The White House submitted a 927-page financial disclosure to the US Office of Government Ethics on Tuesday, offering the fullest picture yet of how US President Donald Trump’s fortune has grown since he returned to office in January 2025.
Barely established when he was sworn in, Trump’s crypto businesses now generate more revenue than large parts of the property empire he spent decades assembling with his family, earning the US president more than $1.2 billion (€1.05bn) last year.
Two ventures account for the bulk of the crypto windfall.
World Liberty Financial, the firm launched in 2024 by Trump’s sons and business partners, brought in more than $500 million (€438mn) from selling new crypto products, among them so-called governance tokens, which grant holders voting rights in certain company decisions but no ownership stake.
A separate business tied to the $TRUMP “meme” coin, a cryptocurrency bearing the US president’s face and name, generated a further $635 million (€557mn) from token sales.
Trump’s crypto activities appear to be a major driver of the near tripling of his personal fortune, which Forbes estimates rose from $2.3 billion (€2bn) to $6.5 billion (€5.7bn) between 2024 and 2026.
For many buyers, the story has been far less lucrative.
The $TRUMP coin, which briefly traded above $74 in the days after its launch, has since collapsed to under $2, while World Liberty’s tokens have shed around 80% of their value since they began trading last September.
Since the disclosure lists only revenue and not profit, the true scale of Trump’s personal gains cannot be known. However, the filing shows that the US president and his family collected fees and royalties up front, while many investors have seen the value of their holdings fall sharply.
Among those investors was Chinese-born crypto billionaire Justin Sun, who poured $75 million (€65.7mn) into the governance tokens and $200 million (€175.3mn) into both $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme coins.
A US fraud case against him was later paused before being resolved with a $10 million (€8.7mn) settlement. Sun has denied any connection between his spending and the outcome of his legal troubles.
After the release of the filing, the White House also rejected suggestions of any ethical concerns.
“Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest,” Principal Deputy US Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement to AFP.
Kelly said US President Donald Trump had “proudly made the United States the crypto capital of the world.”
“All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people, and any so-called ‘reporters’ pushing otherwise are recycling the same, tired, false narrative that Democrats and the legacy media have been pushing for a decade,” Kelly added.
The filing also details an aggressive international expansion, with new hotel, resort and condominium agreements generating millions of dollars in countries that were negotiating with Washington over trade and security at the same time.
A development in the United Arab Emirates earned the Trump business around $10.4 million (€9.1mn) last year, one in Saudi Arabia roughly $9 million (€7.9mn), and projects in Qatar, Romania and Vietnam were $5 million (€4.3mn) apiece.
Closer to home, the US president’s established businesses boomed alongside all the new ventures.
Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club in Florida, generated around $77 million (€67.5mn), a jump of roughly 50% on the previous year, as heads of state and executives flocked to the property during his new term.
The disclosure also reveals the wide range of ways the Trump brand is now monetised.
The US president earned millions from a sprawling range of branded goods, from sneakers and watches to bumper stickers, with Trump-branded watches alone bringing in $4.7 million (€4.1mn), and more than $200,000 (€175,300) coming from the “God Bless the USA” Bible, a branded edition promoted with country singer Lee Greenwood.
Branded merchandise of this kind, sold by a sitting US president, has no precedent.
A 1978 law requires the president and vice president of the United States to declare their income as well as their assets.
First Lady Melania Trump’s income is also set out in her husband’s financial disclosure, including more than $10 million (€8.7mn) tied to a biographical Amazon documentary and over $500,000 (€438,250) from her memoir.
For comparison, US Vice President JD Vance reported between $1 million (€876,500) and $5 million (€4.4mn) in royalties from his 2016 book “Hillbilly Elegy”.
Critics have long argued that such arrangements blur the line between public office and private profit. The White House rejects the charge outright.
When Klarna chose New York over Europe for its stock market listing, it highlighted a challenge Brussels has been trying to solve for years: Europe’s fastest-growing companies often look across the Atlantic for deeper pools of capital.
As the EU seeks to build its own AI champions, strengthen its defence industry and keep more high-growth companies raising money at home, one question remains: why does a bloc with €37tn in household savings still struggle to finance its own fastest-growing businesses?
Now the European Union has stepped up efforts to reform its capital markets, aiming to make capital flow more freely across the bloc.
Policymakers are pursuing incremental reforms, including greater supervisory alignment, but a fully unified capital market is likely to take many years, as member states struggle to agree on key technical details, slowing the process.
The current speed of negotiations does not reflect the urgency being expressed by the EU’s political leadership: Europe needs more integrated capital markets to compete globally with major powers such as the US and China.
To do so, billions need to be invested in strategic sectors such as AI and defence, amid intense geopolitical uncertainty, including wars and trade tensions.
Lacking strategic industrial and technological leadership means sacrificing geopolitical power and economic resilience, especially in a global landscape where dominance, or even survival, depends on control over resources and expertise.
This narrative has been championed by leading EU politicians, including European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, whose goal of making Europe more competitive on the global stage has become the North Star of her political mandate.
For this reason, von der Leyen tasked former European Central Bank President and Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi with preparing a report on EU competitiveness, which identified capital markets reform as one of its central recommendations.
Presented in autumn 2024, the report says Europe needs €750bn-€800bn in investment each year, equivalent to up to 5% of GDP, to fulfil its competitiveness goals and remain globally competitive.
“It’s ‘Do this,’ or it’s a slow agony,” Draghi warned in one of his best-known remarks. Draghi describes this “agony” as a prolonged and cumulative erosion of Europe’s economic position, driven by structural weaknesses such as high energy costs and a fragmented single market, which together make the continent less conducive to investment and innovation.
The EU is focusing on two priorities to unlock the potential of its capital markets.
The first is convincing households to invest, mobilising a small percentage of the estimated €37tn in savings. The second is integrating national financial markets across the EU to reduce barriers within the single market, making it easier for businesses to raise funding and for investors to put their money to work.
For this to happen, households need better access to capital markets, along with a better understanding of how to invest and the potential benefits involved. For example, greater participation in financial markets can help individuals build their retirement savings.
At the same time, Brussels must advance the legislative framework — known as the Savings and Investments Union (SIU) — to enable these reforms to take place.
Capital markets are marketplaces where individuals, institutions and governments buy and sell long-term financial instruments, such as equities or debt.
They offer businesses a way to raise funds and support their growth. However, scaling up in Europe remains challenging. Cross-border operations can be costly, time-consuming and involve significant administrative burdens. This is because rules differ between member states, and even where they are the same, their implementation may differ.
These are among the reasons why firms in Europe obtain most of their financing through bank credit.
“What we need to develop is a more diversified funding source,” the head of the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), Verena Ross, told Euronews in an exclusive interview with Euronews Business editor Angela Barnes.
Without enough diversification, businesses look for other markets where funding is more readily available, such as the US.
“The US capital market benefits from a more consolidated supervisory approach. There are fewer layers of bureaucracy and red tape because the US uses a single currency,” Rebecca Christie, senior fellow at Brussels-based think tank Bruegel, told Euronews.
Christie also said the US benefits from having a long-established federal system and from the dollar’s status as the world’s dominant reserve currency, both of which reduce barriers and increase its attractiveness.
“Anybody who needs financing has an incentive to go to US markets because that’s where the money is,” she said.
A less fragmented European capital market would have far-reaching implications, including making more capital available for strategic investments and strengthening the euro’s international role as a global currency — another major ambition of the current EU leadership amid the dollar’s declining role.
“We live in a global world and, particularly, capital markets are global by their nature. We also need to be attractive to overseas investors, whether they are American, Asian or from wherever they come, and make sure that Europe is a destination for that investment capital,” Ross told Euronews.
Despite broad agreement that capital markets need greater integration, there is still strong disagreement over how to make it happen.
The capital markets union legislation forms part of the Savings and Investments Union (SIU), a package of legislative proposals currently under negotiation.
One of the key pieces of legislation aimed at harmonising capital markets is the Market Integration and Supervision Package, known as MISP.
Despite the intensification of talks on MISP in recent months, member states have yet to reach a common position, particularly on how to harmonise capital markets supervision.
Last spring, the six largest European economies — Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Poland and the Netherlands — made a proposal setting out how to centralise supervisory powers.
In particular, they propose transferring some supervisory powers to ESMA, but there is no consensus on whether to proceed, an EU diplomat told Euronews on condition of anonymity. Even among those who agree, there are differing views on how and over what timeframe this should be implemented.
“The problem with the integration of capital markets is not even a political one; it is more a national issue,” Aurore Lalucq, chair of the European Parliament’s Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs, who played an important role in the legislation, told Euronews.
“I think there will be progress in supervision, but there are a lot of details that will be tough to negotiate due to very different perspectives,” Lalucq added, referring to the fact that member states have very different capital market cultures.
Klarna’s decision to look across the Atlantic for deeper capital markets illustrates the challenge Europe faces. While there is broad agreement that the bloc needs to mobilise more private investment, national interests continue to slow progress towards a truly unified capital market.
Chinese stocks advanced after fresh manufacturing data pointed to sustained factory expansion and President Xi Jinping reaffirmed his commitment to promoting high-quality economic development. The upbeat market reaction reflected growing optimism over the resilience of China’s industrial sector and the continued strength of technology and innovation-driven industries.
However, investor sentiment remains tempered by concerns over uneven economic growth, with persistent weakness in consumer confidence, the labour market and the property sector continuing to weigh on the broader recovery.
China’s manufacturing sector expanded for a seventh consecutive month, marking its strongest quarterly performance since late 2020. The data reinforced expectations that industrial production remains a key pillar of economic growth despite ongoing challenges in other parts of the economy.
Stay ahead of the geopolitical week.
MD Briefing delivers expert analysis across five global fronts — the Indo-Pacific, energy, geoeconomics, European security, and the Middle East — every Monday morning. Free.
The stronger-than-expected factory activity provided investors with reassurance that export-oriented manufacturing and industrial output continue to support China’s recovery.
President Xi Jinping renewed his pledge to pursue high-quality development, signalling that Beijing remains committed to an economic strategy centred on technological innovation, industrial upgrading and sustainable long-term growth.
The remarks reinforced expectations that policymakers will continue prioritising advanced manufacturing, strategic industries and innovation rather than relying solely on traditional stimulus measures to support the economy.
Technology-related stocks led gains as investors increased exposure to sectors expected to benefit from China’s industrial and technological ambitions. Chipmaking equipment, biotechnology and software companies posted strong advances, reflecting continued confidence in industries viewed as central to China’s long-term economic transformation.
The rally highlights investors’ preference for sectors with stronger earnings potential and policy support.
Alongside technology stocks, gains also spread to agriculture and property-related shares, suggesting investor optimism is gradually broadening beyond high-growth industries.
Although these sectors continue to face structural challenges, their recovery indicates improving market sentiment and expectations that policy support could help stabilise weaker areas of the economy.
Despite encouraging manufacturing data, investors remain cautious about China’s broader economic outlook. Consumer spending continues to be constrained by weak confidence, labour market pressures and the prolonged downturn in the property sector, creating an uneven recovery across different parts of the economy.
The divergence between strong industrial performance and softer domestic demand continues to shape investment strategies and policy expectations.
Chinese markets are likely to remain supported by resilient manufacturing activity, continued policy backing for innovation and expectations of further measures to sustain economic growth. However, the durability of the rally will depend on whether improvements in industrial production translate into stronger domestic consumption and broader economic recovery.
Investors will closely monitor upcoming economic data and government policy announcements for signs that Beijing can address persistent weaknesses in the property market, employment and consumer confidence while maintaining momentum in high-value manufacturing and technology sectors.
With information from Reuters.
The S&P Global Japan Manufacturing PMI was revised slightly lower to 54.8 in June 2026 from 54.9 in the preliminary estimate. However, the reading comfortably beat May’s 54.5 and marked the sixth consecutive month of expansion, driven by accelerating output and new orders.
Home 
News What if Revolut Isn’t the Only Threat? How Santander Is Quietly Targeting the US
Europe’s financial innovators are arriving in the US from more than one direction.
After moving to Spain from Los Angeles in January of last year, I quickly realized that much of the innovation in finance is happening in Europe. Meaning the seismic shifts in how consumers manage and spend money in their day-to-day lives.
U.K.-based fintech Revolut filed for a U.S. bank charter with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. recently and expects to establish a banking presence there next year, complete with high-yield savings and checking accounts; access to stablecoins, multi-currency deposits; trading in stocks and crypto; and access to ATM networks (no physical branches).
But as much as JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon seems to—all at once—love, respect, and envy Revolut, I’m not so sure the banking and fintech establishments are quite ready for the neobank’s full-scale entry into the U.S.
As much as I believe Revolut — not to mention bunq — are building the future of finance in the U.S. from Europe, another, less-discussed name could present a significant challenge. Put another way: You can’t talk about neobanks upending personal finance in the U.S. without bringing Banco Santander SA into the conversation.
Fintechs alone may not be the most meaningful competitive challenge to U.S. banks, in other words.
Understanding why starts with one of the first questions Revolut skeptics and banking incumbents around the world love to float: Can a company become a primary financial relationship without being a major loan underwriter?
It’s difficult for a fintech to build a lending business, Felipe Peñacoba Martinez, CEO of Getnet Platforms Payments Hub (a Santander company) and former CIO at Revolut Bank (EU), told Global Finance. “Revolut is aware this takes time,” he said, “and they’re going slower than in other areas.”
Despite serving tens of millions of customers globally and holding roughly $67 billion in customer balances, Revolut’s loan book remains a fraction of that figure. Then again, its consumer lending business is also growing rapidly: up 120% year over year to $2.9 billion, according to the company’s 2025 report.
By banking standards, Revolut’s loan-to-deposit ratio remains small, but its lending segment is no longer theoretical. What matters is whether fintechs can scale banking capabilities faster than banks can scale digital ecosystems.
Peñacoba Martinez points to his own children, all three of whom use Revolut and don’t have a need the company can’t serve. “Big banks are seeing how neobanks are taking market share, especially among younger generations,” he says, and as these users eventually seek mortgages and more complex investment products, Revolut wants to serve those needs.
At day’s end, lending conveniently trotted out as a competitive obstacle is the kind of question keepers of the status quo ask when confronted with disruptive business models. Radio people dismissed streaming. Early Amazon.com Inc. skeptics pointed to the online retailer’s lack of profitability. Blockbuster Video scoffed at a $50 million offer to buy Netflix Inc. History is full of established players evaluating the future through the lens of the present.
The lending question becomes more useful as a lens than a verdict. Is it easier for fintechs to build the lending, deposits, and infrastructure traditionally associated with banks? Or is it easier for banks to build the customer experiences, payment capabilities, and digital ecosystems that make fintechs disruptive?
Santander’s advantage goes beyond its balance sheet. Through Openbank, Getnet, and its broader technology transformation efforts, the bank appears to be assembling many of the same capabilities fintechs spent years developing from scratch and combining them with infrastructure that many challengers still outsource or access through partners.
Traditional banks realize the threat from fintechs like Revolut and need to act, said Peñacoba Martinez, but the challenge lies in execution.
“We all know we need to build a modern tech stack that’s easy to integrate, but how do you do that?” he added. “Building is easy, but decades of history, legacy systems, and mindsets are the hard part. It’s very complex for incumbents due to time. Every year that passes, the situation is worse. The risk of breaking something is a greater challenge for big banks than for fintechs.”
Inside Santander, the approach has been to prove new systems internally before scaling them more broadly. As Peñacoba Martinez described it, the challenge isn’t simply building something new; it’s continuing to improve it after launch. Payments became the first testing ground at Santander, with roughly 70% of group payments now running through Getnet.
The same logic applies to Openbank. Santander Executive Chair Ana Botín has made clear that she wants the platform to reach tens of millions of accounts in the coming years as “a digital bank with branches,” including in the U.S.
When I asked Peñacoba Martinez if these efforts effectively place Santander in direct competition with Revolut, his answer was straightforward: yes.
For all the attention paid to Revolut’s 2027 full-scale launch in the U.S., one of the more consequential battles may involve two companies moving toward similar destinations from opposite directions.
One is a fintech building bank capabilities but marketing itself as a lifestyle brand; the other, a global bank adopting the mindset of a fintech while leveraging advantages fintechs have yet to replicate. The lesson for incumbents in the U.S. and around the world: neither of these models exists in isolation.
Revolut, Santander, bunq, Nubank, and others are part of a broader wave of foreign challengers attempting to capture market share in the world’s most lucrative banking market.
