• Trade
  • Markets
  • Copy
  • Contests
  • News
  • 24/7
  • Calendar
  • Q&A
  • Chats
Trending
Screeners
SYMBOL
LAST
BID
ASK
HIGH
LOW
NET CHG.
%CHG.
SPREAD
SPX
S&P 500 Index
6857.13
6857.13
6857.13
6865.94
6827.13
+7.41
+ 0.11%
--
DJI
Dow Jones Industrial Average
47850.93
47850.93
47850.93
48049.72
47692.96
-31.96
-0.07%
--
IXIC
NASDAQ Composite Index
23505.13
23505.13
23505.13
23528.53
23372.33
+51.04
+ 0.22%
--
USDX
US Dollar Index
98.840
98.920
98.840
98.980
98.740
-0.140
-0.14%
--
EURUSD
Euro / US Dollar
1.16590
1.16598
1.16590
1.16715
1.16408
+0.00145
+ 0.12%
--
GBPUSD
Pound Sterling / US Dollar
1.33559
1.33568
1.33559
1.33622
1.33165
+0.00288
+ 0.22%
--
XAUUSD
Gold / US Dollar
4224.73
4225.16
4224.73
4230.62
4194.54
+17.56
+ 0.42%
--
WTI
Light Sweet Crude Oil
59.443
59.473
59.443
59.469
59.187
+0.060
+ 0.10%
--

Community Accounts

Signal Accounts
--
Profit Accounts
--
Loss Accounts
--
View More

Become a signal provider

Sell trading signals to earn additional income

View More

Guide to Copy Trading

Get started with ease and confidence

View More

Signal Accounts for Members

All Signal Accounts

Best Return
  • Best Return
  • Best P/L
  • Best MDD
Past 1W
  • Past 1W
  • Past 1M
  • Past 1Y

All Contests

  • All
  • Trump Updates
  • Recommend
  • Stocks
  • Cryptocurrencies
  • Central Banks
  • Featured News
Top News Only
Share

Kremlin Aide Ushakov Says USA Kushner Is Working Very Actively On Ukrainian Settlement

Share

Norway To Acquire 2 More Submarines, Long-Range Missiles, Daily Vg Reports

Share

Ucb Sa Shares Open Up 7.3% After 2025 Guidance Upgrade, Top Of Bel 20 Index

Share

Shares In Italy's Mediobanca Down 1.3% After Barclays Cuts To Underweight From Equal-Weight

Share

Stats Office - Austrian November Wholesale Prices +0.9% Year-On-Year

Share

Britain's FTSE 100 Up 0.15%

Share

Europe's STOXX 600 Up 0.1%

Share

Taiwan November PPI -2.8% Year-On-Year

Share

Stats Office - Austrian September Trade -230.8 Million EUR

Share

Swiss National Bank Forex Reserves Revised To Chf 724906 Million At End Of October - SNB

Share

Swiss National Bank Forex Reserves At Chf 727386 Million At End Of November - SNB

Share

Shanghai Warehouse Rubber Stocks Up 8.54% From Week Earlier

Share

Turkey's Main Banking Index Up 2%

Share

French October Trade Balance -3.92 Billion Euros Versus Revised -6.35 Billion Euros In September

Share

Kremlin Aide Says Russia Is Ready To Work Further With Current USA Team

Share

Kremlin Aide Says Russia And USA Are Moving Forward In Ukraine Talks

Share

Shanghai Rubber Warehouse Stocks Up 7336 Tons

Share

Shanghai Tin Warehouse Stocks Up 506 Tons

Share

Reserve Bank Of India Chief Malhotra: Goal Is To Have Inflation Be Around 4%

Share

Ukmto Says Master Has Confirmed That The Small Crafts Have Left The Scene, Vessel Is Proceeding To Its Next Port Of Call

TIME
ACT
FCST
PREV
France 10-Year OAT Auction Avg. Yield

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Retail Sales MoM (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Retail Sales YoY (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Brazil GDP YoY (Q3)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts MoM (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Challenger Job Cuts YoY (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Initial Jobless Claims 4-Week Avg. (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Initial Jobless Claims (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Continued Jobless Claims (SA)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada Ivey PMI (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Canada Ivey PMI (Not SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Non-Defense Capital Durable Goods Orders Revised MoM (Excl. Aircraft) (SA) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --
U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Excl. Transport) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Factory Orders MoM (Excl. Defense) (Sept)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. EIA Weekly Natural Gas Stocks Change

A:--

F: --

P: --

Saudi Arabia Crude Oil Production

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Treasuries Held by Foreign Central Banks

A:--

F: --

P: --

Japan Foreign Exchange Reserves (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Repo Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Benchmark Interest Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Reverse Repo Rate

A:--

F: --

P: --

India Cash Reserve Ratio

A:--

F: --

P: --

Japan Leading Indicators Prelim (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Halifax House Price Index YoY (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

U.K. Halifax House Price Index MoM (SA) (Nov)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Current Account (Not SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Trade Balance (SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

France Industrial Output MoM (SA) (Oct)

A:--

F: --

P: --

Italy Retail Sales MoM (SA) (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment YoY (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Final YoY (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone GDP Final QoQ (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment Final QoQ (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --

Euro Zone Employment Final (SA) (Q3)

--

F: --

P: --
Brazil PPI MoM (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Mexico Consumer Confidence Index (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Unemployment Rate (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Labor Force Participation Rate (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Part-Time Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

Canada Full-time Employment (SA) (Nov)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Personal Income MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Dallas Fed PCE Price Index YoY (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PCE Price Index YoY (SA) (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. PCE Price Index MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Personal Outlays MoM (SA) (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Core PCE Price Index MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich 5-Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations Prelim YoY (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Core PCE Price Index YoY (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Real Personal Consumption Expenditures MoM (Sept)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. 5-10 Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Current Economic Conditions Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Consumer Sentiment Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich 1-Year-Ahead Inflation Expectations Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. UMich Consumer Expectations Index Prelim (Dec)

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Rig Count

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Weekly Total Oil Rig Count

--

F: --

P: --

U.S. Consumer Credit (SA) (Oct)

