Category: 3. Business

WASHINGTON — WASHINGTON (AP) — The global economy is holding up better than expected despite major shocks such as President Donald Trump’s tariffs, but the head of the International Monetary Fund says that resilience may not last.

“Buckle up,” Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva says in prepared remarks to a think tank Wednesday. “Uncertainty is the new normal and it is here to stay.”

Her comments at the Milken Institute come on a day when gold prices hit $4,000 an ounce for the first time as investors seek safe haven from a weaker dollar and geopolitical uncertainty and before the IMF and World Bank hold their annual meetings next week in Washington. Trump’s trade penalties are expected to be in sharp focus when global finance leaders and central bankers gather.

The worldwide economy is forecast to grow by 3% this year, and Georgieva is citing a number of factors for why it may not slip below that: Countries have put in place decisive economic policies, the private sector has adapted and the tariffs have proved less severe than originally feared.

“But before anyone heaves a big sigh of relief, please hear this: Global resilience has not yet been fully tested. And there are worrying signs the test may come. Just look at the surging global demand for gold,” she says in her prepared remarks.

On Trump’s tariffs, she says “the full effect is still to unfold. In the U.S., margin compression could give way to more price pass-through, raising inflation with implications for monetary policy and growth.”

The Republican administration imposed import taxes on nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, China and even the tiny African nation of Lesotho. “We’re the king of being screwed by tariffs,” Trump said Tuesday in the Oval Office during a meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney.

While the U.S. has announced some trade frameworks with nations such as the United Kingdom and Vietnam, the tariffs have created uncertainty worldwide.

“Elsewhere, a flood of goods previously destined for the U.S. market could trigger a second round of tariff hikes,” Georgieva says.

The Supreme Court next month will hear arguments about whether Trump has the authority to impose some of his tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

In her wide-ranging remarks, Georgieva points to youth discontent around the world as many young people foresee a future where they earn less than their parents. She also is calling for greater internal trade in Asia, more business friendly changes in Africa and more competitiveness in Europe.

For the United States. Georgieva is urging the government to address the federal debt and to encourage household saving.

The IMF is a 191-country lending organization that seeks to promote global growth and financial stability and to reduce poverty.

A Cornell doctoral student has developed an open-source software package that could transform how engineers design floating offshore structures for renewable energy and other ocean applications.

Kapil Khanal, a doctoral student in the field of systems engineering, is lead author of a study in Applied Ocean Research describing a “fully differentiable boundary element solver” that uses modern computational techniques to deliver fast, precise analysis of wave-structure interactions. The software package is called MarineHydro.jl.

This solver allows engineers to test how small changes in a design of an offshore structure, such as altering the diameter of a floating platform or changing the spacing between floating platforms, will affect performance, without having to build multiple prototypes or running time-consuming simulations.

“Traditional simulation tools came out of the offshore oil and gas industry in the 1970s and ’80s,” Khanal said. “They perform well for oil and gas platforms, but when we look at new devices like wave-energy converters or floating wind turbines, the old methods don’t really capture the challenges we need to address today.”

Existing software can model how a design behaves when in waves, but recalculating for every parameter change is computationally expensive. Khanal’s software integrates reverse-mode automatic differentiation – a technique widely used in machine learning – directly into the hydrodynamic solver.

“When you run the simulation once, the software gives you not only the performance of the system as it is but also how that performance changes if you tweak any of your inputs,” Khanal said. “You get all the sensitivities at once without having to run multiple simulations.”

Khanal compares it to taking a single bite of a dish and knowing instantly how the salt, the spice, the lemon and the garnish shaped the flavor without having to taste the dish ingredient by ingredient.

The solver has already been applied to model interactions among floating spheres and to optimize the layout of wave-energy converters, and the tool’s flexibility will be useful as engineers experiment with other novel, offshore systems.

“For some newer technologies like wave-energy converters and hybrid symbiotic systems, there isn’t one agreed-upon base design yet,” Khanal said. “It depends on the application, and there’s a need for software that can handle that diversity of designs.”

MarineHydro.jl is supported by Sandia National Laboratories, which is funding its continued development. Khanal built the solver in Julia, a programming language gaining traction in engineering circles for its speed and interoperability. The solver is open source and is already attracting interest from researchers and engineers.

