The airline sector is currently navigating a distinct performance gap as the slump in Spirit Airlines (FLYYQ) shares sparked by the company’s Saturday announcement of an immediate, orderly wind-down prompts a wider industry reassessment within the Quant rating framework.
The
Published on
Crude prices were slightly lower ahead of European markets opening as traders digested comments from US President Donald Trump that Washington would help ships leave the Strait of Hormuz from today. Iran, however, has rejected the plan.
At the time of writing, the price of a barrel of US benchmark crude (WTI) was down 0.28% to $101.65 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, edged down 0.06% to $108.10 a barrel.
Much hinges now on progress towards ending the war with Iran and unlocking the bottleneck through the Strait of Hormuz.
The oil market “remains the fulcrum, with hundreds of tankers, bulk carriers, and cargo ships still stranded across the Gulf, idling as storage constraints force producers to shut … production simply because there is nowhere left to store it,” Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said in a commentary note.
Trump said what he called “Project Freedom” would begin Monday morning in the Middle East. The US Central Command said it would involve guided-missile destroyers, more than 100 aircraft and 15,000 service members, but the Pentagon did not immediately answer questions about how they would be deployed.
In Asian share trading overnight, Hong Kong’s Hang Seng jumped 1.4% to 26,135.47. Markets in mainland China and Japan were closed for “Golden Week” holidays. In Australia, the S&P/ASX 200 slipped 0.3% to 8,704.70.
Strong buying of tech stocks pushed shares in South Korea sharply higher, as the Kospi gained 3.8%. Taiwan’s Taiex surged 4.2%.
On Friday, the S&P 500 climbed 0.3% to another all-time high of 7,230.12, closing out a fifth straight winning week. The Dow Jones Industrial Average dipped 0.3% to 49,499.27, and the Nasdaq composite added 0.9% to a record close of 25,114.44.
Apple led the way after delivering better profit than expected. Because it’s one of Wall Street’s biggest stocks in terms of overall size, its rally of 3.3% was by far the strongest force lifting the S&P 500.
Stock prices generally follow the path of corporate profits over the long term, and US companies have been exceeding expectations for earnings in the first three months of 2026. That’s even with the war with Iran and high oil prices souring confidence for many US households.
A little more than a quarter of the companies in the S&P 500 have reported already, and 84% of them have topped analysts’ estimates, according to FactSet. The index is on track to deliver roughly 15% growth in profit from a year earlier.
The main uncertainty for the global economy is where oil prices are heading because of the Iran war. Oil prices moved higher last week on worries that the war might keep the Strait of Hormuz closed for a long time, trapping oil tankers pent up in the Persian Gulf instead of delivering crude to customers worldwide.
Brent was selling for a little more than $70 per barrel before the war began, and soaring prices helped the two biggest U.S. oil companies report stronger profit for the latest quarter than analysts expected. But stock prices nevertheless fell for both Exxon Mobil, 1%, and Chevron, 1.4%, as oil prices regressed Friday and each reported drops in net income from a year earlier.
In other dealings early Monday, the dollar rose to 157.18 Japanese yen from 156.80 yen. The euro fell to $1.1724 from $1.1746.
SA Asks: How will the UAE's exit from OPEC impact the energy sector?
Source link
Top global stories this week: Unilever, BP, Yum China among major names
Source link
Detroit automakers warn commodity spike could add $5B in costs
Source link
Good morning, and welcome to L.A. on the Record — our City Hall newsletter. It’s David Zahniser, giving you the latest on city and county government.
We’ve got a month left before the June 2 primary election, with mail-in ballots already heading to voters’ mailboxes.
As if on cue, the big campaign money is pouring in from an array of well-funded interests: business groups, labor unions, hotels, taxicab companies and even one candidate’s mother.
To get around the city’s strict fundraising limits, those donors are putting much larger sums into “independent expenditure” campaigns that operate separately from their favored candidates.
Let’s take a look at some of the outsized spending to emerge in recent weeks.
Things had been pretty sleepy in the L.A. mayor’s race, even with Mayor Karen Bass facing challenges from Councilmember Nithya Raman, reality TV personality Spencer Pratt and 11 other opponents.
That all changed after the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the union representing rank-and-file officers, dropped more than $400,000 on ads targeting Raman, who was elected to the council twice with support from Democratic Socialists of America, which isn’t endorsing in the mayoral primary.
Sign up to make sense of the often unexplained world of L.A. politics.
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Service, which include arbitration and a class action waiver. You agree that we and our third-party vendors may collect and use your information, including through cookies, pixels and similar technologies, for the purposes set forth in our Privacy Policy such as personalizing your experience and ads.
Bass has been aligned with the union on a number of issues, supporting the hiring of more cops, signing off on higher police salaries and vetoing a ballot proposal to let Police Chief Jim McDonnell fire officers.
Raman, on the other hand, has been campaigning on her opposition to a package of police pay increases, saying the decision by Bass and the council to approve them was “politically motivated.”
Bass and others said the increases were needed to keep police from leaving a department that has lost 14% of its officers since 2020.
The league tried and failed to unseat Raman two years ago. This time around, the union is texting voters a campaign video highlighting her opposition to a city law barring homeless people from setting up encampments within 500 feet of a school.
The ad, which appears on YouTube, Hulu and other platforms, cites Raman’s recent vote against a new “no-camping” zone in Venice, in an area plagued by assaults and other crimes.
“Raman has voted over 75 times to allow homeless camps next to schools, daycares, parks and other sensitive locations, undermining public safety,” the ad’s narrator says.
Raman responded with her own campaign video saying Bass gave the union “more money than the city could even afford,” forcing city leaders to cut other services “to the bone.”
“This is what happens when a city governs for powerful interests rather than working people,” she said.
