Markets and traders are making a huge gamble on the TACO theory, but what if Trump doesn't 'chicken out'
Markets this morning are looking up — literally — thanks to some good news out of China and another positive session on Wall Street. The ASX is expected to open around 54 points higher, and it’s happening despite a fresh round of headline-grabbing threats from Donald Trump.
This time, he’s taking aim at Europe, warning of a 30% tariff if they don’t fall into line. But what’s remarkable is how little traders seem to care. The market has come to expect a certain theatre from Trump. There’s even a term going around: the “taco theory" That is: Trump always chickens out.
And for now, traders are betting that he’ll do exactly that: back down, and ultimately strike a watered-down deal that’s far less damaging than the initial headlines would suggest.
They could be right. But if they’re wrong, we’re going to see a lot of red on stock boards around the world.
Think about it. If Trump really does go through with 30% tariffs on EU imports — and continues to escalate tensions with China and other key partners — the hit to global trade would be massive. Supply chains would seize up again. Business costs would rise. And central banks, who are already walking a tightrope, would find it even harder to justify cutting interest rates.
In fact, Bank of America said the quiet part rather loudly overnight, saying directly that Trump’s own tariffs are making it difficult for the US Federal Reserve to deliver the rate cuts he wants.
That’s the irony. Trump wants cheaper money, but his own actions are raising inflation risk and uncertainty, the exact things that make central banks hesitate.
Now, he’s also picking yet another public fight with Fed Chair Jerome Powell — and reportedly asking around if he can fire him “for cause.” It’s classic Trump chaos. And yet, for now, markets are brushing it off.
Personally, I think the optimism is fair — to a point. Trump has a pattern, and the market has learned it. But every now and again, even the most predictable pattern can break. If this time he doesn’t blink, if he does push tariffs through at their full weight, then we’re in for a market shock.
And no one can say they weren’t warned
Govt won't hit its new housing target: Treasury accidentally spills the trillion-dollar truth
Internal Treasury advice to the Albanese government has been accidentally revealed through a Freedom of Information (FOI) slip-up — and it points to major policy (and hip-pocket) challenges ahead.
As first reported by the ABC, the Treasury’s “incoming government” brief to Treasurer Jim Chalmers and Housing Minister Clare O’Neil was released with redacted sections still visible in the document’s headings. Those headings revealed advice that the government’s flagship target to build 1.2 million homes over five years “would not be met” — and that Treasury had suggested adjusting the goal.
The FOI documents also showed that Treasury has modelled worst-case global economic scenarios, including a loss of confidence in the US dollar or the independence of the US Federal Reserve — a sign of increasing concern about global volatility.
The ABC says Treasury requested the documents be deleted after realising the mistake. However, the broadcaster has chosen to publish the findings, citing clear public interest.
The one stat that's making people reconsider CBA (and it's not just the share price)
The shine is somewhat off the apple for ASX record-breaker, CBA. There's a tweet that caught my eye which illustrates the problem investors are facing, beyond the CBA share price.
CBA closed the session yesterday at a little over $178 per share. It's incredibly high, but it's a drop-off from the dizzying price it commanded late last month of $192 per share.
But that share price doesn't tell the whole story for CBA. Something on Twitter caught my eye yesterday (I'll never call it X, Elon). It was this tweet from over the weekend by financial author and podcaster Lloyd James Ross:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p lang="en" dir="ltr"><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%24CBA&src=ctag&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">$CBA</a> price to book value ratio is 4.0<br><br>Never in my investing life have I ever seen a retail bank sell for 4.0x book value. <br><br>To put that in perspective, a bank business is deemed to be expensive when selling for 2.0x book value.<br><br>CBA is twice that! <br><br>Compare it to larger, more…</p>— Lloyd James Ross (@lloydjamesross) <a href="https://twitter.com/lloydjamesross/status/1943919326479765555?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 12, 2025</a></blockquote> <script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Australia has always had some of the most expensive bank shares in the world, but this is a wild stat that shows why more than a few investors are more than a little grumpy over CBA's current valuation.
What does a 4.0 P/B ratio actually mean?
CBA’s share price has long reflected investor confidence , but a price-to-book (P/B) ratio of 4.0 takes that to another level.
For context, the P/B ratio compares what a company is worth on the stock market to what it’s worth on paper — its “book value,” or total assets minus liabilities. In banking, that book value is especially meaningful.
Unlike tech firms that trade on ideas and brand power, banks deal in tangibles: loans, deposits, property, and investments.
For those playing at home, P/B differs from P/E.
While P/B gives you a sense of what a bank is worth, the price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio tells you how much you’re paying for what it earns.
Regardless of how you measure it, CBA isn’t cheap on either indicator: with a current P/E of 31.52, it’s trading well above the market average.
Why it matters
A bank trading at four times book value means investors are paying $4 for every $1 of net assets on its balance sheet.
