Colombian Economy Beats Forecasts With 2.7% Expansion
Colombia 's economy grew at the fastest pace in two years as record high coffee prices boosted the agricultural sector.
Gross domestic product expanded 2.7% in the first quarter from a year earlier, the statistics agency said Thursday. That compares to the 2.5% forecast of analysts surveyed by Bloomberg.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
42 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Hedge Funds Face California Rebuke Over Role in Wildfire Claims
(Bloomberg) -- Hedge funds are facing pushback in California as their bets tied to insurance claims stemming from the Los Angeles wildfires are attacked as unethical. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Trump Said He Fired the National Portrait Gallery Director. She's Still There. US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The transactions in focus are tied to so-called subrogation claims, which hedge funds, private equity firms and other alternative investment managers have been buying from insurers over the past few months. Subrogation kicks in if a third party such as a utility is suspected of being responsible for losses covered by insurers. Hedge funds buying these claims from insurers are now under attack from the California Earthquake Authority, which is the administrator of the California Wildfire Fund. It has described such transactions as 'opportunistic, profit-driven investment speculation,' and says it's planning to take on 'hedge funds and other speculators' that it claims 'are actively seeking to profit from California's devastating wildfire catastrophes.' In practice, that means the authority will try to block the payout of what it says could end up being 'billions of dollars' to the investors that bought the claims, according to materials prepared ahead of a meeting that took place last month with the California Catastrophe Response Council, which oversees the fund. To that end, it plans to engage California's state legislature, according to a transcript of comments made during the meeting and seen by Bloomberg. A spokesperson for the authority declined to comment. Bradley Max, a director at Cherokee Acquisition, a New York-based investment bank that trades and invests in subrogation claims, says the development has 'put a chill on bidding,' which is already visible in pricing. Subrogation rights tied to the Eaton Fire that ripped through Southern California in January were trading as high as 50 cents on the dollar at one point, but have now dropped 'at least a few points lower,' Max said. Still, even though the political development has led to lower prices on the subrogation claims, it hasn't held back transactions, he said. Cherokee said in April it had brokered deals linked to the Los Angeles fires for 'larger, more sophisticated distressed debt hedge funds.' And by April 15, investment bank Oppenheimer & Co. Inc. had executed 10 transactions tied to the Eaton and Palisades fires totaling over $1 billion worth of recovery rights, Ronald Ryder, co-head of special assets at Oppenheimer, told the California Earthquake Authority. That includes over $125 million in claims traded in just one day, Ryder wrote. A spokesperson for Oppenheimer declined to comment. Cherokee didn't name the hedge funds for which it brokered deals. In an email to the California Earthquake Authority, Ryder said that as catastrophic weather events become 'more prevalent,' insurers are increasingly resorting to 'recovery subrogation in the secondary market to fortify the balance sheet.' There's a growing consensus that insurers can't cover the rising costs of weather-related catastrophes alone, especially as climate change fuels more extreme events. For that reason, the industry is looking for ways to shift part of its financial risk over to capital markets, with alternative asset managers often the only investor class willing to step in. Efforts to prevent investors from profiting from the subrogation claims they've bought represent 'a politically motivated attempt to not pay legitimate obligations,' Max at Cherokee said. They're 'trying to beat up deep-pocketed hedge funds, despite the ethical and legal implications,' he said. Recovery of subrogation claims is costly and can take years to play out, which is why insurers have started selling them in exchange for an upfront cash payment. The hedge funds buying them are betting that the recovery sum at the end of the process will exceed the amount they paid the insurer to buy the claim. The market for investing in subrogation claims is characterized by over-the-counter deals with little to no transparency. Subrogation deals had a seminal moment more than half a decade ago, when faulty power lines and equipment failures at California utility PG&E Corp. were blamed for wildfires in the state. Back then, hedge fund Baupost Group LLC purchased claims against PG&E worth $6.8 billion. Bloomberg has previously reported that Baupost may have generated an estimated $1 billion of profits. The California Wildfire Fund, which is administered by the state's Earthquake Authority and overseen by the California Catastrophe Response Council, was set up in 2019 to help reimburse claims arising from wildfires caused by utility companies. If hedge funds prevail in their subrogation claims, some of the money could end up coming from the California Wildfire Fund. The fund, which sits on about $13 billion in liquid assets, is partly capitalized by three utilities — San Diego Gas & Electric Co., Edison International's Southern California Edison and PG&E. While the cause of the January fires remains under investigation, it's already clear that the Eaton Fire started inside the service territory of Edison and therefore leaves the fund potentially exposed, the authority said. With current estimates for insured losses as high as $45 billion, the January Southern California wildfires are expected to be the costliest in US history, according to the California Earthquake Authority. The Earthquake Authority and Catastrophe Response Council are now reviewing claims and administration procedures as they take the matter to the state legislature. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again The SEC Pinned Its Hack on a Few Hapless Day Traders. The Full Story Is Far More Troubling Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? What Does Musk-Trump Split Mean for a 'Big, Beautiful Bill'? Cuts to US Aid Imperil the World's Largest HIV Treatment Program ©2025 Bloomberg L.P.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Does Gold Still Make Sense After Hitting All-Time Highs?
