Connect with us

Business

British Airways Destroyed Our Guitar and Won’t Pay Up

Published

on

British Airways Destroyed Our Guitar and Won’t Pay Up

I’m a co-owner of Luaka Bop, a New York-based record label, and last June was accompanying the Staples Jr. Singers, a gospel group from Aberdeen, Miss., on a European tour. For a British Airways flight from London to Paris, three musicians were required to check their guitars, but only one instrument arrived in Paris with us. We filled out the forms and tried to impress upon the employee the importance of getting the guitars before the group’s show the next night. One of the two lost guitars did make it to Paris the next day, but British Airways couldn’t or wouldn’t deliver it, so our tour manager took a cab to the airport only to find it had closed. When the group returned to Britain by train, it was still down two guitars. We got one back a few shows later, and eventually found the other one at Heathrow Airport lost and found — with its neck snapped off and its case destroyed. We ended up with over $5,000 in expenses, which included renting guitars for a dozen shows and purchasing a guitar and case (both used) for Arceola Brown, the musician whose instrument was destroyed. We submitted most receipts with the original claim to British Airways on July 25, then added a few more on Aug. 7 and Sept. 11, for a total of $3,331. (We didn’t keep receipts for the rest.) But beyond receiving a case number, we never heard back, despite several email follow-ups. Can you help? Yale, New York City

If I could choose a tale to tell here, it would be the amazing one of how the Staples Jr. Singers recorded one album in 1975 that barely anyone paid attention to until decades later. Rereleased in 2022, the album received rave reviews and led to international tours for the group.

What a story. Alas, this space is devoted to issues far more mundane and familiar, like lost and destroyed luggage.

True, the lost luggage was cooler than most Samsonites: a Fender Telecaster that was recovered, and a Casio MIDI so thoroughly destroyed that I wonder if a baggage handler channeled Pete Townshend of the Who and smashed it to smithereens on the airport tarmac. The trouble you had getting reimbursed, however, is a wearily familiar tale in the Tripped Up inbox.

Along with photos of the Casio MIDI guitar, you sent me a frustrating timeline of your team’s efforts both to recover the guitars and later seek compensation for the rentals and the replacement for Mr. Brown’s guitar and case. (Sadly, Mr. Brown died on Nov. 16.)

Advertisement

I first intervened by writing to a British Airways spokeswoman in early November, and the airline quickly sent an apologetic letter to you offering reimbursement for the oddly exact and insufficient amount of 493.97 British pounds, or about $600. The carrier included a separate $250 voucher for future flights.

I intervened again, but on Jan. 7, the airline wrote back to you only to forward the original offer, an odd value much less than the claim.

I looked back to the receipts you sent me and remembered you submitted the receipts in three batches. The second and third batches totaled exactly $493.97.

The airline seems to have swapped currencies, which may be a sign of how carefully it was paying attention to your problem.

As for the first batch of receipts, it would seem they never made it through when you submitted them.

Advertisement

On Jan. 11, the carrier called you to ask you to upload the receipts again, which you did. I received a short statement on Jan. 15 — “We have apologized to the customers and are working with them directly to resolve their claim” — but you heard nothing further. So on Jan. 21, on my suggestion, you emailed your contact again. You said you were instructed to upload receipts again, which you did, and were told you would be reimbursed $3,941.

That’s an odd number — more than your receipts, less than your losses — but I think I can explain it, as the airline declined to do so or answer any of my other questions, including how the guitar was destroyed, why the airline didn’t deliver the guitar in Paris or why the receipts were not processed when you first sent them in July.

Here’s my best guess: The Montreal Convention, the international treaty that governs lost luggage (among other things) on most international flights, caps airline liability. That luggage cap, at the time of your flight was, about $1,700 per passenger, or $3,400 for the two musicians combined. But on Dec. 28, the value on damages for most international flights was raised to the equivalent of about $1,980 per passenger.

The airline appears to have applied the newer value to your losses, though it didn’t need to, and you’re ending up with more money than you were actually due, a small compensation for hassles endured.

