Latest Developments

Europe
BBC Business

Trump to meet AI leaders to discuss US investment in their companies

US President Donald Trump is planning to meet the bosses of some of the country's most notable artificial intelligence (AI) companies to discuss the government taking a financial stake in their future. Speaking on Air Force One, Trump said the goal of the US government investing in AI companies was to "create almost a partnership with the American public". He expects to meet leaders of major AI companies at the White House - likely next week. Although the president did not name specific companies, the biggest companies in the US working on AI are Google, Microsoft, OpenAI, SpaceX and Anthropic - the latter two of which are expected to go public in the coming weeks. A spokesman for Microsoft declined to comment. Representatives of the other four companies did not respond to requests for comment. Trump compared the prospective investment in AI to the US government last year taking a 10% stake in Intel, a company that makes computer chips. He claimed the US has already made money on that investment. Part of the US investing directing in AI companies, however, would be to improve Americans' views of the technology, which have grown increasingly negative. "We're talking about it,"Trump said, referring to conversations with AI leaders "where the American people can benefit from the success of AI, the American people will like it better". Sam Altman, chief executive of OpenAI, this week travelled to Washington DC and met Senator Bernie Sanders. Sanders recently said he intended to propose a sort of sovereign wealth fund in which the US would take a 50% stake in AI companies. Asked about Sanders' plan, President Trump insisted he had been considering the US investing in AI companies for a year, but did not dismiss the senator's notion. "Where economics are concerned, we have things that aren't that far apart," Trump said.

Trump to meet AI leaders to discuss US investment in their companies
Europe
The Guardian

Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim say they’ll ‘stay and fight’ at 60 Minutes

Bill Whitaker, Lesley Stahl and Jon Wertheim. Photograph: Getty ImagesView image in fullscreenBill Whitaker, Lesley Stahl and Jon Wertheim. Photograph: Getty ImagesCBSLesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim say they’ll ‘stay and fight’ at 60 MinutesStahl and Whitaker had been wild cards after new CBS News management fired multiple people in recent weeks Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim announced on Friday their decision to remain at CBS’s 60 Minutes after the tumultuous firings of several of the show’s senior correspondents and top producers. The three correspondents issued a joint statement, saying: “We have had a hard time deciding whether to stay … We don’t want to see 60 Minutes die. We have been grieving because this whole mess has wounded and damaged the broadcast. Stahl, 84, and Whitaker, 74, had remained wildcards as they had not commented on the uproar that has plagued the show since the new management of CBS News ousted correspondents Sharyn Alfonsi and Cecilia Vega and producers Tanya Simon, Draggan Mihailovich and Matthew Polevoy last Thursday as part of a total restructuring of the show. Then, on Tuesday evening, the network terminated veteran Scott Pelley, telling him in a legalistic email message that he was being fired for “cause” because of his conduct in an explosive meeting a day earlier with new executive producer Nick Bilton and the network’s managing editor, Charles Forelle. During the meeting, Pelley criticized Bari Weiss, the former opinion commentator who became the network’s editor-in-chief – an appointment which has sparked backlash among numerous CBS employees who raised concerns about impartiality. “She’s murdering 60 Minutes,” Pelley said of Weiss. “She does not love this place. She was brought in to kill it and is doing exactly that.” In Friday’s note, the trio of correspondents said they were still “deeply upset by the firings” of Simon and Mihailovich, who they described as “strong leaders who everyone respected”. “As far as we can tell – because no explanation has ever been offered – they were expelled because they fought for our 60 Minutes values and stood up to protect our independence and integrity. Newsrooms are not supposed to run like dictatorships,” they wrote. The correspondents went on to also mention Alfonsi, Vega and Pelley, as well as Polevoy and senior producer Guy Campanile, who was also fired by CBS News. “We want to express how sorry we are that these principled, fair and honest journalists were treated so shabbily, with such indecency. It’s been heartbreaking,” they wrote. Explaining their decision to stay, they said: “We feared that our returning might be construed as an endorsement of the existing power structure. That is simply, categorically not the case.

