Boom! Doom! Zoom! | 24 July 2025 – CSL, Telstra, Mineral Resources, MQG, and more

This week on Boom! Doom! Zoom!, Peter Switzer and Paul Rickard tackle the big questions on the minds of Aussie investors.

They break down:

Get their expert take on the ASX, plus the shares they’re buying, holding and watching right now.

Join the show live every Thursday to ask Peter and Paul your investing questions directly.

 

 

 

 

Can AI solve our national productivity problem?

There’s been much talk recently – especially among politicians – about productivity. And for good reason: Australia’s labour productivity growth sits at a 60-year low.

Jon Whittle, CSIRO

To address this, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has convened a productivity round table next month. This will coincide with the release of an interim report from the Productivity Commission, which is looking at five pillars of reform. One of these is the role of data and digital technologies, including artificial intelligence (AI).

This will be music to the ears of the tech and business sectors, which have been enthusiastically promoting the productivity benefits of AI. In fact, the Business Council of Australia also said last month that AI is the single greatest opportunity in a generation to lift productivity.

But what do we really know about how AI impacts productivity?

What is productivity?

Put simply, productivity is how much output (goods and services) we can produce from a given amount of inputs (such as labour and raw materials). It matters because higher productivity typically translates to a higher standard of living. Productivity growth has accounted for 80% of Australia’s income growth over the past three decades.

Productivity can be thought of as individual, organisational or national.

Your individual productivity is how efficiently you manage your time and resources to complete tasks. How many emails can you respond to in an hour? How many products can you check for defects in a day?

Organisational productivity is how well an organisation achieves its goals. For example, in a research organisation, how many top-quality research papers are produced?

National productivity is the economic efficiency of a nation, often measured as gross domestic product per hour worked. It is effectively an aggregate of the other forms. But it’s notoriously difficult to track how changes in individual or organisational productivity translate into national GDP per hour worked.

AI and individual productivity

The nascent research examining the relationship between AI and individual productivity shows mixed results.

A 2025 real-world study of AI and productivity involved 776 experienced product professionals at US multinational company Procter & Gamble. The study showed that individuals randomly assigned to use AI performed as well as a team of two without. A similar study in 2023 with 750 consultants from Boston Consulting Group found tasks were 18% faster with generative AI.

A 2023 paper reported on an early generative AI system in a Fortune 500 software company used by 5,200 customer support agents. The system showed a 14% increase in the number of issues resolved per hour. For less experienced agents, productivity increased by 35%.

But AI doesn’t always increase individual productivity.

A survey of 2,500 professionals found generative AI actually increased workload for 77% of workers. Some 47% said they didn’t know how to unlock productivity benefits. The study points to barriers such as the need to verify and/or correct AI outputs, the need for AI upskilling, and unreasonable expectations about what AI can do.

A recent CSIRO study examined the daily use of Microsoft 365 Copilot by 300 employees of a government organisation. While the majority self-reported productivity benefits, a sizeable minority (30%) did not. Even those workers who reported productivity improvements expected greater productivity benefits than were delivered.

AI and organisational productivity

It’s difficult, if not impossible, to attribute changes in an organisation’s productivity to the introduction of AI. Businesses are sensitive to many social and organisational factors, any one of which could be the reason for a change in productivity.

Nevertheless, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) has estimated the productivity benefits of traditional AI – that is, machine learning applied for an industry-specific task – to be zero to 11% at the organisational level.

A 2024 summary paper cites independent studies showing increases in organisational productivity from AI in Germany, Italy and Taiwan.

In contrast, a 2022 analysis of 300,000 US firms didn’t find a significant correlation between AI adoption and productivity, but did for other technologies such as robotics and cloud computing. Likely explanations are that AI hasn’t yet had an effect on many firms, or simply that it’s too hard to disentangle the impact of AI given it’s never applied in isolation.

AI productivity increases can also sometimes be masked by additional human labour needed to train or operate AI systems. Take Amazon’s Just Walk Out technology for shops.

Publicly launched in 2018, it was intended to reduce labour as customer purchases would be fully automated. But it reportedly relied on hiring around 1,000 workers in India for quality control. Amazon has labelled these reports “erroneous”.

More generally, think about the unknown number (but likely millions) of people paid to label data for AI models.

AI and national productivity

The picture at a national level is even murkier.

Clearly, AI hasn’t yet impacted national productivity. It can be argued that technology developments take time to affect national productivity, as companies need to figure out how to use the technology and put the necessary infrastructure and skills in place.

However, this is not guaranteed. For example, while there is consensus that the internet led to productivity improvements, the effects of mobile phones and social media are more contested, and their impacts are more apparent in some industries (such as entertainment) than others.

Productivity isn’t just doing things faster

The common narrative around AI and productivity is that AI automates mundane tasks, making us faster at doing things and giving us more time for creative pursuits. This, however, is a naive view of how work happens.

Just because you can deal with your inbox more quickly doesn’t mean you’ll spend your afternoon on the beach. The more emails you fire off, the more you’ll receive back, and the never-ending cycle continues.

Faster isn’t always better. Sometimes, we need to slow down to be more productive. That’s when great ideas happen.

Imagine a world in which AI isn’t simply about speeding up tasks but proactively slows us down, to give us space to be more innovative, and more productive. That’s the real untapped opportunity with AI.The Conversation

Jon Whittle, Director, Data61, CSIRO

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

Australia's about to get US beef back on shelves: good idea or trade war tactic?

The Albanese government has this week confirmed it will lift biosecurity restrictions on beef imports from the United States. The timing of this decision has raised some eyebrows.

Felicity Deane, Queensland University of Technology

Back in April, US President Donald Trump had singled out what he characterised as an Australian “ban” on US beef as he announced 10% baseline tariffs on imports from Australia.

Responding to today’s announcement, Nationals leader David Littleproud said it appeared the restrictions have been “traded away to appease Donald Trump”.

