ReportWire

Tag: investment

  • Deal over dim sum: China caves to EU on data to keep investors sweet

    Deal over dim sum: China caves to EU on data to keep investors sweet

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BRUSSELS — When EU digital chief Věra Jourová sat down in Beijing with a senior Chinese official in September, her complaint list was as long as the 11-course dinner her host had prepared.

    Sore points included Beijing’s disinformation campaigns, electoral interference, state control over Artificial Intelligence development, and ties with Russia.

    Predictably, Jourová didn’t get many straight answers from her counterpart, Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing. It’s a nail-biting time to be a politician in China, as major figures such as Qin Gang and Li Shangfu have recently been purged as foreign and defense ministers, and no one wants to be accused of making big concessions to the West.

    Then, in a sudden surprise initiative, Zhang said he was ready to offer a goodie to European businesses facing an increasingly hostile political environment in President Xi Jinping’s China. He explained Beijing was willing to move on data flows — a sphere where China has been trying to curb the ability of foreign companies to export data generated within the country. All that data is a goldmine for European business, but China guards it zealously.

    A deal on data flows was a big call from Zhang, but can be explained by China’s growing fears about its precarious economy. While security is front-and-center to Chinese policymakers, they also know they have to offer some big carrots to keep foreign investors onside.

    “You could feel that something clicked on the spot,” said an EU official with knowledge of the discussion, recalling the heated debates on data over Chinese delicacies like beef in lotus leaves and dim sum.

    Although the dinner happened in September, three officials with knowledge of China’s switching tack have only now explained how the change of heart in Beijing came about.

    “The vice-premier told her he understood the proposal makes sense, and asked the relevant authorities to take the matter forward,” the first official said. Zhang immediately turned to his junior colleagues from the Cyberspace Administration of China and the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology. “You had a feeling that that was the moment the big guy gave the go-ahead.”

    According to another official, when Trade Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis visited Beijing shortly after Jourová, he received the final confirmation of the changes to the data laws from his counterpart, Vice Premier He Lifeng, an influential economic aide to President Xi Jinping.

    Shortly afterward, China agreed to reverse the burden of proof under the relevant laws, allowing most data stored in China to be transferred out of the country unless expressly excluded by the authorities. EU officials, though, cautioned that they’ll still wait to see how Chinese authorities at all levels implement the new provision.

    Special gift to Europe

    Even though U.S., Japanese and other companies had also been pushing for this kind of measure from Beijing on data, China offered the diplomatic win to the EU.

    The European Union Chamber of Commerce, among the first to be notified when Beijing made the legal revision, sent Jourová a congratulatory letter, seen by POLITICO.

    China’s Vice Premier Zhang Guoqing | Lintao Zhang/Getty Images

    “Make no mistake, China is merely fixing a problem of its own making,” the second official noted. “It’s not an act of benevolence. It’s an act of self-correction.”

    Still, that self-correction is far from a given under a nationalistic government facing stiff competition from the U.S.

    Increasingly, China’s uncompromising ideological focus is forcing many companies to adjust their business strategies, including by taking their new investments out of China. Indeed, the EU and the rest of the G7 rich democracies are calling on their companies to “de-risk,” as Russia’s war against Ukraine prompts concerns about a possible Chinese invasion of Taiwan.

    According to a report issued Wednesday by Penta, a business research group, one in five EU policymakers considers China to be the most pressing issue facing the bloc — while only 16 percent of people say they’re open to working with companies from China, bottom of the list.

    It’s against this backdrop that Beijing wants — and needs — to throw some bones to the EU.

    “For sure there’s a lot of self-interest for China [to give EU the data deal], where there’s a sharp drop of foreign direct investment which China desperately needs,” the first official said.

    European Council President Charles Michel and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen | Kenzo Tribouillard/AFP via Getty Images

    Over the past three months, Beijing has welcomed a long line of EU officials in a thaw from the 2021 low point where China’s sanctions on EU politicians and intellectuals were followed by an indefinite freeze of a massive EU-China trade deal, which remains unratified.

    Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her European Council counterpart Charles Michel are expected to attend an EU-China Summit in December and meet Chinese President Xi Jinping.

    EU officials should use China’s underperforming economy — most specifically in the real estate sector — as leverage, according to Luisa Santos, deputy director of BusinessEurope, a Brussels-based lobby group, who is currently visiting China.

    Speaking before her trip, Santos described the Chinese economy as “not in a great situation,” adding that EU officials should seize this opportunity to convince Beijing to open up further.

    “China needs to recognize that what is happening in our bilateral relationship is something that is not sustainable,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Stuart Lau

    Source link

  • Germany suggests UN take control in Gaza after Israel-Hamas war ends

    Germany suggests UN take control in Gaza after Israel-Hamas war ends

    [ad_1]

    Germany has floated that the United Nations could take control in Gaza once the Israel-Hamas war is over, according to a document seen by POLITICO. 

    However, both the Palestinians and some EU diplomats have serious doubts about the feasibility of the idea, with a senior Palestinian figure in Europe calling it “unacceptable.”

    Israel has been striking the densely populated Gaza Strip in reaction to an attack by Hamas on October 7, during which the militant group killed around 1,200 Israelis. According to data from the Palestinian Authority, the Israeli strikes have killed more than 11,000 Palestinians.  

    Discussions are ongoing about how to allow more humanitarian aid into Gaza and how to stop the fighting. But there are also increasing discussions on scenarios for after the war. 

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last month that an “effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority” should ultimately govern Gaza but offered no indications on how to make it “effective” or overcome Israeli opposition. Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had stated earlier that his country would take “overall security responsibility” for Gaza “for an indefinite period.” 

    That is a no-go for the EU and the United States.

    The EU’s top diplomat, Josep Borrell, on Monday stressed that Israel cannot stay in Gaza after the war, when he presented his vision for what happens post conflict ahead of a trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories. He also said, “we believe that a Palestinian authority must return to Gaza,” stressing he meant “one Palestinian authority, not the Palestinian Authority.”

    Blinken has also warned that Israel cannot reoccupy Gaza after its war with Hamas ends.

    The German proposal — a two-page, nonofficial document (or non-paper in EU-speak) — is dated October 21, so before Israel’s decision to launch the second phase of its military operation against Gaza at the end of October.

    Berlin, one of Israel’s staunchest allies within the EU, writes that “Israel’s goal is a goal we share: never again should Hamas be in a position to terrorize Israel and its citizens.” Yet at the same time, “it is clear that these goals are hard to achieve with military means only … Its radical ideology and agenda cannot be fought by military means.”

    It floats five different scenarios about the future of the Gaza Strip, including Israeli re-occupation of Gaza, and either the Palestinian Authority (PA) or Egypt taking control. 

    The U.N scenario is also on the list. In Berlin’s words, the scenario means an “internationalization of Gaza under the umbrella of the United Nations (and regional partners)” with “a carefully organized transition” toward Palestinian self-administration, “ideally” through elections “and in combination with an international coalition that provides necessary security.”

    The document described this scenario as one that “could offer a political perspective since neither the PA nor Egypt are willing or able to take over and a return to the status quo ante or an Israeli re-occupation are politically not desirable.” 

    But Berlin also warned that “this scenario would require significant investment of political capital and financing as well as an international coalition to engage on security issues alongside the U.N.”

    U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said last month that an “effective and revitalized Palestinian Authority” should ultimately govern Gaza but offered no indications on how to make it “effective” or overcome Israeli opposition | Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

    The document says that “the EU should take over a pro-active role in shaping this [the post-war] discussion” and it ends by emphasizing that the situation in the Gaza Strip “can only be sustainably stabilized through a relaunch of the Middle East Peace Process.” 

    European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen echoed the U.N. idea in her speech last week to EU ambassadors, saying that after the conflict the world has to ensure Gaza is no longer a safe haven for terrorists. To ensure that, von der Leyen said “different ideas are being discussed on how this can be ensured, including an international peace force under U.N. mandate.” 

    But several diplomats — granted, like others in this article, anonymity to discuss the sensitive subject — said that the German suggestion didn’t go far enough. It came in the very early stages of the conflict, it was not circulated among all member countries and was not intended to be discussed by foreign ministers.

    When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated Berlin’s line more recently, she said that “Gaza must not be occupied, but ideally be placed under international protection” without explicitly mentioning a U.N. role.  

    One EU diplomat described the document as “stillborn.” 

    Palestinian no-go 

    The German suggestion has angered Palestinian officials, already unhappy at EU statements that don’t mention a cease-fire in Gaza.

    When German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock stated Berlin’s line more recently, she said that “Gaza must not be occupied, but ideally be placed under international protection” without explicitly mentioning a U.N. role | Sean Gallup/Getty Images

    That feeling extends across Muslim countries. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) — which has 57 Muslim countries as members — held a press conference in Brussels on Monday morning, at the same time as EU foreign ministers were meeting, to argue that they don’t want to talk about the future of the Gaza Strip as long as there’s no cease-fire. 

    The 27 EU member countries have agreed on a call for “humanitarian corridors and pauses” but there’s no unanimity on a cease-fire, which is being pushed by Spain but objected to by the likes of Germany and Austria for several reasons, including that it could put Israel and Hamas on the same level, as the former is a country and the latter classed as a terrorist organization by the bloc.

    For Abdalrahim Alfarra, the head of the Palestinian Mission to the EU, Belgium and Luxembourg, the U.N taking control of Gaza would be “unacceptable.”

    He told POLITICO that a U.N role in providing international protection at the borders — like the blue helmets in the south of Lebanon — to protect the frontier between two future countries, Israel and Palestine, is “what we need.”

    The problem with the German document is that it doesn’t talk about U.N protection at the borders but rather about U.N “control of Gaza,” he said. 

    Alfarra said that the Palestinian Authority has not been consulted about the document and also criticized it for not mentioning any form of cease-fire before addressing the future of the region. 

    “They didn’t talk about how we’re going to protect the men and women now. Right away: the future of Gaza,” he said.

    [ad_2]

    Jacopo Barigazzi and Barbara Moens

    Source link

  • Spending Recklessly in Good Times Is a Recipe for Disaster in Bad Times

    Spending Recklessly in Good Times Is a Recipe for Disaster in Bad Times

    [ad_1]

    Some policy experts who, over the last few decades, saw little need for serious fiscal austerity because the government could borrow at low interest rates are now changing their tune. Their argument is that with rates now rising and the government’s interest payments set to become extremely expensive, it’s time to adjust. While I suppose that’s progress, they fail to see that the past calls for austerity were attempts to avoid precisely what’s happening today.

    Indeed, the need for fiscal responsibility was never based on an inability to afford extra debt back then. It was because the moment was destined to arrive when adjustments became necessary, and rising indebtedness ensured that these changes would become more painful.

