Category: 3. Business

NEW YORK, October 14, 2025 – The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. (NYSE: GS) today reported net revenues of $15.18 billion and net earnings of $4.10 billion for the third quarter ended September 30, 2025. Diluted earnings per common share (EPS) was $12.25 and annualized return on average common shareholders’ equity (ROE) was 14.2% for the third quarter of 2025.

Please view printable versions of the Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Results [PDF] and the Third Quarter 2025 Earnings Results Presentation [PDF].

David Solomon, Chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs, said, “This quarter’s results reflect the strength of our client franchise and focus on executing our strategic priorities in an improved market environment. Across our business, clients continue to turn to us for their most complex and consequential matters. We know that conditions can change quickly and so we remain focused on strong risk management. Longer term, we are prioritizing the need to operate more efficiently to seamlessly deliver the firm to our clients helped by new AI technologies.”

A conference call to discuss the firm’s financial results, outlook and related matters will be held at 9:30 am (ET) on the date noted above. The call will be open to the public.

Members of the public who would like to listen to the conference call should dial +1-800-289-0459 (in the U.S.) and +1-323-794-2095 (outside the U.S.) passcode number 7042022. The number should be dialed at least 10 minutes prior to the start of the conference call. The conference call will also be accessible as an audio webcast through the Investor Relations section of the firm’s website, www.goldmansachs.com/investor-relations. There is no charge to access the call. For those unable to listen to the live broadcast, a replay will be available on the firm’s website beginning approximately three hours after the event.

Please direct any questions regarding obtaining access to the conference call to Goldman Sachs Investor Relations, via e-mail, at gs-investor-relations@gs.com.

CHICAGO, Oct. 14, 2025 /PRNewswire/ — CME Group, the world’s leading derivatives marketplace, announced its new options on Solana (SOL) and XRP futures suite are now available for trading. Clients will now have the ability to trade options on SOL, Micro SOL, XRP, and Micro XRP futures, with daily, monthly and quarterly expiries available.

The first trade for options on XRP futures took place on Sunday, October 12 and was executed between Wintermute and Superstate. The first trade for options on SOL futures took place on Monday, October 13 and was executed between Cumberland DRW and Galaxy.

“As the crypto market continues to mature, market participants increasingly are looking to manage their exposure and pursue new opportunities across a wider range of crypto instruments,” said Giovanni Vicioso, Global Head of Cryptocurrency Products at CME Group. “With the deep liquidity we’ve built in our Solana and XRP futures markets, these new options provide traders with additional tools to further enhance their growing cryptocurrency investment and hedging strategies. We are pleased with the early support we’ve seen from a wide range of clients for these new contracts.”

“Wintermute is proud to execute the first block trade in CME Group’s XRP options with Superstate,” said Ethan Ren, Head of Options at Wintermute Group. “The launch marks an important extension of listed crypto derivatives beyond BTC and ETH, reflecting growing sophistication in how market participants manage exposure. We see this as a positive signal for the continued evolution and depth of crypto options markets.”

“We’re pleased to have participated in the first CME Group XRP options block trade alongside Wintermute,” said Saahith Pochiraju, Portfolio Manager at Superstate. “The launch of options on XRP futures expands the instruments available to manage and hedge digital asset exposure within strategies like our Superstate Crypto Carry fund. This development reflects growing institutional depth in crypto derivatives, and we’re glad to support CME Group’s ongoing efforts to broaden liquidity and market access.”

“Cumberland is thrilled to facilitate the first block trade for options on SOL futures, which highlights the strong and growing demand for more ways to trade digital assets,” said Roman Makarov, Head of Cumberland Options Trading at DRW. “Institutional participants are clearly seeking greater choice and depth in crypto markets — a trend that will continue to drive innovation across the ecosystem.”

“We’re proud to facilitate the first block trade on CME Group’s SOL options, expanding institutional access to one of the fastest growing blockchain ecosystems,” said Jason Urban, Global Head of Trading at Galaxy. “The addition of SOL and XRP options marks another important step in the evolution of regulated crypto derivatives, deepening liquidity and broadening the tools available to market participants.”

For more information on these products, please visit www.cmegroup.com/cryptooptions.

