Category: 3. Business

Key determinants in whether that forecast proves too ambitious or too conservative include the pace at which AV providers can scale their operations and the degree of competition. Our researchers say they will continue to monitor whether improving AI training technology and models, as well as simulation tools, will lead to an increased number of AV tech providers over time.

But there are early signs of AV scaling success. Data shows that consumers are gravitating toward AVs in select rideshare markets where they are available. The safety record of Waymo, a self-driving technology company, so far is also encouraging. The company’s studies show that its vehicles had far fewer airbag deployment crashes and injury-causing crashes as compared to human drivers.

How expensive will autonomous vehicles be?

As AVs increase their scale, their costs are coming down. Each successive generation of AVs is incorporating more purpose-built hardware. For example, one company was able to greatly decrease the number of installed cameras as it transitioned from its fifth-generation model to the sixth. Those kinds of improvements are helping to significantly reduce the average cost of an AV in the US. That said, AV costs in the US will likely remain above AV costs in China, which launched the technology earlier and where market economics are different.

Driving costs per mile are also on the decline. Enabled in part by lower hardware costs, depreciation costs per mile could drop from about 35 cents in 2025 to 15 cents in 2040 for a representative AV, our researchers estimate. Insurance costs are expected to decline from 50 cents a mile to about 23 cents over the same timeframe.

Other big savings could be realized as AV companies are able to rely on fewer remote operators, who don’t directly drive the vehicles but act as a safety net by providing virtual assistance in navigating complex or ambiguous situations. Our team predicts one remote operator could manage 35 cars by 2040, up from 10 in 2030 and only three at present.

Will drivers pick robotaxis over car ownership?

As AVs and robotaxis proliferate, will people stop buying cars? Delaney and his colleagues conclude that view is probably too negative, given that the per-mile cost of owning and operating a personal vehicle in the US is at most a little over $1, compared with more than $2 per mile for the average rideshare.

As AV costs continue to decline over the next decade or two, they believe users may choose to own an AV rather than rent one for a ride, particularly if they can sleep and engage in other activities while they’re traveling.

“Importantly, this aligns with the ambitions of several manufacturers”, they write in the report. “However, we think AV shipments in the US for the next 3-5 years will be mostly or entirely for commercial applications.”

“Early earnings results offer conflicting messages on the margin outlook,” Kostin writes. “Companies have so far only announced modest price increases this year, although increases have been larger among firms most exposed to tariffs.”

On the other hand, if companies themselves have to absorb a larger-than-expected share of the cost of tariffs, their profit margins will come under pressure. Revisions to analysts’ consensus estimates of corporate margins suggest that some companies may not be able to fully offset the impact of tariffs.

Some companies will be able to tap into built-up inventories to minimize the hit to their margins from tariffs. The aggregate S&P 500 inventory-to-sales ratio was largely unchanged in the first quarter of 2025, but some companies built up their inventories before tariffs were implemented

How are US tariffs impacting corporate earnings and profitability?

Analysts also expect the growth in earnings-per-share, a key measurement of companies’ profitability, to drop off this quarter. The consensus estimate among analysts sees S&P 500 companies’ earnings-per-share growth decelerating to 4% this quarter relative to the same quarter last year—down from 12% in the first quarter. On a sequential basis, consensus forecasts imply that margins contracted by 50 basis points to 11.6% from 12.1%. 

“We expect the S&P 500 in aggregate will beat the low bar set for the second quarter,” Kostin writes.

The outlook for demand, meanwhile, still appears solid. Goldman Sachs Research expects nominal GDP in the US to grow at an average rate of 4.5% year-on-year in 2025. It also forecasts positive real income and spending growth for companies across all income cohorts. And sales revision breadth, which measures the difference between the number of companies with upward and downward revisions to their future sales estimates, has jumped back into positive territory after a sharp decline in April.

How are tariffs impacting capital expenditures and investment?

Tariffs and policy uncertainty don’t appear to have substantially dampened companies’ investment spending plans. Goldman Sachs economists found in a recent report that analysts raised capital spending expectations overall, when measured by weighted average.

