Aussie inflation, NZ rate decision and UK budget in the spotlight ahead of the Thanksgiving Day holiday in the US.

Monday November 24

US Chicago Fed national activity index (October)
Index could dip from –0.12 to –0.2

Tuesday November 25

US ADP employment weekly change
Leading indicator of private payroll jobs

US retail sales (September)
A 0.3% increase in spending is expected

US producer price index (PPI, September)
The core PPI may lift 0.2%

US home prices (September)
From FHFA and S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller

US pending home sales (October)
Sales are tipped to fall 0.4%

US Conference Board consumer confidence (November)
Expected to edge lower from 94.6 to 93.3

US Richmond Fed manufacturing index (November)
Tipped to lift from –4 to –1

Wednesday November 26

Australia: Monthly consumer price index (CPI, October)
Headline CPI could dip 0.2% in the month, with annual growth forecast at 3.6%

Australia: Construction work done (September quarter)
Tipped to increase by 0.5%

New Zealand: Reserve Bank (RBNZ) interest rate decision
A 25-basis point cut to 2.25% is expected

UK government budget
Chancellor Rachel Reeves hands down her first UK budget

US Federal Reserve (FOMC) Beige Book
Snapshot of current economic conditions, published eight times per year

Thursday November 27

Australia: Private capital expenditure (Capex, September quarter)
Business investment could lift 1.1%

US financial markets closed
In observance of Thanksgiving Day

Friday November 28

Australia: Private sector credit (October)
A 0.7% pick up in credit growth is expected

Key themes to watch

• Australia: All eyes on the new monthly CPI and investment figures for clues on the RBA’s next move.
• New Zealand: Rate cut expected following weaker jobs data.
• UK: Rachel Reeves' first budget could include key fiscal signals.
• US: Economic data trickles in post-shutdown; Beige Book and retail sales in focus amid Thanksgiving closures.

Check back next Monday for the latest investor calendar, only on Switzer.

The pandemic shifted millions of Australians out of cities and into the nation's regions. Remote work and - at the time - lower property prices meant for a better quality of life. But now those regional areas are experiencing price growth that is shutting out locals from the markets they grew up in.

But where is this happening most? Cotality - formerly CoreLogic in Australia - crunched the numbers to find out.

Winners and losers: the regions that are booming (and those that aren't)

• Kalgoorlie–Boulder: +8.1% (quarterly)
• Geraldton: +7.4%
• Albany: +6.2%

• Annual value decline of –1.2%
• Highest vendor discounting rate (5.4%)
• Longest median selling time (77 days)

The world’s most valuable publicly listed company, US microchip maker Nvidia, has reported record $US57 billion revenue in the third quarter of 2025, beating Wall Street estimates. The chipmaker said revenue will rise again to $US65 billion in the last part of the year.

The better than expected results calmed global investors’ jitters following a tumultuous week for Nvidia and broader worries about the artificial intelligence (AI) bubble bursting.

Just weeks ago, Nvidia became the first company valued at more than $US5 trillion – surpassing others in the “magnificent seven” tech companies: Alphabet (owner of Google), Amazon, Apple, Tesla, Meta (owner of Facebook, Instagram and Whatsapp) and Microsoft.

Nvidia stocks were up more than 5% to $US196 in after-hours trading immediately following the results.

Over the past week, news broke that tech billionaire Peter Thiel’s hedge fund had sold its entire stake in Nvidia in the third quarter of 2025 – more than half a million shares, worth around $US100 million.

But in that same quarter, an even more famous billionaire’s firm made a surprise bet on Alphabet, signalling confidence in Google’s ability to profit from the AI era.

Buffett’s new stake in Google

Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway’s latest quarterly filing reveals the company accumulated a US$4.3 billion stake in Alphabet over the September quarter.

The size of the investment suggests a strategic decision – especially as the same filing showed Berkshire had significantly sold down its massive Apple position. (Apple remains Berkshire’s single largest stock holding, currently worth about US$64 billion.)

Buffett is about to step down as Berkshire’s chief executive. Analysts are speculating this investment may offer a pre-retirement clue about where durable profits in the digital economy could come from.

Buffett’s record of picking winners with ‘moats’

Buffett has picked many winners over the decades, from American Express to Coca Cola.

Yet he has long expressed scepticism toward technology businesses. He also has form in getting big tech bets wrong, most notably his underwhelming investment in IBM a decade ago.

With Peter Thiel and Japan’s richest man Masayoshi Son both recently exiting Nvidia, it may be tempting to think the “Oracle of Omaha” is turning up as the party is ending.

But that framing misunderstands Buffett’s investment philosophy and the nature of Google’s business.

Buffett is not late to AI. He is doing what he’s always done: betting on a company he believes has an “economic moat”: a built-in advantage that keeps competitors out.

His firm’s latest move signals they see Google’s moat as widening in the generative-AI era.

Two alligators in Google’s moat

Google won the search engine wars of the late 1990s because it excelled in two key areas: reducing search cost and navigating the law.

Over the years, those advantages have acted like alligators in Google’s moat, keeping competitors at bay.

