Category: 3. Business

  • ‘Empty shelves, higher prices’: Americans tell of cost of Trump’s tariffs | Trump tariffs

    ‘Empty shelves, higher prices’: Americans tell of cost of Trump’s tariffs | Trump tariffs

    As a mother of two, Paige Harris has noticed a change in the way she shops for her family.

    “Items that I have bought regularly have gone up in price steadily,” she said. “From hair dye to baby formula, our grocery list has gotten smaller while our budget has had to increase. Meats like steak are a no-go for our household.”

    Harris, 38, lives and works as a teacher’s assistant in Stella, North Carolina, and is one of almost 40 people who spoke to the Guardian about how they’ve been coping with the price of goods in the six months since Donald Trump announced his sweeping tariffs.

    On Thursday, a study from S&P Global revealed that companies were expected to pay at least $1.2tn more in 2025 expenses than was previously anticipated. But the burden, according to the researchers, is now shifting to US consumers. They calculated that two-thirds of the “expense shock”, more than $900bn, will be absorbed by Americans. Last month, the Yale Budget Lab estimated tariffs would cost households almost $2,400 more a year.

    Harris says the tariffs’ impact on her daily life contradicts promises from the Trump administration to “cut prices and make living affordable for everyone”. She said: “You see prices soaring. It has become very clear that this administration did not and does not care about the everyday lives of Americans.”

    Several Americans told the Guardian their weekly budgets had been drastically altered with the introduction of Trump’s tariffs.

    “Prices are way too high. I mostly shop at Costco and buy as little as possible anywhere else,” said Jean Meadows, a 74-year-old retiree who lives in Huntsville, Alabama. “I can’t imagine that stores haven’t noticed the change. I think people are really afraid of what is coming.”

    That sense of apprehension is reflected in a recent poll, exclusively conducted for the Guardian, where respondents identified the tariffs as the second biggest threat to the economy.

    “The bread I buy has doubled in price within a year. We live on a fixed income that doesn’t keep up with inflation,” said Myron Peeler, who is also retired and is the sole caregiver for his wife, who suffers from debilitating arthritis. The only saving grace, he said, is that his house and car are paid off.

    Trump shows few signs of backing away from his tariff policy – a move the White House maintains will reinvigorate American manufacturing and increased revenue from trade partners.

    Most recently, the president reignited a trade war with China by threatening a 100% tariff on Beijing as soon as November. This came after China moved to restrict exports of rare earth minerals needed for several everyday items from electric vehicle batteries to hospital equipment, a decision that Trump branded as “very hostile”. In an interview with Fox News, the president has admitted that the proposed tariff hike was “not sustainable”, but said he was left with little choice: “They forced me to do that”.

    Currently, the average US tariffs on Chinese exports hovers around 58%, according to the Peterson Institute for Economics. It’s a levy that is already taking a toll on Americans such as Michele, from north-eastern Pennsylvania.

    “We need to buy new tires for a car, and can’t, because affordable tires are no longer in stock and we can’t afford $250 a tire,” she said.

    Several people echoed Michele’s feelings about availability, describing the situation as “empty shelves, higher prices”. Natalie, who lives in New Hampshire, said she hasn’t seen certain pantry staples “for months”. She said: “The store shelves have become more and more bare … instead of multiple choices there may only be one or two, and name brands are being replaced by store brands.”

    At 55, Natalie is semi-retired but is due to start part-time work at a supermarket, and she has seen a price rise in nearly everything she buys regularly. “Any brand of cat food has increased anywhere from 25% to double the price. One wet food my cats like went from $1.79 to $2.49 per can,” she said.

    The new normal many Americans are bracing for, or already feeling, is not just the cost of groceries, for those such as Minnie, a food writer in Portland, Oregon, it’s a change in lifestyle.

    “I don’t shop for non-essentials. No fall shopping trips for a new sweater or jeans. And we’ll make all our Christmas presents this year,” said Minnie, 55. “We used to dine out once a week. Now we never eat out. Even fast-casual is insanely pricey. Everything is twice what it used to cost and we’re very afraid of what’s next, financially speaking.”

    While the US inflation rate hovers around 2.9% – a substantial drop from the spikes of the Covid era – the tariffs haven’t helped ease the impact on Americans’ wallets. Richard Ulmer, 81, who has lived in Florida for 35 years, said this year has been “the worst from a financial standpoint”, adding that “everything” from his groceries to the electric bill has become more expensive.