Having helped build products inside Revolut and now helping modernize a global banking group, Peñacoba Martinez has seen both journeys firsthand. Listening to him describe them, one conclusion becomes difficult to ignore: time tends to help one side and hurt the other.
Like a young athlete, fintechs have room to grow aggressively from scratch; they don’t think about limits. For older players, every year increases the pressure to keep up without breaking what they have already established.
There’s no question that the competitive threat to U.S. finance from abroad is real. What remains murky is whether U.S. banks truly appreciate how many directions it’s coming from.
Rocco Pendola is a contributing correspondent based in Spain.
Earnings Call Insights: Elite Pharmaceuticals (ELTP) Q4 fiscal 2026
“Total revenues for the year were $149 million” and Elite delivered “operating income was $49 million” while “operating cash flow this year was positive $23.7 million,” CFO Carter Ward (CFO Carter Ward) said, adding that cash was “$29.8 million” and “long-term debt was
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.
Osprey Acquisition Corp. III announces pricing of $261M initial public offering
Source link
imaginima/iStock via Getty Images
Sable Offshore (SOC) plummeted 55.8% on Tuesday to an all-time low close of $3.08 after the company said it would raise $400M through stock and convertible note offerings to repay debt owed to Exxon Mobil (XOM).
The offerings follow repeated
Dikuch/iStock via Getty Images
Scorpio Tankers (STNG) down 2.1% in Tuesday’s trading as Bank of America double-downgrades shares to Underperform from Buy with a $78 price target, lowered from $100, saying product tanker rates remain historically strong but are now in a post-peak pullback.
Owens Corning upped at Evercore ISI after report of Carlisle bids
Source link
Midday Need to Know: Birthright citizenship upheld, SK Hynix files for Nasdaq IPO & more
Source link
The latest data from the Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI) shows the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for the period 22 May–21 June 2026 was 88.6% higher than in the corresponding period a year earlier. In practical terms, a household that spent 100 monetary units on the same basket of goods and services a year ago would now need to spend approximately 189 monetary units to purchase that basket.
Economists attribute the sharp increase in prices to a combination of long-standing structural challenges and more recent pressures. These include weak economic management, persistent fiscal and monetary imbalances, the continued impact of international sanctions, subdued growth prospects, heightened uncertainty in the business environment and widening fiscal deficits. More recently, military conflict and heightened regional tensions have placed further strain on Iran’s economy by increasing investment risks, disrupting economic activity and adding pressure on public finances.
Alongside the figures published by the Statistical Centre of Iran (SCI), the Central Bank of Iran (CBI) has reported different inflation estimates. According to the CBI, year-on-year inflation reached 83.1% at the end of the period 22 May–21 June 2026, while the annual inflation rate stood at 57.7%.
These estimates differ from those published by the SCI, which reported an annual inflation rate of 62.0% and a year-on-year inflation rate of 88.6% for the same period.
The gap between the two sets of estimates amounts to 4.3 percentage points for annual inflation and 5.5 percentage points for year-on-year inflation. Such discrepancies are not unusual in Iran and have recurred over recent years.
The differences largely reflect variations in methodology, including the composition of household consumption baskets, the weighting assigned to individual goods and services, and data collection and sampling techniques. Although both institutions seek to measure changes in the general price level, methodological differences can lead to materially different inflation estimates.
Despite these statistical differences, both sets of figures point to the same underlying trend: Iran is experiencing one of its most severe episodes of inflation in decades. Persistently rapid price growth has become a structural feature of the economy rather than a temporary shock.
Recent data indicate that inflationary pressures have continued to intensify rather than ease. Year-on-year inflation increased from 52.6% in December 2025 to approximately 68% in February 2026, before rising further to 88.6% for the period 22 May–21 June 2026.
This trajectory suggests that inflationary pressures have become increasingly entrenched, reflecting deeper structural imbalances rather than a temporary or purely monetary phenomenon.
International forecasts also point to a challenging outlook. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects that Iran’s annual inflation rate will average around 68.9% in 2026, placing the country among the highest-inflation economies in the world. At the same time, the IMF forecasts a contraction in real GDP of around 6.1%, indicating continued pressure on economic activity.