    Let me explain. Consider two well-respected economists and former high-ranking government officials, Lawrence Summers and Jason Furman, who previously suggested that in the aftermath of the Great Recession, concerns expressed by “deficit fundamentalists” (like me) were excessive, and that some of the efforts we championed to reduce the debt were unnecessary.

    Despite the growing national debt, interest rates remained historically low, meaning the cost of servicing it was not particularly burdensome. This, they argued, made calls to control the debt out of touch. Better yet, those low rates were said to present an opportunity to “invest” in productive projects like infrastructure and education. This spending, in turn, would fuel productivity and raise economic growth, helping offset the future cost of the debt.

    Now, unlike some who subscribe to similar ideas, Summers and Furman aren’t extremists. They acknowledged that debt cannot accumulate indefinitely. But they mocked calls for austerity measures back in the 2010s as premature, while encouraging government investments paid for with debt accumulation.

    Undoubtedly, interest rates were low. As Summers and Furman highlighted in a 2019 paper, “in 2000, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast that by 2010, the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio would be six percent. The same ten-year forecast in 2018 put the figure for 2028 at 105 percent. Real interest rates on ten-year government bonds, meanwhile, fell from 4.3 percent in 2000 to an average of 0.8 percent last year.”

    This thinking has problems. First, it assumes government officials have the right incentives and knowledge—in addition to a comparative advantage over the profit-driven private sector—to “invest” productively. Not all government spending qualifies as productive investment, especially when most comes in the form of transferring wealth from one group to another and the rest is driven largely by interest group politics rather than by sound cost benefit analysis.

    Second, 10-year projections are really unreliable. Later, in 2008, CBO projected that in 2018, public debt would be 22.6 percent of GDP. It turned out to be 78 percent. Then, in 2018, CBO projected that in 2028, debt would be 96 percent of GDP. It’s now projected to be 108 percent. Meanwhile, CBO projections for interest rates since the Great Recession have been higher than what they wound up being. Starting last year, that flipped, and actual rates are much higher than the projection. That gap between projected rates and actual rates is likely to continue. It could expand.

    Overestimating interest rates means the federal government pays less than projected. Yay. An underestimation, however, means higher interest payments, more borrowing, and more debt than expected. Add to this misfortune an underestimation of debt levels and you quickly see a lot of red ink.

    That’s why betting on low interest rates to argue that we should not worry about a growing debt burden is risky. Interest rates are influenced by a variety of factors and can rise fast. In fact, back in 2021, many continued to wrongfully argue that rates would not go up. Is it crazy, then, to believe we would be in a better position to face the rate hikes today if the government had better controlled its debt over the last 10 or 20 years?

    Finally, anyone looking at CBO budget forecasts could always see that the disconnect between government spending and revenue was growing. Even assuming no significant rises in interest rates, as well as no emergencies requiring more borrowing and no new congressional or presidential spending programs—all things that have come to pass—official debt projections never looked good. Why add more debt to that?

    In the end, the risks associated with high levels of debt were never about what we could afford while rates were low. It was always about understanding that when change inevitably comes, we can better address the challenge if we are not in over our heads.

    COPYRIGHT 2023 CREATORS.COM.

    [ad_2]

    Veronique de Rugy

    Source link

  • Venture capital investments in the crypto sector hit a record low

    Venture capital investments in the crypto sector hit a record low

    [ad_1]

    RootData reveals a significant decline in both the number and total amount of venture capital investments in the cryptocurrency sector, with October marking new lows.

    New data reveals that venture capital investments in the cryptocurrency sector continue to decline significantly. RootData reports that the number of publicly disclosed crypto venture capital deals in October dropped both month-over-month and year-over-year.

    In October, the data shows 75 crypto-related venture capital deals, marking a 10% dip from September’s 83 deals, and a more alarming 45% drop compared to the 135 deals in the same month last year. It should be noted that these numbers could potentially rise as some financings might not be reported immediately.

    Diving deeper into the sector-specific investments, infrastructure projects received roughly 24% of the funding, followed by decentralized finance (DeFi) at 21%, centralized finance (CeFi) at 9%, and Non-Fungible Tokens (NFTs) and gaming finance (GameFi) at around 13%.

    In terms of the total dollar amount, the industry witnessed $430 million in financing for the month of October. This shows a 20% decline from September’s $530 million and a more concerning year-over-year fall of 63%, down from $1.15 billion in October of last year. The contraction in venture capital funding raises critical questions about the future growth prospects of the crypto industry, especially in niche sectors like NFT and GameFi. 


    Follow Us on Google News

    [ad_2]

    Mohammad Shahidullah

    Source link

  • Macron pursues nuclear deals in Russia’s back yard

    Macron pursues nuclear deals in Russia’s back yard

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — French President Emmanuel Macron travels on Wednesday to Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan, where he hopes to secure uranium for his country’s nuclear plants.

    The trip comes as geopolitical tensions grow with the EU’s current major suppliers, Niger and Russia.

    Macron’s visit to the two countries aims to expand French influence in an area which has strong ties with Russia and is now also growing closer to China, an Elysée official said.

    Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are respectively France’s largest and third-largest suppliers of uranium, which is burned to fuel nuclear plants.

    Last summer a military junta took over Niger, which supplies 15 percent of France’s uranium needs, sparking questions as to whether the African country can continue to be a reliable source. Uncertainty has also surrounded imports of Russian uranium since Moscow’s invasion of Ukraine.

    “Niger raises questions, Russia could raise questions in the long term [if] the EU imposes sanctions on the nuclear sector. Macron’s visit to Central Asia helps to anticipate those concerns,” said Phuc-Vinh Nguyen, an energy expert at the Jacques Delors Institute think tank in Paris.

    Russia’s nuclear sector has not been targeted by EU sanctions so far, but member countries continue to turn away from Moscow. The quantity of uranium the EU imported from Russia fell by 16 percent last year from 2021, while the amount from Kazakhstan rose by over 14 percent.

    Earlier this year, Yerzhan Mukanov, CEO of the country’s state-run nuclear firm Kazatomprom, told POLITICO he was seeing increasing interest from Europe, and that Kazakhstan “intends to become a significant contributor to the European nuclear market.”

    French nuclear firm Orano is active in Kazakhstan, where it has been operating uranium mines since the 1990s, and more recently in Uzbekistan. Orano President Claude Imauven is accompanying Macron on his trip along with 14 other French executives, including Luc Remont, head of French energy giant EDF.

    An Elysée official said that new contracts and business partnerships will be announced during the trip, including in the energy sector. 

    EDF has also positioned itself to become a supplier of nuclear reactors for Kazakhstan’s first nuclear plant.

    The visit comes as Brussels competes with China for influence in the region via investment programs focused on infrastructure. 

    Both Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan are benefitting from Chinese investment under Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative, with their presidents attending a high-level meeting on the subject in Beijing in October. The EU is trying to gain influence in the two countries by involving them in cooperation and investment projects under its “Global Gateway” initiative, the bloc’s response to Belt and Road.  

    Victor Jack contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Giorgio Leali

    Source link

  • Morgan Stanley’s top strategist Mike Wilson warns investors not to get their hopes up for a Santa Claus rally

    Morgan Stanley’s top strategist Mike Wilson warns investors not to get their hopes up for a Santa Claus rally

    [ad_1]

    That’s the question on the lips of many stock market investors trying to decipher whether equities are set for one final rally before the year is out.

    One big name on Wall Street, though, is betting against that happening.

    In a Sunday note to clients, Mike Wilson, Morgan Stanley’s chief investment officer and chief U.S. equity strategist, doubled down on his year-end target of 3,900 points for the S&P 500.

    Wilson—who was ranked No. 1 in last year’s Institutional Investor survey after correctly predicting the selloff in stocks—said in his note that while investor sentiment had recovered somewhat after September’s sell off, his team saw a fundamental setup that is “different than normal this year.”

    Narrowing market breadth, falling earnings revisions, and dwindling consumer confidence were slashing the chances of a year-end uptick in valuations, he argued, noting that monetary and fiscal policy were “unlikely to provide relief” for traders as they could still tighten further.

    “Bottom line, we think the S&P 500 price action into year-end is more likely to come down to where the average stock is trading rather than rallying to higher levels because breadth typically leads price,” Wilson wrote. “Based on our fundamental and technical analysis, we remain comfortable with our long-standing 3,900 year-end target for the S&P 500.”

    The blue-chip index—a benchmark for America’s biggest publicly listed companies—is currently trading around 10% lower than its July peak, although it has still returned almost 8% since the beginning of the year.

    To reach Wilson’s projected 3,900 points, the S&P 500 will have to shed a further 5% from current levels.

    Deteriorating rally prospects

    Wilson has been arguing over the last month that the chances of a fourth-quarter rally are deteriorating, despite bullishness lingering elsewhere on Wall Street.

    He reiterated on Sunday that his observations of the market and economic backdrop “tell a different story than the consensus, which sees a rally into year-end.”

    “Some of the more economic- and interest rate-sensitive sectors like autos, banks, transport, semiconductors, real estate and consumer durables [have been] underperforming significantly over the past three months,” he said. “More recently, many defensive sectors and stocks have started to outperform together with energy… We think this performance backdrop reflects a market that is incrementally more concerned about growth than higher interest rates and valuations per se.”

    Wilson also noted that investors had been reacting more negatively to third-quarter corporate earnings than they had to the previous quarter’s earnings reports —stressing that this appeared to be the case whether earnings reports were good or bad.

    “Most importantly for the headline S&P 500 index, most of the mega-cap leaders that have reported so far have not traded well post their [third quarter] results,” he said. “With this group unable to reverse the ongoing correction and keep the index above key technical levels, this is just another reason why a rally into year-end looks more unlikely to us.”

    Long-time bear

    Wilson, one of Wall Street’s most prominent bears, has long been making gloomy predictions about U.S. stocks, warning investors in May not to be fooled by the rally that was unfolding across the S&P 500 at the time.

    However, his warnings have not always come to fruition.

    Earlier this year, he predicted that a 20% downturn was imminent for U.S. stocks—and has since reflected on why his projections missed the mark.

    “We were wrong,” he conceded in a note to clients over the summer. “2023 has been a story of higher valuations amid falling inflation and cost-cutting.”

    Wilson isn’t a lone voice when it comes to taking a warier approach to stocks in recent months, however.

    Earlier this month, JPMorgan’s top strategist warned stocks could be about to nosedive 20%, saying he was “not sure how we’re going to avoid” a recession.

    Some calculations suggest that the S&P 500 is headed below 3,000 points—which would be a decline of at least 27% from current levels.

