Global Finance: It sounds like Ramaco Resources had a happy accident discovering rare earth elements in its Brook Mine project in Wyoming.

Randall Atkins: It was certainly a surprise. The way that the discovery evolved is that we were doing various research with the Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) on carbon products that could be made from the carbon within coal.

And part of NETL’s directive, I guess it goes back to about 2017 or 2018, was that the [US] Department of Defense had tasked them to discover where rare earth and critical minerals might be able to be found in the continental US because the Defense Department is concerned about supply lines of rare earths based on China’s dominance in the space.

They had asked us for coal core samples from our mine in Wyoming and, of course, from mines in West Virginia and Virginia. They did the same for several other mining groups, certainly not us specifically.

About a year later, they came back saying, “We’ve analyzed these [samples] pretty thoroughly, and we think we have discovered that you, in your deposit in Wyoming, may have some of the highest concentrations of medium and heavy rare earths that we’ve seen anywhere outside of Western China.”

GF: Has the latest round of tariffs changed the economics of developing this site?

Atkins: Well, it certainly has in the short term and likely will in the longer term. So, since the tariffs were announced, China has imposed an embargo on selling all rare earth elements that might have potential dual civilian and military use to the US.

We have about seven rare earth elements and critical minerals at the top of our list, and five of those seven have now been banned from export by China. As part of that ban, their prices have increased because people can’t get their hands on them.

GF: Ramaco is focusing on the heavier metals that China no longer exports to the US?

Atkins: We’re focusing on the medium and heavy rare earths. I mean, I’ll give you some names: neodymium, praseodymium, dysprosium, and terbium. Those are the four primary rare earths; the primary critical minerals are gallium, germanium and scandium. Those are the seven that we have and that we’re focused on. However, we have about 11 additional rare earths. Things like cerium, gadolinium, yttrium, et cetera, that are not as valuable as the seven that I first named.

GF: Can private industry develop the necessary infrastructure to process these ores independently, or is a public-private partnership needed?

Atkins: We were involved with NETL in discovering this. We have had conversations with the [US] government about other ways that they might get involved as we go further up the development chain, either from partnering with us in some fashion financially as we develop the processing or getting involved somehow in the procurement through the Defense Department, which is trying to establish new supply lines.

GF: Does this give you pause to see if you have thrown away rare earths from other mines?

Atkins: Yeah, great point. And indeed, NETL and others have looked at various coal seams across the country, and there has been discussion about finding rare earths in coal ash from power plants or acid mine drainage, without the need to extract new coal. Of course, the short answer to your question is no, we did not find rare earth in our other deposits back in the East … nor has anybody else, in sufficient concentration in those coal seams to make it economic.

GF: Where does Ramaco fit in the mine-to-magnet supply chain?

Atkins: Think of the supply chain as a food chain: once the ore is extracted from the ground in its raw form, it’s then beneficiated and processed into a concentrate. The concentrate then has all the elements mixed together. The next step is to separate the rare earth from the concentrate to make oxides, which are used to make metals.

The long answer is “Yes.” We will look at the possibility of taking this from mine to magnets because of the size of the overall deposit. We could also potentially go from mine to semiconductors because we could make semiconductor wafers. In addition to the rare earths, we have three critical minerals, which are now banned from exporting by China, gallium, germanium, and scandium, that can be used in the semiconductor process. So, given the size of what we’ve got over some time, certainly not on day one, we will try to take it as far up the value chain as we can.

GF: How long will it take to develop the necessary processing capabilities?

Atkins: We have been working on this with the Fluor Corporation for about a year and a half to identify the appropriate flow sheet and the refining models that would be used. And indeed, they’re in the process of designing the pilot plant.

So, what we will do from a development standpoint is we’ll start large-scale mining in June, and the larger material will then be used in a pilot plant, which we will start in August or September. Hopefully, we’ll have the pilot facility start the initial processing by the end of the year. That will run for a better part of a year. We plan to transition from the pilot to a full-scale commercial facility by the end of 2026. That would probably take about a year and a half to construct. So, we’re looking at probably the second half of 2028 before we would be in commercial production. Still, given the magnitude of what we would be building, that’s a reasonably quick timeframe.

Randa Sadik: Arab Bank posted a robust performance in 2024, underpinned by broad growth across geographies and business segments. Our solid results were backed by a well-diversified expansion in core banking income with interest and non-interest revenue contributing to sustainable growth in net operating profit.

Arab Bank’s strategic emphasis on expanding beyond its home market continued to pay off, with strong momentum in the high-growth GCC region and international markets. Our global network and digital transformation were key in driving value across corporate, consumer, and wealth management banking segments.

The results underscore the effectiveness of our long-term strategy, which hinges on geographic and income stream diversification to ensure resilience and capture cross-market opportunities.

GF: What digitalization milestones did Arab Bank reach?

Sadik: We advanced our cloud-native applications and accelerated our API-driven development. AI agents will also boost this process by integrating more value-added services for our customers.

For our corporate business, we reengineered our credit origination and approval process to enable end-to-end digital flows that process new credit applications faster, starting in GCC countries. We also revamped our Trade Finance Corporate platform’s user interface and added new services.

