Finance

Energy is once again dominating headlines all over the world. Gas and oil prices are volatile, key shipping routes face geopolitical pressure, and policymakers are concerned about supply risks. The renewed uncertainty is a reminder of an uncomfortable reality: the next energy crisis isn’t an if – it’s a when, and a question of how prepared we are. A defining challenge of this decade, and one that now feels more urgent than ever, is how to build a resilient energy system. One that minimises structural dependencies and is designed for rising electricity demand. The imperative of our time: The more we electrify, the less we import fossil fuels. The less we import, the more resilient we become. The course of action is clear: ▪️ Relentlessly scale renewables: Slowing the buildout will not reduce costs. Quite the opposite – delay compounds system costs for the entire economy. ▪️ Fix the grids: As fast as possible, as efficiently as possible, and at the lowest possible cost. Before they become even more of a bottleneck. ▪️ Secure 24/7 electricity supply: When the wind isn’t blowing and the sun isn’t shining, renewables need reliable backup in the form of battery storage and hydrogen-ready gas fired power plants. But gas should serve only as a backup, with renewables and batteries reducing its utilisation. ▪️ Reduce gas supply dependence with infrastructure and diversification: We must not replace old dependencies with new ones. Diversification of gas supplies is key. And the physical prerequisite is an import infrastructure with buffers. We need the planned LNG terminals, complemented by a nationally held gas reserve to help ensure secure supply in winter. ▪️ Electrify everything that makes sense: The more we can power with mostly homegrown electrons, the less dependent we become on fossil imports. Other energy import-dependent countries like Japan and China have electrification rates that are around 10 percentage points higher than Germany’s. This shows where the path forward lies. Electrification reduces reliance on imported fossil fuels, which in turn strengthens overall resilience. The time to act is now.

The European Parliament has officially passed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation that fundamentally shifts the responsibility for textile waste management to fashion brands and retailers – with far-reaching global implications. This new law requires all producers, including e-commerce platforms, to cover the full cost of collecting, sorting, and recycling textiles, regardless of whether they are based within or outside the EU. The financial burden of Europe's textile waste now falls squarely on the brands that create it. What are the critical business implications? UNIVERSAL SCOPE: The legislation applies to all producers selling in the EU market, including those of clothing, accessories, footwear, home textiles, and curtains. No company is exempt based on location. FAST FASHION PENALTY: Member states must specifically address ultra-fast and fast fashion practices when determining EPR financial contributions, creating cost penalties for unsustainable business models. GLOBAL SUPPLY CHAIN DISRUPTION: As the world's largest textile importer, the EU's new rules will ripple across global supply chains, particularly impacting exporters from Bangladesh, Vietnam, China, and India who supply much of Europe's fast fashion. TIMELINE PRESSURE: Officially adopted September 2025, this creates immediate operational and financial planning requirements. COMPETITIVE RESHAPING: Brands and retailers will inevitably pass increased costs down their supply chains, fundamentally altering supplier relationships and pricing structures globally. What are the implications for various stakeholders? For CEOs and board members: This represents more than regulatory compliance – it's a complete business model transformation. Companies must now integrate end-of-life costs into product pricing, rethink supplier partnerships, and accelerate circular design strategies. For sustainability and decarbonisation executives: This creates unprecedented opportunities for circular economy solutions, sustainable material innovation, and traceability system development across global supply chains. Link: https://lnkd.in/dTyHtHuD #sustainablefashion #circulareconomy #textilwaste #epr #fashionindustry #sustainability #supplychainmanagement #fastfashion #environmentalregulation #businessstrategy #decarbonisation #textilerecycling #fashionceos #boardgovernance #climateaction #wastemanagement #producerresponsibility #fashionsustainability #textileindustry #greenbusiness

