Category: 3. Business

WASHINGTON: The US dollar has had its worst first half-year in more than 50 years, as the financial markets over the last six months were dominated by geopolitical crises and Donald Trump’s trade war.

The dollar has fallen by 10.8% against a basket of currencies since the start of 2025. That is its worst performance over the first six months of any year since 1973, and the worst half-year since the second half of 1991.

This sell-off has pulled the dollar index down to its lowest level since March 2022 and lifted the pound to a three-year high of $1.37, up from $1.25 at the start of the year.

Asian stocks waver, dollar sags under weight of Trump tariffs, Fed uncertainty

Investors have been selling the US currency due to concerns that Trump’s economic policies threaten the safe-haven role of US dollar-denominated assets, with economists predicting that the president’s “big beautiful” budget bill will drive the US national debt even higher.

Analysts at Unicredit said: “The US dollar is the most notable loser so far this year as it has lost 10% against other currencies, with investor concerns regarding Trump’s policies having weighed on the greenback. On the other hand, the euro has risen by 5%.”

David Morrison, a senior market analyst at the financial services company Trade Nation, said: “Trump’s tariffs, the fact that many investors view his administration as somewhat chaotic, along with concerns over US national debt have seen the dollar fall out of favour.”

Rising expectations of US interest rate cuts have also hurt the dollar, as Trump has repeatedly criticised the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, for not lowering borrowing costs and hinted that Powell’s replacement would push for rate reductions and could be named early.

Chris Iggo, the chair of the Axa IM Investment Institute, said broader market returns had been strong in the first half of 2025. “Any sell-off in risky assets has been quickly reversed. Even measures of implied volatility have moved lower. Traders are betting more heavily on multiple US interest rate cuts,” he said.

Stock markets have had a turbulent 2025 so far – most have posted gains over the last six months but getting there was a bumpy journey.

Carsten Brzeski, the global head of macro at ING Research, said it had been an “action-packed” first six months of the year, with key developments including “tariffs, market volatility, questions about Fed independence, a US credit downgrade, fiscal stimulus on steroids, rising debt, deportations, visa restrictions for foreign students, the war in Ukraine entering its fourth year, and Germany doing a fiscal U-turn with a likely doubling of defence spending”.

US and European markets weakened through March as Trump sparred with China, Mexico and Canada over trade deals, before a global sell-off in early April after his announcement of hefty “Liberation Day” tariffs alarmed investors. That tumble – the worst week for the US stock market since 2020 – appeared to alarm the White House, prompting a 90-day pause on tariffs and claims of “Taco” – Trump always chickens out.

So although the US has only signed a single trade deal so far, with the UK, hopes of further progress – or a further pause on tariffs – triggered a historic rebound that lifted the S&P 500 index of US stocks to a record high by the end of June.

According to Bloomberg, it was only the third time in the last 100 years that the S&P 500 has dropped 10% and rebounded to a gain within the same calendar quarter. Ipek Ozkardeskaya, a senior analyst at Swissquote Bank, said US equities had “fully brushed off” the sell-off led by the trade war.

“Funny enough, the rally was not necessarily backed by material progress in trade negotiations, but rather by the so-called Taco trade and Fomo – with Taco standing for ‘Trump always chickens out’ and Fomo standing for ‘fear of missing out’ on the chickening out,” she said. “There’s also the conviction that the Federal Reserve will cut rates sooner rather than later, that earnings growth will remain strong despite trade uncertainties, and that AI will eventually boost productivity and reduce costs.”

Even so, US markets have lagged behind some European markets. The S&P 500 has only gained 5% during 2025 so far, slower than the pan-European Stoxx 600 (+7%), the UK’s FTSE 100 (up 7.2%), or Germany’s Dax (up 20%).

The UK has been one of the best-performing regions globally for investors in the first half of 2025.

“Tariffs, downgrades to earnings and economic forecasts and geopolitical conflict were the defining factors for markets in the first half of 2025,” said Dan Coatsworth, an investment analyst at AJ Bell. “They’ve caused considerable uncertainty which has affected asset prices, as well as business and consumer confidence. It’s led to one of the biggest shifts in investor preferences for years, with certain parts of the market coming to life and previous winners losing their crown. We’re now seeing the great big asset allocation reset and the US is no longer top choice for many investor portfolios.”

Copyright Business Recorder, 2025

Story Continues

Ganesh Kalyanaraman, Managing Director India and North America, Version 1,

The frontline combination of tislelizumab-jsgr (Tevimbra) plus chemotherapy demonstrated efficacy improvements over chemotherapy alone in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (ESCC), with similar improvements noted in those with locally advanced disease and a tumor PD-L1 tumor area positivity (TAP) score of at least 5%, according to findings from a subgroup analysis of the phase 3 RATIONALE-306 study (NCT03783442).¹

The data, which were shared during the 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress, the median overall survival (OS) with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 49) was 25.6 months (95% CI, 19.4-36.3) in the subgroup of patients with locally advanced disease vs 12.3 months (95% CI, 9.0-21.7) with chemotherapy (n = 39), translating to a 51% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.29-0.84; P = .0037). The 12- and 24-month OS rates in the tislelizumab arm were 78.5% and 53.5%; in the placebo arm, these rates were 50.9% and 22.6%. The median investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS) with tislelizumab was 9.7 months (95% CI, 6.9-19.6) vs 6.9 months (95% CI, 4.2-9.7) with placebo (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.31-1.01; P = .0262); the respective 12-month PFS rates were 46.2% and 18.2%.

Those with locally advanced ESCC and a PD-L1 TAP score of 5% or higher who received tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 25) experienced a median OS of 26.4 months (95% CI, 15.3-not evaluable [NE]) vs 11.5 months (95% CI, 8.6-19.8) with chemotherapy alone (n = 20), translating to a 63% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.16-0.83; P = .0067). The 12-month OS rates in the tislelizumab and placebo arms were 72.0% and 45.2%, respectively; the rates at 24 months were 56.0% and 16.9%, respectively. The median investigator-assessed PFS in the tislelizumab arm was 13.2 months (95% CI, 6.8-30.2) vs 6.7 months (95% CI, 4.2-8.6) in the placebo arm (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.19-1.02; P = .269; the respective 12-month PFS rates were 52.4% and 14.8%.

“In this subgroup analysis of patients with locally advanced ESCC, first-line tislelizumab plus chemotherapy showed substantial and clinically meaningful improvements in efficacy, consistent with the primary and 3-year long-term follow-up analyses,” Eric Van Cutsem, MD, PhD, of the Division of Digestive Oncology at University Hospitals Gasthuisberg, Leuven, and KU Leuven, in Leuven, Belgium, said in a presentation of the data. “These findings further support the use of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy as a first-line treatment option for patients with locally advanced ESCC.”

Reviewing RATIONALE-306: Design and Prior Data

The double-blind, randomized, global, phase 3 study enrolled patients with unresectable locally advanced or metastatic ESCC who had measurable or evaluable disease by RECIST v1.1 criteria and an ECOG performance status no higher than 1. Patients had not previously received systemic therapy for advanced disease. They were randomized 1:1 to receive placebo or 200 mg of tislelizumab every 3 weeks plus chemotherapy in the form of platinum plus fluoropyrimidine or platinum plus paclitaxel. Maintenance treatment continued until intolerable toxicity or progressive disease. They were stratified by geographic region (Asia excluding Japan vs Japan vs rest of the world), previous definitive therapy (yes vs no), and investigator-selected chemotherapy regimen (platinum plus fluoropyrimidine vs platinum plus paclitaxel).

The primary end point of the study was OS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population and secondary end points were OS in the subgroup of patients with a PD-L1 TAP score of 10% or higher, PFS, objective response rate (ORR), duration of response (DOR), health-related quality of life, and safety.

Prior data from the study showed that after a minimum follow-up of 3 years, the median OS in all patients who received tislelizumab plus chemotherapy (n = 326) was 17.2 months (95% CI, 15.8-20.1) vs 10.6 months (95% CI, 9.3-12.0) with placebo plus chemotherapy (n = 323), translating to a 30% reduction in the risk of death (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.59-0.83; P < .0001).² In the tislelizumab arm, the 12-, 24-, and 36-month OS rates were 65.0%, 37.9%, and 22.1%, respectively; in the placebo arm, the respective rates were 44.7%, 24.8%, and 14.1%. In March 2025, the FDA approved tislelizumab plus platinum-containing chemotherapy for first-line use in adult patients with unresectable or metastatic ESCC with a tumor PD-L1 expression of 1 or higher based on RATIONALE-306 data.³

Delving Deeper Into the Current Post Hoc Subgroup Analysis

The subgroup analysis sought to evaluate OS and PFS in patients with locally advanced ESCC, which accounted for 13.6% of the 649 patients, including those with both locally advanced ESCC and a tumor PD-L1 TAP score of 5% or higher, which accounted for 51.1% of 88 patients.¹ Those with nonmetastatic disease who were not fit for surgery or definitive chemoradiation were retrospectively selected and included in the analysis.

The baseline demographic and disease characteristics in the locally advanced ESCC subgroup were consistent with those of the ITT population, Van Cutsem said.

Additional efficacy data showed that in the locally advanced ESCC subgroup, the investigator-assessed ORR with tislelizumab plus chemotherapy was 61.2%, which comprised a complete response (CR) rate of 12.2% and a partial response (PR) rate of 49.0%. With chemotherapy alone, the investigator-assessed ORR was 38.5%, with a CR rate of 12.8% and a PR rate of 25.6%. The time to response (TTR) with tislelizumab was 1.4 months (range, 1.2-23.3) vs 2.6 months (range, 1.2-4.2) with placebo. The median DOR was 12.6 months (95% CI, 6.9-22.1) and 7.1 months (95% CI, 5.5-16.6) in the respective arms.

In the locally advanced ESCC subgroup that also had a PD-L1 TAP score of 5% or higher, the respective ORRs were 68.0% and 30.0%. In the tislelizumab arm, the CR and PR rates were 16.0% and 52.0%, respectively; in the placebo arm, these respective rates were 10.0% and 20.0%. The median TTR was 1.5 months (range, 1.2-23.3) with tislelizumab vs 2.0 months (range, 1.2-2.7) with placebo. The median DOR in the respective arms was 22.1 months (95% CI, 6.1-NE) and 5.7 months (95% CI, 1.5-NE).

Safety Spotlight

The toxicity profile of tislelizumab combined with chemotherapy in the locally advanced subgroup was consistent with that reported in the ITT population, according to Van Cutsem, who added that no new safety signals were observed.

In the locally advanced ESCC subgroup, 100% and 97.4% of those in the tislelizumab and placebo arms experienced at least 1 treatment-emergent adverse effect (TEAE); 65.3% and 74.4% of the cases were grade 3 or higher, 44.9% and 51.3% were serious, and 6.1% and 5.1% proved fatal. Moreover, 100% of those in the tislelizumab arm and 92.3% of those in the placebo experienced at least 1 treatment-related adverse effect; 59.2% and 59.0% were grade 3 or higher, 28.6% and 20.5% were serious, and 28.6% and 20.5% led to death. TEAEs resulted in treatment discontinuation for 40.8% of those in the tislelizumab arm vs 35.9% of those in the placebo arm. In the tislelizumab arm, 42.9% of patients received subsequent anticancer therapy and 18.4% received subsequent radiation; in the placebo arm, these respective rates were 51.3% and 30.8%.

Disclosures: Van Cutsem disclosed having participated in advisory boards for AbbVie, Agenus, ALX, Amgen, Arcus Biosciences, Astellas, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BeOne Medicines, Bexon Clinical, BioNtech, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Canfour, Daiichi Sankyo, Debiopharm, Elmedix, Eisai, Galapagos, GSK, Hookipa Pharma, Incyte, Ipsen, Lilly, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Merck KGaA, Mirati, Novartis, Nordic, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Seattle Genetics, Servier, Simcere, Takeda, Taiho Pharmaceutical, and Terumo.

References

1. Van Cutsem E, Xu J, Raymond E, et al. Tislelizumab + chemotherapy vs placebo + chemotherapy in patients with locally advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: RATIONALE-306 subgroup analysis. Presented at: 2025 ESMO Gastrointestinal Cancers Congress; July 2-5, 2025; Barcelona, Spain. Abstract 389MO.
2. Yoon HH, Kato K, Raymond, et al. Global, randomized, phase III study of tislelizumab plus chemotherapy versus placebo plus chemotherapy as first-line treatment for advanced/metastatic esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (RATIONALE-306 update): minimum 3-year survival follow-up. J Clin Oncol. 2024;42(suppl 16):4032. doi:10.1200/JCO.2024.42.16_suppl.4032
3. Tevimbra approved in US for first-line treatment of advanced esophageal squamous cell carcinoma in combination with chemotherapy. News release. BeiGene, Ltd. March 4, 2025. Accessed July 5, 2025. https://hkexir.beigene.com/news/tevimbra-approved-in-u-s-for-first-line-treatment-of-advanced-esophageal-squamous-cell-carcinoma-in-combination/8379a7c3-35ce-45af-82d3-164c64ecf37c/

Benzinga and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue on some items through the links below.

The Federal Reserve just made a move that could quietly reshape crypto’s relationship with traditional banking. The Fed announced on June 23 that it will drop reputational risk from its bank examination programs—a change that crypto advocates have been pushing for years and one that could finally open the floodgates for mainstream crypto banking services.

Don’t Miss:

While the Fed’s announcement sounds like regulatory wonkery, it strikes at the heart of crypto’s biggest problem: banking access. For years, crypto companies have struggled to maintain basic banking relationships, not because they posed financial risks, but because banks feared regulatory blowback over the industry’s controversial reputation.

“Reputational risk” gave regulators a catch-all tool to pressure banks away from crypto clients. Even legally compliant crypto exchanges, custody providers, and blockchain startups often found themselves cut off from banking services simply because regulators deemed the industry too risky from a PR perspective.

Now, with reputational risk officially removed from examinations, banks will be evaluated purely on measurable financial metrics—not on whether they serve industries that generate negative headlines.

The crypto industry has long argued that regulatory hostility, not actual risk, kept banks at arm’s length. Major crypto companies like Coinbase (NASDAQ:COIN), Kraken, and Circle (NYSE:CRCL) have repeatedly highlighted how difficult it is to secure and maintain banking relationships, despite operating as regulated entities.

Trending: New to crypto? Get up to $400 in rewards for successfully completing short educational courses and making your first qualifying trade on Coinbase.

This change could fundamentally alter that dynamic. Here’s what might happen:

More Banking Partners: Crypto companies may finally gain access to mainstream banking services for payroll, business operations, and customer funds management. This could reduce costs and increase operational efficiency across the sector.

Stablecoin Infrastructure: The move could accelerate adoption of dollar-backed stablecoins, as banks become more willing to hold reserves for compliant stablecoin issuers without fear of regulatory pressure.

Institutional Adoption: Traditional banks might finally feel comfortable offering crypto custody, trading, or investment services to their wealthy clients and institutional customers.

Payment Rails: We could see more integration between crypto payment systems and traditional banking infrastructure, making it easier to move money between crypto and traditional finance.

If banks start treating crypto like any other legal industry, the implications extend far beyond just business operations. Increased banking access could drive significant changes in crypto valuations and adoption:

Reduced Volatility: Better banking relationships could reduce the operational risks that contribute to crypto’s price swings, potentially leading to more stable valuations.

Institutional Inflows: Easier banking access might accelerate the flow of institutional money into crypto markets, similar to what we saw with Bitcoin ETF approvals.

DeFi Integration: Traditional banks might become more willing to explore decentralized finance protocols, potentially bridging the gap between TradFi and DeFi.

It’s crucial to understand what this policy shift doesn’t mean. Crypto companies still need to comply with all existing financial regulations, including anti-money laundering rules, know-your-customer requirements, and securities laws. The Fed emphasized that banks must still maintain “strong risk management” and legal compliance.

Banks also remain free to choose their clients based on actual business risks. They just can’t be penalized by regulators for serving legal crypto businesses solely based on industry reputation.

See Also: A must-have for all crypto enthusiasts: Sign up for the Gemini Credit Card today and earn rewards on Bitcoin Ether, or 60+ other tokens, with every purchase.

This move comes as the crypto industry prepares for potentially friendlier regulatory treatment under the new administration. Combined with the approval of Bitcoin and Ethereum ETFs, institutional adoption by companies like MicroStrategy (NASDAQ:MSTR) and Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), and growing clarity around crypto regulations, the Fed’s decision removes another significant barrier to mainstream adoption.

The timing isn’t coincidental. As crypto markets have matured and institutional interest has grown, the argument for treating legally compliant crypto businesses differently from other industries has become harder to justify.

For crypto investors, this regulatory shift could be a game-changer, but the effects will likely unfold over months, not days. Key indicators to monitor:

• Announcements from major banks about new crypto services

• Reduced operational costs for crypto companies as banking access improves

• Increased institutional adoption as traditional finance becomes more comfortable with crypto

• More stable crypto prices as operational risks decrease

• Growing integration between crypto and traditional financial systems

While Bitcoin hitting new highs grabs headlines, regulatory changes like this often have more lasting impact on crypto’s long-term trajectory. For an industry that’s spent years fighting for basic banking access, the Fed’s quiet policy shift might be the breakthrough that finally brings crypto fully into the mainstream financial system.

Read Next: Named a TIME Best Invention and Backed by 5,000+ Users, Kara’s Air-to-Water Pod Cuts Plastic and Costs — And You Can Invest At Just $6.37/Share 

Image: Shutterstock

This article Fed Quietly Removes Reputational Risk Rule That Kept Banks Away from Crypto—Industry Insiders Say This Changes Everything originally appeared on Benzinga.com

All it can take is a phone call. That’s what Qantas learned this week when the personal information of up to 6 million customers was stolen by cybercriminals after attackers targeted an offshore IT call centre, enabling them to access a third-party system.

