Ray Dalio, the billionaire founder of Bridgewater Associates, has warned that the market rally driven by artificial intelligence is showing signs of a bubble similar to those seen before the 1929 crash and the dot-com bust in 2000. Dalio made the comments during an appearance on The Diary of a CEO with Steven Bartlett. Bartlett referred to investor Jeremy Grantham’s warning that markets are facing “the biggest investment bubble in American history.” Dalio agreed.

Dalio said the current market has many features seen during earlier speculative periods. Investor excitement around AI has pushed valuations higher, while companies linked to the theme are attracting large amounts of capital.

His warning comes as some of the biggest AI-linked companies are moving toward public markets. SpaceX has already completed what was described as the largest IPO ever, while Anthropic and OpenAI are reportedly moving toward valuations near or above $1 trillion.

Also Read: 9 microcap multibaggers: How India’s stock market minnows beat every major index in six months

Dalio said rising interest rates and a wave of stock issuance are among the main risks that can burst a market bubble. In past cycles, markets have often become vulnerable when investors were willing to pay very high prices for fast-growing companies, just as more companies rushed to sell shares.

SpaceX’s market performance has added to those concerns. Since listing in June, the company has lost more than $500 billion in market value, according to CNBC. Its shares have posted four straight weekly losses and are more than 50% below their intraday high.
The stock recently closed at $108.37, below its IPO price, although the company still has a market value of about $1.4 trillion. Its price-to-sales ratio remains in the 70s, while the company is burning billions of dollars each quarter and carries almost twice as much debt as cash.Dalio’s comments add to a growing debate on whether the AI trade has moved too far, too fast. Supporters argue AI will reshape the economy and justify large investments. Critics say valuations have run ahead of earnings and cash flow.

Grantham has also warned about bubble-like conditions. He has a long record of calling major market excesses, including the Japanese asset bubble, the dot-com bubble and the US housing bubble before the 2008 financial crisis.

Strategists at Goldman Sachs have also flagged risks around tech valuations and earnings expectations.

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

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of ON either through stock ownership, options, or other derivatives. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

Seeking Alpha’s Disclosure: Past performance is no guarantee of future results. No recommendation or advice is being given as to whether any investment is suitable for a particular investor. Any views or opinions expressed above may not reflect those of Seeking Alpha as a whole. Seeking Alpha is not a licensed securities dealer, broker or US investment adviser or investment bank. Our analysts are third party authors that include both professional investors and individual investors who may not be licensed or certified by any institute or regulatory body.

New Greater Manchester mayor says she will work with other mayors to find transport solutions

Greater Manchester mayor Bev Craig has said travel from the North West to cities such as Sheffield and Leeds ‘has to be made easier’ as she pledged to push for improvements.

She told the Local Democracy Reporting Service that she will work with other mayors to find ‘solutions’ to make east-west transport connections better.

Journeys times from Manchester across the Pennines are currently lengthy and can be hit with delays.

Those who choose to drive to Sheffield from Manchester often rely on using Snake Pass (A57) through the Peak District, a journey of around 40 miles which can take an hour and 30 minutes or longer during busy times of day.

Catching the train from Manchester to Sheffield can take between 45 minutes to an hour depending on the service, in a route which also crosses the Peak District.

But new calls have been made to revive plans for a 14-mile tunnel between Manchester and Sheffield, led by a team known as Future Works who reckon the project could cost around £2bn.

Asked about the idea on Monday, Bev Craig said: “I’ve been a long advocate of better east-west connections, we’ve seen throughout the debates we’ve been having about Northern Powerhouse Rail that getting to Leeds, getting to Sheffield or Bradford has to be made easier.

“I’m looking forward to getting stuck in over the next few weeks, working with colleagues in Transport for the North and linking up with other mayors to be able to see what solutions we can get.

“The reality for me is that train travel just isn’t reliable enough, it isn’t quick enough, and it isn’t effective enough in this country, and we think that mayors will be able to help with that and be able to push for faster travel.”

Plans for a tunnel under the Pennines connecting Manchester and Sheffield were explored a decade ago as a way of cutting congestion levels and boosting connections between Greater Manchester and South Yorkshire, but the idea was eventually shelved.

The Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) scheme also aims to boost railway travel across the north, including with a new line between Manchester and Liverpool.

This could see up to £45bn being invested and ultimately transform rail services across Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford, Sheffield and York.

The project would be delivered in three phases, with upgrades to the lines east of the Pennines, including electrification, specifically on the Leeds-Bradford, Leeds-Sheffield and Leeds-York corridors.

It would then move to plans for a new line between Liverpool and Manchester, via Warrington and Manchester Airport, before the third phase to focus on better links across the Pennines.

To find all the planning applications, traffic diversions, road layout changes, alcohol licence applications and more in your community, visit the Public Notices Portal.