--

F: --

P: --

Q&A with Experts
    • All
    • Chatrooms
    • Groups
    • Friends
    Connecting
    .
    .
    .
    Type here...
    Add Symbol or Code

      No matching data

      All
      Trump Updates
      Recommend
      Stocks
      Cryptocurrencies
      Central Banks
      Featured News
      • All
      • Russia-Ukraine Conflict
      • Middle East Flashpoint
      • All
      • Russia-Ukraine Conflict
      • Middle East Flashpoint

      Search
      Products

      Charts Free Forever

      Chats Q&A with Experts
      Screeners Economic Calendar Data Tools
      Membership Features
      Data Warehouse Market Trends Institutional Data Policy Rates Macro

      Market Trends

      Market Sentiment Order Book Forex Correlations

      Top Indicators

      Charts Free Forever
      Markets

      News

      News Analysis 24/7 Columns Education
      From Institutions From Analysts
      Topics Columnists

      Latest Views

      Latest Views

      Trending Topics

      Top Columnists

      Latest Update

      Signals

      Copy Rankings Latest Signals Become a signal provider AI Rating
      Contests
      Brokers

      Overview Brokers Assessment Rankings Regulators News Claims
      Broker listing Forex Brokers Comparison Tool Live Spread Comparison Scam
      Q&A Complaint Scam Alert Videos Tips to Detect Scam
      More

      Business
      Events
      Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

      White Label

      Data API

      Web Plug-ins

      Affiliate Program

      Awards Institution Evaluation IB Seminar Salon Event Exhibition
      Vietnam Thailand Singapore Dubai
      Fans Party Investment Sharing Session
      FastBull Summit BrokersView Expo
      Recent Searches
        Top Searches
          Markets
          News
          Analysis
          User
          24/7
          Economic Calendar
          Education
          Data
          • Names
          • Latest
          • Prev

          View All

          No data

          Scan to Download

          Faster Charts, Chat Faster!

          Download App
          English
          • English
          • Español
          • العربية
          • Bahasa Indonesia
          • Bahasa Melayu
          • Tiếng Việt
          • ภาษาไทย
          • Français
          • Italiano
          • Türkçe
          • Русский язык
          • 简中
          • 繁中
          Open Account
          Search
          Products
          Charts Free Forever
          Markets
          News
          Signals

          Copy Rankings Latest Signals Become a signal provider AI Rating
          Contests
          Brokers

          Overview Brokers Assessment Rankings Regulators News Claims
          Broker listing Forex Brokers Comparison Tool Live Spread Comparison Scam
          Q&A Complaint Scam Alert Videos Tips to Detect Scam
          More

          Business
          Events
          Careers About Us Advertising Help Center

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Affiliate Program

          Awards Institution Evaluation IB Seminar Salon Event Exhibition
          Vietnam Thailand Singapore Dubai
          Fans Party Investment Sharing Session
          FastBull Summit BrokersView Expo

          Prices are up in all U.S. Metro Areas, but Some much More than Others

          PEW

          Economic

          Summary:

          Inflation in the United States is down significantly from its recent highs, falling from an annual rate of 9.1% in June 2022 to 2.5% in August 2024. But actual prices remain elevated and, absent a recession, are likely to stay that way.

          How we did this

          On average, consumer prices in August 2024 were 22.0% above where they were in January 2020, before the COVID-19 pandemic scrambled the U.S. economy and much of the rest of American life. Today, 74% of Americans say they are very concerned about the price of food and consumer goods, while 69% say the same about housing costs, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
          Of course, people don’t live on national averages. They live in particular places and buy particular things, and their experiences of inflation depend greatly on those particulars. The cost of apartments in Atlanta, bananas in Boston and sportswear in Seattle all factor into the national average inflation rate but can – and do – vary considerably from it:Prices are up in all U.S. Metro Areas, but Some much More than Others_1
          Since early 2020, for example, consumer prices are up nearly 30% in the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metro area, 24.0% in San Diego-Carlsbad and “only” 16.6% in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward metro area (though prices started out considerably higher in the Bay Area than in the other metro areas studied).
          Of the metros we analyzed, the Bay Area has seen the largest increase in electricity prices (up by nearly two-thirds since the pre-pandemic days of early 2020) but the smallest increase in rent of primary residences (8.9%, though again starting from a relatively high base).Looking to drown your budgeting sorrows? Alcoholic beverages are 35.0% more expensive in the Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue metro area today than in February 2020, but 7.3% less expensive in Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach.
          To get a sense of where prices for various products and services have risen the most and least, we dug into the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics’ consumer inflation data for 23 metropolitan areas, which together account for more than a third of the U.S. population. In each area, we tracked the prices of 20 items in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U).
          From early 2020 to summer 2024, consumer prices rose faster than the national average rate in 11 of the 23 metro areas we examined, led by three in the Southeast: Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, Miami-Fort Lauderdale-West Palm Beach and Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell.
          Higher housing costs are a big reason why Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater leads the table. Housing costs – represented in our analysis by “rent of primary residence” and “owners’ equivalent rent of primary residence” (OER) – account for about a third of the overall CPI-U, so even small movements in those items can have an outsized effect on overall inflation readings. And since the start of 2020, both rent and OER have risen more in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater (46.9% and 44.6%, respectively) than any other metro area we examined.
          As with electricity, some items in the CPI-U show quite a lot of disparity between metro areas. Natural gas, for instance, costs nearly 71% more in the Bay Area than it did at the start of 2020, but just 5.3% more in Urban Alaska (which covers Anchorage and Matanuska-Susitna Borough). Recreation costs are 25.3% higher in the Seattle metro area, but nearly 5% lower in the Boston metro area.
          Prices for other items have risen more consistently across metros. Used cars and trucks, for instance, are at least 30.0% more expensive in 16 of the 23 metro areas we looked at. Inflation in that category since early 2020 ranges from nearly 36% in the Boston metro area to about 26% in metro Miami.
          And eating out – as captured in a CPI-U item called “food away from home” – is anywhere from 35.1% more expensive in metro Denver to 22.6% more expensive in Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, compared with January 2020 prices.Prices are up in all U.S. Metro Areas, but Some much More than Others_2
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Climate Beliefs and Asset Prices