The league is planning to spend more than $1 million opposing Raman, and it’s already gotten some help. For example, office building owner Kilroy Realty Group has given $100,000 to the anti-Raman campaign.
Real estate executive Zach Sokoloff has a not-so-secret weapon as he seeks to unseat City Controller Kenneth Mejia: his mom.
Sheryl Sokoloff is the spouse of Jonathan Sokoloff, managing partner of the Los Angeles-based private equity investment firm Leonard Green & Partners. She recently dropped $2.5 million into a committee promoting her son, which has produced digital ads accusing Mejia of performing too few audits.
“Zach Sokoloff will actually do the job as controller,” the ad’s narrator says in one 30-second spot.
Mejia, in an email, called the attacks “baseless” and accused Sokoloff’s family of “using their extraordinary wealth to try to buy the Controller’s position.”
“Unlike my opponent, I do not have any millionaire family members who can bankroll my campaign,” he said. “Just like last time we ran, we’re relying on small dollar donations from LA residents who are inspired by our record of providing unprecedented transparency and accountability on their tax dollars.”
We already knew the race for the 11th District, which covers L.A.’s coastal neighborhoods, had gotten outrageously expensive.
Last week, Councilmember Traci Park reported raising nearly $1.3 million. Human rights attorney Faizah Malik, Park’s lone challenger, took in her own impressive haul of $454,000.
Turns out the independent expenditure campaigns in the race are nearly as costly.
Two city employee unions — the Police Protective League and United Firefighters of Los Angeles City Local 112 — have spent nearly $900,000 on efforts to get Park reelected. And they’re getting help.
The firefighters, a Park ally since her 2022 campaign, collected $150,000 for their pro-Park effort from Western States Regional Council of Carpenters, a construction trade union. The police union picked up $150,000 from restaurateur Jerry Greenberg and $200,000 from real estate company Douglas Emmett Properties, which gained notoriety for its push to evict tenants from West L.A.’s Barrington Plaza.
Malik, backed by Democratic Socialists of America, accused Park of doing the bidding of her donors at the expense of “everyday working Angelenos,” by supporting police raises and fighting stronger renter protections.
Hotel workers take aim at Park
Meanwhile, a different union is doing its own sizable spend.
Unite Here Local 11, which represents hotel workers, has put nearly $340,000 so far on efforts to promote Malik and tear down Park. The union’s leadership has been furious with Park, who voted against a hike in the minimum wage for tourism workers to $30 per hour.
Park said the wage hike would harm the city’s hospitality industry, costing hotel workers their jobs.
Like the police and the firefighters, Unite Here is not going it alone. The union picked up $50,000 from United Teachers Los Angeles and another $50,000 from Smart Justice California, a group focused on less punitive public safety strategies.
Unite Here has attempted to portray Park, a Democrat, as a Trump sympathizer, highlighting remarks she made to the president when he visited Pacific Palisades in the wake of the Palisades fire. The union also pointed out that she voted against making L.A. a sanctuary city for undocumented immigrants.
Park told news radio station KNX in 2024 that the state already has a sanctuary law, and that she considered the ordinance to be an act of “symbolic resistance” — one that would jeopardize federal funding.
On Thursday, Park accused Unite Here of using a picture of her with personnel from the Army Corps of Engineers to falsely imply that she was standing alongside ICE. The Army Corps removed debris from thousands of burned-out properties in the Palisades.
Park, in a statement, called the mail pieces “dishonest and disgusting.”
Unite Here didn’t directly address Park’s allegation, but told The Times that “Local 11 believes that our local elected officials should not collaborate with the Trump administration in any way.”
Speaking of the hotel wage
Unite Here isn’t the only player in the hotel wage fight to leap into this year’s council races.
Two L.A.-based hotels, working with the California Hotel and Lodging Assn., have put a combined $300,000 into a political action committee supporting Maria Lou Calanche, who is seeking to unseat Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez; political aide Jose Ugarte, who is running to replace Councilmember Curren Price; and Park in the 11th.
The group, which goes by the name Fix Los Angles PAC, doesn’t seem to be sweating all the details. Its phone script to voters, which was filed recently with the Ethics Commission, got Calanche’s name wrong, referring to her as Mary instead of Maria.
— EXPANDING THE VOTE: L.A. voters could be asked in November to take the first step toward giving noncitizens the right to vote in city and school board elections. City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez, now running for reelection, wants voters to give the council the authority to let noncitizens vote in elections for mayor, council and other city offices, as well as the school board.
— HOME SHARING HOLDOUTS: Bass is looking to relax the city’s rules on home-sharing, by letting residents rent their second homes on a short-term basis through Airbnb and other platforms. Some council members were cool to the idea, saying this week that they fear such a move would shrink the city’s housing supply.
— EYE IN THE SKY: The LAPD deployed drones more than 3,000 times last year, using them mostly for emergency calls or officers’ requests for help, according to a report submitted to the Police Commission. The 3-foot-wide surveillance devices are being used by a department already known for its sizable fleet of helicopters.
— SEIZING CONTROL: Bass and Councilmembers Tim McOsker and Ysabel Jurado want the city of L.A. to obtain majority control over the embattled Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority, a city-county agency that delivers services to the region’s unhoused population. That proposal comes a year after the county’s Board of Supervisors voted to pull more than $300 million out of LAHSA.
— A GLOOMY OUTLOOK: L.A. voters lack confidence in the ability of city, county and state officials to make housing more affordable, according to a survey conducted by the Los Angeles Business Council.
— READY FOR OUR CLOSE-UP: L.A. plans to install 125 speed cameras by the end of July, in the hope of catching misbehaving drivers. But there are already some takeaways from San Francisco, where the technology is being credited with getting drivers to slow down.
That’s it for this week! Send your questions, comments and gossip to LAontheRecord@latimes.com. Did a friend forward you this email? Sign up here to get it in your inbox every Saturday morning.
