This should be peak season for a 12-room hotel near the train station in the Chinese industrial hub of Wuhan. The Chinese New Year usually brings in plenty of travellers and delivers profits of around $3,000 a month.
But the place is empty. Wuhan, the centre of a deadly viral outbreak, is on lockdown. “There is not a single customer,’’ said the hotel’s owner, who gave only his surname, Cui. He still has to pay rent and his utility bills. Instead of counting his earnings, he’s expecting to lose $1,500 a month.
The outbreak arrives at a bad time for Wuhan, China and the world economy.
China, with the world’s No. 2 economy, was decelerating even before the coronavirus hit.
And the world economy is coping with an unexpectedly sharp slowdown in No. 7 India, which prompted the International Monetary Fund last week to downgrade its outlook for global growth this year.
The coronavirus is drawing comparisons to the SARS outbreak, which paralyzed the economies of China and Hong Kong for weeks in 2003. But what happens in China carries a lot more weight these days: In 2003, China accounted for 4% of global output. Now its share is 16%, according to the World Bank.
“A growth slowdown in China could have sizable ripple effects across Asia and the rest of the world, given the size of China’s economy and its role as the key driver of global growth in recent years,” said Eswar Prasad, a Cornell University economist and former head of the International Monetary Fund’s China division.
No one knows exactly how the outbreak will play out or what its economic impact will be.
Authorities are still trying to better understand the new virus. It is from the coronavirus family, which also can cause the common cold as well as more serious illnesses such as SARS.
So far, China has confirmed more than 4,500 coronavirus cases and more than 100 deaths.
The Chinese government has locked down Wuhan and 16 other cities in Hubei province, isolating more than 50 million people. The United States and other countries prepared Tuesday to airlift their citizens out of Wuhan. The outbreak has brought every day business to a standstill and closed down such popular tourist attractions as Beijing’s former imperial palace, Shanghai Disneyland, Hong Kong Disneyland and the city’s Ocean Park.
The significant decline in travel has already caused United Airlines to suspend some flights to Beijing, Hong Kong and Shanghai, the airline said in a statement.
“It’s still too soon to measure what the impact is going to be from an economic perspective,’’ said Jim Baird, chief investment officer at Plante Moran Financial Advisors.
The SARS experience offers some reason for economic optimism. That outbreak, centred in southern China, initially clobbered the Chinese economy. In the April-June quarter of 2003, China’s economic growth dropped to an annual rate of 9.1% from 11.1% the previous quarter, noted economists Tommy Wu and Priyanka Kishore of Oxford Economics. But as the health crisis subsided, growth picked back up, recovering to a 10% annual rate in the second half of the year.
“From what we know, it’s likely to be similar this time,’’ said Andy Rothman, investment strategist at Matthews Asia. “People shouldn’t get panicked that growth is going to slow sharply’’ over a sustained period.
Still, the Chinese economy isn’t the dynamo it was in the early and mid-2000s when growth routinely hit double digits.
The IMF expects China’s growth to drop from 6.1% in 2019, already the slowest since 1990, to 6% this year and 5.8% next. The slowdown reflects China’s difficult transition from fast but unsustainable growth built around often-wasteful investments to steadier but less striking growth built on consumer spending by the country’s growing middle class.
The Chinese economy has also been buffeted by a trade war with the United States. The two countries signed a truce earlier this month that was expected to provide some economic relief. Then the viral outbreak hit.
As part of the so-called Phase 1 deal, China agreed to increase purchases of U.S. products by $200 billion over this year and next. That goal sounded ambitious even before the viral outbreak isolated tens of millions of Chinese consumers and delivered a wallop to consumer and business confidence.
Rothman suspects the United States might give the Chinese a little leeway. “Both governments really want the deal to work,’’ he said. “Ïf it is clear that (Chinese purchases) are off to a slow start not because the Chinese government is not trying its best but because of the virus, the Trump administration is likely to be sympathetic.’’
There has been no immediate impact on China’s vast manufacturing industries because factories already were closed for the Lunar New Year holiday and weren’t due to reopen until this week or later.
“I think the first quarter looks like it will take quite a significant hit,” said Rajiv Biswas, chief Asia economist for IHS Markit. “This still is escalating, so it’s hard to talk about when this will be contained.”
Further delays in restarting production could send shock waves through Asian suppliers of components and exporters of iron ore, copper and other commodities as far away as Australia, Brazil and Africa.
Foreign suppliers usually see a surge in Chinese orders as factories restock after shutting down for 10 days or more during the holiday.
