Category: 3. Business

A run of low inflation buys the RBI some time before it has to move on rates, said Shilan Shah, economist at Capital Economics.

“The pressure to tighten policy over the coming weeks and months will build if the Middle East conflict intensifies and in particular if the rupee comes under further downward pressure,” Shah said.

  Taiwan 

  Taiwan is set to report March inflation data on Wednesday, which will likely show early signs of price pressures from the energy supply shock. 

  Most banks expect consumer inflation to remain under the 2% target watched by the central bank, but see mounting risks ahead. 

  Given the mix of likely higher inflation and still-solid economic growth, economists reckon the central bank could make a hawkish shift later in the year. 

  Still, unless inflation significantly overshoots expectations in the coming months, policymakers will likely stay on hold when they next meet in June, ING economists said. 

  Taiwan also releases its March trade data on Friday. Exports likely remained strong during the month thanks to the AI-related demand despite the Middle East conflict. Economists' estimates for export growth range from 20.3% to 35.5%. 

  Philippines, Thailand 

  The Philippines and Thailand are due to release inflation data for March, shedding light on how consumer prices in Southeast Asia are being influenced by the energy turmoil. 

  Both countries are particularly exposed to rising oil prices, given their heavy reliance on energy supplies from the Middle East. 

  The Philippine central bank expects inflation in March at 3.1%-3.9%. Inflation risks have intensified, fanned by the significant increase in domestic petroleum prices and higher rice prices, said Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas. 

  DBS's economics team expects the surge in energy prices to have snapped Thailand's deflationary streak in March, noting the sharp rise in domestic fuel prices after the government removed price caps. 

  Write to Jessica Fleetham at jessica.fleetham@wsj.com and Fabiana Negrin Ochoa at fabiana.negrinochoa@wsj.com 

  (END) Dow Jones Newswires

  April 05, 2026 17:14 ET (21:14 GMT)
Copyright (c) 2026 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Donald Trump’s most immediate concern in demanding Iran reopen the strait of Hormuz may be rocketing US gasoline prices, but if the conflict drags on, higher energy costs will be felt far beyond the pumps.

Systemically higher power prices and fractured supply chains will squeeze industries and consumers worldwide. For the US, one consequence may be to threaten the fragile economics of the AI boom.

Many oil-importing economies, especially in the global south, are having to contemplate outright shortages of oil and its products. Shops in Egypt face curfews, Indonesia has imposed work from home Fridays and the Philippines has declared a national energy emergency.

As a wealthy oil exporter, the US can largely dodge these concerns. However, as the rising cost of filling up US cars illustrates, it cannot completely avoid the global rise in energy costs – which many analysts now believe will persist for months even if the strait reopens within days.

As a result, many companies will be looking anxiously at their cashflow projections. But for a uniquely energy-hungry industry, whose business model is not yet firmly established and whose investments are financed by huge debts, the challenges may be particularly acute.

OpenAI’s Sam Altman made a less than reassuring comparison in February as he sought to play down fears about AI’s environmental impact in the run-up to what is expected to be a mega launch on to the stock market later this year.

“People talk about how much energy it takes to train an AI model – but it also takes a lot of energy to train a human,” he said. “It takes about 20 years of life – and all the food you consume during that time – before you become smart.”

The Bank of England highlighted the potential link between energy costs and the share prices of AI companies in its regular survey of the risks facing the UK financial system last week.

The Bank’s financial policy committee began by pointing out that investors had already been raising questions about the sector before Trump went to war. “Prior to the conflict, increasing debt-financing needs and concerns about whether expected returns on very significant AI-related investments would materialise led to selling pressure,” it said.

“The conflict could increase these concerns, particularly given the energy-intensive nature of the supply chain for key components and the operation of datacentres.”

It was one aspect of a wider warning that the Iran war could exacerbate pre-existing fragilities in markets, given the likelihood that it will “weigh on growth, increase inflation and tighten financial conditions”.

The chief economist of the World Trade Organization, Robert Staiger, has also made the connection between AI and the impact of the conflict, telling me last month that a prolonged period of high energy prices could “crimp” investment in the sector. “The boom is very energy intensive,” he said.

To underline the real-world consequences of a possible retrenchment, in its latest global trade outlook, the WTO calculated that 70% of investment growth in the US in the first three-quarters of last year was in AI-related goods of one kind or another.