And that kind of multiple doesn’t happen by accident. It suggests investors aren’t just buying the balance sheet: they’re backing the institution, its leadership, its lending margins, and its future profit potential. Most of all, institutional investors like super funds fleeing international markets (like the US) are paying for safety more than anything.
The wild rise of CBA on the ASX however has likely turned many retail shareholders off. And with the new surge in iron ore prices, resources stocks are now back in vogue. It's a simple calculus for investors: can CBA keep turning each dollar of capital into something more valuable than its peers can manage? Or is it merely just the price of "safety" for larger investors with more money to swing around?
Potentially, the only thing more surprising than CBA's current P/B is the fact that anyone still uses Twitter. Who knew?
Criminologist explains how the world became obsessed with the 'mushroom murder' case
The “mushroom murder trial”, as it has popularly become known, has gripped Australia over the past 11 weeks. More than that, it’s prompted worldwide headlines, multiple daily podcasts, and even YouTube videos of self-proclaimed “body language experts” assessing defendant Erin Patterson’s every move.
There’s an ABC drama series in the works. Acclaimed Australian author Helen Garner has been in the courtroom.
But why did this tragedy, in which three people died and a fourth was lucky to survive, grip the public consciousness in way no other contemporary Australian case has?
A not-so-wholesome family lunch
On July 29 2023, in a sleepy town called Leongatha in the foothills of the Strzelecki Ranges in Victoria, a very normal woman called Erin Patterson made an ostensibly very normal lunch of beef Wellington.
She was cooking for her in-laws, Gail and Don Patterson, Gail’s sister Heather Wilkinson, and Heather’s husband Ian. Erin’s estranged husband, Simon Patterson, was also invited, but chose not to attend.
Simon and Erin had two children, a boy and a girl, who did not attend the lunch either.
Shortly after the lunch, all four guests were admitted to hospital with suspected gastroenteritis. Erin Patterson also presented to hospital, but refused to be admitted.
Within a few days, Gail, Don, and Heather all died as a result of what was later confirmed as poisoning with Amanita phalloides, better known as death cap mushrooms.
Ian survived, but he was lucky. He spent seven weeks in hospital and needed a liver transplant.
The questions became, how did the mushrooms get into the beef Wellington? Was this an awful accident or something more sinister?
Public obsession
These questions became the focus of very significant public and media attention.
Erin Patterson spoke to the media in the days after the incident. She presented as your typical, average woman of 50.
That is, in my opinion, where the obsession with this case began.
This case had the feel of a Shakespearean drama: multiple deaths within one family, death by poison, and a female protagonist.
The juxtaposition between the normality of a family lunch (and the sheer vanilla-ness of the accused) and the seriousness of the situation sent the media into overdrive.
Then there were the lies. Patterson lied about foraging for mushrooms, and about having cancer to encourage the guests to attend.
The location also played a huge part. Leongatha is known for its staggering natural beauty and thriving food and wine scene. It’s hardly a place where the world expected a mass murderer to live.
However, the perception that rural areas are utopias of safety and social cohesion, and cities are dark and dangerous places, is a myth.
One study by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare paints a different picture.
For serious assault cases that resulted in hospitalisation, for major cities the rates were 65 per 100,000 people. In rural areas, this rose to 1,244 people per 100,000. And for murder, in very remote areas the rate was five per 100,000 population, but fewer than one per 100,000 in urban areas.
Then there was Erin Patterson’s unusual behaviour. She disposed of the desiccator in which the mushrooms she had foraged were dehydrated. She used multiple phones, one of which underwent multiple factory resets on in the days following the lunch. One of these resets was done remotely after police seized her phone.
There are also the much-discussed plates. The court heard she prepared her meal on a different-coloured plate to those of her other guests so they were easily identifiable.
The public latched onto these details, each providing a new talking point around water coolers or spurring new Reddit threads dedicated to unpacking their significance.
The courtroom as a stage
Ultimately, after three months, Erin Patterson was charged with three counts of murder and one count of attempted murder. She pleaded not guilty.
The trial lasted 40 days. The prosecution alleged Patterson intentionally poisoned her guests, whereas the defence suggested it was all an awful, tragic accident.
The jury took six and a half days to deliberate. During that time, various media outlets did everything they could to keep the story on the front page.
Bizarre pieces began appearing online from credible sources such as the ABC, profiling people who had attended court. They included stories of people turning down work to attend the court daily, cases of friendships blossoming during the trial between regular attendees, and the outfit choices of locals turning up every day to watch the drama unfold.
There were also articles profiling local cafe owners and how they felt about being at the centre of the legal theatrics. The daily podcasts continued even when news from the courtroom didn’t.
The vibe felt more appropriate for a royal visit than a triple murder trial.
It seemed everyone in Australia was gripped by one event, united in a way few other things could manage. We all waited with bated breath to see what the 12 men and women of the jury would decide.
Humanity behind the spectacle
The end to this strange and unique criminal case came on Monday July 7.
