Get the latest updates on stock markets, economic trends, business insights, personal finance tips, and more
Wolterk/iStock Editorial via Getty Images
SK Hynix (HXSCL) plans to double its memory-chip wafer production capacity over the next five years as it works to address soaring demand for AI-related memory chips.
Chairman Chey Tae-won told reporters in Taipei that the company is responding to
bodnarchuk/iStock via Getty Images
Barrick Mining (B) is considering a possible London listing for its African business, potentially via an all-stock deal with U.K.-listed Endeavour Mining (EDVMF) as a possible option, Reuters reported Monday.
Under one scenario being explored, Barrick (B) would retain its
Looking ahead to the second half of the year, corporate finance chiefs are hardwiring contingency into strategy.
Global corporate finance leaders are entering the second half of 2026 facing the most complex operating environment of the post-pandemic era, requiring them to balance cost discipline, technology investment, and capital deployment against a backdrop of geopolitical volatility and renewed energy uncertainty.
At the center of that uncertainty is the Strait of Hormuz. Normally a conduit for around 20% of global oil and liquified natural gas (LNG) exports, the strait has remained largely blocked since war broke out in the Middle East in late February.
The conflict has added a new shock layer to an environment that was already fragile as a result of tariff turbulence, weakening demand, and declining consumer confidence.
The consequences for corporate finance professionals are direct and serious, forcing teams into defensive mode: conserving cash, deferring capital investment, and stress-testing portfolios against prolonged geopolitical disruption.
Cost pressures were already elevated before the war, and are continuing their upward trajectory. According to the ACCA and IMA Global Economic Conditions Survey (GECS), the further rise likely reflects some early impacts of the surge in energy and other commodity prices since the outbreak of hostilities in the Persian Gulf. Among the CFOs surveyed, the proportion reporting increased operating costs eased slightly in the first quarter of 2026, but remains high by historical standards.
Confidence across finance teams, meanwhile, fell sharply in the first quarter, taking sentiment to a low point previously seen only at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020. Since the GECS survey was conducted in the first half of March, the outbreak of hostilities would have been a major factor weighing on sentiment, owing to the surge in geopolitical uncertainty and the price jump in energy and some other commodities.
Logistics and energy are the most immediate concerns, according to findings of the Allianz Trade survey of 6,000 companies across 13 major economies: 60% said they are worried about supply chain disruption and rising commodity prices, with concern running highest in Vietnam, Poland, the UK, and the U.S.
One consequence of the war-induced shocks is that businesses are holding more inventory, adding to liquidity demand at precisely the moment rates are falling more slowly than expected, if at all.
When it comes to sustaining readiness in the months ahead, Naresh Aggarwal, associate director, Policy and Technical at the Association of Corporate Treasurers, says the framework is simple: “plan for the worst, hope for the best.” In practice, this means larger, more committed credit facilities, greater use of derivatives, and hedge duration adjusted to circumstances.
The effects of the war are extending far beyond the energy, shipping, and chemical manufacturing sectors. Alex Ashby, group treasurer at WPP, says the ongoing volatility has driven material change at the global media company.
“Geopolitical volatility has led us to materially step up our focus on foreign exchange risk management,” he notes. “We have invested heavily in training across the organization to raise capability and accountability and introduced new monitoring and reporting so that FX exposures and outcomes are reviewed regularly at executive and board level. Alongside more frequent liquidity stress-testing, this ensures risks are identified earlier, decisions are taken closer to the underlying exposure, and we remain agile as conditions evolve.”
The world remains deeply interconnected, says Raphael Savalle, CFO at Montblanc, and so shocks travel fast and wide. Businesses are no longer operating in a world where companies can remove volatility by hedging, but one where operating models must be built to absorb it.
“This isn’t going away; if anything, it’s increasing,” he says. “It’s the butterfly effect, times 10. The key is to maintain long-term strategic direction while also building agility into how you operate – what I call dynamic P&L management, or dynamic resource allocation – and still be on the lookout every day for risks that may not at first seem relevant but turn out to be, because of the way the world is connected.”
What impact will this level of uncertainty have on the day-to-day in the coming months? Beyond a structured routine of information exchange, it demands the confidence to be candid about these less-obvious risks.
The challenges of the coming months are also prompting some companies to review their technology needs. ERP systems are still the backbone of corporate finance, but their rigidity is fueling demand for smarter, more flexible tools to augment them.
Enterprise Performance Management (EPM) platforms are emerging as a viable contender, says Armand Angeli, AI and automation specialist and vice president of the Digital Transformation and AI Group at DFCG, the French network of CFOs, broadening their scope beyond finance to cover sales, purchasing, and logistics.
Major ERP transformation projects are stalling as companies wrestle with legacy integration, Angeli says; bridging old and new without discarding existing investment remains the central challenge.
“We can’t just abandon ERP,” he says. “We have to create bridges or APIs between AI tools and all the ERPs. So the question becomes, How do you create these bridges? It’s not easy.” While ERPs can be inflexible, they are still valuable tools, “thought through by experts, for CFOs.”
While the major ERP providers are working to embed AI in their offerings, corporate users are taking different routes, depending on individual views and budgets. In practice, then, AI adoption by corporate finance teams is advancing with extreme caution.
“If the pace of change for these tools is 100, the pace of change among individuals is 10, and for companies, it’s 1,” Angeli observes.
Predictive AI, built on auditable algorithms, has earned trust as a tool for reconciliations, fraud detection, and cash posting, while generative AI remains a source of deep skepticism. Hallucinations, compliance failures, and the risk of over-reliance are tangible concerns.
“We now see more and more suspicious posting, more and more duplicate payments,” says Angeli.
Agentic AI is further still from meaningful deployment, he adds: “CFOs don’t trust agentic AI. And given that studies show that hallucinations account for between 30% and 70% of Gen AI output, we don’t trust Gen AI, either. Maybe 1% or 2% of companies can say they have agents working.”
Aggarwal concurs, observing that corporate finance teams remain in the exploratory phase when it comes to AI, but with purpose. Companies are mandating structured upskilling; One treasury team of his acquaintance dedicates half a day every other week to some form of AI-related upskilling or evaluating AI processes, he says.
The priority for the second half of this year, however, will be data integrity and learning which insights are genuinely actionable, Aggarwal predicts; truly agentic AI is a story for 2027.
“The word I hear a lot in these circles is trust: trusted data, trusted algorithms, trusted outputs, trusted use of the outputs,” he says. Going forward, the deeper cultural question of if and when to remove the human from the loop will become harder to avoid as, presumably, AI systems accumulate error-free track records.
Progress may be cautious for now, but Gartner estimates that CFOs who get AI deployment right could unlock 10 additional margin points by 2029. It won’t be isolated pilots that deliver returns, however; the gains will come from managing technology as a portfolio. Three quarters of CFOs are already raising technology budgets for 2026, the research firm finds, with nearly half boosting them by 10% or more.