    Wall Street bulls Goldman Sachs and Citigroup, meanwhile, have lowered their year-end price targets for the S&P 500 index.

    [ad_2]

    Chloe Taylor

    Source link

  • How Matt Clifford became Britain’s most powerful tech adviser

    How Matt Clifford became Britain’s most powerful tech adviser

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    BRUSSELS — On a warm overcast afternoon in late September, Brussels’ digerati streamed into a cramped event space, just moments from the headquarters of the European Commission, to listen to the U.K.’s man of the hour. 

    Blonde and natty in a crisp white shirt and slim-fit navy suit, Matt Clifford — the British Prime Minister’s official representative for this week’s AI Safety Summit — ambled to the lectern with the smiling ease of someone who has delivered dozens of impromptu speeches. 

    The event, invitation-only and held under the Chatham House Rule, was just one leg of Clifford’s globetrotting, which has taken him from London to Washington and Beijing. These days, as he told POLITICO, he “can sleep anytime, anywhere.”

    Clifford has been weaving across the planet to talk to top policymakers and tech barons about this week’s Bletchley Park summit, which will focus on severe risks like AI-aided cyberattacks and weapon design, and on which Rishi Sunak has pinned his hopes for a legacy. Many tech CEOs have known Clifford for years; presidents and prime ministers had better get up to speed.

    A venture capitalist, chairman of the U.K.’s moonshot factory Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA), and now an AI diplomat, 37-year-old Clifford has become one of the most influential people in British tech — just as post-Brexit U.K. scrambles to become a global beacon of AI rulemaking.

    The politician’s techie

    Clifford’s rise neatly maps onto the parabola of the U.K.’s tech industry: from curio, to jewel in the crown, to geopolitical tool. His debut came in 2011, just as then Prime Minister David Cameron was hitching his wagon to London’s burgeoning startup scene – dubbed the Silicon Roundabout. 

    A McKinsey consultant with degrees from Cambridge (medieval history) and MIT (computational statistics) Clifford yearned for a change, and a colleague handed him a report McKinsey had just published on the Roundabout recommending investment in nurturing tech founders. 

    Clifford jumped at the opportunity. He had grown up in Bradford — a northern English city scarred by deindustrialization — and taught himself to code because, he said, he “didn’t want to work in [fast food chain] Gregg’s.” 

    Together with fellow consultant Alice Bentinck, he founded Entrepreneur First (EF), an accelerator that invests in graduates to help them launch startups. EF would go on to build some of the U.K.’s most successful tech unicorns. 

    It also gave the duo an in to attend the monthly breakfasts Cameron held in No. 10 with London’s tech grandees. 

    Clifford’s affability has helped him develop a network spanning from European startuppers to Silicon Valley heavy-hitters — LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, an ex-board member of OpenAI, sits on EF’s board and prefaced Bentinck’s and Clifford’s 2022 book “How to Be a Founder”. 

    “Matt is a Swiss Army knife type,” said Dom Hallas, head of British lobbying group Startup Coalition. “But he’s also just, like, a really nice guy.”

    Alice Bentnick said that Clifford uses ChatGPT to write “storybooks” for his kids | Marco Bertorello/AFP via Getty Images

    Bentnick, his EF co-founder, said that Clifford thinks up murder mystery games for colleagues to solve, and that he uses ChatGPT to write “storybooks” for his kids. 

    During the pandemic, as the British tech industry teetered on the brink, Clifford worked with Hallas and others to convince the Treasury to launch an emergency £250 million startup fund. “Whether it’s regulation, incentives, the crisis moments of the pandemic or the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, Matt has been critical for facing those challenges,” Hallas said.

    Clifford became the politician’s techie and the techie’s policy wonk. “He has cachet. He is very valued in the British tech community — which is in a way also why he’s valued by political people,” said Benedict Macon-Cooney, a chief strategist at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. But he is still a techie at heart. Clifford has taken a sabbatical from EF and plans to return after his summit work is wrapped up.

    Building a British DARPA

    After Boris Johnson triumphed in the U.K.’s 2019 general election, with tech-savvy enforcer Dominic Cummings in tow, Clifford started devoting more and more issues of his weekly newsletter, Thoughts in Between, to the subject of funding advanced science research. 

    He also launched a reading club focused on initiatives such as the Manhattan Project and the 1969 Apollo 11 moon landing that managed to “achieve exceptional collective output.” That was hardly by chance: Cummings (whose blog was included in the reading group’s syllabus) had made no mystery of his grand plan to create a “British DARPA” devoted to funding ambitious science projects, and it looked like he would get his way. 

    When the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (ARIA) was finally announced in 2021, Clifford would have had an easy case to make in his application for the chairmanship, to which he was appointed in July 2022: not only he had invested in technology companies for a decade, but he had written extensively about how exactly the research agency should work. [Full disclosure: Clifford also wrote about ARIA in a WIRED op-ed that I commissioned as an editor back in 2020]. 

    “Most of my policy work came out of that newsletter,” Clifford said. “It had three main topics: geopolitics of technology, AI, and science funding and accelerating – all my ARIA conversations originally came out of writing, week in week out, about it.” 

    Writing about AI in the newsletter, which was well read among both techies and policymakers, might also have bolstered Clifford’s credentials for his current unpaid work on the summit. Likely, so did the fact he is on first-name terms with many Silicon Valley technologists building advanced AI systems. In late summer 2022, some six months before OpenAI launched its most powerful model, GPT-4, Clifford was offered an early demo that left him “mind blown.” (He declined to say exactly how he got the demo).

    Clifford is enthusiastic about AI’s advantages, from better medicine to more efficient public services. But to reap those, he thinks, you first need to get the people on board — hence the summit. 

    “AI is not very popular with the public,” he said. “Therefore talking about safety is not to scare the public: it’s actually to reassure them so that we can capture the benefit.” 

    The summit’s own focus on tail risks, rather than present concerns such as AI-fuelled bias and disinformation, has sparked speculation that its agenda is inspired by effective altruism, a strand of utilitarianism popular in elite universities and Silicon Valley, some of whose adherents worry about evil, almighty AIs’ potential to kill off humankind.

    Clifford does not count himself as an effective altruist, although he seems generally sympathetic to their cause, going as far as speaking at a global effective altruism conference in June. “I have a lot of respect for a lot of [effective altruists and their] work but I’ve always been too much of a virtue ethicist to go all-in,” he said. Indeed, during his talk at the effective altruism event, he recommended that attendees read “After Virtue” by Alasdair MacIntyre — a thinker whose worldview is hardly utilitarian.

    Despite once being an “ardent remainer” and Sunak being a Brexiteer, Clifford and the PM enjoy a good rapport | Pool photo by Peter Nicholls via AFP/Getty Images

    He pushes back on the idea that the summit has been captured by the “doomer narrative” espoused by some effective altruists. “Talking of killer robots — I don’t think that’s helpful at all,” he said. “[The summit] is much more about how we avoid a misuse that turns the public so much against AI that you get a chilling effect on adoption?”

    Not a ‘political animal’

    The call from No. 10 asking Clifford to help with the summit came at the end of a long stretch of AI-related work. In late 2022, he helped conduct a government review of emerging technologies where the U.K. could have a crack at setting standards: Clifford put special emphasis on AI, which seems to have influenced Sunak’s thinking. 

    A few weeks later, in March 2023, he was appointed to help build the U.K.’s task force focused on advanced AI, or frontier models, and in May he orchestrated the meeting between Rishi Sunak and the CEOs of AI labs OpenAI, DeepMind and Anthropic, all of which are now on the summit’s invitation list. 

    Despite once being an “ardent remainer” and Sunak being a Brexiteer, Clifford and the PM enjoy a good rapport, which Hallas said first became apparent when the two were on stage together at Treasury Connect, a conference then-Chancellor Sunak organized in 2021.

    Politics rarely seems to factor into Clifford’s actions. “I’m not really a political animal,” he said. “My entire career I’ve been thinking about how to use technology as a source of leverage to make the world better.” 

    But over the past few years, and especially over the past few weeks, he has learned how to talk to politicians, and to win them over. “Politicians value that — being a successful entrepreneur, being a successful investor — I know what it takes to make technology work for people,” he said. “My starting point is: how do we get things done?”

    [ad_2]

    Gian Volpicelli

    Source link

  • Millennials, Turned off to Crypto, Turn to Franchising | Entrepreneur

    Millennials, Turned off to Crypto, Turn to Franchising | Entrepreneur

    [ad_1]

    Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

    After years marked by scandals, historic lows, and harrowing tales of their peers putting their life savings into Ethereum, many Millennial investors are looking for alternatives to crypto.

    The question is, where do they go from here? Even if they’ve been burned by Bitcoin, Millennials still don’t see traditional investments as the solution. Wealthy Millennials in particular don’t believe it’s possible to achieve above average from stocks and index funds alone. Evidence suggests they’re increasingly considering an investment vehicle so stable and old-school it might actually make their parents proud — Millennials are getting into franchises.

    Related: Considering franchise ownership? Get started now and take this quiz to find your personalized list of franchises that match your lifestyle, interests and budget.

    Millennials discover franchising

    It shouldn’t be surprising that the generation known for distrusting traditional financial systems would be interested in alternative asset ownership. Millennials watched their parents’ stock and bond investments tank during the financial crisis and dot-com crash. They may have learned the value of portfolio diversification and investing outside the public market then without fully realizing it.

    Even still, the idea of a former crypto kid investing in a car wash or waste management business can seem a little unbelievable. But really, it’s just the latest development in the generational shift towards franchising.

    In the U.S., the number of Millennials pursuing franchise investments grew from 18% in 2018 to 25% in 2021, even surpassing prospective Baby Boomer investors. The Canadian Franchising Association has also observed a surge in interest, reporting that Millennials accounted for 30% of prospective investors in 2018. In the U.K., the number of new franchise investors under 30 grew from 14% in 2011 to 27% in 2018.

    There’s also no shortage of anecdotes to complete the story. Established chains, like the 100-year old A&W Restaurants, have launched training and scholarship programs to recruit Millennial investors. Millennial franchise owners and founders evangelize the long-term equity appreciation aspects of the model in effort to attract other young partners; examples include painting company Spray-Net, house detailing company Shack Shine, and numerous acai bowl restaurants. Celebrities have long invested in franchises, but Millennial celebrities Wiz Khalifa and MrBeast have innovated on the concept of franchising entirely by launching their virtual restaurant chains.

    But is it ‘cooler’ than crypto?

    I run FranShares, a platform for franchise investing. Of the 40,000+ investors on our waitlist, the single largest group are Millennials. 63% of them invested in crypto and 15% in NFTs before becoming interested in franchises. These aren’t trust fund kids: the majority have a net worth between $0-$99K. 72% said they’re drawn to franchise investing because they want passive income and regular payouts.

