TheChek News Flow

Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with US-made long-range missiles

Outgoing president makes big policy shift after North Korean soldiers are deployed in the war

US President Joe Biden has authorised Ukraine to launch limited strikes into Russia using US-made long-range missiles, in a big policy shift before the end of his White House term in January, two people familiar with the decision said.

The move by Biden comes in response to the deployment of thousands of North Korean troops to support Russia in its war against Ukraine, and after a barrage of new strikes by Moscow on Ukrainian cities at the weekend.

Tuesday will mark the 1,000th day of Moscow’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine.

The US-made long-range missiles are likely to be first used by Ukraine to target Russian and North Korean forces in Russia’s Kursk region, where Ukrainian troops seized territory during the summer, according to people familiar with the matter.

Biden has allowed Ukraine to use HIMARS — the American High Mobility Artillery Rocket System — to strike targets inside Russia.

But he has long resisted authorising Kyiv to launch strikes within Russia using US-made long-range missiles known as the Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, on the grounds that it could escalate tensions with Moscow. ATACMS missiles have a range of up to 300 kilometres, or 190 miles.

He is now dropping those objections more than two months before he leaves office to make way for Donald Trump.

The Republican is sceptical of additional military aid to Ukraine and has vowed to bring a swift end to the war — without saying how exactly he would do it.

The White House declined to comment. The Pentagon declined to respond to a request for comment.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on Sunday noted media reports “talking about the fact that we have received permission” to use American ATACMS missiles inside Russia, although he did not confirm Biden’s decision.

Zelenskyy has pleaded for months for the US and other partner countries to lift restrictions on Ukraine’s use of western-made, long-range weapons inside Russia.

He has argued that cross-border strikes with the American ATACMS, British Storm Shadow and French Scalp missiles were necessary to hit Moscow’s forces before they could launch new attacks on Ukrainian targets, including critical infrastructure.

“Two countries are against us, against Ukraine,” Zelenskyy said on Friday, referring to Russia and North Korea. “We would very much like to be granted the ability to use long-range weapons against military targets on Russia’s territory.”

Andriy Zagorodnyuk, a former Ukrainian defence minister, said the use of ATACMS missiles would allow Kyiv to set its sights on “high value targets” and “potentially disrupt Russian operations”.

“There are targets which can only be addressed by high payload missiles such as ATACMS or equivalent aerial missiles. This is, of course, a decision giving Ukraine troops a chance, though as with many previous decisions coming after a significant and extremely painful delay.”

Biden’s decision to allow the Ukrainians to use ATACMS missiles followed the deployment early last month of 12,000 North Korean troops to Russia.

This was the first foray into the war by a foreign military and a major expansion of North Korea’s support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Pyongyang had previously provided Moscow with hundreds of ballistic missiles and millions of artillery shells. In exchange, Moscow has provided Pyongyang with military technologies to help with its missile programmes and money, a senior Ukrainian official said.

In recent weeks, Russia has massed some 50,000 troops, including 10,000 North Korean soldiers, ahead of an anticipated offensive in its Kursk region to retake about 600 sq km of territory held by Ukrainian forces since their incursion in August.

A Ukrainian intelligence assessment shared with the Financial Times revealed that North Korea has supplied Russia with long-range rocket and artillery weapons, including 50 domestically made 170mm M1989 self-propelled howitzers and 20 updated 240mm multiple launch rocket systems.

Some of these weapons have been moved to the Kursk region for the planned assault involving North Korean troops.

“Even if limited to the Kursk region, ATACMS missiles put at risk high value Russian systems, assembly areas, logistics, command and control,” said Michael Kofman, senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US think-tank.

“They may enable Ukraine to hold on to Kursk for longer and raise the costs to North Korea for its involvement in the war.”

Bill Taylor, former US ambassador to Ukraine, said Biden’s decision makes “Ukraine stronger and increases the odds of a just end to the war”.

“The decision may also unlock British and French missiles. Possibly even German,” he added.

Russia has not yet responded Biden’s decision. In September, President Vladimir Putin suggested Ukrainian use of western-made missiles against Russian targets would mean “the direct involvement of Nato countries, the US, and the EU . . . It would mean they are at war with Russia — and if that’s the case, we will make the corresponding decisions.”

Russian military bloggers close to the Kremlin responded on Telegram with fury and frustration to Biden’s decision.

Rybar, a channel with more than 1.3mn subscribers, said the threat of ATACMS missiles would force Russian command and control centres, air defences and airfields further from the front lines. 

When asked about the escalatory risk from Biden’s policy shift, António Guterres, UN secretary-general, told reporters at the G20 in Rio de Janeiro: “We have a very consistent position regarding escalation in the Ukrainian war. We want peace . . . in line with the UN charter and international law.”

