Category: 3. Business

Story Continues

Carfilzomib (Kyprolis) plus lenalidomide Revlimid) and dexamethasone (KRd) delivered improvements in progression-free survival (PFS) compared with bortezomib (Velcade) plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (VRd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, according to interim results from the phase 3 COBRA trial (NCT03729804).

The findings, presented during the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting, demonstrated that KRd (n = 126) reduced the risk of progression or death by 43% vs VRd (n = 124) in the intent-to-treat population (HR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.37-0.88; P = .0095) at a median follow-up of 53 months. The median PFS was not reached (NR) in the KRd group vs 48.8 months in the VRd arm.

The data demonstrated consistent directional benefits across cytogenetic subgroups. Among patients with standard-risk disease, KRd (n = 97) achieved a statistically significant improvement in PFS vs VRd (n = 96; HR, 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.98; P = .04); the median PFS was NR in the KRd group compared with 48.8 months for VRd. In this subgroup, 27% of patients treated with KRd experienced progression or death vs 40% with VRd. In the high-risk cohort, KRd (n = 29) again demonstrated favorable outcomes vs VRd (n = 28), with 31% vs 48% of patients experiencing progression or death. The median PFS was NR vs 34.9 months, respectively (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.22-1.22; P = .12).

“COBRA showed superior efficacy of KRd vs VRd in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma, achieving both co-primary endpoints of MRD-negative CR at 12 months and PFS,” noted presenting author Dominik Dytfeld, MD, PhD. “The PFS benefit of KRd was observed regardless of cytogenetic risk, and KRd produced deeper responses, with higher rates of complete response [CR] and minimal residual disease [MRD]–negativity. KRd [also] demonstrated anticipated toxicity profiles with higher rates of neutropenia and cardiac [adverse effects (AEs)], but less neuropathy. COBRA results support further evaluation of KRd-based induction regimens in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma.”

Dytfeld is an associate professor of medicine at the Poznan University of Medical Sciences in Poland and founder/chief executive officer of the Polish Myeloma Consortium

What was the design of the COBRA trial?

The COBRA trial was a multicenter, randomized, open-label phase 3 study designed to compare KRd with VRd in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma who had an International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) Frailty Score of less than 2.^1,2 Randomization was stratified by cytogenetic risk category (standard vs high risk defined by t(4;14) or del(17p)) and by history of venous thromboembolism (yes vs no). A total of 250 patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to the KRd or VRd treatment arms.¹

Patients in the KRd arm received up to 24, 28-day cycles of therapy consisting of carfilzomib at 56 mg/m² administered on days 1, 8, and 15 (with twice-weekly dosing during cycles 1 and 2), lenalidomide at 25 mg on days 1 through 21, and dexamethasone at 40 mg weekly (or 20 mg for patients 75 years of age or older). Stem-cell collection occurred after cycle 4 in this transplant-deferred design. Following completion of induction, patients continued on lenalidomide 5 mg daily as maintenance until disease progression.

Patients in the VRd arm received eight 28-day cycles of bortezomib at 1.3 mg/m² on days 1, 4, 8, and 11; lenalidomide at 25 mg on days 1 through 14; and dexamethasone at 20 mg on days 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 11, and 12. After completion of the VRd induction phase, patients transitioned to consolidation with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for eighteen 28-day cycles, followed by lenalidomide 5 mg maintenance until progression.

The trial’s co-primary end points were the rate of MRD-negative CR rate at a sensitivity of 10⁻⁵ at 12 months and PFS. Secondary end points include MRD rate, sustained MRD negativity, overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and safety.

How did KRd and VRd compare in transplant-eligible vs transplant-ineligible patients?

The subgroup analysis by transplant eligibility showed distinct patterns in PFS favoring KRd among patients considered eligible for autologous stem cell transplant. In the transplant-eligible cohort, KRd reduced the risk of progression or death by 60% relative to VRd (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .003). Only 23% of patients treated with KRd experienced progression or death compared with 45% in the VRd arm. Median PFS was NR with KRd, whereas VRd demonstrated a median PFS of 40.1 months.

In contrast, outcomes were comparable between the two regimens in the transplant-ineligible population. In this subgroup, both KRd and VRd produced identical progression or death rates of 30%. Median PFS remained NR with KRd vs 52.9 months for VRd, resulting in no statistically significant difference between the arms (HR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.21-0.75; P = .87).