    There will always be crypto purists, who will always skew young in age and investment experience. The Millennials making the 180-degree shift from crypto to franchises were likely never interested in crypto for the thrill of high-risk, potentially-high-rewards. They were looking for an alternative to stocks, bonds and mutual funds. Somewhere along the way, they may have learned that the crypto market can be manipulated just like the stock market — where a single post from an interested party like Elon Musk or Kim Kardiashian can cause the price of coins to spike and plummet.

    Related: Want to Become a Franchisee? Run Through This Checklist First.

    Reaching for a more “traditional” alternative asset

    Millennials interested in alternative assets beyond crypto have no shortage of investment options. Unpacking some of the reasons why they’re specifically drawn to franchises may help paint their investment attitudes in a new light.

    First, tangible investments are trending up: people are warming to assets they can see and touch (like art, wine, and even Pokémon cards). Franchises take the benefits of real assets a step further. They tend to fall in need-based industries that perform well in all economic conditions. Millennials still licking the wounds of failed crypto investments find the recession-resiliency of franchises compelling.

    When the stock or crypto market crashes, people still get their hair cut, wash their cars, buy gym memberships, and eat at quick-service restaurants. Crypto is based on scarcity. It can’t hedge against long-term inflation. Franchises can: when supply prices rise incrementally, units will raise their prices reflectively to maintain profitability over time.

    Millennials distressed by crypto’s high volatility and lack of regulation likely appreciate that franchises can offer predictable cash flow and returns similar to venture capital investing. As a business model, they’re built on data and metrics from already-successful locations. As an investment model, the franchise industry’s disclosures are regulated by the FTC, and franchise share offerings may be subject to SEC regulation.

    Related: Is Franchising Right For You? Ask Yourself These 9 Questions to Find Out.

    YOLO investing left Millennials hungry

    Since entering the workforce, Millennials have experienced a financial crisis, a slow job market, mountains of student debt and skyrocketing housing costs. Who can blame them for throwing caution to the wind with “stonks” and YOLO-style day trading?

    Crypto may not have delivered the express ticket to long-term wealth many Millennials were looking for, but maybe the real treasure was the hard-won investment experience they gained along the way. The decision to transition their portfolios to a predictable, income-producing real asset like franchises — if not a sign of personal maturity — characterizes Millennials as a savvier and more prudent group of investors than they’ve been given credit for.

    [ad_2]

    Kenny Rose

    Source link

  • Investors must be ready for the power of asset tokenization | Opinion

    Investors must be ready for the power of asset tokenization | Opinion

    [ad_1]

    Disclosure: The views and opinions expressed here belong solely to the author and do not represent the views and opinions of crypto.news’ editorial.

    While it remains a relatively new concept, asset tokenization is being deemed as one of the most compelling applications of blockchain technology amongst experts. Backed by benefits like greater portability, improved security, increased efficiencies, and fractionalization, asset tokenization has massive potential and is becoming impossible to ignore.

    It is transforming finance with enhanced security and liquidity. Not to mention, there is a less obvious benefit here, which is the value of real-world assets. With this level of potential, it is not an understatement to say that the momentum surrounding asset tokenization is growing. While there are many benefits and opportunities with asset tokenization, its success hinges on some challenges.

    Explaining asset tokenization

    Asset tokenization is the process of turning physical assets, like real estate, stocks, paintings, and commodities, into blockchain-based digital tokens. It entails converting the ownership rights and features of a specific asset into a digital form. This can then be divided into smaller units and traded on a blockchain tokenization network.

    It allows assets that are typically illiquid, costly to trade, or inaccessible to be represented as tokens with specific ownership rights and properties. The tokens are often made using smart contracts, which are self-executing contracts with terms written into code. The tokens representing the underlying assets can be transferred, bought, and purchased—enabling fractional ownership and establishing liquidity.

    Every token usually represents a share or fraction of the underlying asset, allowing users to own a portion of the asset without needing to purchase the full asset. When talking about asset tokenization, it is important to note how it contrasts with the securitization of assets. The securitization process entails pooling certain illiquid asset classes so that they can be repackaged into securities.

    Visual representation of asset tokenization | Source: Chainlink 

    With asset tokenization, nearly all real and virtual assets can be converted into digital tokens. To tokenize an asset, it is important to have some level of understanding of smart contracts. Digital tokens backed by underlying assets are both executed and controlled utilizing a smart contract.

    The smart contract is self-executing and self-enforcing in that it is where the conditions of the parties’ agreement are put into lines of code. When the contract conditions are met, the tokens are then transferred to investors directly using the smart contract.

    This offers users accuracy, efficiency, and transparency since the historical data and contractual terms are available publicly. Some examples of real-world assets that can be transformed into tokens include intellectual property, commodities like gold, oil, art, collectibles, or real estate.

    Benefits of asset tokenization

    Tokenization can bridge the gap between the traditional and digital worlds while increasing liquidity, improving the accessibility and inclusiveness of assets, and unlocking global market opportunities for investors.

    Tokenizing an asset presents many opportunities, like increased liquidity. Asset tokenization improves asset liquidity by allowing for fractional ownership. This means that when a user purchases fractions or smaller amounts of an asset, it lowers the barrier to entry and enables greater market engagement.

    This level of liquidity can attract a broader range of investors as well—and even potentially boost the trading volume of a specific asset. Tokenization also has the potential to make illiquid assets more accessible to investors.

    Fractional ownership means the minimum investment amount required to participate in specific assets is lowered. This balances investment opportunities but also enables investors with less capital to diversify their portfolios. Asset tokenization can unlock global markets, too.

    It does this by alleviating regional barriers, but also minimizing the complexities that arise with cross-border transactions. Investors from different countries can engage in tokenized assets, offering chances to increase market efficiency and diversity.

    Challenges with asset tokenization

    Being a novel concept, asset tokenization is constrained by regulatory obstacles, liquidity risks, and little market maturity. These hurdles can be overcome, but it is still important to be aware of them when considering tokenizing assets.

    As asset tokenization is a relatively new concept, its regulatory frameworks are continuously changing. Depending on the jurisdiction, tokenized assets could face regulatory uncertainties. This makes compliance with securities laws rather challenging.

    There is also the possibility of liquidity risks with asset tokenization. Although tokenization can improve liquidity, it could also expose the assets to a greater volatile nature of the market. Tokenized assets could experience significant price fluctuations as a result of the risky nature of the crypto market.

    This could impact investor confidence, too. If there is limited trading volume or not enough demand, liquidity can also be negatively affected. While there is a growing interest in tokenization, the market is still very much in its early stages of development.

    The marketplaces and infrastructure allowing for the tokenization of assets are not as established as traditional financial markets. The lack of maturity here can create uncertainties like challenges concerning valuing tokenized assets accurately. To realize the true potential of asset tokenization, we must find ways to overcome these challenges.

    Developing clear guidelines and frameworks will prove beneficial in driving compliance while also protecting investors. Additionally, developing standardized valuation methodologies will help with asset valuation and price discovery by promoting fair pricing and transparency. With all of this in mind, these challenges must be addressed to allow for successful implementation.

    The future of asset tokenization

    Tokenization offers many of the appreciated benefits of blockchain. These include reduced costs, increased liquidity, and enhanced transparency. However, there is also another less obvious benefit here: the underlying value of real-world assets.

    This is what makes asset tokenization an attractive choice for investors. With asset tokenization, they can access new markets, diversify their portfolios, and get exposure to illiquid assets. While it is still a novel concept, the market continues to grow, and we are sure to see more experimentation happening here.

    However, there is still a need to address the current challenges with asset tokenization, such as liquidity risks and regulatory obstacles. These challenges hinder the successful implementation of asset tokenization. By overcoming these challenges, we can truly realize the power of asset tokenization to revolutionize the finance industry.

    The advances in technology turning blockchain mainstream  | Opinion

    Felix Roemer

    Felix Roemer

    Felix Roemer is the founder of Gamdom. He briefly attended ILS Fernstudium in Germany before founding Gamdom in 2016 at the age of 22 — after investing in crypto, playing poker, and making money from the game RuneScape.


    Follow Us on Google News

    [ad_2]

    Guest Post

    Source link

  • Warren Buffett shared timeless investment wisdom in his first-ever national TV interview nearly 40 years ago. Here are the best 9 quotes.

    Warren Buffett shared timeless investment wisdom in his first-ever national TV interview nearly 40 years ago. Here are the best 9 quotes.

    [ad_1]

    At the annual Berkshire Hathaway shareholder meeting, billionaire Charlie Munger said that cutting out toxic people is essential to success.Nati Harnik/Associated Press

    • Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett sat down for his first national TV interview in 1985.

    • Appearing on the PBS show “Adam Smith’s Money World,” he offered sage investment advice that he continues to preach today.

    • Here are the best quotes Buffett dropped in his first TV interview from nearly 40 years ago.

    Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett is a household name today, as the businessman has consistently been ranked as one of the best investors ever and, subsequently, one of the wealthiest people in the world.

    Through his ownership stake in Berkshire Hathaway, Buffett currently has a net worth of about $114 billion. But in 1985, it was closer to $500 million and his name recognition was a lot lower.

    That year Buffett sat down with host George Goodman of the PBS show “Adam Smith’s Money World,” in what is thought to be Buffett’s first-ever national TV interview.

    What’s striking is how consistent Buffett’s views towards investing have been nearly 40 years later. These are the best pieces of investment wisdom he shared.

    1. Number one rule

    “The first rule of an investment is don’t lose. And the second rule of investment is don’t forget the first rule. And that’s all the rules there are. If you buy things for far below what they’re worth, and you buy a group of them, you basically don’t lose money.”

    2. Most important quality for investment manager

    “It’s the temperamental quality, not an intellectual quality. You don’t need tons of IQ in this business. I mean, you have to have enough IQ to get from here to downtown Omaha, but you do not have to be able to play three-dimensional chess or be in the top leagues in terms of bridge playing or something of the sort. You need a stable personality. You need a temperament that neither derives great pleasure from being with the crowd or against the crowd because this is not a business where you take polls. It’s a business where you think.”

    3. What most investors get wrong

    “They do not really think of themselves as owning a piece of a business. The real test of whether you’re investing from a value standpoint or not is whether you care whether the stock market is open tomorrow. If you’re making a good investment in a security, it shouldn’t bother if they closed down the stock market for five years.”