Google understood earlier and better than anyone that reducing search cost – the time and effort to find reliable information – was the internet’s core economic opportunity.

Company founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page started with a revolutionary search algorithm. But the real innovation was the business model that followed: giving away search for free, then auctioning off highly targeted advertising beside the results.

Google Ads now brings in tens of billions of dollars a year for Alphabet.

But establishing that business model wasn’t easy. Google had to weave its way through pre-internet intellectual property law and global anxiety about change.

The search giant has fended off actions over copyright and trademarks and managed international regulatory attention, while protecting its brand from scandals.

These business superpowers will matter as generative AI mutates how we search and brings a new wave of scrutiny over intellectual property.

Berkshire Hathaway likely sees Google’s track record in these areas as an advantage rivals cannot easily copy.

What if the AI bubble bursts?

Perhaps the genius of Berkshire’s investment is recognising that if the AI bubble bursts, it could bring down some of the “magnificent seven” tech leaders – but perhaps not its most durable members.

Consumer-facing giants like Google and Apple would probably weather an AI crash well. Google’s core advertising business sailed through the global financial crisis of 2008, the COVID crash, and the inflationary bear market of 2022.

By contrast, newer “megacaps” like Nvidia may struggle in a downturn.

Plenty could still go wrong

There’s no guarantee Google will be able to capitalise on the new economics of AI, especially with so many ongoing intellectual property and regulatory risks.

Google’s brand, like Buffett, could just get old. Younger people are using search engines less, with more using AI or social media to get their answers.

New tech, such as “agentic shopping” or “recommender systems”, can increasingly bypass search altogether.

But with its rivers of online advertising gold, experience back to the dawn of the commercial internet, and capacity to use its platforms to nurture new habits among its vast user base, Alphabet is far from a bad bet.

Disclaimer: This article provides general information only and does not take into account your personal objectives, financial situation, or needs. It is not intended as financial advice. All investments carry risk.

Cameron Shackell, Adjunct Fellow, Centre for Policy Futures, The University of Queensland; Queensland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

The Australian Capital Territory and Queensland have won bragging rights for having the fastest growing economies in Australia in 2024-25.

Their growth was highlighted in annual data on gross state product (GSP), released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

GSP is the state and territory equivalent of gross domestic product (GDP), the most commonly used measure of the size of the national economy.

Across the nation, total GDP grew by 1.4% in the year to June 2025, with strength across the service sector offset by weakness in mining and manufacturing.

The mining sector was a drag

The fastest growing state or territory economy in 2024-25 was the ACT, which expanded by a robust 3.5%. It was followed by Queensland, which grew by 2.2%. They were the only states or territories to outpace the national growth rate. The others mostly grew by around 1%.

The ACT and Queensland were also, along with Tasmania, the only ones where GSP grew faster than population. These figures, given in real terms, exclude the impact of inflation.

The ACT, with a population of 484,000, has a larger GSP than Tasmania – despite the Apple Isle’s bigger population of 576,000.

Unsurprisingly, New South Wales and Victoria, the most populous states, have the largest sized economies overall. They account for 31% and 23% of our national economy. But their GSP grew only by 0.9% and by 1.1% respectively.

The differences reflect the different industry composition of the states. Nationally, the mining sector was affected by severe weather and unplanned disruptions. This held back activity in Queensland, Western Australia and the Northern Territory.

Weakness in the manufacturing industry also restrained economic growth in some states. The ACT, with a services-based economy, was barely affected. It benefited from increased public sector activity, with public administration and safety rising 7.2%.

The near completion of some major transport projects caused construction to detract from economic growth in NSW. But this was offset by a strong harvest that boosted the agriculture sector, the Bureau of Statistics said.

While strong population growth led to housing construction providing a boost to the WA economy, residential construction was weak in Tasmania.

Favourable rural conditions meant that agriculture made a large contribution in NSW, Queensland, Western Australia, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. In contrast, a drought meant agriculture was a large detractor in South Australia.

Incomes differ across the nation

There are differences in real GSP per person across the states and territories.

Western Australia produces more per person due to its large mining industry. This produces large amounts of revenue, but employs relatively few people.

A similar pattern can be seen in the data on real gross state income per person. This also captures the impact of swings in the prices of exports and imports.

Again, the major industry where this is important is mining. This creates more volatility in the average incomes in Western Australia and the Northern Territory than in other parts of the country.

Western Australia’s recent good fortune in having high incomes from high mineral prices is shared by redistributing some of it to the other states and territories through the Commonwealth Grants Commission process.

In the same way, WA has been supported by the rest of Australia when it was poorer for most of the 20th century.

John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Raymond Chan, head of research at Morgans, joined Switzer Investing TV this week and gave his verdict on a handful of market movers. Here’s where he’s seeing value, what’s on his “wait and see” list, and the stocks that might need a little more patience.

Just remember, this isn’t financial advice—do your own homework and talk to a pro before acting on anything here.