We continued our focus on enhancing Arabi Next, our SME digital app, and, among many other things, launched digital onboarding for SME customers in Jordan—a major differentiator—alongside a new tailored digital loyalty program and an E2E SME cards management offering. We routed 91% of all SME transactions in Jordan through various digital channels.

Finally, the bank launched Omnify, a Banking as a Service [BaaS] platform. It lets companies embed Arab Bank APIs in their digital apps and enables the bank to leverage opportunities for new open banking regulatory frameworks.

GF: What is Arab Bank doing to reach the next generation of customers?

Sadik: We offer a well-rounded and fully integrated value proposition. We understand that young customers expect much more than traditional banking. They seek personalized, digital-first experiences that align with their dynamic lifestyles and evolving requirements.

Our youth-focused programs begin early. The Junior program starts by instilling financial awareness in children and evolves toward offering tailored banking experiences to teenagers. The Shabab program focuses on youth and young adults, helping them build a solid financial future via fee-free banking, exclusive lifestyle benefits, and a holistic financial proposition. The centerpiece of engagement with this key segment is our Arabi Mobile app, which delivers seamless, end-to-end digital journeys spanning onboarding, investments, and credit facilities.

Equally important is our dedication to sustainability. Through initiatives in financial literacy, continuous innovation, and environmental responsibility, we are staying relevant to younger generations and actively shaping a more inclusive and sustainable future.

GF: What role did AI play in your 2024 performance, and what will it contribute in 2025?

Sadik: Alongside our digital achievements, Arab Bank continued its ambition to become an AI-first organization, capitalizing on our rich data set to automate and personalize AI-based flows to assist our staff in their daily tasks and speed up their decisioning process, affording our customers both richer and more personalized customer engagement and autonomous drive.

By 2024, Arab Bank had over 20 AI-ML models in production covering a range of applications, from gaining better customer insights to improving our risk-based decision-and-detection process. Most of our models were developed internally under a robust governance framework. Still, we also injected third-party AI-based offerings, which let us benefit from the scale effect of market data, such as for customer service chatbots, cyber threats, and fraud alerts.

For 2025, we will continue to deploy these models while embedding generative-AI use cases to automate routine tasks, digitalize risk management, and enhance customer-facing personalized services. As a prerequisite, we provide Arab Bank staff with an effective learning and development program to capitalize on this new opportunity.

The most material examples include, but are not limited to, providing internal chatbots to front-line staff to access product and policy information faster, supporting their training needs, and allowing for a fast decision process

Wee Ee Cheong: UOB is strategically reshaping our business mix to diversify our revenue engines, with a disciplined approach to managing our balance sheet and growing fee-based income.

In wholesale banking, our enhanced platforms and sector-specific solutions help finance cross-border businesses, leading to higher fees and cross-border income. We aim to be the number-one cross-border trade bank in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). With an extensive regional footprint and our combination of strong sector expertise and local-market knowledge enables us to help businesses navigate market complexities and to seize opportunities in ASEAN.

In retail banking, the acquisition of the Citigroup consumer-banking business in four Southeast Asian markets has enabled us to scale our credit card and brought cross-selling opportunities to our 8.4 million customers. Consequently, our card fees and wealth management income have seen robust growth. We continue to invest in our UOB TMRW digital banking app, which is being rolled out across our key markets.

These diversified income drivers are recurring, and demonstrate results. We see tremendous opportunities to grow our franchise and will be steadfast and focused in our execution.

GF: What are the greatest challenges UOB face in 2025?

Wee: We expect disruptions, and we expect demand to slow in the immediate future due to rising geopolitical risks and tariffs. Businesses and countries will face greater urgency, in a multipolar world order, to diversify their markets, integrate more closely regionally, and innovate to create more value.

With its population of 600 million, ASEAN is driven by megatrends such as regional economic and trade integration, supply chain resilience, digital innovation, and sustainability. We believe in ASEAN’s resilience.

As global trade and supply chains transform significantly, ASEAN remains an attractive market. UOB’s regional footprint and service offerings position us to seize emerging opportunities in the mid to long term.

To stay ahead of rapid technological change, we place innovation at the core of our strategy-enhancing efficiency, unlocking new opportunities, and strengthening our competitive edge.

GF: Do you expect sustainable finance to continue to grow in 2025?

Wee: Economic opportunities around decarbonization continue to drive sustainable-financing flows in Asia, and the region continues to benefit from sustainable developments. UOB’s net-zero commitment is aligned with Singapore’s commitment to net zero by 2050. We remain on track for all five of our priority sectors—power, automotive, real estate, construction, and steel—for which we have set net-zero targets.

To meet our targets, we have an end-to-end net-zero operationalization program covering governance, policies, capacity-building, technology, and pragmatic measures to support our clients’ transition to a sustainable economy. This program involves developing high-quality green-financing products and engaging with clients to promote sustainable practices.

Our clients’ demand for sustainable financing continues to grow; and as of December 2024, our sustainable financing portfolio had increased 43% year over year to more than 57 billion Singapore dollars ($41.9 billion).