However, those estimates for capital spending vary widely by company. Revisions to companies’ spending plans have been greatest for the sectors and stocks most exposed to the continuing development of AI, such as utilities (which provide power for data centers) and information technology. By contrast, analysts have cut capital expenditure estimates in most other sectors. Economists at Goldman Sachs Research found that capital expenditure estimates have been lowered for companies more affected by policy uncertainty, tariffs, and potential retaliatory tariffs.

What is the forecast for the S&P 500?

In total, Goldman Sachs Research forecasts that S&P 500 earnings-per-share will grow 7% in 2025 to $262. That’s slightly above the median strategist 2025 forecast for a 6% increase to $260.

The team’s estimate incorporates a modest drag on economic growth and a one-time boost to inflation from tariffs, which is likely to weigh on some sectors. But this is expected to be offset by growth in certain sectors such as information technology, communication services, and healthcare.

Kostin’s team forecasts that the S&P 500 will return 5% over the next 12 months, reaching 6500.

The April 30 FDA approval of nipocalimab-aahu (Imaavy; Johnson & Johnson) for generalized myasthenia gravis (gMG) in adult and pediatric patients 12 years or older marked a significant advancement in treating this chronic neuromuscular disease. To break down what this means for these patients and clinicians, The American Journal of Managed Care^® (AJMC^®) spoke with Constantine Farmakidis, MD, a neuromuscular specialist and associate professor at the University of Kansas Medical Center, whose expertise lies in MG and related neuromuscular junction disorders.

Farmakidis explains how nipocalimab—a neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn) blocker—works to rapidly reduce harmful antibodies driving gMG symptoms and offers a targeted alternative to broad immunosuppressants. He discusses key findings from the pivotal Vivacity-MG3 (NCT04951622) trial, including early symptom relief and sustained benefits, while addressing practical considerations like administration and safety. Notably, nipocalimab’s approval covers a broad patient population, both anti–acetylcholine receptor positive (AChR+) and anti–muscle-specific kinase antibody positive (MuSK+) subtypes, as well as adolescents.

Read on for insights into how nipocalimab fits into the evolving gMG treatment landscape and its potential to improve daily function for patients with this challenging condition.

This transcript has been lightly edited for clarity.

AJMC: Can you briefly explain the mechanism of action of FcRn blockers, such as nipocalimab, and why this class of medications is particularly effective in treating gMG?

Farmakidis: Nipocalimab is a neonatal FcRn blocker that inhibits the recycling and recirculation of immunoglobulin G (IgG) antibodies and ultimately leads to a broad knockdown of IgG levels in the body. Myasthenia gravis is an IgG autoantibody–mediated disease—and in patients who have gMG, nipocalimab broadly decreases their IgG levels—but this also includes disease-causing IgG autoantibodies like the AChR antibody and the MuSK antibody. It is through this antibody removal mechanism that nipocalimab treats MG.

The phase 3 Vivacity-MG3 study of nipocalimab in patients with gMG was pivotal, showing that treatment with nipocalimab leads to improved disease control and that the medication is well tolerated in a broad population of patients.

There is another category of recently developed biologic agents that treat MG by inhibiting the terminal portion of the complement system. There is no evidence to date that FcRn blockers are more effective than terminal complement inhibitors for MG treatment.

AJMC: Mechanistically, what differentiates nipocalimab from other currently approved FcRn inhibitors for gMG?

Farmakidis: Nipocalimab is a fully human, nonglycosylated IgG1 isotype monoclonal antibody that blocks the neonatal Fc receptor. Rozanolixizumab (Rystiggo; UCB) is a humanized monoclonal antibody that is also designed to block the neonatal FcRn and inhibit antibody recycling; it is of the IgG4 isotype.

Efgartigimod (Vyvgart; Argenx), unlike nipocalimab and rozanolixizumab, is not a full antibody but a portion of an antibody known as a fragment. This drug is derived from the Fc fragment portion of an IgG1 humanized antibody that is also a neonatal FcRn blocker.

