European Banks Overcome Bad Loans Concerns as Economy Weakens
Before second-quarter earnings started rolling in, analysts had expected lenders to flag deteriorating credit quality as weaker economic growth had to be factored into banks' modeling of potential loan defaults, according to Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Mar'Yana Vartsaba.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
Got $1K Saved? Here's What Experts Say To Do With It in 2026
As 2026 barrels this way, it may bring with it a very different economic landscape from 2025. Higher prices, steeper costs of living and questions about the fate of interest rates could offer different opportunities for your money. Learn More: Read Next: If you've managed to save $1,000 or more (on top of an emergency fund) experts explained some of the best things to do with it next year. Prepare For a New Economic Environment The smartest thing to do is to think ahead to plan for the new economic environment, according to Jack Fu, co-founder and managing director at Draco Capital Partners. 'In 2026, interest rates may be relatively higher, and market volatility might be more common compared to previous years.' Additionally, 'geopolitical change and supply chain adjustment' could continue to create an uncertain investing climate. On the positive side, Fu said that if the Federal Reserve begins to cut rates, capital may flow back into equities and growth-oriented assets. AI and renewable energy investment trends may also bring new areas of growth. Find Out: Invest It Wisely If you're bringing $1,000 in savings into 2026 that you don't need for an emergency fund, you should definitely consider investing it, Fu said. 'If you have no high-interest debt, think about dividing it between low-risk, short-term assets (like money market funds or high-yield savings) and long-term growth investments (like ETFs or stocks) to balance liquidity and long-term appreciation,' he recommended. Take Risk Tolerance Into Consideration However, Fu said a lot depends upon the individual investor's risk tolerance and time horizon. 'For those investors seeking stable returns, consider investment-grade bond ETFs as insulation against inflation,' he said. For those with a longer time horizon, placing some of the money in actively managed ETFs could allow an investor to 'potentially profit from more opportunities than passive index funds.' Pay Down High-Interest Debt If you hold money in savings but you're also carrying any high-interest debt, you might be surprised that it makes more sense to pay down the debt first, Fu said. 'Usually, the interest rate on unsecured debt is much greater than the return you can realistically anticipate from investing, so I'd prioritize paying off the debt.' Though it may not feel like money going out is an 'investment,' Fu said, 'This is a sure return equal to the interest saved without taking on investment risk.' Invest In a Side Hustle Aaron Razon, a personal finance expert at Coupon Snake, feels that the smartest move with $1,000 in 2026 is investing in bringing in more income. 'I believe the best way they can use this money to promote their financial growth would be to invest in a side hustle idea that can be sustained,' he said. This will help to ensure that they have a steady flow of income. Stable, Risk-Free Investments For those who don't want to take risks with that $1,000, Razon suggested going the 'safest and most stable route … especially given the shaky economic landscape.' Good options would include certificates of deposit (CDs) and U.S. Treasury bills or bonds. 'Although these options typically offer lower returns, they are a good place to invest especially in times when you can't be certain of how the economy would perform,' Razon said. Dip Your Toe Into Crypto If you've been toeing the line about whether to invest in crypto, Ravi de Silva, founder of de Risk Partners, suggested it may be time. 'We're at a point where opportunity and complexity are rising together,' de Silva said. 'With pensions now able to include crypto, it's worth considering this asset class within a diversified, well-managed strategy.' Of course, de Silva pointed out that it's always important to consult a financial advisor or professional who understands both your goals and today's regulatory environment. Does Age Factor Into It? Your age and stage in life can also change how you save and invest. Fu suggested: Gen Z and younger investors can withstand more volatility, so a higher portion may be allocated to growth-type assets. Gen X and mid-career folks may favor a greater portion in capital preservation and steady income. Near retirees should focus on capital preservation and liquidity, e.g., through short-term bonds, CDs or money market funds. Avoid These Mistakes What you should not do is put all your money in one 'basket' — so diversify as much as possible, Fu urged. Additionally, if you need your funds to remain liquid, don't tie them up in long-term assets. Lastly, he said selling stock too soon because of short-term market fluctuations can forfeit the advantages of long-term compounding. Set Clear Goals While any of these options can produce good financial results, Razon warned that the best way to grow any amount of money is to set clear goals. 'Some make the mistake of only thinking of how they can spend this money, with vacation and luxury items top on their lists,' he warned. However, adopting a saving and investing mindset as a priority can allow you to achieve more monumental financial goals. More From GOBankingRates 5 Old Navy Items Retirees Need To Buy Ahead of Fall 3 Reasons Retired Boomers Shouldn't Give Their Kids a Living Inheritance (And 2 Reasons They Should) This article originally appeared on Got $1K Saved? Here's What Experts Say To Do With It in 2026 Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
The UK's year of climate U-turns exposes a deeper failure
We're now halfway through the UK government's critical decade for tackling climate change – and 2025 is fast becoming a year of climate U-turns. Airport expansions have been approved, the phaseout of gas-fired boilers shelved and, under the government's latest industrial strategy, green levies on industrial energy bills that support renewables have been slashed. All while key indicators of global climate stability are deteriorating. As carbon budget and energy policy researchers, we believe the UK's official climate advisers, the Climate Change Committee (CCC), are failing to hold the government accountable for backsliding on climate action. Worse still, the CCC's recommendation that the UK reach net zero emissions by 2050 does not align with international commitments to limit global warming to 1.5°C and 'well below 2°C'. It also fails to reflect the UN principle of fairness and equity whereby wealthier nations like the UK cut emissions earlier and faster than poorer countries. In fact, it systematically undermines these promises, with