TheChek News Flow

The commodity’s price is near a record high because of Trump’s trade war. It might be wise for investors to wait for a dip before easing in.

Copper is having a whopper of a run. It isn’t too late for investors to join in, though President Donald Trump holds the keys to further gains—or losses, if he backs off his tariff threats.

Trump’s latest salvo—a 50% tariff on copper imports —shocked the market. The consensus on Wall Street was for a 10%-25% levy, ever since Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick ordered a Section 232 national security investigation into copper imports in February. Lutnick says a 50% tariff will kick in by Aug. 1.

Investment banks such as Goldman Sachs think the threat is credible, as do many traders. Goldman analysts see a 60% chance of a 50% tariff priced into December 2025 contracts, according to a recent note. Copper in the U.S. is around $5.60 a pound, near record highs. Prices are up nearly 40% this year, including a 12% gain after Trump’s tariff threat on July 8.

Copper is known as the “Ph.D. of metals,” since it’s considered a leading indicator for the global economy and industrial activity. Demand has been healthy, and it’s getting a shot in the arm from the global data center buildout, vehicle electrification, and power plant upgrades to meet rising electricity demand for artificial intelligence, smartphones, and other technologies.

Trump wants more domestic production, but that wouldn’t happen for years, leaving the country heavily dependent on imports. Over the past few years, the U.S. imported nearly half the copper it consumes, mainly from Chile, at 65% of imports, and Canada, at 17%. Peru and Mexico account for another 9% and 6%, respectively.

For now, there’s a stockpiling rush as companies try to front-run tariffs, and it’s distorting prices. Copper in the U.S. is trading nearly 30% higher than prices on the London Stock Exchange. There’s typically very little difference between U.S. and London prices, notes Jacob White, the exchange-traded funds product manager at Sprott Asset Management, a metals investing firm. If Trump backs off from a 50% tariff, prices could tumble back to where they were before the tariff announcement.

Prices could also slide for another reason: U.S. buyers who bought excess inventory may exit the market as prices stay elevated, says Jefferies analyst Christopher LaFemina.

For traders, it may pay to wait for a dip. “While a short-term air pocket with lower prices is possible, we would buy our preferred copper mining equities on any near-term weakness,” LaFemina says.

If you aren’t a commodities trader, there are two broad ways to invest: betting on the commodity directly with an ETF, or buying shares of copper mining stocks or a fund.

The cleanest way to get commodity exposure is via an ETF. The United States Copper Index fund (ticker: CPER) is the largest and only pure play, holding futures contracts for September, December, and March 2026 delivery, along with Treasury bills and cash. The fund is up 38% this year, largely tracking copper’s price. But it has drawbacks: Futures must continuously be rolled over, adding trading expenses, and the fund’s expense ratio of 1% will drag on returns.

While there aren’t other copper ETFs, there are plenty of mining funds. The largest are the SPDR S&P Metals & Mining ETF (XME) and iShares MSCI Global Metals & Mining Producers ETF (PICK). Both own shares of copper miners, along with companies that produce other metals. The funds are up nearly 20% this year.

Mining companies won’t track the commodity as closely as the copper ETF, but their diversification provides a buffer if copper prices tank. And they have other growth drivers, with plans to expand mines and refining operations.

Among large-caps, Freeport-McMoRan may be the best bet for riding the U.S. tariff train. The miner is the largest U.S. copper producer, with mines in New Mexico and Arizona. It generated 74% of its revenue from copper sales in 2024, giving it the most leverage to copper of the large-cap miners. Freeport also operates smelters and refining facilities, accounting for 70% of U.S. refined production.

Freeport operates globally, and the company is expanding in the U.S., Chile, and Indonesia, aiming to boost copper output from four billion pounds this year to 4.3 billion in 2027. Freeport is also a gold miner and is benefiting from a jump in the metal’s prices.

