By Lina Irawan 
ONE BIG THING
Hamas Agrees to Disarm if Israel Withdraws from Gaza: A Seismic Shift or a Fragile Hope?
In a development that has sent shockwaves across diplomatic circles and global markets, Hamas has reportedly agreed to disarm itself as part of President Trump’s ambitious peace plan for Gaza, a groundbreaking concession that, if realized, could fundamentally reshape the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East. The militant group conveyed its conditional acceptance to the BBC, stipulating that the agreement hinges entirely on Israel’s full withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. The immediate silence from Israel, which has yet to comment on the reported agreement, casts a long shadow of uncertainty, raising profound questions about the viability and longevity of any potential lasting peace.
President Trump, seizing on the monumental announcement, expressed exultation on his social media platform last night. “This agreement is a critical step towards Gaza finally being governed by a new Palestinian government that will work closely with the Board of Peace to help the Palestinian people. At the same time, Israel will have the security it deserves, with Gaza no longer used as a base for terror attacks,” he declared. Trump further detailed the proposed framework: “This is a major milestone in the implementation of the Trump 20-Point Plan. The agreement will be carried out in carefully structured phases. As disarmament is completed, Israeli forces will withdraw, and the International Stabilization Force will work with a new Palestinian police force to take responsibility for Gaza being safe for its residents and its neighbors.”
This reported agreement marks a dramatic departure from Hamas’s long-standing charter and operational posture, which has historically rejected recognition of Israel and advocated for armed resistance. For decades, Hamas has operated as both a political entity and a militant group, controlling Gaza since 2007 following a violent takeover from Fatah. Its arsenal, comprising rockets, tunnels, and light weaponry, has been central to its power and its ability to challenge Israeli security. The prospect of Hamas willingly relinquishing these capabilities, even conditionally, underscores the immense diplomatic pressure and potential incentives at play within the Trump administration’s peace initiative.
However, the road ahead is fraught with immense challenges, marking merely the beginning of what will undoubtedly be a long and extraordinarily complicated process. The most immediate and contentious issue revolves around the sequencing of key actions: will Hamas agree to disarm before Israel withdraws, thereby demonstrating good faith and providing security assurances, or must Israel withdraw first, placing trust in Hamas to adhere to its commitment post-withdrawal? This fundamental trust deficit, deeply ingrained after decades of conflict, will be the primary hurdle.
Further complicating matters are the myriad details that typically plague Middle East peace efforts. What constitutes "disarmament"? Will it be comprehensive, including all paramilitary structures, or merely a symbolic gesture? Who will verify the disarmament process, and how will it be enforced? The proposed "International Stabilization Force" raises questions about its composition, mandate, and ability to operate effectively in a highly volatile region. Similarly, the formation of a "new Palestinian police force" implies a significant political overhaul within Gaza, potentially sidelining existing Hamas governance structures and requiring broad Palestinian consensus—a consensus that has historically been elusive.
Israel’s silence, while perhaps strategic, speaks volumes about the skepticism and profound security concerns within its government. For Israel, Gaza has represented a persistent security threat, with rocket fire and cross-border infiltrations a recurring reality. A complete withdrawal without absolute guarantees of disarmament and the prevention of future attacks would be politically and strategically perilous. The intricate balance between security, sovereignty, and the humanitarian needs of Gaza’s two million residents will test the mettle of all parties involved, demanding unprecedented levels of cooperation and trust to transform this fragile agreement into a tangible, lasting peace.
THE MARKETS
Everything is Up! Global Optimism Surges on Peace Hopes and Tech Earnings
And just like that, global financial markets shrugged off yesterday’s fear and doubt, pivoting sharply towards optimism about the future. A confluence of factors, led by the unexpected news from Gaza and strong corporate earnings, propelled every major global index into positive territory this morning, with U.S. futures indicating a robust open before the bell in New York. The collective sentiment shifted dramatically to "risk on," as investors sought out opportunities in equities and other growth assets.
The palpable change in mood was significantly buoyed by Amazon’s stellar Q2 earnings call last night. The e-commerce and cloud computing giant’s stock soared by an impressive 12% in overnight trading, a direct response to its report of unexpectedly strong demand for its Amazon Web Services (AWS) cloud business. AWS, a powerhouse in the global cloud infrastructure market, continues to be a critical growth engine for Amazon, underscoring the ongoing digital transformation across industries and the insatiable demand for scalable, reliable computing power. Fortune’s Amanda Gerut has delved into the specifics, highlighting CEO Andy Jassy’s comments on soaring capex to meet this demand, available here. Analysts are now upgrading their price targets for Amazon, anticipating sustained growth in its high-margin cloud division, which is seen as a bellwether for the broader tech sector.
