 |
|
|
|||||
Global equity funds attracted the smallest weekly inflows in four weeks in the week through May 7, amid concerns about the impact of tariffs on the global economy and as investors awaited anticipated U.S.-China trade talks for more clues. According to LSEG Lipper data, investors bought just $856 million worth of global equity funds during the week, when compared with their $6.13 billion worth of net purchases in the previous week. European equity funds witnessed robust demand for a fourth successive week with investors ploughing in a net $12.81 billion into these equity funds. Asian funds also saw a net $3.32 billion worth of inflows while in the U.S., there were outflows for a fourth consecutive week, to the tune of $16.22 billion, on a net basis. Sectoral funds, meanwhile, saw net selling for a ninth successive week, grossing approximately $2.6 billion for the week. The financial sector with $1.19 billion and the metals and mining sector with $478 million in net sales, led sectoral outflows. Global bond funds, however, gained popularity during the week as these funds saw weekly inflows totalling a net $11.4 billion, the highest in nine weeks. Dollar-denominated bond funds witnessed a revival in demand with investors allocating a net $4.33 billion to these funds, the biggest amount in eight weeks. Global short-term and high yield funds also witnessed a significant $1.91 billion and $1.29 billion worth of net purchases, respectively. Global money market funds saw a hefty $66.3 billion worth of weekly inflows, the biggest since February 5. At the same time, gold and precious metal commodity funds experienced their second weekly outflow in 13 weeks, to the tune of $655 million. Data covering 29,582 emerging market funds showed, equity funds received approximately $1.48 billion while bond funds gained a net $1.56 billion, a second successive weekly inflow in each segment. Gaurav Dogra and Patturaja Murugaboopathy, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration will no longer track the cost of climate change-fueled weather disasters, including floods, heat waves, wildfires and more. It is the latest example of changes to the agency and the Trump administration limiting federal government resources on climate change. NOAA falls under the U.S. Department of Commerce and is tasked with daily weather forecasts, severe storm warnings and climate monitoring. It is also parent to the National Weather Service. The agency said its National Centers for Environmental Information would no longer update its Billion-Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database beyond 2024, and that its information going as far back as 1980 would be archived. For decades, it has tracked hundreds of major events across the country, including destructive hurricanes, hail storms, droughts and freezes that have totaled trillions of dollars in damage. The database uniquely pulls information from the Federal Emergency Management Agencys assistance data, insurance organizations, state agencies and more to estimate overall losses from individual disasters. NOAA Communications Director Kim Doster said in a statement that the change was in alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes. Scientists say these weather events are becoming increasingly more frequent, costly and severe with climate change. Experts have attributed the growing intensity of recent debilitating heat, Hurricane Milton, the Southern California wildfires and blasts of cold to climate change. Assessing the impact of weather events fueled by the planet’s warming is key as insurance premiums hike, particularly in communities more prone to flooding, storms and fires. Climate change has wrought havoc on the insurance industry, and homeowners are at risk of skyrocketing rates. One limitation is that the dataset estimated only the nation’s most costly weather events. The information is generally seen as standardized and unduplicable, given the agency’s access to nonpublic data, and other private databases would be more limited in scope and likely not shared as widespread for proprietary reasons. Other datasets, however, also track death estimates from these disasters. Jeff Masters, a meteorologist for Yale Climate Connections, pointed to substitutes from insurance brokers and the international disaster database as alternative sources of information. Still, The NOAA database is the gold standard we use to evaluate the costs of extreme weather, Masters said, and its a major loss, since it comes at a time when we need to better understand how much climate change is increasing disaster losses. These moves also dont change the fact that these disasters are escalating year over year, Kristina Dahl, vice president of science at nonprofit climate organization Climate Central. Extreme weather events that cause a lot of damage are one of the primary ways that the public sees that climate change is happening and is affecting people.” Its critical that we highlight those events when theyre happening, she added. All of these changes will make Americans less safe in the face of climate change. The move, reported Thursday by CNN, is yet another of President Donald Trumps efforts to remove references to climate change and the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on the weather from the federal governments lexicon and documents. Trump has instead prioritized allies in the polluting coal, oil and gas industries, which studies say are linked or traced to climate damage. The change also marks the administration’s latest hit overall to the weather, ocean and fisheries agency. The Trump administration fired hundreds of weather forecasters and other federal NOAA employees on probationary status in February, part of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency efforts to downsize the federal government workforce. It began a second round of more than 1,000 cuts at the agency in March, more than 10% of its workforce at the time. At the time, insiders said massive firings and changes to the agency would risk lives and negatively impact the U.S. economy. Experts also noted fewer vital weather balloon launches under NOAA would worsen U.S. weather forecasts. More changes to the agency are expected, which could include some of those proposed in the president’s preliminary budget. The agency’s weather service also paused providing language translations of its products last month though it resumed those translations just weeks later. ___ The Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find APs standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org. Alexa St. John, Associated Press Data journalist Mary Katherine Wildeman contributed to thi report.