Freeport “stands uniquely to benefit from higher U.S. prices,” RBC Capital Markets analyst Sam Crittenden said in a note, recommending the stock. Deutsche Bank analyst Liam Fitzpatrick is bullish, too, saying in a report that the company is “a clear beneficiary compared to global copper peers” thanks to the Trump tariffs.

Freeport isn’t cheap at 28 times earnings estimates, slightly above its five-year average. The average price target on Wall Street is $50, implying 6% upside from recent prices around $47.

Still, the stock is trading 15% above its 200-day moving average of $41, indicating that it has some support and could keep moving up.

Crittenden also likes smaller companies with U.S. projects that would benefit if tariffs are sustained. Two of his top picks are Hudbay Minerals and Arizona Sonoran Copper. Both have mining operations in Arizona. Hudbay is the larger company, with a market cap of $4.2 billion; Arizona Sonoran is tiny, with a market valuation of $400 million. It trades on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Both stocks are considered “junior miners,” making them especially dicey. Funds like the Sprott Junior Copper Miners ETF (COPJ) bundle dozens together, mitigating some of the risk. Taseko Mines, Solaris Resources, and NGEx Minerals are three of its top holdings. The ETF is up 40% this year.

Mining stocks and ETFs will come under pressure if copper prices slump. While Freeport has some insulation from its gold operations, and ETFs holding other miners have buffers, the commodity ultimately drives returns, and industrial metals (aside from gold) tend to move in tandem.

More negotiations between Trump’s trade officials and foreign producers such as Chile and Canada are likely. The stocks would slump on signs of a deal. Betting that “Trump always chickens out” on tariffs— a trade known as TACO —has been profitable. For miners, it would be the other way around.

Given the volatility that likely lies ahead, it may pay to sit tight, wait for the copper fever to break, and then take a flier on the copper train.

CVS Health has a new feature for weight loss patients: less weight loss. The company’s pharmacy benefit manager, Caremark, has made Wegovy its preferred obesity-fighter, and dropped coverage of Zepbound. This opposite-of-a-benefit started this month.

Shares of Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly, the company behind Zepbound, have fallen 16% over the past year, not counting dividends. But Denmark’s Novo Nordisk, which makes Wegovy, is down 50%. That’s because Zepbound is overwhelmingly considered the more effective of the two drugs. Even though Novo had a head start hitting the market, Zepbound now has a 60% share, including 75% of treatment starts.

The CVS change will affect around 200,000 Zepbound patients, but overall, Lilly has been adding 500,000 Zepbound patients per month. Investors should expect a dent to revenue growth when the company reports second-quarter financial results on Aug. 7, followed by a reacceleration in the third quarter. The stock selloff hasn’t left Lilly’s valuation particularly lean, but earnings gains through the end of the decade could be humongous. Bulls are predicting big stock returns from here.

I wrote about GLP-1 agonists, as the new generation of obesity drugs is called, three years ago in this space. At the time, Novo already had one called semaglutide, which was selling as Ozempic for diabetes and as Wegovy for obesity. Lilly’s drug, tirzepatide, was selling as Mounjaro for diabetes, but it hadn’t yet been approved for obesity. I pointed out that Lilly’s drug appeared more effective in trials. Today it is sold as Zepbound for obesity. Lilly stock is up 174% since that column, while Novo has underperformed.

In a follow-up column two years ago, I wrote that Lilly looked likely to dominate the market for years to come. It has an even newer obesity med called retatrutide, which appears in trials to be more effective than existing meds. In February, the company said it would release late-stage trial data on that drug this year, which is earlier than previously expected. The bigger development might be Lilly’s orforglipron, which showed promising blood sugar reduction and weight loss in a late-state diabetes trial reported in April, and could hit the market next year, pending approval. It’s a pill. The other drugs require injections.