But Trade Minister Don Farrell said there was “nothing suspicious about this”. And some Australian industry groups have since expressed their confidence in the decision.

So, has Australia’s beef industry been sold out for the benefit of a trade deal? Or is it just a poorly timed announcement at the end of a review into Australia’s restrictions?

Biosecurity concerns

Australia’s biosecurity rules, particularly around beef products, have long been a source of friction with the United States. These rules date back to the late 1990s and were strengthened following a US mad cow disease scare in 2003.

In 2019, a ban was lifted on beef products from cattle that had been born, raised and slaughtered in the US. However, a ban remained on any products from cattle originating in Mexico or Canada that had been slaughtered in the US.

This was a cause for some tension, because the traceability requirements in the US were not as stringent as in Australia. That meant it wasn’t always possible to determine the origins of US products. So the 2019 change effectively only applied to shelf-stable products – not fresh meat.

Last month, the Albanese government made assurances Australia’s biosecurity rules wouldn’t be compromised in trade negotiations. But it also confirmed a review of the rules was underway.

The National Farmers’ Federation acknowledged the government’s decision in a statement today:

The report released today is the result of a long-standing, science-based review by the Australian Government into the biosecurity risks posed by cattle raised in Canada and Mexico, but processed in and exported from the US.

Speaking on ABC Radio, Cattle Australia chief executive Will Evans acknowledged “a lot of people” may feel “blindsided” by the government’s decision, but expressed his confidence in the government’s process.

Boom times for Australian beef

Australians are some of the highest per-capita consumers of beef products in the world. But Australia is also the world’s second-largest beef exporter, trailing only Brazil.

In contrast, the US is the world’s second-largest importer of beef, behind only China.

That poses the question: how much do we actually need beef from the US? Is it even worth lifting this ban, if it will impact so few people?

The beef industry might be fair to question whether this is for the benefit of their industry, when it seems the existing 10% baseline tariffs have had no impact on the volumes of beef being exported from Australia. Quite the opposite.

In June, Australia’s beef exports broke an all-time monthly record, and the US continued to be our largest export market.

In addition, it is important to recognise the US tariffs on beef would theoretically be absorbed by the consumer, rather than the exporter.

The trade war rages on

Theory suggests that international trade is a good thing (though not everyone is a “winner”). Where there is trade between nations, competitive pricing is encouraged and consumers may enjoy more product variety.

Most restrictions on trade are viewed unfavourably by economists, but there are some notable exceptions. The health and safety of food products and assurance of biosecurity standards are such concerns.

Overnight, comments from the Trump administration suggest the 10% tariffs on imports from Australia could be raised, with a new baseline tariff rate of 15%.

To apply these to Australian beef is in direct conflict with the Australia and United States Free Trade Agreement (AUSFTA). This agreement progressively removed tariffs on Australian beef, with all tariffs eliminated by 2023.

Consequently, any new US tariff would violate these terms, threatening a trade relationship that has seen beef exports to the US flourish.

Is our reputation on the line?

It is important to note that the biosecurity rules in Australia and the traceability requirements for our producers are a point of national pride.

Central to Australia’s biosecurity framework is the Biosecurity Act 2015 and the National Livestock Identification System, which ensures traceability, food safety, disease control and animal welfare.

This imposes strict requirements on Australian beef producers – and as a result, imposes costs. It also means Australian beef is considered a premium product in much of the world.

Australians should hope the evidence from the government’s review fully supports this action.

Given the unpredictability of the Trump administration, it remains to be seen whether lifting these restrictions will win Australia any concessions on trade anyway.The Conversation

Felicity Deane, Professor of Trade Law and Taxation, Queensland University of Technology

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

Rupert v Donald: why they're fighting, and why it could be the fallout of the century

If Rupert Murdoch becomes a white knight standing up to a rampantly bullying US president, the world has moved into the upside-down.

Andrew Dodd, The University of Melbourne and Matthew Ricketson, Deakin University

This is, after all, the media mogul whose US television network, Fox News, actively supported Donald Trump’s Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election result and paid out a US$787 million (about A$1.2 billion) lawsuit for doing so.

It is also the network that supplied several members of Trump’s inner circle, including former Fox host, now controversial Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth.

But that is where we are after Trump filed a writ on July 18 after Murdoch’s financial newspaper, The Wall Street Journal, published an article about a hand-drawn card Trump is alleged to have sent to sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in 2003. The newspaper reported:

A pair of small arcs denotes the woman’s breasts, and the future president’s signature is a squiggly “Donald” below her waist, mimicking pubic hair.

The Journal said it has seen the letter but did not republish it. The letter allegedly concluded:

Happy Birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret.

The card was apparently Trump’s contribution to a birthday album compiled for Epstein by the latter’s partner Ghislaine Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence after being found guilty of sex trafficking in 2021.

Trump was furious. He told his Truth Social audience he had warned Murdoch the letter was fake. He wrote, “Mr Murdoch stated that he would take care of it but obviously did not have the power to do so,” referring to Murdoch handing leadership of News Corporation to his eldest son Lachlan in 2023.

Trump is being pincered. On one side, The Wall Street Journal is a respected newspaper that speaks to literate, wealthy Americans who remain deeply sceptical about Trump’s radical initiative on tariffs, which it described in an editorial as “the dumbest trade war in history”.

On the other side is the conspiracy theory-thirsty MAGA base who have been told for years that there was a massive conspiracy around Epstein’s apparent suicide in 2019 that included the so-called deep state, Democrat elites and, no doubt, the Clintons.

Trump, who loves pro wrestling as well as adopting its garish theatrics, might characterise his lawsuit against Murdoch as a smackdown to rival Hulk Hogan vs Andre the Giant in the 1980s.

To adopt wrestling argot, though, it is a rare battle between two heels.

A friendship of powerful convenience

Murdoch and Trump’s relationship is longstanding but convoluted. The key to understanding it is that both men are ruthlessly transactional.

Exposure in Murdoch’s New York Post in the 1980s and ‘90s was crucial to building Trump’s reputation.