Si Airbus est l’exemple parfait de coopération industrielle européenne réussie, il est resté le seul exemple de ce type, à l’exception du missilier MBDA. L’Europe a même vu s’accentuer les replis nationaux depuis quelques années.

C’est devenu une tarte à la crème du discours public. De ces mantras dégainés à l’envi quand il s’agit, pour l’industrie européenne ou les politiques du Vieux Continent, de montrer les muscles face aux Etats-Unis ou à la Chine. Une alliance dans les batteries de voitures électriques ? La voilà labellisée « Airbus des batteries ». Un projet de fusion Alstom-Siemens dans les trains, finalement abandonné pour une alliance Alstom-Bombardier ? On exalte un « Airbus du ferroviaire ». Des pénuries et dépendances dans la santé ? D’aucuns invoquent un hypothétique « Airbus du médicament ».

Pourtant, le succès d’Airbus, leader mondial incontesté de l’aéronautique, est un exemple unique de coopération industrielle réussie. Et pour cause : un partenariat de cette ambition nécessite un alignement de planètes extrêmement complexe. Il a d’abord fallu, au début des années 1970, une volonté politique forte, de la France, de l’Allemagne, de l’Espagne et du Royaume-Uni de rapprocher leurs champions nationaux (Aerospatiale, Messerschmitt, Casa, BAE). « Je dis souvent que si l’on avait encore aujourd’hui un constructeur d’avions français, un constructeur d’avions allemand, un constructeur d’avions espagnol et un constructeur d’avions anglais, aucun n’aurait la taille suffisante pour investir et pour innover – en bref : nous n’existerions plus », expliquait le patron d’Airbus Guillaume Faury le 29 octobre dans la revue Le Grand Continent.

« Airbus n’a réellement été mature qu’à partir de 2010 »

Mais le politique ne suffit pas. Pour conquérir, de haute lutte, le leadership mondial, Airbus a aussi pu compter sur des industriels qui ont transformé une vision en succès commercial : trois ingénieurs visionnaires, Henri Ziegler, Felix Kracht et Roger Béteille, les « trois mousquetaires d’Airbus », à l’origine de l’A300 et du découpage des charges industrielles entre pays ; un patron charismatique au verbe aussi haut que son ambition, Jean Pierson, qui a lancé le programme A320 au mitan des années 1980, puis les long-courriers A330 et A340.

La montée en puissance d’Airbus ne s’est pas faite sans heurts : règlements de comptes franco-allemands (Tom Enders-Christian Streiff) et même franco-français (Noël Forgeard-Philippe Camus) ; développement cauchemardesque de l’A380 et de l’A400M ; difficultés d’intégration du groupe, chaque pays veillant scrupuleusement au respect de ses intérêts.

« Créé en 1970, Airbus n’a réellement été mature qu’à partir de 2010 », résume Marwan Lahoud, ancien numéro deux de l’avionneur. C’est à ce moment que le champion réussit deux coups fumants, avec le lancement de l’A320neo, le best-seller ultime du groupe, et le rachat de la gamme d’avions CSeries au canadien Bombardier.

Ce modèle est-il reproductible ? Force est de constater que seul le missilier MBDA a réussi à suivre la voie d’Airbus. Détenu par l’avionneur européen (37,5 %), le britannique BAE (37,5 %) et l’italien Leonardo (25 %), le groupe s’est imposé dans le Top-3 mondial des missiles.

L’industriel, constitué par fusions successives de 1996 à 2006 (Matra, BAE, Alenia Marconi, LFK), surfe aujourd’hui sur un carnet de commandes de 22,3 milliards d’euros, et embauche en moyenne 2 000 nouveaux salariés par an. « MBDA est une entité qui est à la fois au cœur de la souveraineté dans chacun de ses pays, jusqu’à la dissuasion nucléaire en France, et en même temps vraiment plurinationale, expliquait le PDG du groupe, Eric Béranger, dans une interview à Challenges. C’est un équilibre de tous les jours, qui demande de l’attention et un management très particulier, mais ça fonctionne. »

Depuis le milieu des années 2000, aucun champion européen n’a vraiment réussi à émerger. Le groupe KNDS, « Airbus des blindés » issu de la fusion en 2015 du français Nexter et de l’allemand KMW, n’est pas vraiment un groupe intégré, les filiales françaises et allemandes restant distinctes et parfois concurrentes.

