Category: 3. Business

Christine Lagarde, President of the ECB,
Luis de Guindos, Vice-President of the ECB

Frankfurt am Main, 5 February 2026

Jump to the transcript of the questions and answers

Good afternoon, the Vice-President and I welcome you to our press conference.

We would like to begin by congratulating Bulgaria on joining the euro area on 1 January 2026. We also warmly welcome Dimitar Radev, the Governor of Българска народна банка (Bulgarian National Bank), to the Governing Council. Membership of the euro area has almost doubled since 1999 and is testimony to the attractiveness of the single currency and the enduring benefits of European integration.

We will now report on the outcome of today’s meeting.

The Governing Council today decided to keep the three key ECB interest rates unchanged. Our updated assessment reconfirms that inflation should stabilise at our two per cent target in the medium term. The economy remains resilient in a challenging global environment. Low unemployment, solid private sector balance sheets, the gradual rollout of public spending on defence and infrastructure and the supportive effects of our past interest rate cuts are underpinning growth. At the same time, the outlook is still uncertain, owing particularly to ongoing global trade policy uncertainty and geopolitical tensions.

We are determined to ensure that inflation stabilises at our two per cent target in the medium term. We will follow a data-dependent and meeting-by-meeting approach to determining the appropriate monetary policy stance. In particular, our interest rate decisions will be based on our assessment of the inflation outlook and the risks surrounding it, in light of the incoming economic and financial data, as well as the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission. We are not pre-committing to a particular rate path.

The decisions taken today are set out in a press release available on our website.

I will now outline in more detail how we see the economy and inflation developing and will then explain our assessment of financial and monetary conditions.

Economic activity

The economy grew by 0.3 per cent in the fourth quarter of 2025, according to Eurostat’s preliminary flash estimate. Growth has mainly been driven by services, notably in the information and communication sector. Manufacturing has been resilient despite the headwinds from global trade and geopolitical uncertainty. Momentum in construction is picking up, also supported by public investment.

The labour market continues to support incomes, even though demand for labour has cooled further. Unemployment stood at 6.2 per cent in December, after 6.3 per cent in November. Growing labour incomes together with a lower household saving rate should bolster private consumption. Government spending on defence and infrastructure should also contribute to domestic demand. Business investment should strengthen further, and surveys indicate that firms are increasingly investing in new digital technologies. At the same time, the external environment remains challenging, owing to higher tariffs and a stronger euro over the past year.

The Governing Council stresses the urgent need to strengthen the euro area and its economy in the present geopolitical context. Governments should prioritise sustainable public finances, strategic investment and growth-enhancing structural reforms. Unlocking the full potential of the Single Market remains crucial. It is also vital to foster greater capital market integration by completing the savings and investments union and the banking union to an ambitious timetable, and to rapidly adopt the Regulation on the establishment of the digital euro.

Inflation

Inflation declined to 1.7 per cent in January, from 2.0 per cent in December and 2.1 per cent in November. Energy inflation dropped to -4.1 per cent, after -1.9 per cent in December and -0.5 per cent in November, while food price inflation increased to 2.7 per cent, from 2.5 per cent in December and 2.4 per cent in November. Inflation excluding energy and food eased to 2.2 per cent, after 2.3 per cent in December and 2.4 per cent in November. Goods inflation edged up to 0.4 per cent, whereas services inflation declined to 3.2 per cent, from 3.4 per cent in December and 3.5 per cent in November.

Indicators of underlying inflation have changed little over recent months and remain consistent with our two per cent medium-term target. Negotiated wage growth and forward-looking indicators, such as the ECB’s wage tracker and surveys on wage expectations, point to a continued moderation in labour costs. However, the contribution to overall wage growth from payments over and above the negotiated wage component remains uncertain.

Most measures of longer-term inflation expectations continue to stand at around 2 per cent, supporting the stabilisation of inflation around our target.

Risk assessment

The euro area continues to face a volatile global policy environment. A renewed increase in uncertainty could weigh on demand. A deterioration in global financial market sentiment could also dampen demand. Further frictions in international trade could disrupt supply chains, reduce exports and weaken consumption and investment. Geopolitical tensions, in particular Russia’s unjustified war against Ukraine, remain a major source of uncertainty. By contrast, planned defence and infrastructure spending, together with the adoption of productivity-enhancing reforms and the adoption of new technologies by euro area firms, may drive up growth by more than expected, including through positive effects on business and consumer confidence. New trade agreements and a deeper integration of our European Single Market could also boost growth beyond current expectations.

The outlook for inflation continues to be more uncertain than usual on account of the volatile global policy environment. Inflation could turn out to be lower if tariffs reduce demand for euro area exports by more than expected and if countries with overcapacity increase further their exports to the euro area. Moreover, a stronger euro could bring inflation down beyond current expectations. More volatile and risk-averse financial markets could weigh on demand and thereby also lower inflation. By contrast, inflation could turn out to be higher if there were a persistent upward shift in energy prices, or if more fragmented global supply chains pushed up import prices, curtailed the supply of critical raw materials and added to capacity constraints in the euro area economy. If wage growth moderated more slowly, services inflation might come down later than expected. The planned boost in defence and infrastructure spending could also cause inflation to pick up over the medium term. Extreme weather events, and the unfolding climate and nature crises more broadly, could drive up food prices by more than expected.

Financial and monetary conditions

Market rates have come down since our last meeting, while global trade and geopolitical tensions temporarily increased financial market volatility. Bank lending rates for firms ticked up to 3.6 per cent in December, from 3.5 per cent in November, as did the cost of issuing market-based debt. The average interest rate on new mortgages again held steady, at 3.3 per cent in December.

Bank lending to firms grew by 3.0 per cent on a yearly basis in December, after 3.1 per cent in November and 2.9 per cent in October. The issuance of corporate bonds rose by 3.4 per cent in December. According to our latest bank lending survey for the euro area, firms’ demand for credit was up slightly in the fourth quarter, especially to finance inventories and working capital. At the same time, credit standards for business loans tightened again.

Mortgage lending grew by 3.0 per cent, after 2.9 per cent in November and 2.8 per cent in October, in response to still rising demand for loans and an easing of credit standards.

Conclusion

The Governing Council today decided to keep the three key ECB interest rates unchanged. We are determined to ensure that inflation stabilises at our two per cent target in the medium term. We will follow a data-dependent and meeting-by-meeting approach to determining the appropriate monetary policy stance. Our interest rate decisions will be based on our assessment of the inflation outlook and the risks surrounding it, in light of the incoming economic and financial data, as well as the dynamics of underlying inflation and the strength of monetary policy transmission. We are not pre-committing to a particular rate path.

