money

Published on
06/05/2026 – 15:39 GMT+2

The surge in jet fuel prices has become a primary concern for the European travel industry, with Lufthansa finding itself at the centre of this crisis.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

According to Lufthansa’s latest earnings report, the airline expects an additional €1.7 billion ($2bn) fuel cost burden in 2026 as soaring jet fuel prices continue to weigh on the industry.

The need to avoid certain airspaces has led to longer flight times, which naturally increases consumption. These adjusted routes also require more staff hours and higher maintenance cycles, adding layers of complexity to an already strained global supply chain.

As reported by Euronews, global airlines have already cancelled approximately 13,000 flights this May, while Lufthansa alone has axed 20,000 short-haul flights through to October in a bid to cut fuel consumption.

This reduction in capacity is a direct response to the unsustainable cost of operating older, less fuel-efficient aircraft during price peaks.

While Lufthansa has managed to stay profitable, the jet fuel price spikes have forced the firm to advise passengers to book their holidays as early as possible to avoid further surcharges.

The company is currently investing heavily in its “fleet modernisation” programme to mitigate these risks in the long term, though the immediate impact of fuel volatility continues to weigh on the balance sheet.

Lufthansa remains committed to its financial targets, but the volatility of the global oil market remains the largest variable in its 2026 outlook.

“We are satisfied with the first quarter […] at the same time, the current situation compels us to rigorously examine every lever available to reduce costs, improve efficiency and mitigate risks in order to maintain our ability to act decisively. Our annual profit will likely be lower than originally anticipated,” CFO Till Streichert stated.

The Lufthansa Group has announced a landmark financial performance, revealing that it generated the highest revenue in its history in 2025. Revenue rose by 5% compared with the previous year to €39.6 billion.

According to the latest figures, the airline group also saw its operating profit grow by 20% compared with 2024, highlighting a robust recovery in passenger demand.

In the first quarter of 2026, year-on-year revenue climbed 8% despite challenges linked to the conflict involving Iran, including €1.7 billion in additional costs caused by volatile jet fuel prices and the suspension of dozens of routes.

The firm kept its capacity broadly stable with slight growth in long-haul traffic compensating for capacity reductions in short and medium-haul segments.

Lufthansa Technik and Lufthansa Cargo also significantly contributed to earnings with demand for maintenance, repair and overhaul services increasing, as well as through the marketing of ITA Airways’ cargo space.

Global demand for air travel remains high and continues to prove resilient even in times of crisis, as Lufthansa Group again expects a strong summer travel season.

“In the first quarter, we significantly improved on the previous year’s financial results […] but the ongoing crisis in the Middle East, combined with rising fuel costs and operational constraints, poses enormous challenges for the world as a whole, for global air travel and for our company as well,” CEO Carsten Spohr stated.

“However, we are resilient in our ability to absorb these impacts. This applies both to our above-average hedging against fuel price fluctuations and to our multi-hub, multi-airline strategy, which provides us with greater flexibility in our route network and fleet development,” Spohr added.

Alphabet’s (GOOG) Google DeepMind, Microsoft (MSFT), and xAI (X.AI) have agreed to give the U.S. government early access to their AI models to evaluate the systems’ capabilities and help improve security.

The U.S. Commerce Department’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation, or

Free agent NFL receiver Stefon Diggs has been found not guilty of felony strangulation and not guilty of misdemeanor assault and battery in connection with an alleged dispute with his private chef over money she said he owed her for her services.

Diggs remained stoic in the courtroom as the verdicts were announced, following less that two hours of deliberation by the jury.

Diggs was charged Dec. 30 and pleaded not guilty during his arraignment at Massachusetts’ Dedham District Court on Feb. 13, five days after playing in Super Bowl LX with the New England Patriots.

Diggs did not take the stand during the trial, which started Monday in Norfolk County District Court in Dedham, Mass.

