Breaking AI & Tech News Analyzed

The Government's Investment PushCity firms are pinning their hopes on a government-endorsed advertising blitz fronted by a finance "savvy" CGI squirrel to encourage cautious British savers to shift out of cash and start investing. The long-awaited retail investment campaign, which will cost up to £50m, is part of Chancellor Rachel Reeves' nationwide push to encourage more financial risk taking, amid fears risk-averse consumers are losing out and ultimately stymying UK growth.Chris Cummings, the chief executive of the Investment Association lobby group, which is steering the campaign, highlighted the paradox of consumer protection: "Every year since the global financial crisis, we've had more well-intentioned regulation that has come in that has been designed to offer consumer protection. But where we've ended up is protecting people out of capital markets, and that's why we've got this."The Campaign Strategy and DesignThe campaign, originally announced in Reeves' Mansion House speech last summer, will run for between three and five years at an annual cost of about £8m to £10m. That sum is being covered by 20 City backers including Barclays, Aviva, Schroders, Robinhood UK, L&G; and JP Morgan.The centerpiece of the campaign is an animated squirrel named "Savvy" which – through a series of online, TV and billboard adverts – campaigners hope will compel animal-loving Britons to dip their toes into the financial markets. The campaign slogans include "squirrelling away your money?" and "Saved a bit? Why not invest a bit?""We didn't want an Einstein to lead the campaign for investing. That could have put people off," Cummings explained. "And so we were looking for a character that people would relate to and enjoy spending time with, and Savvy the Squirrel came through."The Financial Impact AnalysisThe campaign targets a wide range of UK consumers, including the seven million adults that hold more than £10,000 in cash savings, according to Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) research. Keeping savings in cash has effectively eroded their spending power, the Investment Association (IA) said.Modelling by the IA showed that if a saver had put £10,000 in a cash Isa a decade ago, it would be worth about £8,400 today due to inflation. If they had invested that same £10,000 in a global equity fund, their savings would now be worth more than £19,700.The campaign comes after reports in February of rows over the design and costs of the advertising campaign, which reportedly led several investment platforms including AJ Bell, Interactive Investor, Trading 212, Freetrade and Octopus Money to withdraw from the project, primarily on the grounds of costs.The Market TransformationThe advertising blitz represents a significant shift in UK financial policy, aiming to change consumer behavior toward greater risk-taking in capital markets. It comes as the London Stock Exchange continues to lose stock market listings and floats to foreign rivals."With greater awareness of the benefits of investing, more people will be able to make informed decisions about how to make their savings work harder for them," said City minister Lucy Rigby, who is launching the campaign alongside Reeves. "That will mean greater prosperity and financial resilience for households across the country and strengthened domestic capital markets too."The campaign follows two years after the Labour government scrapped plans for a separate "Tell Sid"-style campaign featuring veteran newsreader Sir Trevor McDonald, aimed at selling the government's then remaining stake in NatWest to the British public.The Future OutlookThe success of this campaign will likely be measured by whether it can effectively shift British savers' behavior away from cash deposits and toward investment products. With the Treasury, Money and Pensions Service and the Financial Conduct Authority supporting the campaign in an advisory capacity, there appears to be a coordinated effort to rebuild the UK's retail investment market.However, the campaign faces significant challenges, including overcoming deep-seated risk aversion among British consumers and demonstrating tangible benefits that outweigh the perceived risks of investing. The long-term impact on the UK's capital markets and economic growth remains to be seen, but the substantial financial commitment suggests a belief that changing consumer behavior could yield substantial returns for the UK economy.