the CCC's 2025 seventh carbon budget (a landmark report that advises the UK government how to tackle its emissions for the period 2025-2050) a case in point. Hiding carbon colonialism As a signatory to UN climate agreements, the UK is obligated to 'take precautionary measures' based on 'best available scientific knowledge' to prevent 'threats of serious or irreversible damage' to the climate. This includes setting carbon budgets rooted in the principles of equity and with a high chance of limiting warming to 1.5°C. Yet, scientists warn this window is closing fast. Recent research concludes that from 2025, the world can emit no more than 160 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide (GtCO₂) for a 50% chance of not exceeding 1.5°C. Despite this, the CCC uses a global carbon budget almost 50% higher, at 235GtCO₂. Internationally, the UK ranks tenth in wealth, fourth in historical cumulative emissions, and has per capita historical emissions four times the global average. Yet, the CCC disregards the UN principle that wealthy nations, whose prosperity was built on fossil fuels, must shoulder greater responsibility to rapidly cut emissions. With just 0.84% of the global population, the UK's equal share of the remaining 1.5°C carbon budget (160 GtCO₂) would be 1.34 GtCO₂. The CCC allocates it 3.7 GtCO₂ – nearly three times its equal per person share. However, even an equal share allocation would fall far short of the UN's equity framework. Past CCC analyses have likewise embedded significant inequities. Such misappropriation of the carbon budget shifts the burdens of climate change on to more vulnerable communities globally, prioritising the UK's high-carbon norms over the right of low-income nations to sustainable development. The CCC's departure from the UN's core equity principle reveals how colonial norms remain deeply embedded in climate policy. Carbon removal roulette Major societal transformations, such as moving from private car to public transport, are largely absent from the CCC's recommendations. In contrast, large-scale engineered removals of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and fossil fuel carbon capture and storage are assumed to be technically and socio-economically feasible. The CCC definition of 'feasible' prioritises near-term political convenience over scientific integrity and climate stability. Despite a 4% decline in car travel over the past decade, the CCC estimates a per person increase of 10% by 2050. By avoiding pathways that challenge consumption norms, the CCC sidelines proven approaches like reducing car dependence or enforcing robust energy efficiency standards. This highly cautious approach to behavioural change contrasts sharply with its assumptions on the future deployment of CDR, projecting UK engineered removals to increase from 0-13MtCO₂ by 2035, and 36MtCO₂ by 2050 – or nine and 26 times the total global level in 2024. This scale of expansion contradicts historical trends. Similar heroic assumptions underpin CCS projections in electricity and blue hydrogen production (from natural gas). The CCC proposes the UK capture and store 33 MtCO₂ annually by 2050, triple the current global rate – for a technology that has barely advanced despite decades of promises and investment. While some carbon removal is necessary to offset 'impossible to mitigate' emissions from agriculture – for example, nitrous oxide from fertiliser use – using CDR to justify ongoing fossil fuel use is a high-risk approach that undermines the Paris climate commitments. Read more: Nature-based carbon removal options are also overstated. The CCC projects removing 30 MtCO₂ per year by 2050 but insufficiently addresses the impacts on food security and land conflicts. Though reforesting offers ecological benefits, climate-driven wildfires, droughts and pests can rapidly re-release stored carbon. Such insecure carbon storage cannot offset guaranteed emissions from burning fossil fuels. Ultimately, the CCC is deeply conservative on near-term changes to consumption norms, while embracing dangerously optimistic projections of future carbon removal technologies. It accepts temperatures will overshoot global targets significantly, and banks on future correction – despite the risk of triggering irreversible climate tipping points. Hard truth The allure of the CCC's net zero 2050 advice is that it claims to offer a pathway to avoid both major social transformation and a rapid phaseout of fossil fuels, yet still meet the UK's fair share of the 1.5°C commitment. This politically appealing interpretation is scientifically flawed, downplays the gravity of climate risks and disregards principles of international justice. The CCC and others must stop being silent on these critical issues and end the carbon colonialism at the heart of the climate agenda. The UK's net zero 2050 framing isn't just delaying urgent action, it normalises ecological breakdown while maintaining the illusion of responsible stewardship. It worsens climate impacts and undermines preparedness by presenting inadequate measures as 1.5°C compatible. A fundamental rethink of the UK's climate policy requires a consensus that is grounded in equity, scientific integrity and transformative ambition. Get a weekly roundup in your inbox instead. Every Wednesday, The Conversation's environment editor writes Imagine, a short email that goes a little deeper into just one climate issue. Join the 45,000+ readers who've subscribed so far. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. Kevin Anderson is presenting views here that belong to the named authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of researchers within the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Chris Jones has received funding from UKRI. The views in this article are of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. Gaurav Gharde does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
E&E News
3 minutes ago
- E&E News
Joint EU-US statement confirms lower tariffs on autos, other sectors
The United States and the EU on Thursday executed the verbal agreement President Donald Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen reached in Scotland late last month, including lowering tariffs on automobiles and other sectors to 15 percent. The White House framed the statement as an important step toward reaching a comprehensive deal with the 27-nation bloc, collectively the United States' largest trading partner. 'These are ambitious things and we expect in the coming weeks … to fully paper over the agreement,' a senior administration official told reporters Wednesday evening ahead of the announcement. Advertisement The joint statement affirms several aspects of the verbal agreement the president unveiled July 27, including a 15 percent tariff rate on most goods — half the 30 percent rate Trump had threatened. That includes critical sectors like autos, following weeks of uncertainty that had frustrated the EU.