What were the safety outcomes of the COBRA trial?

The safety profile of KRd and VRd in the COBRA trial demonstrated that both regimens were associated with high rates of AEs, although specific toxicity patterns differed between the treatment arms. Grade 3 or higher AEs occurred in 73% of patients receiving KRd and 62% of those receiving VRd, while any-grade AEs were nearly universal across both cohorts (96% with KRd and 94% with VRd). Treatment discontinuation due to AEs occurred in 11% of KRd-treated patients and 8% of VRd-treated patients.

Grade 5 AEs were infrequent but observed in both arms, occurring in 5 patients (4%) in the KRd arm and 7 patients (6%) in the VRd arm. Reported fatal AEs in the KRd cohort included COVID-19, stroke, pneumonia, sepsis, and acute kidney failure, whereas the VRd arm included deaths from COVID-19, pneumonia, respiratory failure, and two AEs of unknown cause. Neutropenia of any grade occurred in 29% of KRd-treated patients and 17% of VRd-treated patients, with grade 3 or higher neutropenia reported in 21% and 11%, respectively.

Neuropathy, a known bortezomib-associated toxicity, was more common with VRd: 56% of patients experienced neuropathy of any grade compared with 17% in the KRd arm, although grade 3 or higher neuropathy remained low in both groups (2% in each arm). Cardiac AEs occurred more frequently with KRd (18% any grade; 6% grade ≥3) than with VRd (10% any grade; 2% grade ≥3), consistent with the known cardiovascular risk profile of carfilzomib. Infection rates were high in both groups but were more common in the KRd arm, where 75% experienced infections of any grade and 25% developed grade 3 or higher infections, compared with 60% and 23% in the VRd arm, respectively.

References

1. Dytfeld D, Kubicki T, Tyczynska A, et al. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (KRd) versus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (VRd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma: results of the randomized phase III COBRA trial. Blood. 2025;146(suppl 1):99. doi:10.1182/blood-2025-99
2. Carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib, lenalidomide and dexamethasone (KRd vs. VRd) in patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (COBRA). ClinicalTrials.gov Updated October 3, 2025. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03729804

The CD20 and CD3 bispecific antibody odronextamab showed compelling early efficacy in combination with standard CHOP chemotherapy as a treatment for patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), according to the first results from a small cohort of patients enrolled in part 1 of the phase 3 OLYMPIA-3 study (NCT06091865) presented at the 2025 ASH Annual Meeting.¹

In the early results, the objective response rate (ORR) was 78% with the weekly 80 mg dose of odronextamab plus CHOP and was 100% for the weekly 160 mg dose of odronextamab plus CHOP. The complete response rates were 44% and 100% for each dose, respectively. The median duration of response, duration of complete response, and progression-free survival were not yet reached at the early analysis. Based on the combination of efficacy and safety, the 160 mg dose of odronextamab was selected for further investigation in the randomized portion of the study comparing the bispecific with rituximab (Rituxan).

“Data from part 1a of OLYMPIA-3 suggest that when combining odronextamab with CHOP in previously untreated patients with DLBCL, rituximab was not required to achieve deep and durable responses,” lead investigator Jean-Marie Michot, MD, from Institute Gustave Roussy, said during a presentation of the results. “The safety profile of fixed duration odronextamab-CHOP treatment was generally manageable in patients with previously untreated DLBCL with high-risk features, with no new safety signals compared with previous reports.”

OLYMPIA-3 Study Design and Patient Characteristics

The open-label study was designed with 2 parts. In part 1, the dose of odronextamab was escalated and optimized. Standard CHOP was given on day 1 and 8 of each cycle and odronextamab was administered starting on day 8, initially at a step-up dose of 0.7/4/20 mg and then at varying dose levels including 80 mg or 160 mg weekly and 160 mg and 320 mg every 2 weeks, with data only available for the weekly doses. Part 2 of the study will continue CHOP with patients randomly assigned to receive odronextamab (Odro-CHOP) or rituximab (R-CHOP).

Across all of part 1, the median age of patients was 66 years (range, 24-81), with nearly a third aged 75 or older (32%). ECOG performance status was 0 (40%), 1 (45%), and 2 (14%). The primary cell of origin was non-GCB (59%), and all patients had de novo DLBCL. IPI score was 3 for 36% and 4 to 5 for 27% of patients. The Lugano stage was III to IV for 95% of patients.