SpaceX’s $60 B Bid Halts $2 B Funding RoundSpaceX announced a conditional acquisition of Cursor, the AI‑powered coding platform, for $60 billion. The offer arrived just hours before Cursor was set to close a $2 billion financing round that would have valued the startup at $50 billion.The Dual Track: Acquisition Talk Meets $2 B Funding RoundCursor was simultaneously negotiating the buyout while finalising a private round backed by Andreessen Horowitz, Thrive, Nvidia and Battery Ventures. The parallel process is typical for high‑growth startups that need capital to reach cash‑flow breakeven.Planned raise: $2 billionValuation target: $50 billionKey investors: Andreessen Horowitz, Thrive, Nvidia, Battery VenturesOffer deadline: hours before the funding round closureFinancial Stakes: $60 B Offer vs $2 B ValuationThe disparity between the proposed purchase price and the imminent raise underscores SpaceX’s strategic intent. Even if the acquisition stalls, Cursor will receive a $10 billion “collaboration” payment spread over time.Purchase price: $60 billionAlternative cash injection: $10 billionPotential dilution avoided for existing investorsStrategic Ripple: How the Deal Repositions SpaceX in the AI RaceAcquiring Cursor gives Elon Musk’s company a foothold in AI‑driven code generation, directly challenging rivals such as Anthropic’s Claude Code and OpenAI’s Codex. The move also signals to public markets that SpaceX aims to be seen as an AI player, not just a space and satellite operator.Access to Cursor’s AI talent and technologyLeverage of SpaceX data centers in Mississippi and Tennessee for computePotential to boost post‑IPO valuation multiplesLooking Ahead: Potential Paths After the Summer IPOSpaceX plans to delay the final acquisition until after its anticipated summer IPO, preserving confidentiality in its S‑1 filing and allowing the purchase to be financed with publicly traded stock. The outcome will shape both companies’ growth trajectories and the broader AI‑coding market.IPO target: Summer 2026Acquisition timing: Post‑IPOPossible scenarios: full buyout, $10 billion partnership, or independent growth

The Lead: Trump's Economic CalculusThe airport in Las Vegas last Friday afternoon was what you might expect for a WrestleMania weekend. Packed terminal. Delays stacking up. Nobody going anywhere. Then we heard why. Air Force One was on the ground. Everything stopped. No one was taking off until the president finished doing his business.People were doing what people do. Checking their phones. Standing up like something might have changed. Sitting back down when it hadn't. When Air Force One finally started moving, a few people across Terminal B jumped to their feet. Plenty of us, myself included, didn't. I sat staring the opposite way, where I could clearly read the president's name atop his Vegas hotel. Power moves. The rest of us wait.The Political Strategy: Narrowing EmpathySitting in that terminal, it didn't feel like a theory. Trump and the movement around him understand this very human limitation well enough to exploit it. For more than a decade now, they have run a politics of deliberate narrowing. They tell us to distrust the press that extends our vision, distrust the institutions that ask us to consider strangers, and distrust empathy itself as weakness. The same people who wrap themselves in scripture and spectacle tell us it is naïve to care about those you will never meet.Now Trump needs that same public to hold a war in its moral imagination. Traveling home to Cleveland for my uncle's funeral, I had been thinking about a quick Sunday drive to Pittsburgh to visit family and my mother's grave. I decided against it. Didn't even rent the car. Gas prices were a main reason why. That isn't a rhetorical device. That's just what's true.The Economic Impact: Gas Prices as Political BarometerGas is averaging a little more than $4 per gallon nationally, more than a dollar higher than before the war began. In the Bay Area, I'm paying nearly $7 per gallon. This time last year, the national average was a little more than $3, and we thought that was high. Trump's reckless war shows up for most Americans as a number at a gas pump, not as images or moral reckoning. The war arrives in our wallets. As a calculation about whether a trip is worth making, or whether a car is worth using at all. As pressure, immediate and cumulative, it worms its way into the margins of a life.That ledger extends well beyond our shores. The same oil shock Americans feel at the pump is devastating economies that have far less cushion to absorb it. The bombing of a girls' school in Iran, believed to be caused by the US, was a war crime. As we see from our own school shootings, though, kids dying doesn't hold the attention of the American news consumer quite like gas prices. That is an indictment of us all, but our line of sight is partly to blame. Even worse, the aperture did not narrow on its own.The Political Consequences: The Instrument That Built TrumpAmericans don't need a moral case against this war. They have a gas receipt. Trump is being undone by the instrument he built. The movement that spent years training people not to extend their concern beyond the visible is now being judged exactly the way it taught people to judge everything else – by what it costs me, now, this week, at this pump.The numbers reflect that. Foreign policy barely registers as the public's top concern. Gas prices do. So do grocery bills, housing costs and healthcare. The White House understands this, which is why it no longer explains the war in terms of what it destroys. It explains the war in terms of when gas prices come down. The administration has not even been able to keep its own story straight about when that pain ends. The treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, predicted $3 gas by summer. On Sunday, energy secretary Chris Wright said we might not hit that rate until 2027. Trump then said that was "totally wrong", but who is to say?The Future Outlook: Beyond Economic ReliefSo let me say this plainly: if gas prices come down and Trump's ratings rebound, that will not mean this was worth it. It will mean the trick worked. Trump breaks something that was functioning, extracts an enormous cost in money and blood and moral credibility, halfway fixes it through belated and chaotic diplomacy, and claims victory. The country, exhausted and relieved, exhales. Moves on. I imagine that is what the administration is counting on.Back in Las Vegas, Air Force One eventually lifted off. The runway cleared. Flights resumed. Within the hour, most of that terminal had boarded, found their seats, and was somewhere over the desert, drinks in hand, the delay mostly forgotten. That's the mechanism. The pain recedes, and we let it take the memory with it. Power moved. The rest of us waited, paid, adjusted, and got on with it. Don't. Not this time.Remember the math you did at the pump, or the trip you reconsidered. This didn't have to happen. None of us ever had to pay this cost at all, even though the people responsible are already telling us that it was worth it. The price of gas may yet come down. That isn't accountability, though. It isn't a reckoning. We may have the privilege of worrying about such things, but we don't have the luxury of forgetting.