I’m not smart enough to explain exactly how a GLP-1 agonist works. I gather that it mimics the action of glucagon-like peptide-1, an incretin, or hormone secreted in the gut after eating, which can control blood sugar and increase fullness. Lilly’s Zepbound is called a dual-agonist drug because it also mimics the action of a second incretin, GIP. Retatrutide, Lilly’s developmental drug, adds a third and is nicknamed Triple G.

A head-to-head study found that patients on Zepbound lost an average of 20.2% of their body weight, versus 13.7% for Novo’s Wegovy. Those results were reported last December. CVS’s formulary change was reported by Novo at the beginning of May. In subsequent blog posts, CVS has written that both drugs are effective, that their benefits aren’t tied to helping patients lose as much weight as possible, and that the formulary change will “enable wider, more affordable coverage.” Employers and insurers hire PBMs like Caremark to manage their drug plans.

Both Lilly and Novo have added direct-sales pharmacies with discounted cash-pay options for patients who might otherwise seek knockoff compounded drugs. Lilly sells its starting dose for $349 a month and higher doses at $499, but these prices are for patients willing to draw their own shots from vials, whereas patients with insurance coverage for Zepbound typically receive auto-injector pens. Novo sells Wegovy injector pens to cash-paying patients at $299 for one month, any dose, and $499 a month thereafter. Patients commonly start these drugs at the lowest doses and move up gradually.

In a report this past week, J.P. Morgan analyst Chris Schott wrote that he expects August obesity data for Lilly’s orforglipron pill to put it behind Zepbound but on par with Wegovy in terms of effectiveness and tolerability. The key is that orforglipron is, in pharmaceutical parlance, a small-molecule drug. These are drugs made from chemicals, which tend to be stable and can be taken orally. Aspirin is a small-molecule drug. Large-molecule or biologic drugs are made from living organisms and require fussy storage and administration. Injectable GLP-1s, for example, must be refrigerated.

“With an oral small-molecule profile competitive with injectable GLP-1s, we see a clear role for orforglipron in the maintenance setting, which could help extend the average duration of usage for incretins and could lead to upside to Street estimates for the drug, especially internationally,” Schott wrote.

For Eli Lilly, earnings estimates for this year have moved lower over the past few months, while those for coming years have shifted higher. Last year, the company reported earnings of just under $13 a share, a doubling from the year before. Judging by the seven analysts who have ventured guesses out to 2030, earnings by then could top $55 a share. Shares recently traded at $791. Schott calls them a favorite and predicts a rise to $1,100 in a year, which works out to a gain of 39%.

A rise to that price target would leave shares looking expensive in the near term—for example, $1,100 a share is 30 times the 2027 earnings consensus of around $37. So buyers of the stock here must believe both that growth will be at least as fierce as predicted, and that investors will remain enthused. Index fund holders can content themselves knowing that Lilly is already their 12th-largest weighting.

Worldwide, the obesity drug market stood at $15 billion last year. Morgan Stanley reckons it will hit $150 billion by 2035, including $80 billion in the U.S. alone. Whatever that means for pharma stocks, it might not bode well for sales of packaged foods, restaurant meals, and alcohol. But it could be a good decade for new wardrobes.

A surge in European equities has been the global market’s surprise of 2025. Now comes corporate bonds’ turn, specifically high-yield bonds.

Junk issuance in the European Union smashed records in June as investors gobbled up 23 billion euros ($27 billion) in subinvestment-grade corporate paper. “In our global high-yield fund, we are overweight Europe,” says Mark Remington, lead high-yield portfolio manager at EFG Asset Management.

Europe remains a small junk-bond fish, with around $350 billion in total issuance, compared with $1.5 trillion in the U.S., says Jamie Harding, portfolio manager for European credit at AllianceBernstein. The market has hit a Goldilocks range that suits both borrowers and investors, though. “Spreads are tight, but yields are attractive,” he says.

Average gross yields below 5.5% lag behind the 7% available in U.S. high yield, notes Catherine Braganza, senior portfolio manager at Insight Investment. But with U.S. interest rates more than two percentage points higher than in the euro area, the alchemy of hedging can make up the difference.