At the time of the analysis, 77.8% of patients enrolled to the 80 mg dose had completed cycle 1 to 6 (7 of 9). The remainder of patients in this group had discontinued early, due to physician decision (n = 2). In the 160-mg arm (n = 13), all patients had completed cycle 1 and 84.6% had completed cycle 6. Two discontinued early due to physician decision. The relative dose intensity was 87% in the 80-mg group and 77% in the 160-mg group.

“Most patients completed 6 cycles of odronextamab-CHOP at both dose levels,” said Michot. “There were few dose reductions of odronextamab and no permanent treatment discontinuations due to TEAEs related to odronextamab. There were no clinically important differences in safety between dose levels.”

Additional Odronextamab Efficacy Findings

The median duration of follow-up was 9.2 months for those enrolled in the 80 mg dose and was 7.8 months for those in the 160 mg dose. At the assessment, most responses remained ongoing. “CRs appeared durable,” Michot said.

In a biomarker analysis, B cell counts declined quickly following the initiation of therapy. There was an initial drop with CHOP administration, with B cells being completely cleared with the initiation of odronextamab.

There was slight T cell margination following the initiation of therapy, but these were transient and like prior reports with odronextamab, Michot said. T cell findings were similar for each dose.

Odronextamab Safety Profile in OLYMPIA-3

Grade 3 or higher treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were experienced by all patients treated with the 80 mg and 160 mg doses of odronextamab. Serious TEAEs were seen in 77.8% of those treated with the 80 mg dose and for 92.3% of those administered the 160 mg dose. TEAEs led to treatment interruption or delay for 66.7% of those in the 80-mg arm and for 84.6% of those in the 160-mg group.

TEAE led to an odronextamab dose reduction for no patients in the 80 mg-arm and for 1 in the 160-mg group. Dose results in CHOP due to TEAEs were needed for 1 patient in the 80-mg group and for 5 in the 160-mg group. TEAEs led to treatment discontinuation for 1 patient in each dose level arm. There was 1 TEAE that led to death in the 160-mg arm. “Of note, there were no dose-limiting toxicities reported,” Michot said.

Across both doses, the most common TEAE was neutropenia (81.8%), cytokine release syndrome (CRS; 54.5%), anemia (45.5%), and nausea (40.9%). The most common treatment-related adverse events were similar with neutropenia seen in 77.3% of patients, CRS in 54.5%, anemia in 45.5%, and nausea in 36.4%.

CRS was solely grade 1/2 in severity, with 40.9% of patients having a grade 1 event and 13.6% having a grade 2 event. Tocilizumab was administered to manage CRS for 27.3% of patients and steroids were given for 18.2%. The median CRS duration was 3.8 months and the median time to onset was 9 hours. CRS mostly occurred during the step-up dosing phase at the lowest dose of 0.7 mg, after this initial step-up the rates of CRS were low. There were no cases of immune effector cell–associated neurotoxicity syndrome or tumor lysis syndrome.

Infections were seen in 81.8% of patients treated across both levels. Of these, 31.8% were grade 3 in severity and 9.1% were grade 4. Opportunistic infections were experienced by 50% of patients, of which only 1 patient had a grade 3 or higher opportunistic infection. The most commonly reported events were CMV infection or reinfection (27% for both) or COVID-19 and oral candidiasis (18% for each).

Odronextamab Regulatory History and Further Study

In August of 2025, the FDA issued a complete response letter (CRL) for a biologics license application for odronextamab for the treatment of relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma following 2 or more lines of systemic therapy.² Additionally, in March of 2024,³ the agent received 2 CRLs for DLBCL and follicular lymphoma. In both cases, the applications were based on phase 2 findings. The CRL issued in August noted concerns with site inspections completed at a plant ran by Catalent Indiana LLC.

Odronextamab is the subject of several clinical trials across several disease settings, either as monotherapy or in various combination regimens, including the phase 3 OLYMPIA-2 study (NCT06097364) for follicular lymphoma and the phase 3 OLYMPIA-5 study (NCT06149286) looking at odronextamab plus lenalidomide for follicular lymphoma.