The sheer complexity of the financial engineering underpinning the AI investment mega-boom was laid bare in a forensic note by a US law firm, Quinn Emanuel, published last month, which kicked off by noting that the sector’s revenues last year were about $60bn (£45.3bn) and its capital expenditure $400bn.

For those of us old enough to remember the 2008 global financial crisis, it makes sobering reading – off-balance sheet special purpose vehicles feature heavily, as do asset-backed securities.

Essentially, the “hyperscalers” leading the AI charge, and infrastructure providers such as CoreWeave, are borrowing unimaginably large sums as they dash to build out datacentres (although recent analysis by the AI sceptic Ed Zitron suggests real-world projects lag far behind the promises).

The lenders are often private companies such as asset managers, which makes each company’s total liabilities harder for regulators – or even their investors – to track.

There are separate but interconnected concerns about the activities of this burgeoning private credit sector, which regulators, including the Bank of England, have consistently warned about, highlighting their opacity.

In some cases, tech companies have straightforwardly issued bonds. But there are much more byzantine arrangements at play, familiar from the run-up to the Great Crash.

Datacentre operators have been creating off-balance sheet special purpose vehicles, which “own” the vast datacentres and their future rental income – and borrow against them. In some cases these debts are then pooled together, sliced up and resold to pension funds and investment managers.

As older readers may recall, structures such as these can create false comfort that risks are being spread rather than cumulated, and make it vanishingly difficult to work out exactly who owes what to whom.

Quinn Emanuel’s analysts believe that about $120bn in datacentre debt has been moved off-balance sheets in the past two years. And, as they put it: “The deeply interconnected AI ecosystem means that distress at any single node … can propagate across multiple counterparties and financing layers.”

Higher energy costs for an extended period might conceivably be one trigger for such “distress”, while expectations of volatile interest rates and weaker consumer demand – also likely consequences of the Middle East war – are unlikely to help either.

The fundamental question is familiar: can the AI sector ever generate the revenues to justify sky-high valuations?

But surely even modestly higher energy costs could prompt a rethink – which, given the financial wizardry at work, could cascade out across US markets and beyond.

Could this be yet another way in which Trump’s thoughtless onslaught on Iran has unleashed forces he is powerless to control?

Find your next quality investment with Simply Wall St’s easy and powerful screener, trusted by over 7 million individual investors worldwide.

• Target (NYSE:TGT) is facing a new boycott from the American Federation of Teachers tied to its response to immigration enforcement.

• The union is urging members to avoid Target during the key back to school shopping period.

• This follows an earlier boycott that the company has said affected sales, raising questions about the durability of its current turnaround efforts.

For investors watching NYSE:TGT, this comes at a sensitive time. Target is a major player in U.S. general merchandise, and back to school is one of its most important seasonal sales windows. The renewed boycott call adds another layer of risk around how traffic and basket size might respond during a critical shopping period.

Management is already working on a turnaround plan that involves substantial new investments in 2026. This controversy sits on top of existing execution questions. A key issue for investors is how reputational pressures, union activism, and customer sentiment interact with that plan, and whether Target can keep its core shoppers engaged through another period of public scrutiny.

Stay updated on the most important news stories for Target by adding it to your watchlist or portfolio. Alternatively, explore our Community to discover new perspectives on Target.

See which insiders are buying and buying and selling Target following this latest news.

• ⚖️ Price vs Analyst Target: At US$120.45, Target trades about 3.4% below the average analyst target of US$124.72, which sits well inside the one standard deviation band.

• ✅ Simply Wall St Valuation: Simply Wall St estimates the shares are trading roughly 26.7% below fair value, flagging a valuation discount.

• ❌ Recent Momentum: The 30 day return of about 0.28% decline shows slightly negative short term momentum as this boycott story unfolds.

There is only one way to know the right time to buy, sell or hold Target. Head to Simply Wall St’s company report for the latest analysis of Target’s Fair Value.

• 📊 The boycott targets a key back to school period, so investors may want to watch whether store traffic and comparable sales are affected in the upcoming quarter.

• 📊 Pay attention to management commentary on the turnaround investments planned for 2026 and whether guidance reflects any expected disruption from this union action.