Ryanair Shortens Airport Check-in Windows to Combat EU Border ChaosRyanair, Europe's largest carrier by passenger volume, is tightening its operational rules to counter growing friction at European borders. The budget airline announced it will close airport check-in desks 20 minutes earlier to ensure passengers have sufficient time to clear security and passport control, reducing the risk of missed flights.The Operational Shift: From 40 to 60 MinutesThe new policy mandates that all passengers dropping bags or checking in at the airport must complete formalities one hour before take-off, up from the current 40-minute deadline. This change, effective from November, is a direct response to the increasing complexity of modern airport throughput. Ryanair, which carries 200 million passengers annually, estimates that this adjustment will provide a critical buffer for the 20% of its customer base that still requires physical check-in desks.Addressing the EES BottleneckWhile the move is not solely triggered by the introduction of Europe’s Entry-Exit System (EES), the airline explicitly cited the new biometric border checks as a contributing factor. The EES, which requires most non-EU citizens to provide biometric data, has already caused significant delays, with 100 passengers missing an easyJet flight in Milan this month due to passport queues. Greece has even hesitated to enforce the new checks on UK nationals this summer to avoid summer border chaos.Self-Service as the Mitigation StrategyTo offset the inconvenience of the earlier deadline, Ryanair is aggressively rolling out self-service bag-drop kiosks at 95% of its airports by October. Chief Marketing Officer Dara Brady emphasized that this technology will offer a "quicker bag-drop service, less queueing at airport desks, and an even more punctual service." This strategy aligns with Ryanair's long-standing philosophy of incentivizing online check-in, where 80% of travelers already complete formalities digitally.Industry Implications for Summer TravelThe shift highlights a broader trend of operational tightening across the European aviation sector. With Europe's biggest airline taking this step, other carriers may face similar pressure to adjust their timelines. CEO Michael O'Leary has been unapologetic about the airline's strict baggage policies, suggesting that the traveling public should embrace lighter travel. As the summer travel season approaches, the efficiency of border controls will remain a pivotal factor in the passenger experience.