“It already has about 20 stars on GitHub, with people using it from Brazil, Virginia Tech and Europe,” Khanal said. “That’s been exciting. It shows my Ph.D. research produced a tool people can actually use.”

The study’s senior author is Maha Haji, visiting assistant professor in Cornell’s Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering and an assistant professor at the University of Michigan.

This project was funded by grants from the U.S. Department of Energy’s Seedling and Sapling Program.

Chris Dawson is a communications coordinator for Cornell Engineering.

This article originally appeared in Insurance Day, September 2025.

It has been a period of significant change for the UK pensions industry, with both the Pensions Regulator (TPR) and the Pensions Ombudsman (TPO) undergoing reforms that will impact how schemes are managed, how disputes are resolved, and how professionals in the industry must operate. This will have implications for the sector’s professional liability insurers.

With the next Budget taking place on November 26 and the government under pressure to improve the country’s finances, further change could be on the horizon.

TPR has set out a new agenda, which seeks to place stronger emphasis on transparency, governance, and long-term value, particularly within defined contribution (DC) schemes. Previously, much of TPR’s attention – often with good reason – has been on defined benefit (DB) schemes. However, to ensure risks with DC schemes are not overlooked, the new Pension Schemes Bill will deliver a number of significant changes.

A new value-for-money framework will require schemes to be more transparent about costs, investment returns and governance. This means that advisers, administrators, and trustees will have to ensure they have adequate reporting in place and demonstrate that schemes are working in members’ interests.

DB scheme rules on accessing surplus funds are being relaxed. Employers and trustees are encouraged to return surplus funds to the beneficiaries, where appropriate. This caused some trepidation around exposing employers and trustees to potential claims, however, the surplus will only be returned if certain safe guards are met. While this could release locked-up value, it also creates new risks that professionals will need to navigate carefully.

The creation of DC “superfunds” is being encouraged, in an attempt to make the UK a more attractive investment option.

The handling of small pensions is being simplified – for example, funds of £1,000 or less will automatically be transferred to the consumer’s largest pension fund.

Increased oversight

An increase in trustee oversight, with TPR suggesting that trustees who fail to comply with rules on scheme loans risk regulatory sanctions. The changes reinforce the expectation that trustees must remain up to date with legal and technical knowledge.

Being able to provide evidence that a trustee has engaged with the updated toolkit, recorded their learnings, and taken steps to apply it in practice, is invaluable in rebutting allegations of inadequate knowledge or failure to discharge their statutory duties.

Not all the changes have been welcomed – the suggestion that schemes will be required to invest part of their funds in private markets has raised concerns about embracing too much risk. For advisers and investment managers, closer scrutiny of portfolio choices will be needed, to ensure that markets are performing as expected.

The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has also called for a more proactive approach from the pension industry to provide more targeted retirement advice. The suggestion, which has been supported by TPR, indicates that a greater level of understanding is required from advisers, to ensure that the diverse needs of consumers is being met.

Meanwhile, it has been a long-held view that TPO does not have the resource to deal with the number of complaints received. Consequently, much of TPO’s recent focus has been on improving the service offered. This has resulted in faster determinations and the use of “lead cases” – where industry-wide issues are spotted, and one case is used to determine the outcome for all linked cases.

The ombudsman’s next areas of priority include increasing awareness of its early dispute resolution service; improving its current image (to show that it is fit for purpose); and improving the capabilities of its staff.

Compliance burden

As a result of the changes, advisers should expect increased compliance burdens, with more reporting and governance checks required. There will be a requirement for more careful planning, where larger funds are merged, while a less relaxed TPO could result in more demanding requirements to respond. Better record-keeping and clearer communications will be vital.

The Government has revived the Pensions Commission, which will explore long-term reforms such as wider auto-enrolment and higher contribution rates. Its findings, expected in 2027, could reshape the retirement savings landscape even further.

For pensions professionals and their insurers, the message is clear: regulation is becoming tougher; oversight is increasing, and expectations are rising.

The changes that have taken place – and those anticipated – mean the pensions advisory landscape is shifting perhaps more rapidly than anticipated. Advisers will find themselves faced with new opportunities to expand their offerings and products available to clients but must be conscious not to go too far – or risk facing claims for inappropriate advice.

Pension trustees and advisers must prepare for deeper scrutiny and faster dispute resolution. Those who adapt early will be best placed to navigate the challenges and benefit from the changes ahead.

