Finance

The latest reporting from the Financial Times highlights a point that energy analysts have been making for years: geopolitical shocks consistently strengthen the case for renewables, electrification and storage. Microsoft’s global vice-president for energy notes that oil and gas price spikes linked to the Middle East conflict reinforce the value of wind, solar and batteries in providing price stability. Once installed, renewables offer predictable cost profiles and reduce exposure to volatile global fuel markets. We saw this dynamic after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe accelerated solar deployment, heat pump uptake increased in several countries, and governments revisited questions of energy security through the lens of diversification and electrification. The underlying issue remains unchanged. Fossil fuels must continuously flow through complex global supply chains. When those flows are disrupted, prices spike and economies are exposed. Renewables, by contrast, are capital intensive upfront but deliver long term domestic supply and insulation from commodity shocks. There are short term risks. Inflation, higher interest rates and supply chain constraints can slow clean energy investment. Some governments may also respond by doubling down on gas infrastructure. The policy challenge is to avoid locking in further structural vulnerability. Energy security and climate policy are not competing objectives. In a world of recurrent geopolitical instability, they are increasingly aligned.

Energy is once again dominating headlines all over the world. Gas and oil prices are volatile, key shipping routes face geopolitical pressure, and policymakers are concerned about supply risks. The renewed uncertainty is a reminder of an uncomfortable reality: the next energy crisis isn’t an if – it’s a when, and a question of how prepared we are. A defining challenge of this decade, and one that now feels more urgent than ever, is how to build a resilient energy system. One that minimises structural dependencies and is designed for rising electricity demand. The imperative of our time: The more we electrify, the less we import fossil fuels. The less we import, the more resilient we become. The course of action is clear: ▪️ Relentlessly scale renewables: Slowing the buildout will not reduce costs. Quite the opposite – delay compounds system costs for the entire economy. ▪️ Fix the grids: As fast as possible, as efficiently as possible, and at the lowest possible cost. Before they become even more of a bottleneck. ▪️ Secure 24/7 electricity supply: When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, renewables need reliable backup in the form of battery storage and hydrogen-ready gas fired power plants. But gas should serve only as a backup, with renewables and batteries reducing its utilisation. ▪️ Reduce gas supply dependence with infrastructure and diversification: We must not replace old dependencies with new ones. Diversification of gas supplies is key. And the physical prerequisite is an import infrastructure with buffers. We need the planned LNG terminals, complemented by a nationally held gas reserve to help ensure secure supply in winter. ▪️ Electrify everything that makes sense: The more we can power with mostly homegrown electrons, the less dependent we become on fossil imports. Other energy import-dependent countries like Japan and China have electrification rates that are around 10 percentage points higher than Germany’s. This shows where the path forward lies. Electrification reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, which in turn strengthens overall resilience. The time to act is now.

👉 Are we using the wrong tools to assess climate risk? A new expert-led assessment, drawing on the judgment of 60+ climate scientists, says that #climatechange introduces forms of risk that exceed the design assumptions of existing economic and financial frameworks. Here’s what that means in practice ⬇️ 🔹 Climate damages are structural, they reshape economies: where people live, what can be produced, how infrastructure functions, and which regions remain viable. 🔹 Extremes drive real-world risk: what actually destabilises societies and markets are heatwaves, floods, droughts, grid failures, food shocks. It’s the tails of the distribution that matter. 🔹 GDP misses mortality, inequality, displacement, ecosystem loss, and can even rise after disasters due to reconstruction. This creates a dangerous illusion of resilience. 🔹 Repeated shocks erode recovery capacity and propagate across supply chains, finance, migration, and geopolitics. 🔹 Beyond ~2°C, uncertainty widens sharply. Confidence in precise damage estimates falls even as consequences grow. 🔹 Tipping points expose the limits of economic modelling: At higher warming levels, model outputs can appear precise while resting on assumptions that no longer hold. At the same time, many models also underestimate positive tipping points in clean energy and innovation. The goal is to build resilience under deep uncertainty. For treasuries, central banks, regulators, and long-horizon investors, this means recalibrating governance toward: ➡️ precaution ➡️ robustness ➡️ transparency Because avoiding irreversible outcomes is always cheaper than trying to price them after the fact. read the report "Recalibrating Climate Risk" here 👇 https://lnkd.in/dx8wmRZ4 Green Futures Solutions (University of Exeter) Carbon Tracker @aurora trust