• ⚠️ Reputational risk is central here, as prolonged public disputes with large unions can influence both shopper sentiment and labor relations for a big box retailer.

For the full picture including more risks and rewards, check out the complete Target analysis. Alternatively, you can visit the community page for Target to see how other investors believe this latest news will impact the company’s narrative.

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

Companies discussed in this article include TGT.

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

Moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation has firmly established itself as the standard of care for early-stage breast cancer following breast-conserving surgery. Over the past decade, multiple randomized trials have confirmed that shorter treatment courses achieve outcomes equivalent to conventional fractionation, while offering greater convenience for patients and improved efficiency for healthcare systems.

Yet, as the field has moved forward, an important clinical question has remained somewhat unresolved. While current planning guidelines focus on minimizing visible toxicity, particularly skin reactions, it is less clear whether they adequately address the patient experience during treatment. Pain, often underreported and underestimated, may represent a critical gap in our current understanding of treatment tolerability.

A recent Journal Pre-proof study in Advances in Radiation Oncology explores this issue in depth, examining how dose distribution correlates with acute toxicity in patients treated according to American Society for Radiation Oncology 2018 recommendations .

Title: “Dosimetric Correlates of Acute Toxicities for Moderate Hypofractionated Whole Breast Irradiation: Implications for ASTRO Planning Guidelines”

Author Names: Vishruta. A. Dumane, Juliana. Runnels, Mira. Cohen, Weijia. Fu , Andrew. Jackson, Jing. Wang, Kaida. Yang , Madhu. Mazumdar, Tian. Liu and Sheryl. Green

From Guidelines to Real-World Practice

The study evaluated 600 patients treated between 2018 and 2023 with moderately hypofractionated whole breast irradiation. All treatment plans were developed using three-dimensional conformal techniques and strictly adhered to ASTRO dose homogeneity constraints. These guidelines were designed to limit high-dose regions within the breast, thereby reducing the risk of toxicity while maintaining adequate target coverage.

Patients received either 42.56 Gy in 16 fractions or 40.05 Gy in 15 fractions, reflecting standard contemporary practice. Acute toxicities were prospectively assessed throughout treatment and at early follow-up using CTCAE v5.0 criteria, allowing for a detailed and consistent evaluation of clinical outcomes.

What makes this study particularly relevant is its focus on bridging the gap between theoretical planning constraints and real-world patient experience.

Pain: The Overlooked Toxicity

One of the most striking findings of the study is the prominence of pain as a treatment-related toxicity. Despite full compliance with established guidelines, nearly one-third of patients experienced moderate to severe pain during treatment. In contrast, other acute toxicities such as erythema, edema, and moist desquamation were observed far less frequently and remained below 5 percent.

This imbalance is clinically meaningful. While skin toxicity has traditionally been used as a surrogate for treatment tolerability, these findings suggest that visible reactions may not fully capture the burden experienced by patients. Pain, which can affect daily function and quality of life, emerges as a central issue that current planning approaches may not sufficiently address.

Encouragingly, most toxicities resolved within one month, and the incidence of persistent moderate-to-severe symptoms was low. However, the acute phase remains a critical period in which patient experience can significantly influence overall treatment perception.

Does Breast Radiation Cause Early Heart Damage?

Dose Heterogeneity as a Driver of Toxicity

The study provides compelling evidence that dose heterogeneity plays a key role in the development of pain. Specifically, both the absolute volume of breast tissue receiving 105 percent of the prescribed dose and the relative proportion of such high-dose regions were strongly associated with increased toxicity.

When these high-dose regions exceeded certain thresholds, the likelihood of clinically significant pain increased substantially. Conversely, maintaining tighter control over dose distribution resulted in meaningful reductions in toxicity.

This finding shifts the focus from simply meeting guideline limits to actively optimizing dose homogeneity. It suggests that even within acceptable ranges, variations in dose distribution can have a measurable impact on patient comfort.

In addition, patient-related factors such as higher body mass index were also associated with increased risk, highlighting the importance of individualized planning strategies.

Are Current Guidelines Enough?

The ASTRO 2018 guidelines were developed to provide practical and achievable planning targets, emphasizing the limitation of excessive dose hotspots. They have been widely adopted and have contributed to improved safety and consistency in breast radiotherapy.

