As the dust settles on the 2024-25 financial year, two clear winners have emerged from a turbulent market, and it's all coming up gold.

Yep, you guessed it: gold stocks and bullion owners and anyone who invested in Commonwealth Bank (CBA) had many reasons to celebrate in the last financial year. \

According to Jun Bei Liu of Tencap, the gold sector has shone brightly as global uncertainty drove investors toward safe havens. “The other top performing sector, which is not surprisingly, it’s gold companies. Some of the smaller to mid-cap gold has done incredibly well in the middle of all these changes and uncertainties in the market,” Liu told Switzer Investing TV.

For those playing at home, spot gold price started the FY24-25 financial year at an already-robust US$2338 an ounce, and closed out the financial year overnight at a hair over US$3300. That means if you'd have bought $10,000 of gold this time last year, you'd have made a touch over $4150 for the year. Always remember that past performance is no indicator of future results, however.

These staggering figures continue gold's massive decade-long bull run, fuelled by an increasingly unstable geopolitical environment. From trade wars to conflicts in the Middle East, and more recently tariffs imposed on key goods out of China, investors have flocked to gold as a hedge against inflation, uncertainty, and market volatility. Many analysts believe that gold’s strength is just beginning, with central banks across the globe continuing to buy up physical reserves at a record pace.

If you’re thinking about joining the gold party, we have a first-timer’s guide on the site covering everything you need to know, from how to invest in physical bullion to picking gold stocks.

Meanwhile, someone else's gold was maturing nicely too: Commonwealth Bank of Australia has also delivered standout performance.

Says Jun Bei Liu:

“It’s incredible just looking at sort of return this company has delivered". She noted that foreign investors, spooked by US market instability, have shifted funds into safer ground, with CBA at the top of their lists. “Foreign investors have had way too much US market, and they are looking to diversify… their little bit is a lot for a small market like Australia,” Liu added.

CBA closed out the financial year yesterday afternoon just shy of $185 a share. Which is a far cry from the $120 a share it started on 366 days ago.

CBA’s share price has risen steadily to dizzying and record-breaking high after high in recent months, particularly following the so-called Liberation Day in April, when our markets were rocked by Trump's sweeping tariffs. The move sent shockwaves through trade-dependent sectors, but boosted local blue-chip stalwarts like CBA, seen as a relative safe haven by both domestic and global investors.

Stay tuned throughout this new financial year: we’ll be watching where the smart money heads next.

In August, the Albanese government will hold an economic “roundtable” that will discuss productivity, budget sustainability and resilience. Australia’s tax system will be one of the central issues, and stakeholders are gearing up with their varying arguments for changes.

Ken Henry, a former secretary of the Treasury, has been part of the tax debates of the past 40 years. He was a treasury official working on tax at the time of the Hawke government’s 1985 tax summit and led the major review of the tax system commissioned by the Rudd government.

Henry is a passionate advocate of bold tax reform, especially reform that tackled intergenerational inequity, and he joined my podcast to discuss the issues.

Looking forward to the roundtable, Henry outlines some of the many changes that he thinks should be considered,

Firstly we’ve got to get rid of the remaining transactions taxes like stamp duty on property conveyancing and so on […] that alone means there has to be a commonwealth-state exercise.

Secondly, we’ve got to extract more revenue from the taxation of natural resources and also land.

Thirdly, we’ve got to get more revenue from the taxation of environmental externalities. In the tax review published in 2010, we were developing that at the same time as the Treasury and other departments were developing the Rudd government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme. We thought that there was going to be quite a significant carbon price in Australia. We don’t have it today – we should.

Henry wants a tax system that does not disadvantage younger people who are in the workforce; he says the present “lazy” reliance on bracket creep to “bring the budget back to anything approaching balance is doing enormous damage to younger people in particular”.

On reform generally, Henry says he’s “disappointed” that more hasn’t been done on the recommendations from his review.

I’m very disappointed, but I guess one would expect me to be very disappointed. And he laments Australia’s “abysmal” productivity performance over the last quarter century.