GF: What is the bank doing to capture the next generation of customers?

Wee: The bank seeks to understand the aspirations, lifestyles, and expectations of the next generation of customers by systematically collecting and analyzing their feedback. We aim to go beyond financial needs to support young businesses’ digitalization, sustainability, and regionalization needs as they grow and scale.

Our digital banking platforms: UOB TMRW, UOB Infinity, and the UOB SME app, enable younger customers to access on-the-go financial management through an omnichannel approach. Our lifestyle partnerships for concerts and top acts bring renowned performances and deliver exciting lifestyle experiences for our younger customers across the region.

For our business customers, we recognize the importance of equipping the next generation of leaders with skills, insights, and connections necessary to preserve family and business legacies.

Our programs include The Business Circle, which offers masterclasses, workshops, and overseas business missions, on digital transformation, sustainability, and business diversification. The Next Gen Programme prepares successors for future responsibilities, enhancing their competencies to protect and grow inherited wealth with sessions focused on entrepreneurship, digital innovation, and technology.

The two companies “share a joint vision to make cybersecurity more accessible and simpler to use for organizations of any size and industry,” said Thomas Kurian, CEO of Google Cloud, during the announcement.

Wiz’s platform connects to major cloud computing offerings from Amazon, Microsoft, Oracle, and IBM. It also provides a coding environment that helps prevent cybersecurity incidents.

“These are necessary tools for you to provide what might be called an integrated SecOps platform play,” says Philip Bues, Senior Research Manager for Cloud Security at research firm IDC. “Bringing this into Google Cloud Security Command Center Enterprise, which is its cloud-native app, further strengthens the offering to the market.”

The deal also reflects how the cloud-native application environment is consolidating. Before its planned Wiz acquisition, Google Cloud acquired cloud security provider Mandiant for $5.2 billion and cybersecurity vendor Siemplify for $500 million in 2022. Wiz has also made numerous acquisitions since exiting its stealth mode in 2020. In 2024, the Israeli firm purchased security vendors Dazz and Gem Security for a reported $450 million and $350 million, respectively.

According to Bues, the cloud-native applications market is gravitating toward platforms that provide security, integration, and compliance benefits “all in one place.”

“There is an amazing correlation of data and prioritization, which saves a lot of time for the security practitioner from alert fatigue and reduces false positives,” he adds.

Bues notes that having one of the major cloud providers acquire a multi-cloud platform provider might cause some customers to do a double take. However, cloud security platform providers have democratized the market to the point where cloud providers have implemented third-party security products. “I think the two do not necessarily cancel each other out,” he says. “It just strengthens the position when you have an ecosystem involved in providing cybersecurity in the face of an ever-evolving threat landscape.”

Driving the change is the Trump Administration’s January 21 Executive Order entitled, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which instructs federal agencies to investigate and act against any companies practicing “Illegal DEI.” Federal agencies have been tasked to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of $500 million or more, state and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion.”

However, the executive order does not define “illegal DEI” and does not have the power to repeal existing DEI laws.

“Despite this unprecedented scrutiny, DEI practices that are consistent with nondiscrimination laws are not only permitted, but they’re actually critical to providing equal employment opportunities for all employees that are mandated by law,” said Michael Thomas, co-leader of the Corporate Diversity Counseling Group at law firm Jackson Lewis, during a recent firm webcast.

Nonetheless, in mid-March, JPMorgan rebranded its DEI program as diversity, opportunity, and inclusion (DOI).

“The ‘e’ always meant equal opportunity to us, not equal outcomes, and we believe this more accurately reflects our ongoing approach to reach the most customers and clients to grow our business, create an inclusive workplace for our employees and increase access to opportunities,” JPMorgan COO Jenn Piepszak told the bank staff in a March 21 memo, Reuters reported.

A month earlier, Citi CEO Jane Fraser informed her employees that the bank’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Talent Management practice has been renamed “Talent Management and Engagement.”

As part of the change, Citi will not have aspiration representation goals (except as required by local law) or require diverse slates of candidates and diverse panels of interviewers. Several lawsuits have been filed against the executive order in federal court, which will leave businesses in limbo for a while longer.  

Global Finance: What would you recommend to CEOs and CFOs navigating this climate of uncertainty due to US tariffs and trade policy as they determine their near- and long-term strategies?

Wilbur Ross: Yes, reshoring and nearshoring were some things that would develop momentum in any event. President Trump is going to accelerate that.

Whatever plan people had for relocating production, it would be wise to accelerate it. Now, whether that means moving operations to Mexico or the US, that’s another question. But the days when a company could make one component in one country, a second in another, and a third in yet another—then bring them all to a fourth country for assembly—are ending.

Therefore, it should be more of a question of to what degree you relocate facilities and whether or not to do so, and to a degree where to relocate them. The rules of origin will be much more important to Canada, but particularly to Mexico, than before. So, as long as one incorporates that into their thinking, I think relocation is the wise move to make.

GF: Is the message different for CEOs and CFOs outside the US?