Not that Murdoch particularly likes Trump. Yes, Murdoch attended his second inauguration, albeit in a back row behind the newly favoured big tech media moguls. He was also seen sitting in the Oval Office a few days later looking quite at home.

But this was pure power-display politics, not the behaviour of a friend.

Remember Murdoch’s derision on hearing Trump was considering standing for office before the 2016 election, and his promotion of Ron De Santis in the primaries before Trump’s second term. Murdoch’s political hero has always been Ronald Reagan. Trump has laid waste to the Republican Party of Reagan.

Murdoch knows what the rest of sane America knows: Trump is downright weird, if not dangerous. This, of course, only makes Murdoch’s complicity in Trump’s rise to power, and Fox News’ continued boosterism of Trump, all the more appalling.

But, in keeping with Murdoch’s relationship to power throughout his career, what he helps make, he also helps destroy. Perhaps now it’s Trump’s turn to be unmade. As a former Murdoch lieutenant told The Financial Times over the weekend:

he’s testing out: Is Trump losing his base? And where do I need to be to stay in the heart of the base?

And here is Murdoch’s great advantage, and his looming threat.

A double-edged sword

The advantage comes with the scope of Murdoch’s media empire, which operates like a federation of different mastheads, each with their own market and aspirations. While Fox News panders to the MAGA base, and The New York Post juices its New York audience, The Wall Street Journal speaks, and listens, to business. Each audience has different needs, meaning they’re often presented with the same news in very different ways, or sometimes different news entirely.

Like a federation, though, News Corp uses its various operations to drive the type of change that affects all its markets.

It might work like this. The Wall Street Journal breaks a story that’s so shocking it begins to chip away at MAGA’s unquestioning loyalty of Trump. This process is, of course, willingly aided by the rest of the media. The resulting groundswell eventually allows Fox News and the Post to tentatively follow their audiences into questioning, and then perhaps criticising, Trump.

The threat is that before that groundswell builds, Murdoch is seriously vulnerable to criticism from a still dominant Trump, who can turn conspiracy-prone audiences away from Fox News with just a social media post. Trump has already been busy doing just that, saying he is looking forward to getting Murdoch onto the witness stand for his lawsuit.

If the Fox audience decides it’s the proprietor who’s behind this denigration of Trump, they may decide to boycott their own favoured media channel, even though Fox’s programming hasn’t yet started questioning Trump.

The Murdochs’ fear of audience backlash was a major factor in Fox’s promulgation of the Big Lie after Trump’s defeat in 2020. The fear their audience might defect to Newsmax or some other right-wing media outfit is just as real today.

History littered with fakery

We also need to consider that Trump might be right. What if the letter is a fake?

Murdoch has form when it comes to high-profile exposés that turn out to be fiction. Who can forget the Hitler Diaries in 1983, which we now know Murdoch knew were fake before he published.

Think also of the Pauline Hanson photos, allegedly of her posing in lingerie, all of which were quickly proved to be fake after they were published by Murdoch’s Australian tabloids in 2009.

There was also The Sun’s despicable and wilfully wrong campaign against Elton John in 1987 and the same paper’s continued denigration of the people of Liverpool following the Hillsborough stadium disaster in 1989.

But while Murdoch’s News Corp has a history of confection and fakery, the Wall Street Journal has a reputation for straight reportage, albeit through a conservative lens. Since Murdoch bought it in 2007, it has been engaged in its own internal battle for editorial standards.

Media rolling over

What Trump won’t get from Murdoch is the same acquiescence he’s enjoyed from America’s ABC and CBS networks, which have both handed over tens of millions of dollars in defamation settlements following dubious claims by Trump about the nature of their coverage.

In December 2024, ABC’s owner Disney settled and agreed to pay US$15 million (A$23 million) to Trump’s presidential library. The president sued after a presenter said Trump was found guilty of raping E. Jean Carroll.

Trump had actually been found guilty by a jury in a civil trial of sexually abusing and defaming Carroll and was ordered to pay her US$5 million (A$7.6 million).

CBS’ parent company, Paramount, did similarly after being sued by the president, agreeing in early July to settle and pay US$16 million (A$24.5 million) to Trump’s library. This was despite earlier saying the case was “completely without merit”.

Beware the legal microscope

From Trump’s viewpoint, two prominent media companies have been cowed. But his campaign against critical media doesn’t stop there.

Last week, congress passed a bill cancelling federal funding for the country’s two public-service media outlets, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).

Also last week, CBS announced the cancellation of Stephen Colbert’s stridently critical comedy show, although CBS claims this is just a cost-cutting exercise and not about appeasing a bully in the White House.

Presuming the reported birthday letter is real, Murdoch will not bend so easily. And that’s when it will be important to pay attention, because at some point Trump’s lawyers will advise him about the dangers of depositions and discovery: the legal processes that force parties to a dispute to reveal what they have and what they know.

If the Epstein files do implicate Trump, the legal fight won’t last long and the media campaign against him will only intensify.

Right now we have the spectre of Murdoch joining that other disaffected mogul, Elon Musk, in a moral crusade against Trump, the man they both helped make. The implications are head-spinning.

As global bullies, the three of them probably deserve each other. But we, the public, surely deserve better than any of them.The Conversation

Andrew Dodd, Professor of Journalism, Director of the Centre for Advancing Journalism, The University of Melbourne and Matthew Ricketson, Professor of Communication, Deakin University

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

Why it's important central banks stay independent

In the United States, President Donald Trump has been pressuring the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Jerome Powell, to slash interest rates. This is partly to ease the interest payments on the ballooning US government debt.

John Simon, Macquarie University and Ben Wang, Macquarie University

Powell has so far resisted, but Trump has also threatened to replace him with someone who will do what he asks.

In Australia, after the Reserve Bank’s surprise decision to hold interest rates steady this month, some commentators have wondered if the central bank had “betrayed” Australians. Treasurer Jim Chalmers pointedly remarked:

It’s not the result millions of Australians were hoping for or what the market was expecting.