The Buy List

CSL (CSL)

Chan is unambiguously positive on CSL, viewing the current price as an opportunity with limited downside. He points to strength in plasma-based medicines and a discount valuation versus history:

“I think we have a buy, on CSL. I think at the current level, the downside risks, limited… The key part is now the plasma-driven drugs division, which is almost 70% of the total revenue that we think will continue to grow, quite well… At the moment, they are trading at a P/E which is at a discount to the long-term average. We don’t think there’s too much of the downside risk for CSL at this stage. So for us it’s a buy.”

While the vaccine division faces some challenges, Chan believes the core business is strong and that current levels represent good value.

Goodman Group (GMG)

A familiar favourite, Goodman gets Chan’s endorsement—especially on recent share price weakness. He sees the company’s low gearing as a buffer against volatility:

“Goodman I actually like this name at the current price… Goodman on the headline, the gearing is very low… Also, the stock’s has meaningfully pulled back from its recent high… I think what we need for Goodman is in the next set of update is they start to upgrade the outlook a little bit, and the market will start to love Goodman again. So I think the current pullback will likely be a buying opportunity for Goodman especially is below $30.”

Pro Medicus (PME)

While he prefers to buy PME on further weakness, Chan is fundamentally positive and highlights the company’s market position and contract “stickiness”:

“We a[n]alyst always like this company… the growth, suddenly, meaningfully. And in the US, they have a market share… those contracts are very sticky. That’s what we like… We like this company that, you know, it is suddenly, worth look at, you know, if there’s price weakness on Pro Medicus, in the current market.”

For Chan, Pro Medicus remains a top pick if you can get it a little cheaper.

The ‘Maybe’ List

Sometimes, great companies just need a little more time—or a little more clarity. Here’s where Chan isn’t rushing in, but isn’t closing the door either.

NEXTDC (NXT)

Chan isn’t ready to call NXT a buy at current levels, citing valuation and sector sentiment:

“NextDC… at the current price, they suddenly [are] not cheap… the company [has] a strong track record… Now… they’re partnering with capital partner to develop the offshore area such as Japan… if the sentiment move[s] toward data centre again… we may see a bounce… but at the moment, NextDC is likely to trade sideways before a more clear direction… So it’s not a screaming buy at the moment, but further weakness likely to create opportunity.”

Chan sees NXT as a watchlist name unless there’s a price pullback.

Xero (XRO)

While growth investors might find Xero appealing, Chan is cautious about the near-term outlook due to its US expansion and ongoing cash burn:

“Xero is a little bit interesting… Xero is a growth company. When they make the acquisition… with aim to expand into… the US market… it will probably would take some time before Xero can deliver to the long term plan, which I think is important for them. For us, I think at this stage, we’ll have a hold recommendation on Xero.”

For Chan, the thesis is long-term but requires patience and a strong stomach for volatility.

Life360 (360)

No formal coverage, but Chan shared an anecdote and seemed open to the company’s growth prospects, referencing the product’s “playoff certainty” for families:

“Life360… we don’t have coverage on the company, but my dog is using it. We use it to track where he’s going… We think this a playoff certainty.”

While not an outright buy, there’s a nod of approval to the product’s value and potential.

We're mere weeks away from the Albanese government's social media ban for teens heading into effect. The US Congress has gotten word that its companies are about to face a tricky legal snag in a foreign country, and as such, a staunch Trump ally has summoned our e-Safety Commissioner to testify, saying that the law could threaten free speech. The real question, however, is are we headed for retaliatory tariffs?

In a letter dated November 18 and emailed to e-Safety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant by House Judiciary Committee Chair, Congressman Jim Jordan, the Congress is calling for senior testimony on the proposed social media ban. Set to kick in from December 10, the social media 'ban' as it's being dubbed, makes it illegal for children and teens under a certain age to access popular social media platforms. The aim, according to the Australian government and eSafety Commissioner Inman-Grant, is to protect young people from online harms such as bullying, exploitation, and exposure to harmful content.

The ban would require platforms like TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, and X to implement strict age verification measures for all Australian users. It would also give the eSafety Commissioner significant powers to investigate and enforce compliance backed by the threat of large fines for companies that fail to remove prohibited content or prevent access by underage users.

According to the US House Judiciary Committee, however, the law is a little too broad for their liking. Congressman Jordan specifically singles the Australian Online Safety Act (OSA) and the Commissioner’s approach to enforcing it as central to his concern, arguing that its “expansive interpretation” could “directly threaten American speech” if the law is enforced beyond Australia’s borders. After all, these laws we're proposing directly impact companies that are moored well-and-truly in the US.

His concern over "free speech" isn't entirely unfounded, either. Julie Inman Grant's e-safety office and the Australian government has previously pushed for platforms to remove objectionable content worldwide (not just for Australian users), and the OSA grants the Commissioner power to issue takedown notices that could affect American companies, users, and the principle of free speech beyond Australian borders.

The letter cites concerns over “extraterritorial jurisdiction” and accuses Inman Grant of being a “zealot for global takedowns,” warning that Australia’s approach may be influencing or encouraging other governments, including Brazil and the European Union, to escalate their own online censorship regimes. The Committee sees this as part of a global shift toward regulatory overreach by foreign governments, with direct consequences for Americans’ constitutional rights.