The White House’s long-anticipated cannabis regulatory shake-up may ease rules on paper, but for banks, processors, and payment networks, little changes in practice.
While the rescheduling of cannabis from Schedule I to Schedule III has sparked hope for industry reform, the reclassification doesn’t change the ongoing banking hurdles for smaller cannabis businesses in the U.S.
As large, publicly traded multi-state operators (MSOs) secure banking access, the majority of smaller cannabis companies still operate in a cash-only environment, with federal illegality, strict anti-money laundering rules, and a stalled bill blocking wider access to financial services. Alan Brochstein, an Austin, Texas-based analyst and founder of marketing firm New Cannabis Ventures, told Global Finance that meaningful reform still hinges on the passage of the SAFER Banking Act.
“Just because you’re Schedule III instead of Schedule I, you’re still federally illegal,” he said, referring to an April 23 order signed by Todd Blanche, President Donald Trump’s acting attorney general.
The reclassification formally recognizes cannabis for medical use. But the shift stops short of legalization and serves as a sobering reminder of the legal ambiguity that has kept major financial players wary.
“So, I don’t think that’s going to change,” Brochstein said. “Visa and Mastercard won’t allow processing, [and] rescheduling doesn’t change that.”
The bipartisan SAFER Banking Act, proposed in 2023, would provide a safe harbor for financial institutions serving state-sanctioned cannabis businesses, Brochstein explained. Lawmakers designed the bill to shield banks and credit unions from federal penalties and asset forfeiture when working with legal operators in compliant states. It remains stalled in Congress.
The reclassification has its benefits—expanding research, reducing tax burdens, and further legitimizing state medical programs across 40 states. Cannabis operators, however, remain boxed out of mainstream banking. Lenders, card networks, and cross-border investors are unlikely to change their stance substantially.
For now, rescheduling grants medical cannabis some legitimacy, but the financial plumbing that underpins the industry remains frozen. As a result, operators rely on cash-heavy systems and state-by-state workarounds, especially in markets where recreational sales dominate revenue.
“I don’t think the banking landscape will change that much at this time,” said Richard Ormond, a partner at Los Angeles-based law firm Buchalter, capturing the industry’s central tension as financial institutions stay on the sidelines.
“Things will remain cautious as the majority of businesses, particularly in California, really focus on recreational use rather than just medical use,” Ormond predicted.
A broader review is coming, with Congressional hearings on the SAFER Act scheduled for June. Until then, cannabis suppliers are left with incremental progress on regulation—and persistent uncertainty in the banking system.
Earnings Call Insights: Sandisk (SNDK) Q3 FY2026
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.
In an interview with Euronews, EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič issued a firm warning that the European Union will not hesitate to defend its industries after Beijing signaled possible retaliation over new EU plans to bolster its industrial base.
China this week up the pressure on Brussels, threatening countermeasures unless the EU softens core elements of its “Made in Europe” proposal—designed to tighten market access for foreign companies—and its Cybersecurity Act, which could ultimately restrict Chinese telecom firms’ presence across the bloc.
Asked about China’s reaction to what the EU describes as much-needed measures to reinforce its sovereignty and restore a level playing field, Šefčovič told Euronews the EU will “always” defend the interests of its companies.
“We will fight tooth and nail for every European job, for every European company, for every open sector, if we see they are treated unfairly,” said Šefčovič in comments to Euronews in an exclusive interview Friday.
Relations between Brussels and Beijing have deteriorated sharply over the past year, with China tightening export controls on rare earths vital to Europe’s clean-tech and defence industries, as well as restricting chips essential to the automotive sector, intensifying pressure on already fragile supply chains across the bloc.
In response, the EU has pushed for legislative proposals in the domain of cybersecurity and single market rules for companies, prompting a sharp reaction from China which has accused the EU of unfair practices. Earlier this week, Beijing said the EU should not underestimate China’s “firm resolve” to safeguard its interests.
Šefčovič rejected the suggestion that recent developments signal a looming trade war but stressed that the EU does not operate under pressure and expects to be treated with respect. “We never threaten our partners, and we certainly don’t do it through the media,” he said. “What we need is strategic patience and a great deal of courage.”
He said a “war” is often easy to start, but difficult to exit. A Chinese official told Euronews Beijing does not wish for a trade spat to escalate, but said China is serious about what it considers discriminatory practices. The EU disputes discrimination.
The EU’s trade chief pointed to a ballooning trade deficit between the two sides as a cause for concern. The bloc’s trade gap with China surged to €359.3 billion in 2025, a level Šefčovič called “simply unsustainable” that does not show signs of improvement.
He also said policymakers, the European parliament and economic actors in the EU have delivered “a very strong economic and political reaction” to tackle the trade deficit.
So far, Brussels has failed to secure meaningful commitments from Beijing to rebalance trade relations. At the same time, EU officials are growing increasingly concerned that Chinese exports—shut out of the US market by higher tariffs—are being redirected towards Europe. Brussels also points to China’s overcapacity as a source of concern.
The EU is now pressing Beijing to enter serious negotiations and deliver concrete results.
“I invited the Chinese foreign minister to visit Brussels because I think we need a very thorough assessment of the current situation,” Šefčovič told Euronews. “What I want is constructive engagement.”
Faced with a surge in low-cost Chinese imports, the EU is relying on trade defence instruments to counter what it sees as dumped and heavily subsidised goods, while also monitoring efforts by Chinese firms to bypass restrictions by shifting production outside China. Šefčovič made clear the EU will not be pushed into retreat from those issues.
“There are very strong industrial policies in China. You have the same in the US, in Canada, in Japan and in Korea. So, nobody should be surprised if the European Union responds in kind—especially when it comes to public money and public funds.”