On Tuesday, the Reserve Bank released the minutes of that controversial policy-setting meeting, which said some economic data was slightly stronger than expected. The majority of the board believed:

lowering the cash rate a third time within the space of four meetings would be unlikely to be consistent with the strategy of easing monetary policy in a cautious and gradual manner.

Can’t rates just be kept low?

Wouldn’t we be better off if central banks kept interest rates low, as some politicians and borrowers were hoping for? It would certainly help those of us with mortgages.

Surprisingly, the answer is no.

We are better off when central banks set interest rates with a view on the longer run rather than just the short-term demands of politicians and borrowers.

To see why we can look at history to see what happens when a central bank isn’t independent.

Why does independence matter?

In the 1970s the chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Arthur Burns, was pressured to cut interest rates in the run-up to the 1972 election. He dutifully did so and, while President Richard Nixon was re-elected, this led to “stagflation” – with inflation, unemployment and even interest rates, higher than before interest rates were cut.

A more recent example of political pressure can be seen in Turkey where the president pressured the central bank to cut interest rates. He hoped to stimulate the economy and believed higher interest rates caused higher inflation.

Unfortunately, lower rates were shortly followed by higher inflation and, ultimately, much higher interest rates.

And today in the US, even though Powell has so far resisted Trump’s pressure, financial markets are shaken and long-term interest rates go up when Trump talks about replacing him.

Lower interest rates can be like a caffeinated energy drink – they give you a short-term energy boost, but can leave you tired, irritable and with a headache when the effects wear off.

So, why does this happen? It’s all about expectations.

Expectations about the future matter

A central bank influences the economy both through what it does and what people expect it to do. The ability to shape expectations is a powerful tool for central banks, especially during crises such as the COVID pandemic, when official interest rates were close to zero.

Imagine, for example, you are about to take out a mortgage. In making this decision you will likely think not just about current interest rates and your ability to make repayments, but what is likely to happen to future interest rates, your wages and inflation.

Credibility is the key to successfully shaping people’s expectations. If a central bank is independent and credible, consumers and businesses will listen to what it says and adjust their expectations accordingly.

The chart below illustrates this point.

Macquarie University’s Business Outlook Scenarios Survey asks businesses if they believe the Reserve Bank will meet its inflation goals. Those that do trust the bank (the line labelled “certain”) have lower inflation expectations than those that don’t (the line labelled “uncertain”).

Importantly, the expectations of those that trust the bank to meet its inflation goals tend to align with the bank’s 2–3% inflation target over the business cycle.

And these expectations affect what businesses and consumers do today.

So, how credible is the Reserve Bank today?

Despite the surprise hold, Australians still trust the RBA

Data from the Business Outlook Scenarios Survey shows the Reserve Bank has rebuilt its credibility since its 2021 “promise” not to raise interest rates until 2024. It has done this by reforming its board structure and membership, being more open and, most critically, by hitting the inflation target.

Indeed, the most recent survey data shows that, if anything, the surprise decision increased people’s confidence in the bank’s ability to control inflation.

In July, the survey was in the field between July 7 and 10. The Reserve Bank made its announcement on July 8. Out of 512 businesses surveyed, 368 completed it before the announcement and 144 completed it after the announcement.

Overall, more than 40% of businesses surveyed were certain the Reserve Bank will achieve its inflation target. This is up from less than 10% a year ago. And, those who completed the survey after the announcement were more likely to trust the Reserve Bank than those that who completed it before the announcement.

So next time you hear politicians and commentators calling for immediate interest rate cuts, you should hope the Reserve Bank ignores those calls and focuses on the longer term. Overseas experience shows things do not end well when politicians start determining interest rates.The Conversation

John Simon, Adjunct Fellow in Economics, Macquarie University and Ben Wang, Associate Professor of Economics, Macquarie University

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

How this US earnings season will affect your portfolio this week: your timetable

It's a huge week for earnings with around 3000 companies in the US and a handful of Australian companies set to report. Here's what to watch out for.

Why should you care about US earnings season?

US earnings season matters to Australian investors because it offers insight into the health of the world’s largest economy, and sets the tone for global markets. 

Many ASX-listed companies rely on exports or operate globally, so weak US corporate results can trigger broader sell-offs or shifts in investor sentiment. 

Big tech and financial results, in particular, often influence currency movements, commodity prices, and risk appetite — all of which affect Australian portfolios.

As the US markets hit fresh highs over the last few weeks, the only two things that can meaningfully move them significantly up or down is earnings news and/or tariff news.

In fact, this earnings season is set to be a test for US companies as they present a report card that basically indicates how they've handled the economic rollercoaster that has been the last few months of on-and-off tariff talk.

Who's reporting and when?

All times and days are in AEST. 

Typically you can expect the US companies that report "after-hours" when the markets have closed to come in during Australia's daylight hours (usually in the AM). While companies that report during their daylight will come in for us overnight.

Tuesday/Wednesday

Consumer Staples & Tobacco

Coca‑Cola (KO)

Philip Morris (PM)

Technology & Electronics

Texas Instruments (TXN)

Enphase (ENPH)

Healthcare & Life Sciences

Intuitive Surgical (ISRG)

IQVIA Holdings (IQV)

Danaher (DHR)

Quest Diagnostics (DGX)

Financials & Insurance

Chubb (CB)

Capital One Financial (COF)

Synchrony Financial (SYF)

KeyCorp (KEY)

Invesco (IVZ)

Equifax (EFX)

Defense & Aerospace

RTX Corp (RTX)

Lockheed Martin (LMT)

Northrop Grumman (NOC)

Industrials & Construction

DR Horton (DHI)

PulteGroup (PHM)

PACCAR (PCAR)

Pentair (PNR)

Avery Dennison (AVY)

Genuine Parts (GPC)

Automotive

General Motors (GM)