For those flying domestically or between countries that haven’t signed the Montreal Convention, local or national laws prevail regarding lost, stolen or damaged luggage. (In the United States, the Transportation Department caps damages for lost, damaged or delayed bags at $3,800.)

Advertisement

But those numbers don’t mean much if you face seemingly unreasonable barriers when filing for reimbursements — such as the British Airways interface that you called cumbersome and that seemed to lose the receipts you painstakingly sent along. My inbox is full of tales of airlines that repeatedly ask for receipts that have already been submitted.

The multifaceted monthslong saga you endured with British Airways should be a reminder that travelers today need to do more than their fair share of the work to find their lost items. Adding AirTags or other Bluetooth trackers to checked luggage is a smart first step, so when the airlines claim they don’t know where your luggage is, you can tell them or even share its location, since the feature is now shareable with a third party.

Of course, you need to pack fragile items carefully (On its website, Fender offers guitar advice), and retain every scrap of paper starting when you check your bag. Then, if you need to file a claim, write down the name of every employee you interact with, take photos, record conversations when you can, and create copies of your documentation. The information will be critical when you file for reimbursements.

Most of the time, you won’t need it. But if you ever need to do battle with an airline, the documentation will come in handy. And if you have to write to Tripped Up, it will move you to the front of the line.

Advertisement

Business

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

Published

on

Video: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

new video loaded: The Web of Companies Owned by Elon Musk

In mapping out Elon Musk’s wealth, our investigation found that Mr. Musk is behind more than 90 companies in Texas. Kirsten Grind, a New York Times Investigations reporter, explains what her team found.

By Kirsten Grind, Melanie Bencosme, James Surdam and Sean Havey

February 27, 2026

Continue Reading

Business

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Published

on

Commentary: How Trump helped foreign markets outperform U.S. stocks during his first year in office

Trump has crowed about the gains in the U.S. stock market during his term, but in 2025 investors saw more opportunity in the rest of the world.

If you’re a stock market investor you might be feeling pretty good about how your portfolio of U.S. equities fared in the first year of President Trump’s term.

All the major market indices seemed to be firing on all cylinders, with the Standard & Poor’s 500 index gaining 17.9% through the full year.

But if you’re the type of investor who looks for things to regret, pay no attention to the rest of the world’s stock markets. That’s because overseas markets did better than the U.S. market in 2025 — a lot better. The MSCI World ex-USA index — that is, all the stock markets except the U.S. — gained more than 32% last year, nearly double the percentage gains of U.S. markets.

That’s a major departure from recent trends. Since 2013, the MSCI US index had bested the non-U.S. index every year except 2017 and 2022, sometimes by a wide margin — in 2024, for instance, the U.S. index gained 24.6%, while non-U.S. markets gained only 4.7%.

Advertisement

The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade.

— Katie Martin, Financial Times

Broken down into individual country markets (also by MSCI indices), in 2025 the U.S. ranked 21st out of 23 developed markets, with only New Zealand and Denmark doing worse. Leading the pack were Austria and Spain, with 86% gains, but superior records were turned in by Finland, Ireland and Hong Kong, with gains of 50% or more; and the Netherlands, Norway, Britain and Japan, with gains of 40% or more.

Investment analysts cite several factors to explain this trend. Judging by traditional metrics such as price/earnings multiples, the U.S. markets have been much more expensive than those in the rest of the world. Indeed, they’re historically expensive. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index traded in 2025 at about 23 times expected corporate earnings; the historical average is 18 times earnings.

Advertisement

Investment managers also have become nervous about the concentration of market gains within the U.S. technology sector, especially in companies associated with artificial intelligence R&D. Fears that AI is an investment bubble that could take down the S&P’s highest fliers have investors looking elsewhere for returns.

But one factor recurs in almost all the market analyses tracking relative performance by U.S. and non-U.S. markets: Donald Trump.

Investors started 2025 with optimism about Trump’s influence on trading opportunities, given his apparent commitment to deregulation and his braggadocio about America’s dominant position in the world and his determination to preserve, even increase it.

That hasn’t been the case for months.