    4. On checking stock prices

    “All the ticker tells me is the price. And I can look at the price occasionally to see whether the price is outlandishly cheap or outlandishly high but prices don’t tell me anything about a business. Business figures themselves tell me something about a business, but the price of a stock doesn’t tell me anything about a business. I would rather value a stock or a business first, and not even know the price, so that I’m not influenced by the price in establishing my valuation and then look at the price later to see whether it’s way out of line with what my value is.”

    5. Omaha versus Wall Street

    Nebraska: “Well, believe it or not, we get mail here and we get periodicals and we get all the facts needed to make decisions. And unlike Wall Street, you’ll notice we don’t have 50 people coming up and whispering in our ear that we should be doing this or that this afternoon.”

    New York: “If I were on Wall Street I’d probably be a lot poorer. You get overstimulated on Wall Street. And you hear lots of things, and you may shorten your focus and a short focus is not conducive to long profits.”

    6. Not owning technology stocks

    “I really haven’t [ever bought a technology company]. I haven’t understood any of them. Never owned IBM. Marvelous company, I mean a sensational company, but I haven’t owned IBM.”

    7. Missing market trends

    “I don’t have to make money in every game. I mean, I don’t know what cocoa beans are gonna do. There are all kinds of things I don’t know about, and that may be too bad. But you know, why should I know all about it? I haven’t worked that hard on it.”

    8. Waiting for the right pitch

    “There are no called strikes in the business. The pitcher just stands there and throws balls at you… You don’t have to swing at any of them. They may be wonderful pitches to swing at, but if you don’t know enough, you don’t have to swing. And you can sit there and watch thousands of pitches and finally get one right there where you wanted something that you understand, and then you swing.”

    9. Market timing

    “If I were being asked to participate in a business opportunity, would it make any difference to me whether I bought it on a Tuesday or a Saturday or an election year or something? It’s not what a businessman thinks about in buying businesses. So why think about it when buying stocks? Because stocks are just pieces of businesses.”

    Read the original article on Business Insider

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Poptential™ High School Economics Curriculum by Certell Offers Free Stock Market Investment Lessons

    Poptential™ High School Economics Curriculum by Certell Offers Free Stock Market Investment Lessons

    [ad_1]

    INDIANAPOLIS, Ind. — October historically has been a month of notable volatility in the stock market, with historic crashes like the 1929 Great Depression and Black Monday in 1987. These events have given rise to a sense of “Octoberphobia” among some investors. Lessons on these events and others are included in Common Sense Economics from Poptential™, a comprehensive and free high school digital curriculum. Click to tweet.

    “It’s never too early for teachers to engage students in discussions about the history of the stock market, its impact on economic growth or decline, and how it can potentially empower students to invest in their own futures,” said Julie Smitherman, a former social studies teacher and director of content at Certell, Inc., the nonprofit behind Poptential.

    Create your Free Account to Continue Reading

    eSchool News is Free for qualified educators. Sign up or login
    to access all our K-12 news and resources.

    Please confirm your email address

    More News from eSchool News

    Indiana is in the midst of an enormous undertaking to improve literacy rates. The approach: Align state standards, curriculum, and teacher training programs with practices rooted in the science of reading.

    When it comes to digital equity, U.S. schools are well-positioned to help families get online with low-cost, high-speed internet options through the federal government’s Affordable Connectivity Program

    Mentorship is an essential aspect of professional growth and development for early childhood educators, but for many training programs, mentorship components are either not well supported or are missing altogether.

    Educators face myriad dilemmas in the wake of ChatGPT’s explosion, with some of the most popular including teaching with ChatGPT and how to address student use of AI chatbots in assignments.

    Belonging is a fundamental human need. We are all searching for a sense of connection with the people and places in our lives. Students and school staff are no different.

    School models are, for the most part, outdated–and very overdue for replacement. When students reach high school, research shows that close to 66 percent of students are disengaged.

    Our students’ belief that everything they need to know is online can, without the right skillset, leave them prey to misinformation. So how do we teach our students to steer through the online ocean of data to be both effective researchers and responsible digital citizens?

    In early September, CISA announced a voluntary pledge for K-12 education technology software manufacturers to commit to designing products with a greater focus on security.

    Every teacher hopes to ignite, empower, and engage the students who walk through their classroom door. Ample research has shown that student engagement is crucial to overall learning and long-term success.

    Incorporating social and emotional learning (SEL) throughout the school day has risen in popularity over the last few years, especially to counteract the increasing rates of anxiety and depression in students.

    Want to share a great resource? Let us know at submissions@eschoolmedia.com.

    [ad_2]

    ESchool News Staff

    Source link

  • The smiling face of Chinese interests in the Indo-Pacific: David Cameron

    The smiling face of Chinese interests in the Indo-Pacific: David Cameron

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — It is a multi-billion-dollar plan to build a metropolis in the Indo-Pacific which critics fear may one day act as a Chinese military outpost.

    Now the vast Colombo Port City project has a new champion — former British Prime Minister David Cameron.

    Cameron has been enlisted to drum up foreign investment in the controversial Sri Lankan project, which is a major part of Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative — China’s global infrastructure strategy — and is billed as a Chinese-funded rival to Singapore and Dubai.

    Cameron flew to the Middle East in late September to speak at two glitzy investment events for Colombo Port City, having visited the waterside site in Sri Lanka in person earlier this year.  

    His spokesperson said the former PM had had no direct contact with either the Chinese government or the Chinese firm involved. But Cameron’s lobbying for the scheme has drawn severe backlash from critics, who say his activities will aid China in its geopolitical ambitions.

    Former Conservative Party leader Iain Duncan Smith, who was sanctioned by Beijing for criticizing its human rights record, said: “Cameron of all people must realize that China’s Belt and Road is not about help and support and development, it’s ultimately about gaining control — as they’ve already demonstrated in Sri Lanka.

    “I hope that he will reconsider the position he’s taken on this.”

    Tim Loughton, another Tory MP sanctioned by China, said: “The Sri Lankan project is a classic example of how China buys votes and influence in developing countries and then sends the bailiffs in when those countries can’t keep up the payments.”

    “Cameron should be working to help wean vulnerable countries off Chinese influence and debt rather than tying them in more tightly.”

    At the roadshow

    Dilum Amunugama, Sri Lanka’s investment minister who attended the investment events in the UAE last month, told POLITICO he believed Cameron was enlisted to convince Western investors to put their money into the project.

    Amunugama was at two events where Cameron spoke — one in Abu Dhabi with an audience of 100, and one in Dubai with an audience of 300.

    “The main point he [Cameron] was trying to stress is that it is not a purely Chinese project, it is a Sri Lankan-owned project — and that is the main point I think the Chinese also wanted him to iron out,” Amunugama said.

    Cameron is in charge of drumming up investment into the Chinese-funded Colombo Port City project | Ishara S. Kodikara/AFP via Getty Images

    The Sri Lankan minister said the decision to enlist Cameron “was taken by the Chinese company, not the government.”

    Cameron’s office said his involvement was organized by the Washington Speakers Bureau, a D.C.-based agency that books guest speakers for corporate events.

    His spokesperson said: “David Cameron spoke at two events in the UAE organized via Washington Speakers Bureau (WSB), in support of Port City Colombo, Sri Lanka.

    “The contracting party for the events was KPMG Sri Lanka and Mr Cameron’s engagement followed a meeting he had with Sri Lanka’s president, Ranil Wickremesinghe, earlier in the year.

    “Mr Cameron has not engaged in any way with China or any Chinese company about these speaking events. The Port City project is fully supported by the Sri Lankan government,” his spokesperson added.

    The spokesperson declined to say how much Cameron was paid for his time. Cameron traveled to Sri Lanka in January and visited the development, but his office said that he did so as a guest of the president and that there was no commercial aspect to that trip.

    Mired in controversy

    The Colombo Port City project has been controversial since its inception.

    It was unveiled in 2014 by China’s Xi and Sri Lanka’s then-president, Mahinda Rajapaksa. Three years later, Sri Lanka handed it over to Chinese control after struggling to pay off its debt to Chinese firms.

    Multiple concerns have been raised about the project, including its environmental impact; U.S. warnings it could be used for money laundering; and fears that it will ultimately be used as a Chinese military outpost.

    Analysts have warned repeatedly that China is using the project to extend its strategic influence in the region. Beijing has already used the nearby Hambantota port — also funded by Chinese loans — to dock military vessels.

    The main developer behind the Colombo Port City Project, CHEC Port City Colombo Ltd, has pumped in an initial $1.3 billion. Its ultimate owner is the China Communications Construction Company, a majority state-owned enterprise headquartered in Beijing.

    Golden era no more

    As prime minister, Cameron and his Chancellor George Osborne famously heralded a “golden era” of U.K. relations with China. Since leaving office in 2016, the ex-PM has come under heavy scrutiny over his lobbying activities, including for the now-collapsed finance company Greensill Capital.

    The ex-PM has come under scrutiny for his lobbying activities, including for the now-bankrupt company Greensill Capital | David Hecker/Getty Images

    For a period Cameron was also vice-chair of a £1 billion China-U.K. investment fund. The U.K. parliament’s intelligence and security committee said this year that Cameron’s appointment to that role could have been “in some part engineered by the Chinese state to lend credibility to Chinese investment.”

    Sam Hogg, a U.K.-China analyst who writes the “Beijing to Britain” briefing, said: “As the ISC pointed out, China has a habit of utilizing former senior-ranking politicians to give credibility to their companies and projects.

    “At a time when the Belt and Road Initiative is under intense scrutiny ahead of its 10th anniversary next week, Cameron’s involvement will raise a few eyebrows.”

    Luke de Pulford, executive director of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, added: “We can’t have a situation where the EU and U.S. are so concerned about the Belt and Road Initiative that they’re pumping billions into alternative projects, while our own former PM appears to be batting for Beijing.”

    [ad_2]

    Eleni Courea

    Source link

  • Why stocks are likely to be especially volatile this October

    Why stocks are likely to be especially volatile this October

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. stock market has been volatile in September. Brace yourself for October.

    September has the reputation of being the worst month for the stock market, but October far and away is the most volatile month of the year — as you can see from the accompanying chart. So if this October follows the historical averages, the stock market won’t lose as much as it has so far in September but investors will still feel whipped around.

    You might think October’s historical volatility can be traced to the U.S. market crashes that occurred in 1929 and 1987, each of which occurred during that month. But you’d be wrong: October remains at the top of the volatility rankings even if those two years are removed from the sample. Nor is there any trend over time in October’s place in those rankings: If we divide the period since the Dow Jones Industrial Average
    DJIA
    was created in 1896 into two periods, October is the most volatile in both the first and second halves.

    Why would October be the most volatile month? I’m not aware of any plausible theory, and that normally would be a reason not to expect the historical pattern to continue. But not in this case.

