Rivian and Uber on Thursday announced a partnership worth up to $1.25 billion to accelerate the two companies’ plans for autonomous vehicles and deploy up to 50,000 fully autonomous robotaxis in the years ahead.

Under the agreement, Uber will invest up to $1.25 billion in Rivian through 2031, subject to achieving autonomous performance milestones by specific dates. 

The two companies have agreed to an initial $300 million investment following the signing of the deal, subject to regulatory approval.

Uber plans to purchase, either directly or through its fleet partners, 10,000 fully autonomous Rivian R2 robotaxis and the ride-hailing service firm will have the option to purchase up to 40,000 more in 2030. Rivian’s autonomous fleet of R2 robotaxis will be available exclusively through the Uber platform.

BILLIONAIRE UBER CO-FOUNDER TRAVIS KALANICK ADMITS STRATEGICALLY MOVING TO TEXAS BEFORE CALIFORNIA WEALTH TAX

The companies are planning to begin the initial deployment of the robotaxis in San Francisco and Miami in 2028, before expanding to more than two dozen cities by 2031.

If all autonomous performance milestones are met, Rivian and Uber will have deployed thousands of unsupervised robotaxis across 25 cities in the U.S., Canada and Europe by the end of 2031.

AUTOMAKER GEARS UP FOR SELF-DRIVING FUTURE WITH NEW CHIP

“We couldn’t be more excited about this partnership with Uber – it will help accelerate our path to level 4 autonomy to create one of the safest and most convenient autonomous platforms in the world,” said Rivian founder and CEO RJ Scaringe. 

Scaringe added that Rivian’s “growing data flywheel coupled with RAP1, our state of the art in-house inference platform, and our multi-modal perception platform make us incredibly excited for the rapid advancement of Rivian autonomy over the next couple of years.”

RIVIAN CEO DISCUSSES TARIFFS, SAYS EV MAKER HAS ‘VERY US-CENTRIC SUPPLY CHAIN’

Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said that the company is “big believers in Rivian’s approach – designing the vehicle, compute platform, and software stacks together while maintaining end-to-end control of scaled manufacturing and supply in the U.S.”

“That vertical integration, combined with data from their growing consumer vehicle base and experience managing the complexities of commercial fleets, gives us conviction to set these ambitious but achievable targets,” Khosrowshahi added.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Rivian shares rose 3.8% on Thursday, while Uber stock declined by 1.72% during the day’s trading session.

Heightened geopolitical tensions, rising crude prices, and uncertainty around the interest rate cycle are reshaping the investment landscape, prompting a renewed focus on stability within portfolios.

In an interaction with Kshitij Anand of ETMarkets, Devang Shah, Head – Fixed Income at Axis Mutual Fund, said that the current environment strengthens the case for fixed income as a core allocation.

With the rate cut cycle nearing its end and volatility expected to persist, he advises investors to stay cautious on duration and prefer high-quality, short-term debt strategies that can offer steady accrual and resilience amid evolving macro risks. Edited Excerpts –

Kshitij Anand: With global markets facing heightened geopolitical tensions—from ongoing conflicts to trade uncertainties—how are these risks reshaping investors’ interest in fixed income assets at this point in time?

Devang Shah: As you rightly highlighted, first of all, it is important from every investor’s perspective to always have asset allocation. What I mean by disciplined asset allocation is that you should not put all your money into one asset class.
We have done some studies—this is also part of our multi-asset allocation theme—where we analyse the top six or seven asset classes that investors typically consider, such as precious metals, bonds, equities, global assets, and offshore assets. Specifically, if you look at offshore assets like US and China markets, and analyse how these assets have performed over different periods, our 20-year study clearly shows that there is no single winner. No one asset class consistently outperforms others or delivers superior returns at all times.