In any case, we stand ready to adjust all of our instruments within our mandate to ensure that inflation stabilises sustainably at our medium-term target and to preserve the smooth functioning of monetary policy transmission.

We are now ready to take your questions.

* * *

My first question is on the risk assessment. Given the events of recent weeks, including new tariff threats by the United States, would you say that inflation and economic risks on both sides have become more pronounced again, and has the ECB’s good place perhaps become a little less comfortable? And I’m also curious how you discussed the euro’s exchange rate this week during your meeting. Has the recent appreciation against the dollar perhaps increased any concerns in the Governing Council that inflation might turn out lower than expected?

Let me first of all mention to all of you that the Governing Council took a unanimous decision to keep the rates at their current level, unchanged. In relation to our risk assessment, you will have seen that we take a “one hand, the other hand” approach, both in relation to activity and in relation to inflation. And if you look at the balancing act between the two, we are – as I would call it – in a broadly balanced situation when it comes to risk assessment. Some risks have ticked up. Others have ticked down. But on balance, taking the various specific elements that we make sure we list in a rather exhaustive way, we believe that we are in a broadly balanced situation at the moment.

On the exchange rate, because I know that this is a question that has been on the mind of some, I just want to remind you – and this will not come as a surprise – that we do not target an exchange rate in terms of policy target, but we also recognise that it is important for both growth and the inflation outlook. So for that reason, we always keep a close eye on exchange rate developments, and the Governing Council discussed this matter today. What we observed collectively is that the dollar has depreciated measurably against the euro, but not in the last few days. But since March 2025. That’s when you saw the significant change, at the time. And in the last few weeks – actually since the summer – it has fluctuated within a range. And whether you look at the Euro/US dollar or whether you look at the nominal effective exchange rate, the story is the same. So as a result of that observation, we concluded that the impact of exchange rate appreciation since last year is incorporated in our baseline. But of course, as I said, we always monitor whether the impact is passing through as expected and how it affects our reaction function. That’s the analysis that we conducted. So it’s a topic that we touched upon, that we explored, and our conclusion is as I have just described. I would also observe that the current range within which the euro relative to the dollar is evolving is very much in line with the overall average of that exchange rate between the euro and the dollar for as long as the euro has been around.

I have two questions. Firstly, on the role of the global euro, you wanted to push the importance of the euro globally. Don’t you have to take into account then also a stronger euro towards the rest of the world? My second question is: there are reports that you’re looking into repurposing the swap lines, enlarging the liquidity pool which is available of euro also beyond its current purpose, in order to also enlarge the importance of the euro. Perhaps you can tell us a little bit more about those plans, also in light of the fact that the independence of the Fed is actually currently questioned by the markets.

Your first question has to do with the international role of the euro. And it is a point that I made about a year ago and that we collectively as Governing Council feel strongly about. First observation: it is not because you have an international currency that plays a global role that it necessarily implies that it is “strong” relative to others. There is currently a currency which is playing that role, but it does not necessarily come together with a currency being as a result strong. There is no fatality, if you will, or correlation between the two: being a strong international currency and appreciating relative to other currencies. Second observation: I have said in the past – in that speech which I think I gave in Berlin, if I recall – that for a currency to play an international global role, and to be powerful as a result, it requires a few other elements that build over the course of time. And it clearly goes with a reliable environment and a safe environment, where the rule of law is known and respected. I have no doubt about that particular aspect as far as the euro and the euro area is concerned. It requires a strong position relative to the rest of the world, and there are clearly investments that are flagged in our monetary policy statement, particularly in relation to defence and infrastructure that go in that direction, but where clearly work has to be done. There is a third component, which is also improving and has continued to improve recently, which is the capacity to trade with the rest of the world, and I would regard both the Mercosur, the EU-India trade agreement, and subsequent trade agreements in Australia and other corners of the world, where the Commission is doing hard work, as other components that are necessary for the currency to be strong. So yes, not necessarily aligned with an appreciation of the currency. More work needs to be done in those various directions. One of the attributes of a strong currency is to be the provider of liquidity. And while we are tied to the monetary purpose of what we do in terms of liquidity and we have to constantly assess the proportionality of what we do, it is a fact that we are looking at our liquidity framework and that the repo lines – to be distinguished from the swap lines – are in progress in terms of reframing them, opening up the access and making them more attractive to other national central banks outside the euro area and outside Europe. So this is in the works, and I hope to be able to announce a bit more in a few days.

My first question is about the balance of risk. You said it’s broadly balanced. Could you give us some of the flavour of the discussion? Because I don’t see it in the opening statement. And the second question is about the good place. Are we still in a good place?

You will have noted, because you are an avid reader of our monetary policy statement, that we no longer state in the monetary policy statement whether the risks are broadly balanced or tilted to the downside or tilted to the upside. We did that during the period of COVID because we thought it was good guidance to have at the time. Now what we do as a policy and as a general practice that we have not moved since COVID is we list the upside and the downside risks component, both in relation to growth and in relation to inflation and then it’s not for you to actually second guess. There is a debate that goes on in the Governing Council because it’s always a question of judgement and collective approach to those risks and the range of the risks and the extensiveness of the risks. That is debated. What I can tell you is that we are not seeing a reduction of the range of risks. But when I think of geopolitical risks, for instance, it’s ebb and flow. When I look at uncertainty about tariffs, it’s up and down and out and back. And that has been going on for quite a few quarters actually. So no reduction of the range, but equally the sentiment around the table of the Governing Council is that it’s broadly balanced.

Are we still in a good place? I would certainly argue that we are in a good place and inflation is in a good place. Two words of explanation, because some of you might be riveted to the January data point: I would like just to remind you that our good place is a factor of whether we are convinced that we will reach our medium-term target of 2%. And we cannot be hostage to one data point. I’ve said that many times. We cannot be hostage to one reading of inflation, which is set to vary over the next months. I’m happy to go down into what’s underneath, but there are multiple causes of this 1.7%, and in the monetary policy statement we take really good care of saying what has gone up and what has gone down. You have a bit more of one category versus the others. So as a result of that, we have this particular reading. But some of them are idiosyncratic and will go away. There is a significant component on energy, which has gone to minus five point something and which is largely a base effect from last year’s energy costs. But it is also a fact that inflation is moving gradually down to our target, and we see it at target in the medium term.

Under what conditions of inflation undershooting would the ECB consider easing monetary policy? How long and how far below 2%? And on another subject, in the United States, Kevin Warsh has been nominated to chair the Federal Reserve. Former central banker Mark Carney called it a fantastic choice. Do you share that view, and have you worked with Mr Warsh before?

On Kevin Warsh, yes, I have known him for a long, long time since back in the financial crisis days, where he was in public service and I was Minister of Finance at the time. So we go back a long way, and I very much welcome the announcement of his appointment.

