Category: 3. Business

  • Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG

    Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC and Mercedes-Benz Group AG

    NOTE: AG Jennings and Connecticut AG William Tong announced this settlement at a Zoom press conference this morning. Video of the Zoom announcement is available here.

    Attorney General Kathy Jennings, together with her counterparts in Connecticut and Maryland, led a coalition of 50 attorneys general announcing a nearly $150 million settlement with Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG for violating state laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices by marketing, selling and leasing vehicles equipped with illegal and undisclosed emissions defeat devices designed to circumvent emissions standards. The settlement also includes more than $200 million in potential consumer relief.

    “For nearly a decade, Mercedes sold vehicles that were marketed as clean and environmentally responsible while secretly polluting far beyond legal limits,” said AG Jennings. “This settlement holds Mercedes accountable for deceiving consumers, evading emissions laws, and putting public health at risk. We expect honesty in the marketplace and clean air in our communities. Today’s agreement delivers both meaningful penalties and real relief for affected drivers.”

    “Vehicle emissions are one of the largest contributors to air pollution in Delaware, so our air quality depends on properly operated vehicle emission control systems,” said Delaware Department of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Sec. Greg Patterson. “All vehicle manufacturers need to do their part by meeting the emission requirements, and we appreciate Attorney General Jennings and her staff leading this multistate investigation and settlement concerning our air.”

    Beginning in 2008 and continuing to 2016, the states allege Mercedes manufactured, marketed, advertised, and distributed nationwide more than 211,000 diesel passenger cars and vans equipped with software defeat devices that optimized emission controls during emissions tests, while reducing those controls outside of normal operations. The defeat devices enabled vehicles to far exceed legal limits of nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions, a harmful pollutant that causes respiratory illness and contributes to the formation of smog. Mercedes engaged in this conduct to achieve design and performance goals, such as increased fuel efficiency and reduced maintenance, that it was unable to meet while complying with applicable emission standards. Mercedes concealed the existence of these defeat devices from state and federal regulators and the public. At the same time, Mercedes marketed the vehicles to consumers as “environmentally-friendly” and in compliance with applicable emissions regulations.
    Today’s settlement requires Mercedes-Benz USA and Daimler AG to pay $120 million to the states upon the effective date of the settlement. An additional $29,673,750 will be suspended and potentially waived pending completion of a comprehensive consumer relief program. Delaware will receive $3.6 million through today’s settlement.

    The consumer relief program extends to the estimated 39,565 vehicles that had not been repaired or permanently removed from the road in the United States by August 1, 2023. Mercedes must bear the cost of installing approved emission modification software on each of the affected vehicles. The companies must provide participating consumers with an extended warranty and will pay consumers $2,000 per subject vehicle.

    The companies must also comply with reporting requirements, reform their practices, and refrain from any further unfair or deceptive marketing or sale of diesel vehicles, including misrepresentations regarding emissions and compliance.
    Today’s settlement follows similar settlements reached previously between the states and Volkswagen, Fiat Chrysler and German engineering company Robert Bosch GmbH over its development of the cheat software. Automaker Fiat Chrysler and its subsidiaries paid $72.5 million to the states in 2019. Bosch paid $98.7 million in 2019. Volkswagen reached a $570 million settlement with the states in 2016.

    Delaware co-led this multistate investigation and settlement with the attorneys general of Connecticut and Maryland. They were assisted by Alabama, Georgia, New Jersey, New York, South Carolina, and Texas.  The final settlement was also joined by Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming, and Puerto Rico.

    image_printPrint

    Continue Reading

  • Meeks and Warren Invoke Power Under Statute to Require Trump Administration Turn Over Information on Its Decision to Greenlight the Sale of H200 Chips to China – Press Releases

    Meeks and Warren Invoke Power Under Statute to Require Trump Administration Turn Over Information on Its Decision to Greenlight the Sale of H200 Chips to China – Press Releases

    “Approving licenses for items like NVIDIA’s H200 chips, which the Justice Department recently described as ‘integral to modern military applications,’ would be deeply at odds with the policy that Congress articulated in ECRA.”

    Washington, DC — Congressman Gregory W. Meeks (D-NY-05), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, sent a letter to Jeffrey Kessler, the Under Secretary for Industry and Security at the Department of Commerce, demanding that the Department of Commerce turn over information required by statute regarding the Administration’s intention to approve the sale of advanced AI chips to China despite the significant military application potential of this technology. 