Lesley Stahl, Bill Whitaker and Jon Wertheim say they’ll ‘stay and fight’ at 60 Minutes
North America
CNBC Finance

Lululemon cuts annual outlook, citing 'negative' media commentary and disappointing product launches

The athletic apparel retailer lowered its full-year guidance and issued a weak current-quarter outlook on Thursday as interim CEO Meghan Frank blamed "negative commentary in the media" and recent product launches that failed to wow shoppers. "We experienced spikes of negative commentary in the media and on social channels with regard to our brand, which had an impact on traffic and overall top line performance," Frank told analysts during the company's earnings call while explaining why the company's performance declined at the end of its fiscal first quarter. "And second, not all of our product launches have met our expectations. While we've had several successful launches so far this year, we've seen others as we start Q2 not generate the anticipated guest response." When pressed on what specific negative commentary led to a decline in sales, Frank pointed to Lululemon's proxy contest with founder Chip Wilson, who was outspoken in his criticism of the brand, as well as "questions about the composition" of some of its products. "These stories have died down and subsided," said Frank. "But we have not yet seen a return to our pre-disruption ... trends." She said the company is "not sitting still" and is "moving with urgency to make the necessary adjustments to reaccelerate momentum, particularly in North America." The company's shares dropped 11% in extended trading following the report. Lululemon's stock has plunged about 40% this year as of Thursday's close. Lululemon is now expecting fiscal 2026 sales to be between $11 billion and $11.15 billion, down from a previous range of between $11.35 billion and $11.50 billion. Analysts were expecting full-year sales of $11.48 billion, according to LSEG. Lululemon also cut its earnings guidance by more than $1 per share. It's now expecting earnings per share to be between $10.95 and $11.15 for the year, down from a previous range of $12.10 to $12.30. Analysts were expecting $12.30 per share, according to LSEG. The current quarter doesn't look much better. Lululemon is expecting sales to be between $2.45 billion and $2.48 billion, below expectations of $2.60 billion, according to LSEG. It's expecting earnings per share to be between $1.76 and $1.81, well below expectations of $2.68, according to LSEG. While Lululemon's guidance failed to meet forecasts, it did beat expectations on the top and bottom lines during its fiscal first quarter, albeit on expectations that have come down significantly since the retailer last reported earnings. Here's how the company performed compared with what Wall Street was anticipating, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: The company's reported net income for the three-month period that ended May 3 was $195 million, or $1.69 per share, compared with $314.6 million, or $2.60 per share, a year earlier. Sales rose to $2.47 billion, up about 4% from $2.37 billion a year earlier. Comparable sales grew 1%, better than expectations of 0.4%, according to LSEG.

Lululemon cuts annual outlook, citing 'negative' media commentary and disappointing product launches
North America
CNBC Economy

The May jobs report will be released Friday. Here's what to expect

The stronger-than-expected start this year for job creation could be in for a reality check when the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases the May nonfarm payrolls report Friday. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect the employment rolls to show that just 80,000 jobs were added during the month, which would mark a notch step down from the average of 150,000 over the prior two months, including 115,000 in April. Moreover, some prominent Wall Street voices think the month could feature some catch-up for a labor market that was teetering at this time last year, with risks to the downside for the headline number. "We're continuing to hear and see the low-hire, low-fire sentiment, which is that if you have a job, it's OK right now," said Laura Ullrich, director of economic research at Indeed Hiring Lab. "People are continuing this kind of job-hugging trend. But if you're looking for a job, it's a very hard time to find a job because hires are so low." Ullrich added that she "wouldn't be surprised" if the May number comes in at or below consensus. BLS data earlier this week showed a surprise jump in job openings for April, but the level of those quitting their jobs is at its lowest since August 2020, during the pandemic era. The consensus sees the unemployment rate holding steady at 4.3%. "From a macro point of view, we're going to see stagnation, because if people aren't leaving jobs and they're not creating new jobs, it's just a quite stagnant market," she said. Around Wall Street, expectations are muted as economists expect that mild weather and other seasonal factors helped boost the prior numbers other than in February, which saw a decline of 156,000 — the only negative month of the year. May saw a total 97,006 planned reductions, a 16% increase from April and the highest total for the month since 2020, when the Covid pandemic saw massive job cuts, according to Challenger, Gray & Christmas. The highest May prior to that was in 2009, around the nadir of the global financial crisis. Moreover, the firm said artificial intelligence-related announced job cuts totaled 38,242, the highest single-month total since Challenger began collecting the data about three years ago. Initial jobless claims last week posted their biggest total since early February. Goldman Sachs is expecting payroll gains of just 60,000, noting that "big data indicators of job growth we track slowed" during the month. Vanguard chief economist Adam Schickling is forecasting a mere 20,000 "as we expect a partial unwind from the strong [January]-April jobs numbers that were biased by unseasonably warm and dry weather." Likewise, EY-Parthenon is expecting growth of 50,000, which according to most estimates now is enough to keep the unemployment rate little changed from its current level, with perhaps a slight upside bias. "The step down reflects some payback from earlier weather-related strength and a still-cautious hiring backdrop," Gregory Daco, the firm's chief economist, said in a note. "We expect the unemployment rate to edge higher to 4.4%, consistent with a labor market where labor demand and supply have slowed in sync."