”The Trump trade is dead. Long live the anti-Trump trade,” Katie Martin of the Financial Times wrote this week. “Wherever you look in financial markets, you see signs that global investors are going out of their way to avoid Donald Trump’s America.”

Advertisement

Two Trump policy initiatives are commonly cited by wary investment experts. One, of course, is Trump’s on-and-off tariffs, which have left investors with little ability to assess international trade flows. The Supreme Court’s invalidation of most Trump tariffs and the bellicosity of his response, which included the immediate imposition of new 10% tariffs across the board and the threat to increase them to 15%, have done nothing to settle investors’ nerves.

Then there’s Trump’s driving down the value of the dollar through his agitation for lower interest rates, among other policies. For overseas investors, a weaker dollar makes U.S. assets more expensive relative to the outside world.

It would be one thing if trade flows and the dollar’s value reflected economic conditions that investors could themselves parse in creating a picture of investment opportunities. That’s not the case just now. “The current uncertainty is entirely man-made (largely by one orange-hued man in particular) but could well continue at least until the US mid-term elections in November,” Sam Burns of Mill Street Research wrote on Dec. 29.

Trump hasn’t been shy about trumpeting U.S. stock market gains as emblems of his policy wisdom. “The stock market has set 53 all-time record highs since the election,” he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday. “Think of that, one year, boosting pensions, 401(k)s and retirement accounts for the millions and the millions of Americans.”

Trump asserted: “Since I took office, the typical 401(k) balance is up by at least $30,000. That’s a lot of money. … Because the stock market has done so well, setting all those records, your 401(k)s are way up.”

Advertisement

Trump’s figure doesn’t conform to findings by retirement professionals such as the 401(k) overseers at Bank of America. They reported that the average account balance grew by only about $13,000 in 2025. I asked the White House for the source of Trump’s claim, but haven’t heard back.

Interpreting stock market returns as snapshots of the economy is a mug’s game. Despite that, at her recent appearance before a House committee, Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi tried to deflect questions about her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein records by crowing about it.

“The Dow is over 50,000 right now, she declared. “Americans’ 401(k)s and retirement savings are booming. That’s what we should be talking about.”

I predicted that the administration would use the Dow industrial average’s break above 50,000 to assert that “the overall economy is firing on all cylinders, thanks to his policies.” The Dow reached that mark on Feb. 6. But Feb. 11, the day of Bondi’s testimony, was the last day the index closed above 50,000. On Thursday, it closed at 49,499.50, or about 1.4% below its Feb. 10 peak close of 50,188.14.

To use a metric suggested by economist Justin Wolfers of the University of Michigan, if you invested $48,488 in the Dow on the day Trump took office last year, when the Dow closed at 48,448 points, you would have had $50,000 on Feb. 6. That’s a gain of about 3.2%. But if you had invested the same amount in the global stock market not including the U.S. (based on the MSCI World ex-USA index), on that same day you would have had nearly $60,000. That’s a gain of nearly 24%.

Advertisement

Broader market indices tell essentially the same story. From Jan. 17, 2025, the last day before Trump’s inauguration, through Thursday’s close, the MSCI US stock index gained a cumulative 16.3%. But the world index minus the U.S. gained nearly 42%.

The gulf between U.S. and non-U.S. performance has continued into the current year. The S&P 500 has gained about 0.74% this year through Wednesday, while the MSCI World ex-USA index has gained about 8.9%. That’s “the best start for a calendar year for global stocks relative to the S&P 500 going back to at least 1996,” Morningstar reports.

It wouldn’t be unusual for the discrepancy between the U.S. and global markets to shrink or even reverse itself over the course of this year.

That’s what happened in 2017, when overseas markets as tracked by MSCI beat the U.S. by more than three percentage points, and 2022, when global markets lost money but U.S. markets underperformed the rest of the world by more than five percentage points.

Economic conditions change, and often the stock markets march to their own drummers. The one thing less likely to change is that Trump is set to remain president until Jan. 20, 2029. Make your investment bets accordingly.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Published

on

How the S&P 500 Stock Index Became So Skewed to Tech and A.I.