REFERENCES

1. Michot J-M, Yagci M, Kargus K, et al. Odronextamab plus chemotherapy in patients with previously untreated diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL): First Results from part 1 of the Phase 3 Olympia-3 study. Blood. 2025;146 (Supplement 1):abstract 65. doi:10.1182/blood-2025-65

2. Regeneron Reports Second Quarter 2025 Financial and Operating Results. News release. Regeneron. August 1, 2025. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/bdz4e7ex

3. Regeneron provides update on biologics license application for odronextamab. News release. Regeneron. March 25, 2024. Accessed December 6, 2025. https://tinyurl.com/mr2w4j8x

• Rapport Therapeutics recently presented new data and post hoc analyses from its Phase 2a trial of RAP-219 in drug-resistant focal onset seizures at the 2025 American Epilepsy Society Meeting, showing consistent clinical benefits, including reductions in seizure severity and improvements in patient-reported outcomes, alongside PET evidence of target engagement in key brain regions.

• The company now plans an end-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA this quarter and is preparing two pivotal Phase 3 trials for RAP-219 in 2026, underscoring its ambition to advance the asset beyond epilepsy into bipolar mania and diabetic peripheral neuropathic pain.

• With RAP-219 showing consistent efficacy across disease severity and Rapport preparing for pivotal trials, we’ll examine how this shapes its investment narrative.

Find companies with promising cash flow potential yet trading below their fair value.

For Rapport Therapeutics, the big-picture belief is that RAP-219 can anchor a focused neurology platform, despite zero revenue and persistent losses. The AES data do not radically change that story, but they do strengthen a key near-term catalyst: the upcoming end-of-Phase 2 FDA meeting, which now rests on a more complete efficacy, safety, and PET target-engagement package. With shares already up sharply this quarter, the bar for future data and regulatory feedback may be higher, and any shift in FDA feedback or Phase 3 design could matter more than before. At the same time, the core risks remain: a single lead asset, a long runway to potential commercialization, continuing cash burn after the US$250,000,000 raise, and shareholder dilution already in the rear-view mirror.

Although the data help the story, one funding and dilution risk still stands out for investors.

Our valuation report unveils the possibility Rapport Therapeutics’ shares may be trading at a premium.

The Simply Wall St Community currently offers 1 RAP-219 fair value view, clustered around US$51.50 per share, underscoring how even a single estimate can sit well above today’s price. Set that against the company’s ongoing cash burn and dependence on successful FDA dialogue, and you start to see why exploring multiple viewpoints on risk, timelines and dilution pressure could matter for your own conclusions.

Explore another fair value estimate on Rapport Therapeutics – why the stock might be worth as much as 75% more than the current price!

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

• A great starting point for your Rapport Therapeutics research is our analysis highlighting 5 important warning signs that could impact your investment decision.

• Our free Rapport Therapeutics research report provides a comprehensive fundamental analysis summarized in a single visual – the Snowflake – making it easy to evaluate Rapport Therapeutics’ overall financial health at a glance.

These stocks are moving-our analysis flagged them today. Act fast before the price catches up:

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 RAPP.

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

Story Continues

• If you have been wondering whether Veolia Environnement is still a smart buy at around €29, you are not alone. This breakdown is aimed squarely at helping you decide if the current price makes sense.

• The stock has been quietly grinding higher, with returns of 0.1% over the last week, 1.0% over the last month, 7.7% year to date and 90.3% over five years. That naturally raises the question of how much upside is left versus the risk.

• Recent headlines have focused on Veolia’s ongoing role in large scale water and waste infrastructure projects, alongside its push into higher margin environmental services. These developments have reinforced the market’s view of it as a long term transition play. At the same time, regulatory and sustainability tailwinds in Europe continue to shape expectations for stable, utility like cash flows with embedded growth optionality.

• On our checklist of six valuation tests Veolia scores a solid 5 out of 6, suggesting the shares still look reasonably priced. Next we will unpack what that means across discounted cash flow, multiples and other lenses, before finishing with a more intuitive way to think about what the market might be missing.

Find out why Veolia Environnement’s 8.6% return over the last year is lagging behind its peers.

A Discounted Cash Flow model estimates what a company is worth by projecting the cash it can generate in the future and discounting those cash flows back to today in € terms.

For Veolia Environnement, the latest twelve month free cash flow stands at about €1.95 billion. Analysts provide detailed forecasts for the next few years, with free cash flow expected to be around €1.60 billion in 2026 and €1.96 billion by 2027. Beyond that, Simply Wall St extrapolates the trend, projecting free cash flow to rise gradually to roughly €2.17 billion by 2035 as the business matures.