The result? Guilty on all four counts. Erin Patterson is formally a mass murderer, though many in the court of public opinion had reached the same conviction months earlier.
Leongatha will always be known for being the setting of (arguably) the most infamous multiple murder case in Australian history. It will join Snowtown in South Australia (home of the “bodies in the barrell” murder case), Kendall in New South Wales (where William Tyrrell disappeared), and Claremont in Western Australia (the murder or disappearance of three women) as places forever linked to tragic crimes.
While the trial is over, there’s much more content still to come, the public’s appetite yet to be satiated.
But the final word should be saved for the Patterson and Wilkinson families. This is an awful tragedy, and there are no winners. Ian and Simon have lost loved ones. The Patterson children have lost grandparents and now have to come to terms with the fact their mother caused those deaths intentionally.
Amid the spectacle, it’s easy to lose sight of the humanity at the centre. As the media spotlight dims, may the families get the privacy and respect they deserve.
Green hydrogen is shaping as the best option to strip carbon emissions from some industrial processes, such as iron-making and ammonia production. But making the dream a reality in Australia is proving difficult.
I led the development of Australia’s National Hydrogen Strategy in 2019, in my previous job as a federal public servant. I also co-authored a Grattan Institute report on how hydrogen could help decarbonise the Australian economy. Here, I explain the main challenges to getting the industry off the ground.
It’s used to make products such as fertilisers, explosives and plastics. In future, it may also be a zero-emissions replacement for fossil fuels in industries such as steel and chemicals manufacturing.
Australia currently makes very low volumes of hydrogen using natural gas, which produces greenhouse gas emissions. We are well-placed to produce “green” or zero-emissions hydrogen, through a process powered by renewable energy which releases hydrogen from water.
But creating a large green hydrogen industry won’t be easy. These are the main five challenges.
1. The learning curve is steep
About 15 facilities in Australia are currently producing green hydrogen, all at low volumes – between 8 kilograms and one tonne a day (see chart below).
By contrast, most recently cancelled projects would have produced hundreds of tonnes of green hydrogen daily. The Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub, for example, would initially have produced about 200 tonnes a day, scaling up to 800 tonnes in the 2030s.
The failure of these big projects shows Australia has much to learn about planning, building, commissioning and operating large green hydrogen facilities.
The hydrogen projects currently operating in Australia are orders of magnitude smaller than those proposed. Grattan Insitute, CC BY-NC-SA
2. Demand is limited
Very little hydrogen is currently used in Australia – around 500,000 tonnes a year. This is less than 1% of national energy consumption.
Most of this hydrogen is produced using natural gas, and is produced on site at existing industrial operations that require hydrogen, such as oil refiners and ammonia plants. Using hydrogen from a different source would require major – and costly – engineering changes at these facilities.
So, how do new green hydrogen producers create demand for their product?
The first option is to convince a company to spend money changing their operations to bring in green hydrogen from outside. This is not an easy prospect. The second is to find big new markets – which leads to the next challenge.
3. The chicken-and-egg problem
Renewable hydrogen isn’t a direct substitute for conventional fuels.
You can’t burn hydrogen in your gas stovetop without changing the pipes in the house and the burners on the stove. Likewise, you can’t use hydrogen as a substitute for coal when making steel without changing the smelting process.
This creates a chicken-and-egg problem. Green hydrogen proponents won’t invest in high-volume production unless there are large users to buy the product. But large users won’t invest in changing their processes unless they are assured of supply.
4. Green hydrogen is expensive
Green hydrogen is much more expensive than conventional hydrogen. And as yet, there’s little evidence buyers are willing pay more for it.
So for green hydrogen to compete with conventional production, it needs government subsidies.
As renewable energy expands, electricity prices in Australia are expected to fall. But building more large-scale renewable generation in Australia is itself a difficult prospect.
5. Economic and political turmoil
Recent turmoil in global markets has made companies more cautious about investing outside their core business. And global inflation has helped drive up the cost of electricity needed to produce green hydrogen.
Globally, governments have scrambled to keep national economies afloat, which has led to cuts in green hydrogen in several countries.
In Australia, green hydrogen is still key to the Albanese government’s Future Made in Australia policy. And hydrogen has been a rare area of agreement between the two major parties, at both federal and state levels.
But there are signs this is changing. The federal opposition last year fought the government’s hydrogen tax credits, and the withdrawal of support for the Central Queensland Hydrogen Hub came from the Queensland LNP government, which won office in October last year.
What next?
There is a long road ahead if green hydrogen is to help Australia reach its goal of net-zero emissions by 2050.
So what have we learned so far?
Many scrapped projects tried to implement a “hub” model – combining multiple users in one place, which was designed to make it more attractive to suppliers. But this was difficult to co-ordinate, and vulnerable to changing global conditions.
The green hydrogen industry should focus on the most promising uses for its product. For example, if it could successfully make enough green hydrogen to supply ammonia production, it could build on this to eventually support a bigger industry, such as iron-making.