As the world’s leading derivatives marketplace, CME Group (www.cmegroup.com) enables clients to trade futures, options, cash and OTC markets, optimize portfolios, and analyze data – empowering market participants worldwide to efficiently manage risk and capture opportunities. CME Group exchanges offer the widest range of global benchmark products across all major asset classes based on interest rates, equity indexes, foreign exchange, cryptocurrencies, energy, agricultural products and metals. The company offers futures and options on futures trading through the CME Globex platform, fixed income trading via BrokerTec and foreign exchange trading on the EBS platform. In addition, it operates one of the world’s leading central counterparty clearing providers, CME Clearing. 

CME Group, the Globe logo, CME, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Globex, and E-mini are trademarks of Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. CBOT and Chicago Board of Trade are trademarks of Board of Trade of the City of Chicago, Inc. NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange and ClearPort are trademarks of New York Mercantile Exchange, Inc. COMEX is a trademark of Commodity Exchange, Inc. BrokerTec is a trademark of BrokerTec Americas LLC and EBS is a trademark of EBS Group LTD. The S&P 500 Index is a product of S&P Dow Jones Indices LLC (“S&P DJI”). “S&P®”, “S&P 500®”, “SPY®”, “SPX®”, US 500 and The 500 are trademarks of Standard & Poor’s Financial Services LLC; Dow Jones®, DJIA® and Dow Jones Industrial Average are service and/or trademarks of Dow Jones Trademark Holdings LLC. These trademarks have been licensed for use by Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. Futures contracts based on the S&P 500 Index are not sponsored, endorsed, marketed, or promoted by S&P DJI, and S&P DJI makes no representation regarding the advisability of investing in such products. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. 

CME-G

SOURCE CME Group

Multiple myeloma (MM) is a plasma-cell malignancy associated with a high risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE) because of disease-, patient-, and treatment-related factors, such as the use of immunomodulatory drugs (IMiDs).^1,2 Trials investigating the use of the IMiDs thalidomide, lenalidomide, and pomalidomide in patients with MM showed rates of VTE of up to 12%.^3,4 Studies also show that the risk for VTE is highest within the first 6 months of induction therapy in patients newly diagnosed with MM.^5,6

As a result of the negative short- and long-term consequences of a VTE event and the high incidence of VTE in the MM population,⁷ thromboprophylaxis with an anticoagulant is strongly recommended for patients who have an intermediate or high VTE risk by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) treatment guidelines.⁸ High risk is defined via the IMPEDE VTE and SAVED risk assessment models as an IMPEDE VTE score of ≥8 points or a SAVED score of ≥2 points, whereas intermediate risk is defined as an IMPEDE VTE score of 4 to 7 points.^9,10 VTE risk and protective factors as well as risk classifications within the IMPEDE VTE and SAVED scores are shown in Table 1.^9,10 Similarly, the 2008 International Myeloma Working Group (IMWG) guidelines recommend tailoring anticoagulant prophylaxis according to VTE risk factors such as use of lenalidomide with high-dose dexamethasone (doses >480 mg per month).⁷ IMWG guidelines also suggest that patients with ≥2 risk factors should receive prophylactic anticoagulation with low-molecular–weight heparin or warfarin.⁷

Most patients newly diagnosed with MM are classified as having an intermediate VTE risk and qualify for thromboprophylaxis via the IMPEDE VTE score if they lack any protective factor.⁹ Although concordant on the need for thromboprophylaxis for most patients newly diagnosed with MM, the IMWG and the NCCN guidelines lack a preference for which anticoagulant to choose.^7,8 The IMWG and NCCN guidelines recommend that intermediate- to high-risk patients receive prophylactic doses of enoxaparin or therapeutic warfarin doses targeting an international normalized ratio of 2 to 3.^7,8 However, the NCCN guidelines offer additional anticoagulant options with fondaparinux and the direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) apixaban and rivaroxaban.⁸ Low-dose aspirin is only recommended for patients with a low risk for VTE according to both guidelines.^7,8

Because of the convenience of oral dosing, a lower rate of drug–drug interactions, a lack of food–drug interactions compared with warfarin, and evidence supporting the use of DOACs as thromboprophylaxis in patients with non-myeloma cancer, DOACs are an attractive option in patients with MM, despite limited data supporting their use as thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM.¹¹ As shown in Table 2, all previous studies of DOACs in patients with MM were limited by small patient populations, retrospective study designs at a high risk for bias, and a lack of control arms.^12-22 More evidence is needed to support the routine use of DOACs as thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM who have a high risk for VTE.