When I then reflect on what’s happened to Australia’s productivity performance, I mean we were saying in 2002 that we really should aim to get the productivity growth rate up from 1.75% to 2.25% a year and in fact if you look back now over the first 25 years of this century right what we actually achieved was only three quarters of one percent a year. That productivity performance is just abysmal.

To put it in terms that everybody will understand, had we achieved the two and a quarter percent a year rather than three quarters of a percent a year, the average wage and salary earner in Australia, their income would be 45% higher today than it is. This is not small stuff, this is huge stuff.

Despite backing significant reform, Chalmers has been a long-term opponent of GST reform, although not ruling it out completely. Henry says all options should be left on the table,

It would be better not to constrain the reform process by ruling the GST out and that was a shame for those of us who worked on the Rudd government’s tax review  […] that the terms of reference that we were given said that you’re not to make any recommendations concerning the GST.

Those who are having a good hard look at how to restructure the Australian taxation system should not have one hand tied behind their backs. Having said that, I do think it’s possible to achieve major reform of the Australian taxation system without necessarily increasing the rate or extending the base of the GST.

On Chalmers’ plan to tax unrealised capital gains on big superannuation balances, while not directly opposed, Henry says there are other ways to make the system fairer,

I’m not opposed to it. It’s just that I think there are other ways of increasing the taxation that applies to high superannuation balances and improving the intergenerational equity of the superannuation system. In the tax review that the Rudd government Commissioned, which I led, which was published in 2010, we spent quite a lot of time detailing how we thought the taxation arrangements applying to superannuation could be improved.

The thing that stands out is this big difference between the taxation of superannuation fund earnings in the so-called accumulation phase and the treatment that they get in the so-called pension phase, So […] these poor young workers, struggling, see the earnings on their accumulating superannuation balance as being taxed at 15%, whilst those who have big superannuation balances and are in the retirement, the earnings in their superannuation funds are completely tax-exempt, And that just seems rather weird.

Listen to the podcast here:

Michelle Grattan, Professorial Fellow, University of Canberra

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

Aussie super funds looked set for a bruising new tax on their US interests under Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill". However, last-minute negotiations between the US and the G7 mean that our retirement funds are now steering away from the perilous rocks of needless, revenge-based taxation. Here's what it all means.

Just when you thought Treasurer Chalmers' new Super Tax was the worst threat our retirement funds had to deal with, the Trump administration planted a big new tax in his "Big Beautiful Bill" legislation like a landmine laying in wait.

It was catchily-named Section 899 of the Big Beautiful Bill: an aggressive Trump-era measure that sought to retaliate against countries imposing so-called ‘unfair foreign taxes’ on US companies. It's legislation that could have seen Australian super funds give up billions over the next few years to the US administration in taxes alone.

What is Section 899?

Section 899 was a provision buried in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act — a sweeping piece of tax and budget legislation passed by the US House of Representatives in May.

The measure targeted countries the US deemed to be discriminating against American companies with taxes like digital services taxes (DSTs), undertaxed profits rules (UTPR) under OECD Pillar Two, and broader so-called extraterritorial measures.

Under the bill, Australia landed squarely on the US ‘blacklist’ for a few reasons.

One is Australia's News Media Bargaining Code, which forces US social media giants to pay local publishers. The other is long-standing policies on subsidised healthcare under Medicare and the NDIS, which limit the prices US drug firms can charge. And then there's our ongoing quest to make sure all companies pay their fair share of tax here in Australia. Even though it feels like they still don't and never will. All these things (and more) have been called out by Trump administration officials in the past as the former TV host ascended to the Presidency for the second time.

What's most damaging about Section 899, however, is how it would have stacked over time.

In year one, an additional 5% levy would have been imposed on dividends, capital gains, royalties and other US-source income earned by Australian entities. That penalty would have risen by 5% each year, capped at a 20% hike above the statutory rate.

Crucially, the measure would have overridden treaty protections under the US-Australia Double Tax Agreement. For super funds with billions invested in US stocks — especially in the tech and healthcare sectors — it would have directly eroded returns and potentially forced portfolio shifts away from the US market.

Super funds also faced potential administrative headaches. Because the measure applied to effectively connected income, non-effectively connected income, branch profits, and even gains on US real property, trustees would have been forced to re-examine structures and potentially rethink asset allocations.