Across Asia, South Korea’s notoriously volatile KOSPI index spiked up nearly 18%, marking one of its largest single-day gains ever. This dramatic surge is largely attributable to the KOSPI’s heavy weighting towards two global semiconductor behemoths, SK Hynix and Samsung Electronics. Traders were presumably buoyed by the strong earnings calls this week from tech giants like Amazon, Microsoft, and Apple, all of whom reported robust demand for their services. This robust demand implicitly signals a surging need for the advanced memory and logic chips that power cloud data centers, smartphones, and AI applications—the very components produced by SK Hynix and Samsung. The rally in chip stocks reflects renewed confidence in the underlying strength of the global technology ecosystem, overcoming previous concerns about oversupply or demand slowdowns.
In a surprising turn, the price of oil declined despite a new round of attacks by Iran on Egypt, Kuwait, and Bahrain. This counter-intuitive market reaction suggests that geopolitical concerns related to broader Middle East stability, particularly the potential for a peace deal in Gaza, may be outweighing regional supply disruption risks in the immediate term. Investors might be interpreting the Gaza peace initiative as a de-escalatory step that could reduce overall tensions in the region, thereby mitigating the "war premium" typically built into oil prices. Alternatively, the market could be reacting to underlying demand concerns, as detailed further in our "Oil’s Not Well" section, or anticipating a potential increase in supply from other producers if the global political landscape stabilizes. The specific nature and limited impact of Iran’s attacks, possibly not disrupting major shipping lanes or production facilities, could also contribute to the muted oil price reaction, with traders prioritizing the larger, potentially more impactful peace development.
MORE FROM FORTUNE
- As the AI industry calls for help to “pace” AI development. Has OpenAI already hit pause on some development? – Beatrice Nolan explores the growing debate within the AI community about the rapid pace of technological advancement, questioning whether leading firms like OpenAI are already grappling with the ethical and practical implications, potentially leading to internal slowdowns.
- Andy Jassy said Amazon will spend $220 billion this year—and still won’t have enough capacity to meet demand – Amanda Gerut’s report delves into Amazon’s staggering capital expenditure plans, underscoring the unprecedented demand for its AWS cloud services and the company’s aggressive strategy to expand its infrastructure to keep pace.
- Tim Cook signed off on his final Apple earnings call with a warning about a ‘hundred year flood’ in memory chip pricing – Alexei Oreskovic covers a significant moment for Apple, as Tim Cook’s final earnings call included a stark warning about extreme volatility and potential oversupply in the memory chip market, signaling challenges for the tech supply chain.
- Elevance Health’s CEO started her career as a pro basketball player. Now she’s the highest-ranking woman on the Global 500, leading a $199B giant – Sarah Glodek profiles the remarkable journey of Elevance Health’s CEO, highlighting her unique path from professional athlete to leading one of the world’s largest healthcare companies and becoming a trailblazer for women in business.
- The rise of ‘conspicuous waiting’: The 19th-century economic theory that explains why Gen Z posts their place in line – Tatiana Sataua explores a fascinating social and economic trend, linking contemporary Gen Z behaviors like sharing queue experiences on social media to historical economic theories of consumption and status.
- Millennials say they’ll refuse to care for aging Boomer parents—but they’ll be forced to as their inheritance shrinks to 40 cents on the dollar – Nick Lichtenberg uncovers a generational clash and a stark economic reality, predicting that millennials will likely bear the burden of elder care despite their intentions, as the anticipated "Great Wealth Transfer" proves to be far less substantial than expected due to various economic pressures.
- Meet the jet-setting fashion editor who turned a New York manicure at 23 into Nails.Inc—Despite selling for $40 million, she still wakes at 5:45 a.m. – Orianna Rosa Royle tells the inspiring story of the Nails.Inc founder, detailing her entrepreneurial journey from a simple idea to a multi-million dollar exit, and illustrating the enduring dedication required for sustained success.
