This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. 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 Delhi: India has kept its retail inflation target for the central bank unchanged at 4% ( plus or minus 2 percentage points), opting for continuity and price stability as global shocks from geopolitical tensions threaten to stoke price pressures.

The finance ministry Wednesday notified inflation targeting framework for another five years through March 2031.

The decision followed deliberations between the government and the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), as per the notification by the Department of Economic Affairs.

While the target makes it obligatory for the RBI to use its monetary tools to keep price pressure within the proposed band, it also influences the government’s fiscal measures, as policies by both are crucial for maintaining price as well as macro-economic stability.

As per the framework, if the central bank fails to meet the target for any three consecutive quarters, it will have to send a report to the central government stating the reasons for the failure, and propose time-bound remedial measures to realise the target.

The government had, in May 2016, amended the RBI Act to mandate the flexible inflation-targeting framework under which it would set a retail inflation target, with upper and lower price bands, every five years in consultation with the RBI. The targets have been maintained since the 2016 notification.
According to an RBI discussion paper floated in August last year, average consumer price index (CPI) inflation dropped from 6.8% during the four years before the adoption of the framework (2012-16) to 4.9% since its adoption, as per the old CPI series data. Retail inflation remained within the 2-6% range three-fourth of the time between 2016 and 2021 and two-third of the time subsequently.

CPI inflation hit a 10-month high of 3.21% in February, up from 2.74% in the previous month, according to the new series data.

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. 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.

The information contained herein is for informational purposes only. Nothing in this article should be taken as a solicitation to purchase or sell securities. Before buying or selling any stock, you should do your own research and reach your own conclusion or consult a financial advisor. Investing includes risks, including loss of principal.

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.

Netflix’s new reality dating series “Age of Attraction” concluded its first season Wednesday with emotional commitment ceremonies that tested whether love could truly transcend significant age gaps, as several couples from the experiment chose to stay together despite family concerns, long-distance challenges and societal skepticism.

The show, hosted by real-life couple Nick Viall and Natalie Joy — who share an 18-year age difference of their own — followed 40 singles ranging in age from 22 to 60. Participants formed connections without knowing each other’s ages, only revealing them after committing with promise rings in the “Promise Room.” Six main couples advanced to cohabitation and family visits before facing a final decision in the March 25, 2026, finale.

By the end of the season, five couples reached the commitment ceremony. Four decided to continue their relationships in the real world, while one pair parted ways. Netflix’s official Tudum site and post-finale updates confirmed the latest statuses, noting that several pairings remain intact months after filming wrapped.

Theresa DeMaria, 54, and John Merrill, 27, emerged as one of the show’s strongest success stories with a 27-year age gap — the largest among the final couples. The pair connected early at the retreat and powered through family reactions, including Theresa’s adult children, one of whom is older than John. In a touching moment, Theresa read a letter of approval from her kids before deciding to give the relationship a real-world shot. Post-finale reports list them as still dating and committed to battling external judgment.

“You fight for someone you want to be with,” Theresa said in one episode, encapsulating the couple’s determination. John, who works in software sales, and Theresa, a stylist with past ties to high-profile fashion figures, have continued navigating the dynamics of her being double his age.

Libby Vodicka, 22, and Andrew Wheeler, 38, also chose to stay together despite a 16-year gap that placed Libby closer in age to Andrew’s daughters than to him. The social media manager and bar owner bonded over playful banter and deeper conversations about maturity and family. They decided to pursue a “fairytale ending” after the age reveal, and current updates confirm they remain an item.

Libby had previously dated younger men, making Andrew’s maturity a refreshing change. Fans speculated about their status based on social media hints, including gym sightings and cryptic responses to fan comments, but the finale and follow-up reports solidified their decision to continue.

Pfeifer Hill, 23, and Derrick Fleming, 43, faced a 20-year difference and a cross-country move from Seattle to Dallas. Pfeifer, a graphic designer, described “sacrificing” by relocating to support the relationship with the medical sales professional and father of two. They chose to stay together at the commitment ceremony, prioritizing shared energy and positive outlooks over logistical hurdles. Recent status checks list them as dating.

Vanessa Drozda, 49 (who turned 50 shortly after filming), and Logan Goodrid, 29, delivered one of the season’s most dramatic moments with a 20-year gap. Logan proposed with an engagement ring after asking for Vanessa’s promise ring back, and she accepted in pursuit of the “happily ever after” she had long sought after four previous engagements. While some social media posts hinted at possible strains, official updates describe them as still together and engaged.

The couple grappled with questions of equality once they moved in together, with Logan voicing concerns that Vanessa might not see him as a full partner due to their age difference. Vanessa, a salon owner, reassured him by inviting him into her world.

Not all stories ended happily. Leah Woolfolk, 41, and Chris Dahlan, 26, with a 15-year gap — the smallest among the core couples — ultimately broke up during the finale. Their relationship faced tension during family visits and emotional clashes, despite early promise. The flight attendant from Los Angeles and public speaker from Miami could not overcome the challenges of distance and differing life stages.

One additional couple, Vanelle and Jorge with a 33-year gap, had already parted ways earlier in the season before the final episodes.

The series tested the adage “age is just a number” through speed dating, group activities and private retreats where participants formed bonds blindly. Hosts Viall and Joy, drawing from their own successful age-gap relationship, provided guidance while emphasizing open communication about family, career and future plans.

Critics and viewers praised the show’s fresh take on dating experiments, contrasting it with formats like “Love Is Blind” by focusing on age rather than sight or other barriers. Social media buzzed with debates over whether large gaps could work long-term, especially involving parenthood, relocation and generational differences.