LONDON — Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s departure from royal life has inflicted lasting harm on the British monarchy’s ability to connect with younger generations, according to royal author Catherine Mayer, who argues the couple’s exit left a gap in the institution’s public appeal that has yet to be filled.

Mayer, whose new book “Divide & Rule” is now out, made the comments to Fox News Digital as Meghan celebrated her 45th birthday on Monday, offering a fresh assessment of how the Sussexes’ 2020 departure from senior royal duties continues to shape public perception of the monarchy more than five years later.

A rupture with lasting consequences

Speaking about the impact of Harry and Meghan’s exit, Mayer was direct in her assessment of the institutional fallout. “Has done very serious damage to the monarchy,” Mayer said, describing the broader rupture within the royal family that led the couple to relocate to the United States.

Mayer was careful to clarify that her assessment was not intended as criticism of Harry and Meghan themselves. She said the framing of the situation as something the couple did to the monarchy oversimplifies what she described as a genuinely painful episode for everyone involved, including the institution as a whole. She pointed to recent public opinion polling on the monarchy’s popularity as evidence that the institution’s standing has continued to erode in the years since the Sussexes stepped back.

A missing generational bridge

Central to Mayer’s argument is the idea that Harry and Meghan once served as a bridge between the monarchy and younger, more diverse audiences, a role she argues has gone unfilled since their departure. She suggested that Prince William and Catherine, Princess of Wales, while central figures in the modern monarchy, tend toward a more traditionally cautious public approach compared with the broader appeal Harry and Meghan once offered.

Mayer also noted a generational gap within the family itself, observing that there is currently no adult royal positioned between Prince George, still a child, and his parents, William and Catherine, capable of capturing the imagination of younger audiences the way Harry and Meghan once did. She argued that despite being roughly the same age as William and Catherine, Harry and Meghan carried a broader public appeal that has since been lost to the institution.

A birthday marked by continued distance

Mayer’s comments arrived on the same day Meghan turned 45, a milestone marked amid what remains an unresolved rift between the Sussexes and the wider royal family. The couple had a private meeting with King Charles and Queen Camilla on July 10, marking Meghan’s first return to England since 2022, though she made no public appearances during that visit, underscoring the continued distance between the Sussexes and official royal life.

The couple stepped back from their roles as senior working royals in 2020, citing intrusive media coverage and what they described as insufficient support from the palace. As part of that departure, Harry and Meghan lost their taxpayer-funded security detail, a change Harry has long sought to reverse, citing ongoing concerns for his family’s safety while in the United Kingdom.

Where Mayer places the real blame

Despite her assessment that the Sussexes’ departure damaged the monarchy’s broader appeal, Mayer pointed elsewhere when identifying the primary driver behind the institution’s declining popularity in recent polling. She argued that the steepest losses in public support trace back to Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor, who was formally stripped of his princely title following the fallout from his widely scrutinized associations, a controversy Mayer suggested has done more sustained reputational harm to the monarchy than Harry and Meghan’s exit.

A recurring theme among royal commentators

Mayer’s comments echo broader debate among royal authors and commentators over the lasting impact of the Sussexes’ departure, a discussion that has resurfaced repeatedly since Harry and Meghan first stepped back from official duties. Earlier assessments of the couple’s high-profile interviews and media projects, including their sit-down with Oprah Winfrey and subsequent Netflix documentary series, similarly described the revelations as damaging to the institution’s carefully managed public image, even as royal watchers have generally predicted the monarchy would ultimately withstand the controversy.

The Sussexes have previously pushed back forcefully against authors and commentators they viewed as unfairly characterizing their motives or actions, at times issuing formal statements disputing specific claims made about their departure and its aftermath. Neither Harry nor Meghan’s representatives had issued a public response to Mayer’s latest comments as of Monday.

A monarchy navigating multiple challenges

Mayer’s broader assessment reflects a monarchy currently facing scrutiny on several fronts simultaneously, from the continued fallout surrounding Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor to ongoing questions about how the institution can maintain relevance with younger, more diverse audiences in an era of declining public deference toward traditional institutions. Her comments suggest that, in her view, no single royal currently occupies the space Harry and Meghan once filled in projecting a more modern, broadly appealing image of the monarchy to younger generations both in Britain and internationally.

With Meghan’s birthday passing largely out of the public eye and the Sussexes continuing to operate primarily from their base in California, questions about whether, or how, the family’s rift might eventually narrow remain unresolved. Mayer’s comments add to a growing body of commentary suggesting that regardless of how relations between Harry, Meghan and the wider royal family ultimately develop, the institutional impact of their 2020 departure continues to shape public conversation about the monarchy’s future years later, with no clear resolution in sight for either the family rift or the broader generational gap Mayer describes.