So, asset allocation becomes an even more important theme going forward. Fixed income plays a crucial role in this because it provides stability. Historically, except for periods like 2008, 2013, and parts of 2018, fixed income has generally not delivered negative returns. So, it also offers a degree of capital protection.
In today’s environment, investors should definitely have some allocation towards fixed income. The exact allocation depends on several factors, such as the macroeconomic outlook, central bank actions, inflation, growth, the rate cycle, and liquidity. These are important levers to consider while deciding the allocation to fixed income.Given the current environment—with heightened volatility driven by geopolitical uncertainties and rising crude prices—there is certainly a strong case for bonds.

Kshitij Anand: For much of the last year, markets have been pricing in rate cuts from major central banks. But what if the rate cut cycle gets delayed or does not materialise as expected? How should investors rethink their fixed income allocation in such scenarios?
Devang Shah: You are right—the last two years have been very positive for bond markets. Across developed markets and in India, central banks have cut rates, leading to a strong rate-cut cycle globally.

However, since June, we at Axis have been communicating that we are nearing the end of this rate cycle. Going forward, other levers will drive returns in fixed income. We believe that we are close to the end of the rate cycle and do not expect significant rate cuts ahead.

Now, with the current geopolitical tensions and the sharp rise in crude prices, we need to look at two key aspects: how long this situation will last, and where crude prices will stabilise in the near and medium term.

Our assessment is that while no one can predict geopolitical developments with certainty, markets will eventually realign to a new crude price range across inflation, growth, corporate earnings, and fiscal deficits.

We believe that if crude prices remain in the $75–$85 range, the impact on the Indian economy will be present but muted. It will not significantly deteriorate macroeconomic conditions or force the RBI to hike rates immediately.

However, there could be some impact: inflation may rise by about 0.5%, moving from around 4.5% towards 5%. Growth could slow slightly from the expected 7%+, and the current account deficit may widen from around 1% to 1.5–1.75%.

This means that while macro fundamentals may weaken slightly, they will remain broadly stable. In such a scenario, the RBI is likely to stay supportive of growth by ensuring adequate liquidity. While inflation is a near-term concern, the bigger medium-term risk is slowing growth if crude prices remain elevated.

Therefore, we do not expect significant stress on bonds. Bond yields have already adjusted—especially at the short end of the curve, which has seen a sell-off of about 30–50 basis points. The OIS has also risen by around 30 basis points.

If crude prices stabilise within the $75–$85 range, we do not expect much further impact. However, if crude prices rise above $100—which we consider a lower probability but still a risk—it could trigger a faster rate hike cycle, pushing bond yields higher across the curve.

In such a scenario, it would make sense for investors to stay positioned at the short end of the yield curve.

Kshitij Anand: Now, in a world where equities can deliver strong wealth creation but also sharp volatility, how can bonds help investors balance growth, income stability, and capital preservation within a portfolio?
Devang Shah: As you rightly highlighted, today is a world of uncertainty, and this uncertainty will continue to prevail. That is why asset allocation becomes more and more important.

In today’s market environment, where a large part of the rate cycle is over and we are at a stage where the next move could be rate hikes—whether in six or twelve months—the key question is how to navigate this environment without experiencing significant volatility in your debt portfolio.

So, what should an investor do? That is the most important question. My understanding is that, as I mentioned earlier, the extreme short end of the curve—up to the one- to three-year segment—has seen a significant sell-off over the last six to nine months.

Let me share some numbers. One-year CDs were trading at 6.25–6.30% levels in June 2025. Today, despite rate cuts over the past nine months, they are trading in the 7–7.25% range. That implies a sell-off of about 50 to 75 basis points. This is largely due to strong credit growth and some degree of currency intervention, which led to temporary liquidity tightness.

Similarly, three-year corporate bonds, which were trading at around 6.5%, are now closer to 7.25–7.30%.

So, our perspective is that the segment which has already seen a significant sell-off—and is unlikely to react sharply even if the RBI starts raising rates—is where investors should focus for the near term, say over the next 12 to 18 months.

At yields of 7–7.25%, money market strategies and conservative short-term funds make a lot of sense for investors to navigate this uncertain environment, which is influenced by crude price volatility, policy uncertainty, and macroeconomic risks if crude sustains above $100.