    For Cassie, a 25-year-old consultant based in Siler City, North Carolina, costs have shot up quickly compared to the “gradual price increases” during the first two years of the pandemic. Cassie has a strict $65 per week budget for groceries, but since Trump first announced his tariffs, she’s been priced out of her normal routine, which included doing most of her weekly shopping at Walmart.

    “Now I must visit at least four different stores in the area and other towns, often driving longer distances to find the best prices,” she said. “During the summer months and the Mexico/Latin America tariff announcement, Walmart and other stores in the area ran out of bananas for around two weeks. No one could get bananas in my area.”

    Continue Reading

  • Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE:TME) shareholders have earned a 81% CAGR over the last three years

    Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE:TME) shareholders have earned a 81% CAGR over the last three years

    Tencent Music Entertainment Group (NYSE:TME) shareholders might be concerned after seeing the share price drop 15% in the last month. But that doesn’t change the fact that the returns over the last three years have been spectacular. In fact, the share price has taken off in that time, up 484%. As long term investors the recent fall doesn’t detract all that much from the longer term story. The only way to form a view of whether the current price is justified is to consider the merits of the business itself.

    With that in mind, it’s worth seeing if the company’s underlying fundamentals have been the driver of long term performance, or if there are some discrepancies.

    We’ve found 21 US stocks that are forecast to pay a dividend yield of over 6% next year. See the full list for free.

    To quote Buffett, ‘Ships will sail around the world but the Flat Earth Society will flourish. There will continue to be wide discrepancies between price and value in the marketplace…’ One way to examine how market sentiment has changed over time is to look at the interaction between a company’s share price and its earnings per share (EPS).

    Tencent Music Entertainment Group was able to grow its EPS at 57% per year over three years, sending the share price higher. In comparison, the 80% per year gain in the share price outpaces the EPS growth. This indicates that the market is feeling more optimistic on the stock, after the last few years of progress. It’s not unusual to see the market ‘re-rate’ a stock, after a few years of growth.

    The company’s earnings per share (over time) is depicted in the image below (click to see the exact numbers).

    NYSE:TME Earnings Per Share Growth October 19th 2025

    It is of course excellent to see how Tencent Music Entertainment Group has grown profits over the years, but the future is more important for shareholders. This free interactive report on Tencent Music Entertainment Group’s balance sheet strength is a great place to start, if you want to investigate the stock further.

    When looking at investment returns, it is important to consider the difference between total shareholder return (TSR) and share price return. Whereas the share price return only reflects the change in the share price, the TSR includes the value of dividends (assuming they were reinvested) and the benefit of any discounted capital raising or spin-off. It’s fair to say that the TSR gives a more complete picture for stocks that pay a dividend. In the case of Tencent Music Entertainment Group, it has a TSR of 496% for the last 3 years. That exceeds its share price return that we previously mentioned. This is largely a result of its dividend payments!

    We’re pleased to report that Tencent Music Entertainment Group shareholders have received a total shareholder return of 91% over one year. That’s including the dividend. Since the one-year TSR is better than the five-year TSR (the latter coming in at 9% per year), it would seem that the stock’s performance has improved in recent times. Someone with an optimistic perspective could view the recent improvement in TSR as indicating that the business itself is getting better with time. Before deciding if you like the current share price, check how Tencent Music Entertainment Group scores on these 3 valuation metrics.

    But note: Tencent Music Entertainment Group may not be the best stock to buy. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies with past earnings growth (and further growth forecast).

    Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on American exchanges.

    Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) simplywallst.com.

    This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

    Continue Reading

  • DESTINY-Breast11: Neoadjuvant T-DXd/THP Improves pCR in High-Risk HER2+ BC | Targeted Oncology

    DESTINY-Breast11: Neoadjuvant T-DXd/THP Improves pCR in High-Risk HER2+ BC | Targeted Oncology

    Neoadjuvant fam-trastuzumab deruxtecan-nxki (T-DXd; Enhertu) followed by paclitaxel, trastuzumab (Herceptin), and pertuzumab (Perjeta; THP) yielded benefit in pathologic complete response (pCR) rates compared with dose-dense doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide plus THP (ddAC-THP) in patients with high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer, according to data from the phase 3 DESTINY-Breast11 trial (NCT05113251).1

    Findings presented at the 2025 ESMO Congress demonstrated that patients treated with T-DXd followed by THP (n = 321) experienced a pCR rate of 67.3% compared with 56.3% for those given ddAC-THP (n = 320; difference, 11.2%; 95% CI, 4.0%-18.3%; P = .003). Notably, the pCR benefit was observed in the hormone receptor–positive population, where the pCR rate was 61.4% in the T-DXd arm (n = 236) vs 52.3% in the ddAC-THP arm (n = 235; difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, 0.2%-17.9%), as well as the hormone receptor–negative population, where the respective pCR rates for the T-DXd arm (n = 83) and ddAC-THP arm (n = 85) were 83.1% and 67.1% (difference, 16.1%; 95% CI, 3.0%-28.8%).

