This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of HBM 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 YORK — California, Texas and Washington are emerging as the top three states experiencing the heaviest job losses from major corporations in 2026, driven by widespread tech sector restructuring, artificial intelligence adoption and broader economic pressures that have prompted thousands of layoffs across Fortune 500 companies.

Data from Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification filings and industry trackers show these states accounting for a disproportionate share of announced cuts. California leads by a wide margin, followed by Texas and Washington, as companies streamline operations, automate roles and respond to shifting market conditions. The trend reflects a broader national wave of efficiency drives that has seen over a million job cuts announced in recent periods, with technology and related sectors hit hardest.

California: Tech Hub Bears Brunt of Industry Restructuring California continues to lead the nation in corporate job losses, with more than 175,000 positions affected in recent tracking periods. The state’s concentration of technology giants has made it particularly vulnerable to AI-driven changes and cost-cutting measures. Companies like Amazon, Oracle, Meta and Snap have announced significant reductions, contributing to tens of thousands of tech layoffs alone.

High operational costs, including taxes and housing expenses in Silicon Valley and Los Angeles, have accelerated decisions to trim workforces or relocate some functions. Oracle’s cuts in the state, along with Amazon’s corporate reductions, highlight how even profitable firms are prioritizing efficiency. Economists note California’s heavy reliance on the tech sector amplifies national trends, with AI automation and post-pandemic adjustments playing key roles.

State officials have expressed concern about the cumulative impact on local economies. While California remains an innovation powerhouse, the job losses have strained social services and housing markets in affected areas. Community programs and retraining initiatives are expanding to help displaced workers transition to emerging fields like green technology and advanced manufacturing.

Texas: Energy, Tech and Retail Face Combined Pressures Texas ranks among the top states for corporate downsizing, with thousands of jobs impacted across energy, technology and retail sectors. Major employers including Amazon, Albertsons and various manufacturers have announced cuts, contributing to over 5,000 WARN-notified positions in early tracking. The state’s business-friendly reputation has not shielded it from broader industry shifts.

Energy sector volatility, tied to global oil prices and transition pressures, has affected some companies, while tech and e-commerce firms cite efficiency and AI integration. Retail giants facing changing consumer habits have closed locations and reduced staff. Texas’ rapid population growth has increased demand for services but also competition for talent and resources, complicating corporate planning.

Economic development leaders in Texas emphasize the state’s diversification efforts, with investments in semiconductors, biotechnology and renewable energy creating new opportunities. However, short-term pain from layoffs has hit communities reliant on specific employers. Workforce commissions are ramping up support for affected workers through job placement and skills training programs.

Washington: Aerospace, Tech and Retail Reductions Mount Washington state has seen nearly 8,000 jobs impacted by major announcements, with companies like Boeing, Amazon and others trimming workforces amid sector-specific challenges. Aerospace giant Boeing has faced production issues and cost pressures, while tech firms navigate AI transitions and market saturation. Retail and consumer goods companies have also reduced staffing.

The state’s economy, heavily influenced by Seattle-area tech and aerospace, mirrors national patterns of corporate belt-tightening. High living costs in the Puget Sound region have compounded difficulties for employers seeking to retain talent while controlling expenses. Layoffs in pharmaceuticals, healthcare and telecommunications have added to the total.

State leaders highlight resilience through diversification, with strong growth in cloud computing, biotechnology and clean energy. However, immediate job losses have prompted expanded unemployment support and retraining initiatives. Business groups call for policies supporting innovation and workforce development to offset short-term disruptions.

Broader Context and Outlook The job losses reflect multiple converging factors. Artificial intelligence adoption enables efficiency gains that reduce staffing needs in some roles. Economic uncertainty, including inflation concerns and shifting consumer behavior, has prompted caution. Supply chain issues and geopolitical tensions add costs, while regulatory changes influence decisions on where to operate.

