It has taken just 10 months, in UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s flamboyant assessment, for “the scientific cavalry” to arrive.
When three groups announced in quick succession this month that the vaccines they had developed against Covid-19 had proved highly effective in clinical trials, the news offered not only a blazing ray of hope for a pandemic-bound world, but a moment of vindication for a beleaguered pharmaceutical industry.
In recent years, the industry has more often been assailed for its alleged price-gouging than praised for its panaceas. Only this week, in a dismal counterpoint to the stunning vaccines news, came a fresh reminder of its role in America’s opioid addiction crisis, when Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to criminal charges over sales of its painkiller OxyContin.
Dan Mahony, a leading UK life sciences investor, argues the industry has provided a riposte to critics of its pricing strategies, with its record-breaking pace — from the sequencing of the novel coronavirus in January to vaccines submitted for regulatory approval in November — and efficacy levels that exceeded the expectations of politicians, medics and markets.
“The argument of the industry for a long time has been ‘we’re innovative, you’ve got to pay up for innovation’. That premise has been put to the test this year and the industry has over-delivered,” says Mr Mahony, who is co-head of healthcare for Polar Capital, which has an investment in AstraZeneca.
But even as it basks in global plaudits, there are signs that its rehabilitation is conditional. A gathering row over the presentation of data by Oxford university and AstraZeneca about the performance of their vaccine has illustrated the perils of such relentless public and political scrutiny.
The claim that their vaccine was 90 per cent effective when using a particular dosing regime turned out to be based on people aged 55 or younger, rather than older ages at higher risk from the disease. Neither the company nor the university disclosed that detail, prompting criticism from some scientists and analysts when it was revealed by Moncef Slaoui, the head of Operation Warp Speed, the US government’s funding programme for vaccine development.
The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine’s cheap price and the fact that, unlike Pfizer’s version, it does not have to be stored at ultra-low temperatures, make it particularly well-suited to the developing world, an advantage that is likely to outweigh any controversy.
Beyond that dispute, reputational risk lies in wait for the wider industry. Any evidence that deep-pocketed nations are being favoured over poorer ones to receive consignments of one of the vaccines, or even a simple malfunctioning of manufacturing or distribution chains, could spark a backlash as big as the hopes invested in any immunisation programme.
Nor can the sector look forward to a complete easing of political hostilities under a Joe Biden administration; reform of the pharmaceutical industry is a rare area of bipartisan consensus. Last week Donald Trump coupled an announcement of drug pricing reforms with an attack on Pfizer — whose vaccine has proved 95 per cent effective — alleging that it had delayed the release of its positive data until after his defeat in the November 3 presidential election as part of a “corrupt game”.
Jeremy Levin, chair of the US biotech trade association BIO, says Mr Trump was “seemingly vindictive”, trying to harm the entire sector. “It was a broad-base shotgun, but it was aimed at the industry at exactly the time that the industry is innovating.”
The incoming administration looks set to persist with plans for significant reforms, despite any vaccine afterglow, but could take a more conciliatory approach. Geoffrey Porges, an analyst at SVB Leerink, an investment bank focused on healthcare, says Mr Trump clearly had “grievances” with Big Pharma but expects the Biden administration to pursue more “palatable” attempts at reducing drug prices, which he believes the industry is prepared for.
When David met Goliath
Jack Scannell, an expert on the economics of drug research and development, cautions against handing too rapturous a report card to the industry, pointing to the large sums governments have committed to underwrite clinical trials, support manufacturing and place advance orders.
“Before we pat the drug industry on the back too much, one has to recognise it got involved in this partly because the whole thing has been de-risked by government,” he says.
Virginia Acha, head of global regulatory policy at MSD, the name by which the US group Merck is known in the UK, disputes that it took the lure of government cash to persuade the industry to enter the Covid fight. “Quite a number of the investments under way happened before [government schemes] were even announced and some have not necessarily been availing themselves of those funds so I don’t think that is the rationale for why companies acted.”
Ms Acha, whose company has two vaccines in early-stage studies, and an antiviral medicine in more advanced trials, says it was not simply a question of money “but of having the capabilities and capacity to get that work done”, crediting “a phenomenal response from across the industry, where companies have put all other work or planning aside to focus on the pandemic, to get to an answer”.
