For its part, Banco BPM recently acquired asset manager Anima for over $2 billion.

“When the wave of consolidation rises, there is almost always a domino effect, with the banks trying to defend their competitive position. In Italy, it was triggered by Intesa’s merger with UBI in 2020, which widened the market share gap with smaller players. In particular, it put pressure on UniCredit—the second largest domestic bank—to strengthen their competitive position,” says Paola Biraschi, managing director, European Banks Credit Research, at CreditSights, a FitchSolutions company.

In a highly competitive context, many other Italian banks have recently made headlines.

Earlier this year, Monte dei Paschi, Italy’s oldest bank, took the country by surprise when it proposed a $14 billion all-share merger offer for private investment bank Mediobanca.

Meanwhile, Mediobanca announced a voluntary public exchange offer for 100% of Banca Generali, a deal worth $7.1 billion, to create an Italian leader in wealth management.

In January, Banca Generali completed its all-cash buyout acquisition of broker Intermonte for $112 million.

Another important deal is BPER Banca’s $5 billion, all-share exchange offer for its competitor Banca Popolare di Sondrio. The European Central Bank recently cleared the bid.

According to the Trump administration, the reason for the decision was to save federal money, “one penny at a time.” In 2024, the US Mint reported that the pro- duction of every single penny cost the government 3.7 cents, almost four times its face value. All in all, to make

3.2 billion pennies last year, the federal government lost

$85.3 million. It estimates it can save $56 million a year just in production costs.

The penny will remain legal tender and will continue to be widely accepted across the country as long as people continue using cash. Last year, YouGov reported that cash remains “the most commonly used form of payment,” with 67% of Americans favoring it. But Capital One consumer statistics projects that about half of the US population will use no cash at all in 2025.

The one-cent coin is made of copper-plated zinc but was originally all copper. It has been in circulation since the US Mint was created in 1792. Lately, however, and despite the 114 billion currently in circulation, the Treasury says that pennies are “severely underutilized” and easily lost, thrown away, or abandoned in jars in people’s homes.

Officials expect that businesses will start rounding up to the nearest nickel—worth five cents—and gradually elimi- nate cents in cash transactions. But the transition may not be as uncomplicated as that.

“People using cash in stores are still entitled to their change,” notes Jay Zagorsky, senior lecturer in markets, pub- lic policy, and law at Boston University’s Questrom School of Business. “The problem with the decision to stop minting the penny is that it impacts only the supply of pennies, not the demand. This issue needs to be solved with an official national policy. The US Congress needs to pass a law in this regard.” The US is not the first country to abolish its smallest- denomination coins. The EU and Canada have been winding down their pennies for over a decade, while New Zealand and Australia stopped production more than 30 years ago, in 1990 and 1992, respectively.

Shareholders voted last month to amend its bylaws, raising the retirement age for its CEO to 85, handing Arnault the reins for the better part of the next decade.

With a personal fortune of some $150 billion, Arnault has been sole chair of LVMH since 1989. He is also the majority shareholder of the luxury conglomerate, which he controls together with his five children, all of whom hold senior leadership positions.

Renowned for his dealmaking skills, Arnault eyed the deal of his life in 1984. In his mid-thirties and after just a few years working in his family’s real estate business, he acquired for just one symbolic franc the Boussac Saint-Frères retail conglomerate, parent company of Christian Dior, then on the brink of bankruptcy. Arnault swiftly dismantled it, keeping only the Dior brand. Three years later, he engaged with Luis Vuitton and Moët Hennessy to join the two firms, thus co-founding LVMH. He gained control of the company in a matter of months and took sole leadership in early 1989.

Thanks to a long series of strategic deals and acquisitions, Arnault has built the most powerful multinational in luxury retail and the largest by market capitalization. Currently worth some $364 billion, his empire includes not only fashion but wine and spirits, watches, hotels, and jewelry. Most of LVMH’s famous fashion brands, such as Celine, Kenzo, Fendi, DKNY, and Marc Jacobs, were acquired in the early’90s. The company then expanded into the jewelry business, first with the buyout of Italy’s Bulgari for $5.2 billion in 2011 and then with the purchase of US jeweler Tiffany for $16 billion in 2021.

The Arnault family currently owns 49% of LVMH share capital and 64.8% of the voting rights. With the recent approval of the bylaws amendment, it looks like its collection of storied brands will remain in the family for the foreseeable future.

Considered controversial by many conservative Catholics for his nontraditional stands on issues like homosexuality, immigration, and the role of women in the church, he quickly became known as the “People’s Pope,” advocating for the poor, the marginalized, and the most vulnerable.

Also among his many and at times contentious reforms was the overhaul of the Vatican’s finances.

With about $6 billion in assets, the church’s private bank, the Institute for the Works of Religion, was founded in 1942 by Pope Pius XII. It has been consistently riddled with scandals, including fraud, embezzlement, and money laundering.