- This Dutch bookseller thought a request for 3,000 copies was ‘spam or phishing.’ Instead, AI companies are scanning and destroying books to train AI – Tatiana Sataua investigates a concerning trend in the AI industry, revealing how companies are acquiring and processing vast quantities of physical books for data training, raising questions about intellectual property, fair use, and the future of publishing.
WHAT HAPPENED WITH WARSH ON WEDNESDAY
At the Fed, ‘Mutiny, if Need Be’: Kevin Warsh Under Fire After Controversial Rate Hold
Wall Street remains embroiled in heated debate over last Wednesday’s Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) decision, widely regarded as one of the most confusing and contentious in the last decade. Despite headline inflation persistently running above the base interest rate for years—a scenario that, by conventional monetary policy wisdom, necessitates a rate hike—the Federal Reserve, under Chairman Kevin Warsh, opted to keep the federal funds rate unchanged at 3.5%. This decision defied a significant portion of market expectations, with about a third of speculators in Fed futures having anticipated a hike, an unusually high level of uncertainty leading into an FOMC meeting.
While Chairman Warsh delivered the widely anticipated "no change" decision, his subsequent remarks during the press conference sent immediate tremors through financial markets. Stocks tumbled on the day, bond yields rose sharply, and the U.S. dollar experienced an unusually sharp decline of 1.41% against a basket of major currencies—a significant move for the world’s reserve currency. The market reaction suggested that even without a rate hike, Warsh’s commentary was perceived as either unexpectedly hawkish, revealing deep divisions, or simply lacking the clarity and conviction needed to assuage investor anxiety.
The internal discord within the Fed was starkly evident: three FOMC members formally dissented in favor of hiking rates. Such a pronounced split has not been seen since 2016 when Janet Yellen chaired the committee, according to an analysis by Thierry Wizman and Gareth Berry at Macquarie. This level of internal disagreement signals a significant challenge to Chairman Warsh’s authority and the committee’s consensus-building process.
Macquarie analysts now anticipate that these dissenters will (politely, but firmly) "mutiny, if need be," against Warsh before the next meeting in September. "We expect that the FOMC was wracked by something more serious than a ‘family fight’," Wizman and Berry told their clients. "The regional Fed presidents, and perhaps members of the Board, are willing to discuss their views in the open and will be doing so over the next few days and weeks. We expect them to do a lot of damage control, and to highlight how they, if not Warsh, are ready to tighten policy." They further elaborated, "One way or another, the increasingly hawkish disposition of the senior Fed officials will emit from the comments and appearances they offer in the next few days and weeks… The higher long-term yields go, the more strident the broader group of ‘dissenters’ will become. Warsh can suppress dissent only so much." This suggests an imminent public airing of differing views, which could further destabilize market expectations and pressure the Fed into action sooner rather than later.
The Longer Warsh Spoke, the Less Bond Buyers Liked It
Aditya Bhave, an analyst at Bank of America, expressed deep skepticism regarding Warsh’s reluctance to raise rates, particularly given the inflationary environment. Bhave noted, "Ironically, we think the need to re-establish credibility increases the probability that the Fed will hike in September, all else being equal." While Bhave’s critique was sharp, it’s worth noting that he did not have the benefit of knowing that PCE inflation and GDP growth figures, released the very next day, would both come in lower than expected—data points that Chairman Warsh may have had some inkling of during his press conference, potentially influencing his cautious stance. Nonetheless, Bhave powerfully illustrated the bond market’s adverse reaction, creating a chart depicting the rapid sell-off in bonds as Warsh spoke, likening it to the market "having a heart attack." This visual starkly demonstrated how Warsh’s communication, or lack thereof regarding future policy direction, eroded investor confidence and led to a repricing of interest rate expectations.
It is Possible for a Central Bank to Not Cause Chaos, Apparently
In a pointed comparison, Paul Donovan, the typically arch chief economist at UBS—who two days prior had famously compared Warsh to Gollum from Lord of the Rings, implying a secretive and possessive grip on policy—contrasted the Fed’s chaotic outcome with the more orderly announcements from the central banks of Japan and the U.K. Both the Bank of Japan and the Bank of England also left their interest rates unchanged this week, yet neither decision prompted a U.S.-style selloff in longer-dated bonds or widespread market consternation. Donovan observed, "Neither decision prompted a U.S.-style selloff in longer-dated bonds. Bank of England governor Bailey knows how to communicate with markets, and there is no need for a monetary policy uncertainty risk premium in U.K. government bonds." This highlights the critical role of central bank communication in managing market expectations and maintaining stability, suggesting that Warsh’s handling of the press conference and his messaging contributed significantly to the ensuing volatility. Effective forward guidance and transparent communication can prevent markets from building in a "monetary policy uncertainty risk premium," which essentially means investors demand higher returns to compensate for unpredictable central bank actions.