“When you hedge back to dollars, Europe looks cheap,” Remington asserts.

European junk on average is safer, too. Two-thirds of the market is rated BB, the upper limit of high yield, compared with half in the U.S., Braganza says. Market exuberance has also opened the door for higher risk/reward credits, adds Ian Bates, senior vice president for European high yield at Neuberger Berman.

Austrian auto parts manufacturer Benteler International (rating BB-) and U.K.-based Punch Pubs (B-) both recently placed paper at more than 7% annual interest. “We are overweight in the single-B names relative to our benchmark,” Bates reports.

European high-yield offerings are diverse, with no single sector accounting for more than 10% of the market. In the U.S., volatile energy companies make up 15% of volume.

Most European issuers are domestic-facing, Braganza adds, minimizing exposure to Donald Trump’s threatened U.S. tariffs. “We own the bonds of a tin can manufacturer that sells its cans to a Heineken brewery next door,” she says, by way of example. “The BB credits tend to be very local.”

Auto makers, the most exposed business to a trans-Atlantic trade war, represent around 10% of the European market.

That doesn’t mean Goldilocks conditions can last forever. Too much appetite from the market could drive yields below investors’ sweet spot. “We have generally balked around 5%,” Braganza says.

Spreads have shrunk to just 50 or so basis points (0.5%) wide of historic lows, EFG’s Remington adds. That reflects benign macro assumptions that various events could shake: the U.S. president pushing harder than expected, Germany’s revival falling short, or Russian aggression spilling over from Ukraine, among others.

Moscow’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine shrank the European high-yield market by a quarter as investors demanded higher risk premiums than issuers could afford. It’s recovering part of that ground slowly now. “It wouldn’t take much for the market to break again,” Remington says. “If spreads get wider again, the market can close.”

For now, though, investors see Trump’s policy kaleidoscope counterintuitively threatening U.S. market dominance, while provoking Europe into needed fiscal stimulus, if not structural reform.

“We see the client base diversifying away from the U.S. to Europe, where they have been underweight since 2022,” Neuberger Berman’s Bates says.

After the inevitable break for August, he sees the Eurojunk party continuing for a while.

“We know the banks have relatively robust pipelines for issuance,” Bates says.

The sector still hasn’t recovered from its post-Covid bust, but shares could be set for a bounce.

All that glitters isn’t gold. Luxury stocks are proof.

It doesn’t take an auction of the original Birkin bag, which might soon sell at Sotheby’s for seven figures, to signal that luxury items still have cachet. For investors, though, the luxury sector in recent years has resembled an “it” bag stuffed with tissue paper—glamorous on the outside but coming up empty for shareholders. Companies like Burberry Group and Chanel used the Covid-era boom to raise prices to maintain exclusivity and avoid brand dilution, but then found that they had priced out customers once inflation spiked and people started going out again.

Since then, a combination of weakness in China and hit-or-miss merchandising has led to lackluster results, while tariffs could be a further headwind. LVMH Moët Hennessy Louis Vuitton, which has given up its crown as Europe’s most valuable company, has seen its stock drop about 40% over the past two years, while Gucci owner Kering has fallen more than 50% and Prada has declined more than 10%.

Luxury, though, may be about to shine again. The One Big Beautiful Bill disproportionately benefits the wealthy, according to the Congressional Budget Office, giving the equivalent of a 2.3% tax cut to top earners, who are also getting richer as the stock market rises. Europeans are feeling more confident, and Chinese shoppers are, if not exactly upbeat, at least feeling less gloomy.

All that is good news for luxury, which has seen an uncharacteristic boom/bust cycle in recent years. What’s more, the stocks now look cheaper than they have in years, potentially setting them up for a nice contrarian bounce.

“The main consumer base for this industry probably feels in pretty good shape,” says Markus Hansen, a portfolio manager at Vontobel Asset Management. “Markets are near all-time highs; every asset class is doing well.”