    The lawmakers made the request pursuant to the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA). Under ECRA, the Department of Commerce must provide any information obtained in administering the Export Administration Regulations upon the request of the chairman or ranking minority member of the appropriate committee or subcommittee. This includes license applications, as well as license approvals, conditions, and supporting evidence that provide the basis for a licensing decision. 

    Ranking Members Meeks and Warren underscored that the requested information is essential given the significant national security implications of allowing the sale of advanced chips to China. “In ECRA, Congress stated the policy of the United States is ‘to restrict the export of items which would make a significant contribution to the military potential of any other country,’” wrote the Democratic lawmakers. “Approving licenses for items like NVIDIA’s H200 chips, which the Justice Department recently described as ‘integral to modern military applications,’ would be deeply at odds with the policy that Congress articulated in ECRA.”

    The lawmakers continued: “The President directing you to approve licenses of the H200 falls within a deeply concerning pattern that undercuts our nation’s security. Just last month, you approved the export of tens of thousands of advanced AI chips, worth an estimated $1 billion, to the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia, despite significant concerns about these countries’ human rights records and their close relationships with the PRC.”

    The lawmakers request information on the Administration’s decision to allow the export of H200s to China be provided to Congress by January 12, 2026. The lawmakers also called for Under Secretary Kessler to provide a briefing before the lawmakers’ committees before any H200 license is approved for export.

    Continue Reading

  • IMF Staff Statement on El Salvador

    IMF Staff Statement on El Salvador

    Washington, DC: Mr. Torres, Mission Chief for El Salvador, issued a statement following in person and virtual discussions over the past months with the Salvadoran authorities on the second review of the 40-month Extended Fund Facility (EFF) Arrangement.

    “Progress continues in the negotiations toward a staff level agreement on the second review of the EFF program.

    “The economy is expanding at a faster than anticipated pace on the back of improved confidence, record remittances, and buoyant investment. Real GDP growth is projected to reach around 4 percent this year and with very good prospects for next year.

    “The authorities’ commitment to fiscal consolidation remains strong—the end-2025 primary balance target is well on track to be met, and the recently approved 2026 Budget is consistent with a further reduction in the deficit along with an expansion in social spending. These efforts are supporting reserve accumulation and a reduction in domestic borrowing in line with program targets.

    “The structural agenda is advancing. To help underpin the projected consolidation, an actuarial pension study has been recently published, along with a Medium-Term Fiscal Framework. Financial stability reforms have been approved to strengthen the legal framework for bank resolution, crisis management, and deposit insurance schemes, and Basel III regulations have been recently adopted to enhance liquidity coverage and net stable funding. Meanwhile, a new AML/CFT law has been approved by the Legislative Assembly, better aligning the legal framework with international best practices.

    “Finally, negotiations for the sale of the government e-wallet Chivo are well advanced, and discussions with regards to the Bitcoin project continue, centered on enhancing transparency, safeguarding public resources, and mitigating risks.

    “Close engagement with the Salvadoran authorities is expected to continue in the period ahead with the objective of reaching a staff level agreement on all policies and reforms needed to complete the second review of the EFF program.

    Continue Reading

  • H-E-B yogurt pulled from shelves over undeclared almond presence

    H-E-B yogurt pulled from shelves over undeclared almond presence

    The product can be returned where it was purchased for a full refund

    The product was distributed to H-E-B and shipped on Nov. 24, 2025. (Copyright 2025 by H-E-B – All rights reserved.)

    Days after a product was taken off the shelves at H-E-B, another one of its items has been recalled.

    In a news release, PlantBased Innovations announced that Higher Harvest Dairy-Free Coconut Yogurt, Strawberry flavor, has been recalled since the product may contain undeclared almonds.

    People with an allergy or “severe” sensitivity to almonds could experience a serious or even life-threatening reaction if they eat the yogurt, the company said in the release.

    The recall was issued after a complaint revealed that the yogurt’s packaging did not indicate the presence of almonds.

    The product was distributed to H-E-B and shipped on Nov. 24, 2025.

    According to the release, the product was packaged in 5.3-ounce plastic cups with a best by date of Jan. 2, 2026.

    Customers who have bought the yogurt can return it to the H-E-B where it was purchased for a full refund.