    “DESTINY-Breast11 showed the highest reported pCR rate in HER2-positive early breast cancer for a registrational study in the neoadjuvant setting, despite—if you want to do cross-trial comparisons—a high prevalence of hormone receptor–positive disease and a high-risk population,” lead study author Nadia Harbeck, MD, PhD, said in a presentation of the data.

    Harbeck is director of the Breast Center and chair for Conservative Oncology at the Department of OB&GYN at LMU University Hospital in Munich, Germany.

    How Was the DESTINY-Breast11 Trial Designed?

    Harbeck noted that current neoadjuvant standard-of-care (SOC) regimens for HER2-positive early breast cancer have remained unchanged for more than a decade. As such, investigators sought to evaluate T-DXd–based treatment in this population with the goal of improving efficacy and safety vs the current SOC.

    The randomized, global, multicenter, open-label study enrolled patients with previously untreated HER2-positive early breast cancer who had high-risk disease, defined as ≥cT3 and N0-3 or cT0-4 and N1-3; or inflammatory breast cancer. Patients were allowed to enroll, irrespective of hormone receptor status.

    Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1:1 fashion to receive T-DXd followed by THP; ddAC-THP; or T-DXd alone, followed by surgery in all arms. In the first arm, patients received 4 cycles of T-DXd followed by 4 cycles of THP. In the second, ddAC was administered for 4 cycles, followed by 4 cycles of THP. In the final arm, patients received T-DXd alone for 8 cycles.

    Notably, the T-DXd monotherapy arm was closed in March 2024, following a recommendation from the study’s independent data monitoring committee.

    After surgery, study protocols called for the following treatments, irrespective of arm:

    • pCR: radiotherapy and concomitant trastuzumab with or without pertuzumab for up to 1 year
    • Non-pCR: radiotherapy and ado-trastuzumab emtansine (Kadcyla) for up to 14 cycles
    • Hormone receptor–positive disease: endocrine therapy

    The study’s primary end point was pCR rate (ypT0/Tis ypN0) per blinded independent central review (BICR) assessment. Secondary end points included BICR-assessed pCR rate (ypT0 ypN0), event-free survival (EFS), safety, pharmacokinetics, invasive disease-free survival, overall survival, and health-related quality of life. Residual cancer burden (RCB) was an additional outcome measured during the study.

    At data cutoff, 16.9% of patients in the T-DXd plus THP arm discontinued a study drug, including T-DXd (2.8%), paclitaxel (14.4%), trastuzumab (2.2%), and pertuzumab (2.2%); 97.2% of patients in this arm proceeded to surgery. In the ddAC-THP arm, 13.8% of patients had discontinued any study treatment, including AC (2.9%), paclitaxel (12.0%), trastuzumab (3.0%), and pertuzumab (3.7%); 93.8% of patients in this arm underwent surgery. In the T-DXd monotherapy arm (n = 286), 18.4% of patients discontinued study treatment, and 95.8% underwent surgery.

    Regarding post-neoadjuvant treatments, 99.1% of evaluable patients in the T-DXd arm who achieved a pCR (n = 226) underwent any adjuvant therapy, comprising any cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen (5.8%), any T-DM1–containing regimen (1.8%), and any trastuzumab-containing regimen (94.2%). In the ddAC-THP, 98.4% of patients who achieved a pCR (n = 190) underwent any adjuvant therapy, including any cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen (5.8%), any T-DM1–containing regimen (2.1%), and any trastuzumab-containing regimen (91.6%).

    For patients who did not achieve a pCR, any adjuvant therapy was administered to 89.5% of patients in the T-DXd plus THP arm (n = 95) and 82.3% of patients in the ddAC-THP arm (n = 130). In the experimental group, adjuvant therapies included any cytotoxic chemotherapy regimen (10.5%), any T-DM1–containing regimen (52.6%), and any trastuzumab-containing regimen (38.9%). These respective rates were 9.2%, 56.9%, and 26.2% in the control group.