How we did this

Pew Research Center conducted this study to understand how parents of kids ages 12 and younger approach their children’s technology use and screen time.

For this analysis, we surveyed 3,054 parents who have children ages 12 and under from May 13 to 26, 2025. The sample for this survey includes respondents from two different sources: Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP) and SSRS’s Opinion Panel (OP). The ATP and OP are both groups of people recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses who have agreed to take surveys regularly. This kind of recruitment gives nearly all U.S. adults a chance of selection.

Interviews were conducted either online or by telephone with a live interviewer. The survey is weighted to be representative of parents or guardians of children ages 12 and under by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other factors. Read more about the ATP’s methodology.

Separately, four online focus groups were also conducted from March 4 to 6, 2025, with a total of 20 U.S. parents or guardians of at least one child age 1 to 12. The goal of these discussions was to explore parents’ views on topics covered in the survey in more depth. They are not representative of all parents, nor do quotes selected represent the views of all group participants. Quotes are pulled from larger discussion, and some have been edited for concision and clarity.

Here are the questions used for this report, the topline and the methodology.

Parenting today means making tough choices about technology. Screens can educate and entertain, but managing what kids watch – and how much – can leave parents feeling judged or like they should be doing more. Setting limits can be a challenge even for those with the youngest kids.

A Pew Research Center survey of U.S. parents reveals how widespread technology is for kids ages 12 and younger – and the day-to-day reality of managing screen time as a parent. Among the takeaways:

Tablets and smartphones are common – TV even more so.

Nine-in-ten parents of kids ages 12 and younger say their child ever watches TV, 68% say they use a tablet and 61% say they use a smartphone.

Half say their child uses gaming devices. About four-in-ten say they use desktops or laptops.

AI is part of the mix.

About one-in-ten parents say their 5- to 12-year-old ever uses artificial intelligence chatbots like ChatGPT or Gemini.

Roughly four-in-ten parents with a kid 12 or younger say their child uses a voice assistant like Siri or Alexa. And 11% say their child uses a smartwatch.

Screens start young.

Some of the biggest debates around screen time center on the question: How young is too young?

It’s not just older kids on screens: Vast majorities of parents say their kids ever watch TV – including 82% who say so about a child under 2.

Smartphone use also starts young for some, but how common this is varies by age. About three-quarters of parents say their 11- or 12-year-old ever uses one. A slightly smaller share, roughly two-thirds, say their child age 8 to 10 does so. Majorities say so for kids ages 5 to 7 and ages 2 to 4.

And fewer – but still about four-in-ten – say their child under 2 ever uses or interacts with one.

It’s common for children to use smartphones. But at what age do they typically start owning their own devices?

In our survey, about one-in-four parents say their child has a smartphone of their own.

This depends heavily on the child’s age. Roughly six-in-ten parents of an 11- or 12-year-old say their child has their own smartphone, compared with 29% of parents of an 8- to 10-year-old and about one-in-ten who say so about a younger kid.

Kids’ smartphone ownership also varies by household income, with 31% of parents with lower incomes reporting that their child has their own smartphone. Smaller shares of those with middle (20%) and upper incomes (16%) say the same.

Regardless of whether a child has their own phone, we asked parents what they consider to be an appropriate age for kids in general to have one. Most parents (68%) think kids generally should be at least 12 before getting a smartphone of their own.

Even for the youngest kids, YouTube is widely used.

YouTube has played a major role in kids’ tech use over the years. It’s not without criticism; lawmakers and advocates have called out the advertising shown to kids and the quality of the content they see. Still, even as parents have voiced similar concerns in our past surveys, they have also noted its role in kids’ entertainment and learning.

Today, 85% of parents say their child ever watches YouTube; this includes about half who say this happens daily. And the platform is widely used by kids of all ages.

About six-in-ten parents report that their child under 2 watches YouTube. This rises to 84% for ages 2 to 4 and is slightly higher for ages 5 to 12.

YouTube use is ticking up overall – and has risen sharply for kids under 2.

YouTube use overall has inched up from 2020, when 80% of parents said their child 11 or younger ever watched it, to 85% of parents who say their child 12 or younger ever does so today.