This article was written by

The Court of Appeal has refused campaigners permission to challenge the government’s approval of a two-runway operation at Gatwick Airport, clearing the way for the £2.2bn Northern Runway project to move into design and delivery.

Lord Justice Holgate and Lord Justice Dove dismissed the appeal bids in a ruling on Tuesday. In a 29-page judgment, they said: “We conclude that each of the grounds of appeal raised by each appellant is unarguable. Neither appeal has a real prospect of success. We also consider that there are no other compelling reasons for either appeal to be heard.”

The challenge was brought by Peter Barclay and campaign group Communities Against Gatwick Noise Emissions (Cagne), who had taken legal action against the Department for Transport over the decision to approve the plans, including over claims that the government did not properly assess the climate impact of the scheme.

The scheme moves the West Sussex airport’s emergency runway 12m (39ft) north to allow 100,000 more flights a year. The development consent order for the Northern Runway project was granted by the Transport Secretary. The expansion will allow the site to be used for departures of narrow-bodied planes such as Airbus A320s and Boeing 737s.

Mr Justice Mould dismissed the original challenges in June, finding that it was “neither illogical nor contradictory” for Transport Secretary Heidi Alexander not to refuse the proposed development “on the basis that it would have a material impact on the ability of Government to meet its carbon reduction targets”. He also rejected an argument about the need for expansion at Gatwick given the proximity to Heathrow. The two senior judges said that ruling was “detailed and thorough”.

Gatwick is the UK’s second busiest airport and one of the busiest single-runway airports in the world.

Barclay said: “We are very disappointed with the Court’s decision. We took this challenge as far as we could because we believed that the decision to allow Gatwick to expand was fundamentally flawed. It was not supported by government policy, would only serve to line the pockets of the airport and airlines, and would do so at the expense of local residents and the climate.”

Cagne said: “Residents should be immensely proud of what they have achieved in holding Gatwick Airport’s shareholders to account. This proposed new runway will come at a significant cost to both the taxpayer and the planet.”

Pierre-Hugues Schmit, chief executive of London Gatwick, said the decision to approve the plans “was taken properly and lawfully”.

He added: “We are also very pleased that this ruling, from senior Court of Appeal Judges, brings to an end an eight-year planning and legal process which has carefully tested and scrutinised every aspect of our expansion plans on multiple occasions. This final ruling means that we can now press on with the important job of bringing this exciting project to life and move forward into the design and delivery phase.”

Schmit said the Northern Runway project was expected to deliver 14,000 new jobs and a £1bn boost to the economy every year.

Muniya Barua, deputy chief executive at BusinessLDN, said: “Today’s ruling is the final step in a long-running process that clears the way for Gatwick’s Northern Runway project to move forward, providing welcome certainty for businesses, investors and communities.”

She added: “The airport’s expansion will strengthen London’s connections with key international markets, help to create 14,000 jobs and provide a £1bn boost to the economy every year. With the UK seeking to drive investment and growth, expanding aviation capacity is a vital part of maintaining London’s position as a leading global city.”

Alexander said the decision was “a major milestone for Gatwick and for local communities, with expansion unlocking investment and creating thousands of new jobs”.

She said: “Around 13 million more passengers and 100,000 more flights will give holidaymakers greater choice and strengthen global links to help make the UK one of the most attractive places in the world to invest. We’ll back expansion that supports growth and our climate goals.”

Alexander said the government was also investing over £219 million for green fuel production to cut emissions from flying and secure the future of aviation.

The ruling comes as Heathrow’s separate third runway proposals continue to draw scrutiny over costs and timelines, with Gatwick having previously reported a 7.7 per cent rise in passenger numbers on short-haul demand. Chancellor Rachel Reeves gave official backing to Heathrow expansion earlier in the process.

---

Investors in Elon Musk‘s space company get a chance to question him Tuesday after SpaceX issues its first quarterly earnings since going public.

SpaceX shares are down by half from their June peak as investors worry Musk may have oversold them on its future prospects. They’re also bracing for volatile trading as some company insiders get the opportunity to sell shares after the expiration of what’s known as a lockup provision later in the week.

The shares jumped 19% on their first day of trading, making Musk the first-ever trillionaire. The subsequent drop in SpaceX, as well as a decline in the shares of Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla, have knocked his wealth down to $726 billion, according to Forbes.

Part visionary engineer, part stock salesman, Musk is likely to be asked about when he expects to finish testing SpaceX’s giant Starship rockets that NASA hopes to use to put men on the moon again, his plans for its satellite network and the prospects of putting football-field sized data centers in orbit.

Given rumors of SpaceX possibly merging with Musk’s Tesla car company, he may also face questions about that tie-up but that is likely to yield few details. Neither company has confirmed plans for a combination and Musk has parried questions before by noting securities regulations bar him from discussing the issue.