The e-Safety Commissioner has already been in a tussle with Elon Musk's Twitter (I will never call it X, Elon), over demands to censor tweets relating to violent videos showing an attack in a Sydney church earlier in the year. Inman-Grant's office said it wouldn't fight the case until - you guessed it - the new laws came in on December 10.

Tariff threat?

The real question for market-watchers is whether or not this new law would trigger a tariff-based response from Trump's office.

In recent months Donald Trump has made clear he is prepared to use tariffs not just as economic tools, but as instruments of geopolitical and ideological leverage. For example, in August 2025 he said he would take strong retaliatory measures (including tariffs and export restrictions) against countries that impose digital taxes or regulations he believes discriminate against US tech companies. He also warned that the US would adopt “reciprocal” tariffs on imports from any country that “targets our products” and fails to treat American trade fairly. 

So yes: the idea that the US might threaten tariffs against Australia in response to the proposed legislation by Julie Inman‑Grant and her office is not just a flight of fancy. If the our law is viewed through Washington’s lens as a “regulation that limits American advancement” (especially of US tech companies) or undermines free speech, then it could trigger some form of pressure, and tariff threats are part of that toolkit.

The risk of new tariffs is ratcheted even higher when you consider that PM Albanese basically stepped out of his Oval Office meeting with Trump and started once again campaigning for US tech companies like Google and Meta to pay their fair share for Australian news run on their platforms.

A wider conspiracy

The letter does go a little off the rails when Congressman Jordan starts accusing our e-Safety Commissioner of colluding with foreign governments to limit speech in America, however.

Jordan accuses Inman Grant of “colluding with pro-censorship entities in the United States,” referencing a non-public Stanford University roundtable in September 2025 that brought together foreign officials—including those from the EU and Brazil—who have “directly targeted American speech.” He claims that the event’s purpose was to facilitate cooperation between global censorship regimes, raising alarms about potential threats to the First Amendment in the U.S.

Further, Jordan draws attention to the eSafety Commissioner’s recent announcement of an academic advisory group led by Stanford University to evaluate Australia’s new minimum age requirements for social media. The letter describes the university’s involvement as “troubling,” given its past efforts to “launder government censorship requests to social media platforms” in the lead-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election—a charge that echoes Republican concerns about alleged bias and censorship by tech companies and their partners.

Congressman Jordan is a close confidante of President Trump, so we shouldn't be too surprised to see a little score-settling in this one I guess. And Jordan has form in this Congress, too. He's already taken shots at the EU's Digital Services Act, Brazil's censorship laws and pretty much any nation looking to propose a tax on digital services.

Either way, our e-Safety Commissioner  is being urged

New data show wages have risen by a bit more than inflation, but overall real wages are still languishing near 2011 levels.

Over the year to September, wages rose 3.4% in seasonally adjusted terms. That’s according to the latest wage price index data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), released on Wednesday.

That’s slightly more than the rate of inflation over the same period – 3.2% – meaning real wages are up by 0.2% over the year to September.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, it means an interest rate cut in the near term remains unlikely. However, overall wages growth is nowhere near enough to make up for the huge decline in real wages over the past five years.

What is the wage price index?

The wage price index measures the average change in Australian wages and salaries every quarter. To do this, it tracks a fixed “basket” of jobs across a wide range of industries in both the public and private sector.

It doesn’t include bonuses, and it doesn’t include wage growth that comes about from people getting promoted, switching to better-paid occupations, or moving to other regions.

To illustrate, imagine a world where half of all workers were labourers and the other half were managers.

If the labourers’ hourly wage increased from $30 to $33 (a 10% increase), and the managers’ hourly wage increased from $80 to $84 (a 5% increase), the wage price index would increase by 7.5%. That is the average of 5% and 10%.

It’s an important index, but it doesn’t tell us everything. For example, it doesn’t give us the full story on wage growth, because many people grow their incomes by moving to better-paid jobs or occupations.

In our example, if an individual labourer became a manager, their wage would increase from $30 to $84 – an obvious improvement. But this change is not counted in the index.

It doesn’t tell the full story

The wage price index doesn’t give us the full story on labour costs either.

The Reserve Bank is tasked with setting interest rates to keep annual consumer inflation in a target range of 2–3%, as measured by the consumer price index (CPI).

Labour costs aren’t directly included in the CPI. But the Reserve Bank still keeps a close eye on wage growth, because higher wages can lead to higher costs for employers and create inflation.

But productivity growth – the continual improvement in our ability to produce more output from the same inputs – reduces labour costs relative to the amount of income a business can generate.

The chart below shows over most of the past three decades, labour costs have fallen, because productivity growth has been stronger than wage growth. The uptick in labour costs since 2023 shows wage growth has been stronger than productivity growth for the past two years.

Have we really had a pay rise?

It feels good to get a pay rise, and governments and employers enjoy the optics.

A joint statement from Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Employment Minister Amanda Rishworth noted annual real wages have now grown for eight quarters in a row:

the longest period of consecutive annual real wage growth in almost a decade.