His accuser, Jamila Adams, told the jury that the 11-year NFL veteran “smacked me with an open hand” and wrapped his arm around her neck during an incident that is alleged to have occurred at Diggs’ house on Dec. 2.

“When I went up to block him, he took his arms and came around my neck and he began to choke me,” said Adams, who became emotional during her testimony.

Defense attorney Andrew Kettlewell told jurors there was no evidence of an assault, with no one in the house reporting anything of the kind and no medical records, photos or video that documented any injuries.

Adams said she did not take any photos or video that showed any marks on her body that could be used as evidence because she “was in shock.”

According to Adams, her employment dynamic with Diggs was “complicated.” The two of them have known each other for more than four years, she said, and had previously been in a sexual relationship, although they were not at the time of the alleged assault. As Diggs’ private chef, she lived in his home and prepared him meals and snacks, she said.

In reporting the alleged incident to police Dec. 16, Adams said she and Diggs had a dispute over payment she thought she was owed. Kettlewell told jurors that Adams had sought money from Diggs after reporting the alleged incident, in amounts that increased over time and culminated in her attorney seeking $5.5 million.

“She was furious and she wanted Mr. Diggs to pay in every sense of that word,” Kettlewell said.

Asked Tuesday about the $5.5-million claim, Adams answered at various points, “I can’t speak on that,” “I don’t understand the question” and “I don’t know how to answer the question.”

At times during the trial, Judge Jeanmarie Carroll instructed jurors to disregard parts of Adams’ testimony that the judge said went beyond the scope of the questions.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

OpenAI (OPENAI) President Greg Brockman told a federal court on Tuesday that Elon Musk’s apparent lack of knowledge about AI made OpenAI’s early leadership leery about giving him control of the company.

“Look, he knows rockets, he knows electric cars,” Brockman said,

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans have added $1 billion in White House security upgrades to legislation that would fund immigration enforcement agencies, a proposed boost for President Trump’s ballroom project after a man was charged with trying to assassinate him at the White House Correspondents’ Assn. dinner last week.

The GOP bill released late Monday would designate the money for the U.S. Secret Service for “security adjustments and upgrades” related to the ballroom project, which Trump and Republicans have been pushing since Cole Tomas Allen allegedly stormed the April 25 media dinner at the Washington Hilton with guns and knives. The legislation says the money would support enhancements to the ballroom project, “including above-ground and below-ground security features,” but also specifies that the money may not be used for non-security elements.

White House spokesperson Davis Ingle praised Republicans for including the money for the “long overdue” project, saying it would “provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS.”

The money is part of a larger bill to pay for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol, as Democrats have been blocking funds for both agencies since mid-February. Congress passed bipartisan legislation to fund the rest of the Homeland Security Department on April 30 after a record-long shutdown, but Republicans are using a partisan budget maneuver to push through the ICE and Border Patrol dollars on their own. The House has not released its bill yet, but the Senate is expected to start voting on its version of the legislation next week.

It is unclear exactly how the $1 billion would be used, and the amount far exceeds the proposed $400 million for construction of the ballroom. The White House has said in court documents that the East Wing project would be “heavily fortified,” including bomb shelters, military installations and a medical facility underneath the ballroom. Trump has said it should include bulletproof glass and be able to repel drone attacks.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation has sued to block construction of the project, but a federal appeals court said last month that it can continue in the meantime.

The White House has said that private money would pay for the construction but public money would be used for security measures. Some Republicans have suggested that public money pay for all of it, arguing the security breach at the dinner shows the president needs a secure place to host events.

“It would be insane” to hold the dinner at a hotel again, said Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who introduced a bill to pay for the ballroom’s construction with Sen. Katie Britt, R-Ala.

Democrats have said they will oppose any efforts to pay for the ballroom.

“While Americans are struggling to make ends meet as a result of President Trump’s failed policies, Republicans are focused on providing tens of billions of dollars for the President’s vanity ballroom project and cruel mass deportation campaign,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversees the U.S. Secret Service.