    In the T-DXd plus THP and ddAC-THP arms, the median age was 50 years (range, 25-82) and 50 years (range, 23-79), respectively. All patients in both arms were female. The highest proportion of patients in each arm was from Asia (T-DXd plus THP, 47.4%; ddAC-THP, 47.5%) and were Asian (49.8%; 49.1%). Most patients had an ECOG performance status of 0 (86.6%; 87.5%), had immunohistochemistry 3+ HER2-positive disease (87.2%; 88.4%), had cT0-2 tumors (54.8%; 58.8%), and had positive lymph nodes (89.4%; 87.8%).

    What Were the Other Efficacy Outcomes for T-DXd Plus THP vs ddAC-THP?

    Findings also showed that 81.3% of patients in the T-DXd plus THP arm had no RCB (RCB-0) or minimal RCB (RCB-1) in resected breast or lymph node tissue compared with 69.1% in the ddAC-THP arm (difference, 12.2%). In the hormone receptor–positive population, the RCB-0 plus RCB-1 rates were 78.0% for T-DXd plus THP vs 64.7% for ddAC-THP; these respective rates were 90.4% and 81.2% in the hormone receptor–negative population.

    Investigators also reported an EFS trend favoring T-DXd plus THP, with data at 4.5% maturity (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.26-1.17). Maturity for the data cutoff of the trial’s final analysis is predicted at approximately 10%. The 24-month EFS rates were 96.9% (95% CI, 93.5%-98.6%) in the T-DXd plus THP arm vs 93.1% (95% CI, 88.7%-95.8%) in the ddAC-THP arm.

    What Is the Safety Profile of T-DXd Plus THP?

    Any-grade adverse effects (AEs) occurred in 98.1% of patients in the T-DXd plus THP arm compared with 98.7% of patients in the ddAC-THP arm. The respective rates of grade 3 or higher AEs were 37.5% and 55.8%. Any-grade serious AEs were reported in 10.6% and 20.2% of patients, respectively.

    In the T-DXd plus THP arm, AEs led to dose any dose reduction, any drug interruption, and any treatment discontinuation in 18.1%, 37.8%, and 14.1% of patients, respectively. In the ddAC-THP group, these rates were 19.2%, 54.5%, and 9.9%, respectively. AEs led to death in 0.6% of patients in both arms. AEs led to delays in surgery in 3.4% of patients in the experimental arm vs 2.6% of patients in the control arm.

    Regarding AEs of special interest, any-grade drug-related adjudicated interstitial lung disease (ILD) was 4.4% in the T-DXd plus THP arm vs 5.1% in the ddAC-THP arm. The rates of grade 3 or higher ILD were 0.6% and 1.9%, respectively. Grade 5 ILD occurred in 1 patient (0.3%) in both groups. Any-grade left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 1.3% of patients in the experimental arm vs 6.1% of patients in the control arm. The rates of grade 3 or higher left ventricular dysfunction were 0.3% and 1.9%, respectively, although no grade 5 events were reported in either group.

    Any-grade treatment-emergent AEs reported in at least 20% of patients in either arm included nausea (T-DXd plus THP, 64.7%; ddAC-THP, 51.6%), diarrhea (58.8%; 54.2%), alopecia (47.5%; 49.0%), fatigue (41.3%; 54.8%), increased transaminase levels (34.4%; 33.7%), neutropenia (29.1%; 44.2%), constipation (29.1%; 24.4%), vomiting (28.8%; 21.2%), peripheral neuropathy (25.9%; 20.8%), anemia (22.8%; 49.7%), stomatitis (18.4%; 27.9%), and leukopenia (17.2%; 23.4%).

    What Data Were Reported for T-DXd Monotherapy in HER2+ Early Breast Cancer?

    When the T-DXd monotherapy arm, patients were allowed to remain on therapy or immediately switch to local SOC. If patients switched therapy, they were classified as having a non-pCR.

    Findings from the monotherapy arm showed that patients (n = 286) achieved a pCR rate of 43.0% at the primary analysis and 51.4% at a prespecified supplementary analysis. EFS data were similar between T-DXd monotherapy and ddAC-THP (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.41-1.62), and the 24-month EFS rate in the T-DXd monotherapy group was 94.4% (95% CI, 90.5%-98.7%).