Thankfully, we're on safer ground this week.

How did we escape?

The turning point came last week when Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Reuters he personally lobbied US lawmakers to strip Section 899 out of the final version of the bill.

Bessent said he had pressed the case during side meetings at the G7 finance summit in Stresa, Italy, arguing the measure would provoke damaging tit-for-tat tax measures by US allies, inflame global trade tensions, and potentially prompt countries like Australia to further discriminate against US companies in retaliation.

According to Bessent, he warned lawmakers that the provision was at odds with broader G7 efforts to stabilise the global tax environment — particularly given delicate negotiations over the OECD Pillar Two framework and broader multilateral tax deals. Bessent and other US asset managers argued Section 899 would undermine US credibility just as Washington was trying to forge consensus on global tax rules. Ultimately, lawmakers agreed, striking Section 899 from the final text in return for a G7 commitment to continue working towards multilateral frameworks on digital taxes and to de-escalate unilateral measures.

Instead of pushing Section 899, the US is now leaning back into OECD-led negotiations on how to handle cross-border digital taxation and global minimum tax rules. Treasury officials have suggested they will pursue diplomatic channels rather than unilateral penalties to resolve disputes with countries like Australia — a pivot welcomed by both super funds and trade diplomats in Canberra.

A boost for local markets

The removal of Section 899 isn’t just good news for super funds — it’s also brightening the mood on the broader local share market. With the threat of rising US tax drag on retirement savings now lifted, fund managers are expecting smoother capital flows and less pressure to restructure offshore portfolios.

Combined with growing market expectations that the Reserve Bank will cut rates in July, the mood in the Australian market is shifting positive.

Analysts say that should support equities this week, particularly in the financial and real estate sectors, where investor sentiment is often closely linked to global capital conditions. Super funds, meanwhile, are breathing a sigh of relief, with trustees now refocusing on performance rather than emergency tax contingency plans.

It’s a reprieve that underscores how quickly global tax tensions can flare — and just as quickly shift when backroom diplomacy prevails.

In an unprecedented move, Australian Treasurer Jim Chalmers has launched legal action in the Federal Court against Indian Ocean International Shipping and Service Company Ltd (Indian Ocean), a foreign investor with links to Chinese interests, over alleged breaches of Australia’s foreign investment laws.

The Treasurer announced the proceedings, stating the case is aimed at protecting national security and the integrity of Australia’s foreign investment framework.

Chalmers said that in June 2024 he issued Disposal Orders directing Indian Ocean and four other foreign investors to sell their shares in Northern Minerals Limited (ASX: NTU) — an Australian rare earths company — by September 2024. The orders were made due to concerns over national security risks associated with foreign control of critical minerals.

Chalmers claims Indian Ocean failed to comply with the orders. He is now seeking penalties, declarations, and costs through the court, marking the first time an Australian Treasurer has taken such action in their own name.

“Foreign investors in Australia are required to follow Australian law. We are doing what is necessary to protect the national interest,” Chalmers said in a statement.

Northern Minerals, which produces heavy rare earths crucial for technologies such as electric vehicles and defence applications, responded by noting it is not a party to the proceedings and considers the matter one between the Treasurer and Indian Ocean.

The case puts a spotlight on the Albanese government’s tougher approach to foreign investment, particularly around critical resources. It also signals Canberra’s growing unease with Chinese-linked interests in sensitive industries, as Australia seeks to secure supply chains and shield strategic assets from potential foreign influence.

Court filings will be made available in due course, according to Chalmers.

One of the most sought-after items of 2025 isn’t a designer handbag or the latest tech gadget. It’s a plush elf with a snaggle-toothed grin.

Labubu (拉布布) is a global sensation. From David Beckham and Rihanna to Dua Lipa and Blackpink’s Lisa, celebrities – and even members of the Thai royal family – have been spotted showcasing their Labubu collections.

Created in 2015 by Hong Kong artist Kasing Lung for his picture-book series The Monsters, Labubu gained mass popularity when toy company Pop Mart began releasing it as blind-box collectables in 2019. The toys are often sold in these blind-boxes, where people don’t know what make they’ve bought until after opening the box.