Manchester United have yet to decide whether to offer Michael Carrick the permanent manager’s job, even as his interim tenure has revived the club’s title hopes and Champions League prospects.Interim Success Under Michael Carrick Sparks Managerial DebateSince taking over from Ruben Amorim in early January, Carrick has guided United from seventh to third in the Premier League. The club’s executive team, headed by director of football Jason Wilcox, says a final verdict will come after the season concludes, allowing time to assess long‑term stability and transfer strategy.Carrick remains publicly non‑committal but is reportedly interested in a full‑time role.He is already involved in discussions about summer transfer targets and pre‑season planning.The board previously approached Thomas Tuchel and is monitoring Julian Nagelsmann as alternative options.Performance Metrics: 26 Points from 36 and a Rise to Third PlaceUnited’s interim record under Carrick is statistically compelling:8 wins, 2 draws, 2 losses in 12 league matches.26 points earned from a possible 36 – the highest points‑per‑game rate in the league over that span.Climbed from seventh to third, positioning the club as near‑automatic Champions League qualifiers.Strategic Implications for United’s Transfer Plans and Champions League AmbitionsThe on‑field turnaround influences United’s off‑field agenda. A top‑four finish would boost revenue streams and make marquee signings more feasible. Identified targets include:Aurelian Tchouameni (Real Madrid) – estimated £70 million fee, contract until 2028.Elliot Anderson (Nottingham Forest)Carlos Baleba (Brighton)Adam Wharton (Crystal Palace)Securing a Champions League spot would also enhance United’s bargaining power in negotiations with these players.Potential Paths: From Waiting Until Season’s End to Targeting Top European CoachesLooking ahead, United face three plausible scenarios:Promote Carrick – offering a full‑time contract after the season, capitalising on continuity.Extend the interim – retain Carrick while scouting external candidates, preserving flexibility.Hire an external star – re‑engage Thomas Tuchel if his England role ends, or approach Julian Nagelsmann, both tied to contracts until 2028.Each route carries distinct risks and rewards, from maintaining squad cohesion to injecting fresh tactical ideas. The board’s final decision will shape United’s trajectory for the 2026‑27 campaign and beyond.

The European Commission has announced a comprehensive package of measures designed to shield consumers from the escalating energy crisis caused by the war in Iran. The strategy focuses on restructuring tax systems to favor electricity over fossil fuels and incentivizing a rapid shift toward clean technologies, marking a distinct approach from the response to the 2022 Ukraine crisis. Key Developments Tax Rebalancing: The Commission plans to adjust EU rules so that electricity is taxed less than oil and gas, aiming to lower consumer bills while discouraging reliance on foreign fossil fuels. Targeted State Aid: Temporary state aid rules will be adopted to allow member states to support vulnerable groups and energy-intensive industries, with strict conditions of being “targeted, timely and temporary.” Electrification Push: A new electrification target is set for before the summer, accompanied by proposals for social leasing schemes for electric cars, heat pumps, and batteries. Supply Chain Monitoring: The EU will coordinate gas storage filling and establish an observatory to monitor transport fuels, specifically addressing concerns over potential jet fuel shortages. Exclusion of Windfall Taxes: Unlike the 2022 response, the Commission has ruled out a windfall tax on oil and gas companies and a cap on gas prices, despite calls from finance ministers. Data & Market Impact While the EU successfully accelerated the deployment of wind and solar capacity after the 2022 crisis, it has struggled to replace the machinery that burns oil and gas. This lingering reliance has left the bloc vulnerable to price spikes. Crucially, network and tax elements currently account for over 50% of the average household electricity bill in the EU. Reducing these costs is identified as a critical lever for affordability. Why This Matters This policy shift represents a strategic pivot from reactive price caps to structural economic reform. By making electricity artificially cheaper than fossil fuels, the EU aims to force a market transition toward homegrown clean energy. For households, this means immediate relief through lower bills, but it also signals a long-term increase in electricity usage as heating and transport electrify. The decision to forgo windfall taxes, however, highlights a political tension between protecting corporate profits and funding consumer relief. Expert Insight Experts suggest the plan contains both progress and significant gaps. Antony Froggatt of the campaign group Transport and Environment criticized the measures as “half measures,” arguing that with oil companies making tens of billions in war profits, a windfall tax is essential to relieve financial pain for households. Conversely, Louise Sunderland of the Regulatory Assistance Project noted that reducing the network and tax components of bills is a “quick-acting step in the right direction,” provided member states actually implement the existing legal frameworks to cut taxation. What Happens Next Legislative Process: The Commission will adopt a legal proposal in May, requiring unanimous approval from member states—a historically difficult hurdle for tax reforms. Implementation Lag: The effectiveness of these measures depends heavily on national governments utilizing their existing powers to reduce electricity taxation, which many have yet to do. Winter Preparedness: Coordination of gas storage and jet fuel procurement will intensify in the coming months to prevent supply shortages as winter approaches. Demand-Side Measures: While voluntary measures like driving less and avoiding flights are encouraged, the EU is stepping back from mandating them, leaving the burden of demand reduction to individual member states.