Not all impacts are negative. Many companies report healthy profits despite cuts, with funds redirected toward AI infrastructure, research and shareholder returns. New industries are emerging, creating opportunities in areas like renewable energy and advanced manufacturing. The challenge lies in managing transitions to minimize disruption for workers and communities.

Economists expect volatility to continue through 2026 as companies adjust to new realities. States with heavy exposure to affected sectors may face slower recovery, while those investing in future-oriented industries could see gains. Federal and state policies supporting workforce retraining and business incentives will play crucial roles in shaping outcomes.

For workers in impacted states, the situation underscores the importance of adaptable skills and lifelong learning. Community colleges and vocational programs are expanding offerings in high-demand fields. Corporate responsibility initiatives, including severance support and outplacement services, vary widely but are increasingly scrutinized by the public and regulators.

As 2026 progresses, the top three states’ experiences will offer lessons for the broader economy. California’s innovation ecosystem, Texas’ energy and business environment, and Washington’s tech-aerospace strengths each face unique pressures but also opportunities. How leaders, companies and workers respond will influence America’s competitive position in an AI-driven future.

Q1: 2026-04-30 Earnings Summary

EPS of $4.82 beats by $0.65

 | Revenue of $5.37B (2.78% Y/Y) misses by $27.83M

This article was written by

Follow

Britain’s reputation as Europe’s cleantech powerhouse is being undermined by a brutal funding drought at the very bottom of the pipeline, with new figures showing investment in the country’s youngest low-carbon and renewable energy companies has collapsed to its lowest level in five years.

Research published by Cleantech for UK (CTUK) reveals that the value of early-stage deals halved in 2025, while the number of transactions plunged from 188 in 2024 to just 94 last year. The slump comes despite the broader sector pulling in £7.2 billion of investment overall, comfortably outstripping Germany’s £1.7 billion and France’s £1.4 billion.

The headline figure may flatter to deceive. Strip away the late-stage mega-deals and a far more uncomfortable picture emerges of an industry whose seed corn is being eaten before it has chance to germinate.

“If we allow the pipeline to dry up now, it means we’ll have no new innovation in cleantech coming through in five years’ time,” warns Sarah Mackintosh, director of CTUK and a former head of innovation at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy. “Funders will be sitting there waiting for scale-ups and none will come.”

CTUK, established in 2023 to bridge the gap between Whitehall and the venture community, attributes the early-stage collapse to what it terms a “triple squeeze”: punishingly high industrial energy prices, the quiet closure last year of the Government’s Net Zero Innovation Portfolio without a successor, and investor caution rooted in higher interest rates.

Westminster’s recent decision to decouple gas and electricity prices, severing the link that has long allowed expensive gas to set the price for cheaper renewables, is expected to deliver what Mackintosh calls a “fairly immediate impact”. Yet it does little to address the underlying reality that British industrial energy costs remain among the dearest in Europe, a particular handicap for the capital-hungry sectors at the heart of the energy transition such as battery manufacturing and carbon capture infrastructure.

To these domestic headwinds has been added a fresh geopolitical shock. The US-Iran conflict and tensions around the Strait of Hormuz have rekindled fears of an oil and gas price spiral, with the International Monetary Fund warning that Britain faces the sharpest growth downgrade in the G7 and one of the highest inflation rates as a consequence.

Mackintosh notes that higher rates and the increase in employers’ national insurance contributions have also dulled the appetite of venture capital firms, whose money, she says, “doesn’t go as far as it used to”.

The picture is rather rosier further up the funding ladder. Total equity investment in cleantech rose by 58 per cent year-on-year to £3.9 billion, though the bulk of that capital flowed to software businesses and proven, late-stage operators. Among the standouts was a £750 million raise by Kraken, the energy technology platform owned by Octopus Energy Group, and a £130 million round for energy infrastructure specialist Highview Power. The total nevertheless sits well shy of the £11.9 billion peak struck in 2023.