However, the results of this study raise an important question. While these constraints appear effective in reducing severe skin toxicity, they may be too permissive when it comes to minimizing pain. A significant proportion of patients still experience discomfort despite technically compliant treatment plans.

This suggests that current standards, while appropriate as a baseline, may not represent the optimal balance between feasibility and patient-centered outcomes.

Toward More Refined Planning Targets

Based on their analysis, the authors propose stricter dose constraints that more closely align with reduced toxicity. Lower thresholds for high-dose volumes were associated with significantly improved patient comfort without compromising treatment delivery.

This represents an evolution in thinking. Rather than viewing dose constraints as rigid limits, they can be understood as starting points that should be refined based on emerging clinical evidence.

Importantly, these proposed targets are not theoretical. They are derived from real-world data and appear achievable within standard planning workflows, making them relevant for routine clinical practice.

Placing the Findings in Context

Previous research has highlighted the importance of dose homogeneity in reducing radiation-induced skin reactions. However, most studies have focused primarily on dermatitis and have not systematically evaluated pain as a primary endpoint.

This study adds an important dimension by demonstrating that pain may be more sensitive to subtle variations in dose distribution. It also underscores the increasing relevance of homogeneity in the era of hypofractionation, where larger fraction sizes amplify the biological impact of dose inhomogeneity.

Taken together, these findings reinforce the idea that technical planning parameters must be continuously re-evaluated in light of clinical outcomes.

Clinical Implications

For clinicians, the message is both practical and forward-looking. Achieving guideline compliance remains essential, but it may not be sufficient. Greater attention to minimizing high-dose regions within the breast could lead to meaningful improvements in patient experience.

This is particularly relevant as hypofractionated regimens continue to expand globally. As treatment durations shorten, each fraction carries greater weight, making precision in dose delivery increasingly important.

Read full article here.

 

Written by Nare Hovhannisyan, MD

Track your investments for FREE with Simply Wall St, the portfolio command center trusted by over 7 million individual investors worldwide.

• Chery Automobile (SEHK:9973) and Jaguar Land Rover are launching FREELANDER as an independent premium EV brand.

• The partnership includes joint development and production of new energy vehicles for global markets.

• Chery is adding the FREELANDER brand to recent global brand activity such as LEPAS and expanding production capacity in Vietnam.

For investors tracking global auto groups, Chery sits at the intersection of traditional manufacturing and new energy vehicles, with SEHK:9973 giving listed exposure to that mix. The move to spin FREELANDER into a dedicated premium EV brand alongside Jaguar Land Rover comes as global automakers look for scale in electric platforms, software, and shared architectures.

Chery’s decision to run FREELANDER as a separate premium label, while also rolling out brands like LEPAS and building plants in Vietnam, reflects a push to reach more price points and regions. For investors, the key questions are how effectively Chery can execute across multiple brands, and how the Jaguar Land Rover alliance shapes its role in the global premium EV space.

Stay updated on the most important news stories for Chery Automobile by adding it to your watchlist or portfolio. Alternatively, explore our Community to discover new perspectives on Chery Automobile.

📰 Beyond the headline: 0 risks and 5 things going right for Chery Automobile that every investor should see.

The FREELANDER launch with Jaguar Land Rover puts Chery in a different part of the EV value chain, closer to the premium territory where Tesla, BMW and Mercedes-Benz compete. Chery is bringing its Chinese EV engineering and supplier ties, while Jaguar Land Rover contributes design and a long-running SUV nameplate. With Huawei, CATL and Qualcomm involved in software, batteries and chips, the project also plugs Chery into a wider tech ecosystem, which can matter for over the air updates, range and driver assistance capability.

• ⚠️ Managing a premium EV brand with independent operations adds complexity to an already broad portfolio that includes EXEED, JETOUR, iCAR, LUXEED, OMODA & JAECOO and LEPAS.

• ⚠️ Premium EVs face heavy competition from established global brands and Chinese peers, so FREELANDER’s pricing power and differentiation are uncertain.

• 🎁 The alliance deepens a 12 year partnership and gives Chery access to Jaguar Land Rover design heritage while keeping control of Chinese technology and manufacturing.