It’s also time to rethink how subsidies are structured, to reflect the fact some sectors are better bets than others. At present, the federal government’s Hydrogen Headstart program and the hydrogen tax credit are agnostic as to how the hydrogen is used, which does little to help demand emerge in the right places.
Finally, political unity must be renewed. Hydrogen projects require a lot of capital, and investors get nervous when an industry does not have bipartisan support.
The hype around green hydrogen in Australia is fading. There are some reasons for hope – but success will require a lot of hard work.
Higher housing prices are simply one contributor, albeit a very important one, to the cost of living crisis that Australian households face. Energy prices are another.
One consequence of house prices that has largely been ignored is their relationship to marriage and divorce.
Divorce rates are at historic lows
The rate of divorce in Australia is at the lowest level since the introduction of no-fault divorce in 1976.
The 1990s recession was also a period of significant financial hardship for households, and divorces rose over that time. Why isn’t this happening now?
Couples may prefer to divorce but can’t for financial reasons.
Why? Put simply, divorce is a decision that brings with it significant costs. The financial implications of divorce could mean couples stay together longer than they’d like to.
Why do people choose to marry or separate?
To understand patterns of divorce, a good place to start is to think about why couples choose to marry, or separate, in the first place.
Economists argue that individuals marry if the expected benefits from marriage exceed the benefits from remaining single.
As new information arises or unexpected outcomes occur, individuals may reassess their beliefs about the expected benefits from being married versus being single.
In turn, we might expect that separation occurs if either partner believes they will be better off outside the marriage than within it, taking into account all costs and constraints.
How housing prices can affect the likelihood of divorce
Rising housing prices might encourage couples to remain married (or not separate) due to the higher housing costs they would face if they separated.
It is generally cheaper to run a single household where many resources are shared rather than two separate households. This may be thought of as a cost that accompanies higher house prices.
Of course, higher house prices also offer some benefit in the event of separation. For homeowners, the asset held by the couple is more valuable and the wealth each partner may be entitled to is greater. This benefit from separation might encourage couples to separate and divorce.
Our research, presented at the Australian Conference of Economists last week and not yet peer reviewed, addresses this issue. We looked at whether unanticipated changes in the growth of housing prices are related to the likelihood of divorce.
It is important to focus on unanticipated changes in housing prices. Unanticipated changes, or “shocks”, will lead individuals to reassess their decision to stay married, or separate and divorce.
Which factors explain divorce in Australia?
Our research sought to understand the key factors associated with divorce in Australia using the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey.
Not unexpectedly we found couples who share similar traits such as the same religion, education level or place of birth are more likely to remain married. A longer time being married is also linked to couples being less likely to separate. In contrast, partners whose parents had divorced are more likely to separate.
Importantly, the inclusion of housing price shocks into our analysis indicates they have a significant effect on the likelihood of divorce. But the effect differs depending on whether the housing price shock is positive or negative.
For homeowners, lower-than-anticipated housing price growth significantly increases the likelihood of separation. In this case the cost of lower house prices is more important than the benefit of lower house prices. When house prices don’t grow as quickly as anticipated, couples can separate knowing they will not face as large a penalty running separate households.
So what lesson may be drawn from this research and why is a link between housing prices and divorce important?
Our findings indicate higher-than-expected house price growth may be keeping some people in marriages they’d otherwise leave, but don’t, for financial concerns. This is more likely to include women with low education levels, low-income households and older couples.
In some instances, this will have negative consequences. Often those harmful consequences are disproportionately experienced by women and policy settings have a role to play in reducing those effects.
One only needs to look at initiatives such as the Leaving Violence Program. By providing financial support to assist people leaving potentially dangerous relationships, it will alleviate barriers associated with high housing costs that come after separation.
Albo heads to China: what's his diplomatic plan while there?
Prime Minister Anthony Albanese leaves for China on Saturday, confident most Australians back the government’s handling of relations with our most important economic partner and the leading strategic power in Asia.
Albanese’s domestic critics have lambasted him for meeting Chinese leader Xi Jinping before United States President Donald Trump. They are also aggrieved at his refusal to label China a security threat.
But neither criticism really stacks up.
An Albanese-Trump meeting would have happened last month on the sidelines of a G7 gathering in Canada. It was Trump who left early, standing up more leaders than just Albanese.
Nor is Albanese the first Australian prime minister to meet a Chinese president before an American one. His predecessor Tony Abbott caught up with Xi a few weeks after coming to office in 2013, before he had a chance to meet President Barack Obama.
‘Friends, not foes’
Meanwhile, polling indicates just one in five Australians see the relationship with China first and foremost as “a threat to be confronted”. Rather, a clear two-thirds majority see it as “a complex relationship to be managed”.
Albanese is also regarded as more competent than his opposition counterpart in handling Australia’s foreign policy generally – and better at managing the China relationship specifically.