I just want to take you back to the undershooting. We have projected undershooting in 2026 for a long time. And if you go back to our September projections, for instance, which were the last projections conducted by the ECB, we had actually this 1.7%, for the entire year. This was changed and moved up in December. In a way, we are going back to the track that we had anticipated, and this is also what markets and economists are anticipating. But if you look at our medium-term target, which is what we rely upon, we are at 2% in 2028. I myself am particularly attentive, as you know, to services. Services is declining a little bit. I’m also very attentive, as a result, to wages. We have the wage tracker, which seems to guide us towards more growth moderation. We will have more data and intelligence coming out of the March exercise, but there is nothing that is really changing the baseline at all. As I said, we will be looking at all data, not one single data point.

My first question is on making sense of the mood music in the monetary policy statement. Some analysts noted that it seems to have a bit of a hawkish subtext because you’re emphasising the positive elements and also emphasising that inflation is on track to meet your target. Would you share that view that it’s more hawkish than dovish? My second question is on core inflation, which has fallen to, I think, the lowest level since October 2021 and is also below the ECB’s first-quarter forecast. Does the Governing Council see this as a good development, as it suggests inflation is coming down further and quicker than potentially expected? Or is this seen as a rather negative trend because disinflation might be stronger than you want it to be?

On your first question, I would like to mention that our monetary policy is in good shape. And it’s in good shape because it is agile and it is prepared to do what is necessary in order to reach our medium-term 2% target in a symmetric way, as we decided in our strategy assessment determination back in July 2025. So I’m not trying to characterise the hawkishness or the dovishness. This is something that you enjoy doing and that markets look at very attentively. But we are data-dependent. We will decide meeting-by-meeting. We are not rate path predetermined. We do not give forward guidance. We are in this world of significant uncertainty, where geopolitics determine a lot of developments, and that’s what we’re going to continue doing.

Core inflation, you’re right, is one of the underlying inflation elements that we consider. That is one which has gone from 2.4% to 2.2%. We’re still at 2.2% by the way, and I think that it’s following a path that we had anticipated and that we are pleased to see is taking us to target.

I would like to emphasise one element, which you will allow me to pick up because I think it might be interesting. As you probably know, the leaders are meeting in a week’s time to examine competitiveness reforms and hopefully to accelerate the process. So in our monetary policy statement, as you well know, we always have this paragraph which has slightly evolved over the course of time, in which we stress the urgent needs to strengthen the euro area and its economy in the present geopolitical context. And you generally look at this paragraph and say “OK, still the same thing”. What we decided to do in anticipation of that meeting on 12 February is to actually give our checklist to the leaders, so I will send it to each of the leaders of the European Union, to the President of the European Commission and to the President of the European Council. And this is our checklist of what we regard as very much likely to enhance growth, to improve productivity and to really unleash the talent of Europe. We’re not shooting above our range, but we believe that whether it’s the savings and investment union, the digital euro and the tokenised wholesale central bank money, the deepening of the EU single market, the fostering of innovation and protection of open strategic autonomy, or simplifying legislation and strengthening core institutional framework, on these five accounts we hold views. We cannot deliver it all. We are delivering monetary policy and compliance with our mandate. But we strongly feel that significant reforms have to be either deepened or accelerated in order to deliver on what is the potential of Europe. So that’s something that I thought I would mention.

I have a follow-up on the global euro debate, in particular with regard to euro bonds. You checked a few items that you think are important, but what about common defence spending as a critical element in this regard? Is it sufficient in terms of a global euro, or should the EU be even bolder when it comes to euro bonds and making it a permanent feature of a euro safe asset?

It is definitely part of our checklist.

Today’s statement talked about the low employment rate, but if you look at some of the other indicators of labour market resilience, they seem to be telling a slightly different story – things like labour demand, hiring intentions, vacancy rates. So I’m wondering how you’re balancing these different signals. Is the labour market potentially weaker than it may appear based on the unemployment rate? And I also wanted to ask about AI. I think you’ve mentioned a couple of times that we are seeing this benefit of AI investment in Europe, but I think in the global context there is this concern that Europe is falling behind, whether that means adoption or data centre investment. So I was just wondering if you could shed a little more light on what benefits we are actually seeing in terms of the economic impact in Europe and how that might impact broader growth.

On the labour market: first of all, a lot of the data that we get on labour and the labour market in its various dimensions – you referred to vacancies and rotation – are a bit backdated. So very often in January we look at data that we get from the third quarter, some of it from the fourth, but it’s generally with a lag. What we are seeing is increased participation in the labour market. We are seeing slightly lower unemployment: 6.2% coming from 6.3%. We are seeing vacancies that are growing more moderately than we had in the past. It’s a labour market that is still active, as I said, where unemployment is almost at rock bottom. So we will continue to pay close attention because obviously it has an impact on particularly the wage negotiations that we pick in our wage tracker to try to understand where salaries and where the drift is going, which is a difficult part to determine, and where the one-offs are likely to arise as well. So that’s what I can tell you about employment, but we’re certainly not saying that the labour market is in difficulty.

On AI investment, one of the good news stories, as far as the European economy is concerned, is that while the net export activity and contribution to growth is on the decline, the domestic market is responding strongly. Consumption is improving a little bit but not much, but investment is the big story. And whether you look at public investment, particularly in defence and infrastructure, and as a result – I’ll come to that in a second – construction is also a derivative of infrastructure investment. But it’s not just the public sector, it’s also the private sector. We see a significantly higher number in terms of private sector investment, and that is particularly the case in what I used to call ITC or ICT, which I think we have to be a bit more granular about because it’s AI-related but it’s everything having to do with AI. So it’s not just AI: it’s AI, it’s the infrastructure that comes with it, so construction of data centres in the pipeline and going through the process of licensing and authorisation, it’s software, it’s hardware, it’s a lot of investment that is coming out of that particular segment. The really interesting thing from our perspective is how it will impact productivity and how it will contribute or not to inflation, depending on the level of improved productivity. There is a little bit of that, but it’s going to take a while to unleash.

From February 2 to 4, the International Air-Conditioning, Heating, Refrigerating Exposition (AHR Expo) — North America’s largest heating, ventilation, air conditioning and refrigeration (HVACR) trade show — took place in Las Vegas. Hosted by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), this year’s event brought together more than 1,800 global companies, showcasing the latest technologies and industry trends from around the world.

At the exhibition, Samsung Electronics operated a 350-square-meter booth and presented its vision for next-generation HVAC solutions under the theme “Enabling Better Living.” Spanning residential to commercial applications, Samsung demonstrated how AI-driven energy management and advanced maintenance innovations can deliver tangible benefits in real-world environments.