The success of the vaccines could finally help the industry to silence criticism that it is too slow to bring novel medicines to market. Mr Mahony suggests this is an outdated view, tied to a time when many companies were facing a “patent cliff” as their rights to once-lucrative medicines expired, tanking their share prices.
“In 2009-10, pharma companies were priced as if they were going to go out of business, as if they were never going to have a [new] drug again,” he says. “Investors were scared; they couldn’t see where the growth was coming from.”
However, even during the bleakest years, he adds, the industry as a whole never ceased to innovate: activity simply switched from big pharmaceutical groups to agile, cutting edge biotechnology companies, which often went on to be acquired by, or partner with, traditional companies.
This David versus Goliath narrative has been prominently on display in the vaccines saga: two biotech companies, Germany’s BioNTech and Boston-based Moderna, have played starring roles bringing a more nimble approach.
The question now is whether that turn of pace, which has so impressed the world, can deliver a lasting boost to the industry’s long-stagnant productivity levels.
The blueprint developed in recent months to fight coronavirus could have a durable impact on how the industry works, says Richard Torbett, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. “There has been the most extraordinary global effort: collaboration like we’ve never seen before, redeployment of resources we’ve never seen before and sharing of data.”
Mr Scannell acknowledges “some great case studies of how things can be done quicker. It may be that regulators and governments learn from that.” But the main reason development has moved so fast, he claims, is “a complete imperviousness to financial risks”, helped by government support “and probably more tolerance of risk in the clinical trials”. Volunteers had entered late-stage trials with less information than is usual from early stage trials, due to the compressed timetable.
There is no suggestion that the phase 3 trials themselves have been other than robust, but “going so fast to phase 3 would not be acceptable outside a public health emergency”, he adds.
Ms Acha hopes one legacy will be a willingness, on the part of companies, governments and academia, to continue the co-operation that has seen even corporate rivals work together in recent months. “It would be great if we could form the same kinds of collaborations to tackle big issues like [anti-microbial resistance] or rare diseases or cancer,” she says.
Reflecting on the questions raised by the Oxford-AstraZeneca furore, she adds the fast pace of development in the pandemic means companies are releasing data about their drugs and vaccines at far earlier stages than they normally would, to satisfy the appetite for knowledge of regulators as well as the public.
She adds: “I think for any company, that’s a difficult challenge. Everyone’s trying to be very transparent but we don’t have everything done and dusted, so it’s about working with us on a real-time basis to understand interim data and that will take some getting used to.” Such debates could be a good thing, she argues, providing the public with insights about how the drug development process works.
Mr Scannell remains sceptical that the crisis will deliver any lasting change to the way the industry is regarded. But he adds: “For me the big test will be around access. If we find the poor parts of the world are vaccinated pretty quickly and at low cost, that will possibly change some views.”
Robin Feldman, a law professor and the author of Drugs, Money, and Secret Handshakes: The Unstoppable Growth of Prescription Drug Prices, says that in the US, government money has come with few strings attached on price or intellectual property. “That could come back to haunt both pharma and the government if prices [for other drugs] continue to soar when Covid-19 is behind us.”
For now, says Ms Acha, the vaccine will provide the only litmus test that counts for trust in the industry, as each citizen grapples with the decision of whether or not to take it. “We need the support of the public and society at large,” she says. “What we’re doing has to make sense at every step of the process and at every level of society.”
‘It has never been like this’: US house price spiral worries policymakers
House prices are rising in many major economies. This FT series explores whether these increases are sustainable.
A decade ago, the average house in Ohio’s leafy state capital Columbus would sit on the market for almost 100 days before being sold. Today, a similar property sells in just 10 days.
“It has never been like this,” said Michael Jones, a real estate agent at Coldwell Banker Realty with more than 20 years’ experience in central Ohio. “It’s unprecedented.”
US policymakers are becoming increasingly concerned about the rising price of housing for both homeowners and renters, as the broadest global house price boom for at least two decades drives up living costs.
“Today, it is harder to find an affordable home in America than at any point since the 2008 financial crisis,” Marcia Fudge, US housing and urban development secretary, said at a recent congressional hearing.
Nationally, house prices in May were 16.6 per cent higher than the year before, according to the latest S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller index update — the biggest jump in more than 30 years of data and up from 14.8 per cent in April.