Quantifying return on investment is difficult for the majority of AI-based projects, however, and will continue to be so through this year, Angeli predicts: “We know that we have to implement AI and hope for financial ROI in the future, but most companies are not seeing it yet.”
Another aspect of the technology challenge that is intrinsically linked to wider geopolitical developments, says Montblanc’s Savalle, is digital sovereignty, or a nation’s ability to control, secure, and regulate its entire infrastructure: in accordance with its laws, but also its strategic interests. Different approaches to the governance of these technologies and the accompanying data have deepened geopolitical competition between the U.S., China, and the EU, according to the World Economic Forum.
“Many governments are now insisting that data centers sit within their own borders,” Savalle warns, “and increasingly, they’re looking at software dependency more broadly: not just AI, but email systems, video conferencing tools, the whole stack. As a CFO, you have to consider what that means for your IT architecture.” Under these circumstances, will the old ambition of a single global ERP still be viable in five years’ time? He is not so sure.
Whether physical war or digital friction, geopolitical risks are forcing the finance function into a state of permanent contingency thinking. The closing of the Strait of Hormuz is an extreme case, but it sits within a pattern that was already familiar to CFOs and treasurers. The post-Covid supply chain collapse, the Russia-Ukraine war’s impact on energy and commodities, the Red Sea disruptions of 2024–25 — each forced treasury teams to rethink counterparty risk, liquidity buffers, FX exposure, and supply chain financing.
What’s different this time is that finance leaders are no longer treating the shocks as exceptional.
Aggarwal sees the broader geopolitical realignment as structural rather than cyclical, and doubts even a change in US administration can reverse it: “The genie is out of the bottle around using trade as a way of imposing sovereignty.” Looking ahead, he foresees continued pressure on the finance function to operate against a challenging backdrop.
“What I understand from my CFO network is that there is no going back,” Savalle observes. “This is the new normal, and, if anything, it will continue and expand. So the question is about how you adapt your operating model. Make sure that you get that feedback loop and keep an open mind, because you are going into uncharted territory. Things used to work in a certain world order. This is changing.”
For corporate finance leaders, the priority is no longer waiting for stability to return, but operating effectively in its absence. While keeping to a long-term strategy is vital, so is reconsidering some of the operating model assumptions that a world divided into regional blocs is calling into question. That could include maintaining higher liquidity buffers, diversifying supply chains geographically, stress-testing cash flow forecasts against energy price scenarios, and investing in planning and forecasting tools that allow the organization to model disruption faster.
For the corporate finance function, these are no longer crisis measures, but the baseline.
This article appears in the June 2026 issue of Global Finance Magazine.
Laurie Pinto works on some of the biggest deals across the sports landscape, and the investor strategies he encounters are game-changing.
With the 2026 World Cup around the corner, the sports finance sector is heating up — and few advisers are at the center of more high-stakes talks than Laurie Pinto.
From cross-border M&A and private equity-style ownership structures to discreet football club deals, Pinto has spent decades navigating the intersection of finance and sport.
Through his eponymous firm, Pinto Capital LLP, he has advised everyone from Premier League clubs to emerging teams seeking new capital and international growth opportunities.
Pinto took part in this month’s Global Salon series, where he discussed the surging influence of American investors in European football and why sports franchises are increasingly viewed as scalable global assets.
He also weighs in on the future of cricket, the limits of SPAC-driven sports deals, and how geopolitical instability — from capital scrutiny to regional conflict — is reshaping the economics of today’s athletic events.
Global Finance: Set the stage for us. We’re just weeks away from the World Cup, and the atmosphere feels volatile. Fans are frustrated by skyrocketing ticket prices and logistical hurdles, and U.S. Soccer’s sporting director recently resigned. Is this one of the more chaotic build-ups you’ve seen in modern sports finance?
Laurie Pinto: It’s fast-moving, and tickets are incredibly expensive—the cheapest for the final is $5,000. Are things chaotic? Yes, fans are coming from 42 countries with vastly different expectations. Big football events always face skepticism. Qatar’s alcohol and LGBTQ restrictions sparked fears, but the tournament ran smoothly. Russia and Germany had logistical challenges, too. So I see this as part of the normal practice from naysayers. What’s different here is scale for the U.S.: This is a pivotal moment for soccer, especially for kids. Prices for tickets, flights, and hotels are eye-wateringly high, but that’s normal for major events.
GF: Has “Welcome to Wrexham” changed investor behavior?
Pinto: Ryan Reynolds has had a huge impact on English football, but American investors were already noticing the documentary “Sunderland ’Til I Die,” which drew 66 million viewers and I think was the second most-watched sports documentary on Netflix, after “The Last Dance” [about Michael Jordan and the Bulls]. That opened the eyes of American investors to the fact that these clubs have 100 years of history, amazingly sticky fan bases, great pedigree, and are affordable. If you want to buy into an American sport, name any franchise you can buy for under $8 billion. It’s hard, and there aren’t that many people who can stroke checks for $8 billion.
Americans also understand marketing and the creator economy. They say, “We can help manage these businesses better, both on the pitch and off the pitch.” American sports are an asset class and are incredibly professionally managed compared to the UK and Europe. And if you can transplant some of that expertise, you can take some of these loss-making clubs and make them profitable, and then the valuation goes up dramatically.
GF: With your cross-border experience, how do geopolitical factors like regulation and capital controls affect sports deals?
Pinto: What they do is, there’s an immense amount of KYC (Know Your Customer) and AML (Anti-Money Laundering). It’s not just a matter of “who is the buyer?” It’s more about “what is your source of funds?” and “who is the ultimate beneficial owner or UBO?” You see deals for clubs where their GP/LP structures are like private equity, and the LPs are the ultimate beneficial owners.
Private equity guys structure their investments that way, and they take a carry on the performance. They help manage the investment. And that’s a very commonplace thing in American sport and is becoming increasingly common in the UK and Europe. There’s no capital control, but there is a deep sense to make sure there isn’t money laundering going on. And can the people really afford it? And is it really their money? Because if people don’t disclose where their money comes from, generally, it’s not for a good reason.
GF: Have you seen a major shift in how clubs are valued in recent years? Is there a pre- and post-Ryan Reynolds era?
Pinto: About 10 years ago, there was no valuation methodology. Now, clubs are valued at multiples of revenue, even if they are loss-making. Intangible assets are better monetized through apps, second-screen connectivity, surge pricing, AI—more personalized user experiences, scalable and multilingual, enhancing valuation.
The lifetime value (LTV) of a fan is important. Consulting groups estimate £100–£2,000 per fan. Manchester United has a billion fans, worth roughly $10 billion. At smaller clubs, the value of a fan is even higher; in Sunderland, stadiums are always full, rain or shine. Loyalty is much higher, affecting valuation metrics. Swansea City AFC, pre-Luka Modric and Snoop Dog, had 500,000 fans; now they claim connections to over 100 million.
