Economics

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

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has proposed that Medicare Advantage plan revenues will remain flat going into 2027 at a moment when underlying medical costs, labor expenses, and pharmaceuticals continue to rise materially. What does this mean in practice? For beneficiaries: Over time, beneficiaries should expect less generous benefits, tighter utilization management, and narrower provider networks. Access may become more constrained—not necessarily through explicit benefit cuts, but through fewer participating provider groups and more selective contracting. The tradeoff between affordability and choice will become more acute. For brokers and distribution partners: Distribution costs in Medicare Advantage are largely fixed, particularly commissions and marketing infrastructure. As margins compress, plans will continue to reassess how (and how much) they pay for growth. This may include lower upfront commissions, greater reliance on retention-based compensation, or shifts toward more direct-to-consumer enrollment strategies. For provider groups: Provider organizations seeking rate increases will face a much tougher negotiating environment. With plan revenues constrained, upward pressure on provider rates becomes difficult to absorb. As a result, some provider groups may choose to exit Medicare Advantage entirely, while others will narrow participation to fewer plans. The result may be increased network fragmentation and heightened tension between plans and providers over risk, quality expectations, and total cost of care. For managed care company employees: Cost discipline will extend inward. Plans will be slower to hire, more selective about new investments, and may pursue workforce reductions. Expectations will shift toward higher productivity, flatter organizational structures, and doing more with fewer resources. For Investor-backed Medicare Advantage plans: The economics of growth will change. Longer payback periods, lower internal rates of return, and greater regulatory uncertainty will make Medicare Advantage investments less immediately attractive. Capital will still flow to the sector, but it will be more discriminating, favoring scale, operational excellence, and differentiated capabilities rather than growth at any cost. For small and regional health plans: Scale matters more than ever. Smaller plans will struggle to compete. Many may exit the market or seek partnerships, mergers, or acquisitions. Consolidation pressures are likely to intensify as fixed administrative and compliance costs consume a greater share of revenue. Time will tell whether the rate decisions outlined in the Advance Notice hold through the Final Rule. Regardless of the ultimate number, one thing is clear: Medicare Advantage is entering a period of transition. The era of easy growth is ending, and the next phase will be defined by tradeoffs—between generosity and sustainability, growth and discipline, innovation and affordability.

#Batteries have become so cheap that around-the-clock solar is becoming economically viable for the first time. And this isn't just theoretical, it’s based on real world data. In 2024 alone, average battery prices fell by 40% and signs are a similar fall is occurring in 2025. These cost reductions are being driven by: ➡️ The rapid scale up of assembly plants ➡️ Intense manufacturer competition ➡️ The continued decline of LFP battery cell prices But there’s more to it than just falling prices. Batteries are also getting better: ✅ Higher round-trip efficiency ✅ Longer usable lifetimes ✅ Projects becoming cheaper to finance as the technology de-risks 20 years is now the standard design life of the battery – a big shift from just a few years ago. Taken together, this changes the economics entirely. Pairing solar with enough batteries to keep the electricity flowing though the night is no longer a distant dream – it's an economic reality. At around just $76/MWh all in, dispatchable solar is already competitive with other forms of firm generation in many markets. This analysis focuses on markets outside of China and the United States, where competitive procurement of Chinese-manufactured equipment is reshaping global storage economics. This isn’t a silver bullet. Future power systems will still rely on a diversified mix, including wind, hydro where available, gas backup, potentially nuclear, interconnection and longer-duration storage. But cheap batteries fundamentally change the role solar can play. They turn it from a purely daytime resource into a genuine round-the-clock contributor and this has profound implications for power systems, investment decisions and energy security. Data and original chart is from Ember's latest report, link below. #energy #renewables #energytransition

In Delhi, the temperature hit 42.1°C this year. But some people didn't have the luxury of going indoors because the street was their workplace. India’s 3 crore+ street vendors from fruit sellers to chaat walas spend over 12 hours a day under the open sky. They’re not just battling heat; they’re battling the vanishing shade. A recent study by Azim Premji University in Hyderabad reveals a disturbing trend: "As Indian cities grow vertically, their green cover shrinks." And the hardest hit? Women, migrants, and informal workers who depend on those trees for a livelihood. “When the tree was there, I sold 20 plates of Bhel. Now, I sit in the sun and barely manage 6.” -  a street vendor in Delhi. This isn't an isolated story. According to Greenpeace India & National Hawkers Federation (2024) survey: - 50% of street vendors in Delhi lost income during the summer months - 80% saw a dip in footfall due to extreme heat - ₹500–₹600 worth of goods go bad daily due to heat damage - 71% couldn’t afford medical care - Women vendors reported rising BP, menstrual irregularities, and sleep deprivation. And yet, despite Delhi hitting a record-breaking 50°C last year, heatwaves are still not recognized as a national disaster. Worse, street vendors are often left out of urban planning and climate resilience strategies. Green spaces are not aesthetic choices- they are economic lifelines. For many vendors, a tree is more than shade. It’s a signboard, a cooling system, and a guarantee of survival. And yet, the people who pollute the least are paying the highest price for climate change. If you’re in a position to influence policy, design public spaces, or fund local initiatives - pause and ask: Are we building cities that everyone can survive in?