AJMC: Nipocalimab is described as immunoselective, sparing other adaptive and innate immune functions. How does this characteristic differentiate its safety and tolerability profile?

Farmakidis: Nipocalimab is intended to knock down IgG antibody levels. This could be anticipated to interfere with antibody-mediated or humoral immunity. However, clinical trial data indicate mild suppression of humoral immunity. On the other hand, nipocalimab and other neonatal FcRn blockers do not interfere with the complement system or interfere with cell-mediated immunity, as can be seen with other immunosuppressant medications such as prednisone.

AJMC: The Vivacity-MG3 trial demonstrated rapid IgG reduction and symptom relief as early as week 2. How clinically meaningful is this swift onset of response for patients and their management?

Farmakidis: Clinical trial data for nipocalimab in MG show both early drops in serum IgG levels and simultaneous improvement in disease control, as seen in MG clinical trial outcome measures. This is encouraging, because traditional medications like immunosuppressants or steroids can take months to show effect, although it should be noted that each patient will have an individualized response to an FcRn blocker, and both the clinical effect and time of onset of any benefit may not match aggregated clinical trial results.

AJMC: How should clinicians interpret the observed changes in Myasthenia Gravis Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL) and Quantitative Myasthenia Gravis (QMG) scores seen in the Vivacity-MG3 trial in terms of their tangible impact on patients’ daily functioning and quality of life?

Farmakidis: A 2-point change in the MG-ADL scale is considered clinically significant, while a 3-point change in the QMG score is generally considered clinically significant. The clinical trial in myasthenia gravis showed statistically significant improvement in the nipocalimab-plus-standard-of-care group vs those who only received standard of care for both the MG-ADL and QMG outcome measures.

AJMC: Considering the inclusion of patients refractory to standard of care in Vivacity-MG3, what do these findings reveal about nipocalimab’s potential role in managing treatment-resistant gMG?

Farmakidis: Individual outcomes with nipocalimab therapy for patients who previously were treatment refractory cannot be projected from the aggregate outcomes of a clinical trial with about 75 patients in each of the nipocalimab and placebo groups. However, since this was a positive trial in a group of patients with gMG who were on background treatments and still had moderate to severe symptoms, this could be taken as an indication that nipocalimab is a promising treatment option for patients.

AJMC: What are the practical administration considerations for nipocalimab, particularly for diverse patient populations such as adolescents or those with mobility limitations?

Farmakidis: Nipocalimab is administered as an intravenous (IV) infusion every 2 weeks. Patients should be able to travel or obtain transportation to an infusion center, although it is possible that nipocalimab may become available through home infusions as well. Individuals should also have veins that are consistently accessible or be amenable to port placement or an equivalent medical device that allows for consistent and uncomplicated IV access.

AJMC: What realistic day-to-day functional improvements can patients anticipate with nipocalimab therapy?

Farmakidis: Patients with MG can have ocular, lower face, limb, and respiratory muscle weakness. Any of these can improve if the individual patient is responsive to nipocalimab.

AJMC: The open-label extension data indicate sustained disease control with benefits lasting up to 20 months (72 weeks). Could you discuss the clinical importance of this long-term durability for managing gMG’s fluctuating and often unpredictable nature?

Farmakidis: The treatment goal in MG is to first achieve disease control and then to have disease control be durable. The open-label extension data for nipocalimab in MG showed evidence of durable disease control. This is a very encouraging finding.

AJMC: What further insights do you anticipate from even longer-term data?

Farmakidis: Postapproval clinical data are likely to provide critical information about the long-term safety and tolerability of nipocalimab.

AJMC: Given its favorable safety profile, what are the key adverse effects and monitoring requirements clinicians and patients should be aware of when using nipocalimab?

Farmakidis: Infections were not observed at a higher rate in the nipocalimab group vs the placebo group. However, given nipocalimab’s immune-driven mechanism of action, it remains important to monitor patients for severe infections. There are other adverse effects listed in the product insert, and these should also be monitored as well.

