and DBS, which supports China +1 business strategies across Asia-Pacific.

While rapid, tech-driven evolution—accelerating from paper to digital, from manual processes to AI automation, and from traditional instruments to tokenized, programmable contracts—is the most dramatic facet of the transformation of trade finance, it is not the only one. By integrating sustainability and strengthening regional expertise, the industry is going beyond optimization to build a more efficient, inclusive, and globally connected future.

Methodology

Global Finance editors select the winners of the Trade Finance Awards and Supply Chain Finance Awards with input from industry analysts, corporate executives, and technology experts. The editors consider entries as well as independent research, including both objective and subjective factors. It is not necessary to enter to win, but the additional information in an entry can increase the chance of success. This year’s ratings, which cover eight regions and approximately 100 countries, territories, and districts, were based on performance from the fourth quarter of 2024 through the third quarter of 2025. Global Finance uses a proprietary algorithm that incorporates criteria such as knowledge of customer needs, financial strength and safety, strategic relationships, capital investment, and innovation. The algorithm incorporates these ratings into a single numeric score, with 100 equivalent to perfection. When more than one institution earns the same score, we favor local over global providers and those privately over government owned.

Meet The Winners

Global Winners
Africa
Asia-Pacific
Ban Reservas
Caribbean
Central & Eastern Europe
Latin America
Bank ABC Arab banking corporation company logo
Middle East
BNY logo is seen in a cell phone with a chart in the background.
North America
UniCredit
Western Europe

Source link

Best Trade Finance Bank In Asia-Pacific: DBS Bank

Global Finance is proud to announce the winners of the Best Trade Finance Banks for 2026.

This year’s recipients—Standard Bank, DBS, Banreservas, Raiffeisen Bank International, BBVA, Bank ABC, BNY Mellon, and UniCredit—distinguished themselves by leveraging innovative digital platforms, expanding global and regional connectivity, and developing specialized solutions to navigate increasingly complex trade environments. From supporting key economic corridors in Asia-Pacific to pioneering sustainable finance across Africa and the CEE, these institutions are setting the standard for efficiency, compliance, and client service in the global trade ecosystem.

Best Trade Finance Bank in Asia-Pacific

DBS has been recognized as the Best Trade Finance Bank in Asia Pacific for the fourth year in a row. This sustained success is attributed to the bank’s strategic support for clients as they manage the shift in production and sourcing throughout the APAC region.

DBS supports clients in shifting production and sourcing across APAC. Connecting regional buyers and suppliers through DBS’ trade corridor network, easing entry into new markets and enabling cross-border supplier financing to drive diversification and expand market reach.

In China, DBS is helping firms “outbound” to Southeast Asia while maintaining their RMB settlement. In ASEAN the focus is on “landing” services in Vietnam and Indonesia; supporting the EV/Electronics cluster.

In India, DBS supports the “Make in India” initiative and linking Indian SMEs to ASEAN buyers. DBS defines its “nearshoring hubs” as more than just geographic locations; they are integrated financial corridors designed to handle the “China +1” shift.

These hubs allow multinational corporations to replicate their established production capacity in new regions like Vietnam, India, and Indonesia while maintaining centralized control via Singapore or Hong Kong.

While production moves elsewhere, the regional treasury hubs often remain in these two cities.

table visualization

Source link

SpaceX IPO Would Set Record As First Trillion‑Dollar Offering As More Giants Line Up

Home News SpaceX IPO Would Set Record As First Trillion‑Dollar Offering As More Giants Line Up

OpenAI, Anthropic, and Databricks lead a new class of super-sized private companies eyeing public markets.

The US IPO market has never seen a trillion-dollar debut. That may soon change as a wave of mega-valued private companies considers tapping public markets, which are eager for fresh stock.

Behind the headlines about the potential Elon Musk IPO from the newly merged SpaceX and xAI is a class of potential mega-sized deals currently valued in the hundreds of billions, supported by a thriving ecosystem for funding big companies in private markets.

SpaceX’s private market valuation is estimated at $1.25 trillion, placing it ninth in the S&P 500. That’s just below Tesla’s $1.5 trillion valuation and ahead of Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway ($1.1 trillion) and Walmart ($1.05 trillion).

If Musk succeeds in taking SpaceX public this year, it will likely sell about 10% of its equity in the IPO, raising $125 billion. That figure would handily exceed Saudi Aramco’s IPO proceeds of $29.4 billion, the largest global IPO ever, and Alibaba’s IPO proceeds of $21.8 billion, still the largest ever in the US since its 2014 debut.