Using a 2 Stage Free Cash Flow to Equity model, these cash flows are discounted back to today to arrive at an estimated intrinsic value of about €58.10 per share. Against a current share price near €29, the DCF suggests the stock is roughly 49.5% undervalued. This indicates that the market may be placing a heavy discount on Veolia’s long term cash generation potential.

Result: UNDERVALUED

Our Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) analysis suggests Veolia Environnement is undervalued by 49.5%. Track this in your watchlist or portfolio, or discover 905 more undervalued stocks based on cash flows.

Head to the Valuation section of our Company Report for more details on how we arrive at this Fair Value for Veolia Environnement.

For a consistently profitable business like Veolia Environnement, the price to earnings (PE) ratio is a useful yardstick, because it links what investors pay today directly to the company’s current earnings power. In broad terms, companies with faster, more reliable earnings growth and lower perceived risk tend to justify higher PE ratios, while slower growth or higher risk usually calls for a lower multiple.

Veolia currently trades on a PE of about 17.7x, which sits close to the Integrated Utilities industry average of roughly 17.8x and modestly below the broader peer group average of around 19.1x. Simply Wall St’s proprietary Fair Ratio for Veolia is 17.1x, which reflects what the PE “should” be once factors like its earnings growth outlook, profit margins, size, industry positioning and specific risks are all accounted for. This tailored Fair Ratio is more informative than a simple peer or sector comparison, because it adjusts for Veolia’s own fundamentals rather than assuming all utilities deserve the same multiple. With the actual PE of 17.7x only slightly above the Fair Ratio of 17.1x, the shares screen as reasonably valued on an earnings basis.

Result: ABOUT RIGHT

PE ratios tell one story, but what if the real opportunity lies elsewhere? Discover 1442 companies where insiders are betting big on explosive growth.

Earlier we mentioned that there is an even better way to understand valuation, so let us introduce Narratives, a simple framework that lets you write the story behind your numbers by tying your view on a company’s future revenue, earnings and margins to a concrete financial forecast and fair value estimate.

On Simply Wall St’s Community page, Narratives are an easy, accessible tool used by millions of investors to connect a company’s story, the assumptions that flow from that story and the resulting fair value. This helps you clearly see whether your own fair value is above or below today’s share price and decide if Veolia Environnement looks like a buy, hold or sell.

Narratives also update dynamically when new information such as earnings, major contract wins or regulatory changes are released. This helps your fair value view stay in sync with the latest data instead of going stale after you first run the numbers.

For example, one Veolia Narrative might lean into new contracts, higher margins and faster earnings growth to justify a fair value closer to the bullish €45.30 analyst target. A more cautious Narrative, focused on M&A risks, tariff pressure and slower mature market growth, might anchor nearer the bearish €25.30 target instead.

Do you think there’s more to the story for Veolia Environnement? Head over to our Community to see what others are saying!

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 VIE.PA.

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

Story Continues

(Bloomberg) — Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell is expected to push through another quarter-point interest-rate cut this week despite growing unease among fellow policymakers that inflation remains too high.

The Fed delivered a second straight reduction in October driven by the summer’s sudden deterioration in the US labor market. But that was followed by an outburst of hawkish concern from some officials, including five who vote on policy this year, signaling hesitancy or unwillingness to support a third move in December.

That growing division has been exacerbated by the lack of fresh economic data due to a government shutdown that spanned much of October and November. The latest inflation number now in policymakers’ hands, released on Dec. 5, is for September — a report that is unlikely to alter the policy debate.

Against that backdrop and for about a week in mid-November, investors signaled serious doubt over the prospect of another cut. But the unusual level of drama was resolved on Nov. 21 when New York Fed President John Williams, who is seen as closely aligned with Powell, said he saw room for a reduction in the “near term.” The market took the signal and now assigns more than a 90% chance to a move next week.

For more, read Bloomberg Economics’ full Week Ahead for the US Economists polled by Bloomberg then expect the Fed to take a break before two more reductions in 2026, in March and September. And there’s some hope that a flood of new data — as statistical agencies catch up from the shutdown — will resolve the ongoing tension between the Fed’s mandates to contain inflation and maximize employment.