“The loss of economic output could be quite substantial, and that has consequences for the Asian manufacturing supply chain, because orders won’t come in the way people expect,” Biswas said.
The impact in other developing Asian countries might reduce their 2020 economic growth by 1.5 to 2 percentage points, according to a forecast by Edward Glossop of Capital Economics.
Growth in Asian emerging markets “will slow sharply in the first quarter of the year,” Glossop said in a report.
Japanese Economy Minister Yasutoshi Nishimura told reporters Tuesday that Japanese exports, production and corporate profits could be pinched by the new virus, stressing that he was closely monitoring the situation.
A more direct hit is already coming from the decline in tourist traffic from China. Nishimura said Chinese travellers usually account for about a third of tourists from abroad.
Chinese tourists to Japan tend to be relatively big spenders. The virus has hit right at the time when Chinese travel for the lunar new year.
Japan’s economy suffered from the SARS outbreak in 2003, but the damage was limited to several months. The big difference is that Japan has far more Chinese tourists these days.
Now “the impact on the Japanese economy would be far greater,” said Takahide Kiuchi, executive economist at Nomura Research Institute, while adding that much depends on how widespread the outbreak proves to be.
“There is hardly anything good that can be hoped for economically because of the new virus,” he said. Increased sales of masks and other protective gear, he noted, will hardly pick up the slack.
Wiseman reported from Washington, McDonald from Beijing and Kageyama from Tokyo. AP researcher Yu Bing in Beijing contributed to this report.
Paul Wiseman, Joe McDonald And Yuri Kageyama, The Associated Press
Was the Emergencies Act really about the economy?
David Moscrop is a writer and political commentator. He is the author of Too Dumb for Democracy and a new Substack newsletter.
As the Public Order Emergency Commission moves on to its next phase – expert roundtable discussions ahead of tabling its findings in the House of Commons in February – observers are still working to make sense of the endless angles of the thing. But one has come into sharp relief during the hours of testimony before commissioner Paul Rouleau: It was at least partly about the economy. Of course it was.
We can debate what “partly” means. But the answer will depend on whose perspective you’re interrogating. During his testimony on the last day of the commission, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said economic concerns contributed to the decision to invoke the Emergencies Act, but they were secondary to public-safety concerns.
“My motivation was entirely about ensuring the safety of Canadians,” he said. “My secondary motivation was making sure Canadians continue to have confidence in their institutions and society’s ability to function and enforce the rule of law when it’s not being respected,” he added. That leaves the economy third.
Meanwhile, back at the Department of Finance, Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland seemed far more motivated by the economic impact of the occupation and blockades. That checks out. That’s her bailiwick. During her appearance before the commission, Ms. Freeland testified to her concern that the occupation and blockades were bad for the economy – indeed, they were “profoundly jeopardizing it,” as she put it.
One may not be surprised to learn that what helped crystallize her understanding of the matter were calls with the chief executive officers of Canada’s major banks. The commission reveals the influence of the CEOs, who were concerned Canada was becoming a “joke.” Investors were nervous and there was growing concern the country might suffer long-term economic damage as confidence in the security and reliability of international trade and supply chains waned. So, their concern became the Finance Minister’s.
Ms. Freeland was careful to position the economic threats – such as the trade-disrupting blockade of the Ambassador Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit – as threats to national security as well.
Is that true? It depends on what you mean. Ms. Freeland’s framing may be persuasive, but the economic threats were political and immaterial in regards to the Emergencies Act. Skittish bankers do not constitute a national security threat. Nonetheless, she has a point.
That point ought to make observers a bit uncomfortable. By Feb. 14, when the act was invoked, the occupiers and blockaders had been ensconced for some time. The Ambassador Bridge was shut down from Feb. 7 to 13. The Coutts, Alta., border blockade began on Jan. 29; the Ottawa occupation started the same day. One would hope it wasn’t the worries of a handful of oligopolist bankers that finally secured the concern of Ms. Freeland that some extraordinary measure was required to dismantle the network of occupiers who had taken the country hostage in the capital and along two border crossings.
Of course, the bankers were important elements of the plan given that the Emergencies Act was used, in part, to freeze accounts and funds by way of the banks – a process that takes time and a court order under normal circumstances. Roughly $8-million was frozen across more than 200 accounts under the authority of the act. The government needed the banks to strangle the economic resources used by or available to the blockaders and occupiers to help send them packing.