The prime minister’s Chinese hosts also have an incentive to ensure his visit is a successful one.
In the past fortnight, China’s ambassador in Canberra, Xiao Qian, has penned opinion pieces in two of Australia’s biggest media outlets, insisting Australia and China are “friends, not foes” and touting the “comprehensive turnaround” in bilateral ties since Labor won government in May 2022.
Beijing and Washington view each other as their geopolitical priority. Beijing can make it harder for Washington to enlist security allies such as Canberra in this rivalry by maintaining its own strong and constructive bilateral ties with Australia.
And quite apart from the competition with the US, China relied on Australia last year as its fifth largest import source.
Plenty of complaints
None of this is to say Albanese’s visit will be easy, because Australia-China relations are rarely smooth.
Canberra continues to have many complaints about China’s international behaviour.
For example, Foreign Minister Penny Wong recently signed a joint statement with her counterparts in Washington, Tokyo and New Delhi expressing “serious concerns regarding dangerous and provocative actions” by China in the East and South China Seas, and the “abrupt constriction […] of key supply chains”.
Wong has also said the government remains “appalled” by the treatment of Australians imprisoned in China, including Dr Yang Jun, who is facing espionage charges he strongly denies.
Defence Minister Richard Marles has voiced Canberra’s alarm at Beijing’s “no limits agreement” with Moscow, and claimed China has
engaged in the biggest conventional military build-up since the end of the second world war.
However, this assessment is contested by independent Australian analysts.
Beijing also has plenty of complaints. They include Canberra’s ongoing pursuit of closer military cooperation with the US and UK through the AUKUS pact.
There is also the commitment to forcing the sale of the lease to operate the Port of Darwin that is currently held by a Chinese company.
Reliable trading partner
Albanese has already made clear his visit to China will have a strong economic focus.
While grappling with security challenges, any Australian government, Labor or Coalition, must face the reality that last year, local companies sold more to China – worth A$196 billion – than our next four largest markets combined.
China is also, by far, Australia’s biggest supplier, putting downward pressure on the cost of living.
Research produced by Curtin University, commissioned by the Australia-China Business Council, finds trade with China increases disposable income of the average Australian household by $2,600, or 4.6% per person.
In an ideal world, Australia would have a more diversified trading mix.
But again, any Australian government or business must grapple with the reality that obvious major alternative markets, like the US, are not only less interested in local goods and services, but are walking away from their past trade commitments.
This also explains Alabese’s response when he was asked in April if he would support Trump’s trade war against China:
It would be extraordinary if the Australian response was “thank you” and we will help to further hurt our economy
Likewise, Trade Minister Don Farrell is adamant Australia’s interests will determine the Albanese government’s choices, not “what the Americans may or may not want”.
We don’t want to do less business with China, we want to do more business with China.
Deeper trade ties with Asia, including China, are not just about making a buck. Wong has stressed the national security implications of a strong economic relationship:
[It is] an investment in our security. Stability and prosperity are mutually reinforcing.
All of this means Albanese’s six-day visit to China is shaping up to be time well spent.
Australia could get hit with 200% Trump tariffs on pharmaceuticals: here's what's at risk
US President Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on Australia’s pharmaceutical exports to the United States has raised alarm among industry and government leaders.
There are fears that, if implemented, the tariffs could cost the Australian economy up to A$2.8 billion. That’s both in direct exports and as inputs to third countries that produce drugs also hit by tariffs.
The proposed tariffs come amid growing pressure from pharmaceutical lobby groups in the US for Trump to use trade negotiations as a tool to make changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and raise Australian drug prices.
In response, Treasurer Jim Chalmers stated the government would not compromise the integrity of the PBS to do a deal with the Trump administration. Nationals Senator Bridget McKenzie also confirmed bipartisan support for the PBS.
Our largest export market for pharmaceuticals
The US is Australia’s biggest pharmaceutical export market, accounting for 38% of total Australian pharmaceutical exports and valued at $2.2 billion last year.
About 87% of exports to the US consist of blood plasma products, mainly from manufacturing giant CSL. These are used for transfusions in a range of medical and surgical situations.
In a submission to the US Commerce Department, which is reviewing the sector, CSL called for tariffs to be phased in over five years, and for an exemption for certain biotech equipment.
Trump floated proposed tariffs potentially as high as 200%. But he also said these would not be imposed for “about a year, a year and a half” to allow negotiations to take place.
It helps reduce the cost of essential medications, ensuring access to treatments for a wide range of medical conditions. Medicines included on the PBS are subsidised by the government, with the patient making a capped co-payment. More than 900 medicines were listed on the scheme in 2023–24, costing the government $17.7 billion.
Decisions to list medications on the PBS are made by the health minister based on recommendations from the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee. The committee evaluates the clinical effectiveness, safety, cost-effectiveness (“value for money”) and estimated financial impact of new medications.
If approved, the PBS uses this information to negotiate directly with pharmaceutical companies, helping to keep prices affordable.