    That’s because an expectation of volatility can itself lead to greater volatility. So the fact that past Octobers have been so volatile is a reason to expect this coming October to also be a particularly choppy month on Wall Street.

    If so, our job is not to get spooked by October’s volatility into going to cash. Of course, you may have other reasons why you might want to reduce your equity exposure. But if you were otherwise wanting to be heavily invested in equities, fasten your seat belt and hold on.

    Mark Hulbert is a regular contributor to MarketWatch. His Hulbert Ratings tracks investment newsletters that pay a flat fee to be audited. He can be reached at mark@hulbertratings.com

    More: Wall Street analysts expect the S&P 500 to rise 19% over the next 12 months. Here are their 10 favorite stocks.

    Plus: Let’s debunk the bears’ top arguments against further stock market gains

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown looms: Here’s how to help preserve your investment portfolio.  

    Government shutdown looms: Here’s how to help preserve your investment portfolio.  

    [ad_1]

    The economic impact of a shutdown and the potential implications on your portfolio depend largely on how long the shutdown lasts.

    The potential for a U.S. government shutdown can raise alarm for investors and send the phone of a financial adviser like me ringing off the hook. Headlines in front of them, my clients are increasingly asking about potential portfolio implications and how they should respond.

    There is certainly a measured response, which includes not overreacting to the headlines and sticking to your long-term investment plan, and I’ll show you how to draw it.

    Government shutdown explained

    First, it’s important to understand what is happening. During a shutdown, the federal government will suspend all services that are deemed nonessential until a funding agreement is reached. This is much different than a default — which can happen when the government can’t pay its debts or satisfy its obligations. A default can have significant ramifications on U.S. creditworthiness and in turn, the global financial system. You may recall lawmakers’ discussions earlier this year regarding raising the debt ceiling — a solution to avoid defaulting. 

    A U.S. default has never happened, but shutdowns have occurred more than 20 times since 1976. Unlike a default, a shutdown does not affect the government’s ability to pay its obligations, and many critical government services, like Social Security may continue. When weighing the two, one can presume that markets may react more negatively to a default.   

    Markets may experience heightened volatility in response to the shutdown uncertainty, but markets do not react consistently to the news. In the past we have seen U.S. stocks — as measured by the S&P 500
    SPX
    — finish positively after more than half of these shutdowns. Results are similar for fixed-income securities, as we’ve seen an even split between positive and negative returns in the bond markets in shutdowns since 1976. 

    Of course, all investing is subject to risk, past performance is not a guarantee for future returns, and the performance of an index is not an exact representation of any particular investment. 

    The economic impact of a shutdown — and the potential implications on your portfolio — depend largely on how long the shutdown lasts. The longer the shutdown, the more Americans experience dampened economic activity from things like loss of furloughed federal workers’ contribution to GDP, the delay in federal spending on goods and services, and the reduction in aggregate demand (which lowers private-sector activity). 

    Read: Government shutdown: Analysts warn of ‘perhaps a long one lasting into the winter’

    A measured response 

    A government shutdown is just one of many factors, both positive and negative, that can cause fluctuation in the market, so it’s important to treat it just as you would other fluctuations.

    With so many variables, it’s impossible to precisely predict the effects the shutdown will have or determine how long it will last. This can seem scary for many, so it’s important to remember your long-term financial plan and focus on the factors you can control.  

    First, do not try to time the market. Doing so based on short-term events is never a good idea, and volatility is unpredictable. Even if the markets fall, we don’t know when they might recover. If you make an emotionally charged decision, you run the risk of missing out on potentially substantial market gains. 

    Instead, focus on the following: align your asset allocation with your risk tolerance; control your costs; adopt realistic expectations; hold a broadly diversified portfolio and stay disciplined. Doing so can help you weather any form of market uncertainty, including a shutdown.

    Stick to healthy financial habits

    In addition to not making any sudden moves in your investment portfolio, now is a suitable time to make sure you are keeping up with healthy financial habits, especially if you are a federal employee facing a furlough. This can look like readjusting your budget based on your current needs, keeping high-interest debt to a minimum, paying the minimum on all debt to keep your credit score in good standing and continuing to save.

    Remember, using your emergency fund to navigate tight times is exactly what you have saved for and tapping it in this instance is considered a healthy financial habit. Just be sure to replenish it when you have the funds to do so. As a good practice, Vanguard recommends having three- to six months of expenses saved in readily accessible investments.

    With a level, long-term approach and a personalized financial plan, you can be prepared for this potential storm and the inevitable ones to come. 

    Lauren Wybar is a senior financial adviser with Vanguard Personal Advisor. 

    More: Bill Ackman says Treasury yields are going higher in a hurry, and that investors should shun U.S. government debt

    Plus: Social Security checks will still come if there’s a shutdown. But there are other immediate threats to America’s benefits.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Why dengue in Europe could spell disaster for the rest of the world 

    Why dengue in Europe could spell disaster for the rest of the world 

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    In the early morning of the last day of August, Parisians experienced for the first time a practice normally confined to tropical regions — authorities fumigating the city against the tiger mosquito. The event was a tangible confirmation of what public health stats already showed: Dengue, the deadly mosquito-borne disease, had well and truly arrived in Europe. 

    In 2022, Europe saw more cases of locally acquired dengue than in the whole of the previous decade. The rise marks both a public health threat and a corresponding market opportunity for dengue vaccines and treatments; news that should spur the pharma industry to boost investment into the neglected disease. 

    On the face of it, this shift would appear to benefit not only countries like France but also nations like Bangladesh and the Philippines that have long battled dengue.

    But that assumption could be fatally flawed, experts told POLITICO. 

    People working in the field say the rise of dengue in the West could, in fact, make it harder to get lifesaving drugs to those who need them most, because pharma companies develop tools that are less effective in countries where the dengue burden is the highest or because wealthy nations end up hoarding these medicines and vaccines. 

    “It might look like a good thing — and it is a good thing — that we’re getting more products developed, but does it then create a two-tier system where high-income populations get access to it and then we still have the access gap for low- and middle- income countries?” asked Lindsay Keir, director of the science and policy advisory team at think tank Policy Cures Research.

    Killer invading mosquitoes

    Climate change and migration mean the mosquitoes that transmit dengue, as well as other diseases such as chikungunya and Zika, are setting up shop in Europe. The most recent annual data from the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control shows that, in 2022, Europe saw 71 cases of locally acquired dengue: 65 in France and six in Spain.

    While dengue usually results in mild or no symptoms, it can also lead to high fever, severe headache and vomiting. Severe dengue can cause bleeding from the gums, abdominal pain and, in some cases, death.

    So far, the mosquito has mostly been confined to Southern Europe but it’s a worry across the Continent. In Belgium, the national public health research institute Sciensano has even launched an app where members of the public can submit photos of any Asian tiger mosquitos they spot.

    The diseases spread by these mosquitoes have traditionally fallen under the umbrella of neglected tropical diseases, a group of infections that affect mainly low-income countries and struggle to attract research and development investment. But this is changing.

    Policy Cures Research, which publishes an annual report on R&D investment into neglected diseases, removed dengue vaccines from their assessment in 2013. Dengue was no longer seen as an area where there was market failure, due to the emergence of a market that the private sector could tap into. 

    The organization is still tracking dengue drugs and biologics and their 2022 analysis showed a 33 percent increase in funding for research into non-vaccine products compared to the previous year, with industry investment reaching a record high of $28 million. 

    Climate change and migration mean the mosquitoes that transmit dengue, as well as other diseases such as chikungunya and Zika, are setting up shop in Europe | Lukas Schulze/Getty Images

    Sibilia Quilici, executive director of the vaccine maker lobby group Vaccines Europe, said the most recent pipeline review of members found that roughly 10 percent were targeting neglected diseases. There is more R&D happening in this area, said Quilici.

    Across the major drugmakers, J&J is working on a dengue antiviral treatment and MSD has a dengue vaccine in their pipeline, while Sanofi has a second yellow fever jab in development. Two dengue vaccines are already approved in the EU — one from Sanofi and another from Takeda. Moderna recently told POLITICO that it is looking closely at a dengue vaccine candidate and it already has a Zika candidate in the works. 

    For the few, not the many

    But just because there might soon be larger markets for Big Pharma doesn’t mean the products will be suitable for the populations that have been waiting years for these tools. 

    Rachael Crockett, senior policy advocacy manager at the non-profit Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative (DNDi), said increased pharma investment in a particular disease won’t necessarily lead to products developed that are globally relevant. “Industry will — and governments are also more likely to — focus on prevention,” she said.

    That means tools such as vaccines will be prioritized; but in countries where dengue is endemic, the rainy season completely overburdens their health systems and what they desperately need are treatments, said Crockett.  

    She also said a massive increase in investment without a structure to ensure access to resulting products means “we have absolutely no guarantee that there isn’t going to be hoarding, [that] there isn’t going to be high prices.” Case in point: The U.S. national stockpile of Ebola vaccines, which exists despite there never having been an Ebola outbreak in the country.

    But just because there might soon be larger markets for Big Pharma doesn’t mean the products will be suitable for the populations that have been waiting years for these tools | Noel Celis/AFP via Getty Images

    Underlying many of these fears are the mistakes of the COVID-19 pandemic, which saw countries with less cash and political heft at the back of the queue when it came to vaccines.

    Lisa Goerlitz, head of German charity Deutsche Stiftung Weltbevölkerung (DSW)’s Brussels office, warned if drug development picks up because of a growing market in high-income countries, then accessibility, affordability and other criteria that make it suitable for low resource settings might not be prioritized.

    Vaccines Europe’s Quilici sought to allay these concerns, pointing to the pharma industry’s Berlin Declaration, a proposal to reserve an allocation of real-time production of vaccines in a health crisis. Quilici said this was a “really strong commitment …which comes right from the lessons learnt from COVID-19 and which could definitely overcome the challenges we had during the pandemic, if it is taken seriously.”

    CORRECTION: This article has been updated to correct the spelling of Lisa Goerlitz.

    [ad_2]

    Ashleigh Furlong

    Source link

  • Stocks are trapped in a trading range. Something’s got to give.

    Stocks are trapped in a trading range. Something’s got to give.

    [ad_1]

    The U.S. stock market, as measured by the S&P 500 Index SPX, is trapped in a trading range, and volatility seems to be damping down considerably. The significant edges of the trading range are support at 4330 and resistance at 4540. Both of those levels were touched in the latter half of August. A breakout from this range should give the market some strong directional momentum. 

    Since Labor Day, prices have hunkered down into an even narrower range. Typically, the latter half of September through the early part of October…

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • The specter of Liz Truss still haunts Britain

    The specter of Liz Truss still haunts Britain

    [ad_1]

    LONDON — A year is a long time in politics — but the reverberations of the surreal fall of 2022 are still being felt across the U.K.