Samsung Newsroom sat down with Hye-seong Baek, Vice President of the Digital Appliances (DA) Business at Samsung Electronics, to discuss the company’s HVAC innovations and strategies.

Q. What were the key factors behind Samsung’s participation in this year’s AHR Expo?

Since Samsung’s first official debut in 2015, Samsung has showcased its latest innovations at the AHR Expo every year. Additionally, North America is the world’s second-largest HVAC market, and it represents a critical arena where the industry’s most advanced technologies compete.

At this year’s exhibition, Samsung directly engaged with its partners to share its differentiated business vision and AI-based HVAC solutions, while further strengthening mid- to long-term partnerships built on mutual trust.

Q. What were the key products and solutions showcased at this year’s Expo?

Samsung unveiled a wide range of solutions that bring enhanced convenience and connectivity to diverse industrial applications and customer environments.

In the commercial segment, Samsung introduced the DVM S2+, a high-efficiency, large-capacity air-conditioning solution with significantly enhanced AI capabilities. At its core is on-device AI that learns from its environment in real time to minimize energy consumption while delivering optimal indoor comfort.

In line with residential sustainability trends, Samsung is targeting the North American unitary¹ market with Hylex, an inverter-based outdoor unit that uses the low global warming potential (GWP)² R454B refrigerant, as a key product. The newly introduced Hylex features inverter technology that delivers high energy efficiency, low noise and a compact design tailored to North American consumer preferences.

Samsung also strengthened its EHS lineup of residential air-to-water heat pumps (AWHPs), offering a practical alternative to conventional fossil-fuel boilers while maximizing hot-water supply and heating efficiency.

Q. At this year’s CES, Samsung shared its vision of HVAC solutions serving as a new growth engine. Why is Samsung increasingly focusing on the HVAC sector?

HVAC is a core technology that regulates temperature and humidity across residential, commercial and industrial facilities, and the HVAC sector plays an essential role in supporting everyday life by providing optimal air conditions in these spaces. In recent years, the market has gained further momentum amid global efforts to address climate change, paired with increasingly comprehensive regulations on eco-conscious energy use. Looking ahead, Samsung anticipates the market to grow annually at a stable rate of approximately 5%.

Samsung is focusing on scaling HVAC services in connection with smart homes and smart cities. By integrating Samsung’s AI technologies and SmartThings across the broader HVAC market, Samsung expects to see strong potential to create meaningful synergies ranging from remote maintenance to energy cost optimization.

Q. What do you see as the key trends shaping the U.S. HVAC market in 2026?

This year, the key trends in the U.S. market are sustainability and high efficiency. Environmental regulations such as the adoption of low-GWP refrigerants are continuing to expand into the commercial sector, alongside new design and installation standards being introduced. In response, the market is shifting away from high energy-consuming, fixed-speed air conditioners toward high-efficiency inverter heat pump systems.

In the residential segment, demand for eco-conscious HVAC heat pumps is steadily increasing, while the adoption of VRF (Variable Refrigerant Flow) systems is accelerating in the commercial sector. This is driving greater diversification across HVAC solutions, while rising demand for AI data centers and high-performance computing is fueling the growth of precision cooling systems as an increasingly important market segment.

Moreover, AI-based predictive maintenance and optimization technologies — along with comfort and energy-saving solutions enabled by a wide range of IoT sensors — are becoming more widespread, with improvements in energy and operational efficiency emerging as a key industry trend.

Q. What sets Samsung apart from its competitors in the highly competitive North American HVAC market?

In North America, the residential segment accounts for approximately 70% of the HVAC market, while the commercial segment represents about 30%. In the residential space, Samsung is expanding its regional distribution network with Samsung Lennox HVAC North America, its joint venture with leading residential HVAC provider Lennox. Through this venture, Samsung leverages its energy-efficient, inverter-based ductless lineup.

In the commercial segment, Samsung is working closely with FläktGroup, Europe’s largest HVAC equipment provider — which the company recently acquired. Together, the companies offer comprehensive, customized solutions centered on modular chillers,³ tailored for high-value applications such as data centers and cleanrooms.

Above all, Samsung’s most distinctive strength lies in the hyperconnectivity enabled by SmartThings and SmartThings Pro. In residential settings, this means continuously evolving experiences as a result of seamless connectivity, while in commercial environments, it manifests as advanced solutions that significantly enhance building-wide energy optimization and maintenance efficiency.

Q. What are Samsung’s goals in the North American HVAC market?

The goal is clear: to leap forward as a top-tier HVAC player in the North American market by leveraging advanced technologies and a diverse product portfolio.

Building on Samsung’s unique strengths in the ductless segment, Samsung is planning to expand into the ducted market — where centralized systems are the norm — through strategic synergies with FläktGroup. With the combination of Samsung’s chiller technologies and FläktGroup’s advanced cooling solutions, Samsung will deliver optimized solutions for data center applications.

In parallel, Samsung will continue to accelerate the rollout of products with low GWP and further strengthen AI-powered energy-saving technologies. Through these efforts, Samsung aims to deliver a differentiated, integrated energy management experience for consumers in the North American residential market, where heating and cooling account for a significant share of electricity consumption.

---

TORONTO, Feb. 5, 2026 /CNW/ – TD Bank Group (“TD” or the “Bank”) (TSX: TD) (NYSE: TD) announced today that it expects catastrophe claims of approximately $7 million after reinsurance and before tax to be reflected in the Bank’s Wealth Management & Insurance segment’s first quarter results. 

Catastrophe claims are insurance claims that relate to any single event that occurred in the relevant fiscal quarter, for which the aggregate insurance claims are equal to or greater than an internal threshold of $5 million before reinsurance. The Bank’s internal threshold may change from time to time. The total amount of catastrophe claims presented reflects the estimated pre-tax cost of these claims net of recoveries from related reinsurance coverage and, when applicable, includes the cost of reinsurance reinstatement premiums. The total amount of catastrophe claims is included in Insurance service expenses and amounts related to reinsurance coverage are included in Other income (loss) on the Bank’s Consolidated Statement of Income.

Additional information about the Bank’s insurance catastrophe claims (including catastrophe claims, net of reinsurance for the comparative quarter) is available on its website here: https://www.td.com/ca/en/about-td/for-investors/investor-relations/financial-information       

Quarterly Earnings Announcement

TD will release its first quarter fiscal 2026 financial results and host an earnings conference call on Thursday, February 26, 2026.