The niche designer toy has since spiralled into a multi billion-dollar obsession. Plushies sell out within minutes, fans queue for hours, and rare editions like the human-sized mint-green-coloured Labubu have fetched over A$230,000 at auction.

Labubu isn’t just a toy. It’s a glimpse of how China’s long-awaited soft power is beginning to take shape in unexpected ways.

China’s accidental soft power icon?

For years, the Chinese government has tried to cultivate a positive image abroad through the Belt and Road Initiative, introducing visa-free entry to boost tourism, and promoting homegrown brands.

None of these efforts have matched the spontaneous global appeal of this small plush creature. Unlike Japan’s government-funded “Cool Japan” initiative launched in 2010, or South Korea’s highly coordinated export of creative industries, Labubu succeeded without central planning. It went viral organically: fanned by fandoms, fuelled by TikTok and amplified by celebrity endorsements.

Now, China is starting to look “cool” to the outside world.

Pop Mart’s blind-box sales model taps into the same reward mechanisms as online gaming. More than buying a toy, it’s about the thrill of unboxing the rarest edition, the social status of ownership, and the resale value of a seemingly childish product. This cultural product is emotionally charged and economically strategic.

For China, Labubu represents an unintentional yet potent form of soft power: a quirky figure that makes the country feel playful, creative and emotionally accessible.

In an era when global perceptions of China are often shaped by geopolitics, surveillance, and authoritarianism, Labubu seems to offer something different – something disarming.

How Japan and Korea use cultural exports

Japan, long celebrated for its exports of anime, fashion, and food culture, launched its “Cool Japan” strategy in 2010 to formalise and promote its creative industries abroad.

The initiative helped amplify global interest in sectors such as anime and cuisine but it often struggled with bureaucratic inefficiency, market misjudgements and unclear performance metrics.

Many of the country’s cultural successes – from Pokémon and Studio Ghibli to ramen and izakaya – were largely driven by market forces and fan communities, rather than by the government.

South Korea provides a more recent, effective model. The Korean Wave, or hallyu, has been heavily supported by state investment and infrastructure.

From the film Parasite to global icons such as K-Pop band BTS, South Korea’s cultural output has earned international acclaim and helped rebrand the nation on the world stage.

Importantly, it was a case of soft power being harnessed intentionally and strategically, with entertainment at the forefront of foreign policy.

Labubu represents a third model: accidental soft power born from a commercial ecosystem in China increasingly focused on intellectual property (IP), lifestyle branding and consumer-driven trends.

The emotional politics of toys

Beyond its political implications, the Labubu craze reflects wider shifts in global consumer culture. Today’s toy market is no longer just for children.

The adult “kidult” sector, driven by nostalgia, comfort-seeking, and collectability, is rising.

The frenzy over Labubu is part of this trend, where millennials and Gen Z buyers invest in emotionally charged objects as expressions of identity, status and belonging.

At the same time, Labubu represents a growing intersection between play and finance. The resale market treats plushies like speculative assets. Their scarcity creates value; their emotional resonance creates demand.

It’s capitalism with a fuzzy face.

Not everything is cuddly. In cities like London or Seoul, Pop Mart was forced to suspend sales after scuffles broke out among fans competing to buy the toys. And a surge in global counterfeits has raised growing concerns over IP protection and consumer trust.

The rise of China’s soft power

Labubu may look like a mischievous little elf, but it carries serious cultural weight.

It reflects a China that is no longer just a producer of goods, but a producer of desire.

It’s tempting to see Labubu as a fad like fidget spinners, Beanie Babies, or Tamagotchis. But it signals something deeper: a shift in how Chinese cultural products can evoke emotion, status and aspiration on a global scale.

This tiny plush toy took nearly a decade to become a global sensation. China’s hopes of fully realising its soft power potential may take even longer. But if Labubu is any indication, the way forward may depend less on state-led campaigns and more on organic, bottom-up cultural momentum.

Tama Leaver, Curtin University

Julie Inman Grant, Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, this week addressed the National Press Club to outline how her office will be driving the Social Media Minimum Age Bill when it comes into effect in December this year.

When the ban was legislated in November 2024, the federal government carved out an exemption for YouTube, citing the platform’s educational purpose.