That includes a jump from 45% to 62% among parents of a child under 2. The shares of parents who say their kid 2 and up ever watches YouTube are statistically unchanged.

Daily use also rose from 43% in the 2020 survey to 51% today. This change is driven by more parents saying their younger kid watches YouTube daily. From 2020 to 2025, daily use rose from:

• 24% to 35% according to parents of a child under 2
• 38% to 51% for parents of kids ages 2 to 4

Some parents say their kids are on TikTok and other social media platforms.

Social media companies have been accused of being too lax with kids’ data, harming youth mental health and not doing enough to keep children from seeing inappropriate content.

Though companies have put age restrictions in place, some kids are still on these platforms. As in 2020, TikTok stands out from the other platforms we asked about – with 15% of parents saying their child uses it, as far as they know.

Smaller shares report their child uses Snapchat (8%), Instagram or Facebook (5% each).

It’s most common for parents of the oldest kids to say their child uses these four platforms. For example, 37% of parents say their 11- to 12-year-old uses TikTok. By comparison:

• 16% say their 8- to 10-year-old uses TikTok.
• 10% say their 5- to 7-year-old does.
• 6% say so about their child under 5.

At the same time, parents view social media as uniquely harmful. Eight-in-ten say the harms of social media outweigh the benefits.

Fewer, though still nearly half, say smartphones are more harmful than beneficial to their children.

And a smaller share – about three-in-ten – say the same about tablets.

How parents navigate decisions about screens

Parents can face tough calls daily on screen time. When and why kids are allowed to use a smartphone can be among the most fraught.

Ease of contact is a big reason for allowing kids to have their own smartphones. Nearly all parents whose child has their own smartphone say this is a major or minor reason they let them use one.

Most parents who let their kids use smartphones at all say entertainment and learning are reasons they do so. Smaller but notable shares of parents say they let kids use smartphones to calm them down or so that they don’t feel left out.

Among parents whose kids use smartphones, those whose child is under 5 are far more likely than those with older kids to say calming their child is a reason they allow smartphone use. And those with lower household incomes are more likely than those with middle or upper incomes to let their child use a smartphone to help them learn, to avoid them feeling left out or to calm them.

Most parents who don’t allow smartphones say inappropriate content is a reason why. Safety, developmental concerns and excessive screen time are also commonly cited.

In addition to surveying parents, we also conducted four separate focus groups in March to dive deeper into parents’ views and experiences on topics related to screen time. In the discussions, we asked them how they felt about their kids using – or not using – phones in general.

One parent highlighted safety as a reason their child has one, explaining:

Asked about giving kids phones in the future, another parent said:

Most parents say managing their child’s screen time is a priority. Fewer than half say it’s one of their biggest ones.

Our survey findings show that they’re juggling other things: Larger shares say making sure their child has good manners, gets enough sleep, stays active, and reads or is read to are some of their biggest day-to-day priorities.

About nine-in-ten parents with upper (90%) and middle incomes (87%) say screen time is a priority overall, higher than the 82% with lower incomes who say so. But the shares who say it’s one of their biggest priorities are similar across these groups.

Some of the other key priorities parents cite vary by income, though. For example, 84% of parents with lower incomes say ensuring good manners is one of their key priorities, versus 74% of those with middle incomes and a slightly smaller share of those with upper incomes (69%).

About four-in-ten parents (39%) think they’re stricter about their child’s screen time than other parents they know.

By comparison, about a quarter each think they’re less strict than other parents (26%) or about as strict (28%).

Many parents say they’re doing their best; some think they can do more.

About four-in-ten (42%) say they could be doing better at managing their kid’s screen time. A larger share – 58% – say they’re doing the best they can.

Moms and dads are similarly likely to say they’re doing their best (59% vs. 55%). Parents with lower household incomes, though, are more likely than their middle-income peers to say this (63% vs. 54%). (Those with upper incomes do not differ from either group, at 57%.)

In our March focus groups, we heard from parents about competing pressures that can weigh heavily on them. As one parent said:

And parents want tech companies and lawmakers to take more action to protect kids.

Two-thirds of parents (67%) say tech companies should do more to set rules around what kids can do or see online, according to our May survey. And a 55% majority say that lawmakers should do more.

Parental support for action on kids’ online lives crosses partisan lines. There are only slight differences in views for Republican and Democratic parents, including parents who lean toward each party.