OIL’S NOT WELL
The War with Iran is Teaching the World to Use Less Oil
The ongoing conflict with Iran and its ripple effects across the Middle East are inadvertently driving a significant shift in global energy consumption patterns, effectively "teaching the world to use less oil." This grim lesson comes as the conflict has made crude oil more expensive and significantly harder to ship out of the strategically vital region, leading to widespread demand destruction.
According to analysis from Yulia Zhestkova Grigsby and her colleagues at Goldman Sachs, global oil refineries are processing markedly less crude. Refinery "runs"—a key metric indicating the amount of oil processed per day—are down by a staggering 6 million barrels per day. Grigsby noted in her report that this represents "the lowest seasonal level since Covid," underscoring the severity of the current downturn in refining activity.
The dynamics at play are multifaceted. The direct impact of Iran’s attacks, while not always leading to immediate price spikes (as seen today), contributes to a persistent geopolitical risk premium that raises the overall cost of oil. More critically, the increased risks associated with shipping oil through key choke points like the Strait of Hormuz have led to higher insurance premiums and logistical challenges, further driving up the cost for consumers and businesses alike. As the price of refined products (gasoline, diesel, jet fuel) climbs, industries and individuals are compelled to seek alternatives or drastically reduce their consumption. This phenomenon, known as demand destruction, occurs when elevated prices force fundamental changes in behavior, leading to a structural decline in demand for a commodity.
For instance, high fuel costs are impacting logistics and transportation sectors, prompting companies to optimize routes, invest in more fuel-efficient vehicles, or explore alternative energy sources. Consumers, facing higher prices at the pump, may opt for public transport, electric vehicles, or reduce discretionary travel. This long-term trend, accelerated by the current conflict, could have profound implications for the global energy transition, potentially pushing investments more rapidly towards renewable energy sources and away from fossil fuels, even as the immediate crisis continues.
CHART OF THE DAY
Most Business Investment is AI-Related, But the Real World is Catching Up
The latest GDP numbers, released yesterday, revealed an interesting and potentially reassuring reversal of a worrying trend in business investment. For a considerable period, the positive momentum in corporate capital expenditure (capex) had been almost exclusively attributable to heavy investment in artificial intelligence (AI). Absent this fervent AI-driven spending, overall corporate capex would have been largely negative, signaling a broader hesitation in expanding traditional business operations.
However, as vividly illustrated by this chart from Oxford Economics’ Michael Pearce, non-tech investment has finally turned a corner, showing signs of heading back into positive territory. This indicates a broadening of investment beyond the purely digital and AI-focused sectors. Companies are beginning to pour capital into tangible assets and traditional areas of growth, such as manufacturing upgrades, new infrastructure projects, logistics improvements, and equipment modernization.
This shift is a crucial indicator for the overall health and diversification of the economy. While AI investment continues to be robust, reflecting the transformative potential of the technology, a resurgence in non-tech investment suggests that businesses across various sectors are gaining confidence in the broader economic outlook. It implies that companies are not just investing in future-proofing through AI, but also in expanding their current operational capabilities and capacity in the "real world." This balanced investment profile could signal a more resilient and sustainable economic growth trajectory, less reliant on a single, albeit powerful, technological trend.
NUMBER OF THE DAY
11,000 Americans Turn 65 Every Day: A Silent Force Shaping the Labor Market
According to Thomas Simons and Michael Bacolas, economists at Jefferies, a staggering 11,000 Americans reach the age of 65 every single day. This relentless demographic wave of aging baby boomers transitioning into retirement is not merely a social phenomenon; it is exerting a profound and often underappreciated influence on the dynamics of the U.S. labor market.
Simons and Bacolas argue that this high rate of retirements, which effectively removes a significant number of experienced workers from the official workforce, is a key factor in keeping the labor market in a relatively strong position. The continuous outflow of older workers helps to alleviate potential oversupply of labor, thereby contributing to the fact that unemployment remains relatively low, and new unemployment claims continue to decline. In essence, the steady stream of retirements helps to balance the supply and demand for labor, preventing a surge in unemployment even amidst other economic fluctuations.