CTUK is now urging the National Wealth Fund and the British Business Bank to deploy their firepower more aggressively to help young firms cross the so-called valley of death between a laboratory breakthrough and a commercial factory. The National Wealth Fund signalled in January that it intends to channel up to £5 billion a year of taxpayer money into green energy projects, but the question for SMEs is whether any of that will reach companies still trying to prove their technology at scale.

Mackintosh points to British innovators such as battery-tech firm Anaphite, materials specialist Immaterial and carbon-removal venture Supercritical as the sort of “world-leading” businesses now in jeopardy. “These are the sorts of companies that are going to put the UK on the map,” she says. “It would be a travesty if we didn’t even start the ideas because they haven’t got the backing to scale up.”

For a Government that has staked much of its industrial strategy on green growth, the warning lights are flashing. Without urgent intervention to rekindle early-stage investment, ministers risk presiding over a clean-energy economy that imports tomorrow’s breakthrough technologies rather than exports them.

Amy Ingham

Amy is a newly qualified journalist specialising in business journalism at Business Matters with responsibility for news content for what is now the UK’s largest print and online source of current business news.

Advertisement

This article was written by

Follow

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have a beneficial long position in the shares of VNQI 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.

If no party has a majority, the next Welsh Government will be judged not by the elegance of its agreements but by its ability to make the Welsh state work better.

Since devolution began twenty seven years ago, Welsh politics has been shaped by Labour’s dominance, even when that dominance has depended on agreements with others.

Whilst some would argue that the result has been a stable political system, waiting lists have grown, the economy has underperformed, housing pressure has intensified, and the same arguments about productivity, poverty, and public services have been rehearsed year after year.

With the polls currently suggesting that no party will secure an overall majority in the Senedd, the country’s future may depend on whether parties can agree on enough specific measures to pass budgets, shape legislation and keep a government in office. Indeed, when you read all six manifestos, there is a suggestion that the parties are much closer than their campaign language suggests.

The biggest issue is health, and every party, from Labour to Reform, begins with the same judgment: that the NHS in Wales is under severe strain and that public confidence has been badly damaged. That matters because, in a Senedd without a majority, health is the obvious ground for agreement.

Labour wants to focus on new hospitals and shorter waiting times, while Plaid Cymru is promising surgical hubs and a stronger link between health and care. The Liberal Democrats want to expand care capacity to relieve pressure on hospitals, and the Conservatives say they would declare a health emergency. Despite agreeing on almost nothing else, Reform and the Greens both argue that urgent intervention is needed.

There are profound differences over how the NHS should be funded, managed and reformed, but there could be enough overlap for an administration to secure backing for a pragmatic programme to cut waiting lists, expand planned care and tackle the indignity of corridor care. In a hung Senedd, that is likely to be the first test of whether politicians can accept that compromise is not weakness if it gets patients treated sooner.

READ MORE: Wales doesn’t need grants but a new approach to IP and innovation that sustains business successREAD MORE: The knowhow built up in Wales’ contact centre sector is an asset worth redirecting

Childcare is one of the few policy areas where there is some agreement, even if they differ on whether expansion should be universal or targeted. Plaid Cymru and the Lib Dems want a universal childcare offer from nine months, whilst the Greens back universal childcare from nine months, and the Conservatives support extending free childcare for children from nine months to four years. Labour has again made childcare expansion one of its main promises.

This is not a minor point, as childcare is increasingly treated as economic infrastructure that helps parents return to work and supports family incomes. If Wales ends up with no party in command, childcare expansion looks like one of the easiest areas for a cross-party deal.

The economy offers a similar, if more limited, opportunity, and no party argues that Wales is performing as it should. Labour wants a new industrial strategy; Plaid and the Conservatives are proposing a National Development Agency; and the Liberal Democrats are talking about changing business rates. Even Reform, for all its populist language, frames its offer around backing business, rewarding work and cutting waste.