Nvidia, the chipmaker that became the world’s most valuable public company two years ago, was alone worth more than $4.75 trillion as of Thursday morning. Its value, or market capitalization, is more than double the combined worth of all the companies in the energy sector, including oil giants like Exxon Mobil and Chevron.

The chipmaker’s market cap has swelled so much recently, it is now 20 percent greater than the sum of all of the companies in the materials, utilities and real estate sectors combined.

Advertisement

What unifies these giant tech companies is artificial intelligence. Nvidia makes the hardware that powers it; Microsoft, Apple and others have been making big bets on products that people can use in their everyday lives.

But as worries grow over lavish spending on A.I., as well as the technology’s potential to disrupt large swaths of the economy, the outsize influence that these companies exert over markets has raised alarms. They can mask underlying risks in other parts of the index. And if a handful of these giants falter, it could mean widespread damage to investors’ portfolios and retirement funds in ways that could ripple more broadly across the economy.

Advertisement

The dynamic has drawn comparisons to past crises, notably the dot-com bubble. Tech companies also made up a large share of the stock index then — though not as much as today, and many were not nearly as profitable, if they made money at all.

Advertisement

How the current moment compares with past pre-crisis moments

To understand how abnormal and worrisome this moment might be, The New York Times analyzed data from S&P Dow Jones Indices that compiled the market values of the companies in the S&P 500 in December 1999 and August 2007. Each date was chosen roughly three months before a downturn to capture the weighted breakdown of the index before crises fully took hold and values fell.

Advertisement

The companies that make up the index have periodically cycled in and out, and the sectors were reclassified over the last two decades. But even after factoring in those changes, the picture that emerges is a market that is becoming increasingly one-sided.

In December 1999, the tech sector made up 26 percent of the total.

In August 2007, just before the Great Recession, it was only 14 percent.

Advertisement

Today, tech is worth a third of the market, as other vital sectors, such as energy and those that include manufacturing, have shrunk.

Since then, the huge growth of the internet, social media and other technologies propelled the economy.

Advertisement

Now, never has so much of the market been concentrated in so few companies. The top 10 make up almost 40 percent of the S&P 500.

Advertisement

How much of the S&P 500 is occupied by the top 10 companies

With greater concentration of wealth comes greater risk. When so much money has accumulated in just a handful of companies, stock trading can be more volatile and susceptible to large swings. One day after Nvidia posted a huge profit for its most recent quarter, its stock price paradoxically fell by 5.5 percent. So far in 2026, more than a fifth of the stocks in the S&P 500 have moved by 20 percent or more. Companies and industries that are seen as particularly prone to disruption by A.I. have been hard hit.

Advertisement

The volatility can be compounded as everyone reorients their businesses around A.I, or in response to it.

The artificial intelligence boom has touched every corner of the economy. As data centers proliferate to support massive computation, the utilities sector has seen huge growth, fueled by the energy demands of the grid. In 2025, companies like NextEra and Exelon saw their valuations surge.

Advertisement

The industrials sector, too, has undergone a notable shift. General Electric was its undisputed heavyweight in 1999 and 2007, but the recent explosion in data center construction has evened out growth in the sector. GE still leads today, but Caterpillar is a very close second. Caterpillar, which is often associated with construction, has seen a spike in sales of its turbines and power-generation equipment, which are used in data centers.

One large difference between the big tech companies now and their counterparts during the dot-com boom is that many now earn money. A lot of the well-known names in the late 1990s, including Pets.com, had soaring valuations and little revenue, which meant that when the bubble popped, many companies quickly collapsed.

Advertisement

Nvidia, Apple, Alphabet and others generate hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue each year.

And many of the biggest players in artificial intelligence these days are private companies. OpenAI, Anthropic and SpaceX are expected to go public later this year, which could further tilt the market dynamic toward tech and A.I.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Methodology

Sector values reflect the GICS code classification system of companies in the S&P 500. As changes to the GICS system took place from 1999 to now, The New York Times reclassified all companies in the index in 1999 and 2007 with current sector values. All monetary figures from 1999 and 2007 have been adjusted for inflation.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending