higher

Shares of Ubiquiti (UI 25.99%) had rocketed 25.7% on Friday as of 11:47 AM ET.

The company, which makes a variety of wireless broadband equipment and access points, reported fourth-quarter earnings this morning. Results crushed analysts’ expectations, thereby appearing to justify Ubiquiti’s high valuation.

Ubiquiti quietly goes about its business

Ubiquiti doesn’t disclose much beyond what it has to and doesn’t host earnings calls with sell-side analysts anymore, given that founder and CEO Robert Pera owns some 93% of the company’s shares outstanding.

Still, the numbers the company did disclose this morning were impressive. Revenue rose 49.6% to $759.2 million, while adjusted (non-GAAP) earnings per share surged 103.4% to $3.54 per share. Both figures absolutely crushed analysts’ expectations.

Some may have been skeptical that Ubiquiti could justify its valuation, which now sits around 43 times earnings based on the fiscal year that just ended. However, these kinds of growth numbers could justify such a valuation if the company can keep it up.

Additionally, Ubiquiti just capped off its fiscal year in which it generated about $628 million in free cash flow, which allowed the company to pay down a significant amount of its debt. Ubiquiti decided to take on debt to buy up inventory after the shortages it experienced during the pandemic, but demand moderated afterward amid high inflation and interest rates. So Ubiquiti had stopped repurchases and dividend increases over the past couple of years as it directed cash to pay down that significant pandemic-era debt.

Fortunately, it appears net debt is now down enough that the company felt comfortable announcing a 33% increase in its quarterly dividend to $0.80, along with a new $500 million share repurchase program, in conjunction with earnings today.

Image source: Getty Images.

Ubiquiti is expensive, but its low float makes it interesting

While Ubiquiti’s stock isn’t “cheap” by any means, there is an interesting dynamic here with Robert Pera owning so much of the company. Since the public float is only about 7% of all shares outstanding, if Ubiquiti continues repurchasing stock, that could create upward pressure on the share price merely due to a lack of sellers. The dynamic could eventually interest meme stock traders.

Lighting and graphics company LSI Industries (LYTS 5.70%) was shining very brightly on the stock exchange Thursday. Investors were impressed with the company’s latest quarterly earnings report, which prominently featured a pair of convincing beats. In late-afternoon trading, the stock was up by more than 4%, against the S&P 500‘s (^GSPC -0.40%) 0.3% dip.

Solid growth in both business units

LSI’s fiscal fourth quarter of 2025 was topped by a net sales line that grew a robust 20% year over year to slightly over $155 million. Non-GAAP (generally accepted accounting principles) adjusted net income zoomed even higher, racing 27% skyward to just under $10.6 million, for $0.34 earnings per share (EPS).

Image source: Getty Images.

Both figures crushed the consensus analyst estimates, which called for less than $139 million in net sales, and an adjusted EPS of a mere $0.22 per share.

LSI basically concentrates on two activities: its core lighting business and the adjacent display solutions unit. In its earnings release, the company attributed its strong performance to notably higher demand for both. It said that lighting managed to grow its sales by 12% in the quarter, a feat attributed to “improved project order rates.” Display solutions enjoyed 29% growth over the same stretch.

The fundamentals were also helped by a pair of recent acquisitions, EMI Industries and Canada’s Best Holdings. The former was bought in April 2024, and the latter in March 2025.

Onward and upward

LSI quoted CEO James Clark as saying that the good results of both its divisions “reflects the sustained vitality of our key vertical markets and increasing customer recognition of our expanding suite of products and services.”

Trump’s order is seeking to address trade practices Washington deems unfair, but small businesses may be harmed, and economists caution it could fuel inflation.

United States President Donald Trump’s sweeping higher tariffs on more than 60 countries have taken effect.

The higher so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, announced last week in an executive order, were being collected by the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agency from 00:01 EDT (04:01 GMT) on Thursday, following months of negotiations with major trading partners.

The US duties range from 50 percent on goods from Brazil to 10 percent on imports from the United Kingdom.

Ahead of the deadline, Trump lauded the “billions of dollars” that will flow into the US as a result of the increased duties. Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent has said that tariff revenues could top $300bn a year.

“THE ONLY THING THAT CAN STOP AMERICA’S GREATNESS WOULD BE A RADICAL LEFT COURT THAT WANTS TO SEE OUR COUNTRY FAIL!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform.

Imports from many countries had previously been subject to a baseline 10 percent import duty after Trump paused higher rates announced in early April.

But since then, Trump has frequently modified his tariff plan, slapping some countries with much higher rates, including 50 percent on goods from Brazil, 39 percent on Switzerland, 35 percent on Canada and 25 percent on India.

Trump announced on Wednesday that he would increase tariffs on India to 50 percent later this month unless it stops buying Russian oil.

The US president says the tariffs are a response to trade practices Washington deems unfair. However, some companies and industry groups have warned that the new levies will hurt smaller US businesses, while some economists have cautioned that they could fuel inflation and affect long-term growth.

Reporting from Washington, DC, Al Jazeera’s Alan Fisher said the hike in tariffs on Brazil will likely affect the US coffee industry, which was already grappling with rising prices due to weather-related shortages.

“Many [US] companies source their coffee in Brazil, not just the big chains, but smaller places [too],” said Fisher.

The US has a trade surplus with Brazil, leading many to believe that the tariffs are Trump’s attempt to punish Brazil for prosecuting his ally, former President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of trying to stage a coup, said Fisher.

‘Winners and losers’

Eight major trading partners accounting for about 40 percent of US trade flows have reached deals with Trump, including the European Union, Japan and South Korea, setting their base tariff rates at 15 percent.

The UK agreed to a 10 percent rate, while Vietnam, Indonesia, Pakistan and the Philippines secured rates of 19 or 20 percent.

Trump’s order has specified that any goods determined to have been transshipped from a third country to evade higher US tariffs will be subject to an additional 40 percent import duty, but details on enforcement are unclear.

According to John Diamond, an analyst at the Center for Tax and Budget Policy at the Baker Institute, the tariffs will likely leave US consumers with fewer choices in the number of goods, as well as higher prices for those goods.

“I think you’re going to see that there’s winners and losers, and you’re going to see that there’s a lot of inefficiency with political kickbacks and political punishments for adversaries,” Diamond told Al Jazeera.

The US president also announced late on Wednesday that he will impose a 100 percent tariff on foreign-made semiconductors, although exemptions will be made for companies that have invested in the US.

People thinking about starting a business or retiring early — before they’re old enough for Medicare — may want to wait until November, when they can see just how much their Affordable Care Act health insurance will cost next year. Sharp increases are expected.

Premiums for ACA health plans, also known as Obamacare, on which many early retirees and small-business owners rely for coverage, are going up, partly because of policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and Congress. At the same time, more generous tax subsidies that have helped most policyholders pay for coverage are set to expire at the end of December.

After that, subsidies would return to what they were before the COVID-19 pandemic. Also being reinstated would be an income cap barring people who earn more than four times the federal poverty level from getting any tax credits to help them purchase coverage. Although Congress potentially could act to extend the credits, people weighing optional life changes should factor in the potential cost if lawmakers fail to do so.

“I would hate for people to make a big decision now and then, in a few months, realize, ‘I’m not even going to qualify for a tax credit next year,’” said Lauren Jenkins, an insurance agent whose brokerage helps people sign up for coverage in Oklahoma. “Coupled with the rate increases, that could be significant, especially for someone at or near retirement, when it could easily cost over $1,000 a month.”

Still, how things play out in the real world will vary.

The key factor is income, as the subsidy amount people receive is primarily based on household income and local insurance costs.

People experiencing the biggest dollar increase in out-of-pocket premiums next year will be those who lose subsidies altogether because they earn more than 400% of the federal poverty level. This year, that’s $62,600 for a single person and $84,600 for a couple.

This “subsidy cliff” was removed in the legislation first enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic to create enhanced subsidies, but it will be back next year if they expire. About 1.6 million people who earn more than 400% of the poverty threshold bought ACA plans this year, many of them getting some tax credits to help with the premiums, according to KFF data. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“A lot of small-biz owners fall around that level of income,” said David Chase, vice president of policy and advocacy for the Small Business Majority, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, which is urging Congress to extend the credits.

And a good chunk of ACA enrollment consists of small-business owners or their employees because, unlike larger firms, most small businesses don’t offer group health plans.

In the Washington metropolitan area, “7 out of 10 people who qualify for lower premiums [because of the tax credits] are small-business owners,” said Mila Kofman, executive director of the DC Health Benefit Exchange Authority.

Congress must decide by the end of December whether to extend the subsidies a second time. Permanently doing so could cost taxpayers $335 billion over the next decade, but not acting could cause financial pain for policyholders and pose political repercussions for lawmakers.

Because new premiums and smaller subsidies would take effect in January, the potential fallout has some Republican lawmakers worried about the midterm elections, according to news reports.

Republican pollsters Tony Fabrizio and Bob Ward warned the GOP in a memo that extending the enhanced credits could mean the difference between success and failure in some midterm races, because support for the premium help “comes from more than two-thirds of Trump voters and three-quarters of Swing voters.”

Although supporters credit the enhanced subsidies for a record 24 million sign-ups for this year’s ACA plans, critics have blamed them for instances in which brokers or consumers engaged in improper enrollment.

“The expanded subsidies were a temporary COVID pandemic policy enacted by congressional Democrats on a party-line vote and scheduled to end after 2025,” said Brian Blase, president of the Paragon Health Institute, a conservative think tank. “They have led to tremendous fraud and waste, they reduce employer coverage, and they should be permitted to expire.”

Ed Haislmaier, a senior research fellow at the conservative Heritage Foundation, acknowledged that people earning more than 400% of the poverty level would not be happy with losing access to subsidies, but he expects most to stay enrolled because they want to avoid huge medical bills that could threaten their businesses or savings.

“They are middle-class or upper-income people who are self-employed, or early retirees with significant income, which means they have a lot of assets behind that income,” he said. “These are people who view insurance as financial protection.”

He thinks lawmakers would win political support from voters in this category by addressing two of their other major ACA concerns: that annual deductibles are too high and insurers’ networks of doctors and hospitals are too small.

“If you just give these people money by extending subsidies, it’s only addressing one of their problems, and it’s the one they are least upset about,” Haislmaier said. “That is the political dynamics of this.”

Here’s how the expiration of subsidies could play out for some hypothetical consumers.

People in households earning less than four times the poverty rate would still get subsidies — just not as generous as the current ones.

For example, those whose earnings are at the lower end of the income scale — say, just over 150% of the poverty threshold, or about $23,000 — will go from paying a national average of about $2 a month, or $24 toward coverage for the year, to $72 a month, or $864 a year, according to a KFF online calculator.

On the other end of the income spectrum, a 55-year-old Portland, Ore., couple with a household income of $85,000 would take a big hit on the cost of their benchmark plan. They currently pay about $600 a month in premiums — about 8.5% of their household income — with subsidies kicking in about $1,000 to cover the remainder.

Next year, if the tax credits expire, the same couple would not get any federal help because they earn over four times the poverty limit. They would pay the full monthly premium, with no subsidies, which would be about $1,800, based on initial 2026 premium rates filed with state regulators, said Jared Ortaliza, a policy analyst at KFF.

People should begin to see insurance rates late this fall, and certainly by Nov. 1, when the ACA’s open enrollment season begins, said Jenkins, the Oklahoma insurance agent. That gives them time to mull over whether they want to make changes in their plan — or in their lives, such as quitting a job that has health insurance or retiring early. This year, open enrollment extends to Jan. 15. Under new legislation, that open period will shorten by about a month, starting with the 2027 sign-up period.

Those who do enroll for 2026, especially the self-employed and people retiring early, should closely track their incomes during the year, she said.

It would be easy to bust through that income cap, she said.

If they do, they’ll have to pay back any tax credits they initially qualified for. Their income might rise unexpectedly during the year, for example, pushing them over the limit. An income bump could come from drawing down more money from retirement accounts than planned, landing a new customer account, or even from winning big at a casino.

“Maybe they win $5,000 at the casino, but that puts them $500 over the limit for the year,” Jenkins said. “They might have to pay back $12,000 in tax credits for winning a few thousand at the casino.”

Appleby writes for KFF Health News, a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF, an independent source for health policy research, polling and journalism.

Legal marijuana businesses in Los Angeles will pay thousands more dollars in renewal fees, the City Council decided Tuesday, bringing fresh financial woes to an already constricting market.

City officials said the fee increases are necessary to make up for declining tax revenue from the marijuana industry, at a time when the city is in dire financial straits.

“This is a difficult but necessary action for the continued functions of [the cannabis department] and to avoid further strain on our General Fund,” City Councilmember Imelda Padilla in a statement.

But some struggling business owners said the increased fees could threaten their survival.

Luis Rivera previously ran three different marijuana delivery businesses in the city, two of which have gone under. He’s now considering shuttering the remaining one, Bonafide Delivery in Sun Valley, due to the fee increases and low profit margins.

“There’s nowhere to pull the money from,” Rivera said. “The fees will be disastrous.”

The new fees, which the council approved unanimously, are expected to bring in about $6 million this year to the city’s Department of Cannabis Regulation, which is required to recoup all its expenses through fees or other charges.

After four straight years where gross receipt taxes from marijuana sales exceeded $100 million, the amount dropped to about $90 million in 2024, according to cannabis department data.

High state and local taxes and the high cost of doing business because of a lack of access to traditional banking and financing, as well as competition with the illegal cannabis market, have contributed to the falling revenue, said Bryan Bergman, an attorney who works with cannabis businesses.

The illegal dispensaries often undercut the prices of legal stores, in part because they do not pay taxes or fees, and have also been hotbeds of crime, according to law enforcement.

“The fee increases are coming at a really bad time for industry folks. And it’s a very significant increase,” Bergman said.

Cannabis products for sale at Bonafide in Sun Valley.

(David Butow/For the Times)

The cannabis department’s budget is $8.6 million for this fiscal year, and it is expected to pay additional $19 million to other parts of city government, such as the city attorney’s office, for their marijuana-related work.

While increasing fees for marijuana businesses, the new ordinance decreases fines for major violations of city rules and regulations. For example, delivering marijuana goods outside of allowable hours will now result in a $23,000 fine, down from $42,000.

The new ordinance also creates a new category of “severe” violation, such as diverting cannabis to unlawful establishments, which would result in a $34,000 fine. Cannabis Department officials said the goal was to avoid excessively heavy fines.

Los Angeles has the nation’s largest municipal commercial cannabis department, overseeing nearly 1,100 licenses for brick-and-mortar dispensaries, delivery businesses and growing operations.

Department officials argued that its fees, which had not gone up since 2020, did not match the cost of operations. Since the department first authorized fees in 2020, its staff has grown from 37 to 63 members. Through collective bargaining agreements, their salaries have also increased 19% since 2020.

The most widespread hit for marijuana businesses will come from renewal fees, which must be paid annually.

A license renewal will jump from $8,486 to $12,617. A temporary approval renewal will go from $4,233 to $6,294, and a record renewal will increase from $1,829 to $2,719.

The new ordinance also contains other fee changes, including an increase in the business diagram modification review fee and a drop in the ownership structure modification review fee.

A Cannabis Department spokesperson said that participants in its social equity program, which provides support to cannabis operators from communities most harmed by the war on drugs, will have some of their increased fees covered by money from a state grant.

The grant will cover about $3.1 million in new fees, said Jason Killeen, the cannabis department’s assistant executive director, during a city council committee meeting Tuesday. More than half of the money will cover the difference between the old renewal fee and the new one for the 317 social equity license holders. The rest of the grant money will go toward new applicants for social equity licenses.

The increased fees come as the city struggles with a budget crisis likely to continue for several years. This year’s budget closes a nearly $1-billion gap through layoffs and other cuts.

The City Council approved an increase in ticket prices for the L.A. Zoo and has taken steps to raise trash fees for roughly 740,000 customers. The city may also raise parking meter fees and extend the meters’ hours of operation.

The Cannabis Department has acknowledged that the new fees will be a hardship for businesses.

“Please understand that this fee study was necessitated by law and is central to DCR’s ability to continue serving this community effectively and equitably,” Executive Director Michelle Garakian wrote in a July news bulletin. “It’s easy to feel like no one at the City cares. But I assure you, DCR does. DCR has to navigate limited resources, competing needs, and make challenging decisions.”

Democratic members of Congress who saw Florida’s new immigration detention centre, Alligator Alcatraz, said they witnessed dozens of people in metal enclosures, bugs and mosquitos in bunk areas, indoor temperatures above 80 degrees and people screaming for help.

Republicans who also toured the facility tell a different story, describing the space as safe, clean and well-run. The federal Homeland Security Department, which oversees immigration detention, has called characterisations of inadequate conditions at the state-run Alligator Alcatraz “false”.

Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem was asked about Democrats’ accounts during a July 13 interview on NBC’s “Meet the Press”. She said the Florida-run facility is “held to the highest levels of what the federal government requires for detention facilities”.

“Our detention centres at the federal level are held to a higher standard than most local or state centres and even federal prisons,” Noem said. “The standards are extremely high.”

White House border tsar Tom Homan also touted the nation’s immigration detention standards as being a cut above those for prisons and jails.

When a reporter asked Homan about a 75-year-old Cuban man who had been living in the US for 60 years before he died in detention in Miami in June, Homan defended federal facilities.

“People die in ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] custody,” he said, before saying ICE has “the highest detention standards in the industry. I’ll compare an ICE detention facility against any state prison against any federal facility. I’ll go head-to-head with any of them. … People say, ‘The detention centres are horrendous.’ Go look for yourself then come back and talk to me.”

Isidro Perez was the 11th person to die in ICE custody, almost six months into Trump’s second term. Twelve people died during former President Joe Biden’s last fiscal year in office.

ICE detention centres have standards akin to prisons. But it’s difficult to assess blanket statements about the standards of immigration detention compared with state, local or other federal facilities for a few reasons.

• ICE detention standards aren’t codified into law, so it’s difficult to enforce them.
• Different ICE detention centres are upheld to different standards based on the terms of their individual contracts.
• There isn’t one set of standards for local, state and federal prisons and jails. Some standards are mandatory or codified into law, others aren’t.

Several government watchdog agencies, advocacy organisations and news reports have long documented inadequate conditions at immigration detention centres.

In May, human rights group Amnesty International reported “physical abuse by guards, use of solitary confinement, unsanitary and overcrowded living spaces including dysfunctional toilets, inadequate medical care and poor-quality, expired food” at an El Paso detention centre.

Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein, a Duke University associate professor who studies the health impacts of the criminal legal system, called Homan’s statement “very misleading”.

“In most respects, ICE facilities operate with less consistent oversight and legal accountability than state or federal prisons or local jails,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said. “ICE detention facilities and people that run them tend to be much less transparent about their operations.”

ICE has detention standards, but they aren’t set in law or universally applied

Several federal agencies and private companies run immigration detention facilities. ICE, the main agency tasked with immigration detention, has standards that all its detention centres are supposed to abide by.

For example, facilities have to be sanitary and have potable water. Detainees must have access to medical and mental healthcare, including getting prescription medications. Physical force should only be used when “necessary and reasonable” and not as a punishment. And detainees must be able to meet with their attorneys confidentially.

There are different sets of standards for facilities that hold immigrant detainees and other non-immigration-related detainees, such as local prisons, and for facilities that exclusively hold immigrants.

The standards for centres that also hold non-immigrant detainees “were based on jail standards in use by many jails”, University of Michigan law professor Margo Schlanger said, describing them as “the most stripped down version of jail standards”.

It’s unclear what standards Alligator Alcatraz is held to. The centre is state-run even though courts have repeatedly held that immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. However, in a court declaration, Thomas P Giles, an ICE official, said the agency had toured the facility “to ensure compliance with ICE detention standards”.

Both sets of immigration standards are periodically updated, but there’s no timing coordination between ICE standards’ updates and other facilities’ updates. Standards are individually negotiated and implemented in separate contracts leading “to varying degrees of protection across detention facilities”, a 2021 Harvard Law Review article about immigration detention said.

Additionally, detention standards aren’t codified into law, making their enforcement difficult. Detainees’ complaints about the facilities’ conditions have little legal support to stand on because the industry is largely self-regulated, one immigration scholar argued.

“Standards are often merely guidelines and largely unenforceable. They are pliable and weak,” David Hernández, a professor at Mount Holyoke College who specialises in detention and deportation policy, said. “Very few facilities lose their contracts due to failing standards, or even deaths of detainees.”

Government watchdogs, nonprofit organisation, news reports detail inadequate conditions at detention centres

The Homeland Security Department is largely responsible for conducting inspections to ensure detention centres are meeting ICE’s standards. However, for years, government watchdog agencies and advocacy organisations have questioned the efficacy of these investigations, pointing to several instances of facilities not complying with ICE standards.

In 2020, Congress created the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman to conduct unauthorised investigations of detention centres and to allow immigrants to file individual complaints for the office to review.

In March, the Trump administration tried to close the office. A civil rights group sued the administration. In response, DHS said in a declaration that the office would stay open but with a smaller staff. Immigration experts said this decision has severely limited oversight of detention centres.

News outlets and advocacy organisations have warned of inadequate immigration detention conditions, including overcrowding. The Trump administration is currently detaining about 60,000 people – that’s 20,000 more people than it has congressional funding to detain.

The external reports describe detainees in different locations being denied medical care, being placed in solitary confinement after complaining about conditions, not having access to legal resources and being targeted for being Venezuelan. Catholic University immigration law professor Stacy Brustin said these stories “mirror accounts” she and her students witnessed when visiting several detention centres.

“We heard shocking descriptions of overcrowding, sewage leaks, inoperable toilets, water running down cell block walls, insufficient access to water, spoiled or inedible food, inability to move freely in cell blocks for prolonged periods, and substandard medical care for individuals with serious, life-threatening conditions,” Brustin said. “All of these conditions violate ICE detention standards.”

For example, ICE standards say centres must provide detainees “a nutritionally balanced diet that is prepared and presented in a sanitary and hygienic”. Spoiled food is a violation.

Differences between ICE detention and prison standards

Some states have codified standards that their detention facilities are required to follow, others don’t. Some facilities are accredited by the American Correctional Association, which has its own set of standards.

All facilities have to comply with the US Constitution – particularly the 8th Amendment prohibiting “cruel and unusual punishments” in criminal cases and the 14th Amendment protecting people against deprivation of “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”. Prisons and jails must also abide by federal laws related to sexual violence, inmates’ access to religious facilities, and people with disabilities.

“Courts have ruled that people who are incarcerated in these facilities have the right to care, safety, and humane treatment,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said.

Generally, prison and jail standards have similar provisions to the ones for immigration detention, such as access to healthcare and legal resources and having sanitary facilities.

Oversight practices also vary based on the facility. Some places are subject to independent oversight; others rely only on internal oversight.

The consequences for prisons and jails that don’t follow standards also vary.

“If the facility is under a consent decree and court supervision, the judge may require regular reports, appoint an independent monitor or a manager or even a receiver to operate all aspects of the facility,” said Andrea Armstrong, Loyola University New Orleans professor and prison conditions expert.

Some places may lose their contracts depending on the severity of the situation, Schlanger said. In other cases, facilities may face lawsuits.

Immigrants have more restrictions when trying to access courts to claim detention facilities are not upholding their standards. That’s because immigration detention is a civil rather than criminal form of detention.

That classification “creates a dangerous loophole where people can be held in carceral conditions without the constitutional protections that apply to those in the criminal legal system,” Brinkley-Rubinstein said.

July 3 (UPI) — The U.S. economy added seasonally adjusted 147,000 jobs in June despite lower predictions, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said Thursday.

The BLS’ monthly jobs report showed a slight uptick over May’s 139,000 increase. The estimate for the July report was 110,000 nonfarm jobs added.

The unemployment rate dipped to 4.1%, which is lower than the expected increase of 4.3%. The rate that includes discouraged workers and part-time workers slid to 7.7%. There are 7 million unemployed people in the United States. The jobless rate dropped due to fewer workers looking for jobs. The unemployment rate has stayed between 4% and 4.2% since May 2024.

According to the BLS, there were job gains in health care (39,000) and state government, while the federal government keeps losing jobs. The government lost 7,000 jobs in June, and employment is down by 69,000 since its January peak. (Those on paid leave or getting ongoing severance are counted as employed.)

People who work part-time for economic reasons was at 4.5 million, which changed little in June. These are people who want full-time work. Those not in the labor force but who want jobs stayed at 6 million.

The number of discouraged workers, those who believed no jobs were available for them, increased in June to 637,000, an increase of 256,000.

Other major industries, like mining, retail and transportation, showed little change over last month.

In response to the news, the stock market rose Thursday.

“The solid June jobs report confirms that the labor market remains resolute and slams the door shut on a July rate cut,” Jeff Schulze, head of economic and market strategy at ClearBridge Investments, told CNBC. “Today’s good news should be treated as such by the markets, with equities rising despite the accompanying pickup in interest rates.”

The U.S. Federal Reserve is likely to leave interest rates as they are.

June 27 (UPI) — The U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis announced Friday that core inflation jumped higher than expected last month.

The BEA said in a press release that the personal consumption expenditures, or PCE, price index for May rose 0.1%, and if food and energy are excluded from the data, the index rose 0.2%.

This bumps the annual inflation rate up to 2.3%, or 2.7% when food and energy are left out of the math.

Economists surveyed by Dow Jones had been expecting the 0.1% and 2.3% but only estimated the numbers would hit 0.1% and 2.6% minus energy and food.

“This morning’s news was consistent with other reports showing the economy gradually losing momentum in the second quarter,” said Wells Fargo Investment Institute market strategist Gary Schlossberg to CNBC Friday.

Schlossberg added that this was “ahead of the brunt of tariff increases expected to wash ashore during the summer and early fall.”

The inflationary uptick got its biggest boost from service prices, which are 3.4% higher than a year ago, while goods only moved upwards by 0.1%.

Inflation pressures in May showed a 0.2% price increase in food, but that was balanced by a 1% decline in energy-related goods and services costs. Shelter prices, on the other hand, went up 0.3%.

The BEA also reported Friday that personal income decreased $109.6 billion in May, or 0.4% at a monthly rate. When personal current taxes are subtracted from personal income, the current disposable personal income, or DPI, went down around $125 billion, or 0.6%.

ADVERTISEMENT

The euro breached the $1.17 mark on Thursday, reaching levels last seen in September 2021. This 13% year-to-date surge positions the common currency on course for its strongest annual performance since 2017 — and potentially even since 2003. The rally therefore brings the euro closer to the psychologically significant 1.20 threshold.

Since Donald Trump’s inauguration on 20 January 2025, the euro has appreciated roughly 15% against the dollar. But what are the reasons behind the euro’s recent success, and how much further can it rise?

Fiscal turn in Germany is a game changer

The explanation lies in an unusual convergence of fiscal stimulus in Europe, waning confidence in US monetary policy, and a build-up of speculative dollar short positions that are fuelling the euro’s ascent.

While the European Central Bank (ECB) has extended its rate-cutting cycle, the key shift underpinning the euro’s strength has come from fiscal policy — particularly in Germany.

In March, the Bundestag approved a constitutional amendment exempting military and infrastructure spending from the country’s strict “debt brake” law.

This legal reform paved the way for a €500 billion infrastructure fund, earmarked for green energy, digital transformation, and regional development through 2035 — all structured off-budget to bypass debt constraints.

Simultaneously, Berlin has pledged to increase defence spending to 3.5% of GDP, aligning with NATO’s Readiness 2030 goals and the broader €800 billion ReArm Europe initiative.

US turmoil weighs on dollar sentiment

Across the Atlantic, the US economy has shown signs of softening. First-quarter GDP contracted, driven partly by a front-loading of imports ahead of new tariffs which were set to take effect in April.

However, market attention has focused more sharply on the political pressure mounting against Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

Despite Powell reiterating this week that rate cuts are premature — citing solid growth and tariff-driven inflation uncertainties — investor confidence in Fed independence has been shaken.

According to BBVA analysts: “Jerome Powell is not leaning toward a rate cut as soon as July, although there is an internal debate at the Fed about the timing of the next rate cut, and it may well continue to grow.”

They added that the dollar’s weakness has deepened “amid reports that US President Donald Trump is considering selecting and announcing a replacement for Fed Chair Jerome Powell by September or October”. This is despite the fact that Powell’s term is set to end in May 2026.

Markets interpret this as a potential “shadow chairman” scenario, where someone behind the scenes could keep interest rates low, thereby putting negative pressure on the dollar.

Euro-dollar outlook: What analysts are watching

Francesco Pesole, analyst at ING, underscored the growing relevance of upcoming US employment data.

“News on the jobs market has significant impact potential now that inflation figures for May have failed to trigger a dovish response by Powell. The rationale could be that if something moves on the second part of the mandate (full employment), a few more FOMC members could join the dovish ranks despite inflation concerns.”

He noted that markets currently price a one-in-four chance of a rate cut on 30 July and 62 basis points of easing by the end of the year.

Meanwhile, investor positioning continues to steer euro-dollar movements.

Matthew Ryan, Head of Market Strategy at Ebury, said: “EUR/USD is almost entirely driven by rising dollar shorts, rather than a more positive outlook for the common bloc’s economy.” In other words, the euro is rising against the dollar because investors are betting against the greenback, rather than placing more faith in the euro.

Technical indicators also point to continued momentum. Luca Cigognini, analyst at Intesa Sanpaolo, commented: “The short-term structure of EUR/USD remains generally bullish. A break above 1.1717, now a resistance level, could push the euro toward 1.1750, raising the next target to 1.1800/1.1820.”

Beyond those levels, traders are eyeing resistance at 1.1910 — the highs of August 2021 — followed by the psychological barrier at 1.20.

Higher targets include 1.2350 (January 2021) and 1.2550 (February 2018), but much will depend on how economic indicators and political developments evolve in the second half of the year.

More than 30 million Californians across the state could see their electric bills go up to pay for the devastating Eaton fire, as officials scramble to shore up a state wildfire fund that could be wiped out by damage claims.

One early estimate places fire losses from the Eaton fire at $24 billion to $45 billion. If Southern California Edison equipment is found to have sparked the blaze on Jan. 7, as dozens of lawsuits allege, the damage claims could quickly exhaust the state’s $21-billion wildfire fund.

“Everyone is concerned about this,” said Michael Wara, director of Stanford’s climate and energy policy program, who was involved in the fund’s creation. “If we need to put more money into the fund, where will it come from?”

The wildfire fund was created to shield the state’s three big utilities from bankruptcy in the event one was found liable for massive fire damages.

At a meeting last month, members of the state Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund, were told that Gov. Gavin Newsom and legislative leaders were being urged to extend a monthly surcharge on electric bills beyond its planned expiration in 2035. The fee, called the non-bypassable charge, adds roughly $3 a month to the average residential bill.

“They are asking the people of California to put more money into the fund,” said council member Paul Rosenstiel, a former investment banker and Newsom advisor, according to a transcript of the meeting. “Some of them are asking for an extension of the non-bypassable charge.”

The fee is paid by customers of the state’s three big for-profit utilities — Edison, Pacific Gas & Electric and San Diego Gas & Electric.

Rosenstiel didn’t respond to a request for comment. At the meeting, he didn’t say who was lobbying the governor and lawmakers to extend the surcharge to ratepayers.

California utility executives have told their investors they have been talking to Newsom and legislative leaders about shoring up the fund. PG&E executives have said that they have asked that no new money come from utilities or their shareholders, which would likely leave electric customers to pay more.

“We continue to advocate that we don’t think there is a good case that investors should contribute to the fund,” Patti Poppe, PG&E’s chief executive, told Wall Street analysts in an April conference call.

A Siller Skycrane removes Southern California Edison’s tower 208 from a hillside in Altadena in May. The idle transmission tower, suspected of sparking the Eaton fire, will be examined at a lab.

(Myung J. Chun/Los Angeles Times)

Pedro Pizarro, chief executive of SoCal Edison’s parent company Edison International, was asked in a recent call with Wall Street analysts about the prospects for legislation that would bolster the wildfire fund.