« Pour faire un leader mondial, il faut en avoir envie : chez Airbus, depuis les années 1970, le mot d’ordre a toujours été « beat Boeing », souligne Marwan Lahoud. Or, depuis des années, on voit plutôt des replis nationaux dans les pays européens, avec une volonté d’être meilleur que le voisin, plutôt que la volonté de battre les acteurs américains ou chinois. »

Le premier mandat de Donald Trump, après quelques espoirs initiaux, n’avait pas vraiment permis de relancer la machine. Son retour à la Maison-Blanche peut-il être le déclic attendu ? « Soit on travaille ensemble, soit on meurt », prévenait Guillaume Faury au Grand Continent. On ne saurait mieux dire.

Only two companies currently provide cargo delivery to and from the International Space Station, and both are based in the United States. The Exploration Company, which operates out of Germany, France, and Italy, is looking to change that: It just closed a large funding round to further its mission of building Europe’s first reusable space capsule.

The $160 million Series B round will fund the continued development of the Nyx spacecraft, which will be capable of carrying 3,000 kilograms of cargo to and from Earth. The company, which was founded three years ago by aerospace engineers Hélène Huby, Sebastien Reichstat, and Pierre Vine, is aiming to conduct Nyx’s maiden flight to and from the ISS in 2028.

“We are the first company in the world where this is for the first time mainly funded by private investors,” Huby said in a recent interview. This is in contrast to SpaceX’s Dragon capsule, which she said was “mainly funded by NASA.”

The new funding, which was led by Balderton Capital and Plural, brings the startup’s total funding to date to over $208 million. The Series B also included participation from Bessemer Venture Partners, NGP Capital, and two sovereign European funds, French Tech Souveraineté and DeepTech & Climate Fonds.

“We’ve been able to deliver on promises in the past three years,” Huby said. “We’ve been able to meet our cash target ever quarter … The investors, they could see that we basically can deliver on time, on cost, on quality.”

The startup has made traction with the European Space Agency (ESA), which has recognized the need to foster native space launch and transportation capabilities. The Exploration Company was awarded a study contract worth around €25 million ($27 million) to develop cargo return services earlier this year. That contract will run through 2026, with additional competitive contract opportunities expected to follow. ESA’s aim is to have at least one capsule launching to the ISS in 2028.

The structure of the contract, called the LEO Cargo Return Service Contract, resembles NASA’s Commercial Orbital Return Transportation Services program that the agency launched in 2006. That program resulted in multibillion-dollar transportation contracts to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corporation (now Northrop Grumman).

It’s a promising start, but equally promising is the traction The Exploration Company is seeing on the commercial side. Around 90% of the startup’s $770 million contract backlog has come from private station developers Vast, Axiom Space, and Starlab, according to recent reporting.

The Exploration Company’s first demonstrator vehicle launched on the maiden flight of Ariane 6 this summer, though it was not deployed due to an issue with the rocket’s upper stage. The second sub-scale demonstrator mission, called Mission Possible, is scheduled to launch on a SpaceX Falcon 9 next year.

“I highly respect what SpaceX has been able to achieve,” Huby said. “We are trying to learn as much as possible from that, we are inspired by what they have achieved. But we also believe the world needs more competition and we want, step by step, to build an alternative. We are very aware that we are late, that we are much smaller, etcetera, but we need to start.”

Makers of Ozempic, Zepbound fight to stop compounded copies of their drugs; unclear whether pharmaceutical companies can increase production enough

Pharmaceutical companies are typically rewarded for their innovation with years of market exclusivity before cheaper generics enter the scene. But for diabetes and obesity drugs like Ozempic and Zepbound, known as GLP-1s, cheaper copycats emerged almost immediately.

This is due to a provision that permits drug compounders to produce copies during periods of shortage. For GLP-1s, supply constraints have persisted ever since Wegovy’s approval for obesity in 2021, giving rise to a booming market for compounders.

That window for mass drug compounding, however, could start to close if the FDA upholds its recent determination that tirzepatide, the active ingredient in Eli Lilly’s LLY -4.93%decrease; red down pointing triangle Zepbound and Mounjaro, is no longer in short supply. Although the FDA declared the shortage resolved a month ago, it is currently reassessing its decision after facing a lawsuit from a compounding trade group. An update is expected on Thursday. It is possible the FDA could reverse its decision or give compounders more time. The nomination of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.to serve as secretary of Health and Human Services, which has jurisdiction of the FDA, adds some uncertainty to what might happen under the Trump administration, given Kennedy’s skepticism of big pharma and GLP-1s in particular.

Nonetheless, the days of mass compounding appear to be waning. Notably, the FDA also has recently listed Novo Nordisk’s semaglutide—the active ingredient in Ozempic and Wegovy—as available on its website, though it hasn’t formally declared the shortage to be over.

If the FDA moves to restrict mass compounding, it could spell trouble for telehealth companies like Hims & Hers Health and Ro, while providing a boost in demand for Lilly and Novo.