    Regarding safety, 97.5% of patients treated with T-DXd alone (n = 283) experienced any-grade AEs, 22.6% had grade 3 or higher AEs, and 10.2% had any-grade serious AEs. AEs led to dose reduction, drug interruption, and treatment discontinuation in 6.7%, 18.0%, and 7.8% of patients, respectively. One patient (0.4%) experienced an AE that led to death. AEs led to surgical delay in 6.4% of patients.

    The rate of any-grade, drug-related adjudicated ILD was 4.9% in the T-DXd monotherapy arm, although all instances were grade 1 or 2. Left ventricular dysfunction occurred in 0.7% of patients, all at grade 1 or 2.

    What’s Next for T-DXd Plus THP?

    Based on data from DESTINY-Breast11, the FDA accepted a supplemental biologics license application seeking the approval of neoadjuvant T-DXd followed THP for the treatment of adult patients with high-risk, HER2-positive (IHC 3+ or in situ hybridization–positive), stage II/III breast cancer.2

    The FDA has assigned a target action date of May 18, 2026, under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act.

    “DESTINY-Breast11 results support T-DXd [plus] THP as a more effective and less toxic neoadjuvant treatment compared with ddAC-THP, and it may become the preferred regimen for patients with high-risk, HER2-positive early breast cancer,” Harbeck concluded in her presentation.1

    Disclosures: Harbeck reported receiving honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Gilead, Lilly, Menarini Stemline, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Viatris, and Zuellig Pharma; serving as a consultant or advisor for Exact Sciences, Gilead, Pfizer, Roche, and Sandoz; having an institutional site contract with AstraZeneca; serving as a data safety monitoring board or advisory board member for Gilead, IQVIA, and Roche; and having ownership interested in the West German Study Group.

    REFERENCES:
    1. Harbeck N, Modi S, Pusztai L, et al. DESTINY-Breast11: neoadjuvant trastuzumab deruxtecan alone (T-DXd) or followed by paclitaxel + trastuzumab + pertuzumab (T-DXd-THP) vs SOC for high-risk HER2+ early breast cancer (eBC). Presented at: 2025 ESMO Congress; October 17-21, 2025; Berlin, Germany. Abstract 291O.
    2. Enhertu followed by THP supplemental biologics license application accepted in the U.S. for patients with high-risk HER2 positive early-stage breast cancer prior to surgery. News release. Daiichi Sankyo. October 1, 2025. Accessed October 18, 2025. https://www.daiichisankyo.com/files/news/pressrelease/pdf/202510/20251001_E.pdf

    Continue Reading

  • China wants to play the long game with the U.S. What that means for Chinese stocks

    China wants to play the long game with the U.S. What that means for Chinese stocks

    Continue Reading

  • Bitcoin Crash: A Canary In The Coal Mine – Forbes

    Bitcoin Crash: A Canary In The Coal Mine – Forbes

    1. Bitcoin Crash: A Canary In The Coal Mine  Forbes
    2. Gold Is King Now But BTC USD Will 14X To Over $1,400,000: Mexican Billionaire  Yahoo Finance
    3. This Week’s Biggest Losers Revealed as Bitcoin Slides to $106K: Weekend Watch  CryptoPotato
    4. Bitcoin & Ethereum Oversold Below Key Levels — MAGACOIN FINANCE Emerges as the Hidden Gem for 2025  Crypto Economy
    5. Bitcoin vs Gold: The Financial Future is Here  OneSafe

    Continue Reading

  • Like Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz, Chess.com’s cofounder says people doubted his vision—with a 225 million-user empire, he’s now having the last laugh

    Like Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz, Chess.com’s cofounder says people doubted his vision—with a 225 million-user empire, he’s now having the last laugh

    In any entrepreneur’s journey, there are bound to be naysayers and doors slammed in their face. 

    When Jeff Bezos was drumming up his early visions of Amazon while working as a hedge fund manager, his Wall Street boss questioned if he could achieve success and financial security by selling books on the internet. And when Howard Schultz was looking for money to back his coffee business, called Starbucks, more than 200 investors believed no one would pay $3 for a cup of joe. 

    The same goes for two of Chess.com’s founders, Danny Rensch and Erik Allebest, when they were shopping out their platform to potential investors. Rensch tells Fortune they were routinely overlooked and disregarded.

    “We were laughed out of VC rooms who said that chess would never be anything. Nobody invested early on, and it became the biggest blessing in disguise,” Rensch recalls. 