Kshitij Anand: Also, as we are nearing the end of the financial year, can you sum up how FY26 was for bond markets in general?
Devang Shah: FY26 has been a volatile year. It started with significant policy easing, liquidity support, and rate cuts until June. As I mentioned earlier, there was a 50-basis-point rate cut in June.

So, the year began on a strong positive note for bonds, but some of those gains were later given up. If you look at 12–18 month returns, they are still quite healthy. At one point, bond markets were delivering close to double-digit returns—in June 2025, most debt funds, whether short-term, medium-term, long-duration, or gilt funds, were delivering double-digit returns.

However, a part of these gains has been eroded due to global uncertainties, rising crude prices, a large supply of state development loans, and strong credit growth, which signaled that we were nearing the end of the rate cycle.

Overall, FY26 has been a mixed bag for bond markets. The extreme short end has performed very well. Short- to medium-term funds have delivered reasonable returns, while long-duration bonds have remained volatile.

Kshitij Anand: As the financial year draws to a close, how should investors review their portfolios? Are there any specific adjustments they should consider in fixed income allocation before the new financial year begins?
Devang Shah: Our assessment is based on the assumption that over the next two to three months, conditions will stabilise, and crude prices are unlikely to remain above $100 for an extended period.

Under this base case, we have been advising investors to reduce duration in their fixed income portfolios and focus on the short end of the curve.

Specifically, money market funds, conservative short-term funds, and a relatively new category—income plus arbitrage fund of funds—are attractive options. These funds, with a two-year investment horizon, can deliver debt-like returns with equity-like taxation.

Even in a less likely scenario—say a 20% probability—where crude remains above $100 and causes significant stress on growth, investors should still remain invested in the short end of the curve in the near term. This is because the first reaction would likely be a shift in central bank policy towards rate hikes.

Once that scenario materialises, opportunities may emerge in the second half of the year to allocate to longer-duration funds.

For now, the key portfolio adjustment should be to reduce duration, focus on money market strategies, conservative short-term funds, and income plus arbitrage fund of funds. However, for income plus arbitrage funds, investors should maintain at least a two-year investment horizon to fully benefit from tax efficiency.

Going forward, depending on the macro environment, there could be tactical opportunities in long-duration bonds.

Kshitij Anand: So, what should investors keep in mind while building a fixed income strategy for the next financial year amid global uncertainty and evolving interest rate expectations?
Devang Shah: The general fear, whenever such uncertainties rise, is that investors tend to move towards highly liquid funds. They prefer instruments that offer high liquidity and are relatively immune to risks such as duration volatility and potential growth slowdowns.

Our perspective at this point is that if you want to navigate this environment effectively, you should stay invested in funds that predominantly hold AAA-rated credits, have a strong quality bias, and avoid taking excessive duration exposure, as duration can introduce volatility.

If growth weakens, then with a lag, the credit cycle may start deteriorating. While this is not our base case, investors who want to adopt a more conservative approach should continue allocating to money market funds, low-duration strategies, and ultra-conservative short-term bond funds, with a strong emphasis on high-quality AAA issuers.

That said, the credit cycle today remains strong. I do not see any immediate concerns. India’s macroeconomic story has not weakened significantly, and the credit environment continues to be healthy. If you look at bank and NBFC NPAs, leverage levels, and profitability, there has been no meaningful deterioration.

However, as a cautionary note, if crude prices continue to hover around $100 or higher, it could slow down India’s growth and create future concerns. To navigate such a scenario, it is better to stay invested in money market strategies with a higher quality bias.

Kshitij Anand: What factors are accelerating retail participation in India’s traditionally institutional bond markets, and what more needs to be done to deepen this ecosystem?
Devang Shah: To begin with, regulators have done a commendable job. Today, retail investors have access to government bonds through dedicated platforms, which was not the case earlier. Regulators have also simplified many aspects to help investors better understand the products they are investing in.

Mutual funds have also played a significant role. Today, there is a fund for every investor need. If you want to invest for one day, there are overnight funds. For three months, there are liquid funds. For longer horizons, there are target maturity funds, index funds, or long-duration funds.