That does not amount to a shared economic philosophy, but it does suggest room for agreement on measures such as reforming business rates, improving support for apprenticeships and simplifying business support. Those are not glamorous policies, but they are the sort of interventions a minority government could get through in the next four years.

Housing is more politically divided, but even here, there are points of common agreement. Labour, Plaid Cymru, the Liberal Democrats and the Greens all argue that Wales needs more affordable and social housing, stronger action on homelessness and a bigger state role in fixing a market that is failing too many people. The Welsh Conservatives are more focused on planning reform, whereas Reform places less emphasis on expanding social housing.

So housing is not an issue on which all six parties can meet in the middle, but if the arithmetic points to a centre-left understanding, it is an area where that agreement could become substantial.

Then there is the environment, where Net Zero remains a dividing line, especially with Reform. However, on issues such as river pollution and water quality, there is a much broader consensus than many might expect. Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, the Conservatives and Reform all promise, in one form or another, tougher action on polluted rivers and sewage discharges, and that ought to be enough to support tougher enforcement.

Tax is the one example where consensus will be hardest to reach. Labour says it will not raise Welsh income tax, whilst the Conservatives and Reform want tax cuts. In contrast, the Liberal Democrats leave the door open to a temporary rise to fund social care, Plaid wants broader tax powers and a more progressive framework, and the Greens want much wider tax reform. That is not a basis for easy agreement, nor are the constitutional questions, with Plaid remaining fundamentally different from those of the Conservatives, Reform and the Liberal Democrats.

What should we conclude from all this? A Senedd without a majority need not mean paralysis, and it is unlikely there will be a grand coalition around a shared view of the country’s future, as the ideological divides are too deep. But it may produce a more negotiated politics in which parties are forced to agree on specific measures in areas where the public is demanding action.

After nearly three decades in which Welsh politics has been shaped by one party’s dominance, such a shift would be significant. The frustration in Wales is not simply that politicians disagree, but that we still face the same problems as we did two decades ago.

If no party has a majority, the next government will be judged not by the elegance of its agreements but by its ability to make the Welsh state work better. Therefore, the real test may not be who comes first on election night, but whether the next Senedd can make difficult compromises that lead to shorter waits, better services and a stronger economy.

OAKLAND, Calif. — A viral X thread capturing live courtroom notes from Elon Musk’s high-stakes lawsuit against OpenAI has thrust the landmark trial into the spotlight, with the plaintiff’s lawyer dramatically declaring that the company “stole a charity” created for the benefit of humanity rather than private profit. The April 28 post by attorney Ariel Givner, who received real-time updates from inside the federal courthouse, quickly spread as opening statements laid bare the bitter feud between Musk and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.

Givner’s thread, posted during the first full day of testimony in the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building, detailed Musk’s side of the story: how he co-founded OpenAI in 2015 as a nonprofit dedicated to safe, open artificial intelligence development for all mankind. Musk contributed tens of millions of dollars, recruited top talent including Ilya Sutskever, and emphasized existential risks from advanced AI. The lawyer argued that OpenAI’s later shift to a for-profit structure, fueled by billions from Microsoft, betrayed that mission and left the nonprofit shell with “almost no assets.”

The dramatic line — “THEY STOLE A CHARITY” — capped the plaintiff’s opening and echoed through social media. Givner’s notes highlighted an emotional close: “NOBODY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO STEAL A CHARITY.” The thread also shared a 2017 email exchange in which Musk told Altman, “Either go do something on your own or continue with OpenAI as a nonprofit,” and Altman replied enthusiastically, “I remain enthusiastic about the non-profit structure!” A contemporaneous diary entry from OpenAI President Greg Brockman reportedly called the nonprofit commitment a “lie” if the company pursued a B-corp structure.