Materials & Chemicals

Sherwin‑Williams (SHW)

Energy & Oil Services

Baker Hughes (BKR)

Halliburton (HAL)

EQT (EQT)

Real Estate / Commercial Data

CoStar (CSGP)

Financial Services / Data

MSCI (MSCI)

IPG (IPG)

Thursday/Friday

Technology & Communications

Alphabet C (GOOG)

Alphabet A (GOOGL)

Tesla (TSLA) (Auto & Tech)

IBM (IBM)

ServiceNow Inc (NOW)

AT&T (T)

T-Mobile US (TMUS)

Amphenol (APH)

TE Connectivity (TEL)

Rockwell Automation (ROK)

Teledyne Technologies (TDY)

Healthcare & Life Sciences

Boston Scientific (BSX)

Thermo Fisher Scientific (TMO)

Molina Healthcare (MOH)

Financials & Insurance

CME Group (CME)

Fiserv (FI)

Moody’s (MCO)

Raymond James Financial (RJF)

Northern Trust (NTRS)

Globe Life (GL)

Industrials & Capital Goods

General Dynamics (GD) (Defense)

Otis Worldwide (OTIS)

United Rentals (URI)

GE Vernova LLC (GEV) (Energy/Industrial)

Crown Castle (CCI) (Infrastructure/REIT)

CSX (CSX) (Transport/Rail)

Raymond James Financial (RJF)

Rollins (ROL) (Pest/Facilities Services)

Consumer Discretionary

O’Reilly Automotive (ORLY)

Hasbro (HAS)

NVR (NVR) (Homebuilding)

Chipotle Mexican Grill (CMG)

Hilton Worldwide (HLT)

Las Vegas Sands (LVS)

Alaska Air (ALK)

Materials & Packaging

Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) (Mining)

Packaging Corporation of America (PKG)

Lamb Weston Holdings (LW) (Food/Agri-processing)

Friday/Saturday

Technology & Communications

Intel (INTC)

VeriSign (VRSN)

Nasdaq Inc (NDAQ)

Digital Realty Trust (DLR) (Tech REIT)

Charter Communications (CHTR) (Friday)

Healthcare & Life Sciences

Edwards Lifesciences (EW)

West Pharmaceutical Services (WST)

Labcorp Holdings (LH)

HCA Healthcare (HCA) (Friday)

Centene Corp (CNC) (Friday)

Financials & Insurance

Blackstone (BX)

Ameriprise Financial (AMP)

Erie Indemnity (ERIE)

Aon (AON) (Friday)

Industrials & Transport

Honeywell (HON)

Union Pacific (UNP) (Rail)

L3Harris Technologies (LHX) (Defense)

Westinghouse Air Brake (WAB)

Dover (DOV)

Textron (TXT) (Aerospace/Industrials)

Ryder System (R)

LKQ (LKQ) (Auto parts)

Energy & Utilities

Valero Energy (VLO) (Oil refining)

Phillips 66 (PSX) (Friday)

CenterPoint Energy (CNP)

Dow Inc (DOW) (Chemicals/Materials)

Consumer Discretionary & Retail

Tractor Supply (TSCO)

Deckers Outdoor (DECK)

Mohawk Industries (MHK) (Flooring/furnishings)

Pool Corp (POOL)

AO Smith (AOS) (Appliances/Water heaters)

Keurig Dr Pepper (KDP)

American Airlines (AAL)

Southwest Airlines (LUV)

Real Estate & REITs

Healthpeak Properties (DOC)

Weyerhaeuser (WY) (Timber/REIT)

Materials

Newmont Goldcorp (NEM) (Gold mining)

Martin Marietta Materials (MLM) (Construction materials)

Allegion PLC (ALLE) (Building hardware/security)

Trump is a Bitcoin billionaire, and he’s only getting richer

Donald Trump, ever the businessman, is making billions on bitcoin, as he wields his power as President of the United States to legitimise cryptocurrencies.

