Donald Trump calls on Intel chief to resign Financial Times
Intel shares drop after Trump calls for CEO to resign immediately CNBC
Trump Calls For ‘Highly Conflicted’ Intel CEO’s Resignation: ‘There Is No Other Solution’—Stock Falls Nearly 3% In Pre-Market – Intel (NASDAQ:INTC), Taiwan Semiconductor (NYSE:TSM) Benzinga
Trump calls for Intel CEO’s ouster amid alleged $200 million investments in Chinese chip firms MSN
ENGLEWOOD, Colo.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–
Liberty Media Corporation (“Liberty Media” or “Liberty”) (NASDAQ: FWONA, FWONK, LLYVA, LLYVK) today reported second quarter 2025 results. Headlines include(1):
Attributed to Formula One Group
Completed acquisition of MotoGP on July 3rd
Renewed agreement with Canadian Grand Prix through 2035 with a long-term extension to Bell Media’s media rights deal and renewed Austrian Grand Prix through 2041
Secured PepsiCo as new Official Partner of F1 through 2030 and extended Global Partnership with MSC Cruises through 2030
Announced new licensing agreement with Disney’s Mickey & Friends beginning in 2026
F1 The Movie opened globally on June 27th and is Apple’s highest-grossing film ever
Attributed to Liberty Live Group
Fair value of Live Nation investment was $10.5 billion as of June 30th
Filed preliminary proxy statement on July 25th, expect to complete split-off in fourth quarter 2025
“We made excellent progress since last quarter on our stated priorities, including completing the acquisition of MotoGP, advancing the split-off of Liberty Live and continuing excellent financial and operating results at Formula 1,” said Derek Chang, Liberty Media President & CEO. “Formula 1’s global strength continues to drive commercial momentum and financial success, with new partners signed and record fan engagement demonstrating the breadth and appeal of the brand. We are thrilled to begin our partnership with the MotoGP management team and, while early days, are working closely with them to support their strategic direction and accelerate the company’s growth.”
Corporate Updates
On July 3, 2025, Liberty Media completed the acquisition of Dorna Sports, S.L. (“MotoGP”), the exclusive commercial rights holder of the MotoGP™ World Championship, and will consolidate its financial results from that point forward. Following the acquisition, Liberty Media owns approximately 84% of MotoGP with MotoGP management retaining 16% of the business. MotoGP is attributed to the Formula One Group tracking stock. Due to the timing of the acquisition, the initial accounting for the acquisition is not reflected in the below financial results.
Discussion of Results
Unless otherwise noted, the following discussion compares financial information for the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 to the same period in 2024.
FORMULA ONE GROUP – The following table provides the financial results attributed to Formula One Group for the second quarter of 2025. In the second quarter, Formula One Group incurred $14 million of corporate level selling, general and administrative expense (including stock-based compensation expense).
For the periods presented below, the businesses and assets attributed to Formula One Group consist primarily of Liberty Media’s subsidiaries, F1 and Quint.
Three months ended
Six months ended
June 30,
June 30,
2024
2025
2024
2025
amounts in millions
amounts in millions
Formula One Group
Revenue
Formula 1
$
871
$
1,226
$
1,424
1,629
Corporate and other
141
145
185
198
Intergroup elimination
(24
)
(30
)
(34
)
(39
)
Total Formula One Group
$
988
$
1,341
$
1,575
1,788
Operating Income (Loss)
Formula 1
$
84
$
293
$
220
265
Corporate and other
(25
)
(13
)
(66
)
(52
)
Total Formula One Group
$
59
$
280
$
154
213
Adjusted OIBDA (Loss)
Formula 1
$
160
$
361
$
368
446
Corporate and other
5
8
(1
)
(4
)
Total Formula One Group
$
165
$
369
$
367
442
F1 Operating Results
“This season has showcased phenomenal racing, with multiple teams and drivers competing at the very highest level. The F1 movie from Apple debuted to well-deserved accolades, marking the largest box office theatrical release for any streaming service and captivating audiences of both core and new F1 fans alike. Cultural moments like the F1 movie alongside exciting on-track action are generating strong viewership trends and especially robust social and digital engagement, including a record number of social impressions delivered by content posted on official F1 channels. Thanks to the efforts of our teams, partners and the F1 community, we are driving excellent momentum at Formula 1 on and off the track,” said Stefano Domenicali, Formula 1 President and CEO.
The following table provides the operating results of Formula 1 (“F1”).
Team payments, excluding Concorde incentive payments
(435
)
(513
)
(18
)%
(598
)
(627
)
(5
)%
Other cost of Formula 1 revenue
(210
)
(274
)
(30
)%
(333
)
(402
)
(21
)%
Cost of Formula 1 revenue, excluding Concorde incentive payments
$
(645
)
$
(787
)
(22
)%
$
(931
)
$
(1,029
)
(11
)%
Selling, general and administrative expenses
(66
)
(78
)
(18
)%
(125
)
(154
)
(23
)%
Adjusted OIBDA
$
160
$
361
126
%
$
368
$
446
21
%
Concorde incentive payments
—
—
NM
—
(50
)
NM
Stock-based compensation
(1
)
—
NM
(1
)
—
NM
Depreciation and Amortization(a)
(75
)
(68
)
9
%
(147
)
(131
)
11
%
Operating income (loss)
$
84
$
293
249
%
$
220
$
265
20
%
____________________
a)
Includes $61 million and $50 million of amortization related to purchase accounting for the three months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025, respectively, that is excluded from calculations for purposes of team payments, and $123 million and $100 million of amortization related to purchase accounting for the six months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025, respectively, that is excluded from calculations for purposes of team payments.
Primary F1 revenue represents the majority of F1’s revenue and is derived from (i) race promotion revenue, (ii) media rights fees and (iii) sponsorship fees.
There were nine races held in the second quarter of 2025 compared to eight races held in the second quarter of 2024. There were 11 races held year-to-date through the second quarter of both 2025 and 2024. The 2025 calendar is scheduled to have the same 24 events that were held in 2024, except in a different order throughout the season, which will impact the year-over-year revenue and cost comparisons on a quarterly basis.
Primary F1 revenue increased in the three months ended June 30, 2025 primarily due to the calendar variance compared to the prior year, which drove additional race promotion revenue and higher sponsorship and media rights revenue with a larger proportion of season-based income recognized during the period, as well as contractual increases in fees across all primary revenue streams. Sponsorship revenue also benefitted from revenue recognized from new sponsors. Media rights revenue also increased due to continued growth in F1 TV subscriptions and the recognition of one-time revenue associated with the release of the F1 movie. Other F1 revenue increased in the second quarter primarily due to higher hospitality and experiences revenue and growth in licensing income. The increase in hospitality and experiences revenue was driven by underlying Paddock Club growth as well as one additional event and the mix of races held. The calendar variance and mix of events also led to higher revenue from travel, technical and freight services in the second quarter.