Every time a card payment is processed, 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗲 main types of fees are involved. Here’s a simple breakdown of the Three Core Fees: 1️⃣ Interchange Fee This is paid by your acquiring bank (or payment processor) to the cardholder’s bank (the issuer). It’s set by the card networks (like Visa and Mastercard; sometimes regulated), and is designed to cover things like fraud, credit losses, and infrastructure costs. 2️⃣ Scheme Fee Charged by the card networks themselves, this fee covers the operation of the payment system (“rails” that process the transaction). 3️⃣ Acquirer Markup This is the fee your acquirer or payment service provider (PSP) charges you, the merchant. It includes their costs, risk management, and profit margin for processing and settling the payment. The total cost a merchant pays is called the Merchant Service Charge, which is the sum of these three components. The Main Pricing Models: ► Bundled Pricing All fees are grouped into one flat rate. This is very common with small businesses. It’s easy to understand but doesn’t provide insight into what you’re actually paying for. ► Interchange+ The interchange fee and the acquirer’s fee are shown separately, but the scheme fee is typically bundled with the markup. This model offers some transparency. ► Interchange++ Each fee—the interchange, scheme, and acquirer markup—is itemized separately. This is the most transparent model and is favored by larger or multi-country merchants who want to track costs precisely. Who Chooses the Pricing Model? Most acquirers and PSPs decide what pricing model you’re offered. Unless you negotiate or have significant transaction volume, you’re likely to get bundled pricing by default. Larger or more experienced merchants who understand payments often push for Interchange++ for its clarity and fairness. Smaller merchants often aren’t aware that alternatives exist or find it difficult to compare offers. How Interchange Fees Vary Globally: Some regions (like the EU, UK, China, and Brazil) cap interchange fees to lower costs for merchants and stimulate competition. The US regulates only part of the system—such as capping debit card fees for large banks (the Durbin Amendment)—while credit card interchange remains uncapped and usually higher. Other countries, like India and Brazil, regulate interchange as part of broader financial inclusion goals. In markets with stricter regulation, merchants often benefit from lower, more predictable fees, making it easier to accept cards. Where fees are higher and less regulated, issuers can offer consumers more rewards (like cashback), but those costs are passed back to merchants—and sometimes their customers. Every model shifts the balance of costs and benefits between banks, merchants, and consumers in different ways. More info below👇, and I highly recommend reading my complete deep dive article about Interchange Fee and what factors impact the rate: https://bit.ly/44T4VJA

The inventor of the SAFE note Adeo Ressi just eliminated the $150,000 and 6-month tax on starting a VC fund. This is huge, so we need to talk about it. Traditionally: ⏱️ Time: Launching a fund can take 6-12 months from thesis to first investment. 💸 Money: The VC setup cost ranges from $50,000 to $150,000+, with annual operations adding another $50,000+. 😵💫 Complexity: Requires three separate entities (LP, GP, and ManCo), complex legal agreements, and multiple regulatory filings. 🏦 Fund Size: There is a minimum fund size averaging $10M to make the fund economically viable. Each LP typically needs to invest $100K+ minimum because smaller checks are unprofitable due to per-LP administrative costs. 📊 Track Record: In order to raise this type of fund, new managers need larger LPs, and these larger LPs often need to see an existing successful investment track record, which some new managers don't have. These barriers have created a venture ecosystem where only those with established networks, significant resources, and/or institutional backing can participate. In 2025: Adeo came up with the Start Fund, a vehicle addressing all of the above head-on: ⏱️ Time: Set up a fund in ONE DAY vs. 6-12 months. 💸 Money: ZERO setup fees vs. $50K-$150K+. 😵💫 Complexity: ONE Delaware series vehicle vs. three separate entities, with an LPA just 1/3 the size. 🏦 Fund Size: Viable with just $250K+ vs. $10M minimum, and can accept smaller LPs (as low as $25K) because administration is streamlined 📊 Track Record: Fully portable track record that counts as fund one when you move to fund two. The benefits for emerging managers are clear: the barriers to entry are lower, giving a much wider pool of candidates a chance to create impact and shape the future. But here's why this matters for... LPs - The Start Fund allows LPs to participate with smaller check sizes, making it easier to diversify their portfolio - More of their capital actually goes to startups rather than overhead fees Startups: - This means more availability of capital from a wider range of sources - Access to a more diverse pool of venture investors with specialized expertise The Start Fund could fundamentally could change WHO gets to allocate capital to the next generation of startups, and WHO will benefit financially from it. I want to know what you all think. ------------- ✍️ Myrto Lalacos Follow for more content on launching and investing in VC firms