The lawsuit, filed in 2024, accuses Altman, Brockman and OpenAI of breaching fiduciary duties by converting the organization into a profit-driven entity valued at hundreds of billions and preparing for an IPO. Musk seeks more than $150 billion in damages and an order to unwind the changes, returning control and intellectual property to the nonprofit. He claims the original mission required no financial return and focused on humanity’s benefit, not enriching insiders or partners like Microsoft.

OpenAI’s lawyers fired back in their opening, arguing Musk knew about plans for a for-profit arm from the start and left the board voluntarily in 2018. They portray the suit as a competitive move by Musk, whose own xAI startup now rivals OpenAI. Defense attorney William Savitt told jurors the case boils down to Musk not getting his way, not a betrayal of any binding promise.

The trial, which began with jury selection on April 27 and opened in earnest April 28, has already featured heated testimony. Musk took the stand as the first witness, recounting his upbringing, early companies and long-standing fears about artificial general intelligence. He described OpenAI as a response to Google’s dominance and insisted he could have launched it as a for-profit but chose the nonprofit path for ethical reasons. Cross-examination grew tense, with Musk accusing OpenAI’s lawyer of trying to “trick” him and snapping, “You’re misleading.”

As of May 1, the proceedings have entered their fourth day. Musk has spent multiple days on the witness stand, with cross-examination continuing and expected to wrap soon. Altman, Brockman and Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella are among those slated to testify later. The monthlong trial before U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers could reshape AI development, corporate governance and the balance between nonprofit ideals and commercial realities in Silicon Valley.

Legal observers say the case hinges on whether OpenAI’s founders made enforceable promises to keep the organization nonprofit forever. Musk’s team presented the 2017 emails and Brockman’s diary as evidence of bad faith. OpenAI counters that the nonprofit structure was always intended to evolve with a for-profit subsidiary to fund research, similar to a museum gift shop supporting the museum. The company argues it has delivered on its mission by developing safe AI while attracting necessary capital from Microsoft.

The courtroom drama has drawn intense media attention and public fascination. Demonstrators gathered outside the Oakland courthouse during jury selection, reflecting broader debates about AI ethics, corporate power and Musk’s influence. Givner’s real-time X updates, which included apologies for typos and promises of more notes during breaks, turned the usually opaque legal process into a live-streamed spectacle followed by tech enthusiasts and Musk supporters.

Musk founded xAI in 2023 partly to counter what he sees as OpenAI’s closed, profit-driven direction. He has repeatedly warned that unchecked AI development poses existential risks, a theme he reiterated in testimony. OpenAI maintains it remains committed to safety and has implemented safeguards in models like ChatGPT, while pursuing the resources needed to compete globally.

The stakes extend far beyond personal animosity between former friends Musk and Altman. A ruling in Musk’s favor could force OpenAI to restructure, potentially slowing its momentum or returning valuable IP to the nonprofit. A defense victory would affirm the company’s right to adapt its structure and validate its multibillion-dollar valuation. Either outcome could influence how future AI labs are organized and funded.

Givner, an IP and corporate attorney with experience in fintech and crypto, positioned her thread as neutral live coverage. Her bio notes roles with MonkeDAO and DiversiFi, lending credibility to her detailed legal observations. The thread’s rapid spread underscored X’s role as a primary source for breaking courtroom news in the social media era.

As the trial continues into its second week, both sides prepare for testimony from key figures who shaped OpenAI’s early days. Musk has described himself as a “fool” for continuing to fund the organization after tensions arose, while OpenAI insists he was fully aware of and supported early commercial moves. The jury will ultimately decide whether the shift from nonprofit to for-profit constituted a betrayal or a necessary evolution.

For now, the viral thread from April 28 serves as a time capsule of the trial’s explosive opening, capturing the raw emotions and high principles at stake. Whether Musk’s vision of AI as a public good prevails or OpenAI’s commercial model is upheld, the case has already highlighted the tensions between idealism and pragmatism in the race to build the future’s most powerful technology.