Jalonick writes for the Associated Press. AP writer Darlene Superville contributed to this report.

Published on
05/05/2026 – 19:06 GMT+2

EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič on Tuesday urged the US to honour its side of the EU-US trade deal during a meeting in Paris with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Tensions have escalated in recent days over the implementation of the EU-US trade deal reached almost a year ago in Turnberry, Scotland, after US President Donald Trump threatened to impose 25% tariffs on EU cars, in breach of the agreement capping US tariffs on EU goods at 15%.

The agreement was further shaken in February after the White House introduced new tariffs following a US Supreme Court ruling declaring the 2025 tariffs illegal.

A European Commission spokesperson said Tuesday that during the 90-minute meeting with Greer, Šefčovič called for a “swift return” to the agreed Turnberry terms, meaning “a 15% all-inclusive tariff rate.”

The US currently imposes a 10% tariff on EU goods on top of duties already in place before Trump’s return to the White House in 2025, with rates varying across EU products. Combined duties can now reach as much as 30% on certain EU exports, such as cheese, exceeding the 15% cap established in the EU–US agreement.

During the meeting, Šefčovič also updated his counterpart on the EU’s implementation of the agreement, the spokesperson said, “to clarify” where the EU “stands.”

Washington wants Brussels to accelerate the EU legislative process needed to implement the deal, including the bloc’s commitment to cut tariffs on US industrial goods to zero.

But negotiations between EU governments and members of the European Parliament remain tense.

MEPs want to add safeguards that would make EU tariff cuts conditional on the US implementing its side of the agreement. They are also pushing for a “sunset clause” that would terminate the deal in March 2028 unless renewed.

The European Parliament’s position is backed by France, while Germany and other member states want to preserve the original agreement struck in July 2025 by Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen.

A round of negotiation is scheduled for Wednesday evening.

Poland’s Swiatek said she would prefer continued discussions and negotiations with the majors instead of a boycott.

“I think the most important thing is to have proper communication and discussions with the governing bodies so we have some space to talk and maybe negotiate,” the Wimbledon champion said.

“Hopefully before Roland Garros there’s going to be opportunity to have these type of meetings and we’ll see how they go.

“But boycotting the tournament, it’s a bit extreme kind of situation.

“I guess we as players are here to play as individuals, and we’re competing against each other.

“So it’s really hard for me to say how it would work, if it’s even there on the picture. For now, I haven’t heard anything.”

But French Open champion Gauff thinks strike action would be a genuine possibility if the players come together as one.

“If we all collectively agree, then yes,” the American said.

“I wouldn’t want to be the only one, but we definitely can move more as a collective.

“From the things I’ve seen with other sports, usually to make massive progress and things like this, it takes a union. We have to become unionised in some way.”

World number two Elena Rybakina says she has not been involved in the campaign, but would go with the majority.

“If the majority say we are boycotting, then of course I’m up for it. It’s not an issue,” the Australian Open champion said.

World number five Jessica Pegula has been an articulate advocate of the players’ campaign, but virtually ruled out strike action during a BBC Sport interview in Indian Wells in March.

“We love playing the Slams – I don’t think anyone’s going to strike against the Slams,” the American said.

“I just think it’s us asking for what we think we deserve, but I do think that if the men and the women can come together – which we have on that front – and keep pushing, there’s nothing wrong with us just asking for what we think is right.”

Almost a decade after British voters chose to leave the European Union on 23 June 2016, the FTSE 100 has been hitting record highs.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Yet beneath the headline, the financial scars of that vote remain unmistakable.

A new Morningstar analysis titled “The Brexit Decade” laid out the damage in numbers that are hard to dismiss.

Since the referendum, UK equity funds have bled roughly $160 billion in cumulative net outflows, six consecutive years of redemptions that have hardened into a structural loss of confidence rather than a passing cyclical drawdown.