GF: Do you expect U.S. entities buying into top UK divisions to change the product, and if so, how?
Pinto: It’s already changing. The off-pitch professionalism is increasing—how clubs monetize non-match days, preseason tours, overseas fans, etc. Americanization brings deeper expertise. Big clubs benefit, and even smaller clubs in League One or League Two can become profitable quickly. Private equity investing in sport isn’t an issue; U.S. investors are comfortable with leverage, more so than Europeans.
GF: In recent years, we’ve seen several sports teams list on stock exchanges, often with mixed results and significant volatility. At the same time, SPACs emerged in the U.S. with ambitions to buy football clubs, including lower-tier European teams. What’s your take?
Pinto: A SPAC will pursue any deal that makes economic sense for its sponsors, but it’s very difficult for a SPAC to buy a UK or European soccer club because it takes so long for them to get to the vote, and the vote might not even happen, and the soccer club will give away all the optionality. John Textor’s Eagle Football would’ve been the best SPAC, with holdings including Lyon, Botafogo and Crystal Palace. They looked at it with James Dinan of the NBA’s Milwaukee Bucks and York Capital, but that didn’t get over the line. SPACs just take so long to get done.
GF: What new sports investing trends are you noticing?
Pinto: What we are starting to see are new platforms that try to create exposure without traditional ownership. Some firms are building instruments that resemble CFDs or synthetic shares in clubs, and I’ve been working with a platform called Vestible, which is exploring sports investment access in a different way.
The idea is to give investors economic exposure to performance without requiring full ownership obligations—things like governance, operational responsibilities, or capital calls. There’s also growing interest in fractional ownership and tokenized models, often linked to fan engagement or loyalty programs. These concepts are interesting, and they have a place, but they haven’t yet broken into mainstream investor behavior.
GF: Cricket is hugely popular in countries like India but hasn’t really taken off here. Given its unique global footprint, how easy is it for a sport like that to expand in the U.S.?
Pinto: I am super positive on cricket, which is the second-biggest sport on Earth. It’s the fastest-growing women’s sport on Earth. It’s also the most in-game bet on sport on Earth. When they had the World Cup in New York in 2024, I believe it was a big success. Winning a game meant it went from the back pages to the front page of the Wall Street Journal. Suddenly, one’s looking at the economics of cricket. We’ve been very active in cricket. It has largely been an Indian subcontinent game, but it’s exciting, it’s fun, and I see cricket growing in the States.
Major League cricket has few full storms, but I think it’s coming. San Francisco Unicorns, the guys you want to watch in terms of how to get it right, but you’re seeing a lot of money going into cricket right now from NFL owners. Two of the richest guys in America tried, but failed, to buy into Indian cricket less than a month ago—the Walton family and the Ford family, the owners of the Denver Broncos and Detroit Lions. The Glazers, who own Tampa Bay, have been buying into cricket, and I can assure you other owners have been talking to us about it, too.
GF: Do you know why?
Pinto: Because they see exactly the same demographics you see in the NFL. It’s a very big domestic fan base, with very few games. But each game is a huge occasion, with massive television deals and a huge moat around it, which means it can’t get challenged. Go to any park in New York on a weekend, and you will see people playing some version of either 20/20 or over 50. The challenge is for a game to really catch on; it needs to start with the kids, and this is why the NBA is so successful: you don’t need any equipment to play basketball. You just need a ball. And you can play it at any level and still enjoy it. Culturally, at the moment, cricket is nowhere near that in America.
GF: We have a lot of basketball talent here, with college programs, NIL deals, and players going overseas. When will European basketball reach the same competitive level as the NBA—or U.S. soccer could match European clubs in popularity?
Pinto: Will NBA Europe be successful? They just finished the first round of franchise bidding, but it’s been slow. Timing was terrible—the war in Iran disrupted three of the major bidders, all Middle Eastern sovereign wealth funds. It’s hard to spend aggressively overseas when people back home are in bomb shelters. Give me the war’s end date, and I’ll tell you when that money comes back.
That said, European basketball is bigger than many realize. Many European players are thriving in the NBA. I went to the Paris Games last year—amazing, electric atmosphere. There are lots of talented French and Australian players making an impact. Do I think Europe will ever match the NBA in scale? No. Soccer dominates there. NBA Europe is growing, but it still has a long way to go.
Published on •Updated
Crude prices climbed in early Asian trading on Monday after Israeli troops pushed further into Lebanon over the weekend, fuelling investor fears that the broader Middle East conflict could escalate rather than move towards a peace deal.
At the time of writing, West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude was up 2.88% at $89.88 per barrel, while Brent crude rose 2.43% to $93.33 per barrel.
The Israeli advance has taken place despite a nominal ceasefire in place since 17 April and just days before the next round of direct talks between Lebanon and Israel, scheduled at the State Department on 2 and 3 June.
In other early trade dealings on Monday morning, Asia-Pacific markets were mixed with South Korea’s Kospi climbing 1.31%, while Japan’s Nikkei 225 edged up 0.17%. The broader Topix index, however, slipped 0.3%.
Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 fell 0.21%, while Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index gained 0.73%. Mainland China’s CSI 300 dipped 0.32%.
Tokyo-listed shares in SoftBank Group, meanwhile, surged 5% after the Japanese conglomerate unveiled plans to invest €45 billion over the next five years to develop artificial intelligence infrastructure in France.
In the US, stock futures were flat after Wall Street pushed further into the record books on Friday. The major indexes extended the market’s recent winning streak and closed out a solid month of gains.
The S&P 500 rose 0.2%, notching its seventh consecutive gain and ninth straight winning week — the longest such streak since 2023. The benchmark index set an all-time high for the fourth day in a row.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average gained 0.7% and the Nasdaq composite added 0.2%. The Dow and Nasdaq also reached new heights after posting record highs earlier last week.
Big technology stocks have been behind much of the market’s record-breaking streak. Their pricey stock values give them more influence in directing the market higher or lower. In May alone, technology stocks within the S&P 500 rose more than 15%, while most of the sectors in the benchmark index actually lost ground.
“The rally has been largely tech-led and supported by resilient earnings, but the key question is whether it can be sustained,” wrote Angelo Kourkafas, senior global strategist at Edward Jones, in a research note.
Tech stocks also powered the market higher Friday. Microsoft rose 5.4% and Broadcom gained 4.7%.
Additional sources • AP
klenger/iStock via Getty Images
9:45 AM PMI Manufacturing Final
Based on monthly questionnaire surveys of selected companies, the Purchasing Managers’ Manufacturing Index offers an advance indication on month-to-month activity in the private sector economy.
10:00 AM ISM Manufacturing Index
The manufacturing composite index from
Surging bank lending could rekindle inflation risks, SocGen's Albert Edwards warns
Source link
The man financing Britain’s clean energy future on doubt, policy risk, and the things no CFO can control.