    Read also


    Continue Reading

  • January Ontario Works Cheques and Payment Cards to Be Distributed In Person


    To ensure continuity of service for Ontario Works clients, the City of Windsor will once again implement their contingency plan to ensure Ontario Works clients receive their January income support cheques and reloadable payment cards (RPCs).

    Direct Deposit Recipients

    All recipients who receive payments through direct deposit will continue to do so, as direct deposits will not be affected by a postal disruption. For clients who regularly pick up their direct deposit statements with a bus pass, these will continue to be held for pick up. All other direct deposit statements will be mailed.

    Cheque Recipients

    Ontario Works clients who receive payment by cheque and those issued a new reloadable payment card will be able to pick up their January monthly assistance at the locations listed below. If a client would like their cheque mailed, they are asked to call their caseworker to confirm this request.

    Cheque Distribution Centres

    January monthly assistance cheques will be available for pickup as follows:

    Windsor Office Recipients:

    • Wednesday, December 31, 2025, and Friday, January 2, 2026:
      9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
      400 City Hall Square East, Suite 102, Windsor

    Leamington Office Recipients:

    • Wednesday, December 31, 2025, and Friday, January 2, 2026:
      11 a.m. to 4 p.m.
      33 Princess Street, Leamington

    Recipients must bring two pieces of government-issued identification (ID), one of which must have a photo. Individuals cannot pick up cheques or reloadable payment cards (RPCs) on behalf of another individual. Before proceeding to the cheque distribution location, please call 1-800-808-2268 to ensure your cheque has been printed and is ready for pick-up. Status of payment can also be viewed on the MyBenefits app.

    Daily Cheques

    Daily cheques will continue to be held for pick-up by clients unless requested to be mailed.

    Vendor Cheques

    For vendors and landlords that support Ontario Works clients, cheques will be mailed.


    Continue Reading

  • Advocating for First Nations in Canada

    Advocating for First Nations in Canada

    Advocating for the rights and quality of life of First Nations people in Canada.

    AFN advocates for First Nations in Canada, facilitating regional discussions and dialogue, advocacy efforts and campaigns, legal and policy analysis, and building relationships between First Nations, governments, businesses and the general public.

    Continue Reading

  • U.S. FDIC Proposes Rule Governing Bank Subsidiary Issuance of Payment Stablecoins Under GENIUS Act | Insights

    The Federal Insurance Deposit Corp. (FDIC) has issued a notice of proposed rulemaking to establish standards by which FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions may apply to establish a subsidiary to issue stablecoins. Because the U.S. banking agencies are likely to promulgate substantially similar processes, all regulated depository institutions should consider encouraging the FDIC and other agencies to hew closely to the statutory considerations for granting such authority.

    Key Takeaways

    • The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Board of Directors has approved a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to establish an application and approval framework for FDIC-supervised banks seeking to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries under the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act). While the NPRM applies only to institutions regulated by the FDIC, the other federal banking agencies likely will promulgate similar regulations, so all regulated entities should consider encouraging the FDIC to hew closely to the statutory considerations for granting stablecoin issuance authority.
    • The NPRM outlines eligibility criteria, application requirements, review timelines, and appeal rights for applicants.
    • The NPRM is the FDIC’s first step in implementing the GENIUS Act’s stablecoin framework and signals increased regulatory clarity for FDIC-supervised banks considering stablecoin activities.
    • The FDIC is seeking comments on the NPRM and included questions, due 60 days after publication in the Federal Register.

    Background

    The GENIUS Act establishes a federal regulatory framework for the issuance of “payment stablecoins,” defined generally as digital assets designed to maintain a stable value for use in payment or settlement. The statute limits authority to issue stablecoins in the U.S. to permitted payment stablecoin issues (PPSIs) and assigns oversight responsibility to federal financial regulators, including the FDIC for subsidiaries of FDIC-supervised institutions for which the FDIC is the primary federal payment stablecoin regulator.

    On December 16, 2025, the FDIC approved an NPRM that will implement statutory provisions under the GENIUS Act requiring the FDIC to establish an application process and framework for FDIC-supervised insured depository institutions (IDI) to obtain the approval required for the issuance of payment stablecoins through their subsidiaries. 

    Overview of the Proposed Rule

    Eligible Applicants

    The proposed rule applies to state-chartered, FDIC-supervised IDIs, including state-chartered banks that are not members of the Federal Reserve System and state-chartered saving associations, that seek to issue payment stablecoins through a subsidiary. An approved subsidiary that receives FDIC approval under the rule becomes a PPSI subject to supervision of the FDIC and may issue payment stablecoins.