Post-finale interviews revealed mixed emotions. Several participants noted that the experiment forced honest conversations they might not have had otherwise. Theresa and John highlighted the importance of family buy-in, while Libby and Andrew discussed balancing youth with maturity.

Derrick expressed gratitude for Pfeifer’s willingness to move, acknowledging the sacrifice. Vanessa and Logan’s engagement became a talking point, with fans curious whether it would lead to marriage given her history.

Netflix has not yet announced a second season, but the strong performance of Season 1 — bolstered by timely release in March 2026 — suggests potential for more explorations of unconventional romance.

Experts in relationship psychology weighed in on the phenomenon. Dr. Elena Ramirez, a therapist specializing in age-disparate relationships, told The Associated Press that success often hinges on aligned values rather than chronological years.

“Shared goals around family, lifestyle and personal growth matter more than birth certificates,” she said. “But external pressures from society and loved ones can strain even the strongest bonds.”

The cast has stayed relatively active on social media, offering subtle clues about their journeys. Theresa shared fashion insights while occasionally nodding to her relationship, while Libby leveraged her social media expertise to engage fans without spoiling details before the finale.

Andrew posted about his bar business, hinting at a more settled life. Pfeifer documented creative work from her new Texas base, and Vanessa celebrated milestones that appeared to include Logan.

Breakup speculation swirled around some pairs due to vague captions or lack of joint appearances, but official Netflix updates and entertainment outlets confirmed the statuses as of late March 2026.

The show’s timing aligned with broader cultural conversations about age gaps in Hollywood and beyond, from celebrity pairings to everyday relationships. It challenged viewers to confront biases while rooting for authentic connections.

Producers structured the experiment to minimize initial bias: no mirrors in some areas, age-neutral activities and strict rules against revealing numbers. Once ages surfaced, couples confronted realities like differing energy levels, career stages and family readiness.

One couple’s journey stood out for its raw honesty. Theresa initially hesitated upon learning John was younger than her son, but their chemistry prevailed. John, for his part, embraced the role of proving maturity beyond his years.

Libby and Andrew’s playful dynamic masked deeper discussions about whether she was ready for a partner with children. Their decision to continue signaled optimism.

For Pfeifer and Derrick, the distance proved a major test, yet her move demonstrated commitment. The pair focused on building a blended family dynamic.

Vanessa and Logan’s path included moments of doubt about equality, but the surprise proposal underscored Logan’s investment despite his initial hesitation.

As the dust settles on Season 1, fans continue dissecting every Instagram like and story. Some couples have teased joint appearances or future plans, while others maintain privacy.

Relationship coaches note that reality TV romances face amplified scrutiny, with many fading under the spotlight. Yet the “Age of Attraction” pairs that endured did so by addressing issues head-on during the experiment.

Viall and Joy, whose own relationship inspired elements of the show, encouraged participants to prioritize internal compatibility over external opinions.

“Love doesn’t come with an expiration date based on numbers,” Joy said in promotional materials.

The finale drew significant viewership, with audiences tuning in to see if the remaining couples would choose “yes” or walk away at the commitment ceremony.

In the end, the majority opted to fight for their connections, providing feel-good moments amid the drama.

Whether these bonds withstand the test of time outside the controlled environment remains to be seen. Netflix’s “where are they now” features and entertainment sites will likely provide further updates in coming months.

For now, “Age of Attraction” has sparked conversations about modern dating, proving that while age may influence perspectives, it doesn’t always define possibility.

New Delhi: India has begun compiling granular industry data after the US sought consultations under a Section 301 probe into alleged excess capacity. The commerce and industry ministry has asked the industry to furnish details on installed capacity, production, employment, policy support, export profiles, linkages with the US, and integration into global value chains, according to people familiar with the matter.

The probe, under Section 301 of the US Trade Act, claims India has created significant excess capacity in petrochemicals, steel and solar modules, while identifying textiles, health, construction goods, and automotive goods as sectors where India has a global trade surplus.

The United States Trade Representative (USTR) initiated investigation concerning the acts, policies and practices of various economies relating to structural excess capacity and production in manufacturing sectors to examine whether such practices were unreasonable or discriminatory and whether they burden or restrict American commerce. “We are evaluating and examining the legal impact of the investigations launched by the US against India under Section 301(b),” said an official. The government has sought data on ownership profile of the industry such as whether majority share is held by private or public stakeholders, and domestic and foreign participation.

China, the EU, Japan, Vietnam, Bangladesh and others are among the 16 economies under investigation. “The government is working on timely and evidence-based submissions from the industry as there are potential implications for India’s exports and overall trade relations,” said an industry representative.

Details related to capacity, production and utilisation from FY20 to FY25, the kind of policy support such as production linked incentive scheme, tax subsidy, export incentive and preferential credit, India’s share in global production of the respective products and global output of the goods, have been sought.
India’s February goods exports to the US fell 12.88% from a year earlier to $6.89 billion, reflecting the impact of high tariffs imposed on the country. Imports from the US rose 36.5% last month.Under Section 301, President Donald Trump may impose tariffs if the USTR determines that a trading partner has engaged in unfair trade practices. Washington launched the investigation after the US Supreme Court on February 20 struck down Trump’s earlier tariff regime.

Industry associations have also been asked for job information including direct and indirect employment, and linkages with the micro, small and medium enterprises in their respective sectors.

On Global Value Chain (GVC) Integration, the firms must specify the share of imported products and linkages with American companies. The firms also have been asked if they operate in upstream, midstream, or downstream activities such as raw material sourcing, manufacturing, assembly, or distribution.

This article was written by

Analyst’s Disclosure: I/we have no stock, option or similar derivative position in any of the companies mentioned, and no plans to initiate any such positions within the next 72 hours. 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.