As CFO of one of Britain’s most ambitious clean energy projects, EnergyPathways’ Max Williams has learned that securing capital is only half the job.
Since joining the firm in April 2025, Williams has been overseeing the finances of MESH, an £800 million offshore hub on the Lancashire coast set to combine long-duration energy storage, gas, and green hydrogen production in a single integrated facility.
With MESH still in the pre-FEED stage, the challenge lies not just in raising capital but in keeping government, institutional investors, and industry partners moving in lockstep toward a Final Investment Decision — and ultimately, execution.
A seasoned Chartered Accountant with three decades in energy and natural resources, Williams spoke with Global Finance about financing a first-of-its-kind project, the politics of clean energy, and what keeps him awake at night.
Global Finance: What is your main achievement leading finance at EnergyPathways (EPP)?
Max Williams: EPP is developing a unique solution for energy storage and supply to support Britain’s energy transition. The project, called Marram Energy Storage Hub (MESH), combines long-duration energy storage (LDES) and gas storage, while also growing hydrogen industries using its offshore storage facilities. The ability to drive the project forward has depended in the early stages on reliable and continuing support from equity shareholders who understand and believe in the company’s focus.
The signing of a financing agreement with a global institutional investor was an important step in the company being able to accelerate its pre-FEED (Pre-Front End Engineering Design) work program on both its LDES and gas storage license elements of its project. Our ongoing engagement with government, industry partners and banks will provide further significant funding to progress the project to and beyond the Final Investment Decision (FID). The company designed the full project to minimize government subsidies.
GF: What is the biggest challenge in funding operations for MESH, an £800 million integrated offshore facility in the UK (near the Lancashire coast)? What is the thing you spend most of your time on?
Williams: The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero designated the MESH Project to be one of national significance. It is designed to meet clean energy goals and provide employment in the region, engaging with Team Barrow [a public-private partnership that aims to revive this port town in northwestern England] and gaining increasing parliamentary support. The biggest challenge is to ensure that all stakeholders, including government, are aligned and supportive, enabling the company to meet key milestones and secure appropriate capital as the development progresses through FEED to FID and first revenues.
GF: How important is it for you to have a good team, and what defines a good team for you?
Williams: With a new concept project such as MESH, success depends on a strong team across all disciplines, not just the finance team but also the teams overseeing EnergyPathways’ technical and commercial operations. Project delivery is going to be a key discipline in arranging project financing. In the energy transition space, a good team functions efficiently and effectively across disciplines with clear communication around objectives and strategies to achieve them. EPP also benefits by having world-class industry partners, including Siemens, Wood Group, and Costain.
GF: How do you see AI affecting your work?
Williams: For a small company with a small team, the use of AI has so far been limited within the accounting function. However, this will develop as the company grows. The company already uses AI to maximize productivity and assist with project design and implementation. An AI energy management system is a key part of our development design, enabling MESH to ensure a reliable and flexible energy supply to Britain’s energy markets.
GF: What advice do you have for aspiring CFOs?
Williams: Being CFO will always put you at the center of reporting, information flow, and decision-making. For EnergyPathways, this means identifying the project’s financing needs and providing suitable, timely solutions to those requirements. In addition, the CFO ensures information transparency for investors and the broader stakeholder community.
GF: What keeps you up at night?
Williams: Matters that are outside the control of the company. For instance, EnergyPathways is developing solutions for energy storage and supply, offering security of supply with a focus on clean energy supply. Development of the MESH project may require changes to government strategy and policy, and macro, global factors may affect policy. The MESH project, though, would benefit the UK’s future energy supply regardless of the polar arguments of clean energy versus exploitation of the North Sea.
The man financing Britain’s clean energy future on doubt, policy risk, and the things no CFO can control.
As CFO of one of Britain’s most ambitious clean energy projects, EnergyPathways’ Max Williams has learned that securing capital is only half the job.
Since joining the firm in April 2025, Williams has been overseeing the finances of MESH, an £800 million offshore hub on the Lancashire coast set to combine long-duration energy storage, gas, and green hydrogen production in a single integrated facility.
With MESH still in the pre-FEED stage, the challenge lies not just in raising capital but in keeping government, institutional investors, and industry partners moving in lockstep toward a Final Investment Decision — and ultimately, execution.
A seasoned Chartered Accountant with three decades in energy and natural resources, Williams spoke with Global Finance about financing a first-of-its-kind project, the politics of clean energy, and what keeps him awake at night.
Global Finance: What is your main achievement leading finance at EnergyPathways (EPP)?
Max Williams: EPP is developing a unique solution for energy storage and supply to support Britain’s energy transition. The project, called Marram Energy Storage Hub (MESH), combines long-duration energy storage (LDES) and gas storage, while also growing hydrogen industries using its offshore storage facilities. The ability to drive the project forward has depended in the early stages on reliable and continuing support from equity shareholders who understand and believe in the company’s focus.
The signing of a financing agreement with a global institutional investor was an important step in the company being able to accelerate its pre-FEED (Pre-Front End Engineering Design) work program on both its LDES and gas storage license elements of its project. Our ongoing engagement with government, industry partners and banks will provide further significant funding to progress the project to and beyond the Final Investment Decision (FID). The company designed the full project to minimize government subsidies.
GF: What is the biggest challenge in funding operations for MESH, an £800 million integrated offshore facility in the UK (near the Lancashire coast)? What is the thing you spend most of your time on?
Williams: The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero designated the MESH Project to be one of national significance. It is designed to meet clean energy goals and provide employment in the region, engaging with Team Barrow [a public-private partnership that aims to revive this port town in northwestern England] and gaining increasing parliamentary support. The biggest challenge is to ensure that all stakeholders, including government, are aligned and supportive, enabling the company to meet key milestones and secure appropriate capital as the development progresses through FEED to FID and first revenues.
GF: How important is it for you to have a good team, and what defines a good team for you?
Williams: With a new concept project such as MESH, success depends on a strong team across all disciplines, not just the finance team but also the teams overseeing EnergyPathways’ technical and commercial operations. Project delivery is going to be a key discipline in arranging project financing. In the energy transition space, a good team functions efficiently and effectively across disciplines with clear communication around objectives and strategies to achieve them. EPP also benefits by having world-class industry partners, including Siemens, Wood Group, and Costain.
GF: How do you see AI affecting your work?
Williams: For a small company with a small team, the use of AI has so far been limited within the accounting function. However, this will develop as the company grows. The company already uses AI to maximize productivity and assist with project design and implementation. An AI energy management system is a key part of our development design, enabling MESH to ensure a reliable and flexible energy supply to Britain’s energy markets.
GF: What advice do you have for aspiring CFOs?