JHVEPhoto
Tesla (TSLA) has announced its first Semi electric truck off its new high-volume production line at Gigafactory Nevada.
“First Semi off high volume line,” the electric vehicle maker posted on X. According to its website, deliveries are expected to start this year.
Published on •Updated
Brent crude, the international standard for oil prices, jumped by over 7% during early trading on Thursday, touching $126 per barrel, the highest intraday level since 2022 when Russia initiated the full-scale invasion of Ukraine.
The US benchmark crude, WTI, also rose more than 3% and hit over $110 per barrel.
At the time of writing, prices have corrected slightly with the front month contract for Brent trading at around $122 per barrel and WTI at roughly $108.5.
Prices are now the highest they have been since the start of the Iran war.
The surge in oil prices is a direct consequence of stalled negotiations over the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, the absence of a clear path toward ending the war and a seemingly increased chance of US-Israeli military action returning.
US President Donald Trump is set to meet with the head of the US Central Command, Admiral Brad Cooper, on Thursday and receive a briefing on new military options for action in Iran, according to Axios which cites two unnamed people.
The meeting signals the potential for fresh escalation in the Middle East as the resumption of combat operations is reportedly “seriously under consideration” and oil markets have reacted swiftly to the news.
A ceasefire has held since early April but recent negotiating efforts have fallen flat with the two sides refusing to meet. Meanwhile, the US and Iran both maintain their blockade of the vital Strait of Hormuz.
US Central Command has also reportedly asked for hypersonic missiles to be sent to the Middle East, which would mark the first time the US army has deployed that type of weapon.
The persistent blockade of ports and the threat of expanded combat have fundamentally reshaped market expectations.
The spike in prices is occurring against a backdrop of significant structural change within the global oil hierarchy.
Earlier this week, the United Arab Emirates officially withdrew from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), a move the nation claimed was necessary to prioritise its own national interests.
Under normal market conditions, the exit of a major producer from the cartel might be expected to signal a potential increase in supply or a decrease in price stability.
However, the sheer scale of the Iran war has rendered the UAE’s departure secondary in the minds of traders.
Despite the UAE’s exit, which was expected to potentially weaken OPEC’s grip on production quotas, prices have continued their upward trajectory.
This suggests that the “war premium” currently dominates all other market fundamentals.
Investors are currently less concerned with the internal politics of oil-producing nations and more focused on the immediate physical absence of Iranian crude, suspended shipping routes through the Strait of Hormuz and the threat to regional infrastructure.
However, the transition of the UAE to an independent actor still highlights a growing fragmentation in global energy governance at a time when the world’s energy security is at its most vulnerable.
After eight years as leader of the Federal Board of Governors, Jerome Powell leaves behind a considerable legacy.
Jerome Powell concluded his final Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) meeting as chair on April 29, but said he would remain on the Board of Governors after his term as chair ends on May 15. His four-year term on the board ends January 31, 2028.
Powell’s term was marked by his decisive move at the start of the pandemic to stabilize markets, which could have faced a financial crisis comparable to 2008, said Krishna Guha, Evercore ISI’s vice chairman, in an email interview.
“The Powell Fed was slow to pivot to deal with post-pandemic inflation, but when it turned, it turned decisively, and Powell achieved the remarkable feat of bringing inflation back down without causing a recession,” he said. “Indeed, the data clearly show Powell was on the brink of delivering the fabled soft landing when Trump tariffs pushed inflation up again.”
Guha says Powell will mainly be remembered for the “dignity and professionalism that he brought to public service,” as the Fed endured “the most serious attack on central bank independence in decades, without yielding to political pressure or making the opposite error of turning hawkish in retaliation.”
The fight to preserve the Fed’s independence truly began in President Donald Trump’s second administration and has been a sustained conflict over lower interest rates. First came accusations of ballooning cost overruns during the refurbishment of the Federal Reserve’s Washington, D.C., headquarters in late July 2025. Next came the administration’s attempt to fire Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook a month later, citing alleged mortgage fraud.
The Department of Justice dropped its investigation into Powell on April 24, a few days before the April FOMC meeting. The Supreme Court has yet to decide on Cook’s case.
The cessation of lawfare against the Fed was welcomed by many in the Beltway, who see it as returning to business as usual.
“I felt like the accusations that Chairman Powell had committed some sort of crime connected to the building construction were a distraction, and it would delay President Trump in selecting a new chairman,” said Republican Rep. French Hill, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, in a public statement. President Trump has nominated Kevin Warsh, a former Fed official, as Powell’s successor. A vote on his confirmation is expected in the coming weeks.
Editor’s note: This story has been updated to indicate Powell will stay on at the Fed after his term as chair ends.
Shortly before 22:00 BST on 7 May, Lavryovych sent Pochynok a message on Telegram saying: “Look, we won’t talk much on the phone. At that address, there’ll be a car, need to check if it’s there. If it is there then basically today we’ll do the job. We’ll have money. And this week, if we plan everything well today, tomorrow there may be another one, we’ll make more money.”
Published on •Updated
China has called on EU member states to revise the bloc’s proposed “Made in Europe” legislation, according to Suo Peng, trade and economy minister at China’s mission in Brussels.
The European Union is currently debating the draft, which was unveiled by the European Commission in March and aims to impose stricter conditions on foreign companies seeking access to EU public procurement and investment opportunities.
The proposal — widely interpreted as targeting Chinese firms — has already drawn a warning from Beijing. Earlier this week, China’s commerce ministry said it would consider retaliatory measures if the EU proceeds without significant changes.
“Chinese embassies in EU member states have conveyed China’s comments and suggestions to the governments of their hosting countries,” Peng told journalists in Brussels.
He added that if the EU “insists on this punishment and treats China’s enterprises in a discriminatory manner,” Beijing would be forced to respond with countermeasures.