Our study’s objective was to investigate the safety and efficacy outcomes of DOACs as thromboprophylaxis and to characterize the incidence of thrombocytopenia and interruptions in thromboprophylaxis during induction therapy for patients newly diagnosed with MM who are receiving lenalidomide.

Methods

In this retrospective, single-center study at MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, TX, we evaluated patients newly diagnosed with MM who received a lenalidomide-based induction regimen and a DOAC, either apixaban or rivaroxaban, for thromboprophylaxis. This study’s design was approved by our institutional research review board before data collection.

We identified patients via a query of the electronic medical records and analysis of the prescription fill history for patients with MM receiving a lenalidomide-based induction regimen between January 1, 2019, and June 1, 2022, who were prescribed apixaban or rivaroxaban as thromboprophylaxis. For study inclusion, patients had to be aged ≥18 years and have at least 6 months of follow-up at our center. Patients were excluded if they had an indication for anticoagulation other than primary thromboprophylaxis, documentation that DOAC therapy was not received, or if they received doses other than apixaban 2.5 mg twice daily or rivaroxaban 10 mg daily.

The primary outcomes were the rates of VTE and major and minor bleeding within 6 months of starting lenalidomide-based induction therapy. VTE diagnoses were confirmed by imaging studies and International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of thrombocytopenia and interruptions in thromboprophylaxis within 6 months of initiating treatment with an induction regimen.

The baseline data collected from the electronic medical record at the time of the initial day of induction therapy included age, sex, race/ethnicity, weight, height, type of MM, Revised International Staging System Stage, ECOG performance status score, creatinine clearance (calculated via the Cockcroft-Gault formula), platelet count, induction treatment regimen, median dexamethasone dose, number of induction therapy cycles, receipt of an autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplant, IMPEDE VTE score, SAVED score, relevant comorbidities, relevant concomitant medications, and the name, dose, and duration of the DOAC prescribed.

We recorded the incidence of VTE, major and minor bleeding, thrombocytopenia, and interruptions in thromboprophylaxis via manual patient chart review. VTE events were graded in accordance with the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0.²³ The rates of arterial thrombosis were not measured. Major bleeding was defined according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis (ISTH) criteria as clinically overt bleeding that is accompanied by a hemoglobin decrease by ≥2 g/dL, requiring a transfusion of ≥2 units of whole or red blood cells, occurring at a critical site, or resulting in death.²⁴ Minor bleeding, as defined by the ISTH clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding criteria, included all events that did not meet the criteria for major bleeding but that required medical intervention, hospitalization, or the prompting of an in-person evaluation by a healthcare provider.²⁴ Thrombocytopenia was graded according to CTCAE version 5.0,23 and the duration of interruption in thromboprophylaxis was rounded to the nearest week.

Results

Of the initial 373 patients who were screened, 106 patients met the inclusion criteria and were included in our study (Figure). Most patients who were excluded from the study received aspirin as thromboprophylaxis (N=174). Of the 106 patients evaluated for efficacy and safety outcomes, 95 patients were prescribed apixaban and 11 patients were prescribed rivaroxaban.

The patients’ baseline characteristics are shown in Table 3. The most common induction regimens received were the triplet of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (55%) followed by bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (28%). The median dose of dexamethasone per cycle was considered a low dose (160 mg), the median number of lenalidomide-based induction cycles was 4, and the duration of thromboprophylaxis was 4 months. Using the IMPEDE VTE risk score threshold of ≥4, 98% of patients were classified as having at least an intermediate risk for VTE. In all, 28% and 30% of patients were classified as having a high risk for VTE based on the SAVED and IMPEDE VTE risk score thresholds of ≥2 and ≥8, respectively.

The most common (82%) VTE risk factor besides IMiD and dexamethasone use was a body mass index (BMI) of ≥25 kg/m². Few patients at baseline received high-dose dexamethasone (13%), had surgery within the past 90 days (11%), had a pathologic fracture in the pelvis or femur (9%), had a history of VTE (8%), had used a tunneled line or central venous catheter (6%), or were aged ≥80 years (2%). None of the patients had received an erythropoiesis-stimulating agent or doxorubicin. Similarly, few patients had protective factors of Asian race (4%) or receiving prophylactic-dose aspirin (12%). None of the patients were receiving a strong inducer or inhibitor of CYP3A4 when thromboprophylaxis with a DOAC was started.