Although Lilly Chief Executive David Ricks played down the impact of compounding on its sales on a recent earnings call, the potential upside could be significant. Conservative estimates indicate that hundreds of thousands of patients are currently turning to compounders for access to these medications. Many patients prefer to go this route because insurance coverage of GLP-1 drugs for obesity isn’t yet widespread and the compounded drugs are cheaper.

The bigger question is whether the manufacturers are equipped to meet heightened demand without falling back into shortages within a few months. Eli Lilly is planning to further fuel demand with new consumer-focused advertising in the coming weeks. UBS analyst Jo Walton captured the concern during Novo’s earnings call last month, noting that demand next year could surge as Novo and Lilly ramp up advertising while compounders potentially exit. “Should we be concerned that it’ll be only another three months before you’re back into telling us that you’re in short supply?” Walton said.

A spokeswoman for Eli Lilly said in an email that “all doses of Mounjaro and Zepbound have been available since August, and Lilly’s current and projected supply for both medicines exceed the current and projected national demand.” She added that the “projections include our forecast for increased demand for genuine Lilly medicines.”

Lilly’s spokeswoman points out that the company is broadening access and affordability by offering Zepbound single-dose vials through a self-pay option on the company’s website, LillyDirect. Novo points to the FDA website saying all doses of Ozempic and Wegovy are available, while noting that the company will continue to give priority to continuity of care for patients.

The sharp divergence between demand and supply of GLP-1s is nearly unprecedented in modern pharmaceutical history in terms of its scale and its persistence. “This is a phenomenon like nothing we’ve seen since the advent of birth control,” says Scott Brunner, CEO of the Alliance for Pharmacy Compounding. “It’s even bigger than the HIV drugs in the 1990s or Viagra.”

The compounders argue that their cheaper medications are safe and that they aren’t actually competing with Lilly and Novo, given what they say is a persisting supply problem. Compounders fill a critical role during shortages of crucial medicines or when specific formulations aren’t available through the normal channels. But some businesses working with compounders aren’t just filling in medical-supply gaps, they are stoking demand, too: Companies like Hims and Ro, famous for selling drugs for hair growth and erectile dysfunction, are now aggressively marketing GLP-1s.

Lilly and Novo are fighting to end compounding, publicly arguing it is about protecting patient health.

“Patients shouldn’t be exposed to risky, unapproved knockoff products, especially when safe and effective, FDA-approved tirzepatide medications are available,” a Lilly spokeswoman said in an email. But, reading between the lines, it is also a business problem. The manufacturers are spending tens of billions of dollars to do the heavy lifting of building out this market, from expanding supply to securing insurance coverage to conducting expensive clinical trials. Meanwhile, bulk compounders are eating into their potential market share and risking a public-relations nightmare if a batch goes bad.

Lilly’s determination to prepare for a world without mass compounding may even explain why its GLP-1 sales underperformed last quarter, according to Will Sevush, a healthcare specialist at Jefferies. He speculates that Lilly might have decided to stockpile supply and hold off on consumer advertising to ensure they could adequately supply excess demand expected to be created once the FDA removes GLP-1s from the shortage list.

“I think what we’ve done is sort of move our set point of how much stock we want to have on hand before we go initiate demand-stimulating activities, which we had more or less paused for Mounjaro in the first half and never started for Zepbound,” Lilly’s Ricks told analysts during the earnings call.

The FDA is clearly concerned, too, and it wants to curb mass compounding. But it can’t act without officially declaring the shortages over, something it is now trying to do with Lilly’s tirzepatide. The problem is that what constitutes an end to the shortage remains murky. In making its decision, the FDA relies on information provided by the manufacturers. In October, the FDA announced that Lilly had finally produced enough tirzepatide to meet soaring demand. But compounders have disputed whether the shortage is over, and the FDA’s own drug-shortage website acknowledges that even when a drug is technically available, patients may still face delays due to factors like supply-chain logistics and retailer practices.

It could be a matter of months, but Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk may soon get what they want. They better be ready to handle it.

By nominating Chris Wright, Trump is elevating an ally of his oil donors, many of whom question climate change science

Donald Trump rewarded the tycoons behind the shale boom, among his most ardent supporters, with the selection Saturday of Chris Wright as his nominee for Energy Secretary.

Wright was front-and-center for the fracking revolution that reshaped the country as a band of scrappy wildcatters that reinvigorated U.S. oil and gas production to record heights. His $2.8 billion company, Liberty Energy, pumps water and sand underground to frack customers’ wells.

Wright’s selection elevates a pugnacious branch of the oil-and-gas industry that is skeptical of climate-change science and mostly hasn’t pledged to build out low-carbon energy businesses, unlike giants Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

In recent years, the outspoken and combative chief executive emerged as an oil-and gas champion, as Wright touted the benefits of fossil fuels to improve the wealth, health and life opportunities of most of the world population. He has said renewable energy can’t replace many of the functions fulfilled by hydrocarbons.