The bottom line cost of being Albo, PM of Australia is $7 million! However, this is small beer to what President Trump is costing and creating for the Trump family’s wealth.
More on that in a moment because the wealth this US President is creating in office is historically staggering. The Prime Minister of Australia’s counterpart is a multi-billion dollar bionic man!
The Daily Telegraph ran with the headline HE’S NOT BIONIC, BUT ALBO’S OUR $7M MAN” but this really is chicken feed!
Here’s what Albo costs the public purse:
1. PM’s salary $662,102.
2. Maintaining the PM’s official residences – The Lodge in Canberra and Kirribilli House in Sydney – comes to $2.5 million.
3. Annualised parliamentary expenses $3.7 million.
What are these parliamentary expenses? Try car travel, overseas travel for the PM and his staff, family travel expenses and phone bills.
It’s a solid chunk of change, but as I’ve said, this is peanuts compared to the money Donald Trump is amassing in his second stint as US President.
Even by local standards, $7 million is paltry. As the AFR pointed out, Macquarie’s CEO, Shemara Wikramanayake, who’s universally seen as a great corporate leader, has earnt a lot more than the leader of Australia. How much?
Try this: “Wikramanayake has earned $144 million in salary since becoming the Macquarie CEO in 2018. Together with the value of shares not subject to any performance hurdles, she has collected a total of $295 million. Once performance shares yet to vest are included, her total pay package is estimated to have reached $413 million.”
Again, this still looks like a pittance compared to the money Donald Trump’s tribe is building in power.
Before becoming president, Donald Trump created Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) which now holds US$2 billion worth of Bitcoin. This company trades on the Nasdaq and is up 95% since listing in 2021 and has been as high as US$94. It’s US$19.40.
The following wealth-building facts were revealed by Kevin Breuninger on CNBC:
1. Trump’s stake in TMTG is around US$2.3 billion.
2. Bitcoin accounts for most of Trump’s wealth on paper.
3. Once a bitcoin sceptic, he now wants the US to be the crypto capital of the world.
4. He plans to sign a presidential order for the US to have a “strategic bitcoin reserve”, which is great news for bitcoin speculators.
5. The Trump family has a majority interest in World Liberty Financial, which will be a ‘sort of’ crypto banking platform, where the general public will be encouraged to borrow, lend and invest in crypto.
And on Friday, the President signed a bill passed by Congress last week called the GENIUS Act, which is an acronym for Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act. Put simply, atablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency that are backed by assets considered to be reliable such as a national currency or a commodity.
Stablecoins are typically used to transfer funds between different cryptocurrency tokens. Importantly, the Act requires stablecoins to be backed one-for-one by US dollars or other low-risk assets.
It’s a platform to make cryptocurrency more acceptable and useable going forward. In a sense, President Trump is doing the spadework to make cryptocurrencies more mainstream, which is fantastic for Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies (and their investors).
For those who might think the President’s involvement in Bitcoin and his efforts to make cryptocurrency more mainstream is a conflict of interest, this is what Breuninger reported on the subject:
“Trump’s spokespeople have said that the president’s connection to World Liberty does not create a conflict of interest because his assets are in a trust that is currently managed by his son, Donald Trump Jr”.
This week I interviewed famous Australian investor Mark Carnegie, who has been an early enthusiast about cryptocurrency. Carnegie made the point to me that powerful forces in the US are backing the future of cryptocurrencies, and this was a strong pointer about the outlook for these new-age digital currencies.
There’s old US saying that “anything is legal as long as 100 businessmen say it is!” All this has made me less sceptical about bitcoin’s future, though it doesn’t mean its price can’t fall when, say, recessions threaten or tech stocks get dumped.
This long-term chart of much-loved gold shows you can lose money on this most precious metal for a long time, if you buy at the wrong time.
One final point about Trump and his money-making habits. When he discovered his appeal as a media star in the TV show The Apprentice, he used this to escalate the brand Trump. Hotels, resorts and other product and service providers paid to use his name.
However, now he has the brand-enhancer of being President of the USA, the value of whatever the Trump name is added to, brings with it fans and believers who think this guy walks on water.
I doubt whether he’ll be seen as a great president, though he will be regarded as the most innovative. But as a business brain and brand developer, he has even put the great Sir Richard Branson with his Virgin brand to shame.

Switzer Investing TV | 21 July 2025: Think the sky is falling? Try our 'scaredy-cat portfolio'

 

In this episode of Switzer Investing TV, Peter Switzer teams up with Paul Rickard to unveil a “Scaredy Cat Portfolio” — stocks built for market anxiety and steady dividends. Then, Mark Carnegie joins to explain why he’s more into Ethereum than Bitcoin, despite having exposure to both. And economist Krishna Bhamidipati from State Street unpacks why the RBA didn’t cut rates in July — and whether August might bring the move instead.

 

Subscribe to Switzer

After yet another election, Tasmanians are left wondering what the point of it was

When the results firmed up a few hours after polling closed on Saturday, many Tasmanians would have been wondering, “what was the point of all that?”.

Robert Hortle, University of Tasmania

A state election only 16 months after the last one looks to have delivered a parliament with a broadly similar distribution of seats.

The results

By the time counting ceased last night, the ABC had the Liberals on 14 seats, Labor on nine, the Greens on five, and three confirmed independents.

A bar chart showing how many seats each party has won.
The ABC’s projections of the Tasmanian election, captured at 11:15am on July 20th.
ABC News

With 65.3% of the vote counted, four seats remained in doubt. There was a small positive swing to the Liberals (3.3%), while a swing against Labor of 3.1% has them on track for their worst primary vote in more than a hundred years. The final seats may not be confirmed for a couple of weeks.

Love, Labor’s lost

At this stage, it looks like Labor’s gambit – instigating the no confidence motion that led to this election – has utterly failed. The party will now need to engage in some sober self-reflection on two fronts.

First, there is the one-dimensional strategy that brought on the election and allowed the Liberals to blame Labor – and leader Dean Winter in particular – for dragging Tasmanians to the polls again.

Labor had hoped that targeting the no confidence motion specifically at Premier Jeremy Rockliff would encourage the conservative-leaning Liberal cabinet to turf out their moderate leader.

It was a near thing. Rockliff’s rivals apparently had almost enough votes to depose him by the time the Governor called the election.

But did anyone at Labor HQ plan for what would happen if their gamble failed and the Liberals held firm under Rockliff? As Labor’s woefully under-prepared campaign stumbled into motion, it seemed the answer was “no”.

Second, there will be questions asked about that lacklustre campaign, just as there were in 2024. An opposition could not ask for more favourable conditions: an 11-year incumbent government suffering a string of high profile policy failures; a looming mountain of debt; and ongoing health, education, housing, cost of living and sustainability challenges.

And yet, Labor suffered negative swings in every seat, and they are battling to match their 2024 result of 10 seats.

Liberals and Greens hold firm

The Liberals will be pleased with the result. In the face of the dire circumstances outlined above, they have secured a positive swing in their primary vote and may pick up one or (at an outside chance) two additional seats.

It doesn’t seem like their pro-stadium stance lost them votes in the north – where the proposal is unpopular – in part because Labor denied themselves a point of difference by also supporting the stadium.

Another important factor in the north was the recruitment of two former federal Liberal MPs in Bass and Braddon, who are both polling well so far. However, their success may come at the expense of sitting Liberal members.

The Greens’ vote held steady, with a projected 0.2% increase in their primary vote. All of their MPs had been returned before the close of counting on Saturday night, and they will be hoping one more can scrape through in Braddon.

The crossbench zoo

As expected, ex-Labor MP David O'Byrne, centre-left Kristie Johnston, and maverick Northwester Craig Garland were all returned. Johnston and Garland, in particlar, seem to have strongly increased their vote shares.

There will be at least one new independent, with anti-salmon farm advocate Peter George securing a very strong primary vote in Franklin off the back of his recent federal campaign.