Tui announced on 22 April 2026 that the ongoing Iran war has already cost the company €40 million (£34.7 million) in emergency repatriations and operational disruptions, forcing it to lower its profit guidance for the current financial year.Key Developments€40 million incurred to repatriate ~12,000 holidaymakers and crew from the Gulf. Profit forecast reduced from €1.41 bn to €1.1‑€1.4 bn. Summer booking revenue and hotel occupancy down 7% YoY. Shift in demand from eastern to western Mediterranean destinations. Jet‑fuel hedging: 83% of summer, 62% of winter, and >80% of cruise energy costs secured. UK ONS reports a 4.7% rise in transport prices – the fastest annual increase since Dec 2022.Data & Market ImpactThe €40 million outlay represents roughly 3.6% of the lower‑bound profit forecast (€1.1 bn). A 7% dip in booking revenue translates to an estimated €350 million shortfall in summer sales. Hedging over 80% of fuel costs shields Tui from oil price volatility, but the company still faces exposure to supply disruptions. Airline lobby efforts in the UK signal broader sector pressure on fuel availability and regulatory relief.Why This MattersThe financial hit reverberates across multiple stakeholders:Consumers: Higher ticket prices and reduced itinerary options as airlines trim capacity. Travel operators: Profit compression may delay investments in new routes or product upgrades. European tourism economies (Turkey, Cyprus, Egypt): Reduced inbound spend during a peak season. Airlines: Fuel‑price spikes and potential shortages could trigger further flight cancellations, as seen with Lufthansa’s 20,000‑flight cut.Expert InsightThe Iran conflict underscores the vulnerability of a travel model heavily reliant on geopolitically sensitive regions. Tui’s aggressive hedging strategy reflects a prudent risk‑management shift, yet the scale of repatriation costs suggests that operational contingencies (e.g., crisis response teams, insurance) may need bolstering. The 7% revenue dip, while modest, hints at a broader consumer caution that could persist if the conflict drags on, prompting a longer‑term reallocation toward “familiar, easy‑to‑reach” destinations such as Spain and Portugal.What Happens NextIf geopolitical tensions escalate, Tui may further downgrade its profit outlook and accelerate cost‑saving measures. Continued fuel‑supply constraints could force additional airline schedule reductions, amplifying price pressure on travelers. Demand is likely to consolidate around western Mediterranean and Atlantic coastal markets, benefiting Spain, Portugal, Greece and emerging destinations like Cape Verde. Regulators may consider temporary relaxations on environmental and noise rules to keep air capacity viable during the fuel crunch. Investors will watch Tui’s hedging effectiveness and any insurance claims related to crisis repatriations as leading indicators of resilience.

Scientists have observed a unique survival strategy among the Barbary macaques of Gibraltar: intentional soil consumption, or geophagy. The troops, which number approximately 230 individuals, are increasingly turning to the red clay and tar-clogged soil of the Rock to settle their stomachs after consuming the processed snacks provided by tourists. This behavior appears to be a direct physiological response to the disruption of their gut microbiomes caused by a diet high in fats, sugars, and salts. Key Developments Observation of Geophagy: Researchers recorded 44 instances of soil eating by 44 different monkeys between summer 2022 and spring 2024. Seasonal Patterns: Soil consumption and junk food intake peak during the holiday season and drop significantly in winter when tourist numbers fall by 40%. Troop Differences: Monkeys in the most tourist-heavy areas, such as the top of the Rock, are twice as likely to eat junk food and soil compared to isolated groups. Specific Diets: The macaques have developed a distinct taste for human fare, favoring Magnums and Cornettos over sorbet, and have even learned to favor specific soil types, such as the red clay found across Gibraltar or tar-clogged soil from road potholes. Data & Market Impact Approximately 20% of the macaques' total caloric intake comes from human-provided junk food. This statistic underscores the scale of the ecological shift occurring in the territory. The correlation between proximity to tourists and the frequency of geophagy suggests that the monkeys are not instinctively eating dirt, but are actively self-medicating to mitigate the negative effects of a processed diet. Why This Matters This phenomenon highlights the unintended consequences of wildlife tourism. While feeding monkeys is often viewed as a harmless interaction, it fundamentally alters the animals' nutritional needs and digestive health. The reliance on junk food disrupts the delicate balance of the gut microbiome, which is essential for nutrient absorption and immune function. For the local ecosystem and tourism industry, this raises concerns about the long-term health of the macaque population, which is a major attraction for visitors to Gibraltar. Expert Insight Dr. Sylvain Lemoine, a primate behavioural ecologist at the University of Cambridge, explains that the soil acts as a buffer for the digestive system. “We think that eating this junk food disrupts the composition of the microbiome, and we know that bacteria and minerals in soil can help recompose the microbiome,” Lemoine stated. However, Dr. Paula Pebsworth of the University of Texas at San Antonio warns that while geophagy is a coping mechanism, it is not a perfect solution. She notes that the soil near the monkeys is often contaminated with pollutants from non-electric vehicles, potentially introducing new toxins into the animals' systems. What Happens Next Future research must prioritize analyzing the soil samples for heavy metals and pollutants to fully understand the risks of this behavior. Furthermore, there is a pressing need for stricter enforcement of wildlife protection laws. As Dr. Pebsworth suggests, the most effective management approach is to reduce or eliminate the provisioning of human foods, allowing the macaques to return to a natural diet and reducing the reliance on geophagy as a digestive crutch.