“A month ago, I described April’s performance as ‘truly extraordinary’, and [now] I find myself running out of superlatives,” said Craig Lazzara, global head of index investment strategy at S&P Dow Jones Indices.
The pace of price growth and sales has been particularly fast in smaller cities, suburban enclaves and towns.
Columbus’s housing market has exploded since the start of the pandemic, as historically low interest rates, remote working, increased demand for larger homes and a relatively limited supply of houses for sale sparked a feeding frenzy among prospective homebuyers and a windfall for sellers.
Homes in Columbus sold more quickly than in any other large metropolitan US area, according to Zillow, the property website. Almost three-quarters of Columbus properties were under contract in less than a week in April. Other fast-moving areas included Denver, Colorado, and Salt Lake City, Utah.
The fierce competition means many properties are selling at a significant premium to their listing price, favouring those on higher incomes or younger first-time buyers whose parents are willing to stump up the cash required to win a bidding war.
FT Series: Global house prices — raising the roof
House prices are rising in many major economies — but is it sustainable?
Part 1: How the pandemic has triggered the broadest global house price boom in more than two decades
Part 2: Buyers flock to smaller US cities, renewing policymakers’ concerns about affordability and risk
Part 3: Netherlands grapples with the social consequences of rapidly rising house prices
Part 4: Why Berlin’s renters want to expropriate their homes from Germany’s publicly listed landlords
Part 5: Should house prices count in inflation data, and what can central banks do about the economic effects?
Columbus’s average sale price has jumped 15.8 per cent in the past year, according to Columbus Realtors, the local industry body of which Jones is president.
“People say to me, ‘Don’t you love this market?’” he said at a recent open house for an almost 6,000 square foot family home with a listing price of just under $1m in a residential neighbourhood east of downtown Columbus.
“I say, ‘Not especially, because I represent buyers and sellers alike’,” he added. “Somebody is a loser here.”
Other places have experienced even more frenetic sales. Median home prices in Austin, Texas, have risen 40 per cent year on year, according to online real estate brokerage Redfin. Buyers have also flocked to Phoenix, Arizona, where prices are almost 30 per cent higher in the same period. In Detroit, Michigan, they have risen 56 per cent.
Suburban enclaves and smaller towns have also benefited. Redfin reported last month that median home prices in “car-dependent” US areas had surged at twice the pace of those in “transit-accessible” cities since the start of the pandemic — with the former gaining 33 per cent while the latter increased 16 per cent.
Across the 30 largest metropolitan areas in the US, Columbus, along with St Louis, Missouri, and Tampa, Florida, logged some of the biggest net increases in people arriving in the area, according to an analysis of US Postal Service records of mailing address changes by commercial real estate and investment firm CBRE.
Most moves came from the “surrounding area”, defined as a few hours’ drive from the householder’s previous address, the analysis suggested.
The house price spiral is feeding into the rental market too. According to Apartment List, a listings website, national median rent has risen 11.4 per cent so far this year, more than three times the average increase in the same period in the previous three years.
“The high cost of housing keeps millions of families up every night,” Fudge warned. “They wonder if they can afford to keep a roof over their head — and still manage to keep their lights on, to pay for their prescriptions, to put food on their tables.”
Industry experts say the pace of price growth is set to slow as supply begins to catch up with demand.
The number of existing-home sales rose 1.4 per cent month on month in June, according to the National Association of Realtors. Lawrence Yun, chief economist at the industry body, said supply had “modestly improved in recent months due to more housing starts and existing homeowners listing their homes, all of which has resulted in an uptick in sales”.
Real estate experts and economists surveyed by Zillow expect price growth to peak this year and then ebb.
“At a broad level, home prices are in no danger of a decline due to tight inventory conditions, but I do expect prices to appreciate at a slower pace by the end of the year,” Yun said.
Daryl Fairweather, chief economist at Redfin, said “homes that would have gotten 20 offers are now getting only two or three”.
But she added that while “we are already seeing demand start to stagnate”, prices were not coming down significantly — suggesting that policymakers’ concerns about affordability are likely to persist.
Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell recently said that today’s trend looked distinctly different to the one a decade ago that pre-empted what was at the time the worst recession since the Great Depression — but he called the problem of housing affordability “a big one”.
“Housing prices are moving up across the country at a high rate,” he told a congressional committee last month.