How wide a performance gap has opened between UK stocks and comparable equity markets since the vote? And how has the pound fared?

UK FTSE 100 has trailed Wall Street and continental Europe

The numbers speak for themselves.

The FTSE 100, the benchmark tracking the 100 largest companies listed on the London Stock Exchange, has gained 62% since Brexit.

Over a 10-year window, that works out to a compounded annual growth rate of just under 5%.

Wall Street has run a different race. The S&P 500 has rallied 253% over the same stretch, a 13.4% annualised return — almost three times the pace of UK large-caps.

The gap is not just a transatlantic story.

Within Europe, the German DAX has returned 151% and the Euro STOXX 50 has gained 109%, suggesting Brexit has weighed more heavily on London than on the continental rivals it left behind.

Why UK markets lagged: A pre-existing weakness Brexit made worse

According to Morningstar, Brexit was a catalyst rather than the root cause of the UK market’s underperformance.

The UK equity market entered the 2016 referendum with pre-existing structural headwinds — declining domestic pension demand, capital rotating toward US growth markets, and an unfavourable sector mix tilted toward energy, banks and miners rather than the technology platforms that dominated the 2010s.

Brexit amplified and accelerated these trends, increasing the UK’s perceived risk premium and damaging confidence at a critical moment.

Investor behaviour has been unambiguous. UK allocations were systematically redeployed to the US, while passive strategies gained share as active UK equity economics deteriorated.

The UK’s footprint in global benchmarks has roughly halved over the past two decades, falling from nearly 10% of the MSCI ACWI to around 4% today.

In the most aggressive sterling-allocation fund category tracked by Morningstar, average UK equity weights have collapsed from 40% to 18%, with the freed-up capital systematically redeployed to US equities.

The asset management industry has felt the chill directly.

Around 380 UK equity strategies have closed since 2016 against just over 200 launches, and the share of total assets sitting in passive UK equity vehicles has climbed from 22% to 46% over the same period.

Active large-cap managers, including Columbia Threadneedle, Jupiter, Liontrust, Aviva and Schroders, have absorbed the heaviest outflows. Vanguard, iShares and Phoenix Group have absorbed the inflows.

The damage was then compounded by Covid-19, the global inflation shock, geopolitical conflict, falling foreign direct investment, weaker goods exports and domestic policy missteps — most notably the gilt market crisis of autumn 2022.

Isolating Brexit’s impact is difficult, Morningstar acknowledges, but there is no serious argument that it did not materially worsen outcomes.

Sterling: Weaker where it matters most

The currency market tells a parallel story. The pound is down about 10% versus the US dollar and 12% versus the euro since the Brexit vote.

Against the world’s two reserve currencies, sterling has lost ground.

On the eve of the Brexit referendum, one pound bought €1.31. Almost a decade later, it buys just €1.15 — a roughly 12% loss of purchasing power against the single currency that the United Kingdom voted to step away from.

The picture sharpens against central and eastern European peers.

Sterling has tumbled over 20% against the Czech koruna and 13% against the Polish zloty, both economies that have absorbed manufacturing capacity and foreign direct investment that might otherwise have flowed to the UK.

Notably, the pound has barely held its ground against the Hungarian forint, eking out a 1.8% gain against one of Europe’s most volatile currencies.

Is there a turning point for UK markets?

The narrative is no longer one-way.

Since 2022, UK equities have outperformed US and global markets, driven by a strong value rotation and resilient dividends — without meaningful multiple expansion, according to Morningstar.

Valuations still reflect pessimism, however.

The UK trades at a 30% to 35% price-to-earnings discount to the US, with small and mid-caps the most depressed relative to history and developed peers.

Elevated mergers and acquisitions activity and record share buybacks suggest corporate insiders and overseas acquirers see value where public investors remain sceptical.

Some fund managers see this as the entry point.