          CEPR

          Economic

          Climate-related risks are now a recognised factor in financial decision-making and therefore in the prices of assets. Two types of climate-related risks are generally recognised: transition risks and physical risks. Transition risks arise because of changes in policies, technologies, and consumer and investor preferences that are already occurring and will need to occur in the future to mitigate the emissions of greenhouse gases. Physical risks are risks associated with losses from physical manifestations of climate change. The more successful we are at mitigating emissions the higher the transition risks, but physical risks will be reduced. While this appears to be a trade-off, it is not, because any delay in mitigation actions makes all risks higher (Furman et al. 2015).
          One important concern related to climate policies is financial stability (Zettelmeyer et al. 2022, Hiebert 2022). There is a possibility that climate mitigation actions that are too drastic may lead to a significant repricing of assets, including stranded assets (assets with zero value). An example would be a very high carbon tax that would dramatically reduce the value of fossil-fuel-related assets. At the same time, physical events associated with climate change are already threatening the values of assets including real estate, the insurance industry, public infrastructure, biodiversity, and nature. If mitigation actions are not drastic enough, the frequency and severity of climate-related disasters will continue to increase. This also means that more funds will need to be spent on climate adaptation - actions that we will have to undertake to protect people, property, and nature from climate-related damages (Zettelmeyer et al. 2022).
          How much asset repricing can we expect in the future? The answer depends on how much these risks are already priced in. Many studies have addressed this question for different asset classes, finding a variety of asset responses to both physical events and climate policies. Yet, it is difficult to benchmark the findings without explicitly modelling climate beliefs. This is because there are three key differences between climate shocks and shocks traditionally modelled in asset pricing literature: first, climate shocks do not come from a fixed distribution, but rather from a distribution with mean and variance that increase over time; second, there is fundamental uncertainty about the climate parameter that drives this distribution shift; third, there is uncertainty about climate scenarios due to policy and technology uncertainty concerning climate change mitigation actions. While markets appear to be pricing actual weather outcomes correctly (Taylor and Schlenker 2019), the translation of weather outcomes to prices of other assets likely depends on the beliefs of those trading these assets. Given fundamental uncertainties associated with climate scenarios (Barnett et al. 2020) and divergent beliefs about possible climate outcomes (see, for example, Yale Climate Opinion Maps for the US), rational expectations might not be the best framework for understanding the pricing of climate risks.
          Focusing on physical risks, in a recent paper Hale (2024) shows that, depending on the assumption about the belief formation, beliefs about the probability of climate-related disasters occurring may or may not capture the upward trend of the climate-related disaster frequency that we observe ex-post in the data. Climate disasters are defined as meteorological (hurricanes and storms), hydrological (floods), or climatological (fires). Figure 1 demonstrates that for climate disasters the dynamics of beliefs are quite different depending on whether the agents’ beliefs are rational (beliefs about disaster distribution are updated after observing or not observing the disasters), backward-looking (beliefs are formed based on a moving average of past disaster frequency), stepwise (no belief change except a wake-up call in the early 1990s), or fixed (assuming the distribution is unchanged but we keep observing tail events). This is not an issue for non-climate disasters, for which the actual distribution is stable. This observation is very important for asset pricing models because most models, even those that are designed to incorporate disasters, are not well-suited to reflect the shocks that come from a distribution that is shifting and becoming more dispersed over time.
          Climate Beliefs and Asset Prices_1
          Turning to transition risks, Sharma (2024) finds that the interest rate sensitivity of bank loans to transition risk exposure of the borrowers crucially depends on the banks’ belief formation and information acquisition efforts. In particular, she finds that improving transparency of firms’ transition risk exposure through mandatory climate disclosures such as those introduced in the EU and those adopted by the SEC in the US is likely to improve the pricing of transition risks by banks and eventually allow for reallocation of credit to firms that invest in the greening of their technology.
          Research on subjective belief formation about climate risk shows that while individuals learn from climate events such as large weather shocks, they assign greater importance to their past perceptions about damages from climate change. This disproportionately larger weight on their ‘prior beliefs’ is a consequence of uncertainty relating to information about climate change or their own political beliefs (Cameron 2005, Deryugina 2013, Sharma 2024). As a result, beliefs are updated with inertia, depending on the rigidity of individuals’ updating process. Another source of heterogeneity in belief updates is whether individuals update their beliefs regardless of the type of information they come across (‘accuracy-motivated’) or whether they update their beliefs only when the information conforms to their prior beliefs (‘directional-motivated’) which may lead to belief polarisation. (Druckman and McGrath 2019, Zappalà 2023).
          These findings suggest two important issues in modelling the pricing of climate risks. First, further research is needed to understand the way financial markets are forming their beliefs about climate change and its possible future impacts, including beliefs about mitigation policies. Without this information, it is difficult to interpret current empirical findings on the pricing of climate risks. Second, most studies point to the importance of reliable information on firms’ exposure to climate risks and the transparency of climate mitigation policies. In fact, the more transparent the climate mitigation plans, the less likely the ‘green swan’ events - rapid asset repricing.
          When it comes to pricing physical climate risks, two important dimensions of beliefs need to be considered. First, what are the assumptions on market participants’ understanding of the dynamics of the climate parameter and its distribution, which could be represented by a growing frequency and severity of climate-related disasters or by an increasing and more dispersed average temperature. Second, if market participants rationally predict future climate change, what climate scenario do they have in mind? Possibly, it could be a collection of probabilities attached to different scenarios. To make things more complex, one might have to consider the fact that climate scenarios in turn depend on climate mitigation policies.
          A variety of well-established integrated assessment models (IAMs) exist and allow for the modelling of economic systems together with the biosphere effects of economic activities and the feedback from climate back to economic fundamentals. These models, however, do not usually include sufficient complexities needed to use them for pricing of the assets. In particular, they generally do not explicitly include any belief formation, policy shocks, or other uncertainties. We believe substantial progress still needs to be made in the field of asset pricing to fully understand what our observations tell us about the way in which asset markets price climate risks.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Madani Policies Should Target Poverty and Marginalisation More Effectively

          Alex

          Economic

          Families in the bottom 40% (B40) household income group have shown remarkable resilience in the face of adversity, and also during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020 and 2021. But, a significant number have slipped further into poverty due to their inability to recover financially from lost income and jobs.