Francis embarked on a massive makeover, axing the lavish salaries of some elite cardinals, improving financial transparency, and tightening regulation. His objective was to cut the Vatican’s hefty public debt, aiming for a zero-deficit during his lifetime.

Francis’s lifestyle reflected that goal. Always frugal, he distanced himself from the Vatican’s opulent tradition, leading an unpretentious life as pontiff.

Forgoing riches and luxuries, including the lavish papal residence in the Vatican and the pontifical summer palace in the Roman hills, he set up home in a modest abode adjacent to St. Peter’s Basilica. He relinquished every possession, including his conspicuous salary, reportedly nearly $400,000 a year, donating it to the church.

In this as in much else, Catholics await indications whether his successor will follow his example.

While promising in absolute terms, Walmart’s outlook is actually quite cautious and left markets nervous. Given that Walmart is a bellwether for US consumer spending, its tepid forecast could signal a bumpy road ahead for the retail sector.

The multinational retailer’s CFO John Rainey confirmed that Walmart, considering its numerous imports from Mexico and China, won’t be “completely immune” to the new tariffs announced by President Trump.

For its part, Amazon’s future looks bright. The e-commerce conglomerate is on track to dethrone Walmart’ decades-long supremacy over the long term thanks to its ability to diversify. In addition to its core business, Amazon also incorporates its high-margin cloud storage service AWS, its advertising arm, and its Whole Foods grocery division, while Walmart, the largest brick-and-mortar retail conglomerate in the US with 10,500 stores, is expanding into e-commerce.

“Given the growth trajectories of the two companies, it has always been in the cards that Amazon would overtake Walmart’s revenue at some point,” says Neil Saunders, Managing Director of GlobalData Retail. “However, while Amazon is a powerhouse in retail, it is a diversified group that draws its sales from a wide variety of areas. By contrast, most of Walmart’s sales still come from retail.”

The two heavyweights have been competing for years. In less than a decade, Amazon reached a market capitalization three times that of Walmart, with $59 billion in profits last year, compared to its rival with $19.4 billion.

As the battle for retail dominance continues, shoppers could benefit from the competition between the two giants. “The retail market is very democratic and healthy,” added Saunders. “And big companies duking it out is ultimately very good for customers.”

At the moment, as per the US Office of Personnel Management, out of 2.3 million federal workers, about half work in-person every day because of the nature of their duties. Those with a hybrid schedule spend about 60% of their paid time in the office, while 228,000 employees, roughly 10% of the total, work permanently from home.

Civil servants who do not comply with the order will be dismissed. This could lead to a downsizing of the federal workforce, in line with the Trump administration’s goal to slash spending.

To save millions of dollars in what Trump considers government waste, Trump also created the Department of Government Efficiency, an agency under the supervision of Elon Musk, who defines working from home a “COVID-era privilege”.

Several leaders in the corporate world share Musk’s view.

“Before the pandemic, it was not a given that folks could work remotely, and that will also be true moving forward,” Amazon CEO Andy Jassy reminded employees early last month, after instructing a strict return-to-office policy.

Walmart and AT&T are also trying to reinstate an in-person work routine. JPMorgan Chase’s full-time in-office mandate starts early March. After facing backlash, CEO Jamie Dimon pointed out that face-to-face communication allows for better creativity, engagement and teamwork.

If employees who regularly worked in-person throughout the Covid emergency highlight the level of connection that comes with being in-office, many others are not ready to bid farewell to their current routine. They lament child-care expenses and commute hardships—all for what would be the same amount, and quality, of work. In a study by Pew Research Center, about half of the people currently working a hybrid schedule would be ready to leave their jobs if forced to return to the office permanently. Of those, women and younger workers would rather quit than change their post-pandemic lifestyle.

The news did not come as a shock. Trump announced his intention to pull out of the WHO, accusing it of “mishandling” the Covid-19 emergency in 2020. President Joe Biden then reversed the decision as he took office in 2021.

Trump now lists “unfairly onerous payments” that the health body demands from the US as one of his reasons for the move. Of the 194 WHO member states, the US is the largest contributor, averaging around 20% of annual funding. Of the organization’s yearly budget of approximately $3 billion, the US has provided between $160 million and $800 million annually for the last decade.

Many public health experts now fear the US could remain isolated and lag in addressing future health emergencies. The US pullout will also affect the WHO, potentially jeopardizing its role worldwide. In a statement, WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus said he hopes “the United States will reconsider, … for the benefit of the health and well-being of millions around the globe.”

Specifically, notes Jennifer Kates, senior vice president and director of global health at KFF, a health policy research organization, Trump’s executive order calls for the US to “pause any future funding … and end negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement. For the WHO, it is significant.” Aside from being the WHO’s largest voluntary donor, the US provides “the most in assessed contributions based on GDP size; China is second in this regard. The US also offers extensive technical expertise, often seconding experts to WHO, and plays a large role at the WHO governance table in pushing for reforms in the international arena.”