It might not feel like it, but Britain is not unique in facing difficult budget choices. France and Germany have also seen governments destabilised or fall over attempts to pass budgets. Low growth, ageing populations and rising demands on the welfare state are putting pressure on public finances right across the continent. What is striking, however, is how some of the countries that were once held up as cautionary tales during the eurozone crisis (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) have responded. They undertook painful reforms: raising retirement ages, restructuring their welfare systems, making labour markets more flexible and, in some cases, linking pensions to life expectancy. As a result, they are now seeing stronger growth and lower borrowing costs than many of their northern neighbours. By contrast, there has been less urgency in the UK this past year. We are already on course to spend far more on benefits and debt interest in the next decade, even before additional pressures on the health and welfare systems are factored in. Simply opting for higher spending without confronting the underlying structure of the state is not a sustainable strategy. The lesson from Europe is not that reform is easy or popular. It rarely is. But it is better to confront these choices on your own terms than to wait for markets or external shocks to force them upon you. That is the debate we need to have in Britain: how to protect the most vulnerable while reshaping the welfare state and public spending so that our economy can grow and our finances remain credible. Read more in my column for today's Sunday Times here: https://lnkd.in/eTuWcNBK

Last week, China barred its major tech companies from buying Nvidia chips. This move received only modest attention in the media, but has implications beyond what’s widely appreciated. Specifically, it signals that China has progressed sufficiently in semiconductors to break away from dependence on advanced chips designed in the U.S., the vast majority of which are manufactured in Taiwan. It also highlights the U.S. vulnerability to possible disruptions in Taiwan at a moment when China is becoming less vulnerable. After the U.S. started restricting AI chip sales to China, China dramatically ramped up its semiconductor research and investment to move toward self-sufficiency. These efforts are starting to bear fruit, and China’s willingness to cut off Nvidia is a strong sign of its faith in its domestic capabilities. For example, the new DeepSeek-R1-Safe model was trained on 1000 Huawei Ascend chips. While individual Ascend chips are significantly less powerful than individual Nvidia or AMD chips, Huawei’s system-level design to orchestrate how a much larger number of chips work together seems to be paying off. For example, Huawei’s CloudMatrix 384 system of 384 chips aims to compete with Nvidia’s GB200, which uses 72 higher-capability chips. Today, U.S. access to advanced semiconductors is heavily dependent on Taiwan’s TSMC, which manufactures the vast majority of advanced chips. Unfortunately, U.S. efforts to ramp up domestic semiconductor manufacturing have been slow. I am encouraged that one fab at the TSMC Arizona facility is operating, but issues of workforce training, culture, licensing and permitting, and the supply chain are still being addressed, and there is still a long road ahead for the U.S. facility to be a viable substitute for Taiwan manufacturing. If China gains independence from Taiwan manufacturing significantly faster than the U.S., this would leave the U.S. much more vulnerable to possible disruptions in Taiwan, whether through natural disasters or man-made events. If manufacturing in Taiwan is disrupted for any reason and Chinese companies end up accounting for a large fraction of global semiconductor manufacturing capabilities, that would also help China gain tremendous geopolitical influence. Despite occasional moments of heightened tensions and large-scale military exercises, Taiwan has been mostly peaceful since the 1960s. This peace has helped the people of Taiwan to prosper and allowed AI to make tremendous advances, built on top of chips made by TSMC. I hope we will find a path to maintaining peace for many decades more. But hope is not a plan. In addition to working to ensure peace, practical work lies ahead to multi-source, build more fabs in more nations, and enhance the resilience of the semiconductor supply chain. Dependence on any single manufacturer invites shortages, price spikes, and stalled innovation the moment something goes sideways. [Original text: https://lnkd.in/gxR48TK8 ]

The European Parliament has officially passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation that fundamentally shifts the responsibility for textile waste management to fashion brands and retailers – with far-reaching global implications. This new law requires all producers, including e-commerce platforms, to cover the full cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling textiles, regardless of whether they are based within or outside the EU. The financial burden of Europe's textile waste now falls squarely on the brands that create it. What are the critical business implications? UNIVERSAL SCOPE: The legislation applies to all producers selling in the EU market, including those of clothing, accessories, footwear, home textiles, and curtains. No company is exempt based on location. FAST FASHION PENALTY: Member states must specifically address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices when determining EPR financial contributions, creating cost penalties for unsustainable business models. GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTION: As the world's largest textile importer, the EU's new rules will ripple across global supply chains, particularly impacting exporters from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, and India who supply much of Europe's fast fashion. TIMELINE PRESSURE: Officially adopted September 2025, this creates immediate operational and financial planning requirements. COMPETITIVE RESHAPING: Brands and retailers will inevitably pass increased costs down their supply chains, fundamentally altering supplier relationships and pricing structures globally. What are the implications for various stakeholders? For CEOs and board members: This represents more than regulatory compliance – it's a complete business model transformation. Companies must now integrate end-of-life costs into product pricing, rethink supplier partnerships, and accelerate circular design strategies. For sustainability and decarbonisation executives: This creates unprecedented opportunities for circular economy solutions, sustainable material innovation, and traceability system development across global supply chains. Link: https://lnkd.in/dTyHtHuD #sustainablefashion #circulareconomy #textilwaste #epr #fashionindustry #sustainability #supplychainmanagement #fastfashion #environmentalregulation #businessstrategy #decarbonisation #textilerecycling #fashionceos #boardgovernance #climateaction #wastemanagement #producerresponsibility #fashionsustainability #textileindustry #greenbusiness