How does the US system compare?
This contrasts with the US system, which operates more under free-market principles. In the US, pharmaceuticals are subsidised through private health insurance or government programs such as Medicaid. Neither directly negotiates with pharmaceutical companies.
The fragmented nature of the US system enables pharmaceutical companies to maintain higher prices, as there is no central authority to enforce cost controls. Studies have shown that prices for pharmaceuticals in the US are, on average, 2.78 times those in 33 other countries.
In addition, in the US pharmaceutical companies are granted extensive patent protections. These provide exclusive rights to sell their drugs for a certain period.
This exclusivity often leads to monopolistic pricing practices, as generic competitors are barred from entering the market until the patent expires.
In Australia, patents also exist. But the PBS mitigates their impact by negotiating prices and promoting the use of cost-effective alternatives, such as generics, once they become available.
Industry lobbying
US pharmaceutical industry bodies have long criticised the PBS. They claim the scheme “undervalues new innovative medicines by setting prices based on older inferior medicines and generics, and through use of low and outdated monetary thresholds per year of life gained from clinically proven treatments”.
The slow process to list drugs on the PBS has also attracted criticism. The advisory committee meets only three times a year, with resources currently being stretched beyond capacity.
In response to these criticisms, the Australian government commissioned a review, which was completed in 2024. It provided 50 recommendations to ensure Australians can continue to access effective, safe and affordable medicines in an equitable and timely way.
The government has established an advisory group to work on implementing these recommendations. However, it is unclear whether proposed changes will appease the powerful US pharmaceutical industry.
Boom! Doom! Zoom! | 10 July 2025: Woolworths, CSL, Pilbara Minerals and more
Peter Switzer and Paul Rickard weigh in on big opportunities—and big risks—across some of the ASX’s most-watched names. From gold stocks like Northern Star and Evolution, to high-growth tech players like Xero and Megaport, and takeover speculation around Santos, they break down what’s moving and what might surprise.
Want to join a live session of Boom! Doom! Zoom! and ask your own stock questions to our experts? You've gotta be a Switzer Report subscriber for that! Head over to the Switzer Report and subscribe today. We send out an invite every Thursday at midday so you can log on and ask Paul and Peter your burning market queries.
Qantas Chairman's Lounge membership list nicked in recent hack
We now know a little more on what was taken in the Qantas hack, as the airline confirms that 5.7 million unique customers were compromised, including its most elite members.
In case you missed it, Qantas announced a week ago its customers have had their data stolen as a result of an external hack.
Hackers didn't exactly kick down the door and make off with a computer full of files. Instead, they breached a business that works with Qantas instead.
Here's how Qantas CEO Vanessa Hudson describes what happened:
On Monday, we detected unusual activity on a third-party platform used by one of our airline contact centres. We immediately contained the incident and can confirm all Qantas systems remain secure.
Our initial investigations show the compromised data includes some customers' names, email addresses, dates of birth and Frequent Flyer numbers. Importantly, no credit card details, personal financial information and passport details are held in the system that was accessed. No Frequent Flyer accounts, passwords, PIN numbers or log in details have been compromised.
What was taken in the Qantas hack?
Qantas says its own systems weren’t breached, but one of its outsourced partners (likely a call centre or marketing firm) was. At this stage the name of the firm that was breached hasn't been shared. What we do know is that the hackers were able to make off with a considerable amount of data on Qantas' customers it had a lot of customer data stored in it.
Here’s how the numbers break down:
4 million people had some combination of their name, email address, and Frequent Flyer details exposed.
1.2 million of those records included just name and email.
2.8 million included name, email, and Frequent Flyer number — some of which also had tier status, points balance or status credits.
1.3 million addresses (residential or business — think lost baggage delivery points)
1.1 million dates of birth
900,000 phone numbers (mobile, landline or business)
400,000 gender markers
10,000 meal preferences
Qantas says it has now completed forensic analysis and is contacting affected customers to let them know what specific data of theirs was in the compromised system.
What wasn't taken in the Qantas hack?
Qantas has been emphasising over and over that this breach didn’t include your password, PIN, login credentials, passport, or credit card details.
But just because the data can’t be used to directly log into your account doesn’t mean it’s harmless. Names, dates of birth, email addresses and phone numbers are the building blocks for identity theft and targeted phishing.
If you’ve ever received a scam text that knew your name or airline loyalty program, this is how they get that data.
Qantas insists Frequent Flyer accounts remain secure and that two-factor authentication is on by default. Still, now’s a good time to check that your account is locked down and that you’re using unique passwords across services.
The Chairman's Lounge list is probably included
Among the customers affected are almost certainly members of Qantas’ most exclusive club: the Chairman’s Lounge.
For those unfamiliar, the Chairman’s Lounge isn’t something you can earn your way into by flying a lot or spending big on your credit card. It’s a private, off-the-books tier of Qantas’ loyalty program, reserved for the most influential travellers in the country — think Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, senior politicians, ASX 100 CEOs, major media figures and Qantas’ own corporate partners.