Luxury stocks aren’t out of the woods yet. Many companies are likely to be hit with slowing sales, margin pressures, and a still-disillusioned shopper. The stocks, however, have been punished so much that purely on a valuation level, they are starting to look attractive.

Prada trades for 14 times 2026 earnings, LVMH less than 20 times, and Moncler, Kering, and Richemont not far above 20. Valuations for the group have fallen to a 15-year low relative to the market, according to UBS strategist Andrew Garthwaite. The current valuation disconnect doesn’t happen very often, and when it does, luxury stocks outperform the market 76% of the time over the following one to three months, and 100% of the time over the following six months.

Cheap stocks can always get cheaper, but luxury stocks are also showing signs of earnings stability. Garthwaite notes that earnings revisions have edged higher, even though profits are expected to decline. What’s more, the stocks have fallen far more than earnings are expected to. If earnings can surprise to the upside, the stocks should have room to run.

It’s “time to be less negative,” Garthwaite writes.

Luxury stocks are like Tolstoy’s unhappy families—each is distinct—and investors would do well to stay picky. For instance, while all luxury companies have some entry-level items—a Hermès International lipstick, a Ferrari keychain, or a Prada candle, for instance—to establish relationships with younger consumers who can go on to become lifelong shoppers, companies whose products are at the highest price points haven’t been hurt as hard by the pullback in so-called aspirational customers.

“Luxury isn’t dead, but the person who had been propping it up since 2020 is now priced out,” says Gabriella Santaniello, founder and CEO of retail consulting firm A Line Partners. “But the true luxury customer, who enjoys it and can afford it, is still buying.”

Hermès looks particularly interesting, according to HSBC analyst Erwan Rambourg. The company, whose perch atop the handbag food chain is undisputed thanks to its iconic Birkin and Kelly bags, looks set to grow sales by 9% during the second quarter, a rare sequential improvement among the luxury-goods purveyors. Hermès has been so successful that it is now valued at $302.4 billion, greater than LVMH’s $298 billion. Rambourg rates shares a Buy with a 2,800 euro price target, up 15% from a recent €2,434.

Cartier owner Richemont also looks like a big winner. The company posted its highest-ever quarterly sales for the December quarter, and should likely keep the growth up when it reports July 16. J.P. Morgan analyst Chiara Battistini notes that the company has brand momentum and offers “strong value” for the money, two factors that should allow it to “increase prices without losing volumes.” The stock has gained less than 10% over the past 12 months.

Elsewhere, A Line’s Santaniello says she loves Burberry’s recent merchandising decisions. The company has shifted back toward its roots, and a recent ad campaign positions it beyond its typical fall/winter core season. The stock’s 2025 outperformance—it has gained 39%—is a positive sign that its turnaround is finally taking hold, after it raised prices too aggressively and alienated its core customers. HSBC’s Rambourg is bullish, too, arguing that the worst is behind the company and it has plenty of opportunity to snap up market share.

In the U.S., Tapestry’s Coach brand has successfully repositioned itself further up the premium scale. That’s rare, given that—much like a social climber—overly ambitious brands can often fail to make the transition to a higher-tiered perception among consumers. Yet it still has plenty of room to price more competitively with European peers like LVMH, and the stock itself, at 17 times 12-month forward earnings, is relatively cheap, too.

Très chic.

Elon Musk’s xAI seeks up to $200bn valuation in next fundraising

Grok chatbot maker in early talks with investors to boost its value as much as 10 times from last year

Elon Musk’s xAI is preparing to raise more money from investors in a deal that could value the artificial intelligence company as high as $200bn — 10 times its value early last year, according to people close to the talks.

The fundraising, which is being discussed and could start formally as soon as next month, would be its third large share sale in less than two months. It raised $10bn through loans and cash investments in July, and in June sold $300mn of shares in a secondary stock offering.