Although he acknowledged that it was “not being driven by the kind of reckless, irresponsible lending that led to the housing bubble that led to the last financial crisis”, he warned that it “makes it more difficult for entry-level buyers to get into the housing market, so that is a concern”.
Square’s $29bn bet on Afterpay heralds future for ‘buy now, pay later’ trend
Jack Dorsey’s biggest gamble to date has sent ripples around the fintech and banking world, with investors betting that Square’s $29bn all-stock deal to acquire Afterpay signals the “buy now, pay later” trend has staying power.
BNPL relies on an emerging thesis that millennials and Gen Z consumers distrust traditional credit, but still want to borrow money to buy goods. Afterpay allows shoppers to split the cost of goods into four instalments with no interest — but a late fee if payments are missed.
“We think we’re in the early days of the opportunity facing us,” said Square’s chief financial officer Amrita Ahuja, speaking to the Financial Times. “From a buy now, pay later perspective, we see, with online payments alone, a large and growing opportunity representing $10tn in payments volume by 2024.”
The deal sees Square join an increasingly crowded space, alongside big players such as Sweden’s Klarna, Silicon Valley-based Affirm and PayPal, with Apple also exploring the market. The sector also faces a brewing regulatory battle, as legislators question an industry that lends money in an instant, often without a traditional credit check to ensure a consumer will be able to pay off their debt.
“This decade is going to be the upheaval of the banking industry,” Klarna’s chief executive Sebastian Siemiatkowski, said on CNBC on Monday. “I’m a little bit surprised to see consolidation happening this early, at this level, but at the same point in time I think this is directionally what we’re going to see.”
BNPL has exploded in popularity over the past year thanks to the coronavirus pandemic-driven boom in online shopping, but industry executives said it had shown strong growth well before the pandemic, alongside a broader trend for more flexible financing among traditional lenders.
Leading into 2020, banks including JPMorgan Chase, American Express and Citigroup each launched flexible payment options tied to existing credit cards as an answer to point-of-sale financing.
The past 18 months have seen a meaningful uptick in the number of retailers willing to adopt the extra financing option. “There’s a little bit of FOMO setting in,” said Brendan Coughlin from Citizens Financial Group.
Afterpay was among the pioneers in BNPL. It was founded by Sydney neighbours Nick Molnar and Anthony Eisen in 2014, and today facilitates global annual sales of $15.6bn.
The company went public on the Australian Securities Exchange in 2016 at a valuation of A$165m (US$122m). In May 2020, Chinese tech giant Tencent paid about A$300m for a 5 per cent stake in the Australian group, which was by then worth about A$8bn.
For the latest news and views on fintech from the FT’s network of correspondents around the world, sign up to our weekly newsletter #fintechFT
The Afterpay tie-up will enable Square to offer BNPL services to its millions of merchants, who processed payments worth $38.8bn in its most recent quarter, while also tapping into Afterpay’s clients, which include Amazon and Target.
The company will also integrate Afterpay into its Cash App, which has about 70m users and is slowly being built out as a one-stop financial services shop for payments, cryptocurrency, saving and investing.
“All of a sudden, you’ve got probably the most compelling super app outside of China,” said DA Davidson’s Chris Brendler, who is an investor in both companies.
Investors appear convinced. Despite the deal coming at a 30 per cent premium to Afterpay’s most recent stock price, the news sent Square’s share price up 10 per cent by Monday’s close.
“This is certainly a bull market deal,” said Andrew Atherton, managing director at Union Square Advisors. “People are rewarding Jack Dorsey for being bold and for making a big bet.”
Square’s entry into BNPL comes as the sector is becoming increasingly competitive.
Klarna increased its valuation from $11bn in September 2020 to $46bn in June of this year, making it the most valuable standalone company in the industry.
Shares in Affirm, the US online lender led by PayPal co-founder Max Levchin, rose 15 per cent on Monday following news of the Afterpay deal. Affirm, which went public in January and is now valued at $17bn, recently expanded its partnership with Shopify to offer BNPL services to the ecommerce platform’s US merchants.
PayPal first moved into BNPL back in 2008 when its then-parent eBay bought Bill Me Later. A year ago, PayPal launched Pay in 4, a six-week instalment offering that is free for both consumers and merchants, alongside its longer-term PayPal Credit service.