SpaceX is losing money fast, with net losses for its first half this year expected to exceed more than the $5 billion in losses for all of last year. Some analysts have penciled in a strong rebound for the rest of the year that will return it to profitability.
For the second quarter ended June 30, SpaceX is expected to report a net loss of $1.9 billion, or 23 cents a share, according to a FactSet survey of analysts.SpaceX insiders were barred from selling in the public offering in June but that prohibition begins to ease on Thursday when more than 900,000 shares are released for trading, more than doubling the amount currently available for trading. The prospect has weighed on the shares, which closed Monday at $114.46, down from both the peak of $225 in June and also the IPO price of $135.

The lockup release is the first of several tranches of stock that will be freed to trade over the next several months.

After an abandoned launch, the Starship rocket successfully deployed satellites in orbit during a test late last month. Future tests could include trying to use giant arms at its Starbase launching site in Texas to grab the rocket and its booster upon its hovering return to earth.

SpaceX’s satellite communication business, Starlink, is a big cash generator for the company with contracts around the world. The company also runs a money-losing AI business, known for its Grok tool, as well as the social media platform X, the renamed Twitter.

Pfizer on Tuesday reported second-quarter results that topped estimates and hiked the low end of its revenue outlook, citing an expected $1.5 billion bump in sales from its non-Covid products.

The company is now expecting full-year revenue to total $60.5 billion to $62.5 billion, which compares to a previous outlook of $59.5 billion to $62.5 billion. That sales range would still be roughly flat or down slightly compared with 2025 revenue of $62.6 billion.

Pfizer said it cut its full-year revenue expectation for its Covid products – the vaccine Comirnaty and antiviral pill Paxlovid – to $4 billion, down from around $5 billion previously. 

“Low COVID-19 incidence could continue to limit Paxlovid utilization,” Pfizer’s incoming interim CFO Cecile Guegan said during the company’s second quarter earnings call. “Our plan also assumes the majority of Comirnaty sales will occur toward year-end, consistent with the vaccination season.”

The pharmaceutical giant reiterated its full-year adjusted profit outlook of between $2.80 and $3 per share. 

Pfizer also announced additional savings of $2.5 billion from two separate cost-cutting programs, which will be achieved starting in 2027 and through 2029.

“With our strong performance through the first half of the year and our ongoing productivity enhancement discipline, we remain confident in our business,” Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla said on the call.

Here’s what the company reported for the second quarter compared with what Wall Street was expecting, based on a survey of analysts by LSEG: 

• Earnings per share: 77 cents adjusted vs. 68 cents expected
• Revenue: $15.03 billion vs. $14.41 billion expected

Pfizer reported revenue of $15.03 billion for the first quarter, up 3% from the same period a year ago. Sales increases for key products, including its blood thinner Eliquis and targeted cancer drug Padcev, helped to counteract struggles in its Covid business.

Eliquis in particular blew past estimates for the quarter, raking in $2.43 billion in sales, up 19%. Analysts were expecting revenue of $2.08 billion, according to StreetAccount.

Recently launched and acquired products also delivered $3.2 billion in revenue during the quarter, Guegan said during the call.

“Our commercial performance has also helped mitigate the impact of currently low COVID infection levels,” she said.

The company booked a net loss of $248 million, or 4 cents per share, for the period. That compares with net income of $2.91 billion, or 51 cents per share, during the second quarter of 2025. 

The quarterly loss largely reflected a $4.3 billion non-cash impairment charge after Pfizer lowered its revenue expectations for certain products, primarily following disappointing late-stage trial results for its drug sigvotatug vedotin in previously treated non-small cell lung cancer.

The charge also reflected the removal of revenue projections for its sickle cell disease drug Oxbryta after recent discussions with the FDA. Pfizer pulled that product from the market in 2024.

Excluding certain items, including restructuring charges and costs associated with intangible assets, Pfizer posted earnings per share of 77 cents for the quarter.

The company also announced the second phase of a multi-year initiative to slash costs, which targets around $1.5 billion in savings through 2029. That phase focuses on what the company called product portfolio enhancements, network structure changes and additional operational efficiencies. 

 The first part of that effort is on track to deliver $1.5 billion in savings by the end of 2027. 

Pfizer announced an additional $1 billion in savings from a separate cost-cutting program, which will be achieved from 2027 to 2029. That adds to the previously announced $5.7 billion in cost savings the company will achieve through the program by the end of the year. 

The pharmaceutical giant is looking to longer-term investments in its pipeline, including its recent $10 billion acquisition of the obesity biotech Metsera, to counter waning Covid product sales and declines from older drugs. Investors are focused on several crucial data releases from Pfizer this year, including data on a combination regimen that includes its GLP-1 injection and an amylin asset.