SEBI and RBI have done a great job in promoting investor education. Tools such as riskometers and portfolio disclosure matrices help investors understand the risk profile and credit quality of their investments, including exposure to non-AAA assets.

A lot of improvements have been made since the 2018 credit crisis. Today, mutual fund products are much easier for retail investors to understand.

Innovations such as direct participation in government bonds and ensuring liquidity through mutual fund structures are important steps towards deepening the corporate bond market. These developments will support increased retail participation in fixed income over the medium term.

Kshitij Anand: Lastly, Indian government bonds have started getting included in major global indices. How could this influence foreign capital flows, yields, and investor interest in the Indian bond market?
Devang Shah: In my view, the increasing depth of the Indian bond market—reflected in volumes, bid-ask spreads, and overall size—has made it more attractive to global investors.

We have already seen initial steps with JPMorgan including Indian bonds in its indices, followed by partial inclusion in certain Bloomberg emerging market indices. There is also a strong possibility that Indian bonds could be included in the Bloomberg Global Aggregate Index, which tracks a $2.5–2.8 trillion market.

If that happens, India could see an allocation of close to 1%, potentially bringing in $20–25 billion of inflows. We believe this could happen within the next 12 months, possibly as early as the June review.

Such inclusion could create tactical opportunities in long-duration bonds, as inflows may lead to a rally in that segment depending on prevailing yield levels.

However, in the current environment, investors should maintain a higher allocation to the short end of the curve due to uncertainties around crude prices, geopolitical risks, and the fact that the rate cut cycle is largely behind us.

In a stable or rising rate environment, focusing on accrual or carry strategies through short-duration funds is a prudent approach.

That said, global index inclusion is a significant positive. As India’s bond market continues to grow in depth and scale, more such opportunities are likely to emerge, creating additional avenues for investors over time.

(Disclaimer: Recommendations, suggestions, views, and opinions given by experts are their own. These do not represent the views of the Economic Times)

Operator

Good day, and welcome to the Tantalus Systems’ Fourth Quarter and Year-End 2025 Financial Results Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Please note that this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Deborah Honig, Investor Relations. Please go ahead.

Deborah Honig
Adelaide Capital

Thank you, operator. Thank you for joining us to discuss Tantalus Systems’ financial results and operating performance for the fourth quarter and year ended December 31, 2025. Tantalus issued these results, including their financial statements, management’s discussion and analysis and press release yesterday after market close, which are posted on the company’s website. Joining me today on the call from Tantalus Systems, herein referred to as Tantalus or the company are Peter Londa, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Azim Lalani, Chief Financial Officer. During the call, we will make forward-looking statements about Tantalus’ business. These statements are subject to certain risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially. Tantalus refers conference call participants either today or in the future to the company’s forward-looking statements contained in the investor presentation on our website at www.tantalus.com.

Statements made on this call reflect management’s analysis as of today, March 19, 2026. Management does not assume any responsibility or obligation to update forward-looking statements made during this conference call unless

Four Delta Air Lines flight attendants were injured on Friday after a flight bound for Australia experienced what the airline described as “brief turbulence.”

The flight, carrying 245 passengers and 15 crew members, was headed from Los Angeles, California, to Sydney, Australia, when the turbulence began.

The Airbus A350 was hit by the turbulence as it descended, but Delta said the aircraft landed “safely and normally” at the Sydney airport.

US FLIGHT CANCELLATIONS, GROUND DELAYS SURGE AS MASSIVE MARCH STORM DISRUPTS TRAVEL

Three of the injured flight attendants were sent to the hospital for medical treatment. No passengers reported any injuries.

“Delta flight 41 from Los Angeles encountered brief turbulence upon descent into Sydney, and four flight attendants reported injuries,” an airline spokesperson said in a statement to FOX Business.

“Nothing is more important than the safety of our people and our customers, and our priority is taking care of the impacted crew members,” the statement continued.