Primary F1 revenue increased in the six months ended June 30, 2025 with growth across all revenue streams compared to the prior year. Sponsorship revenue grew due to revenue recognized from new sponsors and growth in revenue from existing contracts. Media rights revenue grew due to contractual increases in fees, continued growth in F1 TV subscriptions and the recognition of one-time revenue associated with the release of the F1 movie. Race promotion revenue increased due to contractual increases in fees and growth in other support race fees. Other F1 revenue increased in the six months ended June 30, 2025 primarily driven by higher freight income due to the different routes flown and the pass through of increased freight costs, higher hospitality from growing attendance at Paddock Clubs and growth in revenue from licensing.
Operating income and Adjusted OIBDA(2) grew in the three and six months ended June 30, 2025. Team payments increased for both periods due to the pro rata recognition of expected higher team payments for the full year. Other cost of F1 revenue is largely variable in nature and derived from servicing both Primary and Other F1 revenue opportunities. These costs increased for both the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 due to higher freight costs associated with the different order of events, higher commissions and partner servicing costs linked to underlying revenue growth, higher Paddock Club costs due to increased attendance, increased costs to service new sponsors, higher costs of delivering F1 TV to a growing subscriber base and expense associated with the Grand Prix Plaza in Las Vegas, which launched new activations and other events in the second quarter. Growth in other cost of F1 revenue in the three months ended June 30, 2025 was also impacted by the additional race held, which impacted costs of the Paddock Club, technical, travel and freight services. Selling, general and administrative expense increased in the three and six months ended June 30, 2025 primarily due to higher personnel and marketing expense, including marketing costs associated with the 75th season launch event at London’s The O2 in the six-month period.
Corporate and Other Operating Results
Corporate and Other Adjusted OIBDA includes the rental income related to Grand Prix Plaza in Las Vegas, Quint results and other corporate overhead for the second quarter of 2025 and the prior year period. Corporate and Other revenue increased in the second quarter due to Quint results. There was $6 million of rental income related to Grand Prix Plaza in Las Vegas in the second quarter of both 2025 and 2024. In the second quarter, Quint results were primarily driven by F1 Experiences across the nine races held and the Kentucky Derby. Quint’s revenue is seasonal around its largest events, which are generally during the second and fourth quarters.
LIBERTY LIVE GROUP – In the second quarter, $7 million of corporate level selling, general and administrative expense (including stock-based compensation expense) was allocated to Liberty Live Group.
The businesses and assets attributed to Liberty Live Group consist of Liberty Media’s interest in Live Nation and other minority investments.
Share Repurchases
There were no repurchases of Liberty Media’s common stock from May 1 through July 31, 2025. The total remaining repurchase authorization for Liberty Media as of August 1, 2025 is $1.1 billion and can be applied to repurchases of common shares of any of the Liberty Media tracking stocks.
FOOTNOTES
1)
Liberty Media will discuss these headlines and other matters on Liberty Media’s earnings conference call that will begin at 10:00 a.m. (E.T.) on August 7, 2025. For information regarding how to access the call, please see “Important Notice” later in this document.
2)
For a definition of Adjusted OIBDA (as defined by Liberty Media) and the applicable reconciliation, see the accompanying schedule.
NOTES
Cash and Debt
The following presentation is provided to separately identify cash and debt information. The acquisition of MotoGP was completed on July 3, 2025 and is not reflected in cash and debt presented below.
(amounts in millions)
3/31/2025
6/30/2025
Cash and Cash Equivalents Attributable to:
Formula One Group(a)
$
2,833
$
3,140
Liberty Live Group
314
308
Total Consolidated Cash and Cash Equivalents (GAAP)
$
3,147
$
3,448
Debt:
2.25% convertible notes due 2027(b)
475
475
Formula 1 term loan and revolving credit facility
2,376
2,372
Other corporate level debt
51
50
Total Attributed Formula One Group Debt
$
2,902
$
2,897
Fair market value adjustment
80
133
Total Attributed Formula One Group Debt (GAAP)
$
2,982
$
3,030
Formula 1 leverage(c)
1.2x
0.7x
2.375% Live Nation exchangeable senior debentures due 2053(b)
1,150
1,150
Live Nation margin loan
—
—
Total Attributed Liberty Live Group Debt
$
1,150
$
1,150
Fair market value adjustment
432
619
Total Attributed Liberty Live Group Debt (GAAP)
$
1,582
$
1,769
Total Liberty Media Corporation Debt (GAAP)
$
4,564
$
4,799
____________________
a)
Includes $1,547 million and $1,775 million of cash held at F1 as of March 31, 2025 and June 30, 2025, respectively, and $69 million and $70 million of cash held at Quint as of March 31, 2025 and June 30, 2025, respectively.
b)
Face amount of the convertible notes and exchangeable debentures with no fair market value adjustment.
c)
Net leverage as defined in F1’s credit facilities for covenant calculations.
Liberty Media and F1 are in compliance with their debt covenants as of June 30, 2025.
Total cash and cash equivalents attributed to Formula One Group increased $307 million during the second quarter primarily due to net cash from operations at F1 and proceeds from the partial settlement of derivative contracts related to MotoGP transaction financing, partially offset by capital expenditures at F1. Total debt attributed to Formula One Group was relatively flat in the second quarter.
Total cash and cash equivalents attributed to Liberty Live Group decreased $6 million during the second quarter primarily due to interest payments and corporate overhead. Total debt attributed to Liberty Live Group was flat during the second quarter.
Important Notice: Liberty Media Corporation (Nasdaq: FWONA, FWONK, LLYVA, LLYVK) will discuss Liberty Media’s earnings release on a conference call which will begin at 10:00 a.m. (E.T.) on August 7, 2025. The call can be accessed by dialing (877) 704-2829 or (215) 268-9864, passcode 13748884 at least 10 minutes prior to the start time. The call will also be broadcast live across the Internet and archived on our website. To access the webcast go to https://www.libertymedia.com/investors/news-events/ir-calendar. Links to this press release will also be available on the Liberty Media website.
This press release includes certain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, including statements about business strategies, market potential, future financial performance and prospects, the Formula 1 race calendar, expectations regarding Formula 1’s business, the planned split-off of Liberty Live and other matters that are not historical facts. These forward-looking statements involve many risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such statements, including, without limitation, the satisfaction of all conditions for the split-off of Liberty Live, possible changes in market acceptance of new products or services, regulatory matters affecting our businesses, the unfavorable outcome of future litigation, the failure to realize benefits of acquisitions, rapid industry change, failure of third parties to perform, continued access to capital on terms acceptable to Liberty Media and changes in law, including consumer protection laws, and their enforcement. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this press release, and Liberty Media expressly disclaims any obligation or undertaking to disseminate any updates or revisions to any forward-looking statement contained herein to reflect any change in Liberty Media’s expectations with regard thereto or any change in events, conditions or circumstances on which any such statement is based. Please refer to the publicly filed documents of Liberty Media, including the most recent Forms 10-K and 10-Q, for additional information about Liberty Media and about the risks and uncertainties related to Liberty Media’s business which may affect the statements made in this press release.