    No investor, no problem: Chess.com founder had his own back

    Instead of relying on the pockets of investors, the Chess.com founders dipped into their own. They bootstrapped the online business in 2009 with money from Allebest’s former chess ventures, also borrowing $70,000 from a mother’s friend, which Rensch says they paid back very quickly. Soon, the entrepreneurs proved that VC investors missed out on a huge win; today, Chess.com is one of the largest online chess platforms in the world with more than 225 million registered members and 40 million active monthly users. Chess.com says it even surpassed a $1 billion valuation back in 2023.

    Despite having to keep his day job for years while his bootstrapped company was clawing its way to profitability, Rensch says he wouldn’t have it any other way. It’s a part of Chess.com’s underdog story as the platform concept was not only mocked by venture capitalists, but also by the chess community at large. Now, the website has become essential for anyone who’s interested in, or serious about, chess—from novices to grandmasters. 

    “That is a really important part of the story—there was no money raised. We were completely bootstrapped,” Rensch continues. “And given where chess went, I think it’s funny and adds to the magic of ‘Wow, what happened here?”

    It was the ‘laughingstock’ of the chess community before amassing 225 million users

    When Chess.com was still on its business bambi legs, it not only had to take heat from the VC world, but also from its own community. Players were doubtful; the internet was still in its relative infancy in 2009. Plus, there were other niche chess gaming sites like ChessPark (which became a part of Chess.com), Chess Tempo, and Red Hot Pawn. 

    “Chess.com was the laughingstock of the online chess community,” Rensch says. “It sounds so funny to say now, but it really is important to reflect and understand that the internet—at its earliest inception—was not web two or let alone web three. Your website was just a place with a phone number for a lot of people.”

    “There were niche communities and there were the main ones, but Chess.com itself, and the idea that it would become such an amazing home for every level of the chess playing community…was kind of ridiculous for most,” Rensch continues. 

    Rensch says he sees his website as a skill-sharpener that enriches people’s lives. In looking at Chess.com like a subscription service—like a Duolingo, Strava, or Spotify—the platform is a “lifestyle” ritual that users feel adds value to their well-being. And in the 16 years since the website’s inception, more than 225 million chess lovers have flocked to the platform to sharpen their gameplay and be in community. 

    Continue Reading

  • Sam Altman wants to ‘treat adults like adults’—but can OpenAI keep ChatGPT safe after opening the door to erotica?

    Sam Altman wants to ‘treat adults like adults’—but can OpenAI keep ChatGPT safe after opening the door to erotica?

    OpenAI chief executive Sam Altman has announced that ChatGPT will soon be able to generate erotica for verified adult users. The move, framed by Altman as an effort to “treat adult users like adults,” comes as the company faces scrutiny over the way its AI bot can affect users’ mental health amid the rise of so-called “AI psychosis” cases. It also follows in the footsteps of rival companies, including Elon Musk’s xAI, which have already introduced more sexually explicit chatbot “companions” to their platforms.

    There is clearly a large demand for AI chatbots that are capable of behaving in romantic or sexual ways. An April survey of 6,000 regular AI users by the Harvard Business Review found that “companionship and therapy” was the most common use case. Another study from Ark Invest found that adult-focused AI platforms made significant gains last year, capturing 14.5% of the market previously dominated by OnlyFans, up from just 1.5% the year before.

    Popular alternatives that market themselves as companion AI chatbots, such as Character.ai and Replika, also speak to this growing demand from users. Earlier this year, xAI introduced “companion mode” for its chatbot Grok, a feature that lets users engage with various characters, including a highly sexualized anime persona called “Ani.”

    “OpenAI is stuck between a bit of a rock and a hard place, because I think they have seen a strong demand signal from users,” Jessica Li, a senior research analyst at Georgetown’s Center for Security and Emerging Technology, told Fortune. “In terms of the relationships that people are having with models…erotic content or adult content would also fall under this bucket of emotional engagement with the models.”

    The move could be an attempt by OpenAI to “straddle the line” between keeping the market share they already have by promising opt-in content moderation for NSFW content, Li said, while also seeing if they can capture other users from more specialized or niche services like Replika.

    “Despite some of the narratives around building artificial general intelligence that will supercharge the economy, OpenAI is still trying to operate as a technology platform, and somewhat like a social media company,” Li said. “There’s an interesting tension between the narratives that are being sold to investors and politicians… versus the things that are actually happening in the market.”