The May jobs report will be released Friday. Here's what to expect
North America
CNBC Economy

Long-term unemployment is surging in the U.S. There are hidden costs for workers and the economy

The 29-year-old had been employed consistently since he was a teen, first on a factory floor and most recently in medical sales. But the St. Petersburg, Florida, resident hasn't been able to start a new gig after losing his job shortly before the 2025 Thanksgiving holiday. Taylor has become part of a group of more than 1.8 million Americans classified as long-term unemployed — which the government defines as jobless for at least 27 weeks — in a given month this year. That figure is up about 45% from 2019 and 55% from 2023, a CNBC analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data found. "This can't go on much longer without some type of catastrophic change to my life," Taylor said. "That this era of my life could affect my long-term future — my family's future, my future children's future — is something that I go to sleep thinking about." Without a steady income, Taylor's retirement planning and long-term investing strategy has come to a "screeching halt." He's significantly cut back on spending for everything from food to social experiences to make ends meet. Taylor said he's applied to around 100 jobs and has completed several interviews to no avail. On a macro level, the growing number of Americans in this boat raises red flags about the strength of the labor market and overall economy. For the long-term unemployed, it can have ramifications on financial, emotional and family health that linger even after they reenter the workforce. "It tells us a lot about economic health," said Cory Stahle, an economist at job site Indeed. "It tells us about how good of a job the labor market is doing at absorbing people." The long-term unemployed account for roughly one out of every four jobless workers, according to the latest available U.S. government data. Friday's nonfarm payroll report will offer a fresh reading of the U.S. labor force's makeup. Reports released this week on job openings and private payrolls came in stronger than economists anticipated. Long-term unemployed workers' pay was approximately 32% lower after a decade than those who had not lost work, according to a working paper from the Boston Federal Reserve. Those who were unemployed for shorter periods took a 9% cut over the same time frame. Studies also show there may be a link between long-term unemployment and depression. A Pew Research report found that the long-term unemployed were over two times more likely to seek professional help for depression or other mental health challenges compared with those without work for under three months. "Other than the death of a family member or a close friend, this is one of the most devastating things that people face," said Carl Van Horn, director of the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University. "It's a very serious health problem and an economic problem." Research also shows how unemployment — particularly over long stretches — can negatively impact families and communities. Parental job loss increases the chance that their child will repeat a grade by about 15%, a working paper found. A study of Wisconsin state data found workers displaced in their prime years are less likely to participate in social and community events. Communities with a larger percentage of long-term unemployed people have a higher rate of crime and violence, the Urban Institute reported.

Long-term unemployment is surging in the U.S. There are hidden costs for workers and the economy
North America
CNBC Finance