The membership list is never published, and invitations are extended personally by Qantas executives. If hackers did get their hands on those records, they now likely hold a partial list of some of the most powerful and high-profile people in Australia, along with their personal contact information, travel habits and Frequent Flyer account data. Not to mention their meal preferences!
While Qantas says the exposed data isn’t enough to access those accounts directly, it’s still a significant potential privacy risk, and a juicy target for phishing or blackmail.
Scammers can use this information to engage in something called "spearphishing" attacks. Unlike regular "phishing" attacks where scammers will trawl a list of people to try and score more private and financial data, so-called "spearphishing" sees them focus their attack on a specific target or small group of targets.
Hackers have reportedly made contact
While Qantas has downplayed the fallout publicly, hackers have now reportedly made contact with the airline. That contact hasn’t been confirmed or described in detail, but in the context of a large breach like this, it usually means one thing: a ransom demand.
Typically, attackers will give companies an ultimatum: pay up, or the stolen data will be sold, published or leaked to the highest bidder. It’s a tactic we’ve seen in recent Australian cyberattacks, from Medibank to Optus.
Qantas hasn’t confirmed any ransom requests and continues to say that none of the stolen data has been publicly released so far.
How is Qantas responding?
Since the breach, Qantas has been working with cyber experts and law enforcement agencies, including the National Cyber Security Coordinator and the AFP. It says it’s introduced additional security measures and will continue monitoring for misuse.
Affected customers are being contacted progressively via email, and a dedicated 24/7 helpline remains available:
1800 971 541 or +61 2 8028 0534
As always, Qantas reminds customers that it will never ask for your passwords, PINs or booking reference details out of the blue.
What should you do?
Even if your own data was only partially involved in this breach, it’s another reminder that you need to lock down your digital life.
Start by:
Using a password manager
Making sure your accounts (especially email and financial services) use multi-factor authentication
Watching for scam calls, emails or texts impersonating Qantas or other services
Staying up to date via Scamwatch and the Australian Cyber Security Centre
This story is still unfolding. But the reality is, breaches like this are no longer rare — they’re inevitable. The best defence is being prepared before your details end up in the wrong hands.
Australian medical cannabis businesses are booming, but a crackdown is on the way
The Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency, known as Ahpra, today warned health professionals they would need to put patients’ wellbeing ahead of profits.
Among its concerns were aggressive marketing strategies by clinics prescribing medicinal cannabis, and consultations lasting between a few seconds and a few minutes, before prescribing.
Such concerns have led to eight practitioners issuing more than 10,000 scripts in a six-month window, and one who appeared to have issued more than 17,000 scripts.
Ahpra’s other concerns include reports of patients with psychosis after taking medicinal cannabis, prescribing high doses, and prescribing to family members or people under 18.
However, overservicing, inappropriate prescribing and the health issues that can arise are issues we’ve known about for years.
Our research, for example, looked at multiple websites that offered medicinal cannabis in Australia. We found widespread examples of aggressive and misleading marketing. Some clinics breached regulatory guidelines. Others bent the rules.
Yet Ahpra’s latest announcement doesn’t tighten existing prescribing or marketing rules for medicinal cannabis. It just reminds doctors, nurse practitioners and pharmacists what the rules are.
What is the regulator concerned about?
According to the 2022–23 National Drug Strategy Household Survey, 3% of Australians aged 14 or over had used cannabis for medical purposes in the previous 12 months, equating to around 700,000 people.
Australians spent more than A$400 million on medicinal cannabis products in the first half of 2024 alone.
But Ahpra is concerned too many health practitioners are prescribing medicinal cannabis when a patient requests it, rather than whether this is the right product for them.
It suggests too few practitioners are assessing patients thoroughly, formulating and implementing a management plan, facilitating coordination and continuity of care, maintaining medical records, recommending treatments only where there is an identified therapeutic need, and ensuring medicinal cannabis is not a first-line treatment.
So Ahpra says it will investigate practitioners with high rates of prescribing any scheduled medicine, including medicinal cannabis, even if it has not received a complaint.
We found lots of aggressive marketing
Medicinal cannabis has been legally available in Australia since 2016. This means doctors can prescribe it for any medical condition when other approved treatments have not worked. Now patients can be prescribed medicinal cannabis as a capsule, oil or dried flower, for example, often via a website.
But when we analysing the websites of 54 private medicinal cannabis clinics in Australia, an alarming picture emerged.
We found multiple examples of websites that breached marketing rules, or skirted around them. This included making unsubstantiated health claims about the products they offered, such as they could treat anxiety, depression, or other mental health symptoms.
Websites often allowed people to assess if medicinal cannabis was for them. This self-assessment may mislead people into believing they would benefit from it, inadvertently “coaching” them on which medical conditions might warrant a prescription.