    OpenAI’s foray into adult content has drawn criticism from child safety advocates and notable industry figures concerned about erotica reaching younger users, despite age verifications.

    Earlier this week, the entrepreneur and TV personality Mark Cuban said OpenAI’s plan could “backfire hard,” and argued that parents will not trust OpenAI’s age filters to keep children away from explicit material. In the US, the Federal Trade Commission has already opened an inquiry into how AI chatbots interact with minors, and state lawmakers are considering tighter rules around digital companions and sexualized AI content. Jenny Kim, a partner at the law firm Boies Schiller Flexner, told the BBC that OpenAI is “using people like guinea pigs,” and questioned how the company would prevent children from accessing adult material on the platform.

    Reached for comment, OpenAI said that the company was building an age prediction system to understand whether someone is over or under 18. They added that if a user’s age could not be confidently confirmed, the chatbot would take the safer route and default to the under-18 experience, while giving adults ways to prove their age to unlock adult capabilities.

    Reacting to some of the backlash on X, Altman said that the announcement had blown “up on the erotica point much more than I thought it was going to.” He emphasized that the change was “just one example of us allowing more user freedom for adults,” not a retreat from safety measures or guardrails around mental health.

    “We are not the elected moral police of the world,” he said, adding that ChatGPT would continue to “prioritize safety over privacy and freedom for teenagers” while giving adults more autonomy.

    The GPT-4o backlash

    OpenAI has also been reckoning with an unexpected wave of backlash following its decision to replace the version of ChatGPT powered by GPT-4o with its newer GPT-5 model. Users revolted against the change, citing lost AI friendships and romantic relationships with the earlier iteration of the bot. One petition to keep the earlier version of the bot gathered almost six thousand signatories.

    “For many of us, GPT-4o offers a unique and irreplaceable user experience, combining qualities and capabilities that we value, regardless of performance benchmarks,” the petitioners wrote in the change.org campaign to keep GPT-4o. “We continue to benefit from GPT-4o in ways that are distinct and meaningful.”

    While OpenAI eventually restored the earlier version, those in the #keep4o movement have since told Fortune they were worried about the company routing users to GPT-5, “without consent or notification.”

    According to Li, the announcement from OpenAI could be trying to signal something to these users: “The very public announcement of it does make me think that they’re trying to signal something to users who are demanding this thing—like, ‘We hear you. We’re responding to your desires.’”

    The shift is also not entirely new; it builds upon a quieter update to OpenAI’s Model Spec earlier this year. In February, OpenAI updated the document to relax the rules around sexual and violent content in what it called a move away from “AI paternalism.” Updated guidelines at the time permitted the generation of written erotica and other sensitive material in appropriate contexts. OpenAI also told Fortune that the announcement was part of its plan to build on the latest release of the Model Spec, while maintaining boundaries against harmful uses like deepfakes.

    Continue Reading

  • Dutch minister says he will meet with China official about seizure of chipmaker Nexperia – Reuters

    1. Dutch minister says he will meet with China official about seizure of chipmaker Nexperia  Reuters
    2. In rare move, Dutch government takes control of China-owned chipmaker Nexperia  Reuters
    3. New Threat to Auto Sector; AI’s DIY Power; IKEA Prices  富途牛牛
    4. Dutch government in talks with China over crucial automotive chip supplier Nexperia  Automotive News
    5. Nexperia crisis: Semiconductor supply shock threatens global auto production  Automotive Manufacturing Solutions

    Continue Reading

  • Does Cognizant’s New AI Coding Blueprint Expand the Long-Term Growth Story for CTSH?

    Does Cognizant’s New AI Coding Blueprint Expand the Long-Term Growth Story for CTSH?

    • Cognizant Technology Solutions recently announced the launch of its Enterprise Vibe Coding Blueprint, a suite of services and reusable intellectual property that enables large enterprises to securely and efficiently operationalize AI-assisted coding across both technical and non-technical teams.

    • This move builds on the company’s record-setting Vibe Coding Week and highlights a shift toward fostering broad-based AI literacy and practical application within client organizations, reaching beyond traditional developer roles.

    • We’ll explore how the introduction of the Enterprise Vibe Coding Blueprint could reshape Cognizant’s investment case and growth outlook.

    Uncover the next big thing with financially sound penny stocks that balance risk and reward.