The overall incidence rate of VTE was 4% (Table 4). A total of 3 events were classified as deep vein thrombosis, whereas 1 event was a pulmonary embolism that was classified as low risk. The location of the deep vein thrombosis events included the left popliteal, portal, and internal jugular vein. None of the patients had a central line at the time of VTE diagnosis, and none of the patients were receiving a concomitant moderate or strong CYP3A4 inducer at the time of the VTE event. Surprisingly, all patients with a VTE event had an IMPEDE VTE risk score of 7, indicating moderate VTE risk, with all patients sharing the same risk factors of IMiD use (+4), receiving low-dose dexamethasone (+2), and a BMI of ≥25 kg/m² (+1). None of the VTE events were considered life-threatening or fatal.

The agents chosen for VTE therapy were treatment-dose apixaban (N=3) and enoxaparin followed by treatment-dose rivaroxaban (N=1; Table 4). All 4 patients who had a VTE event had an IMPEDE VTE score of 7 (high risk) and a range of SAVED scores from 1 (low risk) to 3 (high risk). Two patients received induction therapy with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone, whereas the other 2 patients received bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone. The onset of VTE after starting induction therapy ranged from <1 month to 7 months (median, 3 months), and the duration of treatment ranged from 3 months to 12 months (median, 6 months).

The incidence of bleeding during induction therapy was 5% (Table 5). All bleeding events were classified as clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding, and there were no major bleeding events. The location of all minor bleeding events was within the gastrointestinal tract (5%). None of the patients received concomitant antiplatelets or a moderate-to-strong CYP3A4 inhibitor at the time of the bleeding; 1 patient had elevated serum creatinine. A total of 5 patients with a bleeding event had concurrent thrombocytopenia, all of which were grade 1. Similarly, 5 patients required holding thromboprophylaxis for <1 week to resolve the bleeding event, whereas 3 other patients had a bleeding event that resolved without intervention. The ages of the patients who had bleeding ranged from 48 years to 70 years. The onset of the bleeding events ranged from <1 month to 6 months from the induction therapy initiation (median, 4 months).

Discussion

The principal finding of this study was a low rate of VTE and a lack of major bleeding with DOAC thromboprophylaxis in patients newly diagnosed with MM who were receiving lenalidomide-based induction therapy. Using the IMPEDE VTE risk score, almost all patients (98%) were classified as having at least an intermediate risk for VTE and should have received a DOAC or another anticoagulant instead of aspirin based on the current NCCN guidelines. Smaller percentages of patients, 28% and 30%, were classified as having a high risk for VTE based on the SAVED and IMPEDE VTE risk scores, respectively.

The incidence of VTE in our study (4%) was close to the upper range of those in previous literature (<1%-3%).^12-20,22 However, our rate of VTE is comparable with the rate of VTE in a pooled analysis of 3 clinical trials with lenalidomide-based combination regimens without thromboprophylaxis (4% vs 13%, respectively).²⁵ One notable characteristic in patients who had VTE in our study was an elevated BMI ranging from 25 to 42 kg/m². Data that support the use of apixaban in morbidly obese patients with a BMI of >35 to 40 kg/m² are limited to retrospective or observational studies, with the results of 2 pharmacokinetic studies of apixaban in obese patients who weighed ≥120 kg showing a lower area under the curve than in patients who weighed 65 to 85 kg.^26,27 In addition, 2 patients who had a VTE received a carfilzomib-based induction regimen.

The ENDURANCE trial that compared carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone showed a modest increase in VTE rates to 5% with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone from 2% with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone.²⁸ Another retrospective study by Piedra and colleagues showed higher rates of VTE with carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone than with bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone (approximately 16% vs 5%, respectively) when aspirin alone was received as thromboprophylaxis.²⁹ One potential rationale for the higher VTE rates in our study may be the higher use of carfilzomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone versus bortezomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone as induction treatment (55% vs 28%, respectively). Of the 4 VTE events, all resolved after 3 to 12 months of anticoagulation with either treatment-dose apixaban or enoxaparin followed by treatment-dose rivaroxaban.

The bleeding rate in our study (5%) was within the range of those in other studies (2%-17%).^12-20,22 Furthermore, the lack of major bleeding in our study was concordant with previous studies that also showed no major bleeding events with DOACs.^13,16,17,22 The low incidence of minor bleeding and the lack of major bleeding substantially add to the existing literature that demonstrates the safety of using DOACs as thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM.