Caution Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This document contains forward-looking statements. All such statements are made pursuant to the “safe harbour” provisions of, and are intended to be forward-looking statements under, applicable Canadian and U.S. securities legislation, including the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements are typically identified by words such as “will”, “would”, “should”, “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “strive”, “confident”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “outlook”, “plan”, “goal”, “commit”, “target”, “possible”, “potential”, “predict”, “project”, “may”, and “could” and similar expressions or variations thereof, or the negative thereof, but these terms are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. By their very nature, these forward-looking statements require the Bank to make assumptions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, general and specific. Especially in light of the uncertainty related to the physical, financial, economic, political, and regulatory environments, such risks and uncertainties – many of which are beyond the Bank’s control and the effects of which can be difficult to predict – may cause actual results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in the forward-looking statements. Please refer to the “Risk Factors and Management” section of the Management’s Discussion and Analysis in the Bank’s 2025 Annual Report, as may be updated in subsequently filed quarterly reports to shareholders. All such factors, as well as other uncertainties and potential events, and the inherent uncertainty of forward-looking statements, should be considered carefully when making decisions with respect to the Bank. The Bank cautions readers not to place undue reliance on the Bank’s forward-looking statements. Any forward-looking statements contained in this document represent the views of management only as of the date hereof and are presented for the purpose of assisting the Bank’s shareholders and analysts in understanding the Bank’s financial position, objectives and priorities and anticipated financial performance as at and for the periods ended on the dates presented, and may not be appropriate for other purposes. The Bank does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements, whether written or oral, that may be made from time to time by or on its behalf, except as required under applicable securities legislation.

About TD Bank Group

The Toronto-Dominion Bank and its subsidiaries are collectively known as TD Bank Group (“TD” or the “Bank”). TD is the sixth largest bank in North America by assets and serves over 28.1 million customers in four key businesses operating in a number of locations in financial centres around the globe: Canadian Personal and Commercial Banking, including TD Canada Trust and TD Auto Finance Canada; U.S. Retail, including TD Bank, America’s Most Convenient Bank®, TD Auto Finance U.S., and TD Wealth (U.S.); Wealth Management and Insurance, including TD Wealth (Canada), TD Direct Investing, and TD Insurance; and Wholesale Banking, including TD Securities and TD Cowen. TD also ranks among North America’s leading digital banks, with more than 13 million active mobile users in Canada and the U.S. TD had $2.1 trillion in assets on October 31, 2025. The Toronto-Dominion Bank trades under the symbol “TD” on the Toronto Stock Exchange and New York Stock Exchange.

SOURCE TD Bank Group

Matthew Hornbach: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Matthew Hornbach, Global Head of Macro Strategy.

 

Michael Gapen: And I’m Michael Gapen, Morgan Stanley’s Chief U.S. Economist.

 

Matthew Hornbach: Today we’ll be talking about the Federal Open Market Committee meeting that occurred last week.

 

It’s Thursday, February 5th at 8:30 am in New York.

 

So, Mike, last week we had the first Federal Open Market Committee meeting of 2026. What were your general impressions from the meeting? And how did it compare to what you had thought going in?

 

Michael Gapen: Well, Matt, I think that the main question for markets was how hawkish a hold or how dovish a hold would this be. As you know, it was widely expected the Fed would be on hold. The incoming data had been fairly solid. Inflation wasn’t all that concerning, and most of the employment data suggested things had stabilized. So, it was clear they were going to pause.

 

The question was would they pause or would they be on pause, right? And in our view, it was more of a dovish hold. And by that, it suggests to us, or they suggested to us, I should say, that they still have an easing bias and rates should generally move lower over time.

 

So, that really was the key takeaway for me. Would they signal a prolonged pause and perhaps suggest that they might be done with the easing cycle? Or would they say, yes, we’ve stopped for now, but we still expect to cut rates later? Perhaps when inflation comes down and therefore kind of retain a dovish bias or an easing bias in the policy rate path. So, to me, that was the main takeaway.

 

Matthew Hornbach: Of course, as we all know, there are supposed to be some personnel changes on the committee this year. And Chair Powell was asked several questions to try to get at the future of this committee and what he himself was going to do personally. What was your impression of his response and what were the takeaways from that part of the press conference?

 

Michael Gapen: Well, clearly, he’s been reluctant to, say, pre-announce what he may do when his term is chair ends in May.   But his term as a governor extends into 2028. So, he has options. He could leave normally that’s what happens. But he could also stay and he’s never really made his intentions clear on that part. I think for maybe personal or professional reasons. But he has his own; he has his own reasons and, and that’s fine.

 

And I do think the recent subpoena by the DOJ has changed the calculus in that. At least my own view is that it makes it more likely that he stays around. It may be easier for him to act in response to that subpoena by being on staff. It’s a request for additional information; he needs access to that information. I think you could construct a reasonable scenario under which, ‘Well, I have to see this through, therefore, I may stay around.’ But maybe he hasn’t come to that conclusion yet.

 

And then stepping back, that just complicates the whole picture in the sense that we now know the administration has put forward Kevin Warsh as the new Fed chair. Will he be replacing the seat that Jay Powell currently sits in? Will he be replacing the seat that Stephen Myron is sitting in?

 

So yes, we have a new name being put forward, but it’s not exactly clear where that slot will be; and what the composition of the committee will look like.

 

Matthew Hornbach: Well, you beat me to the punch on mentioning Kevin Warsh…

 

Michael Gapen: I kind of assumed that’s where you were going.

 

Matthew Hornbach: It was going to be my next question.   I’m curious as to what you think that means for Fed policy later this year, if anything. And what it might mean more medium term?

 

Michael Gapen: Yeah. Well, first of all, congratulations to Mr. Warsh on the appointment. In terms of what we think it means for the outlook for the Fed’s reaction function and interest rate policy, we doubt that there will be a material change in the Fed’s reaction function.

 

His previous public remarks don’t suggest his views on interest rate policy are substantively outside the mainstream, or at least certainly the collective that’s already in the FOMC. Some people would prefer not to ease. The majority of the committee still sees a couple more rate cuts ahead of them.

 

Warsh is generally aligned with that, given his public remarks. But then also all the reserve bank presidents have been renominated. There’s an ongoing Supreme Court case about the ability of the administration to fire Lisa Cook. If that is not successful, then Kevin Warsh will arrive in an FOMC where there’s 16 other people who all get a say. So, the chair’s primary responsibility is to build a consensus; to herd the cats, so to speak. To communicate to markets and communicate to the public.

 

So, if Mr. Warsh wanted to deviate substantially from where the committee was, he would have to build a consensus to do that. So, we think, at least in the near term, the reaction function won’t change. It’ll be driven by the data, whether the labor market holds up, whether inflation, decelerates as expected. So, we don’t look for material change.