A deal would also cement a rapid rise in xAI’s valuation from the $18bn set in its “series B” fundraising in May 2024.

The company this week released the fourth model of its Grok chatbot, which posts on Musk’s social media platform X — days after the bot repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler and shared antisemitic rhetoric on the platform. The company pledged to ban hate speech from its posts.

Three people close to the process said the new fundraising would target a valuation of between $170bn and $200bn. They cautioned the talks were preliminary and the details could change.

Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, PIF, is expected to play a large role in the deal, two of the people said. PIF holds an indirect interest in xAI through its stake in Kingdom Holdings Company, which has invested $800mn in xAI.

xAI did not respond to requests for comment. PIF declined to comment.

xAI acquired X in March in an all-stock deal for $45bn. The transaction valued the combined company at $113bn. That would grow to about $245bn if the latest xAI fundraising is successful.

Another Musk company, SpaceX, has surged in value recently. The rocket and satellite group is preparing to sell about $1bn of its shares in a deal that would value it at $400bn, the Financial Times reported this week.

Musk’s companies — including Tesla and brain chip company Neuralink — initially benefited from the entrepreneur’s connections to US President Donald Trump following November’s election.

Musk was one of Trump’s biggest backers, spending more than $250mn on his campaign, but a public spat last month has led to concern about blowback on some of his businesses.

The value of his private companies suggests investors are looking past the risks of Trump targeting Musk’s businesses. However, shares in Tesla have fallen nearly a fifth since the start of the year.

xAI launched in 2023 shortly after OpenAI released its chatbot ChatGPT, which exploded in popularity. Musk was a co-founder of OpenAI in 2015 but he left in 2018, and has since been a vocal critic of the company and its chief executive Sam Altman. OpenAI was valued at $300bn as part of a fundraising earlier this year.

Kraft Heinz explores potential break-up

Spinning off traditional grocery unit featuring boxed dinners and processed cheese is one idea being studied

Packaged foods giant Kraft Heinz is studying a break-up a decade after Warren Buffett and 3G Capital merged the two brands, people briefed on the matter have said.

The decision comes after the company, known for Heinz Ketchup and Kraft Macaroni & Cheese, in May said it was considering several options to reverse its persistent underperformance, the people said.

One of the plans being considered includes spinning off much of its traditional grocery portfolio, which would include boxed dinners, processed cheese and packaged meats, into a standalone company, the people said.

The remaining part of the business, which would include Heinz condiments, Grey Poupon mustard and a broader slate of sauces, could be set for swifter growth because of changing consumer tastes, they added.

Executives believed two separate companies could ultimately be worth more than Kraft Heinz’s $31bn market value, the people involved in the talks said.

The people stressed no final decision had been made and it was still possible the company would opt to sell some assets and remain as a single entity.

“As announced in May, Kraft Heinz has been evaluating potential strategic transactions to unlock shareholder value,” the company said. “Beyond that, we do not comment on rumours or speculation.”

The internal debate comes as big food groups confront intensifying pressure to reshape their portfolios in the face of inflation, health-conscious consumers and growing competition from private labels.

A break-up would undo the 2015 deal, in which Heinz bought Kraft. The Brazilian investors behind 3G Capital and Buffett were widely seen as pioneers of reviving struggling consumer brands thanks to their aggressive cost-cutting strategy.

However, following the acquisition Kraft Heinz suffered setbacks, including being rebuffed by Unilever, which in 2017 rejected its $143bn takeover offer, and an accounting scandal.

Buffett admitted to overpaying for Kraft in 2019, saying he had been “wrong in a couple of ways on Kraft Heinz”. Berkshire took a $3bn writedown tied to its investment in the business at the time.

The Omaha-based railroad-to-insurance conglomerate initially teamed up with 3G in 2013, when it took the US ketchup maker private in a $28bn deal. Two years later they took control of Kraft in a deal worth $63bn, including a $10bn special dividend Berkshire and 3G funded for existing Kraft shareholders, according to Dealogic.