That said, more Fed drama lies on the horizon. President Donald Trump is expected soon to name a successor to Powell, whose term as chair expires in May. Kevin Hasset, a Trump loyalist and senior economic adviser, is the frontrunner. That’s prompted worries among some investors that the next chair will pursue rate cuts at Trump’s direction and risk spurring inflation.

What Bloomberg Economics Says:

“If Powell leans hawkish at the news conference to appease hawkish regional Fed presidents, will it even matter anymore? After all, the next Fed chair — Hassett is the frontrunner — could join the board as soon as February, rendering Powell essentially a lame duck for the last few months of his chairmanship.”

—Anna Wong, Stuart Paul, Eliza Winger, Estelle Ou, Chris G. Collins, Alex Tanzi and Troy Durie. For full analysis, click here

In contrast to the Fed, the Bank of Canada is expected to keep its rate steady at 2.25%. Officials have said that’s “about the right level” as long as economic and inflation forecasts materialize.

While third-quarter growth blew past expectations, that was largely driven by lower imports and a jump in military spending, while household consumption declined. Inflation is close to target at 2.2%, though core measures remain elevated.

Elsewhere, central bank decisions from Australia to Switzerland to Brazil will draw attention, and euro-area finance chiefs are scheduled to elect a new chair.

Click here for what happened last week and below is our wrap of what is coming up in the global economy.

Asia

The week in Asia kicks off with economists expecting Japan to revise third-quarter gross domestic product to show a deeper contraction after recent capital spending data for the period were weak, in a report that will justify the government’s large fiscal stimulus package unveiled last month.

Also Monday, data for October may show real wages falling for a 10th month, underscoring how steady gains in nominal pay aren’t keeping up with inflation.

Data Wednesday are expected to show a modest improvement for China’s price environment in November, with inflation ticking up to 0.7%, the fastest advance since February 2024.

Factory-gate prices are seen falling 2%, in what would be the slowest decline in 15 months. Still, as the CPI got a holiday boost that will likely fade, the figures may prompt Beijing to enact more anti-involution policies to curb price competition.

India also may show a pickup in inflation on Friday, with consumer price gains estimated to have accelerated to 0.75% in November, still well below the Reserve Bank’s 2%-6% target range.

Australia releases the NAB Business Confidence index for November Wednesday and a blast of labor statistics on Thursday that will show if jobs data stayed strong after robust results in October.

New Zealand’s manufacturing PMI gauge may have remained in expansionary territory for a fifth month in November. Trade data are due during the week from China and Taiwan.

In central banks, the Reserve Bank of Australia is seen holding its cash rate steady at 3.6% on Tuesday, extending a pause after three cuts earlier this year.

Focus will be on any signaling that the easing cycle may have run its course, with pricing in the swaps market already mostly reflecting expectations for a hike by September.

In the Philippines, authorities are likely to continue their easing campaign with a cut to the overnight borrowing rate to 4.5% on Thursday.

For more, read Bloomberg Economics’ full Week Ahead for Asia Europe, Middle East, Africa

The Swiss National Bank will draw the spotlight among a series of monetary decisions in the region on Thursday. The outcome will showcase the tradeoff for officials trying to avoid a return to negative borrowing costs in Switzerland.

The central bank is widely expected to keep its rate at zero, but may acknowledge a weaker price outlook after every inflation reading since the last quarterly decision turned out weaker than expected, weighed down by the strength of the franc.

By contrast, Turkish policymakers may cut borrowing costs by as much as 150 basis points in its own final decision of 2025. Growth has slowed more than expected and the latest inflation reading there was lower than any estimate in a Bloomberg survey.

In Serbia, the central bank may extend its rate pause to a fifth quarter as US sanctions shut down the nation’s only refiner, risking a rise in energy prices. And Ukrainian officials will announce their own policy decision after keeping borrowing costs steady for 5 months.

Among data highlights, the UK’s monthly growth number on Friday will focus investors. GDP is predicted by economists to have increased slightly at the start of the fourth quarter, in the last such data release before the Bank of England’s decision. Meanwhile Norwegian inflation is scheduled for Tuesday.

Turning to the euro zone, industrial production numbers in Germany on Monday and Italy on Wednesday will reveal whether manufacturing began staging any sort of recovery at the start of a quarter that officials are hoping will mark a turning point.