But how healthy are Australians’ earnings really?

When wages grow faster than consumer prices, wage earners are able to get more bang for their buck. Until June 2020, this was the case over most of the past few decades.

But when consumer prices grow faster than wages, even if wages are rising, consumer purchasing power goes backwards. This has been the case from mid-2020 until very recently.

As the above chart shows, after accounting for inflation, Australians’ wages have roughly the same purchasing power now as they did back in 2011 – when the iPhone 4 was state-of-the-art and a Donald Trump presidency was a mere thought bubble.

The post-COVID decline in real wages is by far the largest in recent history, but it’s not the only one. In 2000, when the goods and services tax (GST) was introduced in Australia, a jump of almost 4% in the CPI led to a steep dip in real wages, which took about four years to unwind.

A lost decade

A horror stretch starting in 2020 saw an entire decade of real wage growth reversed in just three years. Today’s result consolidates a cautious return to real wages growth.

We will need to wait until the gross domestic product (GDP) figures come out next month to see whether the growth is supported by productivity gains.

While workers will welcome growth in real wages, we must be careful about what we wish for. When wage growth is not supported by productivity growth, employers will often reduce costs by laying off workers.

The seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is currently 4.3%, a low level historically, but it is trending upwards. Ongoing modest wage growth and low unemployment will help workers win back the lost decade.

Janine Dixon, Director, Centre of Policy Studies, Victoria University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

These are troubled times for British Labour Prime Minister Keir Starmer. In July 2024, Starmer’s government swept to power on the back on a landslide win.

Labour won 411/650 seats in the parliament, and had a commanding 174 seat majority. Starmer was elected on a platform for “change”, but the most likely change at the moment is that he’ll be cast aside as prime minister.

Where has it all gone so wrong?

First, Starmer’s majority was both thin and created a paradox. While he has a strong majority of MPs, Labour only secured a record low of 33.7% of the popular vote (the Conservatives received a dreadful 23.7%, a resurgent Reform secured 14.3%, and the Lib Dems 12.2%). In short, British politics fragmented.

The paradox for Starmer is despite the majority, he was gifted a multitude of MPs who sit on very thin majorities, and on current polls, face electoral oblivion. Labour could be reduced to just over 100 seats. Many have nothing to lose, except their seats.

Second, Starmer and his government have made a series of mistakes, missteps and u-turns, which have eroded public confidence. Controversially, his government pledged a series of welfare cuts targeting the Personal Income Payments (PiP), which led to over 120 MPs signing a “wrecking amendment” to his flagship welfare bill.

In the context of pledges to increase defence spending, this was seen to be at the expense of some of the most vulnerable Britons. Likewise, Rachel Reeves, who casts herself as something of an iron chancellor (equivalent to the Australian treasurer), was forced to reverse her decision to cut winter fuel payments to pensioners.

Labour pledged not to increase a number of key taxes when elected in 2024. But Reeves is now suggesting she’ll have to break the tax pledge for the imminent budget.

Labour has also had to shift positions on a suite of other issues, including gender identity and the controversial issue of “grooming gangs” in the UK, which involves allegations of group-based child sexual abuse and exploitation that mostly occurred between the 1990s and 2010s.

Third, there have been personnel changes and issues. The resignation of popular deputy leader Angela Rayner was damaging, and her successor Lucy Powell was not the leader’s chosen replacement. Starmer has been drawing on New Labour stalwarts to steady his ship, but his pick of Peter Mandelson as US ambassador backfired spectacularly with his links to paedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein.

Fourth, the Labour prime minister has faced a series of structural economic problems that requires low and patient re-calibration. To give a sense of the challenge, when Tony Blair became prime minister in 1997, government debt as a share of GDP was a healthy 35%. By 2004 it was 96%.

Yet, critics argue that part of this is a problem of Starmer’s and Reeves’ own making, because their fiscal conservatism is seen to be overreaching. By accepting the National Insurance tax cuts of her Conservative predecessor, Jeremy Hunt, Reeves gave herself no wriggle room for spending commitments.

What would it take to depose Starmer?

Labour party rules stipulate a leadership contest can be triggered if 20% of Labour MPs back an alternative leader, up from 10% before 2021. Currently, this would require 81 MPs. Further rule changes mean the Labour leader can now be challenged at any time. To date, no sitting Labour prime minister has been removed as party leader.

Experienced British Labour MPs will be aware of the Australian experience, where Labor experienced particular turbulence from 2007-2013, with the change from Kevin Rudd to Julia Gillard and back to Rudd.

Rudd then introduced leadership rule changes to tighten up the process for changing the leader. For Australian Labor, the threshold is high, with a spill requiring 75% of caucus members when in government, and 60% when in opposition.

Risks and challengers

Any potential challenger to Starmer will be frantically weighing up the costs and benefits of forcing a change. While a new leader might enjoy a honeymoon period in the polls, they would quickly need to show deeper results if Labour is to have any chance of re-election at the 2029 general election.