The whole affair leaves those who are critical of both bank power and the occupiers and blockaders in an awkward but not irreconcilable position. The primary motivation for ending the sieges ought to have been that Canada must not tolerate sustained illegal and dangerous action by purveyors of reactionary white grievance politics. Whether they pose an economic threat should be a secondary concern.
The blockades and occupation were indeed a threat. And the people harmed the most by that activity were the working-class people who, ostensibly, the convoy participants and their boosters were pretending to stand up for. Jamming up trade routes that workers rely on, keeping people from going to their jobs, and indeed risking the very existence of those jobs is not worker-friendly action. More to the point, the blockades and occupation weren’t about the interests of workers. They were a reactionary tantrum. Accordingly, as sometimes happens, the interests of the banks, the government and workers aligned.
That was then. Now we ought to maintain a critical eye on the oversized and growing power of oligopoly in Canada and ensure that should something like the convoy happen again, we are not left relying on a temporary alignment of interests and the panicky persuasion of the country’s big banks.
How will the space economy change the world?
The passengers who boarded commercial flights just after World War II didn’t know that air travel would begin to soar over the next decade, nor did the masses who first logged onto the internet in the 1990s realize that computers would one day provide much of their news, entertainment, and social life. And today, few people understand that the space economy—broadly defined as activities in orbit or on other planets that benefit human beings—could soon transform how they live and work.
Some hints of the coming changes are apparent, including the frequent headlines about SpaceX, Blue Origin, and other private companies launching their own rockets and deploying satellite constellations. These activities, once primarily the domain of government agencies, are now possible in the private sector because recent technological advances in manufacturing, propulsion, and launch have made it much easier and less expensive to venture into space and conduct missions. Lower costs have opened the door to new start-ups and encouraged established aerospace companies to explore novel opportunities that once seemed too expensive or difficult. The technological improvements have also intrigued investors, resulting in a surge of space funding over the past five years.
The potential for innovative space applications is immense, especially if established aerospace companies form partnerships with businesses that traditionally haven’t ventured into orbit. Pharmaceutical companies might establish a lab on a space station to study cell growth, for instance, or semiconductor companies might manufacture chips in extraterrestrial factories to determine whether any aspects of the space environment, such as the lack of gravity, improve the process. Such possibilities, which might have seemed like the stuff of science fiction a few years ago, could become an essential part of a business across multiple industries in the near future.
But how and when should companies take advantage of their greater access to space and pursue emerging use cases? And how can they decide what opportunities are most promising when the technology is so nascent? Although much remains uncertain, companies that begin exploring these questions now could gain a long-term advantage.
The benefits of the space economy—with more to come
Space has long been a potent incubator for innovation—first from governments and large telcos and now from multiple private companies as well. From the launch of Sputnik 1 in 1957 through today, the space economy has delivered most of its value through satellite services, including communications and data and image collection and analysis. Satellites help large companies with multiple tasks, including inventory monitoring at distant locations, instant authorization of credit-card transactions, and international videoconferencing. Consumers use satellite technology whenever an online navigation system pinpoints their location, or when they make calls during plane flights or from rural locations that lack cell phone towers. And television viewers can thank satellites for beaming the signals that allow them to watch their favorite programs. The role of satellites in these activities is often overlooked—many people may think terrestrial computer networks provide the necessary connectivity—unless a glitch occurs and draws attention to the unobtrusive technology operating in the background.
In addition, satellites help world leaders address intractable social, environmental, and economic challenges. Consider a few ways that satellite data can provide insights—often more effectively and comprehensively than other sources:
- Climate change. More than 160 satellites monitor Earth to assess the effects of global warming and detect activities, such as illegal logging, that might contribute to the problem.
Six ways space technologies benefit life on Earth, World Economic Forum, Global Future Council on Space Technologies, October 16, 2020.
NASA has used an instrument mounted on its Aqua satellite to monitor environmental changes, including those related to ocean water, water vapor, clouds, sea and land ice, and precipitation, for more than 20 years. Other satellites provide information that can help government agencies take urgent action on wildfires, coastal erosion, and other climate-related natural disasters.
- Food security. Satellite data is increasingly used to monitor crop development and potential threats to harvests, such as drought or insect invasions. The SERVIR project, a partnership between NASA and the US Agency for International Development, uses data from Earth-imaging satellites and geospatial technologies to help governments address multiple issues, including food shortages.
- National security. Governments, often working with companies in the private sector, can use satellite images and data to gain valuable intelligence, such as information on the movement of troops or the installation of weapons systems.