The flight landed in Sydney on Friday morning after departing Los Angeles on Wednesday night local time.

NSW Ambulance was alerted at about 6.45 a.m. local time, just minutes before the aircraft landed, according to flight data.

AIRLINES CANCEL FLIGHTS, ISSUE TRAVEL WAIVERS OVER MIDDLE EAST UNREST

CLICK HERE TO GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO

Emergency responders said they treated five people who sustained minor injuries, according to The Sydney Morning Herald, although it is unclear why their injury total is different from Delta’s.

Mumbai: India’s equity benchmarks slumped more than 3% Thursday – the steepest single-day drop in nearly two years – as attacks on oil and gas infrastructure in West Asia rattled investors and fuelled inflation concerns. The 5%-plus drop in HDFC Bank, the biggest Nifty stock by weighting, after the abrupt exit of its non-executive chairman, Atanu Chakraborty, citing ‘ethical’ concerns further pressured bourses.

The NSE Nifty closed at 23,002.15 – the lowest since February 2025, down 775.65 points or 3.3%. The BSE Sensex ended 3.3% lower at 74,207.24 – the lowest since March 2025, shedding 2,496.89 points. Thursday’s slide wiped out gains from the previous three sessions and punched a ₹13 lakh crore-hole in the total market capitalisation of BSE-listed companies.

“The recent attacks on gas reserves are a serious concern that may have spooked investors and pushed oil prices higher,” said Hitesh Zaveri, head – Listed Equities Alternatives at Axis Mutual Fund. “Till this war is resolved, further declines cannot be ruled out.”

Iran’s strikes caused extensive damage to the world’s largest gas plant in Qatar, targeted a refinery in Saudi Arabia, forced a shutdown of UAE gas facilities, and triggered fires at two Kuwaiti refineries, Reuters reported. The retaliation followed Israel’s attack on Iran’s gas infrastructure.

Market participants do not rule out further downside amid the escalating West Asia tensions.

“There is scope for further downside since oil facilities were hammered, raising concerns that production and transport capabilities in Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Iran may be significantly impaired,” said UR Bhat, co-founder & director, Alphaniti. “This has added pressure on the markets while the closure of the Strait of Hormuz remains unaddressed. Consensus expectations for crude moving towards $150 a barrel may not be far-fetched if escalations persist.”

Fear Gauge Rises 21.8%
Across Asia, Japan dropped 3.4%, South Korea fell 2.7%, Hong Kong slid 2%, while Taiwan and China declined 1.9% and 1.4%, respectively.
At home, all NSE sectoral indices ended lower. The Nifty Auto index tumbled 4.3%, while Nifty Realty fell 3.8%. Consumer durables, IT and metal gauges lost more than 3% each. The Bank Nifty fell 3.4%, dragged by HDFC Bank.

Analysts said the sell-off has prompted traders to initiate fresh bearish bets on the Nifty.

“Around 12-18 Nifty heavyweights saw not just unwinding of long positions but formation of short positions as well,” said Ruchit Jain, head of technical research at Motilal Oswal Financial Services.

Jain pegged 22,500 as the near-term support level but said a durable bottom depends on an easing of geopolitical stress.

Foreign portfolio investors sold a net ₹7,558.2 crore worth of shares on Thursday, while domestic institutions bought ₹3,864 crore. In March, global investors sold ₹79,805.7 crore of equities.

The India VIX jumped 21.8% to 22.8 – the sharpest rise since March 4 – signalling heightened near-term volatility. “With the VIX at extremely high levels, the swings are sharp and could continue,” Jain said.

The Nifty Midcap 150 fell 3.1%, and the Smallcap 250 dropped 2.6%. Of the 4,404 shares traded on the BSE, 3,359 declined and 913 advanced. Both indices were down about 3.3% over the past week till Thursday.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the federal government will reduce or eliminate the capital gains tax discount in the forthcoming budget, but it is not clear how it intends to do it.

Until 1985, there was no broad-based capital gains tax In Australia and there was a tax avoidance industry of making income look like capital gains, thereby avoiding income tax. 