The 2015 acquisition gave the Heinz investors majority control of the combined businesses, with Kraft shareholders retaining a 49 per cent stake in the publicly listed company.

Berkshire, which owns roughly 27 per cent of Kraft Heinz, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 3G exited its stake in Kraft Heinz in 2023, according to US regulatory filings.

Kraft Heinz’s stock value is down about 70 per cent since the highs it reached in 2017, when the company was seen as a pioneer in the industry.

News of the potential break-up was first reported by the Wall Street Journal.

Hosting the Bayeux Tapestry in London is a big win, but rivalry between institutions has a cost

When the Bayeux Tapestry comes to London next year, the British Museum will no doubt be showing it in near-darkness, a light level appropriate for the 900-year-old embroidery. The Victoria and Albert Museum, however, which thought it would be hosting the cloth until the surprise announcement this week, has been totally in the dark.

The world of museums is not known as particularly cut-throat. While they compete for donors and gifts, they recognise the fragility of their ecosystem, particularly when reliant on state subsidies, and tend to co-operate with the mission of the public good in mind. Exhibitions tour institutions across continents, individual paintings rack up air miles on loan.

But the triumph of the BM, chaired by former Tory chancellor George Osborne, shows that when a star piece is at stake, with concomitant ticket revenue, trinket sales and cream teas in the café, ruthlessness rules.

An inescapable tension is that the global field is not level. The J Paul Getty Trust, which runs the Getty museums in Los Angeles, had an endowment of $8.6bn in 2023; when London’s Tate launched its endowment drive last month its target was to raise a modest £150mn by 2030. A senior figure in UK museums points out that it is not just US museums but those in the Middle East, backed by the seemingly limitless wealth of royal families, that they have to compete against too.

UK museums have one reliable arrow in their quiver when it looks as if an outstanding cultural object might be taken abroad. If a standing committee of experts deems the work a national treasure, judging by history, aesthetics and scholarship, it will give British institutions the chance to raise the money, at market value, to keep it.

Works “saved for the nation” (as heralded) include an 18th-century painting by Bernardo Bellotto, Jane Austen’s ring and a large anthropomorphic crab from 1880 by Robert Wallace Martin. In 2024, the V&A (endowment: £760,000) had a success when it saw off an attempt by the Metropolitan Museum in New York (endowment: $4.5bn) to buy a 12th-century walrus ivory carving. But it took a sustained campaign to raise the £2mn.

Plenty more objects find themselves on an aircraft when the fundraising fails. A golden tiger’s head ornament from the throne of an Indian royal, set with rubies, diamonds and emeralds, overcame its export bar and went to Qatar in 2022. (Whether this object taken by British soldiers after killing the sultan should be considered a UK “national treasure” is another question.)

Sometimes hostility is outright, part of a broader political conflict. When Chinese nationalists fled Beijing and the Red army in 1949, they took more than 600,000 objects from the Forbidden City to Taiwan, where they remain today, including the finest ceramics I have ever seen. In 2023, Beijing made a pointed demand for their return and Taipei’s National Palace Museum faced cyber attacks.

More often, though, harmony reigns. In 2023, the National Portrait Gallery in London agreed a partnership with the vastly wealthier Getty Museum in LA to jointly purchase Sir Joshua Reynolds’ “Portrait of Mai”, splitting the £50mn price between them and alternating display. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam and the Louvre in Paris share a pair of Rembrandt portraits.

Tristram Hunt, director of the V&A, told me that the sector was “incredibly collegiate — we’re always lending and borrowing and things are going wrong at the last minute so people help each other out”. The Bayeux loan, he said graciously, would be excellent for the BM.

There are many threats to museums today: parsimonious governments, culture warriors, donors who want something in return, attention spans dwindling to the length of an Instagram story. The one thing they should be able to rely on is each other.