The so-called Industrial Accelerator Act would, if adopted by EU governments and the European Parliament, prioritise European-made products in public procurement in sectors considered strategic, including automotive, green technologies, and energy-intensive industries such as aluminium and steel.
It would also place conditions on foreign direct investment exceeding €100 million in areas such as batteries, electric vehicles, solar panels and critical raw materials.
Companies from countries with more than 40% global market share in a given sector could be required to form joint ventures with European partners and transfer technology. At least half of jobs in such projects would also need to go to EU workers.
China has criticised the measures as discriminatory, with Peng accusing the EU of double standards on technology transfer rules. He pointed to a 2018 joint statement with the United States and Japan opposing forced technology transfers.
EU member states remain split over the proposal. France is pushing for stricter local content requirements, while Germany and others are calling for a broader approach that includes cooperation with like-minded partners.
Some countries have also warned that the rules could increase costs and limit access to innovation.
The proposal includes a reciprocity principle in public procurement, meaning the EU would only open its market to countries that grant similar access to European firms.
China, which does not currently have such an agreement with the EU, says it is open to a bilateral deal on government procurement. Peng urged Brussels to respond “as soon as possible”.
Otherwise, he warned, the plan “will seriously damage the actual interests of Chinese and European companies.”
Global Finance: Over the past four decades, how has TDB Group’s mandate and geographical footprint evolved, and what have been the most significant milestones in advancing trade, regional integration and sustainable development across member states?
Admassu Tadesse: TDB Group is an MDB that has evolved into a group with different subsidiaries and strategic business units which provide specialised financial and non-financial services across all sectors in trade and development banking, asset management, concessional and impact financing, captive insurance, and capacity building.
We were conceived 40 years ago by COMESA Member States to support the region’s economic integration and sustainable development agendas with specialised short and long-term trade and infrastructure financing. We then gradually reformed to welcome other African economies – to better capitalise on cross-country complementarities and support economies of scale. While our initial mandate to finance and foster trade, regional economic integration, and sustainable development has stayed the same, our structure, stable of vehicles and toolbox have evolved through institutional reforms and new solutions, to make sure we remain fit-for-purpose as times change.
With nearly US$ 60 billion in financing deployed over the years, we have become an important player in the African trade finance market and these days, we are focusing efforts on clean energy and cooking, trade-enabling infrastructure, and industrial capacity in sectors like agriculture, health, and structural materials like cement and steel.
GF: What are the key structural challenges that African countries face in accessing affordable, long-term capital, and why are development finance institutions (DFIs) critical in bridging this gap?
AT: Regional DFIs like TDB Group were set-up decades ago following global ones, to help bridge the financing gap and cater to Africa-specific imperatives. To do this, we catalyse global and African capital, de-risking it, and escorting it via different solutions into sustainable development initiatives.
The lack of affordable and long-term capital is indeed a core issue. Beyond perception premiums which persist even amid calm market conditions, global and African geopolitics greatly impact risk pricing and debt sustainability, with commodity price volatility and supply chain turbulence adding further pressure. This also affects our financial industry, which is already continuously working to adapt to evolving industry rules, while innovating out-of-the-box solutions to solve for the problems of scale, price and tenor, and availability of investible opportunities. That’s why we grew into a Group with different vehicles and offerings.
Structurally, while our policy makers work on improving the regulatory and policy environment to facilitate cross-border money flows, improve savings and tax revenues, and give more comfort to capital – the financial industry can work on supporting the expansion of African capital markets, help build repo markets, step-up local currency activity, innovate products, and more.
GF: How can alternative funding structures and innovative financial products help mobilize capital, attract partners and expand access to finance for both governments and the private sector in Africa, and what role do DFIs play in driving these efforts?
AT: Different types of capital and partners gravitate toward different institutional structures and products – hence our Group structure.
We have our Trade and Development Banking SBU, which offers bilateral and syndicated short-term trade and long-term project finance, through direct debt or equity financing, credit enhancement, and advisory and agency services.
We have our Trade and Development Fund, TDF, which plays a catalytic role offering concessional and impact funding, addressing project upstream issues through technical assistance and grants, and channelling capital to sectors and communities often overlooked by traditional finance including through SME lending.
Then, we have our asset management arm which has diverse vehicles customised to match varying investor preferences and impact priorities, and which comprise funds and initiatives with high quality alternative assets that deliver competitive returns and impact, as well as specialised trade and infrastructure-focused fund managers including the ESATAL trade asset management company and the TDB Infrastructure Investment Management Company.
Finally, in addition to our TDB Captive Insurance Company – TCI – we also have a capacity building vehicle, the TDB Academy, which offers trainings, seminars, conferences, and other human and institutional capacity development interventions to TDB and its partners.
GF: As TDB Group looks ahead to the next 40 years, what are the key infrastructure and trade-enabling investments needed to support Africa’s growth? What policy alignments, partnerships and long-term capital strategies are essential to scale impact and drive sustainable development?
AT: The needs are large and multifaceted. The list is long. We need to invest in both economic and social infrastructure – transport including road, rail, ports, airports, logistics hubs; water and sanitation; digital and telecommunications infrastructure; industrial infrastructure like different types of processing zones and facilities; energy to power industrial growth and electrify our communities; health including hospitals and medical equipment; education to build the workforce of the future; housing; etc.
To advance on our development aspirations, we need to grow faster than our population, and offer job opportunities for the latter, which is achievable through a robust industrial base, and the ability to trade our products among ourselves and with the world, with more value-added production and value chains.
I have already referred to policy, partnerships and long-term capital strategies. What I will add is that diversification in partnerships is key to bolstering resilience to different shocks and mitigating risks. This is at the core of our funding strategy. We are keen on staying nimble and quick to innovate to do more with our balance sheet, so that we can do more for our continent and its myriad communities.