After the clothing brand North Face declined to sell jackets to an oil-and-gas company with that firm’s logo added to them, Wright rented billboards in and around Denver that said, “That North Face Puffer looks great on you. And it was made from fossil fuels.”

Liberty published a 180-page report in which Wright criticizes what he considers to be “a myopic focus on climate change and climate politics.” Those views have made him a darling among his peers and on the conservative speaking circuit.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal before the election, Wright denounced the “hyper-politicization of energy” and singled out Democrats, saying “they called a war on climate change, making it hard to produce oil and gas.”

If confirmed as the head of the Energy Department, Wright, a Washington outsider now based in Denver, will oversee a sprawling agency that safeguards the country’s nuclear arsenal and directs federal research on energy technologies.

Trump said that in addition to heading the Energy Department, Wright would be a member of his newly formed National Energy Council. North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum, another staunch Trump supporter hailing from a shale state, was nominated to lead the Interior Department last week and will chair the council.

“Chris was one of the pioneers who helped launch the American Shale Revolution that fueled American Energy Independence,” Trump said Saturday.

Wright’s ascension culminates a push by oil wildcatters, who run smaller and often privately held companies, into Trump’s political ranks. Billionaire oilmen donated millions to the president-elect’s campaign, and were among his most prolific backers in any industry. Wright and his wife together contributed more than $540,000 to Trump’s re-election effort.

These oil donors mostly share Trump’s skepticism about the scientific consensus showing mankind’s contribution to climate change. They are pushing for the incoming administration to dial back enforcement of environmental rules they say are too onerous for their businesses

Many of these executives say they are against policies that U.S. energy companies such as Exxon, Chevron and Occidental Petroleum support. They mostly oppose their bigger competitors’ advocacy for tax credits for capturing carbon and other emission-curbing technology, as well as methane regulations they say could hamper oil and gas production.

Last week, Exxon CEO Darren Woods said in an interview that Trump should keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement, accentuating policy differences between the major oil companies and Trump. The president-elect will almost certainly pull the U.S. from the accords for a second time.

The Energy Department was a linchpin of President Biden’s strategy to address climate change, notably its Loan Programs Office, which has financed businesses important to the country’s energy transition. Biden’s signature climate law, the Inflation Reduction Act, multiplied the office’s lending capacity by 10-fold. Trump has said he would seek to rescind unspent funds provided by the law.

Wright caught Trump’s attention at an April meeting of oil bosses at Mar-a-Lago. After Wright presented his views, Trump said the executive could become his energy secretary, the Journal previously reported.

Wright has a powerful ally in Harold Hamm, the billionaire founder of Continental Resources and one of Trump’s most influential oil backers. Hamm is advising Trump’s transition team on energy personnel and policy, according to people familiar with the matter. He publicly encouraged Trump to make Wright his pick.

About two years ago, Hamm asked Wright to join his lobbying group, the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, which has frequently questioned climate science. Wright joined the lobby, where he serves as a director.

“We think a lot alike on the climate issues and the reality of fossil fuels, oil and gas, in our lives,” said Jerry Simmons, CEO of the group.

While the energy department doesn’t regulate fossil-fuel production, one of its prerogatives is approving most exports of liquefied natural gas. Oil and gas donors have pressed Trump to lift a pause Biden declared on new LNG exports earlier this year, a move Wright is almost certain to implement.

Wright is a self-described nerd who studied engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, before founding Liberty in 2011. He has frequently appeared on cable news programs, defending the oil industry against perceived enemies.

“He’ll be a strong advocate for independent producers and the perspective of the traditional oil patch,” said Thomas Pyle, president of the industry trade group American Energy Alliance, who was on Trump’s energy transition team in 2016. “That’s his home, that’s where he’s from.”

In a video uploaded to LinkedIn last year, Wright said he believes that “there is no climate crisis, and we’re not in the midst of an energy transition either.”

When LinkedIn took down the 12-minute video, Wright criticized the company on an earnings call with investors, saying he found it “alarming that a Microsoft-owned business is actively working to protect a false and destructive meme about energy and climate.”

Wright appealed the decision, and LinkedIn eventually informed him that it had concluded that his post didn’t actually go against its policies. It restored the video.

The rise of innovative traders increases competition for banks — and work for authorities

Trillions of dollars of financial securities change hands every day. A few decades back, exchanges took place in raucous trading pits where dealers would bellow out prices to match buyers and sellers. Then the banks went electronic. Today, the task of market-making has evolved into a competitive and highly lucrative computerised sport beyond the banking sector, where wits, speed and technology are helping players gain an edge. And as the Financial Times’ New titans of Wall Street series has outlined, a handful of innovators have mastered it, leaving the biggest names in banking in the dust.