One concern with providers using an anticoagulant during induction therapy is concurrent thrombocytopenia. The platelet threshold that providers within our study used to hold thromboprophylaxis was 50 K/µL (ie, CTCAE grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia). The rates of grade ≥3 thrombocytopenia within our study were low at 13% with a median duration of 1 week. Reassuringly, only 1% of patients in our study required platelet transfusions during induction therapy. Most thrombocytopenia resolved with treatment interruption and dose decreases of lenalidomide. Although 27% of patients required an interruption of thromboprophylaxis during induction therapy, only 7% of patients held their DOAC treatment for grade 3 and 4 thrombocytopenia and only 2% for bleeding. The most common rationale for holding thromboprophylaxis was in the periprocedural phase for elective procedures, such as kyphoplasty, a dental procedure, colonoscopy or endoscopy, or a nerve block. In addition, the median duration of holding treatment with DOACs was 1 week.

Our study is reflective of real-world practice, where providers are increasingly using DOACs as thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM because of the ease of administration and the lack of a need for laboratory monitoring.¹¹ A strength of our study was the inclusion of only newly diagnosed patients during the initial induction treatment phase, which provided a level of standardization. Previous studies by Pegourie and colleagues and Cornell and colleagues included newly diagnosed patients, patients receiving maintenance therapy, and patients with relapsed or refractory disease, which may have confounded their results.^15,17

Further studies on the ideal thromboprophylaxis agent are needed because the most recent phase 3 trials that investigated thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM who were receiving an IMiD were in 2011 and 2012.^6,30 The 2011 trial by Palumbo and colleagues showed no difference in a composite event encompassing serious thromboembolic events, acute cardiovascular events, or sudden deaths between aspirin, warfarin, and enoxaparin (6%, 8%, and 5%, respectively).³⁰ Similarly, the 2012 trial by Larocca and colleagues showed no difference in VTE rates between aspirin and enoxaparin (approximately 2% vs 1%, respectively).⁶ It is important to note that these trials predominantly enrolled patients with a low risk for VTE and high-risk patients were excluded. A subsequent study by Sanfilippo and colleagues in 2017 suggests that aspirin may not adequately decrease the risk for VTE in high-risk patients.³¹ One large systematic review and meta-analysis of patients receiving lenalidomide-based regimens with aspirin, enoxaparin, or warfarin prophylaxis showed an elevated VTE rate of 6.2%.³² Therefore, additional studies are needed to determine which patients may benefit from additional thromboprophylaxis options such as DOACs when receiving lenalidomide-based induction regimens.

Limitations

The limitations of this study include its retrospective design, small sample size, lack of ability to confirm adherence, inconsistencies in the documentation of VTE and bleeding events, and patients receiving only part of their medical care at our institution. There may be confounding factors leading to a physician choosing a DOAC over aspirin for patients in our study. The small number of patients who received treatment with rivaroxaban limited our ability to compare VTE and bleeding outcomes between different types of DOACs.

In addition, our study did not evaluate whether differences in VTE and bleeding outcomes exist between patients who receive aspirin and those who receive anticoagulation prophylaxis. We also did not investigate the rates of arterial or other cardiovascular events besides VTE. Last, as a result of the retrospective nature of our study, we were unable to assess the adherence rates for patients who had VTE rates to determine whether thrombosis events were nonresponse to thromboprophylaxis or if they occurred because of nonadherence.

Conclusion

This study adds to previous research demonstrating the safety and efficacy of DOACs as thromboprophylaxis in patients with MM who are receiving lenalidomide-based induction regimens in the real-world setting. The incidence of VTE and bleeding rates in this study were low and were similar to rates in previous literature. Given the low sample size, single-center patient population, and retrospective method of data collection, the results of our study are limited in their applicability to a broader MM patient population. Additional randomized trials are needed to conclusively determine the ideal thromboprophylaxis agent and duration in patients with MM receiving induction therapy with a lenalidomide-based regimen.

Author Disclosure Statement

Dr Wang, Dr Luo, and Dr Primeaux have no conflicts of interest to report.