Oil markets face renewed instability following the United Arab Emirates’ formal exit from the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and its wider alliance (OPEC+), announced on Tuesday and taking effect on Friday.
The move, which ends decades of membership, comes as the global economy continues to reel from the ongoing war with Iran and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz remains in place.
Investors are currently weighing the potential for higher future output from the UAE against the immediate and acute risks posed to global supply routes, as well as the increased chances that more countries drop out of OPEC and OPEC+.
Following the announcement, markets reacted swiftly as the potential for oversupply from the UAE was priced in. Oil prices fell by between 2% and 3%, particularly in futures contracts a couple of months ahead.
However, the move was just as quickly offset by the risk premium associated with the Middle East conflict and the current halt to US-Iran negotiations.
At the time of writing, US benchmark crude, WTI, is trading above $105 a barrel, while Brent crude, the international standard, is over $112. Both prices are around 4% higher on Wednesday from the UAE announcement low.
The UAE’s decision follows years of simmering tension between Abu Dhabi and Riyadh over production quotas. The UAE has invested over $150 billion (€128bn) in the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Company (ADNOC) to expand its capacity to five million barrels per day.
However, under OPEC’s restrictive framework, much of this capacity remained underutilised, now prompting the government to prioritise its national interest.
The departure of the group’s third-largest producer is a significant blow to the cohesion of the 60-year-old organisation. Maurizio Carulli, global energy analyst at Quilter Cheviot, noted the limitations this exit places on the remaining members.
“Until tanker traffic through the Strait of Hormuz is safe again, OPEC’s ability to stabilise prices is sharply constrained, while US producers have gained outsized influence,” Carulli explained.
While the UAE has pledged to bring additional production to the market in a “gradual and measured” manner, the sudden lack of coordination within OPEC has introduced a new layer of uncertainty.
For the UAE, the blockade served as a final catalyst for its exit. With its primary export route under threat, Abu Dhabi has sought the diplomatic flexibility to forge independent security and trade partnerships outside the traditional cartel structure.
Despite the geopolitical turmoil, energy equities have remained resilient.
According to Carulli, “integrated majors such as BP, Shell, TotalEnergies, ENI, Chevron and ExxonMobil are benefitting from a price uplift that could add 5-10% to operating cash flow for every $10 increase in oil prices.”
In a separate but related development, the security situation in the Middle East remains precarious despite a fragile ceasefire. Iran has recently offered a ten-point proposal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz.
In exchange for restoring maritime traffic, Tehran is demanding a full withdrawal of the US naval blockade and an end to the current hostilities.
US President Donald Trump, who recently extended the two-week ceasefire mediated by Pakistan, described the latest Iranian offer as “much better” than previous iterations but still did not accept the terms.
Shortly after, Trump posted on social media claiming that Iran is in a dire and desperate condition with no leverage to negotiate.
Washington continues to insist on a permanent settlement regarding Iran’s nuclear programme and an “unconditional” reopening of the waterway before sanctions are lifted.
The impact of this blockade on global energy security cannot be overstated.
“The prolonged closure of the Strait of Hormuz has removed roughly 12% of global oil supply from the market, according to the IEA, a bigger disruption than the Yom Kippur war, the Iran‑Iraq conflict, the invasion of Kuwait or even the fallout from Ukraine,” Carulli highlighted.
UAE exits OPEC, exposing Gulf rift over oil strategy, Iran policy, and market stability.
The United Arab Emirates’ announcement to leave OPEC on May 1 marks more than a policy shift: It signals the unraveling of a long-eroding Gulf consensus on oil, economic strategy, and Iran. The announcement comes on the heels of the Gulf Creators event in Dubai on April 27.
“Every Gulf state had its own policy of containment toward Iran, and all of those containment policies have failed,” senior Emirati official Anwar Gargash said at the event. “All our policies have failed miserably,” he added—a rare public admission of strategic exhaustion that underscores why Abu Dhabi is recalibrating its regional and energy posture.
That recalibration now includes leaving the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. The UAE joined the bloc in 1967, when Abu Dhabi—now the federation’s capital—emerged as an oil producer. In announcing its exit from both OPEC and OPEC+ (a larger coalition that includes Russia), the UAE said the move aligns with its long-term strategy and will allow it to increase output in line with market demand gradually.
At the heart of the split is a widening divide between Riyadh and Abu Dhabi. Oil policy has long been a source of tension between the two Gulf powerhouses. The UAE’s exit now leaves Saudi Arabia to shoulder a heavier burden in stabilizing global oil markets.
The UAE isn’t the only country to abandon OPEC cohesion. Qatar exited OPEC in 2019, breaking with the Saudi-led bloc amid an ongoing boycott.
Angola and Ecuador also left in recent years. The UAE’s similar move underscores that politics continues to shape the cartel, even as it focuses on stabilizing oil prices through production decisions. And because of its status as a major producer, the UAE’s exit is structurally more consequential for global supply management.
Experts say the UAE produced about 3.4 million barrels per day—about 13% of OPEC’s total output—and had the capacity to reach 5 million barrels per day before the US-Iran war began on February 28.
In effect, OPEC is not just losing a member—it is losing a key balancing force at a moment when geopolitical instability and oil market fragmentation are accelerating.
Japan reemerges as global finance hub amid reforms, rising yields.
Japan is reasserting itself in global finance, shedding its long-standing image as a passive anchor of ultra-low rates. Nowadays, it’s moving back toward the center of international capital flows.
Three reinforcing dynamics are driving this transition: monetary normalization, sustained corporate governance reform and a renewed wave of foreign investor interest.