“There is no precedent for an IPO this large,” Morningstar passive strategies analyst Zachary Evens said in an email to Global Finance. “I am interested to see if index providers make exceptions for mega IPOs since they will instantly reshape the market.”

Nasdaq is considering a special “fast entry” rule that would allow a company to join its flagship index after its first 15 trading days, he said.

Meanwhile, OpenAI is currently valued at about $500 billion. That’s roughly double Alibaba’s $236 billion enterprise value, the current record holder for a US IPO, when it went public in 2014.

Anthropic, the company behind the Claude AI service, is valued at about $374 billion — also bigger than Alibaba — and business software specialist Databricks tips the scales at $134 billion.

These companies also dwarf the $81 billion valuation of Facebook at its 2012 IPO or the $75.5 billion market cap of Uber Technologies at its 2019 IPO.

To be sure, it’s possible that the sky-high valuations of these private companies could take a big hit amid uncertainty on Wall Street about whether unprecedented spending on AI will pay off. The window to take companies public slammed shut in April of last year after the launch of the US’s Liberation Day tariff regime. And it could do so again if the recent tech selloff driven by AI jitters continues.

While the companies are part of an ecosystem that developed and grew in the years following the Financial Crisis, they’ve never experienced a severe recession or a bubble burst, such as the dot-com meltdown of 2000-2001.

Still, after a sluggish IPO market in recent years and the dwindling number of listed companies due to take-private and other merger deals in the marketplace, brokers remain hungry for more public stock, said Mark Lehmann, vice chair of the commercial bank at Citizens Financial Group.

“There’s a whole host of people who will want exposure to these companies,” he said, including institutions, wealthy individuals, and retail investors.

Kaush Amin, managing director and head of private market investing at US Bank, said that valuations of some AI companies assume widespread use of their products within five to ten years. That’s much faster than the 70 years it took for the Industrial Revolution to diffuse across the U.K. and the 25 years it took for the internet to take hold across the economy.

Some pockets of the tech sector are very overvalued because the numbers may not reflect the infrastructure support AI needs and how long it may take to build and be adopted across the economy. There’s a need for capex funding, data centers, chip purchases, and power purchases. This all takes time and money.

Other than Nvidia or other large strategic players – maybe Softbank, for example – there aren’t many players out there that can write big enough checks, Amin said.

While the debate continues over how these and other unicorns will fare after going public, the private capital ecosystem continues to grow.

Morgan Stanley acquired EquityZen, a private markets brokerage, and folded the business into its investment portfolio for its wealthy clients. The deal will also enable the bank to help sell private stock earned as part of a client’s compensation package. Charles Schwab has similar plans with its acquisition of Forge Global.

David Shapiro, co-founder and CEO of OpenVC, which helped create the NYSE OPEN Venture Capital Unicorn Index, said investors are eager to secure stakes in companies before they go public – but they should be aware that fees may be much higher in some cases and that once an IPO debuts, it may fall flat.

“Sometimes, by the time these companies go public, all the juice has already been squeezed for investors,” said Shapiro. This is a reason to invest in companies before they go public — to realize bigger gains. The companies in the index alone add up to an addressable market of about $2 trillion or more, at last check. 

“People are hungry for these assets,” he said.

Source link

Best Trade Finance Bank In Latin America: BBVA

Global Finance is proud to announce the winners of the Best Trade Finance Banks for 2026.

This year’s recipients—Standard Bank, DBS, Banreservas, Raiffeisen Bank International, BBVA, Bank ABC, BNY Mellon, and UniCredit—distinguished themselves by leveraging innovative digital platforms, expanding global and regional connectivity, and developing specialized solutions to navigate increasingly complex trade environments. From supporting key economic corridors in Asia-Pacific to pioneering sustainable finance across Africa and the CEE, these institutions are setting the standard for efficiency, compliance, and client service in the global trade ecosystem.

Best Trade Finance Bank in Latin America

BBVA has consistently been recognized as the Best Trade Finance Bank in Latin America due to its comprehensive strategy, strong regional network, and commitment to digital innovation. BBVA’s strategic goal is to become a gateway to Latin America, focusing on SMEs by leveraging its connections between the region, Europe, and Asia. As the leading trade finance bank in this area, covering Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay, BBVA maintains local Trade Finance units in each country. The bank also employs structuring experts for implementation, client support, advice, and after-sales management, alongside a central execution office.