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
BALANCE SHEET INFORMATION
June 30, 2025 (unaudited)
Attributed
Formula
Liberty
One
Live
Intergroup
Consolidated
Group
Group
Eliminations
Liberty
amounts in millions
Assets
Current assets:
Cash and cash equivalents
$
3,140
308
—
3,448
Trade and other receivables, net
143
1
—
144
Other current assets
510
—
—
510
Total current assets
3,793
309
—
4,102
Investments in affiliates, accounted for using the equity method
33
589
—
622
Property and equipment, at cost
1,012
—
—
1,012
Accumulated depreciation
(184
)
—
—
(184
)
828
—
—
828
Goodwill
4,135
—
—
4,135
Intangible assets subject to amortization, net
2,570
—
—
2,570
Deferred income tax assets
569
256
(35
)
790
Other assets
557
217
—
774
Total assets
$
12,485
1,371
(35
)
13,821
Liabilities and Equity
Current liabilities:
Accounts payable and accrued liabilities
$
469
1
—
470
Current portion of debt
34
1,769
—
1,803
Deferred revenue
780
—
—
780
Other current liabilities
50
—
—
50
Total current liabilities
1,333
1,770
—
3,103
Long-term debt
2,996
—
—
2,996
Other liabilities
304
90
(35
)
359
Total liabilities
4,633
1,860
(35
)
6,458
Equity / Attributed net assets
7,852
(511
)
—
7,341
Noncontrolling interests in equity of subsidiaries
—
22
—
22
Total liabilities and equity
$
12,485
1,371
(35
)
13,821
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS INFORMATION
Three months ended June 30, 2025 (unaudited)
Attributed
Formula
Liberty
One
Live
Consolidated
Group
Group
Liberty
amounts in millions
Revenue:
Formula 1 revenue
$
1,203
—
1,203
Other revenue
138
—
138
Total revenue
1,341
—
1,341
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of Formula 1 revenue (exclusive of depreciation shown separately below)
779
—
779
Other cost of sales
88
—
88
Selling, general and administrative (1)
111
7
118
Acquisition costs
3
—
3
Depreciation and amortization
80
—
80
1,061
7
1,068
Operating income (loss)
280
(7
)
273
Other income (expense):
Interest expense
(49
)
(8
)
(57
)
Share of earnings (losses) of affiliates, net
(2
)
73
71
Realized and unrealized gains (losses) on financial instruments, net
160
(289
)
(129
)
Other, net
66
4
70
175
(220
)
(45
)
Earnings (loss) before income taxes
455
(227
)
228
Income tax (expense) benefit
(73
)
49
(24
)
Net earnings (loss)
382
(178
)
204
Less net earnings (loss) attributable to the noncontrolling interests
—
—
—
Net earnings (loss) attributable to Liberty stockholders
$
382
(178
)
204
(1) Includes stock-based compensation expense as follows:
Selling, general and administrative
$
6
2
8
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS INFORMATION
Three months ended June 30, 2024 (unaudited)
Attributed
Formula
Liberty
Liberty
One
Live
SiriusXM
Consolidated
Group
Group
Group
Liberty
amounts in millions
Revenue:
Formula 1 revenue
$
853
—
—
853
Other revenue
135
—
—
135
Total revenue
988
—
—
988
Operating costs and expenses:
Cost of Formula 1 revenue (exclusive of depreciation shown separately below)
639
—
—
639
Other cost of sales
94
—
—
94
Selling, general and administrative (1)
96
2
—
98
Acquisition costs
11
—
—
11
Depreciation and amortization
89
—
—
89
929
2
—
931
Operating income (loss)
59
(2
)
—
57
Other income (expense):
Interest expense
(53
)
(7
)
—
(60
)
Share of earnings (losses) of affiliates, net
(2
)
85
—
83
Realized and unrealized gains (losses) on financial instruments, net
(1
)
88
—
87
Other, net
20
6
—
26
(36
)
172
—
136
Earnings (loss) from continuing operations before income taxes
23
170
—
193
Income tax (expense) benefit
1
(36
)
—
(35
)
Net earnings (loss) from continuing operations
24
134
—
158
Net earnings (loss) from discontinued operations
—
—
349
349
Net earnings (loss)
24
134
349
507
Less net earnings (loss) attributable to the noncontrolling interests
—
—
50
50
Net earnings (loss) attributable to Liberty stockholders
$
24
134
299
457
(1) Includes stock-based compensation expense as follows:
Selling, general and administrative
$
6
1
—
7
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INFORMATION
Six months ended June 30, 2025 (unaudited)
Attributed
Formula
Liberty
One
Live
Consolidated
Group
Group
Liberty
amounts in millions
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net earnings (loss)
$
404
(195
)
209
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization
157
—
157
Stock-based compensation
8
2
10
Share of (earnings) loss of affiliates, net
5
(77
)
(72
)
Realized and unrealized (gains) losses on financial instruments, net
(242
)
306
64
Deferred income tax expense (benefit)
9
(51
)
(42
)
Intergroup tax allocation
3
(3
)
—
Other, net
(33
)
1
(32
)
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Current and other assets
(147
)
—
(147
)
Payables and other liabilities
464
1
465
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
628
(16
)
612
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investments in equity method affiliates and debt and equity securities
(16
)
(1
)
(17
)
Cash proceeds from dispositions
26
—
26
Cash (paid) received for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
(131
)
—
(131
)
Capital expended for property and equipment, including internal-use software and website development
(55
)
—
(55
)
Cash proceeds from foreign currency forward contracts
71
—
71
Other investing activities, net
(14
)
—
(14
)
Net cash provided (used) by investing activities
(119
)
(1
)
(120
)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Repayments of debt
(11
)
—
(11
)
Other financing activities, net
19
—
19
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities
8
—
8
Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
9
—
9
Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
526
(17
)
509
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period
2,638
325
2,963
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
$
3,164
308
3,472
Cash and cash equivalents
$
3,140
308
3,448
Restricted cash included in other assets
24
—
24
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
$
3,164
308
3,472
LIBERTY MEDIA CORPORATION
STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS INFORMATION
Six months ended June 30, 2024 (unaudited)
Attributed
Formula
Liberty
Liberty
One
Live
SiriusXM
Consolidated
Group
Group
Group
Liberty
amounts in millions
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net earnings (loss)
$
101
61
590
752
Adjustments to reconcile net earnings (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities:
Net (earnings) loss from discontinued operations
—
—
(590
)
(590
)
Depreciation and amortization
175
—
—
175
Stock-based compensation
18
2
—
20
Share of (earnings) loss of affiliates, net
5
(64
)
—
(59
)
Realized and unrealized (gains) losses on financial instruments, net
(47
)
(19
)
—
(66
)
Deferred income tax expense (benefit)
2
13
—
15
Intergroup tax allocation
(62
)
3
—
(59
)
Intergroup tax (payments) receipts
80
3
—
83
Other, net
5
(4
)
—
1
Changes in operating assets and liabilities
Current and other assets
(79
)
2
—
(77
)
Payables and other liabilities
203
(4
)
—
199
Net cash provided (used) by operating activities
401
(7
)
—
394
Cash flows from investing activities:
Investments in equity method affiliates and debt and equity securities
(1
)
—
—
(1
)
Cash proceeds from dispositions
—
107
—
107
Cash (paid) received for acquisitions, net of cash acquired
(205
)
—
—
(205
)
Capital expended for property and equipment, including internal-use software and website development
(40
)
—
—
(40
)
Other investing activities, net
(62
)
1
—
(61
)
Net cash provided (used) by investing activities
(308
)
108
—
(200
)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Borrowings of debt
10
—
—
10
Repayments of debt
(31
)
—
—
(31
)
Other financing activities, net
27
—
—
27
Net cash provided (used) by financing activities
6
—
—
6
Effect of foreign exchange rate changes on cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
(8
)
—
—
(8
)
Net cash provided (used) by discontinued operations:
Cash provided (used) by operating activities
—
—
753
753
Cash provided (used) by investing activities
—
—
(550
)
(550
)
Cash provided (used) by financing activities
—
—
(314
)
(314
)
Net cash provided (used) by discontinued operations
—
—
(111
)
(111
)
Net increase (decrease) in cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash
91
101
(111
)
81
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at beginning of period
1,408
305
315
2,028
Cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
$
1,499
406
204
2,109
Cash and cash equivalents
$
1,491
406
188
2,085
Restricted cash included in other current assets
8
—
—
8
Restricted cash included in current assets of discontinued operations
—
—
8
8
Restricted cash included in noncurrent assets of discontinued operations
—
—
8
8
Total cash, cash equivalents and restricted cash at end of period
$
1,499
406
204
2,109
NON-GAAP FINANCIAL MEASURES AND SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURES
SCHEDULE 1
To provide investors with additional information regarding our financial results, this press release includes a presentation of Adjusted OIBDA, which is a non-GAAP financial measure, for Formula One Group, together with reconciliations to operating income, as determined under GAAP. Liberty Media defines Adjusted OIBDA as operating income (loss) plus depreciation and amortization, stock-based compensation, separately reported litigation settlements, Concorde incentive payments and restructuring, acquisition and impairment charges.
Liberty Media believes Adjusted OIBDA is an important indicator of the operational strength and performance of its businesses by identifying those items that are not directly a reflection of each business’ performance or indicative of ongoing business trends. In addition, this measure allows management to view operating results and perform analytical comparisons and benchmarking between businesses and identify strategies to improve performance. Because Adjusted OIBDA is used as a measure of operating performance, Liberty Media views operating income as the most directly comparable GAAP measure. Adjusted OIBDA is not meant to replace or supersede operating income or any other GAAP measure, but rather to supplement such GAAP measures in order to present investors with the same information that Liberty Media’s management considers in assessing the results of operations and performance of its assets.
The following table provides a reconciliation of Adjusted OIBDA for Liberty Media to operating income (loss) calculated in accordance with GAAP for the three and six months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025.
QUARTERLY SUMMARY
Three months ended
Six months ended
June 30,
June 30,
2024
2025
2024
2025
Formula One Group
Operating income (loss)
$
59
$
280
$
154
$
213
Depreciation and amortization
89
80
175
157
Stock compensation expense
6
6
18
8
Acquisition costs(a)
11
3
20
14
Concorde incentive payments
—
—
—
50
Adjusted OIBDA
$
165
$
369
$
367
$
442
____________________
(a)
Formula One Group incurred $11 million and $3 million of costs related to corporate acquisitions during the three months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025, respectively, and $20 million and $14 million of costs related to corporate acquisitions during the six months ended June 30, 2024 and June 30, 2025, respectively.
View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20250806869346/en/
A solar farm development had been mooted for the land, near Whittonstall
A large-scale solar farm planned for a swathe of countryside has been refused, over concerns it would be a “wanton destruction of a rural paradise.”
Renewable energy firm Exagen had put forward plans to build Highfield Energy Park on the site, near the village of Whittonstall, in Northumberland, but it was voted down by Northumberland County Council planning committee.
The firm had proposed erecting more than 90,000 solar panels across 271 acres (110 hectares), which they said would power 21,300 homes and save 27,900 tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions per year.
The plans had previously been earmarked for approval, despite more than 140 public objections, but were overturned at a hearing.
Resident Adam Brown said the impact of the proposed solar farm, located between two wind farms, would be “overwhelming”, adding there would not be sufficient access to the site for emergency services in the case of a fire.
He was joined by other objectors, including Kevin Rooney, who said there had been a “catastrophic” error in the site’s drainage designs that risked causing flooding in the neighbouring woodland.
Exagen, which recently won approval for a major solar park across 30 fields between Greenside, Coalburns, and Chopwell, just over the border in rural Gateshead, said the solar farm was needed to meet the government’s targets to significantly boost solar energy production by 2030.
‘Missed opportunity’
Exagen’s Andrew Mott the impact of the scheme on the green belt had been “kept to a minimum”, and that the site was the “only viable location” in the area to connect to the electricity grid.
But Northumberland county councillor Colin Horncastle, said: “I think we all agree with renewable energy, but we cannot have renewable energy at any price.
“This is purely wanton destruction of a rural paradise.”
The plans were spread across two sites totalling 271 acres, one of which would have hosted the solar farm and another for a substation – with the sites connected via an underground cable.
Mr Mott suggested the substation site, north of Lynn Burn, should be deemed ‘grey belt’ – a new term introduced under the Labour government to identify lower quality green belt land where building can be permitted.
But the public benefits of the solar farm would be sufficient to justify its development regardless, he added.
Planning committee chair, Trevor Thorne, was among the supporters of the project.
He said Northumberland was “missing a big opportunity” by denying the application, especially given the land was previously used for opencast mining rather than being an area of countryside that had hitherto been unspoilt.
Berwick East independent councillor Georgina Hill moved for the refusal of the plans, however, saying: “It [the landscape] is just stunning and it would be so wrong to approve this.”
