Connect with us

Business

Employees are using ‘2025 tools inside 2015 job structures,’ a new Workday study says

Published

on



Good morning!

As executives keep pushing to find the magic ROI of AI, a new Workday study suggests that employees aren’t being set up to succeedthanks to archaic job structures.

Employees are using 2025 tools while stuck in 2015 job structures, as less than half of job roles have been updated to reflect AI capabilities, according to the study. Workday’s survey featured responses from 3,200 full-time employees at organizations with annual revenue of $100 million or more. 

Workers are rapidly being asked to apply human judgment and insight to a huge load of content that AI is generating for them, and historically, those types of skillsets take 10 years to build, said Aashna Kircher, group general manager for the office of the CHRO at Workday.

“Those are super high level skillsets,” Kircher said. “Right now, all the training that I see is very focused on how to use AI and not how to develop and apply discernment and judgment around the output that AI is driving. And I think that’s the disconnect for senior leaders.” 

Kircher said the first step to addressing this disconnect is analyzing each business function to figure out what the core skillsets associated with the job should be, and which parts of it should be automated. 

The study found that HR leaders bear a disproportionate share (38%) of the burden of “reworking AI”—fact-checking, reviewing, and editing copy that AI has produced. Those in IT roles, meanwhile, only represent 32% of those doing this work. 

That’s partly a function of the different work processes. “[IT roles] are using it as the starting point, as a thought partner, to accelerate the creativity and iteration process—but understanding that the outcome is imperfect and it doesn’t need the same level of scrutiny,” Kircher said. “Whereas in the context of something like HR, accuracy, tone, impact, how you frame things, matter so much.”

Kristin Stoller
Editorial Director, Fortune Live Media
kristin.stoller@fortune.com

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Paramount fires back at Warner Bros. bid, launching proxy fight for board seats at annual meeting

Published

on



In a dramatic escalation of Hollywood’s latest takeover brawl, Paramount Skydance said Monday it will launch a proxy fight at Warner Bros. Discovery and sue in Delaware to pry loose more details about the company’s pending deal with Netflix—moves aimed at derailing that transaction and advancing its own hostile, all‑cash offer.

Paramount Skydance plans to nominate its own slate of directors for election at Warner Bros. Discovery’s 2026 annual meeting and to urge shareholders to vote against the Netflix agreement if WBD calls a special or early meeting to approve it. The strategy is designed to reshape the board that twice rejected Paramount’s bid and to rally investors behind a rival deal Ellison insists is superior on both value and risk.

“WBD has provided increasingly novel reasons for avoiding a transaction with Paramount, but what it has never said, because it cannot, is that the Netflix transaction is financially superior to our actual offer,” Paramount CEO David Ellison wrote in a letter to Warner shareholders.

At the same time, Paramount has filed a lawsuit in Delaware Chancery Court seeking to force Warner Bros. Discovery to disclose more information about how it valued the Netflix transaction and the planned spin-off of WBD’s global cable networks into a separate public company. Paramount argues that without those details—particularly around the treatment of debt and the board’s “risk adjustment” of its $30‑per‑share all‑cash proposal—investors cannot make an informed choice between the two competing paths.​

Competing visions for WBD

Under Paramount Skydance’s hostile bid, the Ellison‑led company is offering $30 in cash for every Warner Bros. Discovery share, seeking to acquire the entire company, including networks such as CNN and TNT, at a valuation of roughly $108 billion that contemplates assuming or addressing about $87 billion of WBD debt. Warner Bros. Discovery’s board has rejected that offer as inadequate and overly leveraged, arguing it is not “even comparable” to the Netflix proposal.​

Netflix, by contrast, has agreed to buy WBD’s film and television studios, HBO and HBO Max in a cash‑and‑stock deal valued at $27.75 per WBD share, implying about $72 billion in equity value and $82.7 billion in enterprise value, while leaving the legacy cable networks behind as a stand‑alone public company. Warner Bros. Discovery’s board has endorsed that transaction and urged shareholders to back it, positioning the Netflix tie‑up as a cleaner, lower‑risk way to reshape the company for the streaming era.​

What the proxy fight means for investors

A proxy contest would give Paramount an opportunity to ask Warner Bros. Discovery shareholders to oust some or all incumbent directors at the 2026 annual meeting and replace them with nominees more open to engaging on its offer. Paramount has said those directors, if elected, would “in accordance with their fiduciary duties” use WBD’s rights under the Netflix agreement to revisit its bid and potentially steer the company into a transaction with Paramount instead.​

If Warner Bros. Discovery convenes a shareholder vote on the Netflix deal before that meeting, Paramount has pledged to solicit proxies against approving the agreement, effectively turning the vote into an early referendum on which transaction shareholders prefer. Governance and investor‑relations experts say that dynamic shifts more of the leverage from the boardroom to the shareholder base, particularly if investors view the choice as a trade‑off between headline price and execution risk.​

A Netflix spokesperson declined to comment when contacted by Fortune.