Ross: Yes, it could be if they adopt policies similar to Trump’s. We are moving toward an era where what has been called “protectionism” becomes much more of a centerpiece of everyone’s trade policy. But what Europe must do to be effective is to deregulate some. The regulatory burden that European governments impose on their companies is a real impediment to reshoring. Europe has become too intrusive in the business community.

Trump has also said he will require his cabinet members to cancel an even higher ratio of existing regulations relative to any new ones they implement—higher than what we had the first time. The first time, you were required to cancel two for each one you put in. He may be pushing for as many as eight, but certainly more than two. That’s one thing.

Tax policy is the other thing. You have to look at Trump’s trade activities in the context of what he is doing overall. Between deregulation and reducing corporate taxes, he’s changing the economic attractiveness of being in the U.S. regardless of tariffs. And then when you load on top of that, a bit sturdier tariff policy, you have a combination of factors that will prove very powerful.

GF: Which means that you also think this will be the outcome of the current situation?

Ross: Okay, well, there will naturally be a lag. You can’t build a new facility of any size in 10 minutes. There may be some near-term dislocation as we face higher tariffs, but we don’t yet have the increased production to offset them.

Now, that’s not a universal problem. Many of our industries operate at only 70–80 percent capacity. Therefore, not only will they be able to meet increased demand, but this will also help them absorb part of the tariff on imported components. When production increases from 70 or 80 percent capacity, the marginal costs are very small. You’ll have that factor and probably another factor—currency readjustment. How that plays out will have an important impact on how well industries do globally in each area.

To that end, if U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is slow to reduce interest rates while Europe moves at a faster pace, that will clearly have implications for currencies.

One of my concerns for Europe is that if they lower interest rates too quickly relative to the U.S., it could have real impacts on their currency. That would hurt imports but help exports. If I were a European manager, I would be more eagle-eyed than ever about the outlook for currency fluctuations.

GF: Looking at the various industry sectors, are there sectors that deserve tariffs? Are there also sectors that should not see tariffs in these negotiations?

Ross: Well, I have focused more on those who might need it than those who might not. However, pharmaceuticals are a big import to the U.S. Since U.S. drug prices are already higher than others, I don’t think hefty tariffs on pharmaceuticals would be particularly well-fitting to our economy.

But they’re going in on the really big item—the automobile. Automobile manufacturing has caused a fair degree of factory expansion here and in Mexico. In the automotive industry, you must look at the U.S. and Mexico combined because of the concept of rules of origin. In those areas, it’s inevitable. So, I think you’re right—it will vary somewhat by industry. But for the most part, most manufacturing businesses probably don’t expect there will be more tariff burdens.

GF: Would large U.S. exporters, such as technology manufacturers, be affected negatively by this?

Ross: Well, Europe doesn’t have the technological content we have so far. The giant companies in Europe are not comparable to what we call “The Magnificent Seven” over here. Europe’s response seems to have been antitrust and tax complaints, trying to hold back American companies rather than doing things that would effectively build up a European champion.

GF: What of those U.S. industry sectors geared more toward exports? Are they at risk because of tariff reciprocity in the near term?

Ross: Well, apparel is a significant import from Asian countries, and it wouldn’t surprise me if that were to continue. Some of those brands, such as the European brand Zara, have become very, very powerful players in the US. It’s a Spanish company, but it mainly produces its material in Turkey. Meanwhile, Vietnam and Mexico have become big competitors in what we used to call sneakers. So, some things will remain there that will not be affected by the tariffs.

But remember, the real purpose of the tariffs—and one that I hope will be achieved long term—is to let the rest of the world know exactly what they must do to bring our tariffs down, namely, to bring down their own tariffs. The unexpected result of the new US tariff policy could very well be lower tariffs in the long term.

Take India, for example. India’s tariffs are extremely high on most products. Prime Minister Narendra Modi wants to industrialize India. It’ is a logical place to be competitive with China if they can meet their infrastructure needs, because Indians have very good quality manufacturing skills, technological skills, and engineering skills. They have a large population base, so there’s no reason they can’t compete. What’s been holding them back has been the need for more roads and railroads. You need things like that in the way of transportation infrastructure to be much more highly developed for India to flourish. There’s a good chance that PM Modi will do that.

Vietnam has already benefited greatly from the pressures being put on China, which will probably continue. However, Vietnam has a much smaller economy and population base, so it can’t remotely replace China.

Global Finance: Do you see a significant difference in how the second Trump administration approaches tariffs, compared to its first term, when you were Secretary of Commerce?

Wilbur Ross: The biggest difference is that we were charting uncharted waters in the first term. Namely, nobody really knew if [President Trump] had the statutory authority to put in steel tariffs, aluminum tariffs, refrigerator tariffs, or washing machine tariffs. So, we dredged up old legislation, some from 1976 and some from 1972, which were tested in court and upheld by and large.

The first thing was that it took a lot of time in the first administration to ensure we had the power to do some of the things he wanted. Now that that’s been established and he was happy with the results, the President is using tariffs much more broadly. He’s using them as a revenue measure, a diplomatic measure, and for all sorts of other purposes, such as trying to control fentanyl smuggling and controlling the border. That’s the first difference.