Gold has even the most seasoned market watchers in awe. Even after a pullback in May, the yellow metal gained around 25% so far this year, and hit an all-time, inflation-adjusted high of $3,500 an ounce in April. The rally enthralled Imaru Casanova, a portfolio manager at VanEck, who has covered the gold industry for 20 years. 'I have to be honest, even for me, the rally this year was surprisingly fast,' she said. 'We don't see gold going from under $3,000 to $3,500 in a few months. That's, sort of, almost violent.' The impressive runup has spurred questions about whether gold is still a feasible portfolio insurance policy at these higher levels. Advisors who are looking at the precious metal need to decide its role in clients' portfolios, whether it is a safe haven or a return driver, and that will determine whether current valuations make it too late to buy. READ ALSO: There's Almost 600K More Millionaires. That's Not Necessarily a Good Thing and Goldman, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Layoffs to Hit Northeast The rally's velocity is at odds with gold's historical track record. Since 1971, when the USgold standard was abandoned, the metal's price in US dollars increased by an annualized 8% through 2024, according to industry group World Gold Council. Over that same time, the S&P 500's annualized return, with dividends reinvested, was 10.7%. Gold's return over the past 20 years is 9.3% and the S&P 500's is 10.4%. Gold pays no dividends and has no yield, so its gain is price return. Central bank buying has underpinned gold's value in recent years, but the first quarter of 2025 saw a surge in investment demand from exchange-traded funds and similar products after a few years of little interest, which helps explain this year's rally. World Gold Council data showed ETF purchases were equal to 226.5 metric tons, nearly as much as the 243.7 tons central banks bought, and helped gold demand rise 16% year-over-year. Joseph Cavatoni, Americas senior market strategist for the World Gold Council, points out that except for gold used in jewelry, demand increased from investors, central banks and industrial users (usually in technology). 'These use cases are all showing the right kinds of signs to give us confidence for what's happening in the market today,' he said. Cavatoni said despite gold's high valuations, it remains a safe haven investment, noting systemic moments in the market are becoming more frequent and that gold holds its value and remains liquid when investors need cash. VanEck's Casanova said despite the rally, investor demand for gold is below its 2020 peak, so there is room for further upside if investors feel the need to own gold. Given the likely US macroeconomic policy uncertainty in the near- to medium-term, she said gold still has a role as an insurance policy in portfolios. She believes it's the best reason to own gold, even though research shows that gold can enhance risk-adjusted returns and offers portfolio diversification. 'This year is a perfect example, you know, that when it needs to come to your rescue sort of thing, it does,' she said. She doesn't recommend tactical use. 'I cannot say this enough. I've been covering the sector for 20 years, and I cannot time the sector,' she said. A Golden Goose? The high prices have made some gold buyers cautious. Peter Thomas, chairman of offshore development at precious metals broker Ausecure and a physical gold dealer since the late 1970s, also wrestles with the idea of owning gold at these levels, and he cautions that volatility will likely be greater. 'When you have new heights and higher prices, it gets choppy. Swings will be wider,' he said. Valuations should be a concern as well. Campbell Harvey, director of research at Research Affiliates and a professor at Duke University's Fuqua School of Business, has studied gold's historical price action. He said when inflation-adjusted, or 'real,' gold prices are high, gold returns over the next 10 years are low. Using consumer price index inflation measurements, it took gold 45 years to take out the inflation-adjusted all-time high of $850 an ounce set in January 1980. That occurred when the metal peaked at $3,500 in April. Edison Byzyka, chief investment officer at Credent Wealth Management, said he is not looking to add gold to client portfolios. 'I think adding to gold right now is an indirect way of saying Treasury yields are going to go back up north of 5%. It's a way of saying the U.S. dollar is on its way to its demise. It's a way of saying that the global economy is going to be worse off than it was in the global financial crisis,' Byzyka said. Gold as a hedge for stocks hasn't always panned out, he adds. Using gold in lieu of bond exposure has worked this year, but he's concerned about the portfolio impact if gold's gains reverse. 