UK inflation eases by less than anticipated ahead of Bank of England rate decision
LONDON (AP) — Inflation in the U.K. dropped modestly in May as a drop in air fares and transport costs were largely offset by rising food prices, particularly chocolate, official figures showed Wednesday.
The Office of National Statistics said consumer prices rose by 3.4% in the year to May, down from 3.5% the previous month.
That means inflation remains substantially above the Bank of England's target rate of 2%. The bank's rate-setting Monetary Policy Committee is due to announce its latest interest rate decision on Thursday. Most economists expect the nine-member panel, which has cut borrowing rates on a quarterly basis since last August, to keep its main interest rate at 4.25%.
The decline was less than expected. Most economists were expecting the rate to come in at 3.3% for May as price rises cooled, following a raft of bill increases the previous month that pushed inflation to the highest level in more than a year.
The higher-than-anticipated outcome was largely due to a 4.4% increase in food and non-alcoholic drink prices. Larder items like sugar, jam and chocolate, as well as ice cream, saw the biggest monthly price hikes, while meat costs also rose.
Economists, including those at the Bank of England, expect inflation to remain above target over the rest of the year. Uncertainty over U.S. President Donald Trump's tariff agenda and the unrest in the Middle East make it difficult to forecast economic developments and the path of interest rates.
'We are sticking with our call for the Bank of England to continue to reduce rates at a quarterly cadence,' said Felix Feather, economist at asset management firm Aberdeen. 'But geopolitical uncertainty and risks from U.S. trade policy raise both upside and downside risks to this forecast.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
21 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US crude stockpiles slump, products build, EIA says
DENVER (Reuters) -U.S. crude oil stockpiles fell sharply while gasoline and distillate inventories rose last week, the Energy Information Administration said on Wednesday. Crude inventories fell by 11.5 million barrels to 420.9 million barrels in the week ending June 13, the EIA said, compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 1.8 million-barrel draw. Crude stocks at the Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub fell by 995,000 barrels, the EIA said. Oil futures extended losses despite EIA data showing a larger-than-expected decline in crude inventories. Brent crude was trading down $1.61 at $74.77 a barrel by 10:37 a.m. EDT (1437 GMT), while U.S. West Texas Intermediate crude (WTI) was at $73.39 a barrel, off $1.45. Prices had turned negative before the data release after U.S. President Donald Trump spoke on the Israel-Iran conflict and said Iran wanted to negotiate. [O/R] Refinery crude runs fell by 364,000 barrels per day, while utilization rates fell by 1.1 percentage points in the week to 93.2% of total capacity. Gasoline stocks rose by 209,000 barrels in the week to 230 million barrels, the EIA said, compared with forecasts for a 627,000-barrel build. Distillate stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 514,000 barrels in the week to 109.4 million barrels, versus expectations for a 440,000-barrel build, the data showed. Net U.S. crude imports fell by 1.75 million bpd, the EIA said. 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
Miami Herald
31 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Map Shows Where 250 Million Acres of Public Land is Being Sold Off
The largest single sale of national public land in modern history could be carried out as part of President Donald Trump's budget bill to help pay for his sweeping tax cuts. However, a professor who is an expert on climate policy questioned the efficacy of the proposals, telling Newsweek that "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." Newsweek has contacted the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service via email for comment. The Senate committee said that a lot of the land owned by BLM and USFS cannot be used for housing, and so by opening up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction, they intend to solve the "housing crisis." However, the nonprofit land conversation organization The Wilderness Society argued the opposite—that research suggests "very little of the land managed by the BLM and USFS is actually suitable for housing." It warned that much of the public land eligible for sale in the bill include "local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." The organization said the measure "trades ordinary Americans' access to outdoor recreation for a short-term payoff that disproportionately benefits the privileged and well-connected." The measure, which was included in the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee's version of the tax-and-spending legislation released last week, aims to generate revenue for tax cuts by auctioning off public lands in 11 Western states. The legislation mandates that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sell more than 2 million acres over the next five years, with a total of 258 million acres now legally available for potential sale. The proposal mandates the nomination of tracts within 30 days, then every 60 days until the multi-million-acre goal is met, all without hearings, debate or public input. The plan is also part of a broader move to generate around $29 billion through a combination of expanded oil, gas, coal and geothermal lease sales, as well as new timber sales. According to The Wilderness Society, the total of USFS and BLM land available for sale under the new proposals for the Senate Reconciliation Bill, which are consolidated in the West, are as follows for each state: Alaska: 82.8 million acresArizona: 14.4 million acresCalifornia: 16.7 million acresColorado: 14.4 million acresIdaho: 21.7 million acresNevada: 33.6 million acresNew Mexico: 14.3 million acresOregon: 21.7 million acresUtah: 18.7 million acresWashington: 5.4 million acresWyoming: 15 million acres Studies show that less than 2 percent of USFS and BLM land is "close enough to population centers to make sense for housing development," Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek. "Economists also found that more than half of federal lands within a quarter mile of towns needing more housing and a population of at least 100 people had high wildfire risk," he