It is the latest in a series of cyber-attacks on large companies in Australia involving the personal information of millions of Australians, after the attack on Optus, Medibank and, most recently, Australia’s $4t superannuation sector.

The Qantas attack came just days after US authorities warned the airline sector had been targeted by a group known as Scattered Spider, using social engineering techniques, including impersonating employees or contractors to deceive IT help desks into granting access, and bypassing multi-factor authentication.

New technology brings old methods

While companies may spend millions keeping their systems secure and software up-to-date to plug known vulnerabilities, hackers can turn to this form of attack to target, often, the weakest link – humans.

Social engineering is not new. It predates the internet, involving tricking someone into providing compromising information.

The most common way people would see social engineering in practice is through phishing attacks – emails that are designed to look official to lure unsuspecting people into providing their login and passwords.

The phone-call version of social engineering, known as vishing, can be more complicated for the attacker, requiring research into a company and its employees, and tactics to sound convincing over the phone to get the unwitting worker to let them in.

The arrival of easy-to-use artificial intelligence products, including voice cloning, will only make this easier for attackers.

The Office of the Australian Information Commissioner’s most recent data breaches report, covering the second half of 2024, noted a significant rise in reports of breaches caused by social engineering attacks, with government agencies reporting the most, followed by finance and health.

The Qantas breach – that compromised information including names, email addresses, phone numbers, dates of birth and frequent flyer numbers – in isolation might not in isolation lead to financial loss, but the growing number of data breaches in Australia means hackers are able to collate data collected across the breaches and potentially launch attacks on unsuspecting new targets.

Data breaches causing more data breaches

In April, the nation’s superannuation funds became aware of the dangers of hackers collecting compromised login details from other breaches to gain access to super accounts, in what is termed credential stuffing.

The industry was fortunate only a handful of customers suffered losses, together approximately $500,000 – likely a combination of the funds locking down systems, and the high proportion of fund holders who have yet to reach the age where they can access their super.

The Albanese government, however, has been warned that the attack was a canary in the coalmine for the financial sector. In advice to the incoming government in May – released this week under freedom of information laws – the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (Apra) warned super assets were at risk.

“Cyber-attacks at large superannuation funds, that look likely to increase in scope and frequency, highlight that capability in the management of cyber and operational risks must improve,” Apra said.

“While the number of member accounts that had funds fraudulently withdrawn was small, the incident highlighted the need for this sector to uplift its cybersecurity and operational resilience maturity.

“This need will only grow as the sector increases in size, more members enter retirement and the sector takes on greater systemic significance with inter-linkages to the banking sector.”

Apra had warned the sector in 2023 of the importance of multi-factor authentication – something some of the funds had failed to implement before the April attack.

The regulator said there were also sustained cyber-attacks on banking and insurance businesses, and third-party providers that were “continuing to test resilience and defences as attackers develop new technologies and approaches”.

Who is most at risk?

Healthcare, finance, technology and critical infrastructure, such as telecommunications, were most at risk from cyber threats, according to Craig Searle, global leader of cyber advisory at global cybersecurity firm Trustwave.

“The technology sector is uniquely exposed due to its central role in digital infrastructure and interconnected supply chains,” he said. “An attack on a single tech provider can cascade to hundreds or thousands of downstream clients, as seen in recent high-profile supply chain breaches.

“Overall, the sectors most at risk are those with high-value data, complex supply chains, and critical service delivery.”

Searle said attackers like Scattered Spider deliberately targeted third-party systems and outsourced IT support, as seen in the Qantas breach, representing a risk for large companies.

“The interconnected nature of digital supply chains means a vulnerability or misconfiguration in a partner or contractor can trigger a domino effect, exposing sensitive data and operations far beyond the initial breach,” he said.

Christiaan Beek, senior director for threat analytics at cybersecurity firm Rapid7, said third-party systems had become an integral part of many organisations’ business operations and, as a result, were increasingly targeted by threat actors.

“It’s essential for organisations to apply the right levels of due diligence in assessing the security posture of such third-party systems to reduce the risk of their information being compromised.”

Searle said organisations needed to shift from reactive to proactive cybersecurity, apply software patches promptly and enforce strong access control such as multi-factor authentication.

Beek agreed organisations needed to be proactive, with executives held accountable for cybersecurity in their organisations, as well as board oversight.

“The novel tactics observed by modern-day cybercrime groups escape the typical confines of security management programmes,” he said. “The no-limits approach of these criminals pushes us to rethink the typical boundary of defence, in particular surrounding social engineering and the ways in which we can be taken advantage of.”

Story Continues