Moreover, unless the leader wants to shift the current fiscal orthodoxy and engage in deeper structural reform, they’ll only present as a new face to the same problems Starmer is facing. Starmer has driven Labour to the centre, and the cohort of left and “soft-left” MPs are the ones most ill-at-ease with how the party is tracking.

Westminster politics is awash with rumours of manoeuvres from both the left and right of the party.

What seems to have backfired for Starmer are the background briefings against Health Secretary Wes Streeting. Streeting would have the backing of the right of the party, and is articulate where Starmer is not. Former deputy leader Angela Rayner has been lauded as a potential “stop Wes” candidate.

In the run up to the recent party conference, popular Manchester mayor Andy Burnham was routinely cited as a potential leader, but will need to find a parliamentary seat.

A “stalking horse” candidate might emerge, with Home Secretary Shabana Mahmood touted. Yet, the rise of Nigel Farage’s Reform Party and the prospect of a one-term government might be worth the risk for any challenger. For Starmer to hold on, he’ll need Reeves to deliver a strong budget, sort out discipline within Number 10, and hope for better local election results in May 2026.

Rob Manwaring, Associate Professor, Politics and Public Policy, Flinders University and Emily Foley, Postdoctoral research fellow, Flinders University; University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

A new “complete” monthly consumer price index (CPI) will be released next week, and will become Australia’s primary measure of inflation.

This new release will finally bring Australia into line with the other advanced economies in the Group of 20, which all publish inflation data every month. It will make it easier to compare inflation trends with other nations.

For the Reserve Bank of Australia, headline inflation from the complete monthly CPI will become the new target for monetary policy.

The Australian Bureau of Statistics has been publishing a monthly CPI “indicator” since 2022. But it only had a partial coverage.

The inflation report measures price changes in a fixed “basket” of goods and services each month.

In an updated explanation of the new data published on Tuesday, the bureau said prices of 87% of the CPI basket of goods and services will be updated each month. That’s up from 50% previously.

A quarterly series (an average of the three months) will continue to be published.

What does the new monthly measure mean for our understanding of inflation?

The monthly series will be more volatile

A monthly consumer price index can swing a lot reflecting temporary fluctuations in the volatile prices of goods such as petrol, fruit and vegetables. These get smoothed out somewhat – but not totally removed – in a quarterly index.

The inflation rate based on the new monthly series will therefore be more volatile than that based on the quarterly. We will need to build up some history before we know just how much more volatile. But the experience with the partial monthly measure (and experience in other countries) provides a guide.

The Reserve Bank has commented it “will take time to learn about the properties of the monthly CPI data”.

The Reserve Bank will “initially continue to focus on measures of underlying inflation from the quarterly CPI”. It will forecast the quarterly rather than the monthly CPI.

The monthly index will sometimes give earlier warning of a changing trend in inflation. For example, in mid-2025 the jump from 1.9% in June to 3.0% in August was a warning that inflation was no longer falling.

But it can also give misleading signals. In late 2022, the monthly index showed inflation jumping from 7.4% to 8.4%. But the quarterly index revealed inflation had peaked at 7.8% in the December quarter.

In mid-2023, the monthly index showed inflation picking up from 4.9% in July to 5.6% in September; yet the quarterly index showed inflation was continuing to decline.

In mid-2025 the monthly index showed inflation was down to 1.9%, below the Reserve Bank’s 2-3% target band, leading some commentators to expect a run of further interest rate cuts. But we now know (underlying) inflation has been staying stubbornly near the top of the Reserve Bank’s band.

The Melbourne Institute has produced a monthly Australian inflation gauge since 2002. But it isn’t much quoted, perhaps because of the volatility.

Too much information?

Encouraging the media and the public to pay more attention to the monthly index might create the impression there’s more inflation than there is.

Behavioural economics says people are “loss averse”. They pay more attention to bad news (high inflation) than good news (low inflation). The monthly figures mean the media will be reporting inflation news 12 times a year, rather than four.

Media reporting each month might amplify things. When the monthly number is low, this may get less attention. Some commentators might even succumb to the temptation to “annualise” a month’s movement, multiplying by 12. This can present a misleading, or alarming, picture.

Over the longer term, the more volatile annual inflation rate based on the monthly data may be within the 2-3% target band less often than the rate calculated from the quarterly data.

The Reserve Bank’s task of restraining inflationary expectations may therefore become harder with the focus shifting to the new monthly measure.

John Hawkins, Head, Canberra School of Government, University of Canberra

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Nervous nellies overreacting to news headlines creates opportunities for those wanting to be a homegrown Warren Buffett in their lifetime.

The desire for the key drivers of stock prices and the overall share market to react short to even long term to news headlines creates opportunities for those wanting to be a homegrown Warren Buffett in their lifetime. The headline from the US finance website CNBC welcomed us this morning with this “Dow drops 600 points…”, while others talk about “bloodbaths” and other scary takes on Wall Street, as tech companies get dumped.

This is a rejection of the key driver of why US stocks have risen 87.08% in five years, that is Artificial Intelligence or AI, in the hands of the greatest tech companies on earth: the Magnificent Seven, which means Apple, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Nvidia, Microsoft, Meta (Facebook) and Tesla.