Short-term price dynamics are also noteworthy. The Consumer Price Index increased by 5.9% over a single month, from 22 April–21 May 2026 to 22 May–21 June 2026 (the periods corresponding to the Iranian months of Ordibehesht and Khordad, respectively).
A monthly increase of this magnitude illustrates the speed at which prices are rising, making it increasingly difficult for households to maintain purchasing power and plan their finances.
Iran’s inflation surge – one of the most severe experienced by the country since the Second World War – has been closely associated with the sharp depreciation of the rial. Inflation has eroded the currency’s purchasing power, while successive declines in the rial have, in turn, fuelled further inflation by increasing the cost of imports and raising inflation expectations.
At the beginning of the year, the US dollar traded at around 1.35 million rials on Tehran’s open market. Following the start of US and Israeli air strikes against Iran on 28 February, the exchange rate rose to approximately 1.72 million rials per US dollar.
During the conflict, the exchange rate temporarily strengthened to around 1.46 million rials per US dollar as economic and commercial activity slowed, reducing demand for foreign currency. However, after Donald Trump threatened further US air strikes against critical Iranian infrastructure on 7 April, the rial came under renewed pressure, with the exchange rate weakening to around 1.63 million rials per US dollar.
Following the announcement of a ceasefire, the exchange rate recovered to approximately 1.525 million rials per US dollar. However, as economic activity resumed and Iranian officials estimated war-related damage at around US$300 billion, the rial weakened sharply again, with the exchange rate reaching a record 1.9 million rials per US dollar.
The subsequent signing of a memorandum of understanding between Tehran and Washington led to a temporary appreciation of the rial, bringing the exchange rate back to around 1.53 million rials per US dollar. Renewed tensions between Iran and the United States, however, pushed the exchange rate higher once again, approaching 1.7 million rials per US dollar.
These developments illustrate the extent to which exchange-rate movements have become a key transmission channel for inflation in Iran. Fluctuations in the rial affect not only the domestic cost of imported goods and production inputs but also the inflation expectations of households and businesses, reinforcing upward pressure on prices.
Inflation has not affected all segments of society equally. Official data show that lower-income households have experienced a greater erosion of purchasing power than higher-income groups.
Year-on-year inflation reached 108.1% in rural areas, compared with 85.2% in urban areas. This disparity is particularly significant because lower-income households typically spend a larger share of their income on essential goods and services, especially food, leaving them more exposed to rising prices.
From a distributional perspective, inflation acts as an implicit tax, disproportionately reducing the real incomes of households with the least capacity to save, invest or protect themselves against rising prices.
The steepest price increases have been recorded in categories most closely associated with everyday household spending. Official statistics indicate that food prices have more than doubled compared with the same period a year earlier.
Year-on-year inflation reached 173.8% for tobacco, around 178% for meat, poultry and related products, approximately 152% for milk, cheese and eggs, and around 139% for bread and cereals.
Non-food categories have also recorded substantial price increases. Prices for furniture and household equipment rose by more than 111%, while transport costs increased by over 103%.
These figures suggest that the inflationary shock extends well beyond food prices. Alongside the rising cost of everyday essentials, households are also facing substantially higher costs for household goods and transport, further eroding purchasing power and placing increasing pressure on household budgets.
One of the clearest consequences of sustained inflation is the widening gap between wages and the cost of meeting basic living expenses.
According to the Iranian Labour News Agency (ILNA), the official minimum monthly wage for the current year was set at 166.255 million rials (approximately €85), while representatives at a meeting of the Supreme Labour Council on 13 March 2026 estimated that a minimum household living basket would cost around 450 million rials (approximately €225) per month.
On this basis, the official minimum wage covers only around 37% of the estimated cost of a basic living basket, leaving a shortfall of approximately 63%.
The figures illustrate how rapid inflation has eroded real wages. Although nominal wages have increased over time, they have failed to keep pace with the rising cost of essential goods and services, placing increasing pressure on household living standards.
More broadly, Iran’s inflation challenge extends beyond rising prices alone. A combination of persistent inflation, currency depreciation and weakening purchasing power has created a self-reinforcing cycle that continues to undermine household finances and economic stability.