    Wednesday marks the first anniversary of Liz Truss’ ill-fated appointment as prime minister — a year on from that rainy day in September when she stood outside No. 10 Downing Street and vowed to “transform Britain” with free market shock therapy. 

    Truss’ £45 billion package of unfunded tax cuts — with the promise of more to come — instead sunk the pound, sent interest rates soaring, caused chaos on the bond markets and forced the Bank of England to prop up failing pension funds.

    Humiliated, Truss had little choice but to junk her entire economic program and less than four weeks later she was gone — the U.K.’s shortest-ever serving prime minister, famously outlasted by a supermarket lettuce.

    The legacy of the period still is fiercely debated among Britain’s left and right-wing commentariat. In Westminster, some Tory factions still push for Truss’ successor Rishi Sunak to embrace her brand of free market economics.

    But the period sticks in the memory of most ordinary Brits as one of high farce and incompetence and significantly, it’s a view shared in boardrooms across London and beyond.

    “It was such a short, sharp, weird time. It had such a febrile sense of impending doom,” said one partner at a Big Four accounting firm who was granted anonymity — like other figures quoted below — to speak candidly about Truss for this article.

    The money men

    Senior employees of major financial and professional services firms say Truss’ brief period in office still taints Britain’s reputation around the globe.

    Annual Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) into the U.K., already down significantly since the 2016 Brexit referendum, fell further — behind France — last year, according to an EY survey.

    Britain has also been the second-worst performing G7 economy post-COVID, despite an upgrade in GDP growth figures by the Office for National Statistics last week.

    The U.K.’s stuttering economic growth since the pandemic always was going to put a dent into Britain’s prospects for international investment. Experts give a myriad of reasons for Britain’s decreasing international competitiveness.

    But a director at one U.S. investment bank said: “The No. 1 issue I hear from clients is that the U.K. is still un-investable because of what happened last year in Westminster, particularly with what happened during Liz Truss’ time in office.”

    Senior employees of major financial and professional services firms say Truss’ brief period in office still taints Britain’s reputation around the globe | Leon Neal/Getty Images

    A managing director at another investment bank agreed. “This stuff matters for clients who are looking at the U.K., seeing three different prime ministers and four different chancellors in a matter of a few months, and saying ‘why on earth would we choose that place to build our new factory?’ The results of that will still be felt today.”

    Such views are confirmed in a recent survey by transatlantic lobby group BritishAmericanBusiness and management consulting firm Bain and Co. 

    The survey found U.S. business confidence in Britain has sunk for the third straight year, with political instability cited as a key factor.

    BritishAmericanBusiness’ chief trade and policy officer Emanuel Adam said: “The instability in No. 10 last autumn, coupled with ongoing concerns over Brexit, growth prospects and taxation have led to a drop of confidence in the U.K. for a third year in a row.

    “The message from U.S. investors is clear. They are calling for a stable political environment and business friendly policies from the U.K. government.”

    But if foreign direct investors have been put off, the pound’s stronger-than-expected performance since Truss left office suggests they may have compensated with other forms of inward flows.

    The Big Four partner quoted at the top of the article says Truss’ disastrous premiership was one of several factors making the British economy less competitive on the world stage.

    “Trussonomics plus Brexit plus political uncertainty plus a misplaced sense of British exceptionalism are all contributing to making Britain a less attractive place than we ought to be,” they said.

    “I’m aware of real-life examples of decisions being made to invest elsewhere, because they couldn’t be confident about the stability of their return on investment.”

    Gloom in Westminster

    But even more than the U.K. economy, it is Truss’ Conservative Party which is haunted most by the specter of her brief tenure.

    Polling from Ipsos shows the British public’s trust in the Conservatives to manage the economy fell off a cliff during Truss’ time as prime minister, and has never recovered.

    With an election looming next year, their Labour opponents — now 18 points ahead in the polls — cannot believe their good fortune.

    “The two most important things for an opposition are to be able to show people that they can be trusted to protect the economy, and trusted with the defence of the realm,” said one Labour shadow Cabinet minister. “Liz Truss did a lot of the heavy lifting in allowing us to get a hearing on the economy from the public.”

    One moderate Tory MP, and Sunak supporter, said “the damage done by the 49 days of Truss could still be the thing that loses us the next general election.”

    “At least part of the party’s problem at the moment is that although the economy is starting to improve, no one is going to give us the credit for that because of the seismic events of last year,” they said.

    Julian Jessop, an independent economist who acted as an informal adviser to Truss during her leadership campaign, agreed that the public became infuriated once mortgage rates began to surge during last September’s financial meltdown, but said “it is a bit much” to continue to blame the Tories’ poor polling on the former PM.

     “If that were the big problem, then confidence should have recovered,” he said. “We have a new prime minister in place.”

    A different view

    Indeed some economists — and Truss defenders — see the past 12 months in a very different light.

    Even more than the U.K. economy, it is Truss’ Conservative Party which is haunted most by the specter of her brief tenure | Ian Forsyth/Getty Images

    They point to bond yields which recently have hit similar levels to the worst moments of the Truss era, thanks to successive Bank of England rate rises.

    Truss’ prediction that inflation would help the U.K. eat through some of its debt pile — used as justification for funding her tax cuts through borrowing — has also been borne out in reality. And tax receipts have come in higher than expected this year, thanks to larger than expected growth and inflationary pressures.

    Truss’ former Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng, speaking on a forthcoming episode of POLITICO’s Westminster Insider podcast, insisted that while he and Truss admittedly pushed it “too much, too far,” their overall policy direction was sound.

    “I think there’s a big lesson in life,” he said. “It’s all very well thinking you’ve got the right answer, but you’ve also go to have a staged, methodical approach to getting to the answer.”

    Russell Napier, author of The Solid Ground investment report, added the unexpectedly strong performance of sterling against the U.S. dollar and other major currencies this year indicates capital inflows into Britain must be stronger than expected.

    “Is there something that’s unique and dangerous about the U.K.? No there isn’t,” Napier added. “Our bond yields are at a dangerously high level, but so is the bond yield of Sweden and France, and Canada and South Korea and Australia.

    Some of Truss’ closest supporters on the Tory backbenches have now set up pressure groups to fight for the type of low-tax policies advocated in her time in office.

    Truss, for her part, is writing a book which aides suggest will be “more manifesto than autobiography.” She is also giving a keynote speech on the economy this month — just five days after the anniversary of her ill-fated “mini-budget.”

    But for many Tory MPs still feeling the political repercussions of her tenure and fearing a brutal defeat at next year’s election, a period of silence would be welcome.

    “It could be worse,” notes one Tory MP, a minister under Sunak. “It could have been a lot worse if she’d stayed.”

    Izabella Kaminska contributed reporting.

    [ad_2]

    Stefan Boscia

    Source link

  • Zelenskyy sends strong signals with choice for Ukraine’s new defense chief

    Zelenskyy sends strong signals with choice for Ukraine’s new defense chief

    [ad_1]

    KYIV ­— Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s choice for the country’s new defense minister sends two clear signals to Ukraine’s allies and adversaries: Kyiv is serious about cleaning up corruption, and steadfast about regaining Crimea from Russian control.

    Rustem Umerov, whom Zelenskyy has put forward to replace Defense Minister Oleksiy Reznikov, is a Crimean Tatar with deep business and political experience, including chairing Ukraine’s commission monitoring international financial and military aid to the country’s war effort. As head of the State Property Fund since last year, he has revitalized the country’s privatization efforts.

    The defense ministry “needs new approaches,” Zelenskyy said in dismissing Reznikov, whose ministry has been plagued by corruption allegations. Reznikov himself hasn’t been implicated, but the controversy has tainted the ministry.

    Umerov, 41, will become the first Muslim and Crimean Tatar to gain such a high post in the Ukrainian government. In addition to his financial acumen, Umerov’s appointment will mean a deeper integration of the Crimean Tatar community into decision-making in Kyiv. It also clearly indicates Ukraine’s adamant determination to take Crimea back.

    The planned change is the highest-level shake-up in Zelenskyy’s administration since Russia launched its all-out invasion in February 2022. Zelenskyy called on the Ukrainian legislature to approve the decision as soon as possible.

    “The ministry needs new approaches and other formats of interaction with both the military and society at large,” Zelenskyy said late Sunday. “Autumn is a time for strengthening,” he added.

    Umerov, founder of investment company ASTEM and a Ukrainian MP, has been one of the most prominent advocates of Ukraine’s re-occupation of Crimea, illegally annexed by Russia in 2014. In addition to working as a head of the State Property Fund since 2022, he has been actively taking part in international negotiations, including with Russia.

    “He is a strong manager with a strategic vision, who has well-established international connections in the U.S., the European Union, the Arab world, Turkey, and the countries of Central Asia,” said Refat Chubarov, chairman of the Mejlis, the political representative body of the Crimean Tatars in exile.

    “Such a high appointment is a good signal for Crimean Tatars’ integration into Ukrainian government structures, and also a great responsibility for the native community,” Chubarov told POLITICO.

    Umerov’s prospective appointment was praised by anti-corruption advocates, who have been critical of Reznikov for a string of army procurement corruption scandals at the defense ministry.

    “I was pleasantly surprised by Rustem’s role in non-public advocacy of weapons for Ukraine. He often very quietly did the things that had failed in the Defense Ministry during the last year and a half,” Daria Kaleniuk, acting director of the Anti-Corruption Action Center, a Kyiv-based watchdog, said in a statement.

    Kaleniuk also praised Umerov’s performance as the head of the State Property Fund. Kyiv raised record proceeds from selling small state assets in the first quarter of 2023 despite Moscow’s invasion, Umerov said in May. So far this year, “more than 2,000 entrepreneurs got the opportunity for business development,” Umerov said in a report in late August.

    “We saw only positive results in one of the country’s once most corrupt sewers,” Kaleniuk added.

    [ad_2]

    Veronika Melkozerova

    Source link

  • Western powers argue over how to control AI

    Western powers argue over how to control AI

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    In the race to rein in artificial intelligence, Western governments have hit a major bump in the road: they all want to win. 

    Officials from the European Union, the United States and other major economies are competing to write the definitive rules for artificial intelligence, including for the likes of OpenAI’s ChatGPT and Google’s Bard. 

    Rival summits will be held in the Fall with the aim to reach a coordinated plan between Western governments on how to regulate the emerging technology. But these upcoming events risk entrenching divisions between countries in ways that threaten to undermine efforts to draw up a unified international rulebook on AI. To make matters worse, some of the talks are now getting personal. 