          On top of that, 20% of the middle 40% (M40) household income group have moved down to the B40 category due to income reductions. (This is based on data in the Household Income and Basic Amenities Survey Report 2020 by the Department of Statistics, or DOSM).

          Therefore, I can safely say that poverty, lack of funds and escalating prices are making people angry and frustrated. To be fair, the Madani government has made various efforts to reduce inequality and poverty in the last two years. While these initiatives are good, they don’t quite meet the needs of the people. The growing grievances demand a more immediate and impactful implementation.

          The worsening of poverty, especially in the urban areas, and the growing noise in the country can be addressed if the present policies and their implementation are targeted at increasing real wages and cash assistance to vulnerable groups.

          Poverty and marginalisation

          Two Unicef studies titled Families on the Edge (2021-2022) and Living on the Edge (2023) involving 500 and 755 low-income families respectively, including 225 women-led families, showed deteriorating poverty conditions. These studies focused on their daily struggles and challenges, providing a deeper reality of the urban poverty situation in Malaysia, especially among low-income households.

          The study found the following:

          Eight in 10 households struggle to pay for essential goods, a situation that has worsened compared with the Covid-19 period. Women-led households are particularly affected, with seven in 10 struggling to meet monthly basic needs and six in 10 lacking savings.

          While employment rates have increased, paradoxically, many Malaysians have become poorer. This highlights the inadequacy of current wages to meet the rising cost of living, underscoring the urgent need for comprehensive wage reform to ensure a decent standard of living for all.

          Children in low-income homes are among the most affected. Over half (52%) eat less than three meals a day, a higher rate than the 45% reported pre-pandemic.

          The consumption of unhealthy food increased, with 46% reported to be eating more instant noodles than two years ago during the pandemic.

          This worsening poverty situation, pointed out by Unicef, follows an earlier World Bank 2019 study showing that seven in 10 low-income households in Malaysia struggle to meet monthly basic needs, with six in 10 lacking savings.

          Therefore, it is really not about the money that the Madani government is spending but how it is being spent.

          Reviving the free meals programme for schoolchildren

          The Unicef study showed that all 225 women-led households with children lived in absolute poverty. According to the Ministry of Health, in late 2023, children in these households often skipped meals and 30% experienced stunted growth.

          This problem is not exclusive to Malaysia. For example, the Mid Day Meal Scheme is a school meal programme in India designed to better the nutritional status of school-age children nationwide.

          The situation is compounded by reports that 10,000 school canteen operators in Malaysia are expected to raise their prices by 50% next year. There is clearly an urgent need to address this issue.

          A 2019 report by the Ministry of Education indicated that a similar free school breakfast programme that was proposed would have benefited 2.7 million primary schoolchildren nationwide in 2020, with costs estimated between RM800 million and RM1.67 billion.

          To ensure nutritious food for B40 children, the government should collaborate with government-linked companies to revive the free meal programmes at schools. Here, local entrepreneurs, including women, could be engaged in catering food to the local schools. The meals programme could create local entrepreneurship and jobs, as well as local demand for food and vegetables, and all of this can generate a multiplier effect in the local economy.

          The prime minister has mentioned that Budget 2025 will prioritise addressing the cost of living. This news is very encouraging, but it is also important to ensure that the Budget includes support for providing nutritious meals to school-going children.

          Regressive subsidies

          It is crucial to rethink our subsidy targeting to ensure the benefits reach those who need them most, addressing the significant tax inequity in current policies.

          I say this because subsidies are largely regressive, benefiting the wealthy more than the poor. A 2019 International Monetary Fund study pointed out that for every RM100 fuel subsidy allocated to people with low incomes, the high-income earners received RM35 compared with only RM24 for the low-income group.

          For example, the zero tax on electric vehicle (EV) purchases predominantly appeals to higher-income groups. A Malaysian from the B40 group is more likely to buy a budget-friendly car like a Myvi or an Axia, which are still subject to taxes. Conversely, those who can afford luxury EVs, such as Teslas or high-end BMWs, receive tax exemptions, highlighting significant tax inequity.

          Progressive wage policy

          The government’s progressive wage policy is welcome, but efforts must be made to increase wages for the three million workers in the informal sector and gig economy, setting industry-specific minimum wage levels (Maybank IB Research).

          The current design of the progressive wage policy excludes part-time workers and informal workers. In my view, the workers in the informal sector earn low wages, experience non-payment of minimum wages and no social protection such as Employees Provident Fund (EPF), Social Security Organisation and insurance support.

          This is supported by the Unicef study, which indicates that 40% of workers, including the self-employed, lack essential social protection coverage, and 92% of self-employed individuals are vulnerable to economic shocks.

          Thus, the design of the progressive wage policy should be rethought with a view to financially enable informal sector workers to move out of poverty and enjoy social protection.

          Moving towards an inclusive green economy

          Let us go back to tax breaks for EV owners: Although the government’s efforts to transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy are important, it must be noted that tax cuts for the purchase of EVs will benefit just the rich because only they can afford to fork out the money for cars in the high price range.

          Instead, the government could help set up solar panels in poor communities such as for low-cost houses and rural communities. The effort can generate income and reduce electricity bills, which can translate into savings and could help a solar panel-driven energy boom in the country.

          The government does not have to look far for inspiration as the Sime Darby Property Bhd model at Elmina provides solar energy to homes, presenting a scalable framework for addressing energy needs in poor rural areas.

          Providing solar panels reduces energy poverty, offers rural communities access to clean energy and creates new income streams by selling excess energy back to the grid.

          If we look across the Causeway, the SolarNove initiative taken up by the Singapore government aims to install 113mw of solar panels across more than 1,000 public housing blocks and 100 government sites in Singapore by 2026.

          Such initiatives would ensure that the transition towards renewable energy is just, with subsidies for solar panels and other initiatives accessible to low-income households and rural communities.