The introduction of a capital gains tax by the Hawke-Keating government put an end to that. 

If capital gains are taxed at the same rate as income, there is no point in trying to classify profit as one or the other.

In 1999, the Howard-Costello government introduced a 50 per cent discount to capital gains tax on assets that were held for more than 12 months. 

One of the stated objectives of the discount was to encourage investment in the housing market with the aim of making more houses available for renters.

It is not clear whether it ever achieved that purpose. What it did achieve was an increase in the proportion of houses owned by investors and a reduction in the proportion of houses owned by homeowners.

The concept of a capital gains tax discount for long term investments is a good one because it encourages investment over trading. Some countries have a discount which increases each year an investment is held, which is an even better system because it encourages long term investment.

The principal objective of these concessions in other countries is to increase long term investment in companies and thereby strengthen their economies. There is less need for this in Australia because we already have a tax-effective mechanism for investing in companies called superannuation.

In Australia, allowing a capital gains tax discount on residential investment properties has contributed to housing unaffordability. It is not the only factor, but it is a significant factor. If investors and would-be homeowners are competing to purchase properties, it follows that prices will be higher than if investors were not in the market.

Consequently, the capital gains tax discount on investment properties has been criticised by economists and housing advocates, and the government is now considering making changes to it.

If the government wants to raise as much revenue as possible, it will make the measure retrospective so that it applies to both past and future capital gains. It can then use the additional revenue to fund income tax cuts, which will advance its social agenda. 

That might be the course it takes. It will be hard on investors, but broadly fair across the tax base.

If the government’s primary objective is to take the strain off the housing market, it should eliminate the discount only for residential properties and leave it in place for other investments, such as shares, businesses and commercial properties. Within this option, it could retain the discount for investment in new apartments because that is a section of the market which is struggling with the costs of land acquisition and construction.

This option would, however, raise less revenue than a complete withdrawal of the discount, but the amount raised would still be substantial.

Then there is the issue of fairness. 

A fair system would remove the discount for new property purchases and leave it in place for existing investment properties. No-one would be disadvantaged and it would still achieve the purpose of taking investors out of the market. 

This option would, however, raise very little money. The government would only get the extra revenue from houses bought under the new system, there will be fewer people buying investment properties after the discount is removed and the tax won’t be payable until those houses are sold years into the future.

A similar measure, which would raise more revenue, would be the removal of the discount for capital gains which occur after the Budget, regardless of when the property was purchased. 

It would not be retrospective and the government would get the extra revenue from all investment property sales going forward.

Each of these options would have a positive effect on housing affordability, but there is a trade-off between fairness and revenue raising. 

As the change will be introduced as part of the Budget, it is likely that the Treasurer will opt for a version that raises a substantial amount of revenue. The opportunity to redistribute the increased capital gains tax revenue as income tax cuts will be very tempting.

The Greens and a number of independents appear to be on board with removing or reducing the discount. 

The Liberal Party has signalled that it will oppose any reduction in the discount on the basis that it would result in higher taxes. This approach is misconceived in a number of ways. 

First, the tax is not being increased, rather a concession is being eliminated. The purpose of tax concessions is to encourage behaviour or to lessen the load on the basis of fairness. 

Neither applies to investors in residential housing. The behaviour that is being incentivised is detrimental to home ownership and the investors are not in need of a handout, so they should be taxed at the full tax rate.

Second, the party of Robert Menzies, the champion of homeownership, should take ownership of the problem it created when it introduced the capital gains tax discount and support its removal.

Third, if the tax revenue from the removal of the discount is redistributed through income tax cuts, the Liberals will look very silly if they oppose the package on the basis of being the “low tax party”. 

They opposed the government’s income tax cut at the last election and look how that worked out.

Finally, there is the issue of intergenerational equity. 

The only segment of society that voted Liberal at the last election was the over 65s. The younger a person is, the less likely they are to vote Liberal. 

If the Liberals want to win more votes from the younger generations who are struggling to become homeowners, they need to support every measure that improves housing affordability.