Other marketing tactics we found included promises of same-day or after-hours delivery, no GP referrals required, discounted consultation fees, and
targeted advertisements on social media.
What we’d like to see
Ahpra’s aim of safer prescribing of medicinal cannabis is welcome. But by merely repeating the rules, rather than tightening them, this doesn’t go far enough. So Ahpra has missed out on a real opportunity to safeguard patients’ health.
For instance, we’d like to see greater emphasis on banning targeted advertisements on social media for medicinal cannabis. In a study that we’ve submitted for publication, we found this a particular concern.
We found many private clinics are using ads to reach young people, including those as young as 18. One company ran more than 170 active ads this month alone across Facebook, Instagram and Threads.
Ads we’ve seen include cryptic messaging, such as “we can’t shout about it, but our patients are smiling”, paired with bright colours and wellness-themed imagery.
One pairs an Australian sports celebrity with the tagline “move differently!” and the name of the product.
Another one promises “real doctors, real care” and “fast approvals & express delivery”, with consultations at $19.
While these ads do not mention medicinal cannabis directly, the messaging is clearly designed to spark curiosity and build brand recognition, especially among younger audiences.
We’d also like to see Ahpra:
broaden its focus beyond prescribing patterns to include digital marketing and advertising practices that target young people
provide clear guidelines to medicinal cannabis clinics and prescribers on acceptable promotional practices
support stronger consequences for repeat offenders, including prescribers who continue to engage in misleading advertising after being sanctioned.
Why Red Bull F1 has had its wings well and truly clipped
Red Bull Racing, once the undisputed king of Formula 1, is now mired in controversy and instability — a dramatic reversal for a team that had grown used to life at the top of the podium.
The biggest blow came overnight, when Red Bull Racing dismissed Team Principal Christian Horner with immediate effect.
The decision follows months of scrutiny over allegations of sexual harassment made by a fellow Red Bull team member. While Horner had previously denied any wrongdoing and survived an internal investigation, the pressure mounted after a cache of private messages — reportedly between Horner and his accuser — was leaked to the press and circulated within the sport.
The team’s belated action in letting Horner go suggests that what was once viewed as containable reputational damage had become untenable.
Christian, your 20-year leadership has shaped the very identity of Red Bull Racing, from ambitious newcomers to multiple World Champions.
Thank you for the memories and the milestones that will leave a lasting legacy here in Milton Keynes for generations to come 💙 pic.twitter.com/mLnkDrtI0Y
— Oracle Red Bull Racing (@redbullracing) July 9, 2025
The fallout is enormous, not just for Horner — one of the most powerful and longest-serving figures in the sport — but for Red Bull Racing as a whole.
The team, which dominated multiple F1 seasons and built a slick, winning machine built around driver Max Verstappen, now looks increasingly rudderless.
And Horner’s dismissal is just the latest chapter in a steady unravelling of Red Bull’s dominance.
In 2024, the team lost perhaps its most valuable technical brain, car designer Adrian Newey, who departed for rivals Aston Martin.
Newey’s designs and expertise were central to Red Bull’s championship runs, and his move signalled the beginning of a talent drain that Red Bull has not yet managed to stop.
That same year, Red Bull dropped veteran driver Sergio “Checo” Perez in favour of a young New Zealand prospect in Liam Lawson. In typical Red Bull fashion, however, the gamble was cut short abruptly after Lawson failed to deliver performance. The newcomer was let go partway through the 2025 season after in favour of long-time Red Bull sister team driver Yuki Tsunoda, compounding the team’s instability and raising questions about leadership and recruitment.
Now, the team’s biggest fear is starting to materialise: Max Verstappen, the reigning world champion and cornerstone of Red Bull’s recent success, is reportedly considering activating an exit clause in his contract.
That clause allows Verstappen to leave if the team’s competitiveness drops. A prospect that looks increasingly likely given Red Bull’s current turmoil on and off the track.
For years, Red Bull Racing seemed untouchable. Under Horner’s leadership and with Newey’s designs, they mastered the technical rule changes of the hybrid era and created a car that consistently outpaced the rest of the field.
Commercial success mirrored their on-track dominance, with global sponsors and media partners keen to align themselves with one of the sport’s strongest brands.
But Formula 1 is as much about perception as it is about performance. The reputational damage from the Horner scandal, combined with internal leadership churn and a faltering driver line-up, threatens to undo the brand equity Red Bull has built over the past decade.
The business of F1 is unforgiving. Sponsors, investors, and fans expect performance, professionalism and stability. Right now, Red Bull is struggling to deliver any of the three.
As the team scrambles to restructure its leadership and hold on to Verstappen (who is reportedly eyeing a move to Mercedes), its rivals are circling.
Mercedes and Ferrari have rebuilt after their own rough patches, McLaren is resurgent, and Aston Martin now boasts Newey’s technical genius. For the first time in years, Red Bull no longer looks like the team to beat.
Their wings, it seems, have been well and truly clipped.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.Ok