          Social protection for the elderly

          The lack of savings for many Malaysians is deeply troubling, more so because Malaysia is experiencing a significant increase in its ageing population. According to the latest DOSM estimates, the proportion of the population aged 65 and over increased from 7.2% in 2022 to 7.4% in 2023. This represents 2.5 million people. Now imagine these people with a lack of savings. It is a depressing thought.

          According to a parliamentary reply by the Ministry of Finance, the issue of insufficient savings in the EPF is at a severe level, with 6.3 million members under the age of 55 having less than RM10,000 in their accounts as at September 2023. With savings of less than RM10,000, members are expected to have a retirement income of less than RM42 per month for a period of 20 years.

          With 5.7% of households led by individuals aged 65 and above living in absolute poverty (Ministry of Economy, 2022), I propose that Kumpulan Wang Persaaraan (KWAP) utilise its RM190 billion. Assuming a RM200 monthly contribution from EPF and a lifespan of 10 years post-retirement. Given these conditions, if they need RM1,000 monthly, only RM83 can be covered by their RM10,000 savings.

          A wealth tax

          Implementing a wealth tax on the super rich in Malaysia would raise revenue for all these proposed social protection and welfare programmes.

          For example, Malaysia's top 50 wealthiest individuals have a combined net worth of RM390 billion, almost on a par with the national budget. A 2% wealth tax on their collective wealth could generate RM7.6 billion in tax revenue, and a 2.56% tax would bring RM10 billion.

          So, is there a way to address the noise? Or rather the anger and frustration of a large section of Malaysian society? There clearly is. But again, it all boils down to political will.

          Billionaires often receive government subsidies and support for their businesses. For example, by 2015, Elon Musk had received an estimated US$4.9 billion in government support. Within the Malaysian context, first-generation Power Purchase Agreements for Independent Power Producers, such as YTL Power International Bhd’s Paka plant, had a return on investment of 20%. It is only right that they give back the wealth they have accumulated for the provision of better public services.

          Source: Theedgemarkets

          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Essential Issues Raised, but not Fully Answered by the Draghi Report

          PIIE

          Economic

          The report on The Future of European Competitiveness, submitted in September by Mario Draghi, former European Central Bank president and former prime minister of Italy, is a call to action to meet the challenges the European Union faces this decade, with the virtue of daring to quantify the potential investment needed: 5 percent of GDP per year during 2025–30. The message is clear: Every year the European Union delays action, the gap with the United States will open further. There is no time to waste.
          The report argues that the European Union’s main weakness is its lower growth relative to the United States, driven primarily by the European Union’s fragmentation. This weakness is compounded by three new challenges: enhancing the resilience of the economy against geopolitical threats and trade wars, addressing climate change and the green energy transition, and boosting national security and defense. By their nature, these new challenges must be dealt with mostly at the EU rather than the national level.
          We agree with much of the report. It raises all the right issues. If EU fragmentation is indeed a major obstacle to growth, then reducing it can indeed have large benefits and few costs. The report, especially in its part B, is a trove of granular information and of potential concrete measures to take in the major sectors in the economy. We feel however that some of the issues require further discussion. This is what we do in this column, often playing devil’s advocate to get the discussion going.

          COMPETITIVENESS OR PRODUCTIVITY?

          Let us start with a strong statement: The title of the report, The Future of European Competitiveness, is misleading. What the report is about, and indeed should be about, is productivity, not competitiveness. Productivity determines the standard of living. Competitiveness is a different issue: A country can have low productivity and still be competitive. This is what a flexible exchange rate is supposed to achieve and typically does. The European Union does not have a competitiveness problem—in fact, it runs a current account surplus. If anything, it has a potential productivity problem.

          IS THE PRODUCTIVITY GAP REALLY EXPLODING?

          In comparing the European Union to the United States, and in characterizing the diagnostic of the report, Draghi has talked about an “existential challenge” and, if nothing is done, a “slow agony.” This overstates the case. Since 2000, EU GDP growth has indeed been on average 0.5 percent lower annually than that of the United States, but most of the difference has come from demographics, not productivity. EU growth of real income per capita has been about 0.1 percent lower annually than in the United States, a small difference but enough to increase the gap by about 2.5 percent over 25 years. Not negligible for sure, but not quite enough to qualify as agony.
          This being said, even if the productivity gap vis-à-vis the United States has not substantially increased, it still remains. The days when Europe was rapidly catching up with the United States are long gone, and convergence has not been achieved: Europe has not been able to run the last mile. It is very much worth examining why.

          IS BEING AN INNOVATION LEADER ESSENTIAL FOR GROWTH?

          The report emphasizes, rightly, the sharp differences between EU and US performance in the technology sector. The fact is indeed stark: There are no leading technology companies in the European Union. Does this mean that the slow agony, if it has not happened yet, will start soon? The answer is: Not necessarily. There are plenty of countries that are not innovation leaders but that grow at similar rates as the United States. Just like a cyclist in a race who remains behind the course leader to be protected from the wind and is happy to remain a close second, countries do not necessarily need to innovate in order to thrive; they can copy and implement the innovations of others. Indeed, this seems to be the case for the European Union: Productivity growth outside of the information and communication technology sector is the same as or higher than it is in the United States.

          SECURITY RATHER THAN GROWTH?

          The main issue therefore may not be growth so much as national security. Technology leadership matters when it becomes a key driver of national security—as the growing US sanctions and restrictions on semiconductors show. It is therefore critical to develop indigenous European technology leaders to boost resilience and national security, and that will require a European approach: The scale needed to thrive in the new technologies implies that it will be almost impossible to reach technological leadership at the EU member state level. In other words, as the report argues, more EU innovation would be good in all sectors, but it is crucial in those where security is essential.

          GREEN TRANSFORMATION AND GROWTH?

          The report argues that the green energy transformation may drive higher growth. This is optimistic. Fighting climate change requires putting a positive price on something, CO2 or another greenhouse gas, that was previously free. In the language of macroeconomics, this is an adverse supply shock, just like an increase in the price of oil. In the standard growth model, it leads to a lower level of output and a decrease in growth until the transition to green energy has been achieved. Could things turn out better? Yes, to the extent that, despite a worse starting point, technological progress happens to be much more rapid in the new technologies, growth could indeed eventually turn out higher. But the difficult transition must be acknowledged to avoid creating unrealistic expectations.