The digital bank is an outdated concept. Fast being replaced by the intelligent bank. The only question is how soon banks can manage the transition. Let’s take a look. I have broken down the main elements that make up the transition to the intelligent bank: 1. From transactional to predictive banking: digital banking enabled 24/7 self-service, but intelligent banking takes it further by predicting customer needs. AI-driven models analyse real-time data to offer personalised financial insights, proactive credit offerings, and automated investment recommendations. 2. AI-powered risk & fraud management: traditional risk assessment relied heavily on historical data. Intelligent banks use AI and machine learning to detect fraud in real time, identify suspicious patterns and prevent threats before they occur. 3. Hyper-personalisation: instead of generic offers, intelligent banks use AI to tailor financial products to individual customers (mass personalisation). 4. Seamless omni-channel experience: customers no longer interact with banks through a single channel. Intelligent banking ensures that a user can start a transaction on a mobile app, continue it via a chatbot, and complete it with a human advisor. All while maintaining a seamless, connected experience. 5. Autonomous banking operations: intelligent banks optimise back-office processes using cloud and AI automation, reducing human errors and significantly improving efficiency. Functions such as loan approvals, compliance checks, and reconciliation are increasingly self-regulated by AI-driven workflows.   Banks are in a time race. They not only need to move from digital to intelligent but also do it fast.   In doing so technology is the biggest dependency. One of the most interesting approaches I have seen on how to best support banks in this transition is Huawei's 4-Zero model, which is based on 4 main pillars:   1. Zero Downtime → Instant Readiness AI-powered predictive maintenance and cloud resilience ensure 24/7 availability, allowing banks to deploy and scale AI solutions without service disruptions. 2. Zero Wait → Faster Customer Experiences AI-driven real-time processing eliminates delays in transactions, approvals, and customer interactions, making banking services ultra-responsive. 3. Zero Touch → Reduced Operational Burden End-to-end automation using AI and machine learning removes manual intervention in processes like KYC, loan approvals, and compliance, freeing up resources for AI innovation. 4. Zero Trust → Seamless AI Integration AI-driven security frameworks continuously validate access, ensuring trust and compliance while enabling banks to integrate AI-powered services without increasing risk. The era of intelligent banking isn’t a distant future - it’s happening now. Banks will not be able to transform in months but getting a head start can make a difference. Opinions and graphics: Panagiotis Kriaris  #HuaweiMWC  #RAAS  #IntelligentFinance

ESG Regulation Map and Timeline 🌎 ERM’s latest Global Regulations Radar provides an in-depth update on evolving ESG & EHS regulations worldwide, highlighting the increasing complexity of compliance requirements. Regulatory frameworks continue to expand, introducing stricter disclosure obligations and higher expectations for corporate transparency. Businesses operating across multiple jurisdictions must navigate these changes while ensuring alignment with global sustainability goals. The report underscores how new regulations are reshaping corporate accountability, particularly in areas such as climate risk reporting, supply chain due diligence, and environmental impact assessments. Regulatory bodies are introducing more standardized methodologies for sustainability disclosures, making data integrity and verifiability central to compliance. As expectations grow, companies must adopt more structured approaches to managing ESG-related risks and responsibilities. For organizations with global operations, these regulatory shifts extend beyond national boundaries. Requirements related to emissions reporting, sustainability claims, and biodiversity protection are influencing investment decisions, supply chain strategies, and competitive positioning. The increasing alignment of disclosure frameworks across regions signals a move toward greater consistency, but also demands careful adaptation to varying compliance timelines. ERM’s analysis highlights that many regulations are set to take effect within the next few years, requiring businesses to integrate compliance planning into strategic decision-making. Deadlines for mandatory disclosures, implementation of corporate due diligence requirements, and phased environmental targets will require companies to enhance their governance structures and risk management processes. Proactive adaptation will be key to maintaining regulatory alignment and mitigating potential business risks. As the ESG and EHS regulatory landscape continues to evolve, businesses must stay ahead of developments through structured monitoring and strategic planning. ERM’s Global Regulations Radar serves as a valuable resource for organizations seeking to understand the implications of regulatory changes and position themselves for long-term sustainability compliance. Source: ERM / The Global Regulations Radar #sustainability #sustainable #business #esg #climatechange #regulation #reporting

There’s a missed opportunity in the investment world: over 95% of capital remains allocated to non-diverse funds. This leaves diverse-led funds undercapitalized, despite their proven ability to outperform. This disparity isn’t just about fairness — it’s about untapped potential. A report from the National Association of Investment Companies (NAIC) highlights systemic barriers: smaller commitments to diverse-managed funds, higher asset requirements and inconsistent support from corporate and union pension funds. These challenges restrict market growth and limit wealth creation in communities that could benefit most. Addressing these disparities is critical to building a more dynamic and equitable financial ecosystem. When diverse leaders manage funds, they bring unique perspectives, broader networks and innovative strategies that drive returns and create lasting economic impact. This mission is personal to me. Throughout my career, I’ve championed initiatives to expand opportunities for underrepresented entrepreneurs and fund managers. By supporting diverse leadership in finance, we not only unlock growth but also help close the #racialwealthgap and foster sustainable change. It’s time to reimagine how we allocate capital — embracing equality as both a value and a strategy. Together, we can fuel innovation, empower communities and strengthen our economy.