However, the big question for an investor with the best stock player on the planet or Buffett aspirations is this: Is this sell-off short-term, creating a buying opportunity or is it the start of something bad?

This tech trauma that has seen the tech-heavy index — the Nasdaq — drop 3.65% in five days but over the month it’s down only 1.85%. However, locally, our hardly very tech market is down 6.23%, based on our ASX 200 index, which is an overreaction to the tech dumping in the US related to a belief that there has been an over-investment in AI-involved companies, such as the Magnificent 7 group.

But this difference in the magnitude of the Nasdaq and ASX 200 selloffs also shows there are often multiple forces at play that short-term market influencers and computer trading models can overreact to. For example, some of our stock dumping is due to the RBA’s decision not to cut interest rates as it worries about inflation, which is partly related to skyrocketing power bills, linked to our country’s ‘new age’ commitment to not using fossil fuels.

And in a related way, the news that our third largest customer for thermal coal, South Korea, has decided to phase out coal, led to the AFR’s Jessica Sier reporting “BHP, Whitehaven Coal, New Hope and Yancoal Australia falling between 2 per cent and 4 per cent in early trade.”

That’s a very short-term reaction to a decision that needs to come up with some additional information, that South Korea will do this phasing out between now and wait for it, 2040! While this means there’s still time to make money out of coal if you fancy it, it should also make you remember that coal will have replacements such as rare earths and lithium that go into batteries and hi-tech products. So, it pays to be informed, if you want to invest like Wazza, who’s also known as the Oracle of Omaha.

By the way, only last week, Ganfeng Lithium chairman Li Liangbin told an industry gathering that he thought the lithium price would rise 30% next year to $43,000 a tonne, which sent lithium share prices spiking. Those who were believers in the future of lithium batteries usage in a greener world and electric vehicles got richer on the news. (PLS was up 3% yesterday and 17% over the past week.)

One of the hallmarks of Buffett is to do the reading. He did this daily (and probably still does!), which gave him a competitive edge when it came to understanding the potential of a business and, ultimately, what its share price would do.

Doing the reading on the future of coal and what South Korea revealed at the COP30 climate summit in Brazil this week can be summed up with these key revelations:

1. All 62 South Korean coal plants will close by 2040.
2. If coal can be burnt and the carbon emissions can be captured and stored, new coal plants could emerge.
3. The decision wasn’t just supportive of fighting climate change, the government says it will “increase our energy security, boost the competitiveness of our businesses, and create thousands of jobs.”
4. According to Sier, South Korea “is the world’s seventh-largest coal power generation network and is the world’s fourth-largest thermal coal importer behind China, India and Japan”.
5. The country is set to import $2.3 billion worth of our coal this year.

Interestingly, only in September, our Treasury boffins told us that their calculations say that we should see a 50% fall in the value of Australia’s coal and gas exports over, wait for it, the next five years!

So, this South Korean announcement (which straddles 25 years to 2040) is the kind of change that the Treasury modelling would have anticipated. And surely, it’s a bigger and scarier revelation than this one about our Asian neighbour doing what most industry experts would have already expected.

Markets can be poorly informed and short-term overreactive and therefore can over-buy and over-sell stocks. And that can create money-making opportunities for the readers and thinkers about companies, the industries they’re in and the key information that will either pump up profits, as well as share prices, or not!

This is what Buffett has taught us. If you can’t see yourself doing that, it’s why some people seek out honest, intelligent advisers or go for smart fund managers or Exchange Traded Funds (ETFs) that have great track records.

If you can’t do the reading and the thinking, then find someone or some organisation to do it for you, which means you’ll be contracting out your Buffett aspirations. So, make sure whoever does this for you is trustworthy and with a great track record. It helps big time if they’re smart like Wazza!

By the way, tomorrow morning we’ll wake up to the news about how Nvidia has reported its recent trading. If it’s better than expected, these tech concerns will be put away for a time and stock prices and markets will rise. And yes, our market will rise, underlining how what players in the stock market do (i.e. selling or buying on a daily basis) often doesn’t mean all that much.

Markets have seen billions splashed around on big AI deals over the last quarter. But when it comes to the investment habits of the world's biggest billionaires, they spent the last quarter going defensive. Here's what they bought and sold.

We're able to pour over what billionaires like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett bought and sold thanks to the power of transparency.

US securities law requires large investment managers to publicly disclose their equity holdings each quarter through SEC Form 13F filings. These regulatory filings provide a transparent record of what billionaire traders and major funds bought and sold in the most recent quarter, allowing investors and analysts to track their portfolio moves with a lag of just a few weeks. Without these disclosure rules, the trading activity and strategy of the world’s top investors would remain largely hidden from view. After the recent filing deadline, we're now able to take a look at Q3 2024-25 investments to see the patterns that are emerging. And it's one of uncertainty.

Here's how the money moved.

The trends

In the September quarter, the world’s most-watched billionaire investors dialled down risk, with portfolio activity across the Gates Foundation, Icahn Capital, Pershing Square, and Berkshire Hathaway (the cross-section we looked at) showing a clear tilt toward selling rather than buying.