According to the not-for-profit Space Foundation, the space economy was valued at $469 billion in 2021, up 9 percent from 2020, the highest recorded growth since 2014.
See “Space Foundation releases The Space Report 2022 Q2 showing growth of global space economy,” Space Foundation, July 27, 2022; and Michael Sheetz, “The space economy grew at fastest rate in years to $469 billion in 2021, report says,” CNBC, July 27, 2022.
Although the space economy now generates most value by enabling or enhancing activities on Earth, significant future value could arise from functions that occur entirely in orbit, such as in-orbit servicing, research and development, and manufacturing. That said, the satellite services available today will remain important and could be critical to some emerging use cases.
Finally, a tipping point
Researchers and other space enthusiasts have long discussed the potential for business activity in orbit, or even the development of space cities. But now, with lower costs and greater technological capabilities, the space economy may finally be at a tipping point, where businesses can conduct large-scale activities in space. As costs continue to drop, even more companies may contemplate space ventures; and for the first time, they might even be able to profit from forays into space.
More launches, lower costs
The costs for heavy launches in low-Earth orbit (LEO) have fallen from $65,000 per kilogram to $1,500 per kilogram (in 2021 dollars)—a greater than 95 percent decrease.
Thomas G. Roberts, “Space launch to low Earth orbit: How much does it cost?,” Aerospace Security, September 1, 2022.
Computer-aided design, 3-D printing, and other innovations have contributed to the cost reductions by streamlining the manufacturing process and improving supply chains. The emergence of new commercial launch providers that prioritize efficiency is also helping. For instance, engineers at these companies have developed reusable components for launch vehicles, which lowers costs while promoting sustainability. The recent increase in launch frequency, particularly at SpaceX, is accelerating the drop in costs.
Current R&D efforts could reduce launch costs even further. Relativity Space, for instance, plans to use 3-D printing, artificial intelligence, and autonomous robotics to build a fleet of fully reusable, low-cost rockets. The first launch for these vehicles is planned for 2024 at Cape Canaveral, Florida. Similarly, SpaceX plans to conduct a full-scale, orbital test flight for its reusable Starship launch vehicle—the tallest and most powerful ever built—in late 2022.
Smaller satellites, bigger gains
The size and weight of satellites have fallen significantly in recent years because of various advances, primarily driven by private companies, such as the use of lighter solar panels and more efficient batteries. These changes, combined with greater use of commercial, off-the-shelf components, have decreased satellite costs and made their launch and operation feasible for many more organizations. Greater satellite demand is also improving costs because manufacturers obtain economies of scale by increasing production volume. These lower costs have helped alter the space landscape. Large government satellites, some of which cost upward of $1 billion and tend to be deployed in orbits far from Earth, are now outnumbered by smaller commercial satellites in LEO, often deployed in constellations, that can cost $100,000 or less.
In tandem with the cost decrease for satellites, researchers have created new technologies, such as higher-resolution sensors, that are boosting image capture, data processing, and other functions. Satellites can now collect, analyze, and transfer much larger stores of data than they could just five years ago.
Greater investment, more innovation
Public agencies, especially NASA and the US Department of Defense and Intelligence Community, have traditionally provided most space investment. While these agencies will continue to be a major source of funding, the combination of lower costs and more sophisticated technology is attracting more investment from both special-purpose acquisition companies (SPACs) and private investors—a trend that is driving innovation.
In 2021, private-sector funding in space-related companies topped $10 billion—an all-time high and about a tenfold increase over the past decade. The percentage of global space R&D funding coming from the US government decreased from about 70 percent to around 50 percent over the same period.
“The space report online,” Space Foundation, 2021; The space economy at a glance, OECD, July 22, 2011.
Meanwhile, the number of space-related start-ups funded annually increased more than twofold from 2010 to 2018.
Start-up space: Update on investment in commercial space ventures, Bryce Tech, 2021.
Commercial funding could surpass government funding within 20 years, a trend that government is largely embracing and that could lead to mutually beneficial public–private partnerships.
New use cases and more momentum
Although much uncertainty persists, analysts are so optimistic about space that some believe it will become a $1 trillion industry, thanks to enhancements to existing use cases and the development of entirely new applications. Much progress, including further reductions in launch and operational costs, must be made before many ambitious space projects can become a reality, but continued technology improvements are encouraging companies to increase their investments in the space economy now. The new use cases can be divided into two broad categories: space-for-Earth applications, which facilitate terrestrial activities, and space-for-space applications, which only involve activities that occur in orbit.