I’ve been headhunting in the CPG industry for the past decade, and I’ve never seen a post-inflation market like we’re in right now. For the past three years, customers have been capitulating to price hikes by extending their budgets. But now, they’re at a breaking point. American families, already tethering on edges of their budgets, do not have the ability or the desire to expand their budget in order to accommodate increased prices. I’m sure you’d agree with this, because my family certainly does. With grocery bills through the roof, we’d rather skip on groceries and essentials rather than paying a premium right now. A couple things led us here, starting the pandemic and the post-pandemic impact on spending and savings. Secondly, the wave of AI and tech developments that caught us off guard. So, where do the companies go now? Once the “price increase” playbook is done, CPG brands can only win in both value and volume by shifting gears. In my chats with executives, I’m sensing a change in tone. To stay competitive, they’re looking for ways to shift from the post-pandemic survival mindset to a growth-focused one that accommodates the customer as well. Rather than hiking prices, the focus is now on bringing down costs, and getting to terms with consumer’s limited budgets and increasing product choices. Layoffs aren’t the only way to bring down costs. In my view, CPG companies do have the leeway to embrace data-driven innovation and efficiency to cut costs. Here are some of the ways in which companies can use AI and ML to achieve targets in 2025 and beyond: 1/ Predicting the demand: Post-pandemic behavior is tough to predict, especially in CPG markets. With AI, the companies can now leverage real-time insights from sources like point-of-sale systems, social media, and even economic indicators to see future trends more clearly. PepsiCo, uses Tastewise to track what consumers are eating across 60+ million touchpoints and making decisions that align with local preference. 2/ Inventory management: With AI-powered predictive analytics, companies are now turning inventory management into a science. Procter & Gamble’s Supply Chain 3.0 initiative is one example of this shift. 3/ Increased personalization: Leaders are tapping into geographical intelligence to connect meaningfully with audiences. Estée Lauder has a voice-enabled makeup assistant for visually impaired customers, reaching a new market while boosting brand loyalty. Bottom line is: customers are no longer meeting brands where they’re at. It’s high time that companies start caring about customers and their shrinking bottom lines. Are you excited to see your grocery bill go down in the next few months? #CPG #AI #ML #fmcg #marketing #trending

The relocation decisions of male-female couples are predominantly determined by what's best for the man's career: 1. Couples are more likely to relocate when a man is laid off than after a woman is. 2. Men's earnings increase following a couple's move to a new commuting zone, while women's earnings stay the same or decline. This in part because women spend less time working, particularly in the first year after the move when they are more likely than men to be job hunting. The gender gap persists for at least five years and is largest among couples who are in their 20s. The researchers study Germany and Sweden, and attribute the results to relocation decisions being driven by antiquated gender norms. They conclude that "households in both countries place less weight on income earned by a woman compared to a man, particularly in Germany." By Seema Jayachandran, Lea Nassal, Matthew J. Notowidigdo, Marie Paul, Heather Sarsons, and Elin Sundberg. https://lnkd.in/eHSXi5Mj

Big day for EV and car makers today. 🇨🇳🚨🚗 EU have voted to impose tariffs as high as 45% on Chinese-made EVs by October 31. The move comes after an investigation found that “Chinese-made EVs were distorting the European market.” 👇 So, what’s up? 🚗 The European Commission can now implement the duties that would last up to 5 years. Ten member states voted in favour for the measure, while Germany and four others opposed it, with 12 abstentions. 🚗 It’s said, the EU and China will continue negotiations to find an alternative to the tariffs. They are exploring an agreement to control export prices and volumes instead of imposing duties. 🚗 The new tariff rates for EV manufacturers exporting from China could reach up to 35%. These duties would be added to the current 10% rate. ❗️ Some leaders in the European automotive sector have expressed their opposition to the tariffs, saying that it could backfire. ✅ BMW AG warned that protectionism risks starting a spiral, leading to tariffs, isolation and lost cooperation. China remains a core market for BMW, with 824,932 BMW and MINI vehicles delivered there in 2023. ✅ Similarly, Volkswagen noted that an escalating trade spat between China and the West could fuel inflation. Indeed, in the meantime, Chinese EV makers have been pivoting to the Global South and BRICS. ✔️ LATIN AMERICA In 2023, BYD took over Ford's factory in Bahia, Brazil, after Ford's exit. Chinese BEV exports to Brazil then surged eighteen-fold, making up 92% of Brazil's total BEV imports. ✔️ SOUTHEAST ASIA Southeast Asia's EV market has been expanding, with Chinese companies making significant progress. BYD opened its first factory in Thailand this year, and Xpeng Motors and Geely are investing heavily. EV sales in the region more than doubled in the first quarter of 2024 compared to last year, according to Counterpoint Research. ✔️ AFRICA Neta opened its first African dealership in Kenya this year, and Xpeng began selling two EV models in Egypt. While European and Japanese brands are popular in Africa, they primarily offer gas-powered models, creating opportunities for Chinese companies. Analysts expect new vehicle sales to increase as African economies grow. ✔️ RUSSIA Thanks to Russia, China has overtaken Japan to become the world’s biggest exporter of automobiles and transportation equipment. In 2023, Chinese car exports to Russia rose 594%,  while exports of trucks and tractors rocketed almost 700%. Today 9 out of top 10 new cars sold in Russia are Chinese. What’s your take? 🤓👇 Good move by EU or not? ___ #china #ev #tech #eu Insights via Bloomberg, Benzinga, SCMP, Semafor, Atlantic Council ❗️ Finding value in my content? Send me a message to explore tailored insights for your team.