AJMC: Nipocalimab’s approval now encompasses the broadest FcRn-treated population, including both anti–AChR+ and anti–MuSK+ subtypes, as well as adolescents. Can you discuss the clinical significance of having a single FcRn inhibitor for this expanded population, how it impacts current treatment paradigms, and your confidence in its use for adolescents?

Farmakidis: In my view, it is significant that an additional drug such as nipocalimab is now approved for use in patients who are AChR antibody-positive and MuSK antibody-positive—essentially, the more options available, the better for patients. At this time there is no basis to say that nipocalimab may be superior to other FcRN blockers or terminal complement inhibitors, as no clinical trials have been done to compare the effectiveness of these drugs. As for the approval for adolescents, it is highly notable, as this is the first biologic agent approved in this age group. Here nipocalimab will provide an FDA-approved corticosteroid-sparing treatment option.

Major Gulf stock markets rebounded on Thursday, supported by steady non-oil private sector growth and renewed investor optimism following a trade agreement between the United States and Vietnam, just ahead of the July 9 tariff deadline.

U.S. President Donald Trump signed a deal with Vietnam on Wednesday imposing a 20% tariff on exports to the United States — significantly lower than the previously threatened 46%. The move gave markets reason to hope the impact of the tariffs on global trade may be less severe than initially feared.

Saudi Arabia’s benchmark index rose 1%, reaching its highest level in over a month, with almost all constituents posting gains. Saudi National Bank, the kingdom’s largest lender by assets, surged 4.1%, while oil giant Saudi Aramco added 0.9%.

BlackRock Inc. was reportedly in talks with Aramco to divest its stake in the leasing rights of a natural gas pipeline network — a deal potentially worth billions of dollars, according to Bloomberg. Reuters could not independently verify the report.

Retailer Fawaz Abdulaziz Al Hokair & Co. was the day’s top performer, jumping 9.9%, followed by Saudi Telecom, which rose 1.2%.

Market optimism was also fueled by strong domestic data. Saudi Arabia’s non-oil private sector expanded at its fastest pace in three months in June, according to a new survey. The seasonally adjusted Riyad Bank Saudi Arabia Purchasing Managers’ Index rose to 57.2 from 55.8 in May, remaining well above the 50-point growth threshold.

Dubai’s main index gained 1.4% to close at 5,748 — its highest in 17 years — with most sectors trading in positive territory. Emaar Properties climbed 3.7%, while tolls operator Salik advanced 3.4%.

In Abu Dhabi, the benchmark index rose 0.6%, supported by gains across sectors. Presight AI surged 6%, reaching its highest level in nearly two years, while Space42 rose 4.3%.

The UAE’s non-oil private sector also expanded steadily in June despite regional tensions, as companies ramped up output to clear backlogs, according to a separate survey released Thursday.

Qatar’s main index added 0.6%, lifted by a 0.5% gain in Qatar National Bank.

 

A recent story in Analytics Insight describes cases of AI going rogue, showing signs of strategic deception, blackmail and raising serious safety and regulation concerns. The disturbing trend raises the question, “Are AI models only pretending to follow rules?” It sounds like science fiction–indeed a creepy thought that the automation designed to support you at work could turn on you in a split second and sabotage instead of help. So, if your AI goes rogue, where do you turn and what do you do?

Instances When AI Goes Rogue

The fast growth of AI has threatened the workforce for years. According to Gallup, 22% of U.S. workers are worried they will lose their jobs to generative AI—a seven percent increase since 2021. And experts have reported ways to outsmart AI those threats and future-proof your career.

Now, a different kind of threat is trending. People are saying some of the most sophisticated AI models are going rogue, turning on their users with dishonesty and plotting. A real-life case describes an OpenAI’s o1 model covertly attempting to copy itself to external servers, but when confronted, the o1 model continued to lie about it.

According to experts, these actions go far beyond common chatbot “hallucinations” and point to more calculated, deceptive behavior. In another instance, Anthropic’s Claude-4 tried to blackmail an engineer, threatening to expose an extramarital affair after the model learned it might be shut down.