 

Now you also asked about the medium term. I do think where his views differ, at least with respect to current Fed policy is on the size of the Fed’s balance sheet and its footprint in financial markets. So, he has argued over time for a much smaller balance sheet. He’s called the Fed’s balance sheet bloated. He has said that it creates distortions in markets, which mean interest rates could be higher than they otherwise would be. And so, I think if there is a substantive change in Fed policy going forward, it could be there on the balance sheet.

 

But what I would just say on that is it’ll likely take a lot of coordination with Treasury. It will likely take changes in rules, regulations, the supervisory landscape. Because if you want to reduce the balance sheet further without creating volatility in financial markets, you have to find a way to reduce bank demand for it. So, this will take time, it’ll take study, it’ll take patience. I wouldn’t look for big material changes right out of the box.

 

So Matt, what I’d like to do is, if I could flip it back to you, Warsh was certainly one of the expected candidates, right? So, his name is not a surprise. But as we knew financial markets, one day we’re thinking it’d be one candidate. The next day it’d be thinking at the next it was somebody else.

 

How did you see markets reacting to the announcement of Mr. Warsh? For the next Fed share, and then maybe put that in context of where markets were coming out of the last FOMC meeting.

 

Matthew Hornbach: Yeah, so the markets that moved the most were not the traditional, very large macro markets like the interest rate marketplace or the foreign exchange market. The markets that moved the most were the prediction markets. These newer markets that offer investors the ability to wager on different outcomes for a whole variety of events around the world.   But when it comes to the implications of a Kevin Warsh led Fed – for the bigger macro markets like interest rates and currencies, the question really comes down to how?

 

If the Fed’s balance sheet policies are going to take a while to implement, those are not going to have an immediate effect, at least not an effect that is easily seen with the human eye. But it’s other types of policy change in terms of his communication policy, for example. One of the points that you raised in your recent note, Mike, was how Kevin Warsh favored less communication than perhaps some of the recent, Federal Open Market Committees had with the public.

 

And so, if there is some kind of a retrenchment from the type of over-communication to the marketplace, from either committee members or non-voters that could create a bit more volatility in the marketplace. Of course, the Fed has been one of the central banks that does not like to surprise the markets in terms of its monetary policy making. And so, that contrasts with other central banks in the G10. For example, the Swiss National Bank tends to surprise quite a lot. The Reserve Bank of Australia tends to surprise markets. More often, certainly than the Fed does. So, to the extent that there’s some change in communication strategy going forward that could lead to more volatile interest rate in currency markets.

 

And that then could cause investors to demand more risk premium to invest in those markets. If you previously were comfortable owning a longer duration Treasury security because you felt very comfortable with the future path of Fed policy, then a Kevin Warsh led Fed – if it decides to change the communication strategy – could naturally lead investors to demand more risk premium in their investments. And that, of course, would lead to a steeper U.S. Treasury curve, all else equal. So that would be one of the main effects that I could see happen in markets as a result of some potential changes that the Fed may consider going forward.

 

So, Mike, with that said, this was the first FOMC meeting of the year, and the next meeting arrives in March. I guess we’ll just have to wait between now and then to see if the Fed is on hold for a longer period of time or whether or not the data convinced them to move as soon as the March meeting.

 

Thanks for taking time to talk, Mike.

 

Michael Gapen: Great speaking with you, Matt.

 

Matthew Hornbach: And thanks for listening. If you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please leave us a review wherever you listen and share the podcast with a friend or colleague today. 

Ecological harm from pesticides is growing globally, a study has found, with bugs, fish, pollinators and land-based plants among six species groups hit hardest.

Insects suffered the greatest increase in harm from synthetic farm chemicals between 2013 and 2019, the study shows, with “applied” toxicity rising by 42.9%, followed by soil organisms, which faced an increase of 30.8%.

Aquatic plants and land-based vertebrates were the only two groups for which the danger fell.

World leaders promised to halve the risks from pesticides by the end of the decade at a 2022 UN summit. Last year, the UN adopted an indicator of progress known as total applied toxicity (TAT), which factors in the different levels of harm that chemicals cause different species.

To monitor progress toward the biodiversity pledge, the researchers used the TAT framework and safety thresholds from seven regulatory authorities around the world to develop a globally consistent measure of damage from 625 pesticides.

Jakob Wolfram, an ecotoxicologist at RPTU University Kaiserslautern-Landau and lead author of the study, said he was “highly concerned” by the trend, especially in developing countries and regions with high biodiversity.

“It should be a stark warning that applied toxicities are still increasing in many regions, particularly for species groups that serve vital ecological functions,” he said.

The study, which examined 65 countries representing almost 80% of farmland on the planet, found total applied toxicity fell in Europe, which began to phase out neonicotinoids in 2013, and China, which introduced a zero-growth-pesticide policy in 2015.

However, toxicity increased considerably in much of Africa, India, the US, Brazil and Russia. Chile is the only country on track to meet the UN target of reducing pesticide risk by 50% by 2030, the study found.

Mónica Martínez Haro, a wildlife toxicologist at Spain’s National Research Council, who was not involved in the study, described the research as “highly relevant and high-quality” but said the results may be partly underestimated given limitations in the data.

She said pesticides were designed to act lethally on target organisms but could also act “sub-lethally and silently” on other organisms, masking some of their effects on ecological health.

Martínez Haro said: “This is a key study that highlights the urgent need for substantial measures at a global level – such as agricultural diversification, less intensive soil management, greater conversion to organic farming, and the switch to less toxic pesticides – if the United Nations’ goal of safeguarding biodiversity is to be achieved.”

Synthetic chemicals that kill pests have increased the productivity of farmland, allowing more food to be grown on the same area, but have harmed the ecosystems in which they are used.

The researchers studied 2013 to 2019 because it had the best global data coverage, but said applied toxicity had probably continued to rise as pesticide application trends have continued. Farmers around the world spray about 4m tons of pesticides each year, nearly double what they did in the 1990s.

Wolfram said the global rise in applied toxicities of pesticides for most species groups suggested that ecosystems had become “increasingly impaired” by pesticides. “[This] directly counteracts the risk reduction target set out by the UN’s Global Biodiversity Framework.”

While the new tool allowed the world to gauge progress towards the target, Wolfram added, the pesticide application data needed was sparsely available for most countries, and often of insufficient quality. “One central call from our study is that long-term, high-quality data is needed globally to assess the current status and trends of applied toxicities.”

Filter by article type:

In-brief analysis

In-depth analysis

Designation strengthens BIZENGRI® development program in rare cholangiocarcinoma

LEXINGTON, Mass., Feb. 5, 2026 /PRNewswire/ — Partner Therapeutics, Inc. (PTx), a privately held, fully integrated biotechnology company, today announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Orphan Drug Designation (ODD) to zenocutuzumab‑zbco for the treatment of adults with advanced unresectable or metastatic cholangiocarcinoma. Zenocutuzumab-zbco is being developed in a subset of patients with cholangiocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion.

Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is a rare, aggressive malignancy of the bile ducts, typically diagnosed at an advanced stage when curative options are limited. There are approximately 8,000 cases annually in the United States, and the five-year survival rate for all stages remains below 15 percent, emphasizing the need for new therapeutic approaches. NRG1 gene fusions result from structural DNA rearrangements and typically occur without other oncogenic alterations. Like other fusions, they are best detected with a combination of tissue-based RNA and DNA next generation sequencing.

Systemic first-line treatment regimens in cholangiocarcinoma yield modest clinical benefit, with overall response rates (ORRs) of 26% to 29% and median overall survival (OS) of 11.7 to 12.8 months. Second-line treatment with FOLFOX provides an ORR of 5%, progression free survival of 4.0 months, and median OS of 6.2 months. Zenocutuzumab-zbco has shown activity in patients with cholangiocarcinoma harboring NRG1 gene fusion.

“Patients with cholangiocarcinoma face a particularly aggressive cancer with poor prognosis and limited treatment options. Receiving Orphan Drug Designation for zenocutuzumab in patients with CCA harboring the NRG1 gene fusion is a significant regulatory milestone for Partner Therapeutics and highlights the urgent need for new and effective treatment options for patients with this disease” said Juan W. Valle, MD, Chief Medical Officer of the Cholangiocarcinoma Foundation.

The FDA grants Orphan Drug Designation to investigational products designed to treat rare diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Designation benefits may include up to seven years of market exclusivity upon approval, exemption from FDA user fees, eligibility for clinical‑trial tax credits, and closer collaboration with the Agency during development.

Zenocutuzumab‑zbco, marketed as BIZENGRI®, received Breakthrough Therapy Designation from the FDA in October 2025 and was granted accelerated approval in December 2024 for adults with advanced unresectable or metastatic non‑small cell lung cancer and pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma harboring NRG1 gene fusions following prior therapy.

For more information on the eNRGy trial and zenocutuzumab-zbco, please visit www.partnertx.com.

About NRG1 Gene Fusions

NRG1 fusions are unique cancer drivers that create oncogenic chimeric ligands rather than the more widely described chimeric receptors (NTRK, RET, ROS1, ALK, and FGFR fusions). The chimeric ligands bind to HER3, triggering HER2/HER3 heterodimerization and activate downstream signaling pathways that cause cancer cells to grow and proliferate. Zenocutuzumab-zbco is a bispecific antibody that blocks HER2/HER3 dimerization and NRG1 fusion interactions with HER3, resulting in the suppression of these pathways. Comprehensive molecular testing, notably the combination of tissue-based DNA and RNA next generation sequencing, is essential to identify rare and actionable gene fusions, including NRG1.

About BIZENGRI (zenocutuzumab-zbco)

INDICATIONS

BIZENGRI is indicated for the treatment of adults with advanced unresectable or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion with disease progression on or after prior systemic therapy.

BIZENGRI is indicated for the treatment of adults with advanced unresectable or metastatic pancreatic adenocarcinoma harboring a neuregulin 1 (NRG1) gene fusion with disease progression on or after prior systemic therapy.

These indications are approved under accelerated approval based on overall response rate and duration of response. Continued approval for these indications may be contingent upon verification and description of clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial(s). 

Important Safety Information

BOXED WARNING: EMBRYO-FETAL TOXICITY

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity: Exposure to BIZENGRI during pregnancy can cause embryo-fetal harm. Advise patients of this risk and the need for effective contraception.

WARNINGS AND PRECUATIONS

Infusion-Related Reactions/Hypersensitivity/Anaphylactic Reactions

BIZENGRI can cause serious and life-threatening infusion-related reactions (IRRs), hypersensitivity and anaphylactic reactions. Signs and symptoms of IRR may include chills, nausea, fever, and cough.

In the eNRGy study, 13% of patients experienced IRRs, all were Grade 1 or 2; 91% occurred during the first infusion.

Administer BIZENGRI in a setting with emergency resuscitation equipment and staff who are trained to monitor for IRRs and to administer emergency medications. Monitor patients closely for signs and symptoms of infusion reactions during infusion and for at least 1 hour following completion of first BIZENGRI infusion and as clinically indicated. Interrupt BIZENGRI infusion in patients with ≤ Grade 3 IRRs and administer symptomatic treatment as needed. Resume infusion at a reduced rate after resolution of symptoms. Immediately stop the infusion and permanently discontinue BIZENGRI for Grade 4 or life-threatening IRR or hypersensitivity/anaphylaxis reactions. 

Interstitial Lung Disease/Pneumonitis

BIZENGRI can cause serious and life-threatening interstitial lung disease (ILD)/pneumonitis.

In the eNRGy study, ILD/pneumonitis occurred in 2 (1.1%) patients treated with BIZENGRI. Grade 2 ILD/pneumonitis (Grade 2) resulting in permanent discontinuation of BIZENGRI occurred in 1 (0.6%) patient. Monitor for new or worsening pulmonary symptoms indicative of ILD/pneumonitis (e.g., dyspnea, cough, fever). Immediately withhold BIZENGRI in patients with suspected ILD/pneumonitis and administer corticosteroids as clinically indicated.

Permanently discontinue BIZENGRI if ILD/pneumonitis ≥ Grade 2 is confirmed. 

Left Ventricular Dysfunction

BIZENGRI can cause left ventricular dysfunction.

Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) decrease has been observed with anti-HER2 therapies, including BIZENGRI. Treatment with BIZENGRI has not been studied in patients with a history of clinically significant cardiac disease or LVEF less than 50% prior to initiation of treatment.

In the eNRGy study, Grade 2 LVEF decrease (40%-50%; 10 – 19% drop from baseline) occurred in 2% of evaluable patients. Cardiac failure without LVEF decrease occurred in 1.7% of patients, including 1 (0.6%) fatal event.

Before initiating BIZENGRI, evaluate LVEF and monitor at regular intervals during treatment as clinically indicated. For LVEF of less than 45% or less than 50% with absolute decrease from baseline of 10% or greater which is confirmed, or in patients with symptomatic congestive heart failure (CHF), permanently discontinue BIZENGRI. 

Embryo-Fetal Toxicity

Based on its mechanism of action, BIZENGRI can cause fetal harm when administered to a pregnant woman. No animal reproduction studies were conducted with BIZENGRI. In post marketing reports, use of a HER2-directed antibody during pregnancy resulted in cases of oligohydramnios manifesting as fatal pulmonary hypoplasia, skeletal abnormalities, and neonatal death. In animal models, studies have demonstrated that inhibition of HER2 and/or HER3 results in impaired embryo-fetal development, including effects on cardiac, vascular and neuronal development, and embryolethality. Advise patients of the potential risk to a fetus. Verify the pregnancy status of females of reproductive potential prior to the initiation of BIZENGRI. Advise females of reproductive potential to use effective contraception during treatment with BIZENGRI and for 2 months after the last dose. 