The committee voted by an 11 to four margin to reject the scheme, sparking applause from members of the public who had attended the Morpeth hearing to oppose the application.
The novel integrin beta-6 (IB6)–directed antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) sigvotatug vedotin (formerly SGN-B6A) demonstrated early efficacy data alone and in combination with pembrolizumab (Keytruda) in patients with non–small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), warranting further study, according to Rachel E. Sanborn, MD.
Findings from the phase 1 SGNB6A-001 trial (NCT04389632) revealed that sigvotatug vedotin led to a confirmed overall response rate (ORR) of 19.0% (95% CI, 12.3%-27.3%) as monotherapy in patients with NSCLC (n = 116).1 Overall responses consisted of 3 complete responses (CRs) and 19 partial responses (PRs). Among patients with nonsquamous, taxane-naive NSCLC (n = 42), the confirmed ORR was 31.0% (95% CI, 17.6%-47.1%), which consisted of 2 CRs and 11 PRs. Additional findings presented at the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting illustrated a confirmed ORR of 42.9% (95% CI, 21.8%-66.0%) when pembrolizumab was added to sigvotatug vedotin for the frontline treatment of patients with NSCLC (n = 21).2
Sigvotatug vedotin is now being further evaluated in the phase 3 Be6A Lung-01 trial (NCT06012435) in which patients with previously treated NSCLC will be randomly assigned to treatment with the ADC or docetaxel.3
“Preclinical studies have shown that blocking IB6 can lead to a blockade of downstream signaling pathways, which can inhibit tumor migration as well as invasion. There are also preclinical studies that show that IB6 inhibition can increase potentiation to anti–PD-1 checkpoint inhibition, hence why this becomes an attractive scientific target in cancer,” Sanborn explained during an interview with OncLive®.
In the interview, Sanborn discussed the viability of IB6 as a target in NSCLC, the mechanism of action of sigvotatug vedotin, and early efficacy and safety data from the phase 1 study. She also shared the objectives of the phase 3 Be6A Lung-01 trial and potential future implications of sigvotatug vedotin’s development.
Sanborn is the medical director of the Thoracic Oncology Program and the Phase I Clinical Trials Program at the Earle A. Chiles Research Institute at Providence Cancer Institute in Portland, Oregon.
OncLive: What is the background of IB6, and what makes it a viable target in NSCLC?
Sanborn: If we’re talking about understanding IB6, [it’s important] to first think about what integrins are. They are transmembrane proteins, and they act as signaling between the cells and the cellular surroundings. The surface [of an integrin] includes a cell surface receptor, there is also a transmembrane helix, and then an intracellular cytoplasmic tail. These proteins then function in multiple different signaling pathways. They function in cell survival, migration, cell proliferation, differentiation, metastasis, and tumor invasion. The integrins consist of both alpha and beta subunits, and they combine in different ways, which can create multiple different integrin protein heterodimers.
IB6 is one of these integrin proteins. It is minimally expressed in healthy adult tissues; however, it is upregulated during embryogenesis as well as in tissue repair and carcinogenesis. Upregulated IB6 levels have been associated with poor prognosis in many kinds of cancers, and they’re also associated with tumor progression and higher-grade, more aggressive tumors. IB6 can also activate the TGF-beta complex and convert this to tumor-promoting signaling pathways, and can also facilitate tumor invasion as well as epithelial to mesenchymal transition in cancer cells. IB6 has been shown to be increased with increased expression in many different types of cancer cells, especially in NSCLC, but also in head and neck carcinomas, gastrointestinal primaries, and others as well.
What is the mechanism of action of sigvotatug vedotin, and how is it different from standard agents for patients with pretreated NSCLC, such as docetaxel?
Sigvotatug vedotin is an ADC, and it is specifically directed to IB6 and has an MMAE payload, which is the cytotoxic component. Although ADCs have [adverse] effects [AEs] that predominantly reflect the chemotherapy drug payload, the overall goal of any ADC technology is to try to attempt to more specifically target the cancer cells with maximum [efficacy] and try to have a relative reduction of toxicity to the normal tissues. In terms of chemotherapy agents like docetaxel, they demonstrate valid yet relatively minimal efficacy in the later-line settings in cancer treatment in general. We all realize that so much needs to be done to improve disease control as well as survival and quality of life. It’s hoped that the more specific treatments are going to be able to help improve outcomes over a broader application of a chemotherapy agent. There’s also the consideration of the potentiation of sigvotatug vedotin with checkpoint inhibition to potentially improve T-cell recognition of tumors, and that may provide us with the scientific rationale for further exploration to see if we can obtain better outcomes in combination with immune therapy and hopefully then, even more prolonged disease control.
Based on preclinical and early clinical data, has the agent improved efficacy and simultaneously reduced toxicity?
It’s very important to consider the preclinical data when thinking about ongoing clinical investigations with IB6, IB6 inhibition, sigvotatug [vedotin], or any other agent. [Regarding] the preclinical studies with IB6, when an inhibitor of IB6 was combined with checkpoint inhibition, improvements in CD8-positive T-cell infiltration or tumor-infiltrating lymphocyte infiltration were demonstrated. There were also in vivo models of sigvotatug vedotin, which demonstrated activity in multiple different types of cancers, including NSCLC, and in other cancers, including pancreatic, pharyngeal, and bladder cancers.
[There was also] a phase 1 dose escalation and expansion study of single-agent sigvotatug vedotin, called the SGNB6A-001 trial. That study explored different dosing regimens of sigvotatug vedotin, and in patients with NSCLC, the confirmed ORR was [19.0%].2 However, when looking at the patient population that had nonsquamous NSCLC and who were taxane naive, the ORR was 31.0% and the median progression-free survival [PFS] in that group was 6.4 months [95% CI, 4.5-10.5]. In the phase 1 trial, the most common AEs that were grade 3 or higher with sigvotatug vedotin included dyspnea, fatigue, and neutropenia, and were reflective primarily of the chemotherapy toxicities from the payload when [used] in combination with pembrolizumab. Three patients also experienced pneumonitis; however, none were grade 3 or higher in that group.
Later cohorts now in that trial are exploring the combination of sigvotatug vedotin and pembrolizumab. Updates from the ongoing cohorts were presented at [the 2025 ASCO Annual Meeting and] demonstrated that there was early evidence of efficacy, but the study evaluation is still ongoing.
What are the methods and objectives of the phase 3 Be6A Lung-01 trial?