Williams: Being CFO will always put you at the center of reporting, information flow, and decision-making. For EnergyPathways, this means identifying the project’s financing needs and providing suitable, timely solutions to those requirements. In addition, the CFO ensures information transparency for investors and the broader stakeholder community.
GF: What keeps you up at night?
Williams: Matters that are outside the control of the company. For instance, EnergyPathways is developing solutions for energy storage and supply, offering security of supply with a focus on clean energy supply. Development of the MESH project may require changes to government strategy and policy, and macro, global factors may affect policy. The MESH project, though, would benefit the UK’s future energy supply regardless of the polar arguments of clean energy versus exploitation of the North Sea.
naphtalina/iStock via Getty Images
Wall Street closed the week higher as easing Middle East tensions, softer-than-expected inflation data, and strong corporate earnings boosted investor sentiment.
Investor sentiment improved after President Donald Trump said a framework to end the conflict with Iran and restore shipping
Insider trades: Baidu, Target among notable names
Source link
Replimune (REPL) won over the FDA to submit a marketing application for its lead asset RP1 for the third time despite previous rejections, thanks to the intervention of White House officials, The Wall Street Journal reported, citing people familiar with the matter.
Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) countries are moving towards deeper economic integration through digitisation and AI, as leaders of the bloc met in Astana for a two-day summit.
During the high-level talks, member states discussed creating a unified digital environment to build a seamless market across a shared economic space of more than 20 million square kilometres.
Delegations focused on trade, joint projects and the development of shared digital tools and AI systems designed to strengthen cooperation and reduce fragmentation across the bloc.
Last year, trade within the union more than doubled, while turnover with third countries rose by 72%, while around 90% of settlements are now conducted in national currencies, as EAEU states also mull a single transit system.
With digitisation driving developments across the union, Kazakhstan’s President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev said trade turnover between EAEU members could increase by around 6%, exceeding €85 billion this year, compared with €80 billion last year.
He added that GDP growth across EAEU countries is projected at around 2.5% for 2026–2027.
Now in its 12th year, the EAEU functions as a single integrated market and free trade zone for its five members – Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Armenia.
The bloc already has agreements in place with a number of countries including Serbia, Vietnam, the UAE, Mongolia and Indonesia. China remains the bloc’s key partner, accounting for around one-third of external trade.
Kazakhstan’s Tokayev said that during its chairmanship of the EAEU, the country has proposed the practical use of AI to help implement the bloc’s so-called four freedoms, with the aim of strengthening the competitiveness of member states.
Member states also proposed developing common principles for the responsible use of AI, as well as shared computing capacity and joint model development.
Meanwhile, Russia proposed a high-level AI get-together next year to further cooperation on domestic AI models and connecting its IT and energy infrastructure, according to Russian President Vladimir Putin.
On the ground, pilot projects are already being tested at the EAEU level.
In Kazakhstan, several AI-powered digital assistants have been developed by both government agencies and startups to help citizens navigate legal and regulatory systems more easily.
According to Deputy Minister of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Development Dmitry Mun, these AI legal assistants are designed to simplify legislation, reduce bureaucracy, and make regulatory systems more accessible for citizens and businesses.
Some of these tools are now being tested to streamline processes across member states.
Around 85% of goods travelling from China to Europe are routed through the Middle Corridor, according to officials.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly being deployed alongside the TDN and the Digital Transport Corridor along the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route. Together, these measures are expected to increase non-commodity exports by around 30% over the next two years.
Kazakhstan’s Minister of Trade and Integration Arman Shakkaliyev said the country also aims to leverage major transport routes, including the Middle Corridor and the North–South Corridor, to build a fully integrated logistics ecosystem.
The goal, he said, is to position Kazakhstan as a key regional hub where transport routes converge and large export flows are consolidated.
The ambition is to develop a fully functioning system by 2030, with cargo volumes reaching around 10 million tonnes. Work is already under way, including railway modernisation and new infrastructure development.
The summit followed Putin’s state visit to Kazakhstan, during which the two countries signed seven key pillars of bilateral cooperation, along with a broader package of agreements covering energy, transport, finance, education and industrial development.
Russia remains Kazakhstan’s largest investor, with nearly €25 billion already invested and plans to increase that figure further. It is also building Kazakhstan’s first nuclear power plant, valued at around €14 billion.
Putin said the plant would account for around 20% of Kazakhstan’s electricity consumption, adding that financing conditions for such projects are in line with international practice.
He noted that the project supports Russian industrial capacity through equipment orders and long-term maintenance contracts, while also strengthening cooperation between the two countries in uranium and nuclear technology.
For Kazakhstan, officials say the project represents both energy security and a step towards moving beyond raw-material exports to high-value technological cooperation.
Tensions between China and the EU have intensified in recent months, prompting the European Commission to convene most of its commissioners for a strategic rethink during an “orientation debate” on Friday.
“China is a critical partner, and engagement and dialogue will continue,” the commission said in a readout following the debate. “At the same time the current state of the trade and investment relationship is not sustainable.”
Calling the relationship “not sustainable” may understate the depth of the rupture.
Relations have steadily deteriorated since European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen branded Beijing a “systemic rival” in a landmark 2023 speech. But tensions surged to a new level once EU policymakers finally settled their differences over the EU-US trade deal that had consumed Brussels for months, freeing the bloc to sharpen its focus on China.
Last year, according to the commission, the bloc registered a record-high €359.9 billion trade deficit with Beijing, fuelling growing calls in Brussels to better protect the EU market from cheap Chinese imports that threaten entire sectors — metals, chemicals and the car industry among them.
“We are seeing a panic attack in the last few weeks on China,” an EU official told Euronews, speaking on condition of anonymity to speak candidly. The official added that the China issue had been “overlooked for too long.”
A total of 200,000 European jobs were lost in EU industry — particularly in the energy-intensive and automotive sectors — since 2024, with a further 600,000 job losses projected this decade in carmaking alone.
On Friday, the commission readout specified that its “overarching approach remains de-risking, not decoupling,” signalling that the bloc is still pursuing targeted efforts to reduce its dependence on China rather than sever economic ties altogether. Yet the risk of a full-scale trade war has never felt so real.
Here are five key points on how the situation has escalated to this point — and where it may be headed next :
During the previous legislative term, the EU passed legislation that drew Beijing’s anger — notably measures to screen foreign direct investment. And it has stepped up its fight against so-called dumping, whereby public subsidies are used to undercut competitors through exports sold below market prices in China.
The European Commission has grown increasingly assertive in countering China’s subsidy-driven approach, including by imposing duties on imports of battery electric vehicles. Several product-specific investigations are also ongoing.
Earlier this week, the Commission fined Chinese e-commerce giant Temu €200 million for selling unsafe products and opened a full-scale investigation into JD.com’s acquisition of e-commerce retailer MediaMarkt.
EU lawmakers and governments are also discussing the Industrial Accelerator Act, a legislative proposal that would impose strict conditions on investments in batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels and critical raw materials from countries controlling 40% of the global market share in a given sector.