Satellites are becoming more sophisticated each year, allowing researchers to enhance existing use cases and develop new offerings. Many companies have recently deployed smaller, less expensive satellites in LEO—an orbit that is ideal for high-bandwidth, low-latency communications—to provide better satellite connectivity. While most past efforts to launch LEO constellations failed because of high costs, limited demand, and inadequate funding, the situation is much different today. SpaceX’s Starlink has already launched an LEO constellation and has paying customers for its satellite broadband network. OneWeb and Amazon’s Project Kuiper, among others, also plan to deploy LEO constellations soon. Satellite imaging, another technology frequently used in current applications, has also improved and could enable multiple new use cases by providing more detailed and accurate information.
Some of the most important space-for-Earth applications include the following:
- Internet services in remote locations. Terrestrial networks are often difficult or uneconomical to install in underserved or rural areas. Beyond basic inconveniences, a lack of connectivity can interfere with vital services, including provision of remote learning or online medical consultations. By providing internet services to these areas, satellite connectivity could increase educational equity and social interactions and improve public health, especially in cases where the COVID-19 pandemic still limits some in-person interactions.
- Agriculture. Space-based remote sensors collect a multitude of data, including images, information on weather patterns, and measures for electromagnetic waves, all of which have applications for agriculture. McKinsey’s annual digital farmer adoption survey shows that 29 percent of row-crop farmers and 45 percent of specialty-crop farmers already rely on such data or plan to do so. The greatest value from satellite sensors for agriculture relates to yield-improvement opportunities. For instance, farmers can use satellite images to identify areas that require replanting early in the season, rather than conducting a manual inspection that might be time consuming and miss some areas of the field.
- Energy. Utilities can use satellite data to monitor vegetation that might be interfering with critical infrastructure, including power lines. By addressing the problems before they escalate, companies might avoid power outages.
- Mining. Satellites can support some of the most important functions at mining companies. Better connectivity might improve productivity at remote sites by helping headquarters-based experts communicate with local staff to solve problems. Satellite data can also help mining companies map emissions, monitor shipments along the supply chain, and improve exploration efforts by identifying mineral-rich areas.
- Insurance. Better imaging might allow more insurers to cost-effectively assess risks and damages at remote locations, with improved resolution and greater image-sequencing frequency pinpointing problems more clearly and eliminating the need for in-person visits. Pilot tests of radio-frequency-based mapping, which can detect “hidden” shipping activity, could help maritime and commodities-based hedge fund customers track the movement of goods overseas.
Many of the emerging “space for space” applications are now possible for the first time because lower costs make frequent launches and long-term missions more financially viable. Consider a few use cases that could gain traction:
- Research and development. Space R&D is not a new application, but businesses outside the aerospace sector have not traditionally undertaken large-scale projects in this area. With lower costs and better technologies, however, this could change as companies build upon the research done to date on the International Space Station. Among other applications, pharmaceutical companies could develop cell cultures for predicting disease models. While these cultures develop in well-known patterns on Earth, the novel environment in space would shift growth patterns and reveal new insights. Similarly, consumer goods companies might want to develop products in space, where high levels of radiation, a near vacuum-like state, and zero gravity might improve design and manufacturing. For instance, a manufacturer of beauty products might discover new information about skin care in the harsh space environment, which accelerates aging.
- Manufacturing, construction, and assembly. Super-heavy launch vehicles, such as SpaceX’s Starship, may make it easier for companies to create factories or manufacturing plants in orbit. Some semiconductor companies are already exploring the potential for creating chips at such facilities, since the natural vacuum in space could potentially facilitate innovative thin-layering techniques by reducing or eliminating gases during production.
- Greater exploration and habitation in space. Innovative forms of deep space exploration, including crewed missions to Mars, might become possible if technologies such as nuclear propulsion continue to advance. Some leaders, including Jeff Bezos of Blue Origin, are already speculating that large numbers of people may even be able to live and work in space. Recent headlines about space tourism may be the first sign that space is no longer the domain of a few carefully selected astronauts.
Activity in most of these space-for-space areas is now very limited, but further technological improvements, such as laser communication between satellites and better edge processing (making sense of data in space, rather than after downloading it) could accelerate progress. Although it’s still difficult to determine which use cases, if any, will gain significant traction, industry stakeholders may promote progress by considering measures that will help space companies and others navigate the new landscape. For instance, guidelines about use of orbits might help reduce the chance of collisions in space that could result in debris.