There is a chance that this broadly progressive crossbench will be joined by climate change denier and pro-gun rights candidate Carlo di Falco (Lyons) from the Shooters, Fishers and Farmers.

Where to now?

So how are the major party leaders approaching the looming period of wheeling and dealing? Who’s forming minority government?

Rockliff was the first to address the tally room on election night. He boldly claimed that the voters had re-endorsed his Liberal government – based on their increased vote share – and said he will ask the Governor to recommission him as premier.

However, with only 14 or 15 seats, it will be challenging for the Liberals to implement their agenda in a parliament featuring a crossbench that is, for the most part, solidly progressive and vehemently anti-stadium.

The Greens’ leader, Rosalie Woodruff, also spoke and again extended an offer of cooperation to Labor.

Finally, as election night drew to a close, Labor Leader Dean Winter stepped up to speak. His tonally confused speech began with a tribute to murdered Tasmanian Police Constable Keith Smith, then shifted to the need for a more collaborative approach to politics. Winter left things on a cliffhanger, essentially saying “let’s wait and see”.

Observers in the room noted the speech was strikingly similar to that given by former leader Rebecca White following the 2024 election – shortly before she was replaced by Winter.

Will Labor have a crack at forming government? There would be a few obstacles to this. First, Winter would have to negotiate support from the diverse crossbench, including the Greens, with whom he has previously vowed not to collaborate.

He and Labor have ignored previous opportunities to seize government in this way, the most recent being just five weeks ago. A change in tack at this stage could be difficult to sell.

And if Rockliff forges ahead with his stated plan, Labor and the crossbench would need to vote down a new Liberal minority government on the floor of parliament. Labor would need to be very certain of their ability to govern before doing this – or risk another election.

So while all of the party leaders spoke of maturity and collaboration in their speeches, until actions match words, Tasmanians will be forced to watch the parliamentary shenanigans continue.The Conversation

Robert Hortle, Deputy Director, Tasmanian Policy Exchange, University of Tasmania

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

Parliament is back: here's your refresher of who's who in the zoo

Despite many pre-election predictions, the 48th Australian parliament looks quite similar to the 47th. The Labor Party has greater representation than before: 94 Members of the House of Representatives (up from 77) and 29 Senators (up from 26).

Jill Sheppard, Australian National University and Patrick Leslie, Australian National University

The Coalition’s numbers were famously smashed at the election, and will be represented by 43 Members and 27 Senators.

Despite the landslide electoral victory, Labor’s parliamentary position is not materially improved. It retains a majority in the House of Representatives, but Prime Minister Anthony Albanese faces the problem of finding jobs to keep such a large backbench occupied. Restless politicians reliably create havoc for their leaders (just ask Keir Starmer).

In the Senate, Labor has more possible paths to a majority, but none is particularly pretty. Pre-election, the government required 12 additional senators to support its legislation. Often this support came from the Coalition, with the crossbench bypassed entirely, as in the case of political donation reforms.

Other reforms, including workplace relations, were passed by a combination of Greens and independent senators.

Labor can achieve a majority (38 votes) in the new Senate by negotiating with either the Greens or the Coalition. If neither is forthcoming, Labor can then turn to a disparate group of crossbenchers: four One Nation Senators, plus Fatima Payman, Jacqui Lambie, Ralph Babet and David Pocock.

Clearing the decks

How the new Senate configuration affects Labor’s legislative agenda depends on what exactly that agenda looks like.

Labor went into the 47th parliament emphasising the Voice referendum, COVID and rising inflation.

At the end of that term, ten bills were listed for debate but were “timed out” by the constitutional requirement to hold an election.

The most controversial of these is the proposal to add a new 15% tax on superannuation balances of more than $3 million. The Greens, under previous leader Adam Bandt, promised to support the bill in 2023 pending the government extending superannuation to paid parental leave (which was legislated in 2024 and came into effect on July 1 2025).

The Greens continue to support the tax proposal in principle, but want the threshold lowered to $2 million.

One Nation is strongly opposed. The Coalition has expressed willingness to negotiate on the condition that unrealised gains are exempt from valuations.

The government has also proposed cutting the number of overseas students at Australian universities, ostensibly due to concerns over exploitation of the student visa program. The Greens have called the proposal “disastrous for tertiary education”.

Pocock and the Coalition have both called for key changes to the bill. Their primary concerns are about a ministerial power to decide appropriate student numbers without parliamentary approval.

Despite opposing the bill for different reasons, the Greens and Coalition were willing to team up against the government – perhaps foreshadowing strategy in the new parliament.

What’s on the horizon?

Labor announced just 15 specific policy proposals before the election. Only two costed promises are registered with the Parliamentary Budget Office. This gives Labor a free hand to determine its policy agenda in the 48th parliament.

Right out of the gate, the government promised to cut HECS debt by 20%. Given the Greens would wipe all current HECS debt, they seem likely to wave this through the Senate.

Treasurer Jim Chalmers has since declared that while “the first term was primarily inflation without forgetting productivity, the second term will be primarily productivity without forgetting inflation”.

In search of new thinking, the government has announced an economic reform roundtable comprising government, business and experts, and covering economic resilience, skills, new technologies, healthcare reform and clean energy.

Productivity is notoriously difficult to measure and improve. Whether policies arising from the roundtable will pass the parliament remains to be seen.

However, the government’s invitation to Shadow Treasurer Ted O'Brien was accompanied with commentary that Chalmers does not believe O'Brien or his leader Sussan Ley are “by their nature constructive, collaborative types”.

Other election policies should be legislated with ease. The Coalition has already supported purchasing the Port of Darwin, promised instant asset write-offs for small business, and pledged to match Labor’s Medicare spending dollar for dollar.

The Coalition is also likely to support new fast-track training for 6,000 tradies.

The Greens will likely support pro-worker reforms. These include legislated weekend penalty rates and new mental health spending.

In general, the government’s stated agenda is incremental and should be achievable in this parliament. If the Greens won’t play ball, the Coalition will be waiting in line.