Independent trading firms, including Citadel Securities, Jane Street, Susquehanna International Group, XTX Markets and DRW, have taken advantage of electronic transactions and algorithms to trade and make markets in an array of assets at mind-boggling speeds. These high-frequency traders have grabbed market share from less nimble investment banks, which prioritised big money deals over low-margin trades. For measure, Citadel Securities handles almost a quarter of all US stock trades. Last year, Jane Street traded options with a notional value of $32tn.

Many of the upstarts were founded around the turn of the millennium by seasoned dealers, and grew to prominence in the aftermath of the financial crisis. They are eclectic, secretive — and extremely rich. Jane Street’s love of puzzles led to a specialisation in complex assets like exchange traded funds. Susquehanna has built a niche in options, and XTX has conquered foreign exchange, in part by using machine learning to scan trillions of market data points. Citadel Securities’ business model focuses on combing data from order flow to make its prices more competitive, while DRW’s revenue comes predominantly from directional bets, rather than market-making.

Their unique algorithms and trading strategies are designed by sophisticated coders, mathematicians and engineers, who are in turn rewarded with handsome salaries. The annual base salary (excluding bonuses) for interns at Jane Street can exceed that of the US Federal Reserve chair and the British prime minister. 

The firms’ success is proof of the benefits of creative destruction. As Wall Street’s largest lenders prioritised big money quotes, and were hemmed in by post-financial crisis regulatory requirements, these traders stepped into the low-margin, high-volume trading game with technological innovation. Investing is now significantly cheaper; the big banks often charged hefty transaction fees. Global liquidity across assets is also now more abundant, helping to bolster retail and wholesale capital markets. The added competition pushes banks to innovate and invest in technology, too.

Some analysts reckon the new masters of trading are also better stewards of the market than banks. As privately owned firms, losses are felt by founders and employees, driving a culture of caution. For instance, Jane Street says it maintains an extra “liquidity buffer” of about 15 per cent of its trading capital, to help it hold on to positions even in chaotic markets.

But as trading firms grow, so does their significance to the financial system. The 2010 “flash crash” in US equities and 2014 “flash rally” in Treasuries — which were exacerbated by high-frequency trading — underscored the risks of more money flowing through opaque and less-regulated non-bank financial institutions. Since then there have been myriad lower-key, but still unnerving, glitches.

If the new breed of traders’ algorithms trips up, market confidence and liquidity will suffer. Today, banks and non-bank trading firms operate in an ever more complex web where they are often clients, counterparties, and competitors. Better monitoring of Wall Street’s new titans is now both logical, and essential.

Liberty Energy CEO set to lead administration’s drive to loosen restrictions on the fossil fuel industry

Donald Trump has nominated shale boss Chris Wright as energy secretary, a role that would put the oilman at the heart of the administration’s drive to loosen restrictions on the fossil fuel industry.

The Financial Times reported on Friday that Wright, the chief executive of oilfield services group Liberty Energy, was the most likely candidate for the job.

Wright “has been a leading technologist and entrepreneur in Energy,” Trump said in a statement. As energy secretary, he “will be a key leader, driving innovation, cutting red tape, and ushering in a new ‘Golden Age of American Prosperity and Global Peace.’”

Trump also appointed Wright to a new “Council of National Energy,” to be headed by former North Dakota governor Doug Burgum, which will co-ordinate an overhaul of energy policy across government agencies. 

The president-elect, who has launched an effort to cut government spending helmed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, reiterated his call to slash regulation.

“This Council will oversee the path to U.S. ENERGY DOMINANCE by cutting red tape, enhancing private sector investments across all sectors of the Economy, and by focusing on INNOVATION over long-standing, but totally unnecessary, regulation,” Trump said.

Wright said in a statement on X that his focus would be on “making American energy more affordable, reliable, and secure”.

“Energy is the lifeblood that makes everything in life possible,” he posted.

Wright’s proposed appointment marks another big win for the US oil industry, which supported his candidacy, and gives him a key role in enacting the president-elect’s plans to increase liquefied natural gas exports.

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to undo President Joe Biden’s pause on LNG export permits on “day one” of his administration, a task that would fall to his new energy secretary.

Senator John Barrasso, the most senior Republican on the Senate’s Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, said Wright would “help ensure America remains committed to an all-of-the-above energy policy that puts American families first”.

Harold Hamm, founder of Continental Resources and Trump’s most prominent industry backer, touted Wright as a candidate for the role, describing him as “very, very good on energy”.