A consumer group is preparing to take the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) to court in a bid to overhaul a £9.1bn compensation scheme designed to resolve the UK's long-running motor finance scandal. Lawyers for Consumer Voice have notified the regulator of their intention to challenge the redress programme, aiming to protect drivers from what they describe as 'lowball' payouts. This legal challenge threatens to derail the regulator's plan to draw a line under the scandal and could delay compensation for millions of affected borrowers.Key DevelopmentsLegal Challenge Filed: Consumer Voice, in partnership with law firm Courmacs Legal, plans to file a formal challenge against the FCA by Friday, April 27, the deadline for objections.Specific Grievances: The group argues the scheme unfairly caps interest payouts and narrows the scope of redress, leaving victims significantly undercompensated.Political Pressure: The challenge comes amid ongoing political scrutiny, following controversial interventions by Chancellor Rachel Reeves who urged the Supreme Court to limit payouts to protect lenders.First of Its Kind: This marks the first time a consumer-focused group has challenged a regulator over a compensation scheme in UK courts.Data & Market ImpactThe proposed compensation scheme represents a fraction of the potential liability associated with the motor finance scandal. While some analysts initially forecasted costs of up to £44bn, the FCA's final terms cap the total pot at £9.1bn. This breakdown includes approximately £7.5bn for borrowers and £1.6bn for administrative costs.Under the current scheme, victims of mis-sold car loans are expected to receive an average of £830 each. Consumer Voice contends that this figure is insufficient to address the financial harm caused by the commission-based mis-selling practices that occurred between 2007 and 2024.Why This MattersThis legal battle is a critical test of the UK's regulatory framework and consumer protection standards. If successful, the challenge could set a precedent for how consumer groups can hold financial regulators accountable, forcing a re-evaluation of schemes designed to balance consumer rights against the stability of the banking sector.For the millions of UK drivers affected by the scandal, the outcome determines whether they receive fair restitution for being overcharged due to hidden dealer commissions. Furthermore, the involvement of the Chancellor in previous lobbying efforts highlights the intense pressure on the government to prevent a banking crisis, potentially at the expense of consumer justice.Expert InsightThe conflict reveals a fundamental tension in financial regulation: the need to protect consumers while preventing systemic damage to lenders. The FCA has defended the scheme as the 'quickest, fairest way to compensate consumers,' arguing that a more aggressive payout regime could destabilize specialist lenders and banks.However, Consumer Voice's strategy suggests a shift in power dynamics. By utilizing pro bono legal representation from Courmacs Legal and leveraging the political fallout of Chancellor Reeves' interventions, the group is attempting to force the regulator to prioritize consumer protection over industry stability. This move indicates that consumer advocacy groups are becoming more sophisticated in their legal strategies, willing to escalate disputes to the upper tribunal to secure better outcomes for their members.What Happens NextThe immediate future hinges on the filing of the legal challenge and the subsequent judicial review. A successful challenge could force the FCA to amend the scheme, potentially increasing payouts and extending the timeline for compensation.Conversely, if the regulator prevails, the scheme will proceed as planned, with payouts expected to begin this summer. Regardless of the court's decision, the legal battle will likely prolong the uncertainty for victims, delaying the financial relief they have been waiting for. The case will also serve as a significant indicator of the political and economic headwinds facing the UK's financial services sector in the coming years.