          DEFRAGMENTATION AND BETTER REGULATION: KEYS TO HIGHER GROWTH?

          The report attributes much of the productivity gap to fragmentation and regulation, thus the focus on the measures on defragmentation and partial deregulation. If this is right, then indeed these look like desirable and easy reforms, yielding benefits without threatening the larger welfare state architecture. However, one may worry that the report oversells the achievable gains. Surely much of the productivity gap comes from factors outside the scope of the report—higher social protection, inadequate education and professional training, higher costs of separation, etc.; these will not disappear. Fragmentation is surely relevant, with countries insisting on having their national champions and reluctant to give up political control; the issue is how much such fragmentation stands in the way of returns to scale. From an efficiency viewpoint, is larger always better? Part B of the report makes a strong case that it is in many sectors, but the reality may be more nuanced—after all, there are many instances of investors buying large companies to take them apart and unlock productivity and value—and likely sector specific—more relevant for technology companies that rely on network effects than, for example, telecom companies.
          Similar issues come up with regulation and competition policy, both at the national and the EU level. EU competition policy may need to evolve to help meet the challenges. In the United States, the litmus test for competition policy is consumer prices: If companies can successfully argue that a merger or acquisition will lead to increases in efficiency that eventually result in lower prices, the operation will likely succeed, and remedial measures will only be applied, if needed, ex post. In the European Union, however, the litmus test is market structure: If a merger or acquisition is seen at risk of creating a position of market dominance, even if that market dominance would be necessary to increase efficiency, the operation will likely be opposed. In a world where the development of new technologies requires network effects and scale, these differences in competition policy may explain why the dominant network companies are all in the United States. To simplify the point: Would Amazon have been able to grow and develop in the European Union?

          HOW MUCH CAN BE EXPECTED FROM THE CAPITAL MARKET UNION?

          What the problem facing the European Union is not: insufficient saving or insufficient investment. Investment as a share of EU GDP is roughly the same as it is in the United States, 22 percent. The saving rate is a bit higher, resulting in a current account surplus. Thus, “mobilizing saving” is a misleading headline. The EU saving rate is high and is reflected in high investment. The issue is, as the report correctly argues, that savings may not be channeled into the right investments and may reflect insufficient risk taking. This reflects a largely bank-based intermediation structure, segmented along national lines. The capital markets union is unlikely to make a major and timely difference at this margin. The report estimates that it would take a decrease of 250 basis points in the cost of capital to induce the required new investment. It is not clear that such a decrease would generate the right kind of investment, and, in any case, this is far beyond what one can hope from better financial integration.

          CAN EU PUBLIC INVESTMENT AND SUBSIDIES BE FINANCED BY DEBT?

          The report concludes that the EU investment rate must increase by about 5 percent of GDP per year, with public investment accounting for about 1.5 percent, and that substantial public subsidies to induce the desired increase in private investment will be needed as well. It argues, correctly, for these decisions to be taken at the EU level: By their nature, reducing fragmentation and rethinking regulation and competition policy must take place at the EU level. Given the public-good nature of defense, green transformation, etc., much of the public investment and design of subsidies must also be designed and implemented at the EU level.
          This does not however necessarily imply that it should be financed by EU debt rather than by taxes. There are two relevant aspects here, debt sustainability and macroeconomic effects. EU debt is debt, even if, because it is mutualized, it is typically cheaper debt than the debt issued by national governments. Given the high levels of debt and, especially, the large primary deficits in several countries, the issue of overall debt sustainability cannot be ignored. Some of the measures proposed in the report may indeed increase future growth and thus government revenues. Some, such as defense, may not, at least directly. Some, such as those that shift the energy mix, may instead decrease growth for some time and decrease future revenues. Thus, future revenues should not be assumed to pay for themselves, and a credible fiscal framework will be critical to sustain this effort. To be concrete, under the reasonable assumption that interest rates will remain close to growth rates, some of the additional spending can be financed by debt, but a credible plan requires that, in the medium term, the primary balance, i.e. the difference between revenues and spending, returns to zero.
          The other aspect, the macroeconomic effects of such a large increase in overall investment in an economy currently close to potential, must also be considered. The European Central Bank will have to manage what will likely be a more volatile growth and inflation process buffeted by various supply shocks, and International Monetary Fund computations cited by the report may understate the risk of overheating. The recent experience of US fiscal deficits, their effect on shortage-induced price spikes and commodity prices, and their contribution to the inflation burst, is relevant here as far as the timing, design, and delivery of the needed investment. For both reasons, prioritizing investment and subsidies to fewer sectors, and limiting the effect on debt, is of the essence.
          We have raised many issues that we hope will contribute to a broader and deeper discussion. We want to reiterate our agreement with much of the report, and our hope that it will lead to measures that increase EU productivity and standard of living, address the climate transition, and boost national security.
          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          WEF Launches Digital Platform Focused on Clean Energy Investment in Emerging Markets

          Owen Li

          Economic

          The World Economic Forum last week launched a digital platform outlining 100 policy measures, finance mechanisms and de-risking solutions in 47 emerging and developing economies.

          Known as the Playbook of Solutions, it was assembled by the Network to Mobilize Investment for Clean Energy in the Global South, which was launched at the WEF’s annual meeting in Davos in January.

          Emerging markets and developing economies will represent 90 percent of the growth in global energy demand by 2035, according to a report by the International Energy Agency and International Finance Corp.

          Yet these countries, which are home to a majority of the world’s population, account for less than a fifth of global clean energy investments, the report said.

          In order to speed up the transition to clean energy and triple renewables by 2030, the annual average investment in renewable energy will need to reach at least $1.7 trillion by 2030, it said.

          With this in mind, the Playbook of Solutions aims to guide governments, finance institutions and energy companies regarding their approach toward energy transition project financing in emerging markets.