There is an ongoing phase 3 trial of sigvotatug vedotin in NSCLC, the phase 3 Be6A Lung-01 trial, which is an open-label, global, randomized trial [that enrolled patients] with nonsquamous NSCLC who have had prior treatment with 1 line of platinum-based chemotherapy and an anti–PD-1 or anti–PD-L1 [immune] checkpoint inhibitor.3 Patients with actionable genomic alterations are also permitted to enroll in the study. They are required to have received at least 1 line of appropriate targeted therapy, as well as platinum doublet chemotherapy. Prior anti-microtubule agents like taxane chemotherapies are not allowed for that trial. Sigvotatug vedotin [will be] administered on days 1 and 15 of a 28-day cycle and compared with standard of care docetaxel administered intravenously every 21 days. Patients are [randomly assigned] in a 1:1 fashion. The primary end point of the study is overall survival, and [secondary end points include] confirmed ORR and PFS, among others.
The eligibility criteria established that patients with pretreated, actionable genomic alterations are permitted on this study. What has helped set this precedent?
Multiple different considerations helped set this precedent that allowed patients with actionable genomic alterations to enroll in the trial. The agent itself and the target are not felt to be specific for the presence or absence of any particular actionable genomic alteration, and the ADC has the potential to offer activity that could be similar to, and it is hoped to be better than, traditional chemotherapy agents like docetaxel.
If the phase 3 trial results are positive, how could that affect the drug’s development and potential placement within the current armamentarium?
We are always optimistic, and we all want to see positive trials. It’s important to consider the context that we have extremely limited therapeutic options in this setting for patients who have such a significant need, so any agent that demonstrates a significant benefit over docetaxel in a randomized phase 3 trial is going to be met with enthusiasm. I would anticipate, in the event of a positive trial, that there would be significant enthusiasm to add [sigvotatug vedotin] to our therapeutic armamentarium. It’s also going to raise further questions about incorporation into earlier lines of therapy, such as with the ongoing Be6A Lung-02 trial [NCT06758401], which is a randomized phase 3 trial of sigvotatug vedotin plus pembrolizumab compared with pembrolizumab alone for the first-line treatment of patients with PD-L1–high, advanced NSCLC.
It’s really hoped that ADCs are going to offer greater efficacy than chemotherapy in the treatment of [patients with] lung cancer. So far, the effects have been muted compared with the hopes. However, the science is continuing to evolve, and we’re continuing to try to optimize these agents to make them better. ADCs on their own at this point don’t accomplish what our overall goal is, which is to cure [patients] with no or minimal toxicity. That’s what we all want. ADCs don’t offer that, [although] that’s a tall order for any treatment. [Nevertheless], ADCs are going to have roles to play, especially in combination with other treatments to enhance efficacy over broad-based chemotherapy alone as we continue to learn more.
References
Sehgal K, Jaime JC, Powell SF, et al. Sigvotatug vedotin (SV), an investigational integrin beta-6 (IB6)–directed antibody‒drug conjugate (ADC), and pembrolizumab combination therapy: Initial results from an ongoing phase 1 study (SGNB6A-001). J Clin Oncol. 2025;43(suppl 16):3010. doi:10.1200/JCO.2025.43.16_suppl.3010
Peters S, Hollebecque A, Sehgal K, et al. Efficacy and safety of sigvotatug vedotin, an investigational ADC, in NSCLC: updated phase 1 results (SGNB6A-001). J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(suppl 16):8521. doi:10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.8521
Peters S, De Cerqueira Mathias CM, Cheng ML, et al. Be6A Lung-01, a phase III study of sigvotatug vedotin (SV), an investigational antibody-drug conjugate (ADC) versus docetaxel in patients (pts) with previously treated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Ann Oncol. 2024;35(suppl 2):S875. doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2024.08.1453
S&P Global brings together Artificial Intelligence and Private Asset Portfolio Management with iLEVEL Document Search
New AI-powered capability transforms how private market investors surface portfolio intelligence — reinforcing S&P Global’s leadership in delivering enterprise-grade GenAI solutions to financial professionals
NEW YORK, Aug. 7, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI) today announced the launch of iLEVEL Document Search, a new AI-powered search capability that enables private market investment professionals to extract intelligence from investment documents using natural language queries. This innovative tool transforms asset managers’ ability to explore and understand the factors that shape portfolio performance, facilitating faster, more informed decisions.
With private equity firms holding record levels of dry powder while existing portfolios remain in a prolonged holding pattern, iLEVEL Document Search addresses the critical need for deeper portfolio intelligence. Users can now query all documents stored in iLEVEL’s Document Library, including board decks, quarterly financials, annual financials and fund financials. The tool leverages advanced AI-driven data extraction technology to democratize data by unlocking previously hidden insights and breaking down information silos.
Key capabilities include:
Natural Language Querying: Users can ask open-ended questions about their portfolios, enabling exploration beyond traditional templates or pivot tables.
Annotations for Traceability: All search results include granular annotations linking every data point to original sources.
Permissions-Based Search Results for Confidentiality: Results restrict access based on user credentials, maintaining confidentiality of sensitive materials while delivering a seamless search experience.
“We’re moving from an era of portfolio monitoring to one of portfolio intelligence,” said Christopher Sparenberg, Head of iLEVEL, S&P Global Market Intelligence. “With deal flow at multi-year lows and exit windows tightening, the firms that will thrive are those that can unlock the ‘unknown unknowns’ in their existing portfolios to create differentiated value. iLEVEL Document Search enables investment teams to discover new opportunities and identify risks to make decisions with conviction.”
The launch of iLEVEL Document Search builds on recent enhancements to the platform, including Automated Data Ingestion, and Capital Structure Analysis, Covenant Monitoring and Financial Spreading as part of the iLEVEL Credit solution.
These enhancements represent S&P Global’s ongoing commitment to providing a comprehensive suite of solutions to the private markets industry, with offerings spanning private company data, valuations, risk analytics and portfolio management services designed to drive investment and operational alpha.
To learn more about S&P Global’s private markets insights and offerings, visit here.
Media Contacts:
Orla O’Brien S&P Global +1 857-407-8559 orla.obrien@spglobal.com
S&P Global (NYSE: SPGI) provides Essential Intelligence. We enable governments, businesses and individuals with the right data, expertise and connected technology so that they can make decisions with conviction. From helping our customers assess new investments to guiding them through sustainability and energy transition across supply chains, we unlock new opportunities, solve challenges and Accelerate Progress for the world.
We are widely sought after by many of the world’s leading organizations to provide credit ratings, benchmarks, analytics and workflow solutions in the global capital, commodity and automotive markets. With every one of our offerings, we help the world’s leading organizations plan for tomorrow, today. For more information, visit www.spglobal.com
On 2 April 2025, the US administration announced sweeping tariff measures that triggered a sharp sell-off in global markets. Yet within weeks, equities, volatility and inflation expectations had largely recovered. We investigate the underlying forces behind that rapid reversal. Our analysis aims to disentangle the contribution of (i) the transitory nature of the initial shock, (ii) subsequent policy reversals and (iii) unrelated macroeconomic news.