“Clearly the governor’s office is engaged, as are our legislative leaders,” he said, adding that he was “certainly very encouraged by the level of diligence and engagement that I’m seeing.”

Asked to elaborate, Kathleen Dunleavy, a SoCal Edison spokeswoman, said the utility was not seeking a specific solution to questions of the fund’s durability.

“Our focus is to convey the importance of a strong wildfire fund,” she said. “We are not being prescriptive in how to achieve that.”

This year, the electric bill surcharge is expected to add $923 million to the fund, according to California Public Utility Commission records. If the fee was extended an additional 10 years, it would require customers of the three utilities to pay an additional $9 billion into the fund.

That doesn’t sit well with consumer advocates, who point out customers are already on the hook to contribute half of the $21-billion fund, while also paying higher bills to cover costs such as undergrounding and insulated electric wires.

Those measures are intended to make the electric system safer. Yet despite spending billions of dollars last year on wildfire mitigation, the number of fires sparked by its equipment jumped from 90 in 2023 to 178 last year.

Altadena homes lie in ruins after the Eaton fire.

(Robert Gauthier/Los Angeles Times)

“We think ratepayers have more than done enough,” said Mark Toney, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, also known as TURN, a consumer group in San Francisco. “My position is that ratepayers should not pay another penny.”

Rosenstiel said at the May meeting that Newsom and legislative leaders were also being asked for the state’s general fund, which pays for schools, healthcare, prisons and other government operations, to contribute to the fund that protects utilities from wildfire claims.

The governor’s office declined to answer questions and said Newsom’s schedule didn’t allow time for an interview.

Newsom has a seat on the Catastrophe Response Council. He was a no-show at the group’s most recent meeting, sending a designee in his place.

Assemblywoman Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Irvine), the chair of the Assembly’s Utilities and Energy Committee, acknowledged that lawmakers are concerned about the fund but said that they are still considering remedies.

“All options are on the table and are being considered and evaluated,” she said. “I have certainly not arrived at a solution yet.”

The cause of the Eaton fire, which killed 18 people and destroyed more than 9,000 homes, businesses and other structures in Altadena, remains under investigation.

Edison CEO Pizarro has said a leading theory is that an unused, decades-old transmission line in Eaton Canyon was reenergized and sparked the blaze. Video captured flames erupting under an Edison transmission tower on the night of the fire.

If Edison’s equipment is found to have started the inferno, the state’s wildfire fund is expected to cover most of the cost of damages over $1 billion, under a 2019 law that was passed after PG&E went bankrupt from its liability for the deadly 2018 Camp fire.

The first $1 billion in damages from the Eaton fire would be covered by insurance that electric customers paid for.

The total cost of the fire in Altadena won’t be known until dozens of lawsuits make their way through the courts, which could take years.

A February study by UCLA economists Zhiyun Li and William Yu estimated that the fire caused $24 billion to $45 billion in property damages and capital losses, or the cost to replace what was destroyed.

Officials at the California Earthquake Authority, which manages the wildfire fund, told members of the Catastrophe Response Council in a May memorandum that the authority had “undertaken a significant project to evaluate alternatives for extending the durability of the Wildfire Fund in the face of potential large losses.”

To determine how to strengthen the fund, authority officials said they had rehired consultants who worked with Newsom’s office in 2019 to create the fund. The four firms will be paid $4.5 million, which the fund will cover, they said.

Among the consultants is Guggenheim Securities, the investment banking arm of Guggenheim Partners. Another subsidiary of Guggenheim Partners owns stock in the state’s three big utilities.

A recommendation to tap utility customers to replenish the fund, instead of the utility companies themselves, would likely have a big impact on company share prices.

“They [Guggenheim] certainly have a vested interest in the financial success of the utilities,” Toney said.

A spokesman for Guggenheim Securities said the stocks owned by the sister company didn’t pose a conflict, saying it “maintains a robust conflict management program, including strict information barriers between its investment banking department and the rest of Guggenheim Partners.”

Wara at Stanford said if Edison is found responsible for the Eaton fire, the wildfire fund would cover what insurers paid to victims and also pay for property damage not covered by insurance.

For example, families who lost their homes but received insurance payouts lower than the value of their property could seek the balance from Edison, he said. The utility would then seek to recover those sums from the wildfire fund.

The other deadly Los Angeles County inferno that ignited on Jan. 7, the Palisades fire, is not covered by the wildfire fund because Pacific Palisades is served by the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, a municipal utility. The fund only covers blazes ignited by equipment owned by the state’s three biggest investor-owned utilities.

“They have their insurance and that’s it,” Wara said of Palisades fire victims.

At its meeting last month, the state Catastrophe Response Council was informed that insurance claims from the Eaton fire have totaled roughly $15 billion so far.

Adding to the damage bill is the potential cost of lawsuits. The possibility that the fund will pay out large amounts for Eaton fire damages has led to dozens of lawsuits being filed against Edison, even before the official cause has been determined.

Families of Altadena residents who died have filed wrongful-death suits. Edison is also facing lawsuits from L.A. County and other local governments for damages, including to public infrastructure such as water systems. Residents living outside the fire’s borders have filed suit, saying they were harmed by lead and other toxins in the smoke.

If a court found Edison negligent in maintaining its equipment, Wara said, victims could ask for compensation for pain and suffering, which would escalate the cost.

“Then the wildfire fund is out of money,” Wara said.

Pizarro has said that Edison is “committed to a thorough and transparent investigation.”

“Our hearts go out to everyone who has suffered losses,” he said.