Inman Grant has now advised the government to remove this exemption because of the harm young people can experience on YouTube. But as she has also pointed out, there are new risks for young people that the ban won’t address – especially from generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Banning YouTube

According to eSafety’s new research, 37% of young people have encountered harmful content on YouTube. This was the highest percentage of any platform.

In her speech, Inman Grant argued YouTube had “mastered persuasive design”, being adept at using algorithms and recommendations to keep young people scrolling, and that exempting YouTube from the ban simply makes no sense in her eyes.

Her advice to Communications Minister Anika Wells, which she delivered last week, is to not exempt YouTube, effectively including that platform in the ban’s remit.

Unsurprisingly, YouTube Australia and New Zealand has responded with vigour. In a statement published today, the Google-owned company argues that

eSafety’s advice goes against the government’s own commitment, its own research on community sentiment, independent research, and the view of key stakeholders in this debate.

YouTube denies it is a social media platform and claims the advice it should be included in the ban is “inconsistent and contradictory”.

But given YouTube’s Shorts looks and feels very similar to TikTok, with shorter vertical videos in an endlessly scrolling feed, exempting YouTube while banning TikTok and Instagram’s Reels never appeared logically consistent.

It also remains the case that any public YouTube video can be viewed without a YouTube account. The argument that including YouTube in the ban would stop educational uses, then, doesn’t carry a lot of weight.

How will the ban work?

Inman Grant took great care to emphasise that the responsibility for making the ban work lies with the technology giants and platforms.

Young people who get around the ban, or parents and carers who help them, will not be penalised.

A raft of different tools and technologies to infer the age of users have been explored by the platforms and by other age verification and assurance vendors.

Australia’s Age Assurance Technology Trial released preliminary findings last week. But these findings really amounted to no more than a press release.

No technical details were shared, only high-level statements that the trial revealed age-assurance technologies could work.

These early findings did reveal that the trial “did not find a single ubiquitous solution that would suit all use cases”. This suggests there isn’t a single age-assurance tool that’s completely reliable.

If these tools are going to be one of the main gatekeepers that do or don’t allow Australians to access online platforms, complete reliability would be desirable.

Concerns about AI

Quite rightly, Inman Grant opened her speech by flagging the emerging harms that will not actually be addressed by new legislation. Generative AI was at the top of the list.

Unregulated use of AI companions and bots was of particular concern, with young people forming deep attachments to these tools, sometimes in harmful ways.

Generative AI has also made the creation of deepfake images and videos much easier, making it far too easy for young people to be harmed, and to cause real harm to each other.

As a recent report I coauthored from the ARC Centre of Excellence for the Digital Child highlights, there are many pressing issues in terms of how children and young people use and experience generative AI in their everyday lives.

For example, despite the tendency of these tools to glitch and fabricate information, they are increasingly being used in place of search engines for basic information gathering, life advice and even mental health support.

There are larger challenges around protecting young people’s privacy when using these tools, even when compared to the already privacy-averse social media platforms.

There are many new opportunities with AI, but also many new risks.

With generative AI being relatively new, and changing rapidly, more research is urgently needed to find the safest and most appropriate ways for AI to be part of young people’s lives.

What happens in December?

Social media users under 16, and their parents and carers, need to prepare for changes in young people’s online experiences this December when the ban is due to begin.

The exact platforms included in the ban, and the exact mechanisms to gauge the age of Australia users, are still being discussed.

The eSafety Commissioner has made her case today to include more platforms, not fewer. Yet Wells has already acknowledged that

social media age-restrictions will not be the end-all be-all solution for harms experienced by young people online but they will make a significant impact.

Concerns remain about the ban cutting young people off from community and support, including mental health support. There is clearly work to be done on that front.

Nor does the ban explicitly address concerns about cyberbullying, which Inman Grant said has recently “intensified”, with messaging applications at this stage still not likely to be included in the list of banned services.

It’s also clear some young people will find ways to circumvent the ban. For parents and carers, keeping the door open so young people can discuss their online experiences will be vital to supporting young Australians and keeping them safe.

Tama Leaver, Professor of Internet Studies, Curtin University

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

If you've ever wanted to make a noise complaint about a neighbour's loud and obnoxious party, you can probably empathise with the residents of Venice, Italy this week. Jeff Bezos' upcoming nuptials to fiancee Lauren Sanchez are due to take place around the city of canals in the coming days, and residents are furious with billionaires and hangers-on turning the city upside down in the lead up.

Locals have rallied around a campaign simply titled "No Space For Bezos", which sought to stand up to the mega-billionaire and his new partner.

The Bezos/Sanchez wedding was set to take place in the Cannaregio district of Venice at Scuola Grande della Misericordia in the north-western quarter of Venice. Scuola Grande della Misericordia is a 16th-century Renaissance building (like a lot of Venice, really), which is now being offered as a lavishly-refurbished event space for the right price.

Along with essentially closing large swathes of a popular district to the public for a very non-public interest event, the wedding has brought with it a raft of celebrities, businessfolks and other ultra-wealthy individuals who have reportedly taken over the small and historically tourist-hostile city.

For example, the 'Koru' - Bezos' $250 million, 127-metre long super yacht - has reportedly anchored up at the port of Venice for the duration of the celebrations. And it's likely that the support vessel - the 75-metre 'Abeona' (complete with helipad and ostensibly a floating hotel) - is likely anchored nearby.

And speaking of vessels, it's also reported that the water taxis - vital to Venetians looking to go about their days in the city - are all out of action for public use. Why? Because they've all been rented for the wedding, of course.

Locals have been flying protest banners from bridges and campaigning in the streets to get the couple to pack up out of Venice altogether. Even Greenpeace got in on the act this week.

Teaming up with the anti-billionaire protest group "Everyone Hates Elon" (catchy), they unfurled a massive 20-metre banner in St Mark’s Square, reading: “If you can rent Venice for your wedding, you can pay more tax”.

Speaking from Venice, Greenpeace campaigner Clara Thompson criticised the billionaire class more broadly, saying: “While Venice is sinking under the weight of the climate crisis, billionaires are partying like there is no tomorrow on their mega yachts. This isn’t just about one person — it’s about changing the rules so no billionaire can dodge responsibility, anywhere.” Thompson argued that global tax reform is urgently needed to ensure the super-rich contribute their fair share, calling for “fair, inclusive tax rules” to be developed at the UN level.

The Greenpeace ship Arctic Sunrise was also stationed at the Port of Venice over the weekend to highlight the group’s broader campaign targeting fossil fuels and wealth inequality. According to Greenpeace, taxing billionaires like Bezos could fund climate action, affordable housing, public transport, and insulation initiatives — all critical as cities like Venice face mounting environmental threats.

Thankfully, Reuters now reports that the Bezos/Sanchez wedding has now been moved to a more 'private' location and not in the middle of someone else's city. The wedding will now reportedly take place in a hall of the Arsenale, which can raise its bridges to be completely cut off from the outside world during the ceremony.

Perhaps locals might respond to this news by simply destroying the bridges once they're raised.

Many smartwatches, fitness and wellness trackers now offer sleep tracking among their many functions.

Wear your watch or ring to bed, and you’ll wake up to a detailed sleep report telling you not just how long you slept, but when each phase happened and whether you had a good night’s rest overall.

Surfing is done in the ocean, planes fly in the sky, and sleep occurs in the brain. So how can we measure sleep from the wrist or finger?

The gold standard of sleep measurement

If you’ve ever had a sleep study or seen someone with dozens of wires attached to their head, body and face, you’ve encountered polysomnography or PSG.

Eye movements, muscle tone, heart rate and brain activity are measured and assessed by experts to detect which stage of sleep or wakefulness a person is in.

When we sleep, we cycle through different stages, generally classified as light sleep, slow-wave sleep (also known as deep sleep), and rapid eye movement or REM sleep.

Each stage has an effect on brain activity, muscle tone and heart rate – which is why sleep scientists need so many wires.

Accurate? Absolutely. Convenient? Like two left shoes.

This is where the convenience of wearable at-home sleep trackers comes in.

What sensors are in sleep trackers?

Since the 1990s, sleep researchers have been using actigraphy to measure people’s sleep outside the laboratory.