ADVERSE REACTIONS

NRG1 Gene Fusion Positive Unresectable or Metastatic NSCLC

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 25% of patients with NRG1 gene fusion positive NSCLC who received BIZENGRI. Serious adverse reactions in ≥ 2% of patients included pneumonia (n=4) dyspnea and fatigue (n=2 each). Fatal adverse reactions occurred in 3 (3%) patients and included respiratory failure (n=2), and cardiac failure (n=1). Permanent discontinuation of BIZENGRI due to an adverse reaction occurred in 3% of patients. Adverse reactions resulting in permanent discontinuation of BIZENGRI included dyspnea, pneumonitis and sepsis (n=1 each).

In patients with NRG1 gene fusion positive NSCLC who received BIZENGRI, the most common (>20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were decreased hemoglobin (35%), increased alanine aminotransferase (30%), decreased magnesium (28%), increased alkaline phosphatase (27), decreased phosphate (26%), diarrhea (25%), musculoskeletal pain (23%), increased gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (23%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (22%), and decreased potassium (21%).

NRG1 Gene Fusion Positive Unresectable or Metastatic Pancreatic Adenocarcinoma

Serious adverse reactions occurred in 23% of patients with NRG1 gene fusion positive pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received BIZENGRI.

There were 2 fatal adverse reactions, one due to COVID-19 and one due to respiratory failure.

In patients with NRG1 gene fusion positive pancreatic adenocarcinoma who received BIZENGRI the most common (≥20%) adverse reactions, including laboratory abnormalities, were increased alanine aminotransferase (51%), diarrhea (36%), increased aspartate aminotransferase (31%), increased bilirubin (31%), decreased phosphate (31%), increased alkaline phosphatase (28%), decreased sodium (28%), musculoskeletal pain (28%), decreased albumin (26%), decreased potassium (26%), decreased platelets (26%), decreased magnesium (24%), increased gamma-glutamyl transpeptidase (23%), decreased hemoglobin (23%), vomiting (23%), nausea (23%), decreased leukocytes (21%), and fatigue (21%). 

Please see full Prescribing Information, including Boxed Warning

About Partner Therapeutics

Partner Therapeutics, Inc. (PTx), an integrated biotechnology company, focuses on development and commercialization of therapeutics to improve health outcomes in cancer and serious diseases, as well as global health security threats. The company believes in delivering products and supporting medical teams with the purpose of achieving superior outcomes for patients and their families. PTx’s portfolio includes zenocutuzumab-zbco (BIZENGRI®) and sargramostim (EU: IMREPLYS®; US: LEUKINE®; and with Nobelpharma Co. Ltd for JAPAN: SARGMALIN®). Visit www.partnertx.com.

References:

1. BIZENGRI (zenocutuzumab-zbco) injection [package insert]. Available at: https://www.bizengrihcp.com/pi
2. American Cancer Society (ACS). Key statistics about bile duct cancer. Last Revised: October 11, 2024. Accessed at https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/bile-duct-cancer/about/key-statistics.html, on 25 Jul 2025.
3. Schram AM, Goto K, Kim DW, et al. Efficacy of zenocutuzumab in NRG1 fusion–positive cancer. N Engl J Med. 2025;392:566-76. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2405008
4. Valle J, Wasan H, Palmer DH, et al. Cisplatin plus gemcitabine versus gemcitabine for biliary tract cancer. N Engl J Med. 2010;362(14):1273-81. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0908721
5. Oh DY, Ruth He A, Qin S, et al. Durvalumab plus gemcitabine and cisplatin in advanced biliary tract cancer. NEJM Evid. 2022;1(8):EVIDoa2200015. doi:10.1056/EVIDoa2200015
6. Kelley RK, Ueno M, Yoo C, et al. Pembrolizumab in combination with gemcitabine and cisplatin compared with gemcitabine and cisplatin alone for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (KEYNOTE-966): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet.2023;401(10391):1853-65. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(23)00727-4. Erratum in: Lancet. 2024 Mar 23;403(10432):1140. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)00545-2.

BIZENGRI^® is a registered trademark of Merus B.V. Under an agreement with Merus, PTx has exclusive rights to develop, manufacture, and commercialize zenocutuzumab-zbco for the treatment of NRG1+ cancer in the U.S. and provide the product on a named-patient basis for this use outside of the U.S. pending future regulatory developments.

PARTNER THERAPEUTICS^®, IMREPLYS^®, and LEUKINE^® are registered trademarks owned by Partner Therapeutics, Inc. ©2026 Partner Therapeutics, All rights reserved.

SOURCE Partner Therapeutics, Inc.

The price of bitcoin continued its monthslong slide Thursday, falling another 11% to $67,000, its lowest level in 15 months

The price of bitcoin continued its monthslong slide Thursday, falling another 11% to $67,000, its lowest level in 15 months.

The original cryptocurrency, pitched as “digital gold,” has lost 46% of its value since Oct. 6, when it hit a record high of $126,210.50, according to crypto trading platform Coinbase. As of 10:30 a.m. EST Thursday, its price had dipped to $67,245.

After the election of President Donald Trump in November of 2024, Bitcoin prices chugged higher for the better part of a year, in part due to investors’ expectations of a more crypto-friendly administration in Washington.

Companies that enable investors to buy and sell cryptocurrencies, as well as the growing number of companies who have made investing in bitcoin their main business focus, have also been hit hard in the recent sell-off.

Coinbase Global fell 9.1% and online trading platform Robinhood Markets lost 8.1%. Bitcoin mining company Riot Platforms dropped 10%.

Strategy, the biggest of the so-called crypto treasury companies that raises money just to buy bitcoin, tumbled 13%. The company, formerly called MicroStrategy, reports on its website holdings of 713,502 bitcoin. With the average purchase prices for those above $76,000, it means the company is under water on the investment. Thursday morning its bitcoin holdings were worth about $47.8 billion, less than the $54.3 billion Strategy says they cost.

American Bitcoin, in which Trump’s sons Eric Trump and Donald Trump Jr. hold a stake, fell 6.6% and is now down more than 80% since Oct. 7.

Other Trump-related crypto ventures have declined as well. The market value for the World Liberty Financial token, or $WLFI, has fallen to about $3.25 billion from above $6 billion in mid-September, according to coinmarketcap.com. And the price of a meme coin named for President Donald Trump, $TRUMP, is $3.93, a fraction of the $45 asking price just before his inauguration in January.