References

1. Li W, Cornell RF, Lenihan D, et al. Cardiovascular complications of novel multiple myeloma treatments. Circulation. 2016;133:908-912.
2. Blom JW, Doggen CJM, Osanto S, Rosendaal FR. Malignancies, prothrombotic mutations, and the risk of venous thrombosis. JAMA. 2005;293:715-722.
3. Carrier M, Le Gal G, Tay J, et al. Rates of venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma patients undergoing immunomodulatory therapy with thalidomide or lenalidomide: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost. 2011;9:653-663.
4. Dimopoulos MA, Leleu X, Palumbo A, et al. Expert panel consensus statement on the optimal use of pomalidomide in relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma. Leukemia. 2014;28:1573-1585.
5. Wun T, White RH. Epidemiology of cancer-related venous thromboembolism. Best Pract Res Clin Haematol. 2009;22:9-23.
6. Larocca A, Cavallo F, Bringhen S, et al. Aspirin or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide. Blood. 2012;119:933-939.
7. Palumbo A, Rajkumar SV, Dimopoulos MA, et al. Prevention of thalidomide- and lenalidomide-associated thrombosis in myeloma. Leukemia. 2008;22:414-423.
8. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): multiple myeloma. Version 2.2025. April 11, 2025. Accessed July 15, 2025. www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/myeloma.pdf
9. Sanfilippo KM, Luo S, Wang TF, et al. Predicting venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma: development and validation of the IMPEDE VTE score. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:1176-1184.
10. Li A, Wu Q, Luo S, et al. Derivation and validation of a risk assessment model for immunomodulatory drug-associated thrombosis among patients with multiple myeloma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17:840-847.
11. Swan D, Rocci A, Bradbury C, Thachil J. Venous thromboembolism in multiple myeloma – choice of prophylaxis, role of direct oral anticoagulants and special considerations. Br J Haematol. 2018;183:538-556.
12. Levine MN, Gu C, Liebman HA, et al. A randomized phase II trial of apixaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in patients with metastatic cancer. J Thromb Haemost. 2012;10:807-814.
13. Aguilar C, Dueñas AB, Sevil F, Domínguez C. Use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) as primary or secondary prophylaxis of venous thromboembolism in patients with multiple myeloma on immunomodulatory drugs. Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2020;4(suppl 1):Abstract PB2098.
14. Storrar NPF, Mathur A, Johnson PRE, Roddie PH. Safety and efficacy of apixaban for routine thromboprophylaxis in myeloma patients treated with thalidomide- and lenalidomide-containing regimens. Br J Haematol. 2019;185:142-144.
15. Pegourie B, Karlin L, Benboubker L, et al. Apixaban for the prevention of thromboembolism in immunomodulatory-treated myeloma patients: myelaxat, a phase 2 pilot study. Am J Hematol. 2019;94:635-640.
16. Sayar Z, Czuprynska J, Patel JP, et al. What are the difficulties in conducting randomised controlled trials of thromboprophylaxis in myeloma patients and how can we address these? Lessons from apixaban versus LMWH or aspirin as thromboprophylaxis in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma (TiMM) feasibility clinical trial. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2019;48:315-322.
17. Cornell RF, Goldhaber SZ, Engelhardt BG, et al. Primary prevention of venous thromboembolism with apixaban for multiple myeloma patients receiving immunomodulatory agents. Br J Haematol. 2020;190:555-561.
18. Sayar Z, Gates C, Bristogiannis S, et al. Safety and efficacy of apixaban as thromboprophylaxis in myeloma patients receiving chemotherapy: a prospective cohort study. Thromb Res. 2022;213:27-29.
19. Campos-Cabrera G, Mendez-Garcia E, Campos-Cabrera S, et al. Rivaroxaban or aspirin as thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2018;132(suppl 1):5068.
20. Piedra KM, Hassoun H, Buie LW, et al. VTE rates and safety analysis of newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients receiving carfilzomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (KRD) with or without rivaroxaban prophylaxis. Blood. 2019;134(suppl 1):1835.
21. Costa TA, Felix N, Costa BA, et al. Direct oral anticoagulants versus aspirin for primary thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma undergoing outpatient therapy: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis. Br J Haematol. 2023;203:395-403.
22. Man L, Morris A, Brown J, et al. Use of direct oral anticoagulants in patients on immunomodulatory agents. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2017;44:298-302.
23. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Version 5.0. November 27, 2017. Accessed November 4, 2023. National Institutes of Health. https://ctep.cancer.gov/protocoldevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_8.5×11.pdf
24. Schulman S, Kearon C. Definition of major bleeding in clinical investigations of antihemostatic medicinal products in non-surgical patients. J Thromb Haemost. 2005;3:692-694.
25. Menon SP, Rajkumar SV, Lacy M, et al. Thromboembolic events with lenalidomide-based therapy for multiple myeloma. Cancer. 2008;112:1522-1528.
26. Upreti VV, Wang J, Barrett YC, et al. Effect of extremes of body weight on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability of apixaban in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;76:908-916.
27. Wasan SM, Feland N, Grant R, Aston CE. Validation of apixaban anti-factor Xa assay and impact of body weight. Thromb Res. 2019;182:51-55.
28. Kumar SK, Jacobus SJ, Cohen AD, et al. Carfilzomib or bortezomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma without intention for immediate autologous stem-cell transplantation (ENDURANCE): a multicentre, open-label, phase 3, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet Oncol. 2020;21:1317-1330.
29. Piedra K, Peterson T, Tan C, et al. Comparison of venous thromboembolism incidence in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma patients receiving bortezomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (RVD) or carfilzomib, lenalidomide, dexamethasone (KRD) with aspirin or rivaroxaban thromboprophylaxis. Br J Haematol. 2022;196:105-109.
30. Palumbo A, Cavo M, Bringhen S, et al. Aspirin, warfarin, or enoxaparin thromboprophylaxis in patients with multiple myeloma treated with thalidomide: a phase III, open-label, randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:986-993.
31. Sanfilippo KM, Luo S, Carson KR, Gage BF. Aspirin may be inadequate thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma. Blood. 2017;130(suppl 1):3419.
32. Chakraborty R, Bin Riaz I, Malik SU, et al. Venous thromboembolism risk with contemporary lenalidomide-based regimens despite thromboprophylaxis in multiple myeloma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer. 2020;126:1640-1650.

Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the Commodities myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

Three of the world’s largest commodities traders have described 2025 as a difficult year, with one executive warning that the industry would have to get used to “smaller rewards” than in the past.

Vitol chief executive Russell Hardy said his company, the world’s leading oil trader, had endured a “tough year, with lots of nitty gritty required”, while his counterpart at Gunvor, Torbjorn Tornqvist, said it had been “hard work, for little . . . or a little less”.

Ben Luckock, head of oil trading at Trafigura, said the company had been able to “cobble together a decent result out of a difficult year”, as traders reduced their appetite for risk amid political uncertainty in the Middle East and elsewhere.

The three men were speaking at the Energy Intelligence Forum in London, where they suggested lower volatility in energy prices had left little opportunity for the outsized returns that commodities traders had enjoyed in recent years.

The most notable example was the energy crisis unleashed by Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine three years ago, which resulted in bumper profits for the traders who rerouted supplies to Europe. 

“It’s no secret that 2022-23 was an exceptional year for the industry,” Tornqvist said. “Trading margins in the market are obviously much slimmer than they were”.

“You have to get used to the smaller rewards, try to look at it collectively and try to diversify,” he continued, adding that the political uncertainty this year was “hard to read”. 

Gunvor in August reported that net profits in the first half of the year were down nearly 71 per cent to $120.8mn. “Given the market turmoil, Gunvor decided to adopt a more conservative risk approach, focusing on limiting downside risk,” the company said. 

At Vitol, there was no outstanding performance in any one department this year, according to Hardy.

“When people pick over the bones at the end of the year, there aren’t going to be any standouts or highlights. It’s not like gas trading was great, power trading was bad, LNG trading was good. Everything required hard work and organisation and courage to collect earnings,” he said. 

Full-year profits at Trafigura are likely to be buoyed by the company’s metals business, with the price of copper, silver and gold all soaring to new highs this year. Trafigura’s chief executive Richard Holtum said this week that the company had “an extremely good result” because of the “diversity of our business”. 

International oil companies such as Shell and BP have also had a difficult time trading oil and gas markets in 2025. BP said in its third-quarter trading statements on Tuesday that gas trading had been “average” and oil trading weak, although Shell said it expected both divisions to fare better than in the previous quarter.

The boss of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, has warned over further losses linked to the private credit sector, saying more “cockroaches” could emerge after the collapse of the sub-prime auto lender Tricolor and the car parts supplier First Brands.

The bank said on Tuesday that although it had no exposure to First Brands, which sells car parts across the US, it had taken a $170m (£128m) hit from Tricolor, which collapsed amid fraud allegations last month.

Both firms had been backed by private credit within the so-called shadow banking sector, which is not directly regulated and is not forced to disclose the level of risks on their books. Regulated banks such as JP Morgan are exposed to the private credit sector, either by lending directly to private businesses, or lending to the private credit firms themselves.