added. The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee said that the proposal is estimated to generate between $5 to $10 billion during the 2025-2034 period. However, whether this move will have a positive financial impact for the government has been debated by experts. Parenteau said "selling off public lands will not reduce federal spending to any significant degree." "There are lands that have been identified for sale or swaps due to the difficulty of managing them like checkerboard lands, but this legislation is not limited to those lands," he said. "The goal is to maximize revenue to offset the massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy." Parenteau added that the mandate also means that ultimately "buyers will have the upper hand." "The percentage of acreage being discussed is too small, in my view, to have any real effect on either the agencies' management budgets or the national debt," Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek. "Most of these lands, especially remote lands managed by BLM, don't need or receive substantial or intensive management effort by the agencies; instead, they function largely as some of the last remaining ecological habitat for our dwindling wildlife," she said. Although, Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek that the legislation "should have a positive budgetary impact on federal land maintenance and holding costs, because 5 percent of the proceeds from land sales must go to addressing the federal government's not insignificant backlog of deferred maintenance on federal BLM and forest lands in the states where the land is sold." She added that is expensive to own land and the federal government "has done a relatively poor job of maintaining its lands." The sale of public lands as part of Trump's tax bill has been a divisive measure, and a proposal to sell around 500,000 acres of federal land in Utah and Nevada was struck off the legislation by the House after some Republican lawmakers opposed the move. A number of Republican representatives launched the bipartisan Public Lands Caucus with the aim of "expanding public access to federal lands, not auctioning them off." Patrick Parenteau, a professor of law and senior fellow for climate policy at Vermont Law and Graduate School, told Newsweek: "The legislation sets a target of over 3 million acres to be sold by 2030, but over 200 million acres of public lands would be eligible for sale to the highest bidder which is likely to be real estate developers or wealthy individuals looking for property near major attractions like Lake Tahoe or Gates of the Arctic. "Even though national parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers and other protected areas are excluded, the areas eligible for sale include local recreation areas, wilderness study areas, inventoried roadless areas, critical wildlife habitat and big game migration corridors." He added: "Sales could impact local communities by eliminating access to popular recreation areas for hiking, camping, fishing, hunting, and more, reducing revenues from tourism near gateway communities, imposing more costs for public services like sewage and fire and police protection, increasing air and water pollution depending on what land uses are allowed, and so forth." Wendie L. Kellington, a law attorney at Kellington Law Group, told Newsweek: "The impact should be positive in the states and regions where the land is sold because the federal land to be sold can only be used for the development of housing or to address associated community needs. "The states identified in the bill are ones with disproportionately great housing shortages and affordability challenges. The affected regions will not lose beloved park or conservation lands. Rather, the bill is narrow and expressly prohibits sales of 'federally protected land" which includes national parks, wild and scenic river areas, national wildlife refuges, national historic sites and many other federally protected sites. "The bill is an effort at a federal solution to a well-known, stubborn, serious housing shortage problem that no one has been able to solve for the past three decades." Deborah A. Sivas, director of the Environmental Law Clinic at Stanford Law, told Newsweek: "Most federal public land is remote from infrastructure and communities, which means it has little value as land per se on the private market and is unlikely to raise appreciable revenue. Maybe there are some parcels immediately adjacent to human communities and services, but for the most part, developers will not be interested in lands that do not connect to supporting infrastructure, human amenities, or nearby jobs." She added: "Starting in 1976, we largely halted, as a matter of public policy, the very long history of selling or giving away federal lands. And I recently saw yet another poll reaffirming that Americans remain overwhelmingly opposed to the sell-off of public lands, which are considered a national treasure and legacy for future generations." The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committeesaid in its fact sheet on the legislation: "In the West, this means that the federal government is depriving our communities of needed land for housing and inhibiting growth. President Trump recognized the connection between federal land ownership and the housing crisis, which is why he pledged to 'open up portions of federal land for large-scale housing construction.'" It added: "This proposal allows a fraction of 1 percent of federal land to be used to build houses. In doing so, it will create thousands of jobs, allow millions of Americans to realize the American dream, and reduce the deficit and fund our public lands." The committee's proposals, unveiled June 11 and revised June 14, is still subject to debate and potential amendment as the Senate deliberates over Trump's tax bill ahead of the self-set deadline of July 4. Related Articles E. Jean Carroll on 'Comedy Gold' of Trump Trial and How She'll Spend $83MNo Kings Protests or Trump's Army Parade-Which Won the Weekend? Newsweek Contributors DebateDonald Trump's Approval Rating is Suffering With RepublicansHow Recall of 20 Million Eggs Could Affect US Prices 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Better Artificial Intelligence Stock: CoreWeave vs. C3.ai