A separate proposal — a revamped Cybersecurity Act — could push out Chinese equipment suppliers such as Huawei and ZTE from critical infrastructure.
To counter Chinese overcapacities, the EU agreed in April to double tariffs on steel imports that exceed EU quotas. The measure is a so-called “safeguard” — a tool backed by some of the EU’s largest economies, including France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands and Lithuania, which called for it to be extended to sectors beyond metals.
In a non-paper, those countries argued that safeguards were more “agile” than other EU instruments targeting cheap export products. The paper also calls for economic security to be factored into assessments of the EU’s interests when deciding on trade defence measures.
The European industry is also ramping up pressure to crack down on Chinese cheap imports calling on the Commission to use trade defence measures “more flexibly, faster, and preventively.”
A major wake-up call for EU policymakers has been the recent case of Nexperia, a Dutch-based chipmaker acquired by Chinese giant Wingtech, which was caught in the crossfire of US-China trade tensions, causing significant disruption in the automotive sector.
The Commission is now set to require sectors such as the car industry to diversify chip suppliers in certain cases, taking supply-chain risks into account in procurement decisions.
Despite these various initiatives, EU policymakers have grown wary that the current rules are too slow-moving for a fast-moving adversary. After duties were imposed on electric vehicle batteries, China’s focus simply shifted to hybrid vehicles.
Brussels is now moving towards a more systemic approach, treating trade defence as a toolbox to rebalance relations with China. One potential addition is a so-called overcapacity instrument to cap imports in specific sectors.
In recent weeks, China has repeatedly threatened retaliation if the EU presses ahead with closing its market to Chinese goods.
Both the “Made in Europe” legislation and the Cybersecurity Act have drawn Beijing’s ire, prompting intensified lobbying of Brussels and EU member states, with warnings that implementation will trigger a response.
The Europeans are walking a tightrope, acutely aware that their decisions could spark a trade war. After the EU imposed tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles in 2024, Beijing imposed tariffs on EU pork, brandy and dairy products.
“International trade is a two-way street. There’s no forced trade. The China-EU trade relations are win-win in nature. China does not aim for trade surplus,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning said at a press briefing on Thursday.
“The EU needs to put trade ties with China in perspective and honour its commitment to free trade. China will closely follow the EU’s moves and take all measures necessary to safeguard legitimate rights and interests,” Ning added.
Some argue it is already too late for the Europeans, who depend on China for key components of their supply chains — components Beijing can weaponize at will.
In 2025, China blocked exports of rare earths, which are vital for EU green technology and defence, as well as chips essential to the European car industry. Beijing can also leverage operating licences for EU companies and restrict access to its market at any time.
Europe is far from united on China.
Germany, despite a troubling trade deficit with Beijing, has been slow to shift away from its cooperative approach, which prioritises securing market access for German companies in China.
Berlin did not endorse last weekend’s non-paper backed by other major EU economies. Instead, German Economy Minister Katherina Reiche repeated this week that Germany’s overriding priority is to avoid jeopardising exports to China.
Yet the economic cost of dependence on Beijing might be forcing Berlin to reconsider its stance. The German government is reportedly weighing a tougher line that would mark a significant shift in its China policy.
For years, the German industry had a relationship with the Chinese market that critics described as toxic — one that blocked any meaningful attempt to rebalance the trade deficit out of fear of losing commercial access to the vast Asian market.
Spain has emerged as the other major EU country reluctant to act against China. With relatively cheap energy costs, Spain has become attractive to foreign investors, of which Beijing accounts for a growing share.
Its position caused embarrassment for Madrid this week, after it initially appeared to support the France-led non-paper before retreating and claiming it had merely participated in discussions.
“There has been no specific political support for any ‘non-paper’,” Spanish trade minister Carlos Cuerpo said, adding that the EU should “engage” with Chinese authorities through “dialogue.”
Brussels’ reassessment of its China stance has been long in the making, rooted in decades of deepening economic dependence. But the latest acceleration was also prompted by a shift in US posture, most visibly the recent visit to Beijing by President Donald Trump.
The Commission’s orientation debate on Friday was just a first step in what could become a broader repositioning. Where that leads — given internal divisions and the threat of retaliation — remains deeply uncertain.
The conclusions of that exercise are expected to feed into a discussion on economic security at the next European Council meeting on 18-19 June. China has appeared on EU leaders’ agenda several times in recent years, only to be pushed aside by more pressing crises.
While Brussels considers adding new instruments to its policy toolbox, political will remains the key determining factor. Nowhere is that gap more stark than in the EU’s handling of the anti-coercion instrument, also known as the “trade bazooka,” which was designed to push back against economic pressure and unfair trade restrictions.
“The anti-coercive instrument was never used, even though we have been coerced quite a lot,” the EU official said. “We need tools that we are actually willing to use.”
Resolution 561 ends stablecoin cross-border settlements, cutting fintech efficiency and margins.
Banco Central do Brasil (BCB) has banned fintech and payment providers from settling overseas payments in stablecoins or crypto. With Resolution 561, the BCB is implementing new rules regarding its electronic foreign exchange (eFX) policy, which governs how payment institutions and e-money issuers provide cross-border services.
Its immediate effects, when the new rules go into effect on Oct. 1, will be the return of bank spreads, correspondent fees, and settlements in days rather than minutes, while the cost of international transactions, especially remittances, will increase for businesses and consumers.
Resolution 561 updates Brazil’s eFX framework, which regulates digital cross-border payments settled through traditional foreign-exchange channels. It will restrict companies from collecting reals in Brazil, converting them into stablecoins like USDT or USDC, and then using them for fiat remittances.
The resolution does not prohibit stablecoins in Brazil, Thiago Amaral, partner at Barcellos Tucunduva Advogados, told online publication Migalhas. “What it does is prevent eFX providers from using virtual assets to settle payments or receipts with their counterparts abroad.”
Companies can still use non-resident real accounts to settle international payments, and for individuals, this will not affect their ability to trade crypto. Brazil’s crypto market is worth between $6 billion and $8 billion a month, with stablecoins accounting for roughly 90% of its volume.
Resolution 561 also mandates stricter Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures. According to BCB officials, the resolution aims to ensure traceability, supervision, and compliance with exchange rate regulations while strengthening anti-money laundering efforts.
Remittances are likely to be most affected by the changes. Cross-border payment “plumbing” helped many navigate the 1% tax on cash remittance transfers and the further 3.5% tax on remittances and foreign currency purchases, which went into effect in May 2025. In 2024, remittance inflows totaled $4.7 billion, accounting for 0.2% of Brazil’s GDP.
“With the ban on the use of stablecoins in eFX settlements, operators involved in international remittances, overseas purchases, cash withdrawals while traveling, and digital transfers to other countries lose the main advantage they had over traditional banks,” José Artur Ribeiro, CEO of Brazilian crypto exchange operator Coinext, told Brazil’s Money Times.