This will probably lead to quixotic policymaking as Labor bounces between two ideologically opposed partners.

Elsewhere, as in the case of the government’s post-election approval of new licences for gas extraction, policy can happen without parliamentary approval at all.

In such cases, meaningful opposition will come from the cross- and backbenches, full of politicians eager to make a name for themselves.The Conversation

Jill Sheppard, Senior Lecturer, School of Politics and International Relations, Australian National University and Patrick Leslie, Research Fellow in Politics, Australian National University

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

Boom! Doom! Zoom! | 17 July 2025 - Unpacking CSL, BHP, Telstra, Xero and more

With July 30’s inflation data looming, could the RBA finally deliver a rate cut?

Peter Switzer and Paul Rickard break down the odds — and why the jobs market may be the deciding factor. Plus, they dive into the latest volatility from Donald Trump’s tariff threats, how investors should position their portfolios ahead of August, and the stocks they’re buying, holding or avoiding.

Covered in this episode:

• Will the RBA cut rates this month?

• Trump’s tariff plans: noise or a real threat?

• CSL, BHP, Telstra, Xero and Dicker Data questions answered

• Is it time to buy Amcor?

• Value in Europe vs the US tech-heavy market

• The “scaredy cat” portfolio preview

 

Investor questions answered live on:

• A1M • DroneShield • WiseTech (WTC) • TPG • Xero SPP • Audinate (AD8)

 

 

 

What are 'sovereign citizens', and how do they work with Australian laws?

Armed with obscure legal jargon and fringe interpretations of the law, “sovereign citizens” are continuing to test the limits of the Australian justice system’s patience and power.

Madeleine Perrett, University of Adelaide and Mark Giancaspro, University of Adelaide

A few weeks ago, two Western Australians were jailed for 30 days after defying a Supreme Court order and refusing to acknowledge the court’s authority.

Weeks earlier, former AFL footballer Warren Tredrea told the Federal Court he could not pay his legal costs to his former employer, Channel 9, because he did not believe in Australian legal tender.

And former One Nation senator Rod Culleton is currently fighting the Australian Federal Police, arguing his court-declared bankruptcy is not legally binding and therefore should not affect his federal election nomination.

These are not isolated incidents. They are part of a growing trend known as “pseudolaw”.

What is ‘pseudolaw’?

Pseudolaw describes the practice of constructing legal arguments that sound convincing but are fundamentally wrong.

It often relies on real law or cases, twisting them through bizarre or inaccurate interpretations. It looks like law, but isn’t.

Common pseudolegal arguments include:

Not one of these arguments has ever succeeded in an Australian court.

What are ‘sovereign citizens’?

Those who believe and engage in pseudolaw are sometimes termed “sovereign citizens” or “SovCits”, a label imported from the United States during the 1970s.

The sovereign citizen “movement” reached Australia in the late 1990s.

As the Australian Federal Police explain, sovereign citizens believe they are morally and legally correct, and are quite open about their beliefs and plans.

They reject government authority, refuse to comply with laws and rely on complex but false legal theories to justify their actions.

Because many social media platforms ban their content, sovereign citizens frequently communicate through encrypted messaging apps or gather in person at protests and “common law courts” – unofficial tribunals based on a distorted reading of historical legal principles. These “courts” claim to operate outside state authority and often “try” public officials, file false claims against property and carry out other pseudolegal actions with no real legal force.

They claim to be peaceful and say they are acting in “self-defence” against perceived government overreach. But a small number turn violent.

The rise of pseudolaw in Australia

In the 1970s, WA farmer Leonard Casley labelled his farm the “Hutt River Province”, then attempted to secede from the Commonwealth of Australia and the State of Western Australia.

A curiosity back then, but a warning sign.

For years, fringe tax protesters and anti-government groups quietly pushed these ideas.

Then the COVID pandemic hit: lockdowns, mandates and rising distrust meant pseudolaw went more viral. Social media lit up with people claiming they weren’t subject to Australian law.

They spouted strawman theories, cited fake laws and filmed themselves refusing police orders.

Now it’s in the courts, on the streets and in online echo chambers.

It is not just noise. It is congesting the judicial system and putting people, including adherents, at risk.

A recent South Australian study highlights how pseudolaw is increasingly disrupting legal processes in that state.

The law, however, still stands, no matter what those on YouTube say.

What the ‘real’ law says

To be clear, pseudolaw looks real but isn’t; the real law is clear on many of the points raised by sovereign citizens.

For example, the federal government derives its authority to govern from the Commonwealth Constitution. This document clearly states the government has executive authority and can make laws that bind all Australians.

This includes tax laws and laws declaring Australian money as legal tender: in 2007, the Federal Court flatly rejected arguments that income tax and currency laws were invalid.

The “strawman theory” – which states someone has two personas, one of real flesh and blood and the other a separate legal personality, who is the “strawman” – has also been debunked by the courts countless times. The West Australian Supreme Court recently called it “fundamentally misguided”.

And does capitalising your name on official documents like your birth certificate or driver’s licence affect your rights? The courts have categorically said “no”.

Pseudolaw is, as one Victorian judge described it last year, nothing more than “nonsense”, “gibberish”, and “gobbledygook”.

Why sovereign citizens are a threat

While this might seem eccentric, or even harmless, pseudolaw poses real risks.

The Judicial Commission of New South Wales warns it’s not just a nuisance – it’s clogging up courts, wasting police resources and putting public officials at risk.

But the danger isn’t only to others – it is to the followers too.

Adherents lose more than arguments. Some have racked up massive legal bills fighting fines. Others have lost custody in family court or been imprisoned for ignoring court orders.

Pseudolaw is a dangerous ideology.

It is crucial all Australians recognise that pseudolaw not only threatens your credibility but can land you in hot water under the real law.The Conversation

Madeleine Perrett, PhD Candidate in Law, University of Adelaide and Mark Giancaspro, Senior Lecturer in Law, University of Adelaide

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