An actigraphy device is similar to a wristwatch and uses accelerometers to measure the person’s movement. Coupled with sleep diaries, actigraphy assumes a person is awake when they’re moving and asleep when still. Simple.

While this is a scientifically accepted method of estimating sleep, it’s prone to mislabelling being awake but at rest (such as when reading a book) as sleep.

There’s one key addition that makes wrist-worn sleep trackers more accurate – PPG or photoplethysmography.

It’s hard to pronounce, but photoplethysmography is a key driver in the explosion of wearable health tracking.

It uses those little green lights on the skin-side of the wearable to track the amount of blood passing through your wrist at any given time. Clip-on pulse oximeters used by doctors are the same type of tech.

The addition of PPG to a wrist tracker allows for the measurement of raw data like heart rate and breathing rate. From this data, the wearable can estimate a number of physiological metrics, including sleep stages.

Since fitness wearables already have accelerometers and PPG to track your physical activity and heart rate, it makes sense to use these sensors to track sleep too. But how accurate are they?

How do scientists test sleep trackers?

Two main factors determine the accuracy of sleep trackers. How well does the device detect whether you’re asleep or awake? And how well can it distinguish the sleep stages?

To answer these questions, sleep scientists conduct validation studies. Participants sleep overnight in a laboratory while wearing both a sleep tracker and undergoing PSG.

Then, scientists compare the data from both methods in 30-second blocks called “epochs”. That means for a nine-hour sleep there will be 1,080 epochs to compare.

If both the device and PSG indicate “sleep” for the same epoch, they’re in agreement. If the device indicates “wake” and PSG indicates “sleep” for the same epoch, that’s considered an error. The same is done for sleep stages.

How accurate are sleep trackers?

In a 2022 study of several popular trackers, most correctly identified more than 90% of sleep epochs. But because light sleep and restful wake are so similar, wearables struggle more to estimate wakefulness, correctly identifying between 26% and 73% of wake epochs.

When it comes to sleep stages, wearables are less precise, correctly identifying between 53% and 60% of sleep stage epochs. However, for some devices and some sleep stages the precision can be greater. A recent validation study showed that a latest generation ring-shaped wearable didn’t differ from PSG for estimating light sleep and slow wave sleep.

In short, most modern sleep trackers do a decent job of estimating your total sleep each night. Some are more accurate for sleep staging, but this level of detail isn’t essential for improving the basics of your sleep.

Do I need a sleep tracker?

If you’re struggling with sleep, you should speak to your doctor. A sleep tracker can be a useful tool to help track your sleep goals, but ultimately your behaviour is what will improve sleep.

Keeping regular bedtimes and wake-up times, having a distraction-free sleep space, and keeping home lighting low in the evenings can all help to improve your sleep.

If you love tracking your sleep, make sure your device has been independently validated. While sleep stage data may not be essential, devices that perform well in estimating sleep stage also tend to be more accurate at detecting when you’re asleep or awake. When reviewing your data, look at long term trends in sleep rather than day-to-day variability.

If you don’t love your sleep tracker, you can take it off or ignore it. For some people, access to sleep data can negatively impact sleep by creating stress and anxiety for getting a perfect night’s sleep. Instead, focus on improving your healthy sleep strategies and pay attention to how you feel during the day.

Dean J. Miller, Senior Lecturer, Appleton Institute, HealthWise Research Group, CQUniversity Australia

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

The boards of the ASX welcomed back a familiar code yesterday. From midday, Virgin Australia (VGN) re-debuted on the market after being IPO'd all over again. So, how'd they do on the first day of school?

In short? Virgin took off all over again.

VGN made a strong return to the ASX, with investors welcoming its relisting after nearly five years off the tickers.

The airline, which collapsed into administration in 2020 before being rescued by Bain Capital, returned to the market on Tuesday with an offer price of $2.90 per share, raising $685 million in the process.

The debut was met with enthusiasm from investors. Shares opened at $3.14 — up 8.3% on the IPO price — and closed at $3.23, delivering an 11.4% gain on day one. The strong first-day performance easily outpaced the broader market, with the ASX 200 rising 1.2% on the day.