    Evaluation Standards

    In seeking to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets, the FDIC will evaluate applications under safety and soundness criteria specified in the GENIUS Act, including considerations of financial condition, governance, risk management, and compliance capabilities. The proposed rule does not establish additional prudential standards, such as quantitative capital or liquidity requirements, which will be addressed in forthcoming rulemakings, although it would require a discussion of the proposed capital and liquidity structure of the PPSI subsidiary in any application.

    Application Requirements

    The proposed rule requires applicants to submit an application providing the information necessary for the FDIC to evaluate safety and soundness factors described in the GENIUS Act:

    • the business plan for stablecoin issuance and proposed activities of the FDIC-supervised IDI subsidiary
    • relevant financial information (three years of pro formas) for the subsidiary including planned capital and liquidity structure, reserve assets and composition and associated asset management plan, and financial projections; the supplementary information notes an expectation that applicants will specifically describe whether any reserves are proposed to be held in tokenized form
    • the organization, ownership, and governance structure of the subsidiary
    • relevant policies and customer agreements related to custody, segregation of customer and reserve assets, recordkeeping, stablecoin redemption, and Bank Secrecy Act/anti-money-laundering and economic sanctions requirements
    • any additional information the FDIC deems necessary to evaluate safety and soundness criteria

    The FDIC’s objective is to evaluate applications against statutory safety and soundness factors while minimizing regulatory burden where possible. Accordingly, the FDIC has not proposed safety and soundness factors beyond those listed in the GENIUS Act but has requested comment on whether any such factors should be added. Because the statute and proposed rule permit the FDIC to reject an application only if the activities of the applicant would be unsafe or unsound under the listed factors, any expansion of the relevant factors would be very significant to applicants.

    Review Process and Timelines

    The proposed rule establishes defined review timelines:

    • Completeness Determination: Within 30 days of receipt of an application, the FDIC will notify an applicant whether their application is substantially complete.
    • Final Decision: The FDIC generally must approve or deny a complete application within 120 days.
    • Deemed Approval: If the FDIC fails to act within the 120-day period, the application would be deemed approved by operation of law.

    Denial, Hearing, and Appeal Rights

    If the FDIC proposes to deny an application, the applicant will have the right to request a hearing within 30 days of receiving notice. The proposed rule outlines procedures for such hearings and requires the FDIC to issue a final determination within 60 days after the hearing.

    Safe Harbor Provisions

    The proposed rule provides for a temporary safe harbor for applications submitted to the FDIC before the GENIUS Act becomes effective by allowing applicants to request a waiver of certain requirements of the GENIUS Act lasting up to 12 months. The FDIC may grant such waivers on a case-by-case basis.

    Considerations and Next Steps

    Institutions evaluating or planning stablecoin initiatives should consider the following.

    • Assessing structural options: Evaluate whether this FDIC-supervised IDI subsidiary model aligns with business and regulatory goals.
    • Preparing for Application: Begin internal assessments of business plans, financial information, subsidiary ownership and control structures, and relevant policies and procedures that stablecoin issuance will require.
    • Engaging With Public Comment Process: Prepare comments in response to the proposed rule application standards, timelines, and questions.
    • Monitoring Future Rulemakings: Stay attuned to forthcoming FDIC proposals regarding capital requirements, liquidity requirements, reserve asset diversification, and prudential standards.

    Key open questions include how the FDIC will apply and evaluate safety and soundness standards in practice, how the framework under this proposed rule will interact with oversight by other federal financial regulators, whether consortiums of banks and other potential types of investors may have partial ownership of a PPSI that is organized as a subsidiary of an FDIC-supervised institution, and how future rulemakings under the GENIUS Act will shape the broader regulatory environment for stablecoin issuance. 

    Continue Reading

  • A global journey in Finance: how AI adoption differs across regions

    A global journey in Finance: how AI adoption differs across regions

    From exploration to scaling: regional AI adoption path

    Across the globe, most finance teams are just beginning their journey with AI. Most organizations in North America and Japan are still testing or experimenting with AI in specific areas. However, in France, a significant number are already expanding AI implementation across several finance functions, progressing more quickly and confidently than others.  

    Across all three regions, most finance teams are still in the early stages of AI adoption.