Category:
E-Commerce
Virginia Olsen has pulled lobsters from Maine’s chilly Atlantic waters for decades while watching threats to the state’s lifeblood industry mount.Trade imbalances with Canada, tight regulations on fisheries and offshore wind farms towering like skyscrapers on open water pose three of those threats, said Olsen, part of the fifth generation in her family to make a living in the lobster trade.That’s why she was encouraged last month when President Donald Trump signed an executive order that promises to restore American fisheries to their former glory. The order promises to shred fishing regulations, and Olsen said that will allow fishermen to do what they do best fish.That will make a huge difference in communities like her home of Stonington, the busiest lobster fishing port in the country, Olsen said. It’s a tiny island town of winding streets, swooping gulls and mansard roof houses with an economy almost entirely dependent on commercial fishing, some three hours up the coast from Portland, Maine’s biggest city.Olsen knows firsthand how much has changed over the years. Hundreds of fish and shellfish populations globally have dwindled to dangerously low levels, alarming scientists and prompting the restrictions and catch limits that Trump’s order could wash away with the stroke of a pen. But she’s heartened that the livelihoods of people who work the traps and cast the nets have become a priority in faraway places where they often felt their voices weren’t heard.“I do think it’s time to have the conversation on what regulations that the industry does need. We’re fishing different than we did 100 years ago,” she said. “If everything is being looked at, we should be looking at the regulations within the fishing industry.” A question of sustainability and competitiveness But if fishing and lobstering interests finally have a seat at the table, the questions become how much seafood can be served there and for how long. Trump’s April 17 order, called “Restoring American Seafood Competitiveness,” promises an overhaul of the way America fishes, and cites a national seafood trade deficit of more than $20 billion as the reason to do it. The order calls on the federal government to reduce the regulatory burden on fishermen by later this month.It arrives at a time when conservation groups and many marine scientists say the ocean needs more regulation, not less. One oft-cited 2020 study led by a scientist at the University of British Columbia looked at more than 1,300 fish and invertebrate populations and found that 82% were below levels that can produce maximum sustainable yields. The university said the study “discovered global declines, some severe, of many popularly consumed species.”Trump’s order prioritizes commerce over conservation. It also calls for the development of a comprehensive seafood trade strategy and a review of existing marine monuments, which are underwater protected zones, to see if any should be opened for fishing. At least one, the Pacific Islands Heritage Marine National Monument, has already been reopened.Many commercial fishermen and fishing trade groups lauded the order. Members of the industry, one of the oldest in the country, have long made the case that heavy regulations many intended to protect the health of fish populations leave the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage to the fleets of countries that don’t bear the same kind of burden. That disadvantage is a big piece of why America imports more than two-thirds of its seafood, they argue.“The president’s executive order recognizes the challenges our fishing families and communities face, and we appreciate the commitment to reduce burdensome regulations and strengthen the competitiveness of American seafood,” said Patrice McCarron, executive director of the Maine Lobstermen’s Association.Some fishermen, including Maine lobsterman Don McHenan, said they’re looking forward to members of the industry being able to fish in areas of the ocean that have been closed off to them for years. McHenan said he’s also hopeful the pace of new regulations will slow.“As long as they don’t put any more onto us,” McHenan said. “We’ll see time will tell.” Not all fishermen are on board But the support for deregulation is not unanimous among fishermen. Some say strong conservation laws are critical to protecting species that fishermen rely on to make a living.In Alaska, for example, Matt Wiebe said the executive order “terrifies” him. A commercial fisherman with more than 50 years of experience fishing for salmon, he said the order could potentially harm the Bristol Bay sockeye salmon fishery, which has received praise from sustainability organizations for careful management of the fish supply.Absent that management, he said the world’s largest sockeye salmon fishery could go the way of the New England cod fishing business, which collapsed due in large part to overfishing and has never recovered.“Since New England fishers lost their cod fishery due to overfishing, many other fisheries came to respect and depend on conservation efforts,” Wiebe said. “We fish because it’s what we do, and conservation efforts mean we and our kids can fish into the future.”The executive order arrived at a time when America’s commercial fishermen are coping with environmental challenges and the decline of some once-marketable species. Maine’s historic shrimp fishery shuttered more than a decade ago, California’s salmon industry is struggling through closures and the number of fish stocks on the federal overfished list has grown in recent years.There is also the looming question of what Trump’s trade war with major seafood producers such as Canada and China will mean for the U.S. industry not to mention American consumers.To many in Maine’s lobster and fishing business, the answer is clear: Cut regulations and let them do their thing.“We definitely feel the industry is over-regulated as a whole,” said Dustin Delano, a fourth-generation Maine lobsterman who is also chief operating officer of the New England Fishermen’s Stewardship Association. “We hope that this will help for sure. It does seek to initiate that America-first strategy in the fishery.” Patrick Whittle and Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||