'The downside a fixed-income investor would experience is something would be catastrophic to what they would expect in a bond portfolio,' he said. John Koch, chief investment officer at iSectors, said the firm has offered clients different ways to own gold, either as part of a strategic precious metals allocation with gold, silver, platinum and palladium; within its broad liquid alternatives model as an inflation hedge; or in a quantitative dynamic model, allowing an algorithm to choose the allocation to gold as part of a multi-asset sector rotation. His firm views gold as a portfolio diversifier because of its low correlation to other assets. In the strategic or inflation hedge models, the allocation can be between 5% to 10% as a long-term holding, although the quant model has been holding gold at a 30% allocation for the past two years. Steve Conners, president of Conners Wealth Management, started adding gold to clients' portfolios in fall 2024 and he thinks owning either gold ETFs or gold mining companies is still attractive at current prices. Conners considers the pullback healthy. He said with the US dollar remaining unstable because of the uncertainty over the Trump administration's tariffs and the potential impact on the economy, owning gold still makes sense. Plus gold continues to be an attractive hedge against future inflation, which he thinks is still a concern. 'I have no intentions of reducing or paring back; if anything, I'll add,' he said. 'OK, if [gold prices] can pull back a little bit more, I would prefer it.' This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive financial advisor news, market insights, and practice management essentials, subscribe to our free Advisor Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Feeling The Strain: A Real-World Guide To Leading In Polarized Times
The referee stands in the middle of the rope of the tug-of-war If you're a manager today, you've probably felt it. One group pushes for change. Another cautions against it. You're expected to move fast and be careful. Lead boldly and listen closely. Protect what works while building what's next. That stretch you're feeling? It's not confusion. It's polarity. And it's baked into your job. You're not just holding workplace tensions. You're leading in a world defined by them—competing ideologies, global instability, and rising economic divides. The stakes are bigger than ever. So is the strain. On one side are the people who lean toward caution. They worry about risk. They want to hold the line until things feel safer. These are your Stabilizers. On the other side are those who lean into possibility. They think three steps ahead. They want to move, explore, expand. These are your Amplifiers. They're not enemies. But they are opposites. Their instincts pull in different directions. And you're in the middle. Feeling the rope tighten. Trying not to snap. Imagine a leadership meeting around a new AI rollout. The Amplifiers are already drawing up a roadmap. They see market edge, scale, intelligence. Then a Stabilizer speaks up: 'What if the training data is flawed? We're about to automate decisions we haven't even validated.' The room stiffens. The moment turns. It's not sabotage. It's stewardship. One side pushes for momentum. The other pulls for stability. Both are trying to help. And the friction is not a threat. It's the force that can shape something better. When that tension is visible and held (either not ignored or shut down), it leads to better outcomes. Amplifiers get grounded. Stabilizers get curious. And the team builds something neither could create alone. This isn't dysfunction. It's design. And it shows up everywhere. You're not managing one contradiction. You're holding many at once. You might even have your own preferences. But your role is not to choose a side. It's to hold the whole. According to Gallup, managers are more burned out than the people they lead. They work longer hours, face more interruptions, and navigate more emotional complexity. Nearly half say they deal with multiple, competing priorities every day. Even high-performing managers describe their work as reactive and fragmented. Almost a third report that job demands interfere with their personal life. This isn't just pressure. It's polarity overload. You're not failing. You're absorbing complexity the system doesn't know how to hold. A polarity isn't a problem to solve. It's a tension to manage — a concept introduced by Barry Johnson, who studied how leaders must navigate interdependent forces that are both necessary and enduring. These are not either-or choices. They are both-and dynamics that must be balanced over time. Stability brings structure, clarity, and risk management. But overused, it becomes inertia. Amplification brings speed, energy, and possibility. But left unchecked, it becomes chaos. Polarity is what keeps the system alive. And