A couple of news items have me thinking. And frankly, getting a bit agitated. The first was the news that the Kiwisaver gender gap has got worse in the past year. New research from Te Ara Ahunga Ora The Retirement Commission shows a 36 percent gap between the amount men and women are putting into KiwiSaver each year, far outpacing the actual gender pay gap. Men and women are contributing the same percentage of their salaries, but women are disadvantaged by working part-time and taking greater (unpaid) care responsibilities. The other bit of not-unrelated news, is the NZ Herald’s list of top-earning CEOs. Of the top 10 - just one woman. In the 54 CEOs surveyed: seven women. In the immortal words of Carrie Bradshaw: I couldn’t help but wonder… WTF is going on here? How have we not come further? Of those top 10 CEO’s companies, how many are reporting on their gender pay gaps? (The answer, according to the Mind the Gap registry: 4) Is there a relationship between perimenopause/menopause support (or lack of it) and the lack of women in CEO roles in our top organisations? AND between perimenopause/menopause and the Kiwisaver gender gap? I think there might be. We know, for example, from the work of Sarah Hogan who found in her NZIER research that 14% of women said they had to reduce their working hours to manage their menopause symptoms, and 6% had changed roles. Twenty percent of women who experienced symptoms said it would have been helpful to be able to make adjustments, but they never requested any, mostly because of menopause and gendered ageism stigma. All of us who are working in menopause education have heard stories from women who - at a critical stage in their careers in midlife - have made the call to step back rather than step up into senior roles, because of the challenges of menopause and the lack of support for them in their organisations. We have to talk more about this. In fifty years we’ve made so little progress… we REALLY don’t want our granddaughters to be still facing these kinds of shocking statistics in fifty years’ time. 

The European Commission has introduced a new carbon tax on imported goods called the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM). This is meant to make sure that European companies and companies from other parts of the world are on the same page when it comes to carbon pricing and environmental commitments. Here are the main changes: 🔴 Emissions Reporting: Starting in October this year, companies have to start keeping track of how much carbon is linked to the goods they import. They need to start reporting this data by January 2024. This reporting will continue until the end of 2025. 🔴 Carbon Leakage Prevention: CBAM is a way to prevent companies from moving their production to places with weaker environmental rules to avoid carbon costs. It makes sure that European products and products made outside of Europe have similar carbon costs. 🔴 CBAM Certificates: Importers have to get CBAM certificates to match the carbon pricing between EU and non-EU products. They need to provide details about the product's carbon footprint, where it's from, how it's made, and its emissions data. This includes emissions during production and indirect emissions, like electricity use. 🔴 Covered Sectors: CBAM applies to industries with high carbon emissions like iron and steel, cement, fertilisers, aluminium, electricity, hydrogen, and some downstream products like screws and bolts. It also covers certain indirect emissions under certain conditions. Importers mainly need to report emissions during the transition phase until 2026. To help importers and producers outside of the EU adapt, the EU Commission is providing guidelines and tools to calculate emissions. They're also offering training materials and webinars. Some important data points to consider: 🟢 Carbon Leakage: A study by the European Environmental Bureau warns that unchecked carbon leakage could cause a 15% increase in global emissions, undermining climate efforts. CBAM aims to prevent this. 🟢 Emissions Differences: The World Trade Organization says that different countries have different emissions rules, leading to different carbon costs. CBAM aims to make this fairer. 🟢 Economic Impact: The European Commission estimates that the global carbon allowance market could be worth €4.5 billion per year by 2030. CBAM will significantly affect international trade and revenues. 🟢 Industry Shift: A study by the European Parliament Research Service shows that without CBAM, high-emission industries might move to places with weaker rules, leading to job losses and less competitiveness in the EU. 🟢 Green Transition: The International Monetary Fund says that well-designed carbon pricing like CBAM can encourage industries to become more environmentally friendly, contributing to a greener global economy. 🟢 Regulatory Challenges: CBAM's reporting requirements might be tough for importers initially. However, the long-term benefits of fair carbon pricing are expected to outweigh the challenges.