The second difference is that he has much more public support in general and with the Republican Party. The last time around, he was much more controversial at inauguration than this time. You saw that in the popular vote. But even more importantly, last time around, he had relatively little control over the Republican Party. There were a lot of free traders still in, particularly the Senate among the Republicans. Most of them have now retired. So that’s a big difference. And you’ve seen his ability to control the Congress in some of the notions he’s been able to force through this time, now by very skinny votes. Still, essentially this time the Republican Party in the Congress is pretty well unified behind the Trump agenda. They were not the first time.

And the last factor that’s different is back when he was in his first term, there was still the global perception that free trade was the big objective, and the business community still was very much of the view for more internationalization, more globalization of supply chains. Now, particularly because of COVID-19, there’s a rethinking of that. At this point, many business executives recognize that every time they add another country to their supply chain, they’re adding a point of vulnerability.

There was the beginning of a shift from globalization to localization, making factories closer to their consuming markets. That was coming even independently of Trump.

GF: Do you feel the administration has an overarching plan for tariff implementation, or is it being far more reactive to the situation? What did President Trump not get from the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) that he wants now?

Ross: Oh, well, that’s a very good question. To answer this, we need to look at the two parts of USMCA. As you know, Mexico has been a huge beneficiary of our moves against Chinese exports to the US. Because the peso has been struggling as a currency and Mexican wage rates haven’t increased much, they are quite competitive with China when you factor in shorter shipping distances, lower in-progress inventory costs, and reduced transportation expenses.

However, Mexico hasn’t really lived up to the free trade agreement we made with them. It has not liberalized its oil and gas sector as it was supposed to, and it hasn’t made its courts more impartial—an important component of the deal. Third, with the rise of electric vehicles and digital manufacturing moving to Mexico, we need to modify the rules of origin somewhat.

I want to add that I’m not a part of the administration (now), nor am I their spokesperson. These are my personal opinions.

So, you’ll remember that under USMCA, 60%–70% of the content had to come from countries with a wage rate above $15 an hour. That rule was meant to ensure that the benefits of trade shifting to Mexico would be shared between Mexico and the U.S. Now that the types of products moving there have changed, we need to refine the rules of origin accordingly. So, those adjustments were needed anyway when it comes to Mexico.

What’s new is the fentanyl issue. Trump has been pressing Mexico on fentanyl and border security for a long time. But if you recall, during his first administration, he got Mexico to deploy 20,000 troops to the border by threatening tariffs. So that strategy isn’t new—he’s just actually implementing it this time.

In terms of Canada, things are a little different. Until now, he hadn’t needed to push Canada on fentanyl and border security. The Canadians made a big mistake in how Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded. Trudeau’s initial reaction was, “Well, it isn’t that big a problem. It’s only a few kilos of fentanyl.”

Two kilos of fentanyl coming in from Canada can kill a lot of people. Second, we believe that as Mexico cracks down on cartels, those operations may shift to Canada. That’s why we want Canada to be prepared to address the issue.

Similarly, Trump had been pressing Canada on dairy products and softwood lumber since his first term. But for the first time, he’s decided to take a step further on softwood lumber by opening up the U.S. Forest Reserve. We have plenty of milling capacity for home building and other purposes, but the supply of stumpage (harvestable timber) has been somewhat limited. Now, that restriction is being lifted. That structural change led him to conclude that Canada’s share of softwood exports should be reduced. So, the factual situation has changed, and his response to it has evolved accordingly.

GF: What lessons did you learn from President Trump’s negotiation style when first negotiating the USMCA? To remove some of the tariffs, he’s asking for the end fentanyl smuggling, cessation of illegal immigration and Canada to become the 51^st state. How much of this is negotiation and how much is trolling?

Ross: I met President Trump by representing his creditors in the Trump Taj Mahal. I was in a very adversarial position against him. His style is very aggressive and very strong in negotiations. You see that coming through in the trade. It wasn’t quite as aggressive last time, partly because he has done a lot of business, including some real estate development in foreign countries.

Last time, he was not an expert in the more intricate aspects of trade. He’s learned a lot from the interactions that we have had with other governments then and now.

His style of negotiating is one of pushing for things very, very hard and being willing to take punitive action if he doesn’t get what he wants. You saw that with Ukraine.

With Panama, he was able to create an environment where all of a sudden, Hutchison Whampoa, turned over control of not just the two key Panamanian ports, but many other ports that it was operating. He would never have thought through that level of detail in Trump 1.0. Now he knows more about potential targets. And every time he succeeds, like with the Panama Canal, which as you remember, didn’t get that much press because it was accomplished without much hooting and hollering. Hutchison made a very good commercial decision to sell those ports to a syndicate organized by BlackRock.

One way of responding to Trump’s new policies is asking, “Well, okay, here’s something that he wants. Maybe I can turn that to my immediate commercial advantage.” Given that Hutchison did pretty well with the port sale, that’s not a bad role model for other companies.

GF: You seem very optimistic overall regarding the new administration’s trajectory and its trade policy.

