BAKU, AZERBAIJAN – 2024/11/14: Participants walk in front of the main entrance during the United … [+] Nations Climate Change Conference COP29, an event held by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Baku Olympic Stadium. COP29, running from November 11-22 focuses on carbon markets and sustainability and mitigation funding. (Photo by Dominika Zarzycka/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images
World leaders are gathered in Baku, Azerbaijan, for the COP 29 on Climate Change. As the conference enters its final day tomorrow, the atmosphere is charged with anticipation. Will the leaders be able to conclude discussions on critical issues?
A document released by the UN this morning hints at progress in discussions on climate finance: while the exact figure remains undisclosed, it is mentioned that it will be in trillions of dollars. The decision on trillions of dollars is a positive step, as many experts have expressed concerns that a few billion dollars will be insufficient and will fall short of necessary action to address the urgency of climate change.
By the end of COP 29 , the world will hopefully get a new number. A lot has gone into deciding this number: 12 technical consultations and three high-level ministerial meetings. The final leg of the consultations is happening in Baku. It is worthwhile to take a look at the key items that came out of the draft document on finance today and the discussions that led to those decisions. Much of this document can be expected to feed into the final decision that comes out of COP 29.
Advertisement
A Decision On Trillions Of Dollars – The Quantum
What is a good number for a finance goal? Should the number be in billions or trillions? The draft text released today mentions that the amount will be in trillions. Although the exact number is unspecified.
One of the key outcomes expected from this year’s COP is this exact number which will become the new collective quantified goal, popularly referred to as NCQG. There is a high expectation that countries will be able to reach a consensus on a quantified number, which can be the North star to mobilize funds to address the urgency of climate change. It was during the COP in Copenhagen in 2009 that the earlier goal of mobilizing 100 billion per year was decied– an amount pledged by developed countries to support developing countries in addressing climate change by 2020. There are questions about whether that target was successfully met, with views from some countries that it was not met. The decision that came out today relfects this disagreement.
A few billion dollars would be unacceptable, according to Illiari Aragon, a specialist in UN Climate Negotiations, who has closely followed NCQG negotiations since they started. Many developing countries would be unsatisfied if a number of billions were proposed. In earlier talks, some numbers in billions were also floating around. Most estimations however point towards trillions. A number of at least 5 trillion, was estimated as being needed based on the Standard Committee of Finance of the United Nations as part of an assessment of needs proposed by countries in their Nationally Determined Contribution.
A Decision On The Contributor Base And Mandatory Obligations
Another key topic of discussion has been who contributes to the financial goal that comes out of COP 29. Some developed countries suggested expanding the donor base to also include countries like China and India. However, that was an unacceptable proposition, with media from India, based on interviews with experts, particularly reporting it would be unacceptable.
Advertisement
The new text released today goes away from the mandatory approach and adds flexibility to better reflect needs of developed and developing countries. The text states that it invites developing country Parties willing to contribute to the support mobilized to developing countries to do so voluntarily, with the condition that this voluntary contribution will not be included in the NCQG.
The document released today also states that it has been decided that there will be minimum allocation floors for the Least Developing Countries and Small Island developing countries of at least USD 220 billion and at least USD 39 billion, respectively. Deciding such a minimum allocation floor is a big step as these countries are particularly vulnerable to the extreme impacts of climate change. In March 2023, Malawi, in the African continent, was devastated by a tropical cyclone. Africa, according to some estimates, contributes to only 4% of global warming, but is particularly vulnerable to climate cahnge.
Some Decisions On Structure- What should be included?
The question regarding what types of finance will be classified as finance has been a key topic of discussion. The type of finance is crucial because it determines what kind of finance can really be aggregated to reach the big quantum goal.
In the negotiations so far, some countries suggested requiring funds to be channeled from the private sector as well. However, some parties questioned whether the private sector could be obligated to contribute to a goal and be made accountable for this goal. There were also discussion on grants versus loans. Many countries called for more grants and financing with higher concessional rates, reducing the repayment burden.
The document that came out today clarified both the above concerns. It states that the new collective quantified goal on climate finance will be mobilized through various sources, including public, private, innovative and alternative sources, noting the significant role of public funds. The decision to include the private sector is a significant step, as it provides an entry door for the private sector to be more actively involved in climate action. On grants and loans, the decision text states that a reasonable amount will be fixed in grants to developing countries, with significant progression in the provision. The decision on this allocation floor for grants, is also an essential consideration as it helps these countries to avoid being tied up in debt.