BBVA NY’s centralized trade finance team handles global transactions for Corporates and Financial Institutions throughout the Latin American (Latam) region. They provide a comprehensive range of trade finance products. These include traditional trade products such as international guarantees, letters of credit (e.g., UPAS), silent guarantees, import and export financing, and trade loans. They also offer Receivable/Supply Chain Finance, which covers factoring, reverse factoring, vendor factoring, and forfaiting.

Finally, their Structured & Syndicated Finance offerings encompass A/B Loans and other syndicated loans, as well as structured products like prepayment, borrowing base facilities, and inventory finance.

In recent years, BBVA has invested in enhancing the DIY traceability of its trade finance products in the Latam Region, which is further supported by digital advancements, such as the deployment of Pivot, a global BBVA platform divided into Pivot Net (a web channel and app) and Pivot Connect (direct channels including API, H2H, and Swift).

Both platforms are designed to offer consistent services to clients across all corresponding countries. The platform provides direct access to the digital interfaces for cash management, global trade finance, and Comext Online, and a substantial volume of transactions are executed through these channels.

table visualization

Source link

Spotify shares rise after record profits and spike in subscribers

Published on

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.

Source link

France set to clash with Germany and Italy as EU leaders seek economic boost

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.”

Source link

Bad Bunny’s Super Bowl show: Why is Cardi B upsetting traders?

By Euronews with AP

Published on

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.”

Source link

Vatican Bank launches ‘Catholic-based’ stock indices

Published on Updated

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.

Source link

European Parliament to ‘test’ support for digital euro

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.

Source link

French central bank governor quits and leaves Macron to pick successor

Published on

The French central bank governor handed in his resignation on Monday, which will take effect in June 2026.

This unexpected departure occurs roughly 18 months before his second term was scheduled to conclude in October 2027.

The move strategically shifts the responsibility of selecting his successor to the current President of France, Emmanuel Macron.

If Villeroy de Galhau had completed his full tenure, the appointment of the next head of the Bank of France would have fallen to the winner of the April 2027 presidential election, which current polling suggests could favour a far-right candidate.

While the French central bank governor cited personal reasons for his departure, specifically to lead the Fondation Apprentis d’Auteuil, a charity for vulnerable youth, the timing is perceived as a calculated effort to safeguard the institution’s future leadership.

In a press release, Villeroy de Galhau reassured that “a bit more than a year before the conclusion of my second term, it seems to me that I would have accomplished the core of my mission”.

In a separate letter to Bank of France employees, the governor also acknowledged that “this decision may come as a surprise”.

Resignation after stabilisation

Villeroy de Galhau may also have carefully chosen the right moment of stability in the present.

After a long and intense legislative deadlock in France, that saw the collapse of multiple governments, Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu successfully navigated the approval of the 2026 budget which was announced at the start of the month.

Throughout late 2025, France’s inability to pass a budget had rattled investors, pushing the risk premium on French debt to its highest levels in years.

By waiting until this budget was finalised, Villeroy de Galhau ensured his departure did not trigger fresh market panic or exacerbate the existing political crisis.

President Emmanuel Macron can now focus on appointing a successor who will likely align with his pro-European and centrist economic vision.

Source link

Asian markets rise after Takaichi election win, while US futures trend lower

Asian markets edged higher on Monday as Sanae Takaichi’s Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) convincingly won the elections in Japan, providing greater clarity to investors worldwide.

The Japanese stock index, Nikkei 225, rose around 4%. Hong Kong’s Hang Seng jumped 1.76%, Korea’s Kospi rose 4.10%, while China’s SSE Composite Index saw a 1.41% gain.

In Europe, markets were mixed, with the STOXX Europe 600 trading less than 0.1% higher by around midday CET. France’s CAC 40 and the UK’s FTSE 100 fell, while Germany’s DAX was 0.18% higher and Spain’s IBEX 35 saw a 0.44% lift.

All eyes are now on the New York session open, with US futures trending downwards.

As for precious metals, gold is also up around 0.72% — back above $5,000 — while silver is more than 2% higher, at just under $80 per ounce.

The yen strengthened on Monday after Takaichi’s election victory, reversing six consecutive days of losses.

The PM assured the “continuation of responsible and proactive fiscal policies” after the election, although it’s unclear whether she is pursuing a weaker yen policy, highlighting that there are both advantages and disadvantages to a slide in the currency’s value.

Japan’s perceived stability

The first female Prime Minister of Japan, Sanae Takaichi, has regained a substantial amount of support for the LDP, which it had lost in recent elections due to inflation and corruption.