    • In North America, 86% of respondents report they are either exploring use cases (53%) or piloting AI in select areas (33%). 
    • Japan shows similar trends, with 76% of respondents in these early phases.
    • France, however, stands out: while 72% are exploring or piloting AI, 18% report scaling AI across multiple finance functions – more than four times the rate in North America respondents (4%) and double Japan’s rate (7%).

    Barriers to scaling AI vary sharply by region

    Picture2 blog polls.jpg

    When it comes to barriers that stand in the way of scaling AI across the finance function, lack of internal expertise was the top barrier across all regions (North America 51%, Japan 52%, France 43%). However, the degree to which each region faces other obstacles to scaling AI varies considerably. 

     

    • Regulatory, security, and ethical concerns are cited as the top barrier by nearly half of France respondents (48%), compared to just 29% in North America and 19% in Japan. 
    • Conversely, unclear ROI for AI investments is a bigger concern among North America respondents (37%) than in Japan (26%). 
    • AI-related funding constraints are most pronounced in Japan (20%) and France (18%), compared to only 10% in North America.

    Agentic AI confidence drivers reflect regional priorities

    When asked what would give them the most confidence to deploy agentic AI more broadly:

    Picture3 blog polls.jpg
    North America respondents overwhelmingly said proven use cases (65%).
    France respondents said that agentic AI integration with existing CPM tools (65%) would be their biggest confidence driver.
    Japan (44%) and North America (41%) respondents said that clear governance and accountability frameworks would increase their confidence in deploying agentic AI across finance, with 36% of respondents in Japan also saying that stronger internal AI literacy would further boost their readiness to scale AI.
    A shared vision, different journeys
    As the polls from the inTouch25 events show, the story of AI in finance is not one of uniform progress, but of diverse experiences and evolving ambitions.

    Finance leaders worldwide recognize AI’s transformative potential, but these findings underscore that the journey looks different across regions. At Wolters Kluwer, we are committed to working hand-in-hand with customers to overcome barriers, whether that’s integration challenges in France, ROI clarity in North America, or funding concerns in Japan.
    No matter where you are on your AI journey, understanding regional differences can help you benchmark progress and anticipate challenges. With tools like CCH Tagetik Intelligent Platform, finance professionals are finding new ways to transform the Office of the CFO, with each region writing its own chapter in the global narrative of AI adoption.

     

    Upcoming: Future Ready CFO

    Get ready for the Future Ready CFO report, the latest in a series of global survey reports from Wolters Kluwer. Future Ready reports feature informative content and actionable Business Insights that keep professionals updated on the latest trends, best practices, and regulatory changes, ensuring they are well-prepared for the future.
     
    Launching by March 2026 Future Ready CFO will capture the voices of 1,300 CFO decision makers in North America, Europe, and Japan. It will reveal what’s next for finance leadership including technology adoption, operations and decision making. Experts will examine the seismic shift presented by AI and how these trends will redefine finance leadership.

     

    Continue Reading

  • Does It Still Make Sense?

    Does It Still Make Sense?

    Andrew Sheets: Welcome to Thoughts on the Market. I’m Andrew Sheets, Head of Corporate Credit Research at Morgan Stanley.

     

    Lisa Shalett: And I’m Lisa Shalett, Chief Investment Officer for Morgan Stanley Wealth Management.

     

    Andrew Sheets: Today, is inflation really transitory or are we entering a new era where higher prices are the norm?

     

    Andrew Sheets: It’s Thursday, December 18th at 4pm in London.

     

    Lisa Shalett: And it’s 11am in New York.

     

    Andrew Sheets: Lisa, it’s great to talk to you again. And, you know, we’re having this conversation in the aftermath of, kind of, an unusual dynamic in markets when it comes to inflation. Because inflation is still hovering around 3 percent. That’s well above the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent target. And yet the Federal Reserve recently lowered interest rates again. Fiscal policy remains very stimulative, and I think there’s this real question around whether inflation will moderate? Or whether we’re going to see inflation be higher for longer. And you know, you are out with a new report touching on some of the issues behind this and why this might be a structural shift higher in inflation.

     

    So, we’d love to get your thoughts on that, and we’ll drill down into the various drivers as this conversation goes on.

     

    Lisa Shalett: Thanks Andrew. And look, I think as we take a step back, and the reason we’re calling this a regime change is because we see factors for inflation coming from both the demand side and the supply side. For example, on the demand side, the role of the infrastructure boom, the GenAI infrastructure boom, has become global. It has caused material appreciation of many commodities in 2025. We’re seeing it obviously in some of the dynamics around precious metals. But we’re also seeing it in industrial metals. Things like copper, things like nickel.