Among European Central Bank speakers scheduled are President Christine Lagarde at an event on Wednesday. A blackout period will begin the following day in advance of the monetary decision just over a week later.

In France, the country’s fiscal woes will return to the fore on Tuesday, with a National Assembly vote on social security scheduled for Tuesday. Premier Sebastien Lecornu pulled off a win last week by clinching agreement over the revenue part of that measure.

And euro-zone finance ministers will select one of their own to chair meetings and represent them collectively after the abrupt departure of Ireland’s Paschal Donohoe. Belgium’s Vincent van Peteghem and Greece’s Kyriakos Pierrakakis will face off in a vote when the group meets on Thursday.

For more, read Bloomberg Economics’ full Week Ahead for EMEA Latin America

Mexico’s monthly inflation data will likely see both headline and core readings creep back up from the current 3.57% and 4.28% respectively.

While both are above policymakers’ 3% target ahead of Banxico’s Dec. 18 rate decision, most Mexico watchers expect the lurking threat of recession to win the case for a 12th straight rate cut.

Brazil’s market readout from the central bank may see some additional improvement in inflation expectations for this year and next ahead of Wednesday’s November consumer prices report and rate decision.

The headline reading for last month posted early Wednesday is very likely to have slowed for a second month, and very possibly below the 4.5% top of policymakers’ tolerance range though still well over the 3% target.

Hours later, there’s almost no chance that Banco Central do Brasil does anything but hold at 15% for a fourth meeting, but the odds are much better for some substantive guidance from bank chief Gabriel Galipolo and colleagues.

President Javier Milei’s long slog to bring Argentine inflation to heel continues this week, with the November monthly print expected to slow from October’s 2.3% reading, bringing the annual rate within hailing distance of 30%.

Peruvian central bankers can take a bow for the lowest inflation rate among LatAm’s major economies but won’t likely take that for granted at December’s monetary policy meeting Thursday.

Caution likely has bank chief Julio Velarde and his board keeping the key rate at 4.25% for a third meeting.

For more, read Bloomberg Economics’ full Week Ahead for Latin America –With assistance from Brian Fowler, Laura Dhillon Kane, Robert Jameson, Mark Evans and Piotr Skolimowski.

©2025 Bloomberg L.P.

Public companies that heavily invested in cryptocurrencies are now facing significant financial losses. The once promising investment strategy has seen share prices plummet, leaving firms grappling with the aftermath.

What Happened: Companies that converted their corporate cash into Bitcoin (CRYPTO: BTC) or other digital tokens, inspired by Michael Saylor‘s Strategy Inc., have experienced a severe reversal in fortunes. Digital asset treasuries (DATs) were a popular trend in the first half of 2025, causing share prices to soar.

One such firm, SharpLink Gaming Inc., witnessed its stock surge over 2,600% after declaring a shift to buying Ethereum tokens. However, the stock has since dropped 86% from its peak, reducing the company’s value to less than its digital token holdings.

Bloomberg reports that the median stock price of US and Canadian-listed companies that transitioned to DATs has decreased by 43% this year. The worst hit were those that invested in smaller, more volatile tokens.

Analysts believe the downfall is due to the non-existent yield from these holdings. “Investors took a look and understood that there’s not much yield from these holdings rather than just sitting on this pile of money, and that’s why they contracted,” B. Riley Securities Analyst Fedor Shabalin told the outlet.

Also Read: JPMorgan Forecasts Bitcoin Bottom, Anticipates $28.3 Trillion Challenge To Gold By 2026

With most DATs’ crypto holdings failing to generate any cash flow, these companies are now finding it difficult to make interest and dividend payments on the debt they incurred to purchase the tokens. This has resulted in a decrease in investor enthusiasm and a decline in capital raising opportunities.

Despite the downturn, some DATs are contemplating acquisitions of smaller DATs that are worth less than their holdings, suggesting potential future activity in this sector.

Why It Matters: The downfall of DATs underscores the risks associated with heavy investment in volatile assets like cryptocurrencies. Companies that jumped on the crypto bandwagon, inspired by early successes, are now facing the harsh reality of a market downturn.

With no yield from these holdings and a struggle to meet debt obligations, these companies are facing a crisis of investor confidence.

The potential for acquisitions of smaller DATs indicates that despite the losses, there may still be some belief in the long-term potential of digital assets. However, the immediate future looks challenging for these firms.