Earlier this year, Apple was recruiting staff for its payments division with experience in BNPL, as it looks to expand Apple Pay and its Wallet app. Bloomberg reported last month that the iPhone maker was working with Goldman Sachs to develop an Apple Pay Later service.
Industry executives warn, however, that the more crowded market could erode the businesses’ margins, while flustered consumers may also be put off by the rapidly growing number of checkout options.
“The current state of affairs, where you have seven buttons when you go to checkout, I don’t think is a sustainable state of affairs,” said one consumer finance executive at a top US bank. “I think we are in an interim period.”
A bigger threat still is the sector’s immature and inconsistent regulatory environment.
“It’s what everyone is calling the Wild West,” said Alyson Clarke, an analyst at Forrester. “There is no onus on them to make sure that you are of financial health to be able to repay that loan.”
Some companies do a “soft” credit check that briefly examines a person’s position but “not as much as they should be doing if they are lending you money”, Clarke said. “Afterpay doesn’t do any of that.”
A survey of Australian consumers, compiled by the country’s financial regulator in 2020, suggested 21 per cent of BNPL users missed a payment in the previous 12 months. Almost half of them were aged 18 to 29. Morgan Stanley analysts have estimated Afterpay makes about $70m a year on late fees.
The UK’s financial regulator has said BNPL players should be forced to adhere to its credit rules as a “matter of urgency”. In the US, a government consumer protection agency issued guidance urging caution around “tempting” BNPL deals.
In a hint at further possible tensions, Capital One in December became the first major credit card company to block its customers from using its cards to pay off BNPL purchases, calling the practice “risky for customers and the banks that serve them”, according to Reuters.
Afterpay board member Dana Stalder said the company welcomed regulation. “Buy now, pay later is just a friendlier consumer product,” he said. “Consumers understand that, they’re not dumb. This is why they are voting with their feet.”
Additional reporting by Richard Milne
UK pushes floating wind farms in drive to meet climate targets
In waters 15km south-east of Aberdeen, renewable energy companies are preparing to celebrate yet another landmark in the drive to end Britain’s reliance on fossil fuels.
Five wind turbines, each taller than the Gherkin building in the City of London, fixed to 3,000-tonne buoyant platforms have been towed to the UK North Sea from Rotterdam where they will form part of the Kincardine array, the world’s biggest “floating” offshore wind farm.
Wind farm developers have dabbled since the 2000s with floating technology to overcome the limitations of conventional offshore turbines. These are mounted on structures fixed to the seabed and are difficult to install beyond depths of 60m, which makes them unsuitable for waters further from shore where wind speeds are higher.
Floating projects, which are anchored to the seabed by mooring lines, are rapidly moving from the fringes to the mainstream as countries turn to the technology to help meet challenging climate targets.
Britain was the first country to install a floating offshore wind farm off the coast of Peterhead, Scotland in 2017. But existing floating projects are modest in size. The Kincardine array has an electricity generation capacity of 50MW compared to 3.6GW for the world’s largest conventional offshore wind farm.
Now the bigger wind developers are stepping up a gear with plans to build more schemes on a larger scale.
Denmark’s Orsted, Germany’s RWE, Norway’s Equinor along with the UK’s ScottishPower and Royal Dutch Shell are some of companies on a long list of bidders vying to build floating schemes in an auction of seabed rights for about 10GW of offshore wind projects in Scottish waters. The bidding round closed in mid-July with the winners expected to be announced in early 2022.
The UK is separately examining an auction exclusively for floating wind in the Celtic Sea, the area of the Atlantic Ocean west of the Bristol Channel and the approaches to the English Channel and south of the Republic of Ireland.
Developers expect the costs of floating projects to fall rapidly as more projects are deployed. In 2018 floating wind costs were estimated at more than €200 per megawatt hour, nearly double the cost of nuclear power in the UK.
The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, a UK technology and research centre, is hopeful developers will be able to build “subsidy free” floating projects at prices below forecast wholesale electricity costs in auctions as early as 2029. Conventional offshore wind developers reached this inflection point in a UK government auction in 2019.
UK prime minister Boris Johnson, who is hosting the UN’s COP26 climate summit later this year, has set a 1GW floating target out of a total 40GW offshore wind goal by 2030. He has underlined the importance of accessing the “windiest parts of our seas” as part of the UK’s goal to cut carbon emissions to net zero by 2050.