The IPO attracted strong institutional interest, with names like Argo Investments and Perpetual among key backers. Retail investors made up less than 10% of the offering — a deliberate move after previous public share offerings in the airline sector left small investors exposed when markets soured.

Bain Capital remains Virgin’s largest shareholder post-listing, with its stake reduced from 70% to around 39.4%, while Qatar Airways retained its 23% holding.

Virgin’s successful relisting is being seen as a positive sign for the broader Australian IPO market, which has seen limited activity in recent years. With renewed investor appetite and a robust market backdrop, its strong debut may open the door for more companies considering a return to the ASX boards.

Iran and Israel have stopped flinging missiles at each other - for now. Remember: we're in a truce right now, not a lasting peace. With that in mind, we asked our experts what they'd look to sell right now on the stock markets as the conflict boils down to a simmer.

On this week's Switzer Investing TV, both AMP Deputy Chief Economist Diana Mousina and Switzer Report’s Paul Rickard offered timely perspectives on where investors may want to consider trimming exposure — and where it may be too soon to make any big moves.

It's worth noting, however, that none of this constitutes financial advice. It doesn't take into account your personal circumstances, it's merely conjecture. You should consider your own circumstances and/or consult with a professional before making any investments.

Resource stocks look vulnerable

For Rickard, the resource sector stands out as the part of the market most exposed to downside risk if conflict in the Middle East escalates.

“If you’re feeling a bit cold, you probably get out of some of your resource stocks, which are already beaten up but they probably get a bit more beaten up,” he said.

The concern is not necessarily about commodity prices falling immediately, but rather how broader economic uncertainty could hit key export customers like China and India.

“It’s a fear of, you know, if this blows up into something big, what does that mean for world economies, world trade? What does it do for the likes of China and India, who are the biggest buyers of our commodities?”

Tech stocks also on the list

The other sector Rickard suggests may warrant some caution right now is technology, particularly US tech stocks, which have enjoyed strong runs in recent years.

“You might sell some of your tech stocks because if the US market’s going to fall, that’s what’s going to do it there. They’ve had a great run. So I think it’s tech and resources to sell,” Rickard said.

He noted that while markets remain surprisingly calm so far, any sudden escalation in global tensions could bring high-growth sectors back to earth quickly.

Defensive stocks fully priced — but not urgent to sell

Even traditionally defensive names like Commonwealth Bank, Telstra and property trusts may not offer much margin for safety at current valuations.

“They probably do okay, but they’re pretty overpriced,” Rickard said.

That said, he isn’t actively reducing these positions at the moment. “At this point in time, I’d probably hang in there… I’m not really a seller. I’m more looking at a chance to buy, but I don’t think this is great value yet.”

Cash gives flexibility

Rickard also reminded investors that unlike fund managers, retail investors aren’t forced to stay fully invested at all times. For those feeling uneasy, holding some extra cash may be the most prudent short-term move.

“For a retail investor, you don’t have to be in the market. Therefore, you can be in cash… you’re not being judged against an index all the time.”

“You get a reasonable rate at the bank at the moment. If you are a bit concerned, just get a bit more cash on board and then look for the opportunity.”

AMP's Diana Mousina: “Go defensive if you need liquidity soon”

While Mousina was less focused on sector-by-sector selling, she did warn that retirees or anyone needing short-term liquidity may want to consider being more defensive.

“If you’re a retiree right now, you’d want to have a large cash balance that you can draw down on in the short term because there is a big risk that markets fall by 5–10%, maybe even a bit higher in the short term,” she said.

That said, AMP’s portfolios had already shifted defensively earlier in the year.

“Our portfolios went defensive already a few months ago and have had more exposures to things like gold as well, and trying to broaden out the international equities exposure away from the US,” Mousina added.

For long-term investors, however, she sees any future dips as potential buying opportunities.

“Unless you believe that we’re going down the path of a hard recession — which is not our view — any large falls in share markets, I think, just provide a buying opportunity.”

While neither expert is predicting an immediate market crash, both recognise that certain parts of the market may be more vulnerable than others if tensions rise further.

For now, the advice is clear: know your time horizon, stay flexible, and be ready to take advantage if volatility opens up better buying opportunities.