Natalie Bell, fund manager on the Liontrust Economic Advantage team, said in a recent note that “valuations remain significantly depressed versus long run averages and other comparable markets,” adding that her team sees a broad-based valuation reversion opportunity for UK equities, particularly in small and micro-caps, even if the timing and magnitude is difficult to predict.

Others remain more cautious. Mislav Matejka, head of global and European equity strategy at JP Morgan, has argued that British equities often do well when investors turn bearish on everything else, given the FTSE 100’s defensive, liquid profile.

He sees the UK index rising 5% to 10% in 2026 but does not hold an overweight, on the view that the UK lacks a clear growth catalyst comparable to those emerging in Germany or China.

Ten years on from the vote, the question for international investors is no longer whether Brexit hurt UK markets — it is whether the resulting discount has now become the opportunity.

Published on
05/05/2026 – 7:12 GMT+2

Oil prices fell back in early trade but remained elevated as investors kept an eye on escalating tensions between the US and Iran and progress on ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

At the time of writing, Brent crude was trading 1.38% lower at $112.86 while US crude, or WTI, was down 2.27% at $104 per barrel. US futures edged 0.1% higher.

Elsewhere, regional trading was thin overnight with markets in Japan, South Korea and mainland China closed for holidays.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng fell 1.1% to 25,805.98. Australia’s S&P/ASX 200 lost 0.5% to 8,649.80, while Taiwan’s Taiex traded 0.2% lower at 40,626.22.

The fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran was tested on Monday after the US military said it had sank six Iranian small boats targeting civilian ships, while two US-flagged ships successfully passed through the Strait of Hormuz.

The key waterway for oil and gas transport remains largely closed despite repeated demands from the US for Iran to reopen the strait and as the United States imposed a sea blockade on Iranian ports. US President Donald Trump’s “Project Freedom” plan under which the United States would help guide stranded ships through the Strait of Hormuz began on Monday.

Brent crude, the international standard, surged above $114 a barrel on Monday, gaining nearly 6%. Before the war began in late February, it was trading near $70.

Like most of his música mexicana contemporaries, Diego Millán, better known artistically as Calle 24, sang about the excesses of living the rock star life — the money, the cars, the booze and the women.

Since signing with Street Mob Records — the independent label founded by Fuerza Regida frontman Jesús “JOP” Ortiz Paz — in 2020, the singer-songwriter has been responsible for hits like “Que Onda, ” which featured labelmates Chino Pacas and Fuerza Regida. The trombone-laced earworm about a deboucherous tryst was a breakthrough for Millán, reaching No. 61 on the Billboard Hot 100 after it debuted in August 2023.

These days, the 23-year-old Chihuahua-born artist is dialing down the glitz, opting for songs that aren’t about living the luxurious life.

“Money brings more problems,” Millán tells me inside an Italian restaurant at the Americana at Brand, Glendale’s monument to opulent consumerism. “Because the more money you have, the more things you have to support.”

In April, Millán released “Eterno,” his fourth studio album. The 15-track LP largely forgoes the boisterous brass section that’s become a staple in the genre in favor of stripped-down tracks about being disillusioned with newfound wealth (“10 de mayo”), his mental health (the gritty “Si Me Ven”) and romantic heartbreak and anguish (“Solo”). He also touches on a topic that might be too taboo to discuss: Mexico’s widespread systemic relationship of organized crime (“El Sentrita”).

Millán says this is the most authentic he’s ever been in his music, something he attributes to moving back to Mexico, a country he believes is deeply misunderstood and has profoundlyshaped his personality.

“[Mexico] is filled with deep values, strong ethics and a profound sense of social understanding,” he said.

While música mexicana artists might feel compelled to move to the states in search of fame and fortune, Millán now finds freedom in his native country — and through “Eterno.”

“Now, I can be myself,” he said.

The follwing interview was conducted in Spanish, and has been condensed and edited for clarity.