Following her electoral victory, Takaichi announced plans to accelerate the implementation of her campaign pledge to suspend the sales tax on food for two years.

The consequent loss of government revenue from this initiative, paired with high debt, is partially what caused a rout in Japanese bonds last month.

Nevertheless, Japan’s Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama talked down concerns over the country’s debt and the recent currency weakness, which many investors believe could prompt a rise in interest rates.

Katayama suggested utilising foreign exchange reserves to fund national expenditures. Although possible, this approach can be challenging as those reserves are usually only used for currency interventions.

The Japanese Finance Minister also underlined the ongoing collaboration and strong communication between the government and the Bank of Japan.

This assurance, together with the political stability provided by the robust mandate given to Prime Minister Takaichi, seems to have mitigated the markets’ distress — at least for the time being.

US economic reports

This week, investors worldwide are also bracing for major economic data releases in the United States, including reports delayed by the recent partial government shutdown.

The focus will be on the January jobs report on Wednesday and the January consumer price index (CPI) which comes out on Friday.

The delayed payrolls report is expected to show modest gains of roughly 60,000 jobs while the CPI is estimated to show inflation cooling to 2.5%.

Together with the release of these reports, multiple Federal Reserve governors, including Christopher Waller and Stephen Miran, are scheduled to speak throughout the week.

Investors are paying particular attention to the language used by members of the Fed to gauge the new policy line, following the announcement of Jerome Powell’s successor, Kevin Warsh, as the next Federal Reserve Chair.

Warsh is set to take over in May 2026, pending Senate confirmation.

President Donald Trump picked Kevin Warsh as a figure whose public and private track record is likely to reassure the financial markets. Warsh has advocated lower rates and a reduction in the central bank’s balance sheet.

Source link

Mashreq: New Alliances and Emerging Trade Corridors

Global Finance speaks with Tarek El Nahas, Group Head of International Banking at Mashreq, at the bank’s Dubai head office on the impact of tariffs and the emergence of new trade corridors.

El Nahas outlines how shifting trade dynamics are driving new strategic alliances across emerging markets, and discusses the role Mashreq is playing in facilitating cross-border capital flows amid ongoing tariff-related uncertainty.

Source link

What Is an Olympic Gold Medal Worth? What About Silver and Bronze?

Key Takeaways

  • Olympic gold medals aren’t solid gold, but they’re still worth thousands based on metal content alone.
  • Most U.S. Olympians no longer owe federal taxes on medal-related prize money, easing a long-standing financial burden.
  • The real value of a medal often comes after the podium, through exposure, endorsements, and career opportunities.

As the upcoming Winter Olympic Games Milano Cortina 2026 approaches, attention naturally shifts to records, rivalries, and the prestige of making it to the podium. But after the celebrations end, a practical question always resurfaces: What are those medals actually worth?

The answer depends on how you define “worth.” There’s the literal value of the metal, the tax implications that 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 $4,900 per troy ounce, and silver around $85 per troy ounce. Six grams of gold works out to be worth about $945 at current prices, while the silver portion of a gold medal, about 523 grams, is worth about $1,430. Added together, the raw metal value of a gold medal currently lands around $2,375.

Silver medals, made of 525 grams of sterling silver, would be worth around $1,435, while bronze medals are worth far less from a materials standpoint. With copper currently priced at about $0.38 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.

Important

The exemption applies only to certain medal-related income and doesn’t extend to endorsement deals, appearance fees, or other earnings that often follow Olympic success.

Why Medals Are Worth Far More Than the Metal

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.

Good News for Olympians Starting in 2026

For the first time in history, every U.S. Olympic athlete is getting something they’ve never had before: guaranteed financial support just for making a team. Thanks to a $100 million gift from financier Ross Stevens, every U.S. Olympian and Paralympian competing in the Milan-Cortina Games will be eligible for $200,000 in future benefits, whether they medal or not, providing a long-term boost for careers that often pay little during competition.

Source link

The Road Ahead to Break Venezuela’s Petro-State Curse

The impact the Rodríguez administration could have on the Venezuelan oil industry, even under the new Hydrocarbons Law, would be unsustainable and limited in scope. Structural weakness surrounding the Delcy government and the National Assembly’s lack of legitimacy, commitment to the rule of law, and popular support will restrain the reach of her reforms. Nevertheless, the law will test the willingness of the private sector to run both upstream and downstream operations. These measures could deliver a limited economic boost, that despite American supervision, will be weaponized politically by window-dressing the regime’s legitimacy and stalling further political and economic reforms. It’s precisely this flawed political and legal foundation that undermines the sustainability of the economic gains that the new law could provide.