Ross: Well, I am, but with one big caveat: It has to be coupled with enactment of his tax and deregulation policies. Remember, if Congress doesn’t act, the tax cuts that he enacted in his first administration will automatically go away, which would amount to a tax increase on corporations. Coupled with the tariff policy, it would be a heavy burden. That’s why it’s important that this happens.

It’s also quite important to bring down the cost of government. I’m a big fan of what Elon Musk and Trump are doing, even though I’m sure they will go too far in some cases because they’ve been moving so quickly. In some cases, they’ll have to recalibrate their course, but it’s important that Trump’s overall policies are brought to bear. It would be much better for our economy if his whole package were to go through rather than just the trade package.

In the defense sector, one of his big objections to Europe, and to a degree Canada, is that they haven’t been paying their fair share of NATO. And that’s put an undue burden on the US.

That’s changing. Indeed, some Europeans are talking about going well beyond the 2% of GDP for defense that had been NATO’s target.

You have to look at the whole set of programs. Cutting down on the ability of able-bodied people to get big [government] benefits, in many cases getting more compensation than when they were working. That will go away and will be a constructive thing for our economy because we need a higher degree of workforce participation. To grow more rapidly, we need the workforce participation rate to rise above 63%.

GF: Do you have any other concerns?

Ross: Well, there’s always the danger when you’re trying to change a lot of things in a lot of geographies all at the same time. There’s always the danger of overextending and making real mistakes. He needs to move rapidly and on all fronts for a domestic political reason: Anything requiring congressional action that isn’t completed by September will be difficult to pass, because by then, everybody in Congress will be focusing on the midterms, and they’re going to be less inclined to do anything that’s controversial.

GF: Are there any issues in which you part company with the current administration?

Ross: There are areas where we do disagree. For example, as you’re probably aware, I wrote an editorial in The Wall Street Journal supporting the Nippon Steel takeover of U.S. Steel, which is directly antithetical to US government policy. So, while I’m broadly in sync with what they’re doing, there are some very specific parts where we naturally disagree—very much.

The FCPA, which was passed on the heels of numerous corporate corruption disclosures, makes it unlawful for any corporate officer, director, employee, company agent, or company shareholder “to offer, pay, or promise to pay money or anything of value to any foreign official for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business.”

The “over expansive and unpredictable FCPA enforcement against American citizens and businesses—by our own Government—for routine business practices in other nations not only wastes limited prosecutorial resources that could be dedicated to preserving American freedoms, but actively harms American economic competitiveness and, therefore, national security,” wrote Trump in the executive order.

Under the executive order, US Attorney General Pam Bondi has until Aug. 9 to review the guidelines and policies that govern FCPA investigations and enforcement actions and issue updated guidelines as appropriate to promote Article II authority to conduct foreign affairs. Bondi can extend her deadline for another 180 days if necessary. Upon updating the guidance, Bondi will decide whether the Department of Justice’s remedial actions are needed for previous FCPA investigations and enforcements or if presidential actions are required.

According to the authors of a post on the law firm Case & White’s blog, companies should continue to use their usual business policies.

“Notwithstanding the administration’s dramatic shift in approach to FCPA enforcement, companies should remain focused on anti-bribery and corruption compliance and, as warranted, internal investigations, given the five-year statute of limitations for FCPA offenses and the ability to toll that period for up to an additional three years, the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s parallel enforcement authority with respect to issuers (at least for now), and enforcement regimes in foreign countries and at multilateral development banks,” they wrote.

Although generally available in the consumer market for about a decade, the electronic payment model of buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) is finally bearing fruit for micro, small and midsize enterprises (MSMEs) by avoiding interest payments on corporate credit cards, reducing paperwork, facilitating quicker transactions, and improving liquidity management.

The business-to-business (B2B) BNPL transaction works similarly to the business-to-consumer (B2C) BNPL transaction. After a third party runs a credit check and assumes the credit risk of non-payment, a purchaser can delay payment for a fixed period or pay in whole or installments.

Using B2B BNPL, MSMEs avoid tapping their credit lines to pay invoices and avoid trade credit negotiations. For suppliers, it works like reverse factoring, where the buyer uses a third party to pay the invoice immediately and reimburses the financing third party later.

Many MSMEs in sectors like retail, manufacturing and technology have become early adopters of B2B BNPL, according to Arjun Singh, partner and global head of fintech, financial services practice at Arthur D. Little (ADL). “Additionally, marketplaces are increasingly incorporating B2B BNPL as part of their embedded finance and financial innovation strategies, helping businesses address liquidity challenges and streamline payment processes.”

On the other hand, B2B BNPL is a sleeping giant that is ready to awaken. It is driven by larger and often more complex transactions. The authors of a viewpoint published by ADL estimated that B2B BNPL would capture 15% to 20% of all B2B payments by the decade’s end.

“This would equal approximately $25-$30 trillion BNPL volume and, assuming average BNPL fees of 3%-4% per transaction, a total addressable market between $700 billion and $1.3 trillion,” they wrote.

Geographically, BNPL is a global phenomenon available in approximately 80 markets, with the Asia-Pacific markets leading adoption in China and South Asia, such as Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore, according to Vaidya. “After that, we have seen a lot more applicability in Europe because the immediate payment access is better. In the US, there have been many new BNPL providers.”