The gradual end of negative yields marks a structural turning point. As the gap between Japanese and US interest rates narrows, yields on long-term Japanese Government Bonds (JGBs) are rising. This is prompting a recalibration of global asset allocation strategies. This evolution is occurring alongside a broader regional reassessment, as geopolitical uncertainty encourages investors to rebalance exposure across Asia.
At the same time, reforms led by the Tokyo Stock Exchange are reshaping corporate behavior. A stronger emphasis on capital efficiency, shareholder returns and transparency has supported equity market performance and attracted nonresident inflows. Analysts expect fiscal support and a moderately reflationary environment to underpin earnings growth through 2026.
“The reforms have certainly been successful, but Japan’s political stability and robust regulations are also drawing attention to Tokyo,” says Tokio Morita, Executive Director of FinCity.Tokyo.
Morita notes growing interest in programs that help asset managers and fintech firms establish local operations, as well as initiatives that have supported around 15 foreign entrants and improved global communications between more than 60 Japanese firms and overseas investors.
This renewed momentum comes amid a fragile global backdrop. Total global debt reached $348 trillion in 2025. Yet, Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio has edged down modestly relative to peers, even as headline public debt remains elevated. Emerging markets, by contrast, face more than $9 trillion in refinancing needs in 2026. This reinforces Japan’s role as a comparatively stable capital provider. As major central banks, including the Fed and the ECB, move deeper into easing cycles, Japan’s more differentiated policy path underscores its re-emergence as an independent force.
Tokyo is once again positioning itself as a market global investors cannot afford to overlook.
On China, the mood at the European Commission has shifted in recent months.
China hawks are gaining ground inside both the Commission’s powerful Directorate-General for Trade and in the cabinet of President Ursula von der Leyen, Euronews has learned, with drastic new measures being considered to counter what is seen as unfair competition.
The 27 EU commissioners are set to debate on their China strategy on 29 May, with one official saying, “It will be about acknowledging there is a problem and that something needs to be done.”
Tensions flared Monday after China’s Ministry of Commerce threatened retaliation against the EU over its Made in Europe legislation, which sets strict conditions on foreign direct investment.
An EU official told Euronews the Chinese were “playing games,” adding that the Commission’s priority remains engagement with Beijing through multiple channels set up in recent months.
However, Commission services are already working on new measures to address China’s economic threats, sources have confirmed. “We don’t see any move from the Chinese despite all the issues we have flagged with them, so there’s a reflection on whether we should do more,” one said.
Another source said the release of Germany’s trade deficit figures before Christmas marked a turning point for the Commission.
Data published last autumn by Germany Trade & Invest (GTAI) showed a record €87 billion German trade deficit with China — a wake-up call in Berlin, long focused on securing market access in China ahead of protecting domestic manufacturing.
China has since surged up the agenda for German industry, for the Bundestag — which has set up a dedicated committee — and for the Commission, whose German president has Berlin’s ear.
The EU has long grappled with cheap Chinese imports threatening its industry. Pressure intensified last year after the US slapped steep tariffs on Chinese goods, effectively shutting its market and pushing Beijing to reroute overcapacity in sectors like steel and chemicals toward Europe.
A recent report by the French High Commission for Strategy and Planning, a French government advisory body, warned that “the production cost gaps, as assessed by industry players [across Europe], have now reached levels incompatible with sustainable competition, averaging between 30% and 40%, and exceeding 60% in certain segments (industrial robotics, mechanical components).”
Under these conditions, how can the EU defend its market?
The bloc’s leverage is mainly limited to its 450 million-strong consumer base. Still, one source said it is “increasingly becoming mainstream” inside the Commission to warn Beijing that the EU market could close without rebalancing.
But the trade-offs are stark.
Chinese electric vehicles — hit with EU tariffs in October 2024 — highlight the dilemma. China depended equally on the US and EU markets for almost all its exports before Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025. “It cannot easily diversify its EVs as it will not sell in Africa, nor in southeast Asia, where there’s no infrastructure,” another source said.
At the same time, Europe remains reliant on China imports in many of the same sectors where China depends on Europe. “Are we to close our market to lithium batteries from China? We cannot do this overnight,” the same source said. The same applies to solar panels, laptops and medical devices.
The EU has trade defence tools — including anti-dumping and anti-subsidy duties — but they can take at least 18 months to deploy after a complaint is filed. Two sources said the Commission is working on new instruments, but by the time they bite, the damage may already be done.
A fourth source described an overcapacity instrument as still “premature.”
However, Commission services are also mulling the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI), which allows the EU to deploy a wide range of measures — from tariffs to restrictions on public procurement or intellectual property — in response to economic pressure from third countries.
The tool, sometimes described as a “trade bazooka”, has never been used since its creation in 2023, but resurfaced after China weaponised rare earth exports in October 2025 during its trade standoff with the US by imposing strict export controls.
Exports resumed after Washington and Beijing agreed on a one-year truce, which also covers Europe. But that deal expires in October 2026, leaving uncertainty hanging over the EU.
Brussels wants the anti-coercion tool ready if needed.
Tensions could rise further after Beijing’s threats over the Industrial Accelerator Act — the Made in Europe legislation now debated by member states and MEPs — or over pressure linked to the Cybersecurity Act, which could phase out Chinese telecom operators from the EU market.
However, a qualified majority of EU countries is needed to activate the ACI, and member states remain split.
“It requires a political support higher than for the traditional anti-dumping or anti-subsidies duties which can only be rejected by a reversed majority of EU countries,” a source said.
Despite the wake-up call, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz struck a softer tone in March, floating a long-term trade deal with Beijing.
But in Brussels, that idea is off the table.
“There are a number of concerns and real challenges that the European Union has consistently expressed to China that we need to see them meaningfully address before we can even talk about any future agreements or anything like that,” the Commission’s deputy chief spokesperson, Olof Gill, said.
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez — who has visited China four times in three years and secured major Chinese investment — backs closer ties with Beijing.