Thanks to lower costs and greater access, space is no longer the sole domain of large aerospace companies or public agencies with vast budgets. It’s a place that can deliver many benefits—both on Earth and in orbit—to almost any business sector. Across industries, from pharmaceuticals to semiconductors, some companies are already expanding their space capabilities, exploring new use cases, or piloting innovative applications. In a few years, industry leaders may compare these early movers to businesses that recognized the internet’s potential in the early 1990s and moved quickly to establish an online presence. The challenges ahead—both technological and financial—can’t be understated, but the potential of space is also immense. Companies that ignore it, either because they are bogged down in current challenges or underestimate the opportunities ahead, might eventually find themselves scrambling to catch up to the early leaders.
Top Canadian Stocks to Hold During a Recession
In a recession where markets are prone to heavy volatility and uncertainty, generating stable returns is hard to come by. However, compared to other stock markets, Canada harbours some of the most dividend-focused companies. Not only are these companies consistently growing their dividend, but have been resilient in past recessions.
Here are the top Canadian stocks to hold during a recession.
Royal Bank of Canada (RY)
Despite being the largest Canadian financial institution and ‘boring’ in nature to many growth-focused investors, Royal Bank has flourished in the past couple years as shareholders raked in consistent dividend income and capital appreciation. In fact, the stock has outperformed the S&P 500 year-to-date.
In the past ten years, Royal Bank has grown its dividend tremendously. As of right now, the annual dividend payout for each share is $5.12, which gives it a dividend yield of 3.85%. With dividends included, the stock softened the volatility of woes and worries revolving around the economy.
In addition, Royal Bank’s payout ratio, which is derived from how much of earnings is paid out to shareholders, is 33.4%. This ratio is low enough that the company could continue to raise the dividend for many years, even without substantial earnings growth. The bank’s revenue and earnings growth has also been stellar in contrast to other companies which have seen headwinds, rising costs, and reduced headcounts. These strong fundamentals indicate that the dividend safety is high.
Royal Bank has shown investors predictability and certainty in a market of declining confidence. Looking forward, Royal Bank stands to benefit from rising interest rates. For investors who want exposure to the financial sector without volatility and oversized risk, RY stock could be a great option.
Canadian Pacific (CP)
Up next is Canadian Pacific. The company, which owns and operates one of the largest railway networks in all of Canada, has seen tremendous stability in the past year. Despite ongoing macroeconomic headwinds, Canadian Pacific has been resilient in growing its revenue and earnings,
Right now, the company provides an annual dividend of $0.76 per share. While the dividend is not that substantial, its rapid growth is what intrigues investors. In the past ten years, the dividend has tripled, factoring in the 5:1 stock split last year. Like Royal Bank, the same case can be made with Canadian Pacific, since its dividend payout ratio is a mere 21.2%. The future earnings growth potential is sizable.
Canadian Pacific shares have outperformed the S&P 500 in the past year, likely due to earnings growth in the latest quarter of over 88.7% year-over-year. In one month alone, Canadian Pacific shares are up 11%. Moving forward, Canadian Pacific is well positioned to continue paying out shareholders in the form of stable, growing dividends, and potentially further stock price appreciation.
Both Royal Bank and Canadian Pacific have demonstrated their resilient stance in the stock market, particularly during a time when volatility is prominent. Looking ahead, we can expect both companies to continue distributing and raising their dividends given their low dividend payout ratios. These two companies could make an investor’s portfolio nearly inflation and recession-resistant, which is extraordinarily rare to find anywhere else.
Croatia charged for World Cup fans' taunts of Canada goalie – CP24
Ukrainian avant-garde art finds refuge from war in Madrid – Reuters
Musk: Apple wants to block Twitter from its app store – Al Jazeera English
Silver investment demand jumped 12% in 2019
Iran anticipates renewed protests amid social media shutdown
Search for life on Mars accelerates as new bodies of water found below planet’s surface
Tech19 hours ago
The Verge’s creator gift guide: ideas for streamers, TikTokers, and more
Health22 hours ago
Kimberley compounding pharmacy steps up to alleviate shortages
Health21 hours ago
Polio is back in Indonesia, sparking vaccination campaign
Health23 hours ago
Monkeypox renamed as ‘mpox’
Tech23 hours ago
Apple and Huish devise clever pricing model for divers with Oceanic+ app
Media21 hours ago
France’s Citizen Kane tests EU media freedom ambitions
Real eState22 hours ago
Certus Capital invests Rs 30 cr in EON, a prime real estate project in Mumbai
Economy19 hours ago
How will the space economy change the world?