The 2019 law that created the wildfire fund, known as AB 1054, greatly limited what Edison would have to pay for any of the claims. The company has told its investors that its maximum liability would be $3.9 billion.

The three utilities are asking legislators to ensure that state law continues to protect them and their shareholders, even if the $21-billion fund runs out of money.

Since the January fires, Edison, PG&E and Sempra, the parent company of San Diego Gas & Electric, have each spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to lobby in Sacramento, according to required regulatory reports they filed for the first three months of the year.

A PG&E lobbyist reported taking Assemblywoman Petrie-Norris to a $267 dinner at Paragary’s, a bistro in Sacramento, on Feb. 3.

Petrie-Norris said the dinner was with Carla Peterman, a former state public utilities commissioner who is now a top PG&E executive. Petrie-Norris said they talked about a planned March hearing on electricity affordability and didn’t discuss the wildfire fund.

The next month, a PG&E lobbyist took Dee Dee Myers and Rohimah Moly, two of Newsom’s top staff members, to the upscale Prelude Kitchen & Bar, which is a short walk from the state Capitol.

Willie Rudman, a spokesman for the Governor’s Office of Business and Economic Development, said the wildfire fund wasn’t discussed at the meal. Instead it “was a general meet and greet,” Rudman said, where the governor’s staff and PG&E executives “discussed opportunities for future collaboration.”

PG&E declined to answer questions. Lynsey Paulo, a PG&E spokesperson, said in a statement that the utility’s lobbying expenses were paid with shareholder funds and not money from customers.

“Like many individuals and businesses, PG&E participates in the political process on behalf of our customers and company,” Paulo said.

ADVERTISEMENT

Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets caused the price of oil to surge more than 7% on Friday since Tehran is one of the world’s major producers of oil, despite sanctions by Western countries limiting its sales.

A wider war could slow the flow of Iranian oil to its customers and keep prices of crude and gasoline higher for everyone worldwide. But early Monday, those concerns appeared to abate slightly.

Oil prices were still volatile on the fourth day of the Israeli-Iran crisis, before giving back a bit of their gains. On Monday morning, the US benchmark crude oil was traded at $73.71 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, cost $74 per barrel, down from Friday but still 7% higher than the price before the missile fire started. 

Military strikes between Israel and Iran are fuelling concerns that oil exports from the Middle East could be significantly disrupted. However, there is currently no indication that the oil flow is impacted, and concerns are running high.

Meanwhile, major oil companies are being rewarded on the stock market: BP and Shell both gained more than 1% in the Monday morning trade in Europe. 

“Gains in oil majors and defence contractors have helped to push the FTSE 100 onto a positive footing in early trade,” said Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown financial services company.

Shares in the FTSE 100’s top banks were also rising on inflation fears that could result in higher key interest rates. Standard Chartered rose nearly 3%, Barclays and Natwest were up by more than 1% by 11 am CEST. 

Also strengthening the banking sector’s gains in London, Metro Bank shares soared by more than 14% following speculation that investment firm Pollen Street Capital would take over the lender, Sky News first reported over the weekend.

Investors in London also gained confidence after data for May showed a 6.1% year-on-year jump in retail sales in China, the world’s second biggest economy. However, it was coupled with lower-than-expected growth in industrial output, which still rose 5.8% from the previous year.

After 11 am in Europe, Britain’s FTSE 100 inched up 0.3% to 8,876.26. Germany’s DAX gained 0.2% to 23,572.39 and the CAC 40 in Paris edged 0.6% higher to 7,728.66. 

The futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were up 0.5%.

During Asian trading, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 added 1.3% to 38,311.33, while the Kospi in Seoul gained 1.8% to 2,946.66.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 0.7% to 24,060.99 and the Shanghai Composite Index added 0.4% to 3,388.73.

The price of gold has climbed as it remains a safe haven asset. An ounce of gold added 1.4% on Friday, but gave back some of its gains on Monday morning, and was traded at around $3,437 an ounce.

Prices for US Treasury bonds are also on the rise when investors are feeling nervous, but Treasury prices fell Friday, which in turn pushed up their yields, in part because of worries that a spike in oil prices could drive inflation higher.

Inflation in the US has remained relatively tame recently, and it’s near the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. However, concerns remain high that it could accelerate due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

A better-than-expected report Friday on sentiment among US consumers also helped drive yields higher. The preliminary report from the University of Michigan stated that sentiment improved for the first time in six months after Trump put many of his tariffs on pause, while US consumers’ expectations for future inflation eased.

In currency trading early Monday, the US dollar gained to 144.18 Japanese yen from 144.03 yen. The euro rose to $1.1582 from $1.1533.

What is expected for the week?

The Middle East conflict is set to be the focus of the G7 meeting of leaders of wealthy nations in Canada this week.

There are also hopes that Trump will sign more trade deals, which keeps trade optimism a bit higher.

“It’s a big week in terms of decisions on interest rates and the direction of monetary policy,” Streeter said.

“The Federal Reserve is expected to keep rates on hold this week but comments from chair Jerome Powell will be closely watched for future direction of policy.”

Meanwhile, there is a monetary policy meeting of the Bank of England this week, where “policymakers are expected to press pause on rate cuts,” Streeter explained, citing the potential impact of higher energy costs. 

Meanwhile, the UK government’s infrastructure plans are going to be revealed in more detail this week. “The 10-year strategy, worth £725 billion (€850.8 bn), is the backbone of the Starmer administration’s plan to kickstart growth,” Streeter said.