Contribution
We develop a flexible, high-frequency framework – event-targeted vector autoregressions (ETVAR) – that identifies the dominant shock based on its ability to explain the joint movement of variables within a narrowly defined time period. The method offers a structured yet agnostic alternative to standard event studies and difference-in-differences approaches.
Findings
We find that more than 60% of the equity market recovery can be traced to tariff-related shocks, including the transitory nature of the initial shock and offsetting policy signals such as the 90-day implementation pause. The remaining recovery is explained by unrelated macroeconomic surprises, such as CPI and labour market news. In contrast, movements in Treasury yields and the US dollar are primarily driven by other shocks, coinciding with a spike in Treasury market stress. These results highlight the limits of attributing all market movements to trade policy and demonstrate the value of a flexible, event-driven empirical strategy.
Abstract
On 2 April 2025, the U.S. President announced one of the largest tariff packages in history, triggering sharp financial market reactions. Yet within six weeks, markets had largely recovered. This paper develops an event-targeted vector autoregression (ETVAR) framework to disentangle three potential explanations for the recovery: the transitory nature of the initial shock, offsetting tariff announcements, and other macroeconomic surprises. Our orthogonalisation method isolates a dominant shock from the “Liberation Day” window and tracks its dynamic impact. Realisations of this orthogonalised shock explain 60–80% of the recovery in equities, copper prices, the VIX, and short-term inflation expectations. In contrast, the dollar’s persistent depreciation and movements in government bond yields largely stem from other orthogonal shocks, coinciding with a sudden deterioration in Treasury market liquidity. The findings highlight the limits of attributing all market movements to trade policy and demonstrate the value of a flexible, event-driven orthogonalisation strategy.
JEL classification: C18, C32, F10, F40, G12
Keywords: VAR, event-study, orthogonalisation, tariff announcements
The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarilythoseof the BIS.
The use of the statistics in this information is permitted for the purposes of review and commentary (including media commentary) in line with fair industry practice, subject to the following two pre-conditions: (i) only limited extracts of data or analysis be used; and (ii) any and all use of these statistics is accompanied by a citation to World Gold Council and, where appropriate, to Metals Focus or other identified copyright owners as their source. World Gold Council is affiliated with Metals Focus.
The World Gold Council and its affiliates do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information nor accept responsibility for any losses or damages arising directly or indirectly from the use of this information.
This information is for educational purposes only and by receiving this information, you agree with its intended purpose. Nothing contained herein is intended to constitute a recommendation, investment advice, or offer for the purchase or sale of gold, any gold-related products or services or any other products, services, securities or financial instruments (collectively, “Services”). This information does not take into account any investment objectives, financial situation or particular needs of any particular person.
Diversification does not guarantee any investment returns and does not eliminate the risk of loss. Past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results. The resulting performance of any investment outcomes that can be generated through allocation to gold are hypothetical in nature, may not reflect actual investment results and are not guarantees of future results. The World Gold Council and its affiliates do not guarantee or warranty any calculations and models used in any hypothetical portfolios or any outcomes resulting from any such use. Investors should discuss their individual circumstances with their appropriate investment professionals before making any decision regarding any Services or investments.
This information may contain forward-looking statements, such as statements which use the words “believes”, “expects”, “may”, or “suggests”, or similar terminology, which are based on current expectations and are subject to change. Forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties. There can be no assurance that any forward-looking statements will be achieved. World Gold Council and its affiliates assume no responsibility for updating any forward-looking statements.
Information regarding the LBMA Gold Price
The LBMA Gold Price is administered and published by ICE Benchmark Administration Limited (IBA). The LBMA Gold Price is a trademark of Precious Metals Prices Limited and is licensed to IBA as administrator of the LBMA Gold Price. ICE and ICE Benchmark Administration are registered trademarks of IBA and/or its affiliates. The LBMA Gold Price is used by the World Gold Council with permission under license by IBA.
Published LBMA Gold Price information may not be indicative of future LBMA Gold Price information or performance. None of IBA, Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) or any third party that provides data used to administer or determine the LBMA Gold Price (data providers), or any of its or their affiliates makes any claim, prediction, warranty or representation whatsoever as to the timeliness, accuracy or completeness of LBMA Gold Price information, the results to be obtained from any use of LBMA Gold Price information, or the appropriateness or suitability of using LBMA Gold Price information for any particular purpose. to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, all implied terms, conditions and warranties, including, without limitation, as to quality, merchantability, fitness for purpose, title or non-infringement, in relation to LBMA Gold Price information, are hereby excluded, and none of IBA, ICE or any data provider, or any of its or their affiliates will be liable in contract or tort (including negligence), for breach of statutory duty or nuisance, or under antitrust laws, for misrepresentation or otherwise, in respect of any inaccuracies, errors, omissions, delays, failures, cessations or changes (material or otherwise) in LBMA Gold Price information, or for any damage, expense or other loss (whether direct or indirect) you may suffer arising out of or in connection with LBMA Gold Price information or any reliance you may place upon it.
LBMA Gold Price information provided by the World Gold Council may be used by you internally to review the analysis provided by the World Gold Council, but may not be used for any other purpose. LBMA Gold Price information provided by the World Gold Council may not be disclosed by you to anyone else.
Information regarding QaurumSM and the Gold Valuation Framework
Note that the resulting performance of various investment outcomes that can generated through use of Qaurum, the Gold Valuation Framework and other information are hypothetical in nature, may not reflect actual investment results and are not guarantees of future results. Neither World Gold Council (including its affiliates) nor Oxford Economics provides any warranty or guarantee regarding the functionality of the tool, including without limitation any projections, estimates or calculations.
Booking.com is facing a class-action lawsuit from more than 10,000 European hotels arguing that the accommodation mega-site used its muscle to distort the market to their detriment over a 20-year period.
The Association of Hotels, Restaurants and Cafes in Europe (Hotrec), which represents the industry within the EU and is bringing the legal action, recently extended to 29 August a deadline for hotel owners to join the suit because of high demand.
The lawsuit, expected to be one of the largest ever filed in the European hospitality sector, is also backed by 30 national hotel associations, including Britain’s.
“Over 10,000 hotels have already joined the pan-European initiative to claim compensation for financial losses caused by Booking.com’s use of illegal ‘best price’ (parity) clauses,” Hotrec said in a statement.
It alleges that the “best price” pledge on Booking.com was extracted from hotels under huge pressure not to offer rooms at lower prices on other platforms, including their own websites.
The hotel industry says that the Netherlands-based platform also used the clauses to prevent customers making what it called “free-rider” bookings, which it defined as using its services to find a hotel but then booking directly with the management, cutting out Booking.com.
“Registration [to the legal action] continues to grow steadily, and the response so far demonstrates the hospitality industry’s strong desire to stand up against unfair practices in the digital marketplace,” Hotrec said.