CoreWeave and are showing resilience amid macroeconomic uncertainty. CoreWeave's revenues rose 420% in Q1 as a wave of hyperscalers sought more AI computing power. enterprise AI software is proving popular; its sales jumped 25% in its fiscal 2025. 10 stocks we like better than CoreWeave › Amid this year's chaotic macroeconomic environment, many businesses face uncertain sales outlooks. Yet one sector that's showing resilience is artificial intelligence (AI). Two examples of this are CoreWeave (NASDAQ: CRWV) and (NYSE: AI). Insatiable customer demand for AI has driven strong year-over-year sales growth at both companies. This is despite the ongoing saga of President Donald Trump's tariffs and trade wars. Both might appeal to some investors, but if you had to choose just one to add to your portfolio now, would CoreWeave or be the better AI stock to buy? CoreWeave sells computing power to businesses that are developing AI systems. It operates more than 30 cloud computing data centers that house the types of hardware needed to train and power sophisticated AI models. Demand for that sort of computing power has gotten so hot that ChatGPT creator OpenAI changed its exclusive deal with Microsoft this year so it can lease more from others, including CoreWeave, and even Alphabet-owned Google Cloud. The OpenAI example illustrates the kind of AI demand CoreWeave benefits from. Its customers include a who's who of AI hyperscalers, including Microsoft, IBM, and Facebook parent Meta Platforms. With so many top hyperscalers flocking to CoreWeave, its first-quarter revenue surged by 420% year over year to $981.6 million. And in Q2, management is guiding for it to hit $1.1 billion in sales, up from $395 million in the prior-year period. However, CoreWeave is not profitable, and it has accrued substantial debt in the course of building out its AI data centers. In Q1, its operating expenses were $1.01 billion, which resulted in an operating loss of $27.5 million. CoreWeave's debts loom over its balance sheet. Its total assets of $21.9 billion as of the end of Q1 were not much of a cushion against its total liabilities of $18.8 billion, including $8.7 billion in debt. The company will have to continue investing in its infrastructure to keep pace with its customers' needs, so that debt load could grow over time. While CoreWeave's business revolves around artificial intelligence hardware, focuses on AI software for enterprise customers. It went public in 2020 and has built up a substantial business in the intervening years. For instance, revenue totaled $156.7 million in its fiscal 2020 (which ended April 30, 2020). By its fiscal 2025, its sales had grown to $389.1 million, which was a healthy 25% increase from its fiscal 2024 result. And despite the current macroeconomic turmoil, management is forecasting that its sales will continue growing in the new fiscal year. The company expects fiscal 2026 revenue to land in the $447.5 million to $484.5 million range. artificial intelligence capabilities apply to a wide range of use cases, from proactively monitoring aircraft maintenance needs for the U.S. Air Force to automatically transcribing and indexing archival content for the University of Southern California. Its customers include the U.S. Army, the Department of Defense, ExxonMobil, Boston Scientific, and Rolls-Royce. The need for AI enterprise software is so great that enlisted a network of partners to help capture this demand. Its partnerships encompass Amazon Web Services, energy giant Baker Hughes, and Microsoft Azure, which "acknowledge that the C3 enterprise AI applications are their preferred AI solutions," according to CEO Tom Siebel. But like CoreWeave, is not profitable. In its fiscal 2025, it booked a net loss of $288.7 million. While neither CoreWeave nor are profitable, it's common for high-growth tech companies to spend years prioritizing business expansion and the pursuit of top-line growth over near-term profits. Amazon, for example, famously ran at a loss for many years. Both of these companies expect their sales to continue increasing, so their lack of profitability should not be an overriding concern at this point. But given that, which factors should investors focus on in their effort to determine which would be a better AI investment today? One natural stock valuation metric to weigh heavily is the price-to-sales (P/S) ratio, which measures how much investors are paying for every dollar of a company's revenue. CoreWeave's valuation has surged to a lofty level this year while P/S multiple has remained far more reasonable. In fact, shares look undervalued, especially considering that the P/S ratios of AI leaders Nvidia and Microsoft were hovering around 24 and 13, respectively, as of the end of last week. Given the combination of CoreWeave's debt and its high valuation, it would be prudent for investors to wait and see how the company's financials evolve over the next few quarters before making a decision about the stock. After all, CoreWeave's Q1 earnings report was its first one since it went public in March. Meanwhile, finances are solid. At the end of its fiscal Q4, its balance sheet sported total assets of $1 billion compared to total liabilities of $187.6 million. This, its growing business, and its attractive valuation make the better AI investment for the long term. Before you buy stock in CoreWeave, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and CoreWeave wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $658,297!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $883,386!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 995% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 173% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 9, 2025 John Mackey, former CEO of Whole Foods Market, an Amazon subsidiary, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Suzanne Frey, an executive at Alphabet, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Randi Zuckerberg, a former director of market development and spokeswoman for Facebook and sister to Meta Platforms CEO Mark Zuckerberg, is a member of The Motley Fool's board of directors. Robert Izquierdo has positions in Alphabet, Amazon, International Business Machines, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Alphabet, Amazon, International Business Machines, Meta Platforms, Microsoft, and Nvidia. The Motley Fool recommends and Rolls-Royce Plc and recommends the following options: long January 2026 $395 calls on Microsoft and short January 2026 $405 calls on Microsoft. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Better Artificial Intelligence Stock: CoreWeave vs. was originally published by The Motley Fool 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