Advertisement
The decisions on climate finance published today during COP 29, which will act feed into the final decisions from COP 29, can add significant momentum to what is available for climate finance and action. They can also help build trust among many vulnerable countries in the power of multilateral decision-making process, showing that the world is indeed united in addressing global warming.
Cornell University administrator Warren Petrofsky will serve as the Faculty of Arts and Sciences’ new dean of administration and finance, charged with spearheading efforts to shore up the school’s finances as it faces a hefty budget deficit.
Petrofsky’s appointment, announced in a Friday email from FAS Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra to FAS affiliates, will begin April 20 — nearly a year after former FAS dean of administration and finance Scott A. Jordan stepped down. Petrofsky will replace interim dean Mary Ann Bradley, who helped shape the early stages of FAS cost-cutting initiatives.
Petrofsky currently serves as associate dean of administration at Cornell University’s College of Arts and Sciences.
As dean, he oversaw a budget cut of nearly $11 million to the institution’s College of Arts and Sciences after the federal government slashed at least $250 million in stop-work orders and frozen grants, according to the Cornell Daily Sun.
He also serves on a work group established in November 2025 to streamline the school’s administrative systems.
Advertisement
Earlier, at the University of Pennsylvania, Petrofsky managed capital initiatives and organizational redesigns in a number of administrative roles.
Petrofsky is poised to lead similar efforts at the FAS, which relaunched its Resources Committee in spring 2025 and created a committee to consolidate staff positions amid massive federal funding cuts.
As part of its planning process, the committee has quietly brought on external help. Over several months, consultants from McKinsey & Company have been interviewing dozens of administrators and staff across the FAS.
Petrofsky will also likely have a hand in other cost-cutting measures across the FAS, which is facing a $365 million budget deficit. The school has already announced it will keep spending flat for the 2026 fiscal year, and it has dramatically reduced Ph.D. admissions.
In her email, Hoekstra praised Petrofsky’s performance across his career.
Advertisement
“Warren has emphasized transparency, clarity in communication, and investment in staff development,” she wrote. “He approaches change with steadiness and purpose, and with deep respect for the mission that unites our faculty, researchers, staff, and students. I am confident that he will be a strong partner to me and to our community.”
—Staff writer Amann S. Mahajan can be reached at [email protected] and on Signal at amannsm.38. Follow her on X @amannmahajan.
My spreadsheet reviewed a WalletHub ranking of financial distress for the residents of 100 U.S. cities, including 17 in California. The analysis compared local credit scores, late bill payments, bankruptcy filings and online searches for debt or loans to quantify where individuals had the largest money challenges.
When California cities were divided into three geographic regions – Southern California, the Bay Area, and anything inland – the most challenges were often found far from the coast.
The average national ranking of the six inland cities was 39th worst for distress, the most troubled grade among the state’s slices.
Bakersfield received the inland region’s worst score, ranking No. 24 highest nationally for financial distress. That was followed by Sacramento (30th), San Bernardino (39th), Stockton (43rd), Fresno (45th), and Riverside (52nd).
Advertisement
Southern California’s seven cities overall fared better, with an average national ranking of 56th largest financial problems.
However, Los Angeles had the state’s ugliest grade, ranking fifth-worst nationally for monetary distress. Then came San Diego at 22nd-worst, then Long Beach (48th), Irvine (70th), Anaheim (71st), Santa Ana (85th), and Chula Vista (89th).
Monetary challenges were limited in the Bay Area. Its four cities average rank was 69th worst nationally.
San Jose had the region’s most distressed finances, with a No. 50 worst ranking. That was followed by Oakland (69th), San Francisco (72nd), and Fremont (83rd).
The results remind us that inland California’s affordability – it’s home to the state’s cheapest housing, for example – doesn’t fully compensate for wages that typically decline the farther one works from the Pacific Ocean.
Advertisement
A peek inside the scorecard’s grades shows where trouble exists within California.
Credit scores were the lowest inland, with little difference elsewhere. Late payments were also more common inland. Tardy bills were most difficult to find in Northern California.
Bankruptcy problems also were bubbling inland, but grew the slowest in Southern California. And worrisome online searches were more frequent inland, while varying only slightly closer to the Pacific.
Note: Across the state’s 17 cities in the study, the No. 53 average rank is a middle-of-the-pack grade on the 100-city national scale for monetary woes.
Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com
The up-and-coming fintech scored a pair of fourth-quarter beats.
Diversified fintech Chime Financial(CHYM +