For Venezuela and PDVSA to reclaim relevance in the international oil market what is required are not incremental improvements but a comprehensive overhaul of the industry, the company, and the constitutional framework that ties them together. The reforms must prioritize transparency, accountability, and insulating the industry and PDVSA from political pressures under strong political coverage that provides long term stability. These measures are something an interim administration, independent of who is in charge, will be unable to provide. Only then would international companies and capitals commit to the long term projects needed.

Once the country finds its political footing under a popularly elected and legitimate government can longlasting and durable reform take place. At this point multiple options may surface. There could be a scenario where we see PDVSA take a back seat while the country creates a competitive fiscal system prioritizing royalty collections while up and downstream operations are run by private enterprises. Remaining PDVSA assets and JV operations would be divested gradually as production capacity is recovered in the hands of private enterprises. However, revitalizing PDVSA as a competitive oil company should remain as a national strategic objective. Venezuelans would greatly benefit from building a company able to compete in and outside of the Venezuelan market.

However, the only way to relaunch PDVSA as a relevant actor in the international market is by allowing it to enter the 21st century oil dynamics and embracing a partial privatization via a minority share offering in international equity markets. Beyond the much needed capital that would be raised in the initial and consequent secondary offerings, plus the potential to tap debt markets along the way, going public will create an additional moat and isolate the company some steps from further political interference. A publicly traded PDVSA would not only need to answer to the government but to energy analysts, independent shareholders, and international compliance and regulatory frameworks alike. It will be the pressure generated by the external scrutiny that will enable PDVSA to be scaled up back into international relevance. Given the precarious financial and operational standing of the holding, a partial privatization is not feasible on day one or two of a political transition and economic recovery phase. But it is a question that will become relevant once the objective becomes long sustainable growth.

PDVSA would need to cut all non-essential personnel and assets, streamlining its operations. Every dollar spent should be evaluated under a return-on-capital framework, making financial discipline central to strategic planning.

The privatization of PDVSA has been a taboo for Venezuelan society despite serious attempts in late 1990s to execute such an operation. However, the devastation that the industry suffered under chavista mismanagement provides a clean slate opportunity to relaunch PDVSA and the oil industry under a modern governance framework. For too long the Venezuelan oil industry has been treated as the cash cow of whoever seats in Miraflores. Historically, this led to the centralization of political and economic power which hindered the development of democratic institutions and left the nation at the will of the administration’s oil revenue distribution policy. Taking control of PDVSA not only meant controlling the oil industry but the state itself. Reforms should aim to break the petro-state monopoly over oil revenue and to make PDVSA part of a dynamic national industry where other participants are allowed to play.

There are multiple precedents to back this move. Lessons from the partial privatizations of Chinese SINOPEC and Norwegian Statoil from the early 2000s could be drawn to prove that these operations are possible under different political systems. A PDVSA offering would be exceptionally complex, but in order to even start considering it there are three basic fundamentals that need to align.

First, the move would need overwhelming support from civil society to sustain the necessary political will. While that looks like a concrete goal in María Corina Machado’s energy proposals, the possibility seems remote under an interim Delcy government that still needs to appease other factions within the ruling coalition. In addition, chavismo’s current leader has not adhered to international transparency standards following her 2020 appointment as acting Minister of Economy and Finance—a role that earned her the title of Venezuela’s economic vice president before taking control of the national oil industry. Her tenure overlapped with the loss of an estimated $21 billion in oil payments, a scandal that ultimately led to the arrest and scapegoating of former Oil Minister Tareck El Aissami.

Second, Petróleos de Venezuela needs a robust rule-of-law framework that can deliver credible guarantees to investors The current interim president is unlikely to provide such assurances, given the deep mistrust surrounding Venezuela’s public institutions—many of which she does not fully control. As Juan Guillermo Blanco points out, her posture may swing from alignment with Washington on this occasion to an anti-imperialist rupture if the circumstances allow it.

Shifting to global best practices

PDVSA cannot move forward without the goodwill of the market. Francisco Monaldi has repeatedly stated that the main risks of Venezuelan oil are above ground. Beyond the politics, sanctions, and the legal framework, PDVSA needs to get its house in order to regain market credibility. For starters, the holding needs to address its debt issue—estimated at $34.5b—through an agreement where debtholders walk away feeling it was a fair deal. Without serious debt restructuring, a share offering roadshow would be impossible.