Every time a card payment is processed, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 main types of fees are involved. Here’s a simple breakdown of the Three Core Fees: 1️⃣ Interchange Fee This is paid by your acquiring bank (or payment processor) to the cardholder’s bank (the issuer). It’s set by the card networks (like Visa and Mastercard; sometimes regulated), and is designed to cover things like fraud, credit losses, and infrastructure costs. 2️⃣ Scheme Fee Charged by the card networks themselves, this fee covers the operation of the payment system (“rails” that process the transaction). 3️⃣ Acquirer Markup This is the fee your acquirer or payment service provider (PSP) charges you, the merchant. It includes their costs, risk management, and profit margin for processing and settling the payment. The total cost a merchant pays is called the Merchant Service Charge, which is the sum of these three components. The Main Pricing Models: ► Bundled Pricing All fees are grouped into one flat rate. This is very common with small businesses. It’s easy to understand but doesn’t provide insight into what you’re actually paying for. ► Interchange+ The interchange fee and the acquirer’s fee are shown separately, but the scheme fee is typically bundled with the markup. This model offers some transparency. ► Interchange++ Each fee—the interchange, scheme, and acquirer markup—is itemized separately. This is the most transparent model and is favored by larger or multi-country merchants who want to track costs precisely. Who Chooses the Pricing Model? Most acquirers and PSPs decide what pricing model you’re offered. Unless you negotiate or have significant transaction volume, you’re likely to get bundled pricing by default. Larger or more experienced merchants who understand payments often push for Interchange++ for its clarity and fairness. Smaller merchants often aren’t aware that alternatives exist or find it difficult to compare offers. How Interchange Fees Vary Globally: Some regions (like the EU, UK, China, and Brazil) cap interchange fees to lower costs for merchants and stimulate competition. The US regulates only part of the system—such as capping debit card fees for large banks (the Durbin Amendment)—while credit card interchange remains uncapped and usually higher. Other countries, like India and Brazil, regulate interchange as part of broader financial inclusion goals. In markets with stricter regulation, merchants often benefit from lower, more predictable fees, making it easier to accept cards. Where fees are higher and less regulated, issuers can offer consumers more rewards (like cashback), but those costs are passed back to merchants—and sometimes their customers. Every model shifts the balance of costs and benefits between banks, merchants, and consumers in different ways. More info below👇, and I highly recommend reading my complete deep dive article about Interchange Fee and what factors impact the rate: https://bit.ly/44T4VJA

Everyone is talking about agentic AI and yet the next frontier is already in the making: Multi-Agent Systems (MAS). AI didn’t arrive all at once – although in many cases it might seem it did. It evolved in distinct phases, each unlocking new capabilities and changing how work gets done: 𝟭. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗱𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗹 𝗔𝗜 (𝗣𝗿𝗲𝗱𝗶𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗜): - Systems powering rule-based models and statistical inference to detect fraud, recommend investments, and process documents - all in response to human prompts. - Financial Services (FS) example: Credit scoring models and fraud detection engines improved efficiency, but remained passive tools waiting on human input. 𝟮. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝗔𝗜 (𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗔𝗜): - LLMs and foundation models that brought language fluency and contextual understanding. These systems can create, explain, and summarize - moving from data crunching to content generation. - FS example: Chatbots that summarize regulatory filings, generate client reports, or support advisors with contextual investment narratives. 𝟯. 𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗰 𝗔𝗜: - Systems that can interpret goals, plan actions, and operate independently within constraints. These agents shift the human role from executing tasks to defining intent. - FS example: AI agents that autonomously rebalance portfolios based on client preferences and market movements - no human intervention required. 𝟰. 𝗠𝘂𝗹𝘁𝗶-𝗔𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗦𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺𝘀 (𝗠𝗔𝗦): - MAS represent the next leap. Multiple agents - each specialized - work together, negotiate, and adapt in real time to achieve shared outcomes across environments. - FS: Agents handling client onboarding, AML checks, credit assessment, and regulatory filings collaborate seamlessly to approve new clients in minutes. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: MAS enable distributed, intelligent systems that can self-organize, learn continuously, and respond dynamically to change. They reduce operational bottlenecks and shift digital architectures from static pipelines to living systems. 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗙𝗶𝗻𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗦𝗲𝗿𝘃𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀: - Efficiency: MAS collapse multi-day processes into seconds - from KYC to loan origination. - Mass hyper-personalization: Real-time tailoring of product decisions across customer journeys and risk contexts. - Resilience: Distributed agents can recover from local failures, reroute tasks, and maintain service continuity without manual intervention. - Compliance: Agents track regulatory changes and trigger operational updates autonomously. MAS aren’t just the next step in AI - they’re how AI starts to really work like a system. The real transformation won’t be about bigger models anymore, but about smarter collaboration between them. Opinions: my own, Graphic source: Capgemini 𝐒𝐮𝐛𝐬𝐜𝐫𝐢𝐛𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐦𝐲 𝐧𝐞𝐰𝐬𝐥𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐞𝐫: https://lnkd.in/dkqhnxdg