“He knows it really well,” Hamm told the Financial Times in an interview in October.

Wright’s nomination will probably face staunch opposition from environmentalists, however.

“Picking someone like Chris Wright is a clear sign that Trump wants to turn the US into a pariah petrostate,” Jean Su, director of the Centre for Biological Diversity’s energy justice programme, said after the announcement.

The oil boss courted controversy last year when he lashed out at the use of terms including “climate crisis”, “clean energy” and “carbon pollution”.

“There is no climate crisis and we are not in the midst of an energy transition either,” he said in a video posted to LinkedIn. He later denied he was “fight[ing] climate science”.

Ray Washburne, chair of petrol station chain Sunoco, and Paul Dabbar, a tech executive who is leading Trump’s transition team for energy roles, were also in the mix for the energy secretary job, according to people familiar with the Trump transition team’s thinking.

Washburne served as president of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation in Trump’s first administration and previously sat on the board of Energy Transfer, a pipeline company led by Trump donor Kelcy Warren.

Dabbar also served in the previous Trump administration, as under-secretary for science in the energy department.

Wright is the latest addition to Trump’s administration with ties to the fossil fuels industry after Burgum was appointed Trump’s energy tsar on Friday.

Burgum, who will also serve as interior secretary, will be tasked with co-ordinating Trump’s energy agenda across government agencies and enacting a sweeping deregulation plan to boost fossil fuel supplies.

“America is blessed with vast amounts of ‘Liquid Gold’ and other valuable Minerals and Resources, right beneath our feet,” Trump said in a statement on Friday announcing Burgum’s appointment.

“We will ‘DRILL BABY DRILL’, expand ALL forms of Energy production to grow our Economy, and create good-paying jobs,” he said in the statement.

On top of its role overseeing exports, the Department of Energy is responsible for the nuclear weapons programme, environmental clean-ups and scientific research and development through its oversight of the country’s national laboratories.

Jennifer Granholm, Biden’s energy secretary, has played a prominent role promoting the Inflation Reduction Act, the president’s landmark climate law, which Trump has vowed to repeal.

Granholm told the FT any efforts to unpick the legislation, which earmarked billions of dollars in tax credits for clean energy would be equivalent to “stabbing ourselves because it would be so foolish”.

Matthieu Blazy, the French-Belgian talent behind the surge in popularity of Bottega Veneta, has beaten out all rivals to clinch the top job in fashion: designer of Chanel and heir to Karl Lagerfeld. That’s what senior industry sources told Miss Tweed this week.

If confirmed as Chanel’s new creative director, which is expected to happen shortly, Blazy will infuse new life into the French powerhouse and help it recoup some of the relevance and fashion edge it has lost in recent years under the aegis of Lagerfeld’s former right hand, Virginie Viard, who stepped into the role after the maestro died in 2019, on the cusp of the pandemic.

The appointment of Blazy, who’s been creative director of Bottega Veneta since 2021, should be announced mid-December, several industry sources said. “I understand the contract has already been signed,” one senior industry source said. “Chanel’s new designer is young, French and is running something smaller,” a person close to Chanel told Miss Tweed, all but confirming Blazy was the person the brand had chosen to lead its next creative chapter. WWD followed Miss Tweed on Friday also reporting Blazy had emerged as the top contender for the job.

Chanel and Kering, parent of Bottega Veneta, did not reply to requests for comment.

In 2019, Alain and Gerard Wertheimer, who own Chanel together with their half-brother Charles Heilbronn, replaced the brand’s long-standing designer Karl Lagerfeld at his death with Viard. “It was an easy solution but really Chanel should have started looking for a proper replacement for Karl 15 years ago but they did nothing about it,” one veteran fashion CEO told Miss Tweed a few months ago. “Now the Wertheimers are in a difficult position because they have to find someone fast.”

After Viard left six months ago, following a disastrous show, Chanel and the Wertheimers finally were forced to move and things moved relatively quickly with Blazy, sources said.

Still, the timing of Blazy’s arrival at Chanel remains under wraps. It will be tough for Kering to see him go. Under his creative leadership, Bottega Veneta has become Kering’s best-performing label, not only in terms of sales growth but also in terms of fashion authority and news flow.

This week, Blazy presented in Venice the brand’s first fine jewelry collection, which includes huge 18-karat-gold teardrop earrings, a chain bracelet and a twig-inspired necklace – all produced in Vicenza, Italy’s fine jewelry-making capital, and the traditional manufacturing headquarters of Bottega Veneta.

Usually, a non-competition clause in his contract would prevent a designer from joining a competing house immediately. That said, Chanel could pay Kering a certain amount to compensate for poaching the French group’s most popular designer.