The links between banks and private credit have raised concerns about the fallout of any downturn across the $3tn (£2.3tn) industry.

Dimon said further failures were likely to emerge. “My antenna goes up when things like that happen. I probably shouldn’t say this but when you see one cockroach, there’s probably more. And so everyone should be forewarned at this point,” he said during an analyst call.

When asked whether there were inherent risks in lending to the shadow banking sector, including private credit firms, Dimon said that it was a broad category but that weak links would be revealed during a downturn.

“These are very smart players: they know what they’re doing, they’ve been around a long time. But they’re not all very smart. And we don’t even know the standards of other banks [that] are underwriting to some of these entities. And I would suspect that some of those won’t be as good as you think.”

He suggested this would shake out as part of the normal credit cycle. “We’ve had a benign credit environment for so long, I think you may see credit in other places deteriorate more than other people think when in fact it’s a downturn. And hopefully it’ll be a fairly normal credit cycle … but we think we’re quite careful and obviously we scour the world for things we should be worried about.”

Dimon admitted that JP Morgan also made “mistakes” but said it made sure to “scour” its operations and detect any further risks when potential issues arose.

US stock markets which have rallied during the AI boom are at risk of a “sudden, sharp correction” while government bond markets are under mounting pressure, the International Monetary Fund has warned.

In its Global Financial Stability Report, published as policymakers gather in Washington for the IMF’s annual meetings, the Fund said that markets appear “complacent”.

It highlighted “increasing vulnerabilities in the financial system,” including in stock and bond markets, and among “non-bank financial intermediaries” (NBFIs) or “shadow banks”, which it warned are now closely bound to the banking sector.

US stock markets have repeatedly roared to record highs in recent months. The IMF said stocks do not appear as overvalued as they did during the dotcom bubble at the turn of the millennium. But it said the gains are worryingly concentrated among the “magnificent seven” tech firms, which include Apple, Nvidia and Meta.

“Concentration risk within the S&P 500 is at a historic high, with a narrow group of stocks spanning mega-cap IT and AI-related firms driving the broader index,” it said, adding that the magnificent seven account for 33% of the index.

It warned “the possibility of mega-cap stocks failing to generate expected returns to justify current lofty equity valuations could trigger deterioration in investor sentiment and make the stocks susceptible to sudden, sharp correction,” adding, “valuations would collapse as a result, making the broader benchmark index vulnerable to downturns.”

The Fund also expressed concern about the stability of government bond markets, with many countries expanding borrowing significantly, and increasingly dependent on “price-sensitive investors”, rather than domestic pension funds, for example.

Analysing recent trends in these markets, including shifts in yields, which move inversely to prices, the IMF suggested they may be “on shakier footing than they seem”.

The IMF said stress in the markets for leading governments’ bonds remains unlikely – a “tail risk” – but would have “broad and disruptive ramifications for financial markets, given bonds’ role as key benchmarks and collateral”.

The Fund renewed its warnings about the burgeoning growth of NBFIs in the global economy. These lenders, which face less onerous capital requirements than traditional banks, have expanded rapidly in recent years. The IMF pointed to the fact that mainstream banks are increasingly lending to NBFIs, raising the risks of a systemic crisis if they began to struggle.

“Banks’ growing exposures to NBFIs mean that adverse developments at these institutions – such as downgrades or falling collateral values – could significantly affect banks’ capital ratios,” the IMF said. It added that the sector should be better regulated: “The growing importance of NBFIs in financial intermediation highlights the need for sound oversight of this segment.”

skip past newsletter promotion

after newsletter promotion

It said these vulnerabilities made it all the more important to press ahead with implementing new bank capital rules meant to forestall a future crisis – the Basel III regime. The US has not done so, prompting the Bank of England to delay it, too.

In a sideswipe at the Donald Trump, the IMF also urged governments to resist interfering with interest rate policy, saying “central bank operational independence remains critical for anchoring inflation expectations and enabling central banks to achieve their mandates.”

Trump has sought to remove the Federal Reserve governor, Lisa Cook, and repeatedly attacked the Fed chair, Jay Powell, for failing to cut interest rates as rapidly as the White House would like.

In another comment, couched in terms of the “G4” leading bond issuers – the US, the UK, Japan and the eurozone – but apparently aimed at Washington, the IMF added, “sustained trust in the institutional foundations in G4 economies has underpinned their sovereign bonds’ safe-asset status for decades and needs to be preserved.”