What happens next is a trifle unclear. A withdrawal will not be immediate; it requires a year’s notice. And, since the US joined the WHO in 1948 by act of Congress, an executive order may not be sufficient without the approval of Congress.

Two of Trump’s closest allies—multi-billionaire Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, an entrepreneur turned politician and former presidential candidate—will lead the new body.

DOGE is an advisory group rather than a federal department. Musk and Ramaswamy work ‘pro bono’ as external private experts. They aim to slash all “unnecessary costs and regulations,” resulting in a more streamlined and efficient administration.

They pledge to restructure some of the leading federal agencies or even completely liquidate them.

Ramaswami vows to shut down the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Internal Revenue Service, and the US Department of Education.

Musk is trying to dismantle all bureaucracy and promises overall cuts of around $2 trillion, about a third of the federal government’s annual budget.

In a first glimpse of what will happen when DOGE is up and running, last month, the power duo stopped a bipartisan spending bill in Congress by taking to social media, urging taxpayers to help “stop the steal,” and threatening lawmakers with primary challenges if they voted for it.

From a legal point of view, however, there could be some big hurdles on the horizon. “Notwithstanding its formal name, the Department of Government Efficiency will be purely advisory in nature,” notes Caleb Burns, Attorney at Law at Wiley Rein. “Whether it can operate privately, and the extent to which the President can execute on DOGE’s recommendations, is not as a legal matter entirely clear and may have to be settled by the courts. The President cannot simply wipe regulations off the books,” he adds, “but must comply with the Administrative Procedure Act, requiring agencies to take certain deliberative actions which are often grounds for legal challenge.”

Mixed expectations surround DOGE’s ability to address government inefficiency. Resistance from entrenched corporate lobbies and the financial impact of deep cuts to government assistance on voters will pose significant challenges.

Donahoe, a Silicon Valley veteran, came aboard to lead the company’s digital transformation mere weeks before Covid-19 pandemic lockdowns began in 2020. That focus worked wonders while restrictions lasted, with stores shut and customers able to purchase goods only online.

As the public returned to in-person shopping, however, the cracks in Donahoe’s strategy began to show. His newly implemented changes and his focus on virtual sales steered Nike away from what its customer base loved the most: design innovation, branding, and a powerful message that made the logo unique.

Nike reached its per-share peak at $177 late in 2021 and posted record revenues of $50 billion in 2023. But a surprise forecast of a 5% dip in fiscal-2025 sales in June sent the stock tumbling. A $28.4 billion drop in market value, to $75 a share, wiped out 20% of shareholder wealth in just one day.

The board rushed to find a replacement for Donahoe. Announcing Hill’s appointment, Executive Chairman Mark Parker, Nike’s longtime CEO until January 2020, praised the new chief’s “global expertise, leadership style, and deep understanding of our industry and partners,” stressing his “passion for sport, our brands, products, consumers, athletes and employees.”

Nike’s stock climbed 9% on the news.

As he prepared to take over on October 14, Hill said he was “eager to reconnect” with his former colleagues and looking forward “to delivering bold, innovative products” that “captivate consumers for years to come.” The job won’t be easy; he will need to renovate the brand, improve revenues and restore customers’ faith. But the boost that comes from renewed confidence in top management and a seamless transition of power are expected to give him a good running start.

Should the takeover go through, it would create one of the largest lenders worldwide, reshaping the banking sector in Europe.

After initially rejecting any speculation, Orcel declared that a possible tie-up would be “a test case for Europe,” and he was weighing a possible merger between Commerzbank and HypoVereinsbank, the German bank Unicredit acquired in 2005.

A Merrill Lynch mergers and acquisitions veteran, Orcel has a history—not always successful—in large buyouts. In 2007, he masterminded the acquisition of Dutch lender ABN Amro and its subsequent break-up by a consortium led by Royal Bank of Scotland.

During the same year, he advised Spanish giant Banco Santander on the sale of Italian lender Banca Antonveneta to Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena (MPS), Italy’s oldest bank. In 2021, as he took the helm at Unicredit, Orcel himself attempted a takeover of state-owned MPS.

It never materialized. His focus is now turning abroad on Commerzbank.

“Given Mr. Orcel’s experience in European banks M&A and UniCredit’s presence in Germany with HVB, this strategic move is not surprising,” says Paola Biraschi, managing director and head of Southern European banks at CreditSights, a Fitch Solutions company. “However, the risks are meaningful, including the extraction of potential synergies. In this sense, I am a bit surprised that the bank did not strategically prioritize a domestic deal, where the synergy would potentially strengthen the bank’s domestic competitive position, which is challenged by the merger between Intesa Sanpaolo and UBI Banca.”

Overall, Biraschi concludes, “I would have expected domestic consolidation to be completed before seeing transformational cross-border deals in Europe.” For now, both the board of Commerzbank and the German government, which owns a 12% stake in the lender, say they are ready to fight; a top German official called Unicredit’s surprise bid “aggressive” and “unwise.” The markets are watching.