• 🎁 A dedicated premium EV architecture, global headquarters set up and a planned model family over five years indicate an intention to use FREELANDER as a long term platform for international growth.

Investors can watch how quickly FREELANDER ramps up model launches, how Chinese and overseas buyers respond to the brand, and whether the alliance structure with Jaguar Land Rover remains stable. It is also worth tracking how Chery allocates capital between FREELANDER, LEPAS, OMODA & JAECOO and its Vietnam plant, and whether portfolio sales imbalances in brands like EXEED, JETOUR, iCAR and LUXEED narrow over time.

To ensure you’re always in the loop on how the latest news impacts the investment narrative for Chery Automobile, head to the community page for Chery Automobile to never miss an update on the top community narratives.

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

Companies discussed in this article include 9973.HK.

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

Story Continues

Story Continues

“I’ve worked hard, for my entire career, to keep my life balanced with my job,” Randolph wrote in 2023 LinkedIn post that has recirculated on social media. 

“For over thirty years, I had a hard cut-off on Tuesdays. Rain or shine, I left at exactly 5 p.m. and spent the evening with my best friend. We would go to a movie, have dinner, or just go window-shopping downtown together.”

It’s no question that it can be difficult for founders and CEOs to set strict work-life boundaries; sometimes they need to tune into late-night meetings with clients in different time zones, or feel that they should always be on call in times of business emergency. 

But even while serving as chief executive of $416 billion entertainment giant Netflix for seven years, Randolph stuck true to his Tuesday exception for the sake of his sanity. 

“Nothing got in the way of that,” Randolph said. “No meeting, no conference call, no last-minute question or request. If you had something to say to me on Tuesday afternoon at 4:55, you had better say it on the way to the parking lot. If there was a crisis, we are going to wrap it up by 5:00.”

“Those Tuesday nights kept me sane. And they put the rest of my work in perspective.”

Why some CEOs think work-life balance is a myth

There are many CEOs who put no limits on their professional lives, contrary to Randolph’s work-life philosophy—and they think it’s essential to be successful. Lucy Guo, the cofounder of Scale AI, often starts her workday at 5:30 a.m. and will keep going until midnight. At just 30 years old, she became a self-made billionaire from her 5% stake in the $29 billion AI company. And she might not have reached those heights if it wasn’t for her intense work ethic. 

“I probably don’t have work-life balance,” Guo told Fortune last year, adding that those who chase it are probably in the wrong job. “For me, work doesn’t really feel like work. I love doing my job…I would say that if you feel the need for work-life balance, maybe you’re not in the right work.”

Andrew Feldman, the cofounder and CEO of $8.1 billion AI chip company Cerebras, said it’s possible for workers to have a “great life” clocking in at 9 a.m. and heading out at 5 p.m. However, if they want to launch the next unicorn company or generation-defining product, they won’t get very far working a traditional work schedule. 

“This notion that somehow you can achieve greatness, you can build something extraordinary by working 38 hours a week and having work-life balance, that is mind-boggling to me,” Feldman said on the 20VC podcast in 2025. “It’s not true in any part of life.”

“The path to build something new out of nothing, and make it great, isn’t part-time work. It isn’t 30, 40, 50 hours a week. It’s every waking minute. And of course, there are costs.”

The case for clocking out

Operating on hyperdrive with no breaks has become a badge of honor for CEOs—but others warn against the grind. JPMorgan’s Jamie Dimon encouraged the up-and-coming generation of business leaders to break away from work for the sake of their relationships and well-being. 

“You need to have work-life balance,” Dimon said to students at the Georgetown University Psaros Center for Financial Markets and Policy in 2024. “What we tell our people at JPMorgan is you have to take care of your mind, your body, your spirit, your soul, your friends, your friends, your health. You really have to.”

Whole Foods CEO Jason Buechel isn’t willing to overwork himself in the top role, either.

Despite frequently traveling for business and having a “minimum of 10 meetings per day,” he fully uses up his PTO benefits each year. He’s also made changes within the company to ensure that all employees of the $13.7 billion grocery store chain take all their days off by placing a cap on how many hours can be banked. Buechel told Fortune in 2024 it “really forces people to make sure they are taking PTO…and ultimately having a great work-life balance.”

“I think it’s important for me to help set that example.”

A version of this story was published on Fortune.com on November 7, 2025.