    “Everyone is committed to making this work,” said a European Commission official involved in negotiations over AI rules. “But right now, there are a lot of egos in the room.”

    Western politicians are keen to show voters they are on top of a technology that burst into the public’s consciousness, almost overnight.

    AI advocates say the economic opportunities offered by rolling out the technology range from quicker diagnoses of diseases to the development of autonomous vehicles. Skeptics warn AI could lead to a surge in unemployment and — in the very worst scenarios — global armageddon, if automated systems gain uncontrollable power.

    Experts argue a common Western rulebook is vital to allow companies that use the technology to operate with ease internationally because AI is inherently a cross-border tool. Common rules would also protect people from Berlin to Boston from the technology’s potential harms, including minority groups potentially suffering discrimination from automated AI tools.

    “We really don’t have a systematic global response to what we should do about the many risks,” said Gary Marcus, a psychologist and cognitive scientist at New York University who wants to see greater checks on AI. “Every country is trying to do something on its own.”

    While governments in the West argue among themselves, China is pressing ahead with its own rulebook. The Chinese Communist Party says it’s seeking to protect its citizens from the AI’s risks. But Beijing’s critics say its regulation will be designed to serve its authoritarian ends.

    Governments in the West worry that China’s totalitarian take on AI, including the technology’s wholesale use for national security purposes, may gain ground across the developing world if they don’t promote their own blueprint as an alternative.

    For this article, POLITICO spoke to six Western officials working on the AI summits, who were granted anonymity to discuss the challenges they face.

    In September, officials from the G7 group of Western industrialized economies are expected to meet to finalize a blueprint for how to regulate AI, according to two officials with direct knowledge of the talks. 

    Western officials worry that China’s totalitarian take on AI may gain ground across the developing world if the West does not promote its own blueprint as an alternative | Mark Ralston/AFP via Getty Images

    That gathering will then be followed by a more formal summit of G7 leaders, likely in October or November, the officials said. European and U.S. officials hope the G7 work will bolster their joint attempt to limit the risks of generative AI and develop safe ways to use the technology to jumpstart economic growth.

    The U.K. has also pitched itself as a world leader on AI safety and is expected to host its own summit, in London in November. British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak views the event as a chance to enhance the country’s role as a global player seven years after the country’s Brexit referendum. 

    Officials involved in these overlapping AI projects describe a complex diplomatic tussle. International rivalries, diplomatic realpolitik and — above all — fears about how China will promote its own AI rules have complicated preparations for the meetings. Not all Western capitals, particularly within the EU, view Beijing’s stance on AI as contradictory to their own.

    Divisions on how best to police the technology have also slowed down the process of reaching agreement. The EU wants to take a more aggressive stance on policing AI, while the U.S., U.K. and Japan would prefer more industry-led commitments. It’s unclear whether these differences can be overcome before the proposed summits later this year.

    Egos, not policy

    Three Western officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, complained that people’s egos — and not efforts to regulate AI — had taken over discussions linked to the G7 and U.K. summit events. 

    Since the EU first proposed AI oversight to the G7 work in late April and followed that up with a two-page memo in late May to the U.S., representatives from cooperating governments have been sparring privately to take credit for the West’s plans, the officials added.

    That behavior has included adding to the draft G7 document in ways that favored their own stance on AI governance; taking credit, publicly, for the conclusions of the upcoming G7 summit; and dismissing others’ views in often backhanded comments while drafting proposals. 

    Brussels wants its own AI legislation, which is expected to be completed by December, to form the basis of measures adopted by other leading democracies, according to two European Commission officials involved in that process. That plan involves pushing for mandatory curbs on how AI is deployed in so-called “high-risk” cases like the use of facial recognition technology in law enforcement. 

    Washington is eager to press its more industry-friendly approach, and the White House published a set of voluntary commitments that Amazon and Microsoft have agreed to support. These non-binding pledges, which include promises to allow outsiders to test the firms’ AI systems for biases and other societal safeguards, are, in part, an effort to get ahead of similar proposals at the heart of the G7’s upcoming summit, according to one U.S. official. 

    “Any kind of international level agreement will have to be at the level of very vague principles,” said Suresh Venkatasubramanian, a computer scientist at Brown University, who co-wrote the White House’s guidelines for how U.S. agencies should oversee AI. “Everyone wants to do their own thing.”

    [ad_2]

    Mark Scott

    Source link

  • Welcome to post-Brexit Britain: Conference center for the world

    Welcome to post-Brexit Britain: Conference center for the world

    [ad_1]

    Press play to listen to this article

    Voiced by artificial intelligence.

    LONDON — Britain has spent years seeking its place in the world after Brexit. Now it seems to have found a role … as a global conference center, where the great powers gather to talk.

    Without a seat at the European table in Brussels, and also excluded from power-play summits between the EU and Washington, Britain hopes to wield its own “convening power” as it reboots its foreign policy ambitions.

    Indeed almost every time a major global issue has raised its head of late — climate change; war in Ukraine, the rise of AI; the energy crisis — Britain’s answer has been to host another world summit.

    Hot on the heels of this summer’s Ukraine Recovery Conference in London, U.K. government officials are now busy prepping for Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s “major global summit on AI safety,” due to be held later this year.

    That event will be followed next spring by a global energy security conference, timed to mark the second anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine. And all this less than two years after Britain played host to COP26, the United Nations Climate Change Conference, in Glasgow. 

    This “summit frenzy”, as one European diplomat laughingly describes it, has not gone unnoticed in foreign capitals. But as more and more powers try a similar middleman strategy, the U.K. may have a fight on its hands to stand out.

    “This is really our bread and butter,” said Alicia Kearns, Conservative chair of the House of Commons foreign affairs committee. “One of our strongest diplomatic offers to the world is our ability to convene people. I think it’s a really important aspect of our diplomacy.”

    “UK-hosted forums and conferences deliver real-world results, and position us as a leading voice on a range of important issues,” a U.K. government spokesperson told POLITICO, in response to questions about its summit strategy.

    They are a “vital part of the diplomatic toolkit, giving us the opportunity to bring together governments and experts … and yield commitments which translate into real and lasting change for the better.”

    Leading or following?

    Hosting international conferences is hardly a new venture for the U.K. — but its efforts to act as global broker have been given fresh prominence in the wake of Brexit.

    Former Prime Minister David Cameron’s Syria donor conference in early 2016 raised more than $10 billion to help pay for food, medical care and shelter in the war-torn country. Two years earlier, Cameron’s Foreign Secretary William Hague had gathered global ministers — and a Hollywood megastar — in London to combat the use of rape as a weapon of war. A follow-up was held in Westminster last year.

    Britain’s big post-Brexit foreign policy reset, known as the “Integrated Review” and published in March 2021, made the national mission explicit. “Shaping the open international order of the future: we will use our convening power and work with partners to reinvigorate the international system,” the plan promised.

    British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak should not confuse a convening role with that of actual leadership | Pool photo by Henry Nicholls/Getty Images

    Its author, the academic John Bew, continues to advise Sunak on foreign policy today. And multiple current and former advisers and diplomats agree that playing the role of eager host makes sense for the U.K. these days.

    “People can pretty much rely that if they come to London for an international summit it will be well-organized,” Peter Ricketts, a former head of the U.K. diplomatic service, said. He cited Britain’s strong diplomatic reputation for drafting sound communiqués and brokering compromises.

    But Ricketts noted Britain should not confuse a convening role with that of actual leadership. “The U.K. is not big enough to provide global leadership on any of these huge issues,” he said, referencing energy, climate change and artificial intelligence.

    “Inevitably the Americans are going to be in the lead on setting governance for AI norms and so on,” he added.” The other players will be the Chinese, for their huge market power, and in third place — perhaps a long way behind — is the EU.”

    COP out

    Hosting a major global conference is one thing — making it count is another matter.

    A former adviser to the U.K.’s foreign office, granted anonymity to speak candidly, said the hosting of conferences “in and of themselves doesn’t hold massive value.” More critical is the follow-up work to ensure they “catalyze change or investment and serve a purpose.” 

    “It’s how you leverage it that matters, and its legacy,” the ex-adviser cautioned. “They take an awful lot of work, and done badly are just talking shops.”

    Some believe there are lessons for the U.K. to learn from the aftermath of COP26, when the eyes of the world were on Glasgow for two weeks of high-stakes climate summitry.

    Nick Mabey, who advised the U.K. government on COP26 and founded the E3G climate think tank, said the British played a “good game” in their organization of the event — but then appeared to drop “its own ball in the follow-up” as initiatives got delayed while the Conservative Party burned through three prime ministers.

    “That did damage the U.K.’s reputation quite strongly among core allies, and other countries. It was seen not to have followed up as strongly across all of the things that it launched at COP26,” he said. 

    Mabey cited the forest declaration, an agreement which aims to halt and reverse forest loss by 2030, as an example of an initiative he thinks has fallen in priority. 

    But the U.K. government spokesperson quoted above insisted its “track record” on delivery “speaks for itself.”

    “In the last two years alone, 190 countries agreed to phase down coal power at COP26, $60 billion was raised at the Ukraine Recovery Conference and an international declaration on ending Sexual Violence in Conflict was signed by over 50 countries.”

    Unlike summits hosted by bigger powers — or meetings like COP that are part of an established United Nations process — Britain will, Mabey warned, really need to “hustle” to get a turnout at its own events.

    “The international calendar is going to become a lot more crowded, as other countries will be doing the ‘middle power strategy’ to get their place in the sun too, whether that is the South Africas or Brazils,” he said. 

    Testing the waters

    The European diplomat quoted at the top of the story, granted anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record, agreed there is now a “little bit of summit competition” among the larger capitals.

    Many leaders, he said, see the benefits of playing host: they find it easier to bag coveted bilateral meetings with important counterparts on the sidelines — especially useful for U.K. prime ministers who no longer have bi-monthly meetings with the EU27 in the calendar.

    Italy has spied its own conference opportunity through the Rome Med — an annual gathering of Mediterranean leaders which began in 2015. In June, French President Emmanuel Macron convened a global finance conference in an effort to unlock trillions of dollars for the fight against climate change. 

    But not everyone wants to be the first mover, the diplomat added, citing risks for the U.K. in taking ownership of hot-button issues like AI.

    “You have capitals that don’t necessarily want to be the first to host a summit on a specific topic,” he said. “Maybe they want to host the second or the third, or further down the line, so that they can test the waters and see if that thing flies or it doesn’t fly.”

    He added: “If a summit is a failure, it doesn’t look very good for the host.”

    For Britain, still seeking its new place in the world three-and-a-half years after Brexit, it seems to be a risk worth taking.

    [ad_2]

    Annabelle Dickson

    Source link