In “Solo” you talk about romantic loneliness. Why was that vulnerability important to include in this album?

I prefer to approach those themes from a more grounded perspective. With that song, I wanted to really open myself up to that feeling and express regret, that sense of loneliness that comes with saying “I screwed things up.” I feel that’s how you establish a deeper connection with your audience. After all, so many people out there don’t have luxuries or material things like that so how do you get to them? With emotion. A feeling that expresses regret, including with the phrase: “I know I’m a piece of s—, but you know that I love you.”

It reminds me of Joan Sebastian’s “Un Idiota,” in which the singer admits he still loves the person he wronged, and that he knows he messed up.

That’s what I wanted to do too, talk about the human experience and what it is. I wanted people to listen to it as they’re drinking, and all of a sudden that wave of feelings just hits you like a slap to the face.

The song “Si Me Ven” talks about burnout and the idea that money isn’t as fulfilling as one might think. Did you base it out of your own personal experiences?

This song fits like a ring on my finger. They say that money won’t make you happy and it’s true. In my case, I spent five years without seeing my family and missed many things.

On Instagram, you told fans: “I feel like I am more human than artist, I hope you all can understand. Sometimes I wake up wanting to do nothing, or sometimes asking myself what am I doing? Where am I going?” Do you feel drained by this career?

Of course [being a successful musician] is my dream, but I didn’t know all that it would entail. To this day, it has been draining, and there’s some days where I don’t feel like doing anything because I’m more of a person than an artist. There are some colleagues that do live life as if it were a movie, but I’m more of a homebody.

How do you make sense of the industry where part of the allure is tied to wealth, fancy cars and material goods?

I obviously love cars. Any normal person would love those types of things. And when you work hard, of course you fill the gaps you had when you were younger. But I don’t like putting it in people’s faces.

You say this, but your “Eterno” album cover shows you with a stack of money.

[Laughs] But there’s something curious about that cover. I was feeling down that day, there was just a lot of sadness around that time. Yet there I am, surrounded by all that stuff and that’s where the clash lies, you know? That contrast is what gives my album cover its depth.

Let’s talk about “El Sentrita.” The song contextualizes organized crime as a systemic issue. What prompted you to write about this topic?

I wanted to frame it as social commentary, addressing what has been going on in Mexico for decades, as well as the obstacles we face as artists who aren’t allowed to express ourselves or certain themes through music. Just as we were discussing right now, rap used to be how artists delivered social commentary through the medium of music. I would like to do that as well.

I figured if the government tells me I can’t sing a corrido, then I’ll use a corrido to offer them some criticism instead. You have to pay close attention to follow the character’s storyline as it unfolds. At the end of the song, it hits you, none of this would have happened if someone would have given him a chance. The goal was to raise awareness, to show that there are so many dreams within [Mexico] but they need to be given the opportunity to pursue them so that they don’t end up on the wrong path.

The music video for “El Sentrita” shows how one young boy gets roped into organized crime. It feels less of a choice and more a result of the system. Tell me more about this decision to give dimension to the character.

That’s the question: Who is the victim in this system? The way I saw it was that he was a good person who fell in with bad people and ended up becoming a bad person himself. If we look at it from a different angle, one where you don’t judge whether a person is good or bad, he was simply someone operating in that world out of necessity.

That’s when you have to question yourself and ask: how can we call someone a bad person when society leaves them with no other choice. I also wanted to do this to show young people that life in that world isn’t easy. Society right now is deeply damaged. This new generation of youth needs a lot of attention.

There is a phrase at the end of the song where you say, “You don’t sing about what you do, you sing about what you see.” What did you mean by that?

Because it’s not like we’re out there doing those things, you know? We aren’t engaging in any kind of criminal activity whatsoever. We simply sing, literally, about what we see, about what goes down in [Mexico] every single day. Because it’s not just some isolated incident; it’s something that happens constantly — day in, day out, without fail.