The company must also cut all non-essential ventures, subsidies, and social project funding from the nucleus. From PDVAL supermarkets to F1 teams, PDVSA bankrolled it all during chavismo. Despite how bizarre the outflows party got, these types of splurges and subsidies have been ingrained in the Venezuelan mindset and will be hard to get rid of. Such measures would represent a comprehensive detachment from century-old beliefs in the magical powers of the Venezuelan petro-state.

Furthermore, PDVSA would need to cut all non-essential personnel and assets, streamlining its operations. Every dollar spent should be evaluated under a return-on-capital framework, making financial discipline central to strategic planning. In addition, investors and banking partners must be able to track every dollar. Auditable records are not only essential for building reliable financial projections but also necessary for protecting stakeholders from anticorruption liability. This underscores the need for a new framework of transparent, efficient contract allocation and fully auditable accounting trails, ensuring that financial statements can withstand market scrutiny and compliance verification.

Making an example out of Petróleos de Venezuela would help generate a spillover effect that could contribute to more transparency, financial discipline, and compliance across the domestic market.

Figures such as the “productive participation contracts” (CPPs) or joint ventures that currently dominate private investments in the industry are compatible with this model as PDVSA should seek alliances in cases where it makes financial sense to do so. However, the secrecy under which these ventures have been working on needs to end.

Finally, PDVSA will need to bring in an independent leadership team and board with enough protection to isolate operational and financial decision-making from politics. Venezuela would be represented in the board as the majority shareholder, but would be restrained from running the day-to-day business operations and resource allocation. Studies that examine initial offerings of National Oil Companies (NOC) suggest that a substantial amount of the efficiency gains are delivered before an IPO is launched, as the company restructures itself to be introduced into the public market. PDVSA has a long way to go before we can consider this scenario. Nevertheless, aiming toward partial privatization would provide a blueprint for rebuilding PDVSA as an operationally, financially, and commercially viable company.

A share offering should consider a dual listing that includes the Caracas Stock Exchange, which is also in need of an extreme makeover (that’s part of a different discussion, however). The overhaul needed is not only about getting barrels out of the ground, but about including the company in the wider economy and making it subject to the highest managerial and corporate governance standards. Making an example out of Petróleos de Venezuela would help generate a spillover effect that could contribute to more transparency, financial discipline, and compliance across the domestic market. Ultimately, this would constrain the government’s ability to overreach into the private sector.

Whichever path is chosen for the future of PDVSA and the Venezuelan oil industry, it should be preceded by an inclusive debate that considers implications beyond the industry itself and sets the country on a sustainable growth path. This debate must happen in public, in conditions of full political and economic freedom, free from coercion by either internal or external powers. It should be the opposite of what occurred prior to the swift approval of the new Hydrocarbons Law, when secrecy prevailed and the legislative body responsible for drafting the statute showed no significant deliberation.

The one-sided vote in the illegitimate 2025 National Assembly should not overshadow the legislature’s failure to comply with its own parliamentary rules during the bill’s passage, as purported opposition lawmakers reportedly received a copy of the draft only hours before the first debate. That episode underscores why the legal and constitutional reforms needed to break the petro-state and refound PDVSA can only follow the renewal of all institutions, including a truly multiparty, independent congress.

The end goal is simple, yet history-changing: to dismantle Miraflores’ total control and discretion over oil-industry revenues.

Source link

The Spirit of the Concessionary Model and the Future of Venezuelan Oil

Photograph by unknown author. “Trabajadores petroleros,” Fernando Irazábal Collection. Compiled by Archivo Fotografía Urbana.

On January 29, Venezuela experienced a legislative tectonic shift regarding the future of its hydrocarbon sector. The National Assembly approved a new petroleum law that effectively breaks with the post-1976 tradition of rigid state control, opening participation across the full value chain to private oil companies. 

This is not the first experiment with private participation since nationalization, but it is the clearest attempt since the 1990s Apertura to normalize it as the governing framework of the sector. The legislation, approved with striking speed and opacity, has elicited mixed reactions, ranging from denunciations of lost sovereignty and surrender to foreign interests to support for a first step that still requires major fixes. Despite these divergences, one thing is clear: the return of private companies to Venezuela’s oil sector inevitably revives parallels with the concessionary system under which the industry was born and flourished between 1914 and 1976, a mirror of what Venezuela’s energy sector could become in the twenty-first century.