All four funds trimmed key holdings rather than adding new names or doubling down on old ones. Most of the moves were reductions in position size among the biggest and most recognisable stocks in their portfolios, with no evidence of broad new bets or sector rotations.

There were no major fresh buys, no splashy new ideas, and no shifts into untested themes. Instead, the quarter was defined by defensive actions. That is, selling down portions of long-held winners, banking profits, and tightening the concentration around core ideas. The message from these billionaire investors is clear: keep exposure to proven winners, but don’t let risk get out of hand when valuations are high and uncertainty is rising.

Let's take a look at four of the biggest to see how these defensive moves shook out from portfolio-to-portfolio.

Warren Buffett

Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway kept its reputation for concentration and selective bets, but there were more signs of portfolio reshaping in the September quarter than casual observers might expect. Apple remained by far the dominant holding, accounting for nearly half the entire portfolio, but Buffett trimmed the stake by around 12 percent. That’s the largest cut to Apple he’s made in years and a major event for Berkshire’s famously sticky portfolio. Despite the trim, the position is still so large it would take years of selling to shift the balance meaningfully.

Elsewhere, Buffett took profits and reduced stakes in several of his blue-chip mainstays—Chevron and HP were both slashed by over 20 percent, while the Amazon holding was pared back by a modest 2.5 percent. The portfolio’s old-guard financials—Bank of America, American Express, Coca-Cola and Moody’s—were left largely untouched.

There were no blockbuster new buys. Instead, there’s evidence of Buffett’s caution and a hint that he sees valuations running ahead of fundamentals in key sectors, especially big tech. He’s willing to lighten up on the high-fliers when the numbers get stretched, but he isn’t rushing to redeploy cash into fresh themes.

Bill Gates

The Gates Foundation Trust pared back almost every major holding during the third quarter of 2025. The largest single holding, the aforementioned Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.B), was cut by nearly 10 percent, leaving it at just under 30 percent of the overall portfolio. Waste Management (WM), another anchor position, was trimmed by 10.2 percent, while Canadian National Railway (CNI), Microsoft (MSFT), and Caterpillar (CAT) all saw reductions in the range of 5 to almost 14 percent. These weren’t symbolic moves—the dollar value of these reductions ran into the hundreds of millions or more.

Deere, Ecolab, Madison Square Garden Sports, PK, and Danaher were left unchanged, suggesting no fresh buying or new bets among secondary holdings. Smaller holdings like Walmart, FedEx, Kraft Heinz, Hormel, and Waste Connections were all trimmed, but again, there was no outright liquidation or big rotation.

Not a single holding was added to or initiated. The only activity was a systematic reduction in position size, with no moves into new names or sectors. Over 80 percent of the portfolio remains concentrated in the top five holdings even after these cuts, so the fund’s risk profile and focus haven’t shifted much in substance.

Carl Ichann

Icahn Capital’s portfolio saw notable shifts in the September quarter, with investor legend Carl Icahn making both targeted reductions and increases in his tightly focused holdings. His dominant position, Icahn Enterprises (IEP), rose by 4.5 percent, reinforcing it as the overwhelming anchor of the portfolio at more than 48 percent of total assets.

CVR Energy (CVI), the next largest stake, was left unchanged. In contrast, Icahn made a decisive cut to his third-largest holding, Southwest Gas Holdings (SWX), reducing it by almost 19 percent. This marks a significant scale-back rather than a routine rebalance.

Other moves were smaller in dollar terms but clear in intent: FirstEnergy (FE) and Herc Holdings (HRI) were both trimmed by about 5 percent. Dana Incorporated (DAN) was reduced by nearly 7 percent. Meanwhile, the fund slightly increased its position in Bausch Health Companies (BHC) by 2.7 percent, but this remains a minor part of the overall portfolio.

Importantly, there were no new stocks added and no new themes introduced. Every action was either a reduction in existing holdings or a marginal increase in positions Icahn already owned. The fund remains extremely concentrated, with the top two holdings making up over 65 percent of assets.

Bill Ackman

Bill Ackman’s Pershing Square Holdings made modest, precise reductions to its portfolio in the September quarter of 2025, but kept its existing positions and strategy intact. No new stocks were added, and there were no dramatic reallocations or exits.

The top holding, Uber Technologies, was reduced by a fraction, just 0.1 percent, remaining above 20 percent of the total portfolio. Brookfield Asset Management, the next largest position, was trimmed by 0.5 percent, and Howard Hughes Holdings by 0.6 percent. All three are still substantial weightings and remain the fund’s top bets.

The only material cut was to Alphabet (GOOG), down by 9.6 percent. This was the largest move Ackman made all quarter, but even after the reduction, Alphabet is still a core holding. Restaurant Brands International was reduced by 0.4 percent, and Amazon by 0.2 percent—both so minor they look more like routine rebalancing than any change in view.

Ackman’s actions for the quarter reflect a steady, risk-managed approach. No positions were increased, no new names appeared, and no sectors were added or dropped. All the activity was in minor reductions, with the single exception of the more significant trim to Alphabet.