Soaring stocks created 2 million new millionaires around the world last year

Soaring stock markets created nearly 2 million new millionaires around the world last year, with the ultra rich seeing the strongest growth, according to a new study. The population of global millionaires surged 7.9% to 25.3 million in 2025, according to the Capgemini World Wealth Report. Their total wealth increased by 8.7% to $98.3 trillion, marking the fastest growth in five years. At the same time, a wealth gap between millionaires and the ultra wealthy continues to widen. The increasing wealth of millionaires — defined by Capgemini as those with $1 million or more in investible assets, excluding primary home, collectibles and consumer goods — was outpaced by the growth of so-called "ultra-high-net-worth individuals (UHNWI)," or those with $30 million or more. The population of UHNWIs grew 9.4% in 2025, to 250,000, and their fortunes rose 9.7%, according to the report. UHNWIs now represent 1% of the overall millionaire population, but they hold 35% of all millionaire wealth, according to the study. Gareth Wilson, global banking industry lead at Capgemini, said one reason the ultra wealthy are outpacing millionaires is their access to higher-returning private investments. "They have access to investments and opportunities that aren't afforded even to the millionaires next door, whether it be pre-IPO investments or private markets," Wilson said. "When you look at those individuals who have investable assets at that scale, they probably have more influence in terms of access to some of the hedge funds, access to the private markets, and they're probably afforded access to some other kind of pre-IPO investments that us mere mortals probably don't even know about." Geographically, the U.S. continues to power much of the global millionaire growth. The U.S. added 730,000 new millionaires in 2025, bringing the total U.S. millionaire population to 8.73 million, according to the report. Their fortunes surged by nearly $3 trillion to $31.3 trillion. Asia also posted strong growth, with its millionaire wealth up 10.5% and millionaire population up 9.4%. While China had been the main growth engine for Asian wealth for years, Korea and Taiwan are now leading Asian wealth creation, as the Korean stock market surged 76% last year and semiconductor stocks powered Taiwanese markets higher. Asia's total millionaire population reached 8.3 million in 2025, according to the report. Europe's millionaire population grew 6.5%, while Latin America's rose 0.3% and the Middle East saw a decline of 1.4%. When it comes to their investments, the world's millionaires are increasing their holdings of stocks. They held an average of 25% of their portfolios in stocks in 2025, up from 22% in 2024 — most likely due to rising share prices. Their share of alternatives declined to 12% from 15% and their cash holdings also fell to 24% from 26%. Their holdings of fixed income increased from 18% to 20% and their real estate investments remained flat at 19%. The increased holdings of stocks and drawdowns in cash point to a continued "risk on" attitude among millionaire investors. With markets coming off three years of double-digit gains, investors are more fearful of missing out on a bull run than they are of losses. "The equities performance is encouraging the movement from lower-risk to higher-risk investments," Wilson said. "I would say we've probably seen an increase in the risk appetite, and we've also seen the high-net-worth individuals follow the money in terms of equity performance."

Soaring stocks created 2 million new millionaires around the world last year
Europe
BBC Business

AI needs a 'brake pedal', warns Anthropic co-founder

Anthropic co-founder Jack Clark has called for the ability to slow progression of artificial intelligence (AI), warning the technology is nearing a point where it could develop without human input. "You want the option to be able to take your foot off the gas and put your foot on the brake", Clark told BBC Newsnight. "Right now, it's like the AI industry has a gas pedal, but it doesn't have a brake pedal." He stressed people, through government policy, need to keep control of AI systems, which will only get more powerful and have broader impacts on society. "The world needs to do some thinking and we need to eventually develop some new regulations that allow us to be confident in these systems," he said. Already, Anthropic's popular chatbot Claude is operating on code of which 80% the system wrote itself. Getting to 100% is possible within two years, Clark said, and "would have huge implications". Clark did not outline how a "brake pedal" for AI research and development could be created, but drew a parallel between AI and the oil boom and barons of the turn of the last century. "Society's response was to come up with a sensible policy and regulatory framework that gave people confidence in oil and the benefits that oil could provide to the world, and meant that you didn't have to worry about the personalities of the people leading the companies", Clark said. "That's clearly where we end up here." Yet, Anthropic this week welcomed an executive order on AI from US President Donald Trump that was relatively hands-off in its directives toward the companies. It did not require AI companies to submit to safety testing by the government, something that remains a voluntary effort. Major AI companies pursuing advances in the technology, including Anthropic, OpenAI and Google, have also not said they will pause their own research. Anthropic has grown so quickly since its founding five years ago that it is preparing to debut on the public stock market. It is poised to be one of the first public listings by a newer AI firm and one of the most valuable stock listings in history, as Anthropic's valuation is estimated by private investors to be nearly $1tn (£745bn).

AI needs a 'brake pedal', warns Anthropic co-founder
North America
CNBC Finance

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' has a 'double taxation' trap for top earners, tax experts say