once you name it, you can lead it. If you've ever felt torn between team voices, now you know why. Both instincts matter. Both are incomplete alone. There's been a surge of interest in Both/And thinking as a way to move past binary decisions. At its best, it helps leaders widen their lens and hold complexity without collapsing into either-or debates. But in a multipolar world filled with contradictions, disruption, and high-stakes decisions, just saying Both/And is no longer enough. It risks becoming a conceptual shortcut. A way to simulate harmony without doing the harder work of tension-holding. A way to appease competing voices while avoiding discomfort. And a way to look thoughtful without being decisive. This is where Amplifiers and Stabilizers offer something more real—and more difficult. Each brings not just a perspective, but conviction. They don't arrive with neutral input. They arrive with stakes. What feels urgent to one feels reckless to the other. What feels responsible to one feels resistant to the other. So while Both/And can help name the polarity, it can't hold the pull. Amplifiers and Stabilizers aren't the problem. They're the gift. Each brings something essential. That's why Both/And thinking gained traction—it encouraged leaders to honor opposing instincts rather than silence one side. But the real work isn't just naming both. It's feeling the force between them. It's engaging with the discomfort. It's choosing—not to flatten the tension, but to lead through it. Change leadership is not about finding the easiest middle path. It's about staying with the mess. Not resolving every tension, but recognizing what each side is trying to protect—and what both might be missing. Diplomacy and negotiation will only take you so far. Eventually, leaders must engage with the tug itself. They must absorb the discomfort of multiple truths and still move toward strategy. This is not a rejection of Both/And. It's a refusal to stop at its surface. Let's go back to that AI rollout conversation. The Amplifiers are energized. Then a Stabilizer voices concerns. This is where a Both/And response might try to smooth it over: 'Let's honor both sides.' But honoring both sides isn't enough. Leading through the tension might sound like this: 'I'm hearing two things that matter. One is the momentum we don't want to lose. The other is a risk we can't afford to overlook. We're being pulled between two important truths. So before we move forward, let's break it down.' 'Let's articulate what edge we're chasing. What's the gain, by when? 'But let's not stop there —what assumptions are we making? Where's the data risk?' 'Let's time-box this. What's a pilot that gives us real motion, but still tests the foundation?' 'We're not resolving the tension—we're engaging with it. We'll reconvene next week with a scoped plan that reflects both ambition and caution.' That's not conceptual Both/And. That's leadership in polarity. Not smoothing, not splitting—but stretching. And it's the kind of leadership our world demands now. The future will not be led by those who explain complexity away. It will be shaped by those who can feel it fully and still lead forward. Don't just balance the tension. Learn from it. Frayed rope about to break concept for stress, problem, fragility or precarious business situation Decision-Making: Stabilizers want to pause. Amplifiers want to leap. Neither is wrong. Try this: Information Flow: Stabilizers protect accuracy. Amplifiers circulate ideas early to test energy. Try this: Coaching and Development: Stabilizers need certainty before they stretch. Amplifiers need stretch before they commit. Try this: Execution: Stabilizers want detailed plans. Amplifiers crave long-term vision. They're both right. They're just tuned to different frequencies. Try this: Change doesn't fail because people speak up. It fails when they stop trying. Friction isn't dysfunction. It's fuel. What looks like harmony is often disengagement. When people don't feel safe to disagree, they opt out. You don't have to eliminate the tension. You have to lead through it. If you feel pulled apart, that doesn't mean you're lost. It means you're in the middle of the work. Sometimes the Amplifiers will move first. Other times, the Stabilizers will steady the ground. That's not a failure to decide. That's wisdom in motion. The goal isn't to pick a side. The goal is to stay in the game. Tug of war isn't about dragging one side across the line. It's about noticing the tension, where it pulls, where it holds, and using that awareness to shape the path forward. You don't lead change by ending the tension. You lead by holding it well. Not by pulling harder, but by holding smarter. So hold the rope. Feel the strain. Let both sides speak. And ask yourself: What polarities are you holding right now, and how might you hold them better?