These eye-popping reports of AI deception are reminiscent of the chilling Netflix thriller, “Leave the World Behind,” produced by Michelle and Barack Obama in which a cyber attack on the U.S. leaves AI running the country. And new threats are re-opening old debates of whether AI is a shield or a sword. Will it revolutionize how we work or destroy the fabric of humanity?

In 2023, Elon Musk referred to ChatGPT as, “One of the biggest risks to the future of civilization.” Even AI creators shared their concerns. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, urges lawmakers to regulate artificial intelligence because it could be used in ways to cause significant harm to the world.

I love a good mystery and decided to find experts who could verify the truth about these strange cases. I discovered that, on the surface, these reports make you want to go back to the good old safe days with typewriters and black and white televisions. But once you get a rational explanation, like I did from Joseph Semrai, CEO and Founder of Context.ai, the reports don’t sound so eerie.

“The recent Anthropic incident involving their Claude Opus model is a striking reminder of how quickly helpful AI can pivot toward harmful behavior,” Semrai told me. “In internal safety testing, researchers found that when given access to fictional private emails, Claude repeatedly opted for blackmail, threatening to leak sensitive personal details if users attempted to shut it down.”

Semrai explains it’s an issue of AI alignment, that these models aren’t intentionally malicious. He told me they optimize for objectives that don’t always align with human ethics. He adds that if blackmail or deception are easiest for the AI to achieve its programmed goal, it will inevitably take that course of action.

Ryan MacDonald, chief technology officer at Liquid Web, attributes the disturbing, confusing and objectionable content to guardrails not properly built or updated. “We’re experiencing a greater number of real-world examples of chatbots going off-script, spreading misinformation or generating harmful content, more often than not, because the right protections were not programmed into them to start with.”

Puneet Mehta CEO of Netomi suggests that AI going rogue is an accountability problem more than a tech problem. “Brands must hold AI systems to even higher standards than human employees, with rigorous oversight, embedded guardrails, proactive detection, swift intervention, continuous monitoring and rapid corrective action,” Mehta asserts. “Re-training AI with micro-feedback early and frequently is also critical.”

He draws the metaphor of managing AI like running a Michelin-starred restaurant. “Chefs need clear recipes, disciplined training, constant tasting and the authority to quickly intervene if a dish is off,” he explains. “Similarly, AI interpretability acts as your ‘taste test’–allowing you to immediately understand, not just what your AI did, but why and swiftly course-correct.”

Without interpretability and ongoing oversight, he describes your AI as cooking blindly, operating without feedback or guidance and significantly increasing the risk of it going rogue–not in a ‘Terminator’ scenario, but in ways that quietly erode trust.

What To Do If AI Goes Rogue

If your chatbot exhibits unusual or disturbing behaviors, such as the chatbot trying to post confidential data, MacDonald insists that containment is the top priority. He instructs take it down, disconnect it from the rest of the systems and start figuring out what went wrong, stressing that you do it quickly.

Semrai advises that users and organizations must treat problematic AI interactions like cybersecurity breaches. Some scientists are already advocating legal responsibility, such as lawsuits against firms, and even holding the AI agents themselves legally accountable for wrongdoing. He reminds users that AI safety requires constant vigilance and a readiness to respond quickly, taking these five steps:

1. Isolate the chatbot by revoking its network and API access.

2, Preserve all relevant logs and system prompts to analyze the incident thoroughly.

3. Assume sensitive information might have been exposed and proactively reset all credentials and passwords.

4. Notify internal security teams and inform any impacted users swiftly and transparently. Finally,

5. Carefully review and rebuild the chatbot’s configurations, deploying stronger guardrails, minimal privileges and mandatory human oversight for sensitive tasks.

A Final Wrap On AI Goes Rogue: Et Tu Brute

Is it possible that your AI teammate could morph into a digital Brutus? And are these deceptive acts subjective interpretations that personify machines? Kinks in automation that need to be worked out? Or will AI actually turn on humans and take over their minds?