The BNPL model would not function without third parties taking on the non-payment credit risk. Fintechs—such as Sweden’s Klarna, Australia’s Afterpay, and America’s Affirm—blazed a path for the B2C BNPL space, capturing considerable market share while expanding their offerings.

Nonetheless, Capgemini’s Vaidya notes that banks will likely dominate the B2B BNPL market.

“Klarna and Afterpay have a lot of retail customers, individuals who are buying in malls and big box retailers or on an e-commerce online shop,” he says. “Banks are doing better in the small and midsize enterprise segment.”

While fintechs continue to crack into the B2B market, banks already have existing financial relationships with MSMEs and their suppliers and offer them another way to provide credit to their commercial customers. This is especially true for businesses with revenues in the $20-$50 million range and had difficulty obtaining small-ticket loans historically.

However, financial institutions’ results are not all rosy. The B2B BNPL business comes at the cost of commercial credit card fees and those generated by a bank’s factoring and reverse factoring business lines.

“In the past, a business would go and buy something on its commercial credit card, and a bank would generate a fee on the transaction,” explains Vaidya. “When an immediate account-to-account payment option is possible, they can pay their suppliers directly where they didn’t need credit. So the banks need to do something.”

The banks have gone big with their B2B BNPL offerings. Global banking giants Banco Santander and BNP Paribas began offering their respective BNPL services to their large multinational clients in 2023 via partnerships with payment platforms and trade insurance providers. Banco Santander Corporate Investment Bank launched its turnkey service, which incorporates the payment platform from net-terms infrastructure provider Two and the services of insurance broker Marsh Spain and credit-insurance provider Allianz Trade.

“The fact that buyers have to use personal or corporate credit cards is still hindering B2B transactions. Enabling businesses to maintain their payment habits within 30 or 60 days of their invoices in an e-commerce environment will be a big differentiator for sellers while adding a major game changer: all concerns about non-payment risk are now removed, and their cash flow is preserved at all times,” said Ignacio Frutos Lopez, global head receivables at Banco Santander CIB at the time of the launch.

Three months later, BNP Paribas launched its service in partnership with Hokodo, a B2B payment platform provider that can integrate with existing checkout platforms via an API. The service provides real-time credit decisions, transaction financing, credit and fraud insurance, and collection capabilities.

Despite its potential remarkable growth, B2B BNPL still has a few hurdles to overcome. According to the authors of the ADL viewpoint, customer awareness and regulation are the leading concerns, followed by risk assessment, product structures, cross-border trade issues, technology integration, costs and competition.

“A significant portion of the target market needs to be educated about the benefits and risks of the proposition,” says ADL’s Singh.

According to research by Capgemini, BNPL’s expected adoption rate will remain flat for the next couple of years. In a study of e-commerce shares by checkout method, BNPL garnered a 5% share in 2023 and is forecasted to have a 5% share in 2027. Meanwhile, credit cards, which had a 22% share in 2023, are predicted to shrink to a 15% share over the same period.

As the size of the entire BNPL market increases, regulators are investing more effort in addressing BNPL offerings as separate from typical longer-term interest-bearing loans. However, according to Eric Mitzenmacher, a partner at the law firm Mayer Brown, BNPL-specific regulation remains nascent in many jurisdictions.

“The US—despite being a fertile market for BNPL offerings due to the size of its economy and certain helpful regulatory factors—has one of the more complex and rapidly evolving regulatory environments for BNPLs,” he says. “Many other jurisdictions currently have more permissive environments for BNPL, particularly for BNPLs offered to SMEs versus consumers, with the potential exception of BNPLs offered by banks and similarly regulated financial institutions.”

Singh agrees, saying, “Unlike consumer credit, which has a relatively uniform regulation across jurisdictions, business lending and credit regulations are diverse and fragmented, lacking the same clarity—especially in cross-border scenarios.”

Even with these hurdles, Singh expects B2B BNPL to have a similar adoption curve as its consumer counterpart and gain traction across multiple sectors and transaction types. “As commerce continues to unify across channels and customers demand greater personalization, the reach and impact of B2B BNPL will expand significantly, offering businesses increased flexibility and financial options.”

Disruptive technologies are not only reshaping the business landscape, but forcing CFOs to rapidly evolve their strategies and embrace innovation. From the various flavors of artificial intelligence (AI) to digital ledger technology (DLT) and cloud computing, these new tools offer immense potential for growth and efficiency but also present significant challenges.

As CFOs navigate this complex terrain and adapt their business processes, and decide how large a financial commitment to make to it, they must understand the implications for their financial models, risk management practices, and overall business operations.

“Disruptive technology is an accelerator to transformation,” says Kyle McNabb, vice president and principal, research at The Hackett Group. “It’s also an equalizer when it comes to transformation, and on the third end, it’s an incredible disruptor to this as well.”

Deirdre Ryan, global finance transformation leader at EY, says many EY clients have tested these technologies and developed proofs of concept, often in finance, marketing, and product development.