The inventor of the SAFE note Adeo Ressi just eliminated the $150,000 and 6-month tax on starting a VC fund. This is huge, so we need to talk about it. Traditionally: ⏱️ Time: Launching a fund can take 6-12 months from thesis to first investment. 💸 Money: The VC setup cost ranges from $50,000 to $150,000+, with annual operations adding another $50,000+. 😵💫 Complexity: Requires three separate entities (LP, GP, and ManCo), complex legal agreements, and multiple regulatory filings. 🏦 Fund Size: There is a minimum fund size averaging $10M to make the fund economically viable. Each LP typically needs to invest $100K+ minimum because smaller checks are unprofitable due to per-LP administrative costs. 📊 Track Record: In order to raise this type of fund, new managers need larger LPs, and these larger LPs often need to see an existing successful investment track record, which some new managers don't have. These barriers have created a venture ecosystem where only those with established networks, significant resources, and/or institutional backing can participate. In 2025: Adeo came up with the Start Fund, a vehicle addressing all of the above head-on: ⏱️ Time: Set up a fund in ONE DAY vs. 6-12 months. 💸 Money: ZERO setup fees vs. $50K-$150K+. 😵💫 Complexity: ONE Delaware series vehicle vs. three separate entities, with an LPA just 1/3 the size. 🏦 Fund Size: Viable with just $250K+ vs. $10M minimum, and can accept smaller LPs (as low as $25K) because administration is streamlined 📊 Track Record: Fully portable track record that counts as fund one when you move to fund two. The benefits for emerging managers are clear: the barriers to entry are lower, giving a much wider pool of candidates a chance to create impact and shape the future. But here's why this matters for... LPs - The Start Fund allows LPs to participate with smaller check sizes, making it easier to diversify their portfolio - More of their capital actually goes to startups rather than overhead fees Startups: - This means more availability of capital from a wider range of sources - Access to a more diverse pool of venture investors with specialized expertise The Start Fund could fundamentally could change WHO gets to allocate capital to the next generation of startups, and WHO will benefit financially from it. I want to know what you all think. ------------- ✍️ Myrto Lalacos Follow for more content on launching and investing in VC firms

Founders are turning down millions in venture capital. Their reason? "I don't need the money. We're already profitable." 10 years ago, unthinkable. Today, common. The Information wrote an insightful piece on "Seed-strapping"—raise once, focus on profitability: → $3.7M revenue per employee (10X industry standard) → 80% lower development costs → 90% less capital to reach profitability The uncomfortable truth for VCs: → Companies need just one funding round → SAFEs never convert → Founders keep 70-80% ownership → The traditional model breaks For investors, survival requires reinvention. New Fund Economics: → Smaller funds with more concentrated bets → Lower management fees, higher carry → Faster distribution timelines → Many smaller wins vs. few unicorn exits New Deal Structures: → Revenue-based financing with capped returns → Dividend rights if companies don't raise again → Profit-sharing without requiring additional rounds New Value Proposition: → Capital efficiency expertise over growth-at-all-costs → Customer connections & distribution support → Operational support over financial engineering → Alternative liquidity paths beyond traditional exits The era of "We'll figure out profitability later" is over. What comes next? Imagine a VC landscape dominated by smaller, specialized firms helping founders build profitable businesses from day one. In this new world, the winners won't have the biggest funds—they'll understand AI has fundamentally changed capital efficiency. For founders: Why dilute when you can profit after one round? For investors: How do you add value when capital isn't the constraint? The answer determines who thrives—and who vanishes in 24 months.