     

    We’re also seeing demand factors that may stem from the K-shaped economy. And the K-shaped economy, as we know, is really about this idea that the wealthiest folks are increasingly dominating consumption. And they are getting wealthy through financial asset inflation.

     

    On the supply side, there are dynamics like immigration, dynamics around the housing market that we can talk about. But perhaps the wrapper around all of it is how policy is shifting – because increasingly policymakers are being constrained by very high levels of debt and deficits. And determining how to fund those debts and deficits actually removes some of the degrees of freedom that central bankers may have when it comes to actually using interest rates to constrain demand.

     

    Andrew Sheets: Well, Lisa, this is such a great point because we’re financial analysts. We’re not political analysts. But it seems safe to say that voters really don’t like inflation. But they also don’t like some of the policies that would traditionally be assigned to fight inflation – be they higher interest rates or tighter fiscal policy.

     

    And even some of the more recent political shifts that we’ve seen – I’m talking about the U.S. around, say, immigration policy could arguably be further tightening of that supply side of the economy – measures designed to raise wages, almost explicitly in their policy goals. So how do you see that dynamic? And, again, kind of where does that leave, you think, policy going forward?

     

    Lisa Shalett: Yeah. I think the very short answer – our best guess is that policy becomes constrained. So, on the monetary side, we’re already seeing the Fed beginning to signal that perhaps they’re going to rely on other tools in the toolkit. And what are those tools in the toolkit? Well, they’re managing the size of their balance sheet, managing the duration or the mix of things that they hold in the balance sheet. And it’s actual, you know, returns to how they think about reserve management in the banking system. All of those things, all of those constraints may enable the U.S. government to fund debts, right? By buying the Treasury bill issuance, which is, you know, swollen to almost [$]2 trillion a year in terms of U.S. deficits.

     

    But on the fiscal side, right, the interest payments on debt, begins to crowd out other government spending. So, policy itself in this era of fiscal dominance becomes constrained – both in, you know, Washington, D.C. and from Congress – what they can do, their degrees of freedom – and what the central bank can do to actually control inflation.

     

    Andrew Sheets: Another area that you touch on in your report is energy and technology, which are obviously related with this large boom that we’re seeing – and continue to expect in AI data center construction. This is a lot of spending on the technology. This is a lot of power needed to power that technology and U.S. data center electricity demand is growing at a rapid rate. And transmission constraints are causing prices to go up. A price that is a pretty visible price for a lot of people when they get their utility bill. So, how do these factors you think shape the story? And where do you think they’re going to go as we look into the future?

     

    Lisa Shalett: Yeah, 100 percent. I mean, I think, you know, when we talk about, you know, who’s going to dominate in Generative AI globally, one of the factors that we have to take into consideration is what is the cost of power? What is the cost of electricity? What is the age of the infrastructure to both generate that electricity and transport it? And transmit it?

     

    This is one of the areas where the U.S., at the minute, is facing genuine constraints. When you think about some of the forecasts that have been put out there in terms of $10 trillion of spending related to Generative AI, the number of data centers that are going to be built, and the power shortfall that has been forecast. We’re talking about someone having to pay the price, if you will, to ration power until you can upgrade the grid.

     

    And in the U.S., that grid upgrade, to be blunt, has lagged some of the rest of the world. Not only because the rest of the world was slower to modernize and leapfrogged in many ways. But we know in China, for example, they have one of the lowest electricity generation costs on the planet. That is an advantage for them. So, we have to consider that power generation writ large is potentially a force for upward inflation, at least in the short term.

     

    Andrew Sheets: So we have the fiscal policy backdrop. We have an AI spending backdrop both contributing to the demand side of inflation. We have these supply constraints, whether it’s housing or labor also, you know, potentially being more structural drivers of higher inflation.

     

    The question I’m sure that investors are asking you is, what should they do about it? So, can you walk us through the key strategies that investors might want to consider as they navigate a new inflationary regime?

     

    Lisa Shalett: Sure. So, the first thing that we think it’s really important for folks to appreciate is that typically when we’ve been in these higher inflation regimes in the past, stocks and bonds become positively correlated. And what that means is that the power of a very simple 60-40 or stock-bond-cash portfolio to provide complete or optimal diversification fades. And it requires investors to potentially consider investing, especially beyond fixed income. 