Introducing the Music Tech Ownership Ouroboros, 2025 edition ✨ The music-tech sector has come of age. What started as a relatively niche investment thesis five years ago has matured into a powerhouse market segment, drawing tens of billions in capital since 2020. For five years, we at Water & Music have been mapping these shifting power dynamics through our “Music Tech Ownership Ouroboros” — a living document that traces the complex web of investments, ownership stakes, and strategic acquisitions shaping music and tech. Our latest update adds over 30 new relationships to the map, primarily from growth investments and M&A deals in 2024. The takeaway: Private equity firms and major labels are locked in a battle for control over independent music infrastructure. As indie market share keeps climbing, owning the tech backbone is becoming as valuable as owning the actual rights. Highlights from 2024 include: - Hellman & Friedman's majority stake in Global Music Rights — making GMR the third PRO owned by a private equity firm - Virgin Music Group's acquisitions of Downtown Music ($775M), [PIAS], and Outdustry - Flexpoint Ford's growth investments in Create Music Group ($165M) and Duetti ($34M) - KKR's acquisition of Superstruct Entertainment ($1.4B) and debt financing in HarbourView Equity Partners ($500M) - EQT Group and TCV's co-ownership of Believe (alongside CEO Denis Ladegaillerie), as part of taking Believe private - Vinyl Group's acquisitions of Serenade, Mediaweek Australia, Funkified Events, and Concrete Playground Link to the full interactive chart with sources is in the comments. Would love to hear what you think, and if any of these deals feel particularly standout or surprising to you! #musicbusiness #musicindustry #musictech #privateequity #musicinvestment #musicrights

Do you walk into board meetings with a slide deck? Or with an executive finance pack? One tells a story. The other drives a decision. A slide deck tells a story you want the board to hear. A finance pack gives the board what it needs to govern, challenge, and approve. If your board isn't asking hard questions, it's not because things are going well. It's because the information you're presenting doesn't invite rigor. And that’s a governance problem. Here's how to build a board-ready finance pack, from the foundation up: LEVEL 1: Strategic Thesis ↳ What is the company's capital strategy and where is value being created? ↳ This is the anchor. Every number in the pack should trace back to this thesis. LEVEL 2: Capital Allocation ↳ How is capital being deployed across the business? ↳ Show where dollars are going, why, and what return profile each allocation carries. LEVEL 3: Cash Position ↳ What is the real-time liquidity picture? ↳ Not just the balance. The runway, the burn context, the covenant headroom, the collection cycle. LEVEL 4: Scenario Map ↳ What happens if assumptions shift? ↳ Give the board two or three scenarios with clear triggers, trade-offs, and decision points built in. LEVEL 5: The Board Asks ↳ What questions should the board be asking based on this data? ↳ Pre-frame the governance conversation. Guide their attention to what matters most right now. Most mid-market CEOs build from the top down.  They start with what the board might ask and reverse-engineer a defensive narrative. That's backwards. When you build from the thesis up, every layer reinforces the one below it. The numbers have context.  The scenarios have grounding.  The questions have depth. Investor-grade governance doesn't require a Fortune 500 finance team. It requires a structure that makes the right conversations inevitable. If your board leaves the room without challenging a single assumption, the pack failed. Not the Board. Great CEOs don't just report to their boards.  They equip them to govern. That's financial intelligence at the leadership level. ♻️ Like, Comment and Repost to help your network. Follow Oana Labes, MBA, CPA for strategic financial leadership. -------- 📌 Ready to Scale with Full Command of your Own Numbers? Join The CEO Financial Intelligence Academy. 5* Curriculum. Coaching. Community. Your CEO Dashboard set up Day 1. Get your CEO Checklist here → https://bit.ly/4es64ye

It’s rare that an ad stops you on your commute, but something I saw at Bank station today did just that.  Greenly | Certified B Corp has taken over the London Underground and reframed The Economist as The Ecologist to say something I have spent over a decade advising on:  “Weather is small talk”   “Climate is strategy”   “Profit is the proof” I've spent years trying to bridge two worlds that should never have been separated: finance and ecology. The data always said they belonged together, but language kept pulling them apart. The numbers don't leave room for debate:  ⚠️ Climate policy uncertainty operates like a supply shock: a 50% rise cuts GDP by 0.5%, investment by nearly 2%  💶 Companies with credible net-zero plans trade at a 12% premium on average (MSCI, 2023)  🌡️ Physical climate risk is already priced into sovereign debt by the IMF The companies that built auditable carbon trajectories early aren't managing a cost. They're sitting on a competitive advantage. In financing conversations, procurement, and investor relations. This isn't a COP-side event. It's a financial capital and Greenly is saying loudly, without hedging that environmental intelligence and economic intelligence are the same thing. We just kept them in separate rooms for too long. Greenly didn't just launch a campaign. They closed a gap that's cost us years. #climatefinance #climaterisk #sustainablefinance #climatestrategy