“It’s critical that finance executives get their hands dirty and understand these capabilities,” she argues. “They’re the ones who weigh in heavily on capital allocation, which is required to drive those programs. They need to understand what capabilities and return-on-investment will be delivered.”

Leading technologies like AI, machine learning, and generative AI (genAI) promise improved financial forecasting, better data-driven insights, and greater efficiency via automation.

“Generative AI is fundamentally changing the approach to business transformation by driving innovation, improving efficiency, and enabling entirely new business models,” says Monica Proothi, global finance transformation leader at IBM Consulting.

This year alone, market intelligence firm IDC estimates that AI spending could jump to $337 billion globally from $235 billion spent in 2024, or nearly a 50% year-on-year increase.

Meanwhile, DLT is increasing the transparency of supply chains and adding another level of information security. Precedence Research estimates that the global economy spent $27 billion on DLT investment last year and expects a 52.9% CAGR to 2034.

Cloud computing, the most mature of the disruptive technologies, has seen the greatest investment, with an anticipated global spend of $723 billion in 2025, for a 21.5% increase from last year. IDC estimates that 90% of organizations will have hybrid cloud deployments—mixture of public cloud, private cloud, or on-premise internal infrastructure—by 2027.

“Cloud computing is having a significant impact on organizations and especially the CFO, where it’s allowing for real-time access to financial data,” says Craig Stephenson, global head of Tech, Ops, Data/AI, and InfoSec Officers Practice at Korn Ferry.  “It’s improving reporting accuracy and it’s reducing time for turnaround on some of these reports and responsibilities for public company CFOs.”

Implementing disruptive technology that delivers new business capabilities cannot be done effectively in a vacuum but must include a corresponding change in the company’s business model, EY’s Ryan argues.

“We don’t always see that happen,” she says. “Transformation is not just about slamming in some software. It’s about changing the mindset of the people in the organization to adopt the technologies and leverage the capabilities that the technologies deliver.”

CFOs will have a chance to change mindsets as approximately two-thirds of CEOs say that they need to rewrite their organizational playbook to stay competitive, according to a 2024 study of 2,000 CFOs across 26 industry sectors published by the IBM Institute for Business. These rewrites will require new skill sets, technologies, and operating models, the study’s authors contend.

According to McNabb, the best indicator of success is when the organization sets up a formal transformation office or reshapes C-suite and board expectations, moving away from the standard three-year plan.

“They’re doing a one-year set of targets and reviewing everything every quarter to see how they are going,” he says. “And so far, the firms that do that are finding themselves in a better position to navigate this change.”

Successfully implementing a business transformation is not a once-and-done project. It requires a holistic conversation involving process, technology, and operating models, reinforcing the vision of transformation as a continuous process.

“What defines success today may look different tomorrow,” says IBM’s Proothi. “Rather than being defined by a specific outcome, successful transformation is about an organization’s ability to evolve, learn, and stay agile. Ultimately, it’s up to business leaders to look critically at how they can adapt their strategies to unlock sustainable growth and remain competitive in an ever-changing landscape.”

Fnancial firms like JPMorgan Chase and Jane Street Capital are constantly reimagining themselves, McNabb notes: “If you do not embrace it, you have just been disrupted.”

That said, smaller firms do not need to be listed in Fortune’s Global 2,000 to compete against larger companies. Smaller firms can move faster than some of their largest competitors, which typically have an extensive investment in legacy technology.

“If smaller firms can navigate that, they can find themselves in a position where they can leverage genAI to do something different and make a faster leap than a larger firm could,” McNabb argues.

One of the greatest challenges to implementing disruptive technologies as part of business transformation is their rapid evolution. The 60-year-old Moore’s Law states that the number of transistors in an integrated circuit doubles roughly every two years. AI has seen a faster exponential growth, as the computing resources needed to train AI models double every three to four months. The authors of a June research note from TechInsights estimate that “AI chips represent 1.5% of electricity use over the next five years.”

With such rapid evolution, organizations will need to retire the concept of “best practices,” with its stable, proven, and widely adopted approaches, in favor of “good” or “emerging” practices, McNabb predicts. Good practices, he says, are those used by multiple organizations that deliver demonstrable expected results. In contrast, emerging practices are used by a handful of organizations that deliver exceptional results but could become outdated in a year.

Similarly, organizations should expect any business transformation to encounter a significant obstacle. A study of 1,646 respondents across several industry sectors conducted by Oxford University’s Said Business School and EY describes these situations as “turning points” requiring leadership intervention to prevent the project going off-course. Almost all transformation initiatives (96%) will experience such a crossroads event, the researchers estimate.

All of which means deep changes in business leaders’ expectations, agility, and tolerance for risk. Successful interventions have raised the success rate for transformation projects from 6% to 72%, improved execution speed 80% of the time, and exceeded key performance indicators 31% of the time. On the other hand, unsuccessful interventions are 1.6 times more likely to result in underperformance and 3.5 times more likely to dampen employee morale.

“The heart of a successful transformation beats around creating and maintaining an environment where people can thrive, where they can experiment, learn, and take ownership of the work needed to deliver transformation, and ultimately feel good about their effort,” the Oxford/EY study’s authors conclude.