The "one big beautiful bill" came with many tax benefits for top earners, despite limiting how much they can deduct. However, lawyers and accountants for the wealthy said they have discovered a surprise buried in the footnotes of a tax law guide released last week by Congress' policy staff that could amount to double taxation. The deduction cap is imposed on trusts and estates, the experts said, which was unexpected. Even if a trust gave all its income to its beneficiaries, it would have to pay taxes on a portion of that income, according to their interpretation of the document. While the consequences are steeper for trusts and estates of the ultra-wealthy, trusts with as little as $16,000 in income would also be subject to additional taxes, the experts said. "There is potentially an element of double taxation," said Dan Griffith, director of wealth strategy at Huntington Bank. "This is something that is going to affect somebody with a $400,000 special-needs trust. It's not just going to be something that $100 million dynasty trusts suffer with." Griffith said he is especially concerned about trusts that are obligated to distribute all their income. Trusts will either have to sell assets to pay the taxes, sacrificing future investment returns, or reduce their distributions to beneficiaries, he said. This provision creates a "mathematical nightmare" for tax lawyers and financial advisors, according to Justin Miller, national director of wealth planning at Evercore Wealth Management. Miller gave the example of a wealthy couple wishing to leave their estate to charity. "If I have to pay income taxes, that means I'm giving less money to charity because I'm giving money to the IRS. That means I now have to adjust my deduction even more because less money is going to charity," he said. "Did Congress really intend to create an algebraic formula?" Historically, trusts and estates have been able to deduct income given to beneficiaries, which is then taxed on the individual level. This distribution deduction is designed to make sure income is only taxed once. However, the new deduction limitation on top-earning individuals now applies to trusts and estates, according to a footnote in the Joint Committee on Taxation's recent tax explainer, better known as the Bluebook. The JCT is nonpartisan and serves to explain legislation. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act's limit on itemized deductions means that taxpayers in the top bracket only get a deduction benefit of 35 cents for every dollar, rather than 37 cents. It applies to charitable deductions, and experts say it has already influenced how top earners give. While the Bluebook is an interpretation of the OBBBA rather than law in and of itself, this provision is causing concern in the financial advisory community, according to Robert Keebler, a certified public accountant. For instance, he frequently sets up trusts for clients on their second marriages that will provide their surviving spouse with income but leave the remainder for children from the first marriage. Consider a trust that distributes all $370,000 of its net income to a widow, he said. Applying the deduction limit to trusts means that the trust can only deduct $350,000 from its distributable net income and $20,000 would be subject to taxes, even though the widow is taxed on the entire $370,000, according to Keebler. To pay the tax, the trust either has to dip into its corpus, reducing the children's future benefit, or get permission to give less to the spouse, which can require going to court.

Trump's 'big beautiful bill' has a 'double taxation' trap for top earners, tax experts say
North America
CNBC Finance

Eli Manning's private equity firm acquires licensing company for NFL Flag in bet on youth sports

RCX has about 150 employees and makes money distributing sports products such as uniforms and equipment and servicing local parks and recreation centers. Financial terms of the deal weren't disclosed. The transaction is supported by a broad investor group including other former and current athlete partners Emmitt Smith, Larry Fitzgerald and Jameis Winston. The business of youth sports is well suited for private equity. It's supported by passionate customers, steady and reliable cash flows — every sports season comes with fresh fees — and it's decentralized. This lack of cohesion has led to a myriad of mobile apps and websites used to keep track of games, pay league fees, order equipment and chat with coaches. A standard private equity playbook is to roll up a variety of smaller leagues or apps, taking cost out by eliminating backend duplication and gaining scale via a series of acquisitions. This is starting to happen in youth sports. Josh Harris and David Blitzer, two of the most prominent private equity partners in the world, started Unrivaled Sports two years ago as their youth sports rollup investment vehicle. Still, there's distrust among some powerful people that the industry would put the desires of consumers ahead of its own mandate to earn returns for stakeholders. This has led to a group of Democratic congressmen to introduce a bill specifically to prevent private equity from investing in youth sports. The "Let Kids Play Act" would ban private equity firms from investing in youth sports. U.S. Rep. Chris Deluzio of Pennsylvania and Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut unveiled the bicameral bill last month. The congressional leaders said in a statement that youth sports was a $40 billion industry that's currently "dominated by private equity, with the singular goal of extracting as much profit as possible from families. "As a hockey dad, I've seen how viciously these private equity companies rip families off," Murphy said in the statement. Manning said his private equity firm is different. BVG's interest in RCX is to bring more scale to their programs and increase inclusivity, he said. "It's very much more access, keeping the prices low, and just growing this," Manning said. "The fact that you're working with the professional leagues, they don't want this to be a heavy cost to kids. They want more kids playing sports, being active, being out there. So our goal is to bring in capital so they can scale that, they can expand that." Manning's reputation would likely help his point that not all private equity firms are the same. He's been a major champion of flag football, including assistant coaching his daughters' teams. His goal is to establish flag football as a high school varsity sport for both girls and boys, he said.

Eli Manning's private equity firm acquires licensing company for NFL Flag in bet on youth sports