Published on
The EU has allocated import quotas for steel to its trading partners on Tuesday in an attempt to fight growing overcapacity from foreign producers.
The measure comes amid rising tensions between the EU and china China, where most of the global steel surplus originates.
Seeking to shield its market from global overcapacity, EU legislators agreed last April to increase existing tariff-free steel quotas to 18.3 million tonnes per year while doubling tariffs beyond those quotas to 50 percent
The EU’s closest allies, such as the UK, Switzerland and Ukraine, are concerned that their own exports to the EU could be drastically affected by the new measures, and have heavily lobbied the European Commission in recent weeks for preferential access to the EU market.
“We are providing market participants with predictability through clear and transparent quota distribution rules, while applying a fair and objective methodology,” EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič said in a statement.
The protectionist move comes as global steel overcapacity is expected to grow to 721 million tonnes by 2027, according to the OECD, a volume that could threaten jobs across the entire EU steel sector.
The EU came under even greater pressure last year when the US imposed 50 percent tariffs on steel imports, rerouting the global surplus to the European market.
“They built a wall around their market, steel was hitting that wall and was coming back to our market in greater numbers,” a senior EU official said. “That is why we introduced a safeguard measure which followed an investigation.”
The EU is also fighting unfair trade practices across the board with 80 other measures already in place, among them anti-dumping duties, most of which target cheap steel imports from China.
Pressed by its closest allies to ease the measures to their benefit, the Commission announced on Tuesday that half of the 18.3 million tonnes allowed to enter its market each year will be allocated to partners bound by free trade agreements with the bloc, including India, Switzerland and the UK.
Many of the countries that have clinched a trade deal with the EU will be allocated country-specific quotas proportionate to the volumes traded with the EU between 2022 and 2024.
A special status has also been granted to Ukraine to support the country while it remains at war and ensure a certain level of exports to the EU.
Published on
The Japanese yen fell to around 162.4 per dollar in Asian trading on Tuesday morning, its lowest level since 1986.
The drop extends a punishing run for the yen, which has kept weakening despite the Bank of Japan’s efforts to support it, and now revives the prospect that the authorities will step into the market directly.
Japan’s finance minister, Satsuki Katayama, has already responded to the situation by stating that the government was ready to take “appropriate” and even “decisive” action against excessive currency moves, adding that she had confirmed with Washington that such a step remained an option.
Traders are now watching closely for any sign that Tokyo is selling US dollars to prop up the yen, as it did in the spring.
At the heart of the weakness is the current wide gap between Japanese and American interest rates.
Even after the Bank of Japan raised its benchmark to 1% in mid-June, its highest since 1995, Japanese yields remain far below those in the US, where ten-year government bonds have recently paid around 4.5%, compared with roughly 2.6% in Japan.
That gap sustains the so-called carry trade, in which investors borrow cheaply in yen to buy higher-yielding assets elsewhere, continually pushing the currency down.
A robust dollar has compounded the pressure.
The greenback has drawn safe-haven demand from tensions around the conflict involving Iran, while expectations that the US Federal Reserve could raise rates later this year, even as the Bank of Japan moves cautiously, have widened the divide further.
Japan’s heavy reliance on imported energy, which is costlier amid elevated oil prices, has also added to demand for US dollars.
The renewed slide is a headache for policymakers who have already thrown considerable firepower at the problem.
Between April and May, Japan spent a record ¥11.7 trillion (€63.3bn) intervening in currency markets, the largest such effort on record, yet the Japanese yen has continued to weaken.
Domestic politics has not helped, with the big-spending, growth-focused agenda of Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi raising doubts about Japan’s fiscal discipline.
Analysts say the immediate risk of intervention is high, given that speculative bets against the Japanese yen have climbed to multi-year peaks and a fresh four-decade low tends to sharpen political anxiety in Tokyo.
However, many doubt that buying the currency would reverse its course for long, since the underlying rate gap remains firmly against it.
The Bank of Japan’s next policy decision, due on 31 July, is now in sharp focus, with further rate rises seen as the more durable route to stemming the decline.
For now, the Japanese yen remains at the mercy of forces its central bank has struggled to control.
France inflation drops to 1.8%
Source link
Persian Gulf producers keep pushing oil, LNG loadings despite ship attacks
Source link