Meanwhile, Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever urged a tougher line in an 18 March letter to von der Leyen.
“We have arrived at a point of no return in which we need to make difficult choices in the short term towards China to protect our industries, economies and the well-being of our citizens in the long term,” he wrote.
France, long a proponent of a hard line on China, shares that view.
Eurobonds have returned to the spotlight after Emmanuel Macron revived the debate last week, calling for increased joint EU borrowing to boost the European economy.
The French president has often argued the EU will need billions in fresh funding as the bloc faces mounting competition from China and the United States and invest massively in defence and advanced technologies.
Macron is leading a group of countries that argue no single member state can meet these challenges alone. Instead, they argue it would be more effective to raise funds collectively on financial markets, unlocking billions of euros for shared European projects.
A growing number of economists and central bankers — including the typically cautious Deutsche Bundesbank — have also voiced support, noting that joint borrowing could reduce financing costs.
However, countries opposed to further debt, led by Germany, argue that eurobonds will only increase the EU’s debt load, while ignoring the real issue of declining productivity.
So, what happens next? Euronews explains:
In the EU context, eurobonds means joint debt issued by EU institutions and backed collectively by member states. This means the responsibility to repay it is shared, with risk pooled across the bloc, and the additional debt does not impact national balance sheets alone, which is useful for the most indebted member states.
With a top-tier, AAA credit rating, they would be considered a safe asset, underpinned by the combined guarantees of EU countries. This could allow governments to borrow at a lower cost compared and thus pay less interests to creditors.
Eurobonds are intended to help finance major long-term investments, including infrastructure, the green transition and defence, where the EU will have to raise and spend billions of euros in a plan titled Readiness 2030.
The EU has already made use of joint borrowing through its €750 billion recovery plan, NextGenerationEU, agreed in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, and Brussels agreed that it was successful. Still, it insists it was a one-off.
More recently, the idea was revived by Mario Draghi in his 2024 report on European competitiveness. The report argued that joint EU borrowing would be needed to mobilise an additional €800 billion in annual investment if the bloc is to remain competitive globally. A part of it would be private funds, but public investment would be needed too.
The debate over eurobonds has divided the EU for decades, stretching back to the euro zone’s sovereign debt crisis.
Fiscally conservative countries — including Germany, Netherlands, Austria, Finland and Sweden — often referred to as the “frugals”, have traditionally opposed joint borrowing.
They argue it could weaken fiscal discipline and leave more prudent countries exposed to the debts of others. Nonetheless, the need to massively rearm has eased some of the opposition from the Nordic countries which are open to it as long as it goes into defence.
By contrast, southern member states such as France, Greece, Spain, and Portugal have generally supported the idea, seeing it as a way to unlock investment and share financial risks across the bloc. Italy under Giorgia Meloni has played this both ways, saying it sees the benefits while trying to build a close rapport with Germany.
Emmanuel Macron has been among the most vocal advocates in recent months. Speaking at an informal EU summit in February, he called for the creation of a joint borrowing capacity for future investment. His proposal was quickly rejected by Germany.
But still, the French president has not given up on the idea, and by reviving the plan for eurobonds, he is looking to place the debate high on the agenda ahead of a June summit of European leaders.
Paris and Berlin did, however, work together in 2020. Emmanuel Macron and then-German chancellor Angela Merkel played key roles in pushing through the EU’s pandemic recovery fund, although Berlin insisted at the time that the measure was temporary.
Her successor, Friedrich Merz, has taken a firmer stance. Speaking on 24 April, he said that higher debt and the issuance of eurobonds were “out of the question” from a German perspective.
As a form of collective debt, eurobonds would be repaid jointly by all 27 EU member states, with responsibility shared across the bloc.
The EU has already taken a similar approach with its €750 billion recovery instrument, NextGenerationEU. The repayments should begin in 2028, which kickstarts the next EU’s long-term budget through 2034, which is currently under negotiation in Brussels.
The deadline for the full repayment is 2058.
Some countries, led by France, have called for repayments to be delayed or refinanced through new joint borrowing. Macron said a quick reimbursement in the current context would be “idiotic” and the EU should not rush repayments at the expense of future investment.
Kyriakos Mitsotakis has made a similar case, questioning whether repaying the recovery fund now would reduce the EU’s budgetary capacity at a time when demand for European bonds remains strong.
Eurobonds have so far gained little traction in Brussels.
They were briefly referenced in a preparatory note by the European Commission ahead of a 16 February meeting of euro-area ministers. However, the issue was not taken forward at the subsequent Eurogroup meeting in March.
“There is a divergence in appetite regarding eurobonds,” Eurogroup President Kyriakos Pierrakakis said at the time.
In recent months, Eurogroup discussions have instead focused on the fallout from the conflict in Iran, particularly its impact on European energy prices, as well as broader efforts to boost competitiveness and advance Capital Markets Union legislation.
For now, diplomats say momentum is limited.
“I don’t see a lot of appetite on eurobonds at this stage, and indeed it’s not being really discussed for now,” one EU official told Euronews.
The Eurogroup is due to meet again on 22 May, and EU leaders will gather for a summit in Brussels in June.
No major Eurogroup discussions on eurobonds are currently foreseen, and Macron’s endorsement is unlikely to change the agenda, diplomats told Euronews.
Part of the reason is the EU’s focus on the impact of the conflict in Iran on energy prices — a major concern for the bloc’s economic outlook. The firm opposition of Friedrich Merz is also weighing heavily on the debate.
However, eurobonds are likely to remain on the agenda for EU leaders, with further backing expected in the coming months.
(Bloomberg) — Thailand expects the Middle East conflict to weaken economic growth and fuel inflation, underscoring the need for more fiscal support to shield consumers and businesses from a worsening energy crisis. Read More
Source link