          It also highlights the need for a multipronged approach of policy action, de-risking tools and innovative financing mechanisms to unlock the $1.7 trillion needed in the Global South.

          “The MENA region has shown remarkable advancements in its energy transition over the past decade,” Roberto Bocca, head of the WEF’s Center for Energy and Materials, told Arab News.

          He said that according to the WEF’s latest Energy Transition Index, the region’s energy transition scores had increased by 7 percent overall, “with a substantial 22 percent rise in transition readiness.”

          This progress “reflects the importance and efficacy of implementing a comprehensive blend of policies and strategies to unlock clean energy investment” and the new playbook “showcases various tools and measures for achieving this,” he said.

          The playbook also highlights the success stories of four countries: Egypt, India, Chile and Brazil and how they raised billions in clean energy capital through a combination of strategies including policy measures and finance platforms.

          “Country-led commitment reforms and platforms are critical to align sustainable development efforts in a way that prioritizes national objectives and accelerates progress toward a just, green transition,” said Rania Al-Mashat, minister of planning, economic development and international cooperation of Egypt and co-chair of the Network to Mobilize Investment for Clean Energy in the Global South.

          The playbook “provides an effective way to exchange best practices and lessons learned between peer countries, thus unlocking just financing solutions that accelerate progress toward a just energy transition,” she said.

          Source: ARAB

          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          Asean Plays 'stabilising' Role on Regional Tensions, Secretary General Says

          Alex

          Economic

          The Asean bloc remains a "stabilising force" in Southeast Asia despite making only incremental progress on key issues, including Myanmar's civil war and the drafting of a code of conduct for the South China Sea, its secretary general said.

          Leaders of the 10-member Association of Southeast Asian Nations are meeting in Laos this week with heads of government and top diplomats from partners including the United States, China, Japan and Russia.

          The bloc, home to over 685 million people and representing around 8% of global exports, has been unable to push resolutions on difficult regional issues, which analysts say risks undermining Asean's central role in its backyard.

          But Asean's Secretary General Kao Kim Hourn insisted the grouping has constantly pushed for dialogue and diplomacy, ensuring that negotiations move ahead.

          "Asean has been, I would say, the stabilising force," the former Cambodian diplomat told Reuters in an interview late on Wednesday.

          "We take the issues head on," he said. "People always put too much emphasis on problems, but the way I look at Asean, we have come a long way."

          For instance, Kao Kim Hourn said, with member economies increasingly integrated and trade agreements in place with many external partners, Asean attracted US$230 billion (RM988.2 billion) in new investments in 2023.

          "The fact that there is confidence and trust in Asean, that's why the US$230 billion investment moves into Asean," he said. "The future is here."

          Myanmar is ‘complex’

          Asean has made little progress with its "Five Point Consensus" peace plan for Myanmar, unveiled months after a 2021 coup, but Kao Kim Hourn said the leaders of Asean remain adamant that the grouping will stay engaged with Myanmar.

          "We need time and patience," the secretary general said. "Myanmar is such a complicated, a complex issue... We should not expect a quick fix."

          Conflict has raged in Myanmar, with an expanding armed resistance against the military government. Some 18.6 million people, more than a third of the population, are estimated to be in need of humanitarian assistance.

          Despite losing control of wide swathes of territory and being pinned down across multiple front lines, the junta appears to be pushing ahead with plans for an election next year, which has been widely derided as a sham.

          Asean will continue to push for "inclusive political dialogue" among all conflicting parties in Myanmar, said Kao Kim Hourn, even as leaders look to scale up humanitarian assistance.

          Thailand has offered to host an "informal consultation" on Myanmar in December among Asean members, some of whom are divided between those who want the junta to do more and those calling for more talks among warring parties.

          South China Sea dispute

          Another major concern for Asean is tension in the South China Sea, where confrontations in disputed waters continue between China and the Philippines, and more recently Vietnam.

          The situation has brought renewed attention to Asean's protracted negotiations with Beijing towards creating a code of conduct for the vital waterway, a process in motion since 2017.

          "Until now, there have been ongoing negotiations," Kao Kim Hourn said, "It's not static, it's not standstill, but things are still moving ahead."

          China claims almost the entire South China Sea, a conduit for US$3 trillion of trade annually, and has deployed an armada of coast guard deep into areas claimed by Asean members Vietnam, the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and Brunei.

          While some Asean countries hope the code can be concluded in a few years, prospects for a legally binding text remain distant, analysts say.

          "The good part is that as long as there are still dialogue and diplomacy on the table and moving forward, I think there's a lot of hope there," Kao Kim Hourn said.

          Source: The edge markets

          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share

          New York Climate Week Highlights The Importance Of Critical Thinking Toward Sustainability

          ING

          Economic

          Energy

          In recent years, sustainability has increasingly had to cope with toughened market conditions, policy, and geopolitics. Meanwhile, despite technological advancements, many clean-energy options remain costly to deploy. All these factors are affecting how companies execute transition plans, requiring them to think more critically about their sustainability strategies.

          That is reflected in this year’s New York Climate Week, where participants went beyond emphasising ambition and achievements to discussing what challenges we face to accelerate the energy transition and what innovative solutions we can embark on.

          Get used to the business as ‘unusual’

          An insightful aspect to many New York Climate Week conversations centred on disruptive ways of doing business: committing to sustainability means getting used to the business as ‘unusual’, whether it is exploring the unknown, managing trial and error, or engaging in difficult but constructive conversations with clients. These changes may be costly to invest in and challenging to implement at the beginning. But in the long term, business as ‘unusual’ in sustainability can transform burden into benefits, as evidenced in later analyses.

          The road toward sustainability is never linear, complicated by frequent policy and market disruptions. This therefore requires companies to practice sustainability with constantly refreshed minds. Sustainability goes beyond compliance to managing risks, harnessing opportunities, aligning customer demand, and creating value.

          What is the golden ratio between carrots and sticks?

          Policy is crucial in facilitating the energy transition, as it can support nascent technologies, more properly price dirty economic activities, harmonise industry practices, and create level playing fields. As we have pointed out in many analyses, the US’ energy transition largely relies on incentives (carrots) to scale up the production of clean technologies, whereas the EU relies relatively more on standards and mandates (sticks) to steer demand toward a greener direction.