The litigation, which experts say will be an uphill battle, seeks damages for the period from 2004 to 2024, when Booking.com did away with the best price clause to comply with the EU Digital Markets Act.
Hotrec said the class action, to be heard in Amsterdam, follows a European court of justice (ECJ) ruling from 2024, “which found that Booking.com’s parity clauses violated EU competition law”.
“European hoteliers have long suffered from unfair conditions and excessive costs. Now is the time to stand together and demand redress,” said Hotrec’s president, Alexandros Vassilikos, calling out “abusive practices in the digital market” in Europe.
Booking.com called Hotrec and other hotel associations’ statements “incorrect and misleading” in an emailed statement, adding that it had not received “formal notification of a class action”.
It said that the ECJ ruling did not find that Booking.com’s “best price” clauses were anti-competitive but “simply stated that such clauses fall within the scope of EU competition law and that their effects must be assessed on a case-by-case basis”.
The company referred to a statement about its “commitment to fair competition”, in which it argued that “past parity clauses served to foster competitive pricing rather than restrict it”.
It cited a poll in which 74% of hoteliers said Booking.com made their business more profitable, with many reporting higher occupancy rates and lower customer acquisition costs. However, other industry representatives criticised the company’s practices as extractive.
“As they gained control of the market, Booking was able to increase its commission rates and exert much greater pressure on hoteliers’ margins,” Véronique Siegel, president of the hotels division of French hospitality sector association Umih, told public broadcaster France Inter.
“For a room that the customer pays €100 (£87) for, if you take away Booking’s commission, the hotelier receives €75 at best, with which they have to pay their employees and invest.”
Despite the friction, Booking.com appears unavoidable for many hotels, offering an online reach and visibility hard to achieve for smaller, independent establishments.
A study by Hotrec and the University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland found that Booking Holding, the website’s parent company, controlled 71% of the European market in 2024, compared with 68.4% in 2019.
The corporation is valued at $170bn (£127bn), three times that of Volkswagen.
Rupprecht Podszun, director of the institute for competition law at Düsseldorf’s Heinrich Heine University, said Booking.com was a classic example of how a digital platform could conquer an entire sector, creating a “winner takes all” dynamic.
He said the legal action would probably be protracted and turn on the thorny question of how damages could be measured.
“Judges will have to form an opinion and then it will go through all the appeals – everything at great expense and with all the tricks available under the law,” he told Germany’s daily Süddeutsche Zeitung.
“The case is a revolt of the hotels, saying: ‘You can’t just do what you want with us.’”
Researchers hope they may have solved the “tunnel boom” problem as they prepare to roll out China’s latest prototype magnetic levitation train.
The newest version of the maglev train is capable of travelling at 600km/h (about 370mph). However, the train’s engineers have wrestled with the problem of the shock waves that occur as the train exits the mouth of a tunnel.
When a high-speed train enters an enclosed space such as a tunnel, air in front is compressed, like in a piston. The resulting fluctuations in air pressure coalesce at the tunnel mouth, generating low-frequency shock waves. These are colloquially known as a “tunnel boom” – a related, albeit different phenomenon to the “sonic boom” heard as aircraft pass the speed of sound. Tunnel booms pose serious challenges to operational safety, as the shock waves can disturb humans and animals nearby, as well as causing structural damage.
Now, however, researchers have discovered that placing innovative soundproofing buffers at tunnel mouths can reduce shock waves by up to 96%. This promises improvements in operational safety, noise pollution and passenger comfort, as well as safeguarding animals in the vicinity of future lines.
This was already a well documented problem for conventional high-speed trains, which travel at speeds of up to 350km/h (217mph), but it worsens significantly for trains travelling at even higher speeds because the strength of the shock wave increases rapidly and the critical length that gives rise to a tunnel boom drops off quickly. For example, a train travelling at 600km/h will lead to a boom in a tunnel just 2km (1.2 miles) long, while for conventional high-speed trains this happens only in tunnels which are 6km or longer.
The porous structure of the new 100-metre long buffers, combined with porous coatings on the tunnel body, allow the trapped air to escape before the train reaches the tunnel mouth, suppressing the boom in the same way as a silencer fitted to a firearm.
Magnetic levitation refers to the use of magnetic force to suspend a train above a guideway or rail, sometimes with a height of only 10mm, by either electromagnetic or electrodynamic suspension. The train is then propelled using other electromagnets. While conventional high-speed trains are ultimately limited in speed due to increased wear and tear of wheels against the track, the separation of track and train means that maglevs are not subject to the same frictional forces.
Electromagnetic suspension (EMS) has the train hugging a single steel rail with a U-shaped underside. When electromagnets positioned in the U-shape underneath the rail are switched on, the train is levitated by the resultant electromagnetic forces. With electrodynamic suspension (EDS), the train sits in a U-shaped guideway, with superconducting coils embedded in guideway and train. When the power supply is switched on, magnetic poles are induced in the coils, leading to a combination of repulsive and attractive forces which enable the train to levitate.
High-speed maglev trains made their debut in 2004 in China, running between Pudong airport and the outskirts of Shanghai at 460km/h (286mph), a speed record that still holds for rail vehicles in regular commercial service. Built using German ‘Transrapid’ technology, this service caters primarily to foreign travellers as local people prefer the much cheaper, albeit slower, metro.
However, this initial hype was soon eclipsed, as subsequent development of China’s rail network focused entirely on conventional high-speed rail. The national network is now the world’s largest in length at 48,000km (30,000 miles), with more lines under construction.
But maglev trains are now making a comeback under the state-owned manufacturer CRRC, which launched the new model in 2021. There is no mechanical noise, passengers describing the quiet hum of electromagnets and a ride smoother than a conventional train.
skip past newsletter promotion
after newsletter promotion
Although no lines have yet been formally planned, it is widely expected that a future line will connect the capital, Beijing, with cosmopolitan Shanghai, reducing journey times from 4.5 hours to 2.5 hours, about the duration of a domestic flight between the two cities.
In China, the cost of a high-speed rail ticket is cheaper than air travel (¥600 compared with ¥1,200), unlike in many other countries. Flights emit on average seven times more CO2 than high-speed rail by distance travelled, representing a big potential carbon saving.
China is not the only place where long-distance high-speed maglevs are on the horizon. Japan also has its hopes pinned on the Chuo Shinkansen, which will link its two biggest cities of Tokyo and Osaka via Nagoya, cutting through the heart of the country. The Tokaido Shinkansen, a conventional high-speed rail line, does this journey in 2.5 hours, but it is hoped that the new maglev line travelling at 505km/h (314mph) will reduce this to just 67 minutes. It was originally scheduled to begin partial service in 2027, but inevitable delays have encumbered the project, with a new opening date uncertain.
Exagen