In any case, Blazy’s departure is a heavy blow to Kering, which is already weighed down by big sister brand Gucci’s turnaround. Blazy has been building out Bottega Veneta to make it a bigger brand counterweight to Gucci. It comes after Blazy launched Bottega’s first perfume collection in September. They are the first fragrances designed and produced in-house - small building blocks part of Kering’s ambition to build a beauty division from scratch. In the spring Bottega launched its first candle collection. During his three-year tenure at Bottega, Blazy has made the brand more closely associated with high craftsmanship, something Chanel values and appreciates.

Chanel is France’s champion of arts and crafts. It financially supports a wide range of training programs and schools and has invested in many companies with unique savoir faire in areas such as embroidery, lace, feathers, hats, shoes and gloves. Two years ago, President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte inaugurated Chanel’s 19M building, which regroups 700 artisans from 12 different specialized suppliers as well as the high-end swimwear provider Eres. The triangular building located on the periphery of Paris appears to have been woven in concrete threads. Designed by starchitect Rudy Ricciotti, it’s inspired by a vertical textile weft.

KERING

Kering is not as vertically integrated as Chanel. It relies on a wide network of different suppliers, many of them located in Italy. Bottega Veneta is the only fashion brand within the group that’s growing right now. In the three months to Sept. 30, its sales were up 5 percent, while those of Gucci and Saint Laurent were down 25 percent and 12 percent respectively. The group’s “other” division, which includes Balenciaga and Alexander McQueen, saw revenue fall 14 percent. “It’s going to be hard for Kering to lose Blazy,” one person close to Kering said. “He really brought positive energy to the brand and to the group more generally.”

But if Blazy really does join Chanel, Kering will get credit for having spotted his talent and given him the means to express and deploy it successfully at Bottega Veneta.

Chanel interviewed many design stars for the job, industry sources say. Pieter Mulier at Alaïa, Marc Jacobs, Hedi Slimane and Simon Porte Jacquemus among them. None of these fitted the bill, they said. “Blazy is great for Chanel,” one industry source said. “Slimane would have broken Chanel and turned it into his own brand, Jacobs would have failed to bring something new and I know that with Pieter, it did not work out,” the source said.

Alaïa renewed Mulier’s contract last spring, a source with first-hand knowledge of the matter told Miss Tweed on condition of anonymity. Mulier, who was Blazy’s boyfriend until last year, is doing a great job at Alaïa and helping the brand’s sales continue to grow in spite of the downturn. Alaïa may be generating less than €100 million in annual sales, it is the strongest growing fashion brand at Swiss group Richemont, owner of Chloé and leather goods maker Delvaux.

Jacquemus has been remarkably open and candid about having been interviewed at Chanel, spreading himself the rumour that he could get the job, industry sources said. It looked like a tactic to make himself and his brand more desirable as he was beginning talks with potential investors to raise funds to finance his brand’s international expansion.

Citing industry sources, WWD said Bottega had already initiated a search for Blazy’s successor, “reaching out to second-in-command talents, as is the custom of brand parent Kering.”

YOUNG DESIGNER

Blazy is a smart choice for Chanel. He’s young for a top designer at just 40 years old. Karl Lagerfeld was designing until his death aged 85. Beyond his fashion design talent, Blazy has a lot of things to say more broadly about culture, which is crucial in our social media-driven age. It’s the right time for him to join Chanel. He has enough experience to be regarded as a safe pair of hands and many years of creativity ahead of him.

Matthieu Blazy’s world is light, witty and joyful - exactly what consumers need in these dark times. His latest collection presented in Milan in September was full of audacious, colorful and playful silhouettes. He has also produced original and refreshing ad campaigns that used nature as a backdrop.

Blazy’s ascent is an acknowledgment of the influence of the creative cauldron that is Belgium, home to great designers such as Martin Margiela, Ann Demeulemeester, Dries Van Noten, who just left his brand. There is also Anthony Vaccarello, who is still at Saint Laurent and Raf Simon, who co-designer at Milanese powerhouse Prada with Miuccia Prada. And a new generation is rising, on which Miss Tweed reported in 2021, led by designers such as Mulier but also Ester Manas, Meryll Rogge, Tom Van der Borght and Jan-Jan Van Essche.

Blazy today lives between Antwerp and Milan. He is a graduate of La Cambre in Brussels. Blazy started his fashion career as men’s designer for Raf Simons, another habitue of Antwerp’s creative scene. Blazy then joined Maison Margiela, founded by Martin Margiela, to design the ‘Artisanal’ line and the women’s ready-to-wear show. In 2014, he became senior designer at Céline, before working again with Raf Simons at Calvin Klein from 2016 to 2019. He was appointed ready-to-wear design director at Bottega Veneta in 2021 but started showing his work only in 2022.