This article appears in the June 2026 issue of Global Finance Magazine.
Earnings Call Insights: Costco Wholesale Corporation (COST) Q3 2026
Ron Vachris said Costco’s value message is resonating “against the backdrop of ongoing macro uncertainty,” highlighting fuel as the standout: “The result was record-breaking volumes, all 3 4-week fiscal periods of the quarter
Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.
Lock in today’s painful prices, or bet that volatility breaks your way? CFOs are being forced to choose.
Commodity hedging is no longer a technical exercise buried in the treasury function. As price volatility spreads across energy, metals, and agricultural commodities, CFOs are forced to make explicit, high-stakes bets about the future — locking in costs at today’s elevated levels or staying exposed in the hope that markets turn. What was once a risk management tool has become a strategic decision with direct implications for margins, pricing, and competitive positioning.
That shift is showing up in earnings in a range of industries, a reminder that hedging decisions are increasingly tied to financial performance and investor expectations. “We are using our hedging to be able to offset against the volatility,” said Andrew Murray, CFO of Fonterra, a New Zealand farmer-owned cooperative, in the group’s March 2026 earnings call.
Others are treating volatility as an opportunity to act. In its latest earnings call, Infinity Natural Resources CEO Zack Arnold said the company had “taken this opportunity … to lock in attractive oil hedges,” stressing how companies are making deliberate market calls rather than waiting for conditions to stabilize. In some cases, the impact is measurable. In Siemens’ most recent earnings call, the global industrial giant’s CFO, Ralf P. Thomas, reported that commodity hedging contributed roughly 100 basis points to its margins, thanks to volatility in copper and silver prices.
Power, it turns out, doesn’t come from military might anymore. It comes from metals and other elements, such as cobalt. That’s the argument threading through “The Elements of Power,” Nicolas Niarchos’ new book on the supply chains that hold modern civilization together — or fail to. Niarchos isn’t interested in geopolitics as it’s usually taught, the stuff of borders and aircraft carriers. He tracks something hard to see and now hard to ignore: the fragile networks of extraction, processing, and assembly that make electric vehicles move, smartphones think, AI infrastructure hum, and modern life move forward.
Those networks are long and exposed. Ore pulled from the ground in the Congo passes through Chinese processing facilities before it reaches a factory floor in Europe or America. A disruption anywhere, such as a mine shutdown, a trade restriction, or a sea strait closed by war, doesn’t stay local. It travels fast through prices and production timelines in ways that almost no one anticipated and fewer still knew how to hedge against.
What Niarchos documents is the moment supply chain risk graduated from a logistics problem to a strategic one. Hedging, once the quiet work of treasury and procurement desks, is becoming more like foreign policy.
Darrell E. Fletcher started his career hedging global energy for Alcoa and is now managing director of commodities at Bannockburn Capital Markets, the trading and advisory arm of First Financial Bank. He says the past two years have been “extraordinarily volatile” across energy and metals, forcing producers and fuel-consuming organizations to reassess their approach.
On the producer side, many firms are taking advantage of elevated prices to lock in forward revenues. “There has been a sharp increase in commercial hedgers … hedging the remainder of 2026 and into 2027,” Fletcher says, as companies secure cash flows above internal targets and support borrowing capacity. But strategies vary by size: the largest diversified oil majors often avoid hedging altogether, reflecting investor expectations that their equities provide direct exposure to commodity prices.
For organizations that consume fuel, the shift has been more reactive. Companies with established programs are extending hedges further in the future. Others are entering the market for the first time as price swings hit earnings. “Those who thought the exposure wasn’t meaningful realize it can be,” Fletcher says, noting a surge in conversations with CFOs and treasurers in recent months, some seeking help with a first-time hedging program.
The underlying issue may be less about timing the market than understanding exposure. “Eighty percent of any solid hedging program is: what is the exposure — and does it matter?” Fletcher says. He points to the importance of stress-testing cost sensitivity before implementing a strategy. He also warns that executives are being called out on earnings calls for failing to have a clear hedging rationale, backed by analysis. The mechanics of hedging are “the easy part,” he notes.
That gap between companies with a plan and those without is something Charlie Macnamara sees firsthand. As head of commodity derivatives at US Bank — where his desk serves clients ranging from Permian Basin oil producers to auto manufacturers buying aluminum to EV companies sourcing lithium — Macnamara has a view of what separates hedging programs that work from those that don’t.
“The ones that get it wrong are the ones that don’t have a plan — and those are the ones where they let the movement of the market dictate what they need to do,” he says. The result can be a company that ends up buying the top, reacting to fear or surprise rather than executing a strategy, he adds.
Among the industries and organizations Macnamara describes as getting it right, oil and gas producers stand out. Despite the sharp swings in energy markets over the past year, industry players have remained notably disciplined, layering in hedges methodically, rather than chasing prices. “It’s been very cool, calm, and collected,” says Macnamara. That skill and maturity in hedging have been building for several years, he explains.
For CFOs considering a program for the first time, Macnamara suggests starting with the balance sheet rather than the market. “The plan should stem from how impactful the commodity is on their balance sheet and their cash flow volatility,” he says. From there, he says a finance team can define the level of volatility it wants to accept and structure derivatives or other market instruments accordingly.
Some organizations, and especially at the board level, need to rethink what hedging means, points out Macnamara. The people executing hedges on the ground, he says, often fear that if the hedge loses money, the C-suite will conclude they’ve done a poor job. He regards this view as misguided, and one that can paralyze programs before they get started.
“If you’re hedging 25% of your cash flow volatility and you lose money on that hedge, that means you’ve saved on 75% — you’ve just bought some insurance on the 25%,” he says. The philosophical hurdle is getting the entire organization to understand that a hedge is not meant to make money. It is meant to reduce volatility. “It sounds very simple, but that tends to be the biggest friction point,” he says.
Not everyone is convinced that locking in prices at today’s levels is the right move. Rob Handfield, Bank of America University Distinguished Professor of Supply Chain Management at NC State University and author of “Flow: How the Best Supply Chains Thrive,” urges caution about the assumption that financial hedging can adequately compensate for the unpredictability of physical supply chains. “Financial hedging assumes that individuals have a strong belief that supply and demand will move in one direction or another,” he says. “This is a challenging gamble.”
However, physical flows are difficult to forecast outside of periods of economic stability, according to Handfield. In the current environment, marked by geopolitical tensions, threats to key shipping lanes such as the Strait of Hormuz, and the resulting energy disruptions, the variables shaping commodity markets are too numerous and volatile to model confidently.
“Unless one has insider information on how governments are making decisions, these are very risky bets,” he says of positions in oil, gold, silver, copper, and other metals. And the consequences of disruption can be long-lasting. Handfield points out that rebuilding natural gas infrastructure alone could take at least a year.