Legal pressure on disclosure

In its Delaware complaint and in Ellison’s letter to WBD investors, Paramount contends that Warner Bros. Discovery has failed to provide the “customary” financial disclosure expected when a board recommends a transaction or issues a Schedule 14D‑9 response in the face of a competing tender offer. The suit says WBD has not spelled out how it valued the Netflix package versus the residual “stub” equity in the spun‑off networks, or how the purchase‑price adjustments for debt and other liabilities affect the real economics for shareholders.​

Ellison argues that Delaware law requires boards to give shareholders enough information to make fully informed investment decisions when they are asked to tender shares or vote on a deal, and that WBD has fallen short of that standard. Paramount is asking the court to compel Warner Bros. Discovery to fill in those gaps before Netflix’s offer period expires, which would give investors a clearer basis on which to compare the rival transactions.​

What’s next

Warner Bros. Discovery has so far stood by its endorsement of the Netflix transaction and has continued to reject Paramount’s advances, setting up what could be a prolonged fight stretching from the courtroom to the annual meeting. Paramount, for its part, is signaling that it and the Ellison family are prepared to stay in the fight, betting that more disclosure and mounting shareholder scrutiny will eventually tilt the balance in favor of its all‑cash bid.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

An anonymous Polymarket trader made $400k betting on Maduro’s downfall—now Washington wants answers

Published

on



On Jan. 3, soon after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro at his compound in Caracas, the political researcher Tyson Brody noticed strange activity on  Polymarket. Brody is one of a growing group of observers who monitor for unusual trades on the platform, which allows people to gamble on the outcome of future events, from the weather to NFL games to governmental upheavals. 

Following Maduro’s capture, Brody found one user, who only created their account a week before, had taken a massive position on Maduro leaving office. The user, Burdensome-Mix, had become the largest holder of “yes” contracts for the event—which paid out in the event Maduro was toppled before the end of January—well before the news of the raid reached the public. The user ended up making over $400,000 from the well-timed trade. Brody’s early morning post quickly went viral, spurring widespread accusations of insider trading and a growing backlash against unchecked prediction markets by lawmakers. 

The controversy comes as courts and regulators struggle to define rules for prediction markets, which have exploded in popularity, with Polymarket netting a $9 billion valuation late last year. Critics argue that trades like the Maduro bet threatens the integrity of U.S. markets, while proponents maintain that companies like Polymarket function as truth machines, informing the public faster than traditional media. Some hardline libertarians even contend that insider trading is a feature, not a bug, with information more likely to surface due to financial incentive. 

Many Democrats disagree, including Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-NY), who on Friday introduced a bill that would crack down on government employees’ ability to use the platforms. “The intersection of insider trading and government decision making is not only corrupting to the market, it’s corrupting the government itself,” Torres told Fortune in an interview. 

Betting on the future

Prediction markets have existed in the U.S. for decades on a small scale, but the twin rise of Polymarket and rival Kalshi over the past few years has vaulted them into the mainstream—and raised questions about how to police the nascent platforms. Kalshi won a crucial court victory before the 2024 presidential election that allowed it to list political contracts, while Polymarket is poised to return to the U.S. after the Commodity Futures Trading Commission barred it from operating in the country in 2022. 

As Kalshi and Polymarket have grown, they have moved into all sorts of sectors, from sports to political contracts, where users might have insider knowledge of future events. In its rulebook, Kalshi explicitly bans insider trading from anyone who has access to material nonpublic information related to a contract, or could exert influence on the subject of the contract. Polymarket founder Shayne Coplan has stated that his platform can self-police insider trading by its own users and has the ability to conduct internal audits, the Wall Street Journal reported. A Polymarket spokesperson declined to comment. 

Torres’s bill would narrowly focus on government employees, banning anyone from trading on prediction market platforms who has access to material nonpublic information relevant to the contract—or, more broadly, who could reasonably obtain the information.

A former CFTC attorney, who spoke with Fortune on the condition of anonymity due to potential client conflicts, said this would represent an expansion of how the agency currently polices government insider trading, including the so-called “Eddie Murphy rule,” named for the actor’s film Trading Places, which prohibits trading on misappropriated government information. 

Torres’s senior advisor Benny Stanislawski told Fortune that the idea was to start with a wide scope that could later be narrowed by the agency during the rulemaking process. Still, he argued it was important to include people who might reasonably get access to insider information given the often porous nature of government, such as a House staffer overhearing a discussion in the halls of the U.S. Capitol. The effort mirrors other legislative initiatives to ban lawmakers from trading individual stocks.  