          A topic we heard companies and investors talk about during the climate week is how to effectively enhance the demand for clean energy. On the one hand, if producers cannot secure long-term offtake agreements in large amounts, then it is hard for projects to advance even if the necessary technology, resources, and infrastructure are all available. On the other hand, if regulations and demand-side mandates are unrealistic, then there can be excessive non-compliance that defeats the purpose of regulation. The best ratio might be different across regions, but each jurisdiction needs a combination of carrots and sticks in terms of policy for decarbonization. Overly relying on one and ignoring the other will not yield optimal results.

          Refine business strategy through broadened sustainability metrics

          Companies have emphasised the importance of pursuing environmental stewardship, which lies beyond adhering to the most used sustainability measurements such as emissions reduction and renewable energy usage. And the notion of stewardship can be highly industry specific. In the food and agriculture sector, stewardship can represent strengthening soil health and improving water availability and quality. Doing this can not only enhance crop output and resiliency, but also prevent land degradation. This does not mean that the emissions metric should be discarded; rather, a wider range of considerations can together lead to a more holistic approach to sustainability that highlights sector materiality.

          Some jurisdictions are encouraging this holistic thinking through sustainability disclosure requirements. The EU’s soon-to-be-mandatory Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD), for example, requires some 50,000 EU companies and at least 10,000 foreign companies to report in phases on sustainability metrics such as water, biodiversity, and circularity. In addition to complying to the law, companies can also benefit from using their own ESG data to refine sustainability strategies. These include improving sustainability strategy through gap analyses and increasing internal business efficiency. Standardized disclosure, coupled with enhanced ESG strategy, can also help companies enhance the access to capital.

          Marry sustainability with customer centricity

          According to a global study conducted by Bain & Company, around 60% of consumers have become more concerned about climate change in the past two years, with packaging and recyclability emerging as two main major considerations. This means that companies, especially those in the consumer goods and retail sectors, would appeal to sustainability-conscious consumers by closing the loop for the full product life cycle.

          Consumers have become more concerned about climate change

          Respondent answers to the question of ‘How have your climate change concerns have changed over the past two years?’

          Note: Excludes respondents who said they do not believe the climate is changing, n=18,991. Source: Bain Consumer Lab ESG Survey 2024

          Meanwhile, however, anecdotal evidence shows that sustainability can move down the priority list if sustainable products are too costly or inconvenient to use. While it is debatable how much more expensive sustainable products can be and who should be bearing that cost increase, sustainability should not derail from being consumer-centric.

          In the automotives industry, for example, companies can design electric vehicles (EVs) through leveraging their brands’ traditional selling points, whether it be luxury, coolness, or ease of use. While creating luxury/cool EVs relies on product design, one way to boost the ease of use is to partner with restaurants, shops or office buildings for EV charging. This can help consumers overcome their unwillingness to wait a long time charging EVs and narrow the infrastructure gap that countries like the US are facing.

          On top of that, communication is key. Companies would benefit from laying out how their products are sustainable to consumers, as opposed to only having a sustainability label or certificate. Moreover, companies are starting to link sustainability with other benefits consumers care about. For instance, real estate sustainability efforts are being communicated to customers as a means to ensure economic security through increased energy efficiency. Real estate companies are also exploring the ‘S’ aspect of ESG through boosting affordable housing and creating value for local communities. All in all, sustainability is about operating businesses in ways toward consumers’ long-term wellbeing.

          Committing to sustainability is committing to the business as unusual. Given the uncertain and ever-evolving nature of climate change, companies would need to take on a comprehensive approach to sustainability in their decision-making processes, which often involves challenging the existing energy system. All these cannot be achieved without collaboration and dedication despite the many challenges ahead.

          To stay updated on all economic events of today, please check out our Economic calendar
          Risk Warnings and Disclaimers
          You understand and acknowledge that there is a high degree of risk involved in trading. Following any strategies or investment methods may lead to potential losses. The content on the site is provided by our contributors and analysts for information purposes only. You are solely responsible for determining whether any trading assets, securities, strategy, or any other product is suitable for investing based on your own investment objectives and financial situation.
          Add to Favorites
          Share
          FastBull
          Copyright © 2025 FastBull Ltd

          728 RM B 7/F GEE LOK IND BLDG NO 34 HUNG TO RD KWUN TONG KLN HONG KONG

          TelegramInstagramTwitterfacebooklinkedin
          App Store Google Play Google Play
          Products
          Charts

          Chats

          Q&A with Experts
          Screeners
          Economic Calendar
          Data
          Tools
          Membership
          Features
          Function
          Markets
          Copy Trading
          Latest Signals
          Contests
          News
          Analysis
          24/7
          Columns
          Education
          Company
          Careers
          About Us
          Contact Us
          Advertising
          Help Center
          Feedback
          User Agreement
          Privacy Policy
          Business

          White Label

          Data API

          Web Plug-ins

          Poster Maker

          Affiliate Program

          Risk Disclosure

          The risk of loss in trading financial instruments such as stocks, FX, commodities, futures, bonds, ETFs and crypto can be substantial. You may sustain a total loss of the funds that you deposit with your broker. Therefore, you should carefully consider whether such trading is suitable for you in light of your circumstances and financial resources.

          No decision to invest should be made without thoroughly conducting due diligence by yourself or consulting with your financial advisors. Our web content might not suit you since we don't know your financial conditions and investment needs. Our financial information might have latency or contain inaccuracy, so you should be fully responsible for any of your trading and investment decisions. The company will not be responsible for your capital loss.

          Without getting permission from the website, you are not allowed to copy the website's graphics, texts, or trademarks. Intellectual property rights in the content or data incorporated into this website belong to its providers and exchange merchants.

          Not Logged In

          Log in to access more features

          FastBull Membership

          Not yet

          Purchase

          Become a signal provider
          Help Center
          Customer Service
          Dark Mode
          Price Up/Down Colors

          Log In

          Sign Up

          Position
          Layout
          Fullscreen
          Default to Chart
          The chart page opens by default when you visit fastbull.com