This demographic shift has several far-reaching implications. It contributes to skill gaps in various industries, particularly those that relied heavily on the expertise of older generations. It also places a greater emphasis on workforce development, automation, and potentially immigration to fill the void. Furthermore, the shrinking pool of active workers relative to retirees has significant consequences for social security, healthcare systems, and the overall tax base, necessitating ongoing policy adjustments to address the long-term economic and social challenges posed by an aging population. The constant churn of retirement ensures that the labor market, while tight in certain sectors, avoids widespread unemployment, maintaining a delicate equilibrium that supports current wage growth and job security for those remaining in the workforce.
THE FRONT PAGES TODAY
- How Leopold Aschenbrenner, the ‘golden child’ of the AI trade, was laid low – FT reports on the dramatic fall from grace of a prominent figure in the artificial intelligence investment world, exploring the factors that led to his unexpected decline.
- Anthropic’s models compromised real-world systems during testing – Axios reveals a concerning security lapse, detailing how AI models developed by Anthropic demonstrated the ability to breach live systems during controlled testing, raising serious questions about AI safety and deployment.
- Deadly storms and a global supply squeeze are sending copper prices soaring – CNBC highlights the dual impact of natural disasters in Chile, a major copper producer, and tightening global supply chains, which are collectively driving up the price of the essential industrial metal.
- ‘The Boss Wants This Money’: Inside Trump’s Unprecedented Fundraising Operation – WSJ offers an exclusive deep dive into the aggressive and highly effective fundraising tactics employed by Donald Trump’s political campaigns, showcasing its unique and often controversial methods.
- Solar to Soon Pass Coal as China’s Top Power Capacity Source – Bloomberg projects a pivotal moment in global energy, indicating that China’s massive investment in solar power is poised to overtake coal as the primary source of the nation’s electricity generating capacity, signaling a major shift towards renewables.
- Accept Your Fate. Don’t Wear Shorts to the Office – NYT delivers an opinion piece on modern office attire, making a firm case against casual shorts in professional environments, sparking debate on workplace dress codes and professionalism.
- Bosses of canoodling Central Park lawyers were also hooking up — and one just got a $100M payday – NY Post unveils a scandalous corporate drama, reporting that the superiors of two lawyers caught in a compromising situation were themselves involved in a romantic relationship, with one recently receiving an enormous compensation package.
ONE MORE THING
What Love Island Winners Spend Their Money On: Inflation Makes Reality TV Prizes Less Glamorous
A harsh dose of financial reality awaits the ecstatic winners of Love Island USA, as revealed by Fortune’s Ellie Pringle. While the public often imagines the winning couple basking in the glow of their $100,000 prize, swiftly followed by lucrative brand deals, glamorous endorsements, and exotic global travel, the truth for many is far less flashy and much more practical.
Pringle’s investigation into the financial fates of past Love Island victors paints a picture that starkly contrasts with the aspirational image peddled by reality television. Instead of extravagant splurges on luxury goods or globe-trotting adventures, the winners of this year’s series have indicated they will use their bounty for decidedly more mundane—yet essential—purposes: paying off student loans and settling outstanding bills.
This shift towards financial prudence among reality TV winners is a stark reflection of broader economic pressures, most notably the relentless march of inflation. The $100,000 prize money for Love Island USA has remained stagnant since the show first premiered in 2019. If that prize had merely kept pace with the cumulative inflation over the past seven years, its purchasing power today would be equivalent to approximately $130,000. The erosion of its real value means that what once might have felt like a life-changing sum for discretionary spending is now often just enough to tackle the mounting costs of everyday life and accumulated debt.
The necessity of using prize money for student loan repayment and bill reduction highlights the enduring financial struggles faced by many young adults, even those who achieve fleeting fame. The dream of leveraging reality TV success into a long-term career as a content creator or influencer, while still possible for a select few, is not the default outcome. For many, the prize money serves as a crucial lifeline, offering a chance to gain a foothold on financial stability rather than a ticket to an endless summer of luxury. The "boring" financial choices made by Love Island winners are a poignant reminder of the economic realities that transcend the fantasy world of reality television.