Other countries including France, Norway, Spain, the US and Japan are pursuing the technology, which experts said would particularly appeal to countries with limited access to shallow waters, or where the geology of the seabed makes it impossible to install conventional “fixed-bottom” turbines.
WindEurope, an industry body, predicts one-third of all offshore wind turbines installed in Europe by 2050 could be floating.
Countries pursuing floating wind are interested in it “not just as an opportunity to deliver net-zero targets. It has a real potential to be a driver of economic growth as well,” said Ralph Torr, a programme manager at the Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult.
Much like how the UK supply chain has lost out to foreign companies in the construction of conventional wind offshore farms — despite Britain having more than anywhere else in the world — there are concerns the mistakes will be repeated for floating technology. Manufacturing work for the Kincardine project was carried out in Spain and Portugal and the turbines and foundations assembled in Rotterdam.
Competition with other markets was already high as they all tried to gain a “first-mover advantage”, said Torr, who warned the UK government’s 1GW floating wind target by 2030 was not “going to unlock huge investment in the supply chain or infrastructure because it’s [just] a handful of projects”.
The Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult and developers are urging the government to commit to a second target in 2040 for floating wind, which they believe would provide confidence to industry to invest in the necessary facilities in Britain.
“Because floating [wind] becomes economic in the 2030s, it’d be much better to understand what the longer term pipeline is,” said Tom Glover, UK country chair at RWE. He added that in the Scottish seabed rights auction, developers had to “provide a commitment and an ambition for Scottish content”, which should benefit the local supply chain.
Wind developers are conscious that UK suppliers need time to gear up. Christoph Harwood, director of policy and strategy at Simply Blue Energy, which is developing a 96MW floating scheme off the coast of Pembroke in Wales, said projects that were larger than the earliest floating schemes but were not yet at a full commercial scale would be important in that process.
Twice weekly newsletter
Energy is the world’s indispensable business and Energy Source is its newsletter. Every Tuesday and Thursday, direct to your inbox, Energy Source brings you essential news, forward-thinking analysis and insider intelligence. Sign up here.
“If the UK supply chain is to benefit from floating wind, don’t rush into 1GW projects, take some stepping stones towards them,” he said.
Tim Cornelius, chief executive of the Global Energy Group, which carries out offshore wind assembly work at the Port of Nigg on the Cromarty Firth in north-east Scotland, said the size of floating wind turbines offered opportunities to UK suppliers.
The floating turbines are much bigger than their conventional offshore counterparts so need to be built closer to their point of installation, which precludes using the lowest cost manufacturers in China and the Middle East.
The floating turbines require “an astonishing amount” of deepwater quayside space at ports, Cornelius explained. His company is looking at creating an artificial island for quaysides in the Cromarty Firth in Scotland, which he says would require a “material investment but is entirely justifiable as long as developers are prepared to commit”.
But he warned that “as it currently stands, the [UK] supply chain isn’t in a position to be able to support the aspirations of the [floating offshore wind] industry”.
Where climate change meets business, markets and politics. Explore the FT’s coverage here.
Are you curious about the FT’s environmental sustainability commitments? Find out more about our science-based targets here
‘It has never been like this’: US house price spiral worries policymakers
What’s in a name? DWS eyes ESG refresh for funds
India tech IPO boom to provide crucial test of investor appetite
Italy’s government in crisis as Renzi ministers resign
Macron’s war on ‘Islamic separatism’ only divides France further
US allows sales of chips to Huawei’s non-5G businesses
Europe7 months ago
Italy’s government in crisis as Renzi ministers resign
Europe9 months ago
Macron’s war on ‘Islamic separatism’ only divides France further
Emerging Markets9 months ago
US allows sales of chips to Huawei’s non-5G businesses
Europe8 months ago
European truckmakers to phase out diesel sales decade earlier than planned
Emerging Markets10 months ago
Mexico’s Supreme Court approves referendum on presidential trials
Company9 months ago
Most investors now expect the U.S. stock market to crash like it did in October 1987 — why that’s good news
Markets10 months ago
Two top Morgan Stanley commodities traders lose jobs over use of WhatsApp
Emerging Markets9 months ago
Arrest of Mexican general in US shakes López Obrador at home and abroad