Even if Torres’s bill does pass, questions remain about whether the perpetually underfunded CFTC has the capacity to investigate insider trading allegations, especially given the vast array of markets that Polymarket and Kalshi operate in and people who could have access to material nonpublic information. “If there were a significant amount of [insider trading] going on, it would be very hard with the agency’s current resources to effectively police them,” said the former CFTC attorney, who noted that most of the agency’s leads come from whistleblowers. 

Kalshi cofounder Tarek Mansour endorsed Torres’s bill in a LinkedIn post, implying that Polymarket is an “unregulated, non-American” company. Torres told Fortune that he sees his proposed legislation as a starting point to implement more robust regulation for prediction markets, though he admitted he has not yet received bipartisan support. “The status quo strikes me as unsustainable,” Torres said. On Friday, his colleague Rep. Dina Titus (D-Nev.) sent a letter to Polymarket’s Coplan requesting more information on his platform’s safeguards to prevent insider trading. Republican lawmakers have not publicly commented on Torres and Titus’s efforts.  

Mansour has stated that the long-term goal of his company is to “financialize everything” by turning any difference in opinion, from the deposition of world leaders to the outcome of a basketball game, into a tradable asset. But for Brody, the political strategist who surfaced the Maduro trade, the latest episode is just another example of the unfair nature of the financial system. “It hits all the corruption high notes while happening brazenly in the open,” he told Fortune. “Prediction markets can confirm a lot of people’s nagging suspicions about systems being rigged and honestly being penalized instead of rewarded in today’s economy.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

High-income Americans are losing faith in the economy

Published

on



The U.S. economy is a slightly steadier ship than many had expected heading into 2026, but with the labor market looking increasingly shaky, even one of the most optimistic demographics of the past year is starting to feel down. 

U.S. consumer sentiment may have risen slightly in recent weeks, according to preliminary findings from the University of Michigan’s January Consumer Sentiment Survey released Friday. Its index rose to 54 from 52.9 last month. The improvement stems from “gradually receding” worries about the effects of tariffs, according to a statement, as year-ahead inflation expectations remained at their lowest level since January of last year.

But the uptick in positivity was tempered by declining faith in labor markets, particularly sensitive for high-income households, said Joanne Hsu, an economist who directs the university’s research surveys. As the job market’s “no-hire, no-fire” regime of the past year shows signs of wavering, pessimism is starting to creep into America’s upper echelons.

“While labor market expectations have essentially held steady for lower income consumers, higher income consumers have seen quite a bit of deterioration,” Hsu told Fortune. “Higher income, higher educated consumers are just showing increased worries about what’s happening in labor markets.”

While Hsu stressed that consumer confidence has declined across the board, and that the December results are only preliminary and will be updated with a final release later this month, earlier findings reported that consumer sentiment declined steeply among high earners throughout 2025. The survey sorts replies into three groups by income level, with the highest third of U.S. incomes sorted into the survey’s highest tercile. Between January and November last year, consumer sentiment among the lowest and middle terciles of American household income fell 29.8% and 27.6%, respectively, while the country’s highest third of earners suffered a steeper 32.1% decline.

Job security anxieties fuel declining sentiment

While most Americans dealt with inflation and rising prices for housing, food, and electricity over the past year, high earners, who are more likely to own stocks, may have been somewhat insulated. After the U.S. stock market hit record highs and posted double-digit gains, the top 10% of households walked away with trillions in new wealth created last year. The discrepancy led to what some economists termed a “K-shaped economy,” with appreciating assets benefiting wealthy consumers at the top, and mounting inflation and tariff headaches causing pain at the bottom.

In the University of Michigan’s November consumer sentiment report, Hsu noted that an outlier in declining sentiment could be found among consumers in the largest tercile of stock holdings, for whom optimism had risen 11% that month.

But that cheeriness might be starting to wear off. In December, nonfarm payrolls increased by only 50,000, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported last week. The U.S. economy added only 584,000 jobs last year, down from 2 million in 2024, and posted the weakest job growth year outside a recession since the early 2000s.

A weakening labor market spells trouble for white-collar workers. In these sectors, while unemployment hasn’t surged, hiring has essentially been frozen for the past year, especially for entry-level roles, as firms juggle worries over economic uncertainty and AI fears. Anxiety over job loss is rife among white-collar employees, and those concerns might now be manifesting in the data.

In the latest University of Michigan report, worries about job stability in the next five years and earning potential were “particularly elevated” among higher-income and higher-educated consumers, Hsu said. 

Other surveys have reported similar findings in recent weeks. Fears of joblessness in the next year were highest among the highest-earning individuals last summer, according to an August survey by the New York Federal Reserve. And last week, research firm Morning Consult reported a 10.5-point decline in sentiment among consumers earning more than $100,000 a year. 

“Consumer sentiment looks like it is starting to fall, particularly for high-income Americans who started to experience weaker labor-market conditions at the end of December,” John Leer, Morning Consult’s chief economist, said in an interview with MarketWatch.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.