    To be a Cognizant Technology Solutions shareholder, one must believe in the company’s ability to lead enterprise adoption of AI-driven services, leveraging its proprietary platforms and deep consulting expertise to accelerate clients’ digital transformation. While the launch of Enterprise Vibe Coding Blueprint amplifies Cognizant’s differentiation in enterprise AI, it does not materially shift the immediate catalyst, clients scaling GenAI/automation projects, nor does it reduce the key risk of margin pressure from heightened competition and evolving client demands.

    Among recent developments, Cognizant’s July rollout of Agent Foundry stands out as it directly relates to the company’s focus on proprietary AI offerings, further supporting the current catalyst of large-scale AI implementation deals. Both the Blueprint and Agent Foundry signal Cognizant’s commitment to capturing new automation-led revenue streams, but risks remain if the company cannot continue scaling these platforms to offset potential headwinds from traditional outsourcing erosion.

    However, investors should also be aware that if technological progress outpaces demand for Cognizant’s labor-intensive services…

    Read the full narrative on Cognizant Technology Solutions (it’s free!)

    Cognizant Technology Solutions’ latest forecasts project $23.5 billion in revenue and $2.9 billion in earnings by 2028. This outlook is based on analysts’ expectations for 4.7% annual revenue growth and a $0.5 billion increase in earnings from the current level of $2.4 billion.

    Uncover how Cognizant Technology Solutions’ forecasts yield a $85.80 fair value, a 30% upside to its current price.

    CTSH Community Fair Values as at Oct 2025

    Eight community-generated fair value estimates for Cognizant range from US$66.06 to US$117.06 per share, reflecting wide variation in expectations. While many see upside, ongoing competition from established technology vendors could impact future earnings and project wins, consider multiple viewpoints to make a more informed decision.

    Explore 8 other fair value estimates on Cognizant Technology Solutions – why the stock might be worth just $66.06!

    Disagree with existing narratives? Create your own in under 3 minutes – extraordinary investment returns rarely come from following the herd.

    Right now could be the best entry point. These picks are fresh from our daily scans. Don’t delay:

    This article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.

    Companies discussed in this article include CTSH.

    Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team@simplywallst.com

    Continue Reading

  • Does the Sports Contracts Launch Signal a New Era or Risk for CME Stock in 2025?

    Does the Sports Contracts Launch Signal a New Era or Risk for CME Stock in 2025?

    If you are eyeing CME Group stock and wondering whether now is the right time to buy, hold, or maybe wait on the sidelines, you are not alone. Over the past few years, CME has treated its long-term shareholders to a remarkable journey, boasting a 100.4% return over the past five years. Even zooming in, the ride has stayed exciting, with a 15.1% return so far this year and 22.6% over the last twelve months. Some investors might notice the dip of 1.3% in the past week, raising questions about whether new developments such as the company’s plan to launch sports contracts by the end of the year are already baked into the price or are hinting at shifting risk perceptions in the market.

    Of course, price action is only half the story. Analysts have recently adjusted their expectations; UBS even trimmed its price target slightly, despite raising estimates, reflecting a bit more caution about future outlook. Meanwhile, CME’s latest venture into sports contracts could open fresh revenue streams, especially as it wades deeper into prediction markets alongside big names in the industry. With competitors watching closely and industry partnerships evolving, the question is not just whether CME Group’s stock can keep climbing, but whether its current valuation really stacks up against its prospects.

    When we run CME Group through our 6-factor valuation check, it scores a 1 out of 6 for being undervalued, so not a screaming bargain at first glance. But before jumping to conclusions, let’s break down what those valuation measures really mean and see if there is a more insightful way to judge what CME is worth in today’s market.

    CME Group scores just 1/6 on our valuation checks. See what other red flags we found in the full valuation breakdown.

    The Excess Returns valuation approach examines how well a company generates returns above its cost of equity. Instead of focusing simply on earnings or cash flows, it measures the value created over and above what shareholders expect as a return for their capital. For CME Group, recent analyst estimates suggest its book value stands at $77.13 per share, while its expected stable earnings per share are $12.28, based on a weighted average of future Return on Equity projections from eight analysts.

    With a cost of equity set at $6.41 per share, CME achieves an excess return of $5.87 per share. This translates to an impressive average Return on Equity of 15.56%. The model also references a stable book value projection of $78.88 per share, built from assessments by five different analysts. These figures together inform a valuation model designed to capture the company’s ability to unlock value well into the future, rather than reflecting just short-term profits.

    Continue Reading