The 1943 and 2026 hydrocarbons laws

The iconic 1943 bill enacted by President Isaías Medina Angarita (1941–1945) regulated Venezuela’s privately run oil industry until the 1976 nationalization. It became the institutional template of the concessionary era: a rules-and-taxes state overseeing a privately operated industry. Together with related legislation, it established the famous 50/50 profit-sharing arrangement with the state, later tightened by reforms. Yet within the 1943 framework, the rentier state largely confined itself to setting the rules and collecting taxes and rents, while private companies assumed the capital risks. There was no government monopoly over day-to-day operations.

In spirit, the 2026 law reintroduces comparable conditions for private capital. Petroleum companies can now either hold operational control in joint ventures with the state or carry out activities independently through government contracts. The 1943 and 2026 frameworks also embrace flexible royalty schemes that prioritize business viability over rigid tax burdens. Differences, of course, abound. To mention a few, the 2026 version concentrates discretionary power in the executive branch regarding royalties, opens the possibility of international arbitration outside the country, simplifies the tax burden into a 15% integrated hydrocarbons tax, and diminishes the National Assembly’s authority over oil business.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration.

Divergences aside, both pieces of legislation share the same underlying imperative: attracting capital and technology. The 1976 and 2001 hydrocarbons laws, by contrast, were designed precisely to limit private initiative. But investment alone will not do all the work. Human capital is also desperately needed to lead a reborn hydrocarbon sector, and here the concessions model offers valuable lessons.

The Venezolanization of the industry

An underappreciated dimension of that era was human capital development. Over decades, foreign firms trained Venezuelans across the corporate hierarchy—in technical, managerial, and executive roles—so that by the mid-1970s expatriates were a small fraction of the workforce and Venezuelans increasingly ran the day-to-day business. This created a pipeline of local talent able to inherit operational responsibility and manage the 1976 transition to state control with unusual continuity.

This history is not nostalgia for a bygone era, but a lesson worth highlighting. Venezuela’s oil collapse in this century is inseparable from the degradation of corporate culture and human capital, deepened by the politicization of the industry. It triggered a professional brain drain and the hollowing out of operational efficiency. Multinationals like Chevron, and others that may follow, should explicitly lean on a “Venezolanization 2.0” that engages local talent still in the country and encourages the return of a diaspora of Venezuelan managers and engineers now abroad. Insulating the sector from partisan hiring and purging is essential if these cadres are to operate with full competence.

The Venezolanization pioneered by firms like the Creole Petroleum Corporation, Royal Dutch Shell, Mene Grande Oil Company, and many others also became an exercise in social integration. Many American expatriates, like Creole’s CEO Arthur T. Proudfit, embraced the social milieu of the country that welcomed them, often learning the language and speaking it fluently; his daughter even married a local businessman. In exchange, Venezuelans trained abroad and working for these firms absorbed US professional values and traditions. This cultural exchange helped forge durable bonds between both countries and contributed to the successful presence of foreign capital in Venezuela. And these corporations did not stop at their payrolls. They understood that long-term success in the hydrocarbon sector extended beyond employees to the surrounding communities of the oil fields, and beyond.

Social license

Creole, Shell, and Mene Grande undertook significant investments in the country. In the oilfields, they negotiated lucrative labor contracts with unions. They also financed hospitals, university campuses, and other infrastructure projects. These firms even joined the state in ventures like the Venezuelan Basic Economy Corporation to fund agro-industrial projects aimed at diversifying the economy, while supporting rural communities through initiatives such as the American International Association. They left an indelible imprint on everyday life, from how Venezuelans shopped through market chains like CADA, to culture through documentaries, corporate magazines, and even TV news programs like Observador Creole.

More importantly, they built alliances with domestic capitalists like Eugenio Mendoza to address social problems. Creole and Venezuelan business leaders, for instance, institutionalized private-sector social action through organizations like the Dividendo Voluntario para la Comunidad (DVC), founded in 1964 to mobilize corporate contributions toward community projects. This nonprofit continues to exist today, fulfilling the original goal of social action bequeathed by American and Venezuelan businessmen more than sixty years ago. Creole also created the Creole Development Corporation, a financial arm designed to provide seed capital for local entrepreneurial activity. This was hardly a frictionless era, but it shows how legitimacy was treated as a condition of stability.

Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies.

This largesse reached widely, but it was not mere corporate charity. To avoid jeopardizing their operations and invite nationalist backlash, companies engaged with surrounding communities and invested in their future. That is a lesson new capital arriving in Venezuela should pursue. There is even generational memory favorable to the presence of these firms in oil communities. 