     

    Stocks very often are pro-inflationary assets; meaning many, many companies have the power to pass through price increases. If you are consuming income from a fixed income or a bond instrument, inflation is your enemy, right? Because it’s eating into your real returns. And so, one of the things that we’re talking with our clients a lot about in terms of portfolio construction are things like adding real assets, adding infrastructure assets, adding energy, transportation assets, adding commodities. Adding gold even, to a certain extent. 

     

    Andrew Sheets: Just to play devil’s advocate, you can imagine that some investors might say, ‘Well, I can look in the market at long-term inflation expectations.’ And those long-term inflation expectations have been kind of stable and a bit above the Fed’s target. But not dramatically. So, what do you say to that? And what do you think those markets either might be missing? Or how could investors leverage that more benign view that’s out there in the market?

     

    Lisa Shalett: Yeah, so look, I think here’s where the debate, right? Our perception has been that inflation expectations have remained extraordinarily anchored – because investors have actually reasonably short memories on the one hand, and we have, by and large, been in disinflationary times. Second, there’s extraordinary faith in policy makers – that policy makers will fight inflation. And I think the third thing is that there’s extraordinary faith in the deflationary forces of technology.

     

    Now, all three of those things may absolutely, positively be true. The problem that we have is that the alternate case, right? The case that we’re making – that maybe we’re in a new inflationary regime is not priced, and the risk is non-zero.

     

    And so, what we see, and what we’re watching is – how steep does the yield curve get, right? As we look at yields in the 10-30-year tenure – what is driving those rates higher? Is it a generic term premium? Or are we starting to see an unanchoring, if you will, of inflation expectations. And it takes a while for people to appreciate regime change.

     

    And so, look, as is always the case, there’s no absolutes in the market. There’s no one theory that is priced and the other theory is not. But sometimes you want to hedge, and we think that we’re going through a period where diversified portfolios and hedging for these alternative outcomes — because there are such powerful structural crosscurrents – is the preferred path.

     

    Andrew Sheets:  Lisa, thanks for sharing your insights

     

    Lisa Shalett: Of course, Andrew. That’s my pleasure.

     

    Andrew Sheets:  As a reminder, if you enjoy Thoughts on the Market, please take a moment to rate and review us, wherever you listen. It helps more people find the show.

     

    Continue Reading

  • Canada advances First Nations-led new path forward on long-term reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program

    Canada advances First Nations-led new path forward on long-term reform of the First Nations Child and Family Services Program

    December 22, 2025 — Ottawa, Unceded Algonquin Territory, Ontario — Indigenous Services Canada

    The Government of Canada is committed to advancing long-term reform alongside First Nations across the country—so child and family services put children, families, and communities at the centre of care.

    Today, the Honourable Mandy Gull-Masty, Minister of Indigenous Services Canada, announced that the Government of Canada will be submitting a detailed plan to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) to reform the First Nations Child and Family Services (FNCFS) program — one that respects regional approaches while operating within a coherent national framework.

    Canada’s approach to regional agreements is supported by funding of $35.5 billion to 2033-34, and an ongoing commitment of $4.4 billion annually after that to make sure First Nations children and families—now and in the future—have sustainable resources. Canada’s plan would enable First Nations-led regional agreements across the country, supporting solutions designed by and for First Nations to keep children safely connected to their families, cultures, and communities.

    Far too many First Nations children remain in care. This reality underscores the urgent need for transformative change that strengthens families rather than separates them. This reform needs to be determined by First Nations communities and their families. It is a shared national objective, and this proposal marks a decisive move toward achieving it. 

    Through regional agreements, First Nations would be able to tailor delivery of child and family services to their distinct realities. The approach will allow for reform to reflect regional context by having more power over the governance, reporting, and planning frameworks. It builds on the success of the Final Agreement on Long-Term Reform of the FNCFS Program in Ontario, and reflects a consistent, principled commitment to First Nations jurisdiction and leadership.

    Funding also includes additional supports for First Nations Representatives, who act as cultural and legal advocates for their members to ensure the rights of children are upheld, and help keep children safely connected to their families, cultures, and communities.

    Later today, Canada will submit this proposed path to the CHRT. Discussions with interested regional First Nation entities will begin early in the new year. 

    Improving outcomes for First Nations children—so they can grow up safe, supported, and connected to their families—remains our government’s highest priority.

    Continue Reading