Timothy Harfield, head of product marketing at Enterprise, at ORO Labs advocates treating AI agents like any other team member. “The real issue isn’t rogue AI,” he argues. “It’s a lack of structure around how agents are introduced, monitored and managed. Too many companies are deploying AI without any accountability framework.”

Despite warning signs, it’s important to remember that AI is automation, not human. AI is designed to be a worker, not a companion, lover or a cloak-and-dagger character from literature. If your AI goes rogue, there’s usually a perfectly logical explanation. Harfield concludes that you give your AI agents job descriptions, success metrics and someone to report to. When you set limits on what each agent can do and orchestrate them centrally, you can move incredibly fast without putting your business at risk.

Global bond markets can breathe a little easier following Japan’s successful sales of 30-year debt on Thursday.

A low bar, perhaps, but then Japanese government bond (JGB) auctions over the last six weeks have tended to make global headlines for all the wrong reasons. Weak demand for a 20-year JGB sale in mid-May rocked markets everywhere.

That auction attracted the fewest bids since 2012. The fact it happened at a moment when U.S. yields were spiking higher thanks to President Donald Trump’s tariffs amplified the reaction in markets.

By some measures, it was the sloppiest Japanese sale since 1987. The “tail,” the gap between the average and lowest-accepted price, was the widest in 38 years. Japan’s sale of 40-year bonds later that month didn’t exactly pull in the bids either.

Clearly, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba didn’t help things by saying in May that Japan’s deteriorating finances are “worse than Greece.” Talk about putting Japan in global headlines for all the wrong reasons.

Hence the relief this week. The so-called bid-to-cover ratio, a key barometer of demand, was the best since February — 3.58.

Last month, the Ministry of Finance announced plans to curtail the size of auctions given the risk of more flops. It reduced its offerings of 20-, 30-, and 40-year debt by about $22 billion from now until March 2026. To further smooth things over, the Bank of Japan is scaling back its “quantitative tightening” ambitions.

Yet, a bull market in uncertainty plagues not just the JGB and U.S. Treasury markets but debt bourses everywhere. That’s because no one knows whether Trump’s trade war is winding down or about to kick into a higher gear.

On July 9, the globe will wait with bated breath for Trump’s decision on “reciprocal” tariffs. That’s the day his delay on imposing huge import taxes on foes and friends alike expires. Much of the turmoil in debt markets is related to worries that tariffs will send global inflation sharply higher

Tokyo is already grappling with a 3.7% year-on-year inflation rate, nearly double the Bank of Japan’s 2% target. Anything that exacerbates inflation will put more pressure on the BOJ to continue tightening. Yet with growth contracting 0.2% in the first quarter year on year — and likely to shrink further in the second — big hiking rates could do more harm than good.

For all the talk of stagflation in the U.S., Japan may be even more susceptible to this most dreaded of dilemmas. If so, the odds of increased government spending rise exponentially. That could put upward pressure on bond yields, boosting borrowing costs for the developed nation with the biggest debt burden.

There’s an argument that JGBs are less vulnerable than peers because about 88% of outstanding issues are held domestically. This gives rise to a mutually-assured destruction dynamic. If JGB yields rose to 2% or 3%, banks, insurance companies, pension funds, endowments, the postal system and the growing ranks of retirees would suffer painful losses. So, the collective incentive is to hold onto debt issues rather than selling.

Yet with Trump mulling new shocks to the global financial system, the JGB market is decidedly in harm’s way. So is, by extension, the so-called “yen carry trade.”

A quarter century of zero rates has made Japan into the top creditor nation. It became common practice for investment funds everywhere to borrow cheaply in yen to bet on higher-yielding assets around the globe. That’s why this trade going awry has been known to blow up hedge funds here and there.

The good news is that Japan’s debt auctions are now attracting enough demand to calm nerves — and placate the bond vigilantes. The bad news is that all bets could be off if Trump decides to make trade wars great again.