Leveraging that legacy could open renewed opportunities for local professional growth while strengthening bonds between communities and multinationals. Contributions to health, schools, and infrastructure would also ease the state’s burden and allow it to focus on critical nation-building emergencies: democratizing institutions, reconstructing the economy, and addressing the public services and humanitarian needs the population faces.

A spiritual return to the concessions system?

The new hydrocarbons law pushes Venezuela’s oil industry in a new direction, and it functions as a first step in the right path. However, there is room for significant improvement. 

Moreover, key questions remain unanswered. For instance, what will be the fate of PDVSA? Any plan that fails to address the resurrection of its operational capabilities undermines the development of an efficient sector. Only the re-democratization of the country can properly confront the deeper failings reflected in the current legislation. Many industry experts have already proposed an alternative framework that would solve several of the bill’s core problems by establishing clear rules, transparency mechanisms, and a dedicated government agency entrusted with regulating the hydrocarbon sector.

The spirit of the concessionary model walks once more around Venezuela’s refineries, port terminals, and petroleum wells. It is too soon to tell whether foreign capital will return with the same excitement it brought more than a century ago, or whether the scale of investments and engagement with surrounding communities will match that of its predecessors. The sector can either become a platform for institutional rebuilding and professionalization, or another discretionary channel for rents and corruption. 

Democracy, check and balances, and clear rules can turn the 2026 hydrocarbons law (and its potential future modifications) into enduring principles for the remainder of the century. If so, the oil industry might unlock a new period of prosperity. Much remains to be done to materialize that future, but what is undeniable is that a new era begins.

Source link

Novo Nordisk stock sinks by 17% after bleak 2026 forecast

Published on

Novo Nordisk shares fell sharply on Wednesday after the company warned that sales and profits will drop in 2026.

The Danish drugmaker’s stock slid about 17% in early trading in Copenhagen, erasing gains made earlier in the year. The fall followed an unexpected pre-release of the company’s outlook for 2026.

Sales and operating profit are both expected to decline by between 5% and 13% this year, far below what analysts had anticipated.

The company had already cut its 2025 guidance in July, citing a difficult US market, triggering a one-day share price drop of more than 20%.

Pressure in the US

Novo Nordisk says it is reducing prices to make its GLP-1 drugs more affordable, even though the move is likely to hurt short-term performance.

The company faces growing competition in the United States from cheaper compounded versions of semaglutide — the active ingredient in Wegovy and diabetes drug Ozempic — as well as from rival Eli Lilly.

There have been some brighter signs. The new oral version of Wegovy has seen strong early demand in the US.

Novo Nordisk endured its worst year on record in 2025, with shares falling nearly 50%.

The company also underwent major leadership changes, appointing its first non-Danish chief executive and bringing former CEO Lars Rebien Sørensen back as chair.

At the same time, it struck a deal with US President Donald Trump for a programme tied to TrumpRx and direct-to-consumer discounts.

The starting price for the new Wegovy pill has been set at $149 (€126), far below the price of the injectable version a year earlier.

Patent expiries in several markets outside the United States are also expected to weigh on sales in 2026.

Meanwhile, the head of Novo’s US business, David Moore, who oversaw the launch of the pill, is leaving the company for personal reasons. He will be replaced by Jamie Miller, formerly of UnitedHealth.

Source link

Von der Leyen to travel to Australia to seal trade deal

Published on

European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen will fly to Australia later this month in a bid to seal a long-delayed trade agreement, sources familiar with the matter told Euronews.

Concluding the deal would mark another trade win for the Commission, following recent deals with Latin America’s Mercosur bloc and India, as geopolitical tensions intensify with the US and China.

One source said von der Leyen could head to Canberra shortly after the Munich Security Conference concludes on 15 February.

Whether the trip goes ahead will depend on progress in negotiations led by EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, who is due to meet Australian Trade Minister Don Farrell in Brussels next week.

“As always, progress in the sensitive phase of negotiations will depend on substance,” Commission deputy chief spokesperson Olof Gill told Euronews.

Talks on an EU-Australia free-trade agreement collapsed in 2023 after Canberra accused Brussels of failing to offer sufficient market access for beef, sheep, dairy and sugar.

Agriculture remains a perennial flashpoint in EU trade negotiations. The Mercosur agreement has already met furious opposition from European farmers, who fear unfair competition from increased imports coming from Latin America.

Australia, however, is viewed in Brussels as a strategic and like-minded partner as the EU seeks to diversify its trade relationships, expand access to global markets and reduce exposure to a closing US market and China’s increasingly aggressive trade policy.

Source link