On the critical question of whether to lock in today’s elevated prices, Handfield argues for restraint.
“I think locking in elevated prices is a mistake,” he says, expressing the view that once geopolitical tensions ease and supply routes normalize, volatility will likely diminish, thus rewarding companies that preserved optionality over those that locked in at the peak. The deeper conceptual issue, he argues, is that supply and demand are stochastic variables: “You can predict what might happen by what is happening today, but you don’t really know what will happen tomorrow.” Hedging makes most sense when prices are historically low, not in the middle of a supply chain crisis, Handfield believes.
That divide — between market practitioners who see today’s conditions as a hedging opportunity and supply chain strategists who warn against overconfidence in financial instruments — may be the central tension CFOs face heading into 2027. Fletcher and Handfield agree on at least one thing: most companies still underestimate how much commodity exposure matters to their bottom line. Where they diverge is on the remedy.
This article appears in the May 2026 issue of Global Finance Magazine.
Earnings Call Insights: Best Buy (BBY) Q1 fiscal 2027
“Today, we are pleased to report better-than-expected results for the first quarter” (CEO & Director Corie Barry). Barry said Q1 included “positive comps across the majority of our major product categories” and that the company “also drove
Seeking Alpha’s Disclaimer: This article was automatically generated by an AI tool based on content available on the Seeking Alpha website, and has not been curated or reviewed by humans. Due to inherent limitations in using AI-based tools, the accuracy, completeness, or timeliness of such articles cannot be guaranteed. This article is intended for informational purposes only. Seeking Alpha does not take account of your objectives or your financial situation and does not offer any personalized investment advice. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank.
Strong first-quarter earnings across corporate America are reinforcing the case for maintaining exposure to U.S. large-cap equities, according to a recent investor note from Citi.
The firm said S&P 500 (SP500) companies delivered 27% year-over-year earnings growth during the quarter, significantly
On Wednesday, the US Department of War confirmed it had awarded Dell Federal Systems, the government-focused unit of Dell Technologies, a five-year, $9.7 billion (€8.3bn) contract to supply the Pentagon.
As part of the Core Enterprise Technology Agreement (CETA), a Pentagon-wide Microsoft licensing and software procurement framework, the company will provide and manage Microsoft software licences, cloud subscriptions and on-premises software licensing across the US military, intelligence agencies and the US Coast Guard.
Dell Technologies’ shares were up around 5% in pre-market to $320 due to the announcement after closing Wednesday’s session at roughly $305.
The company is set to report its earnings for the first quarter of this year on Thursday, with analysts from Zacks Investment Research forecasting revenues of approximately $35 billion (€30bn), representing annual growth of about 50%.
According to US DoW Chief Information Officer Kirsten Davies, who briefed reporters at the Pentagon, the CETA is expected to save the department roughly $422 million (€360.9mn) annually by consolidating fragmented technology budgets from across the military services into a single purchasing structure.
The contract was granted less than three weeks after US President Donald Trump stood at a White House event and urged Americans to “go out and buy a Dell. They’re great.”
Davies and acting US Navy Chief Information Officer Barry Tanner were both clear that the award followed a competitive process.
“The vendors were all evaluated based on competition, comparison to GSA schedule pricing and overall chain of value to the department,” Tanner noted.
Dell holds a long-standing commercial partnership with Microsoft and is one of its major buyers of Windows licences. Nonetheless, the contract arrives at the culmination of a period of visible alignment between CEO Michael Dell and the Trump administration.
In December 2025, Dell and his wife Susan appeared alongside Trump at the White House to announce a $6.25 billion (€5.3bn) donation to “Trump Accounts,” a tax-advantaged investment programme for children created under the “One Big Beautiful Bill”.
The pledge will provide $250 (€214) to roughly 25 million American children aged 10 and under from households with a median income below $150,000 (€129,000) and was described by Invest America, the nonprofit organisation spearheading the initiative, as the largest ever private commitment devoted to American children.
Michael Dell also sits on Trump’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, informing public policy regarding the economy, public health, national security, energy and emerging technologies.
The convergence of public presidential endorsements and subsequent federal contract awards is attracting scrutiny beyond Dell.
Financial disclosures released this month by the US Office of Government Ethics showed that investment accounts associated with President Donald Trump held Dell Technologies shares during the first quarter of 2026. The disclosures indicate some purchases were made before Trump publicly praised the company at a White House event.
The Trump Organisation has said the accounts are managed independently by third-party financial institutions and that neither Trump nor his family directs individual trades.
Last week, responding to questions about Trump’s financial disclosures at a White House briefing, Vice President JD Vance said the president’s investments are handled by independent wealth advisers and rejected suggestions that Trump personally directs individual stock trades. “He’s not making these stock trades himself,” Vance said.
Commentators and ethics critics have also pointed to trading activity involving companies such as Intel and Palantir, whose shares have at times moved sharply following public comments by Trump or announcements linked to government technology spending.
The Pentagon has said Dell’s selection followed a competitive procurement process.
Even so, the timing of the award alongside Trump’s public praise of the company and financial disclosures showing investments linked to Dell is likely to draw renewed scrutiny from ethics observers and political critics.
A massive $166 billion in corporate tariff refunds sounds nice, but could take years to process.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the Trump administration’s tariffs was a positive outcome for companies, but refunds may take years to materialize.
The Supreme Court decided in February that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency illegally collected $166 billion from 300,000 importers. Logically, companies should get refunds, but lawyers don’t expect a smooth process. Importers should be prepared to wait for one year, even 18 months, according to TD Securities.
The federal agency set up an online portal called the Automated Commercial Environment to handle refunds. Once the agency accepts a company’s claim, it issues refunds within 60 to 90 days.
That’s the short-term optimistic resolution, but history shows a lot of things could go wrong. In 1998, the Supreme Court announced that the government had to return $750 million in fees collected between 1993 and 1998. It took years to get done.
The CBP is set up to collect money quickly—but it doesn’t easily send it back. Companies must document a proper claim on the new portal. Some small business owners don’t understand the complex customs terminology, while others can’t even log in to the new portal due to technical glitches. Let’s say that the agency and the company don’t agree about the amount of the refund. The importer must submit new documentation and begin a second review process. Companies could even be forced to go to court.
CFOs should be ready for a long, fastidious process. The financial expert should set up a cross-functional task force—including tax, accounting, procurement, and supply chain experts—to review the data and audit all the company’s entries. When the time comes, the task force will be able to answer any CBP question.
The online portal created by the CBP agency focuses on importers, but they are not alone. Consumers could also say that they were overcharged because of the tariffs. The federal government ignores them, but some states don’t. Taking matters into his own hands, Illinois Democrat Governor JB Pritzker, in a letter to the Trump administration posted on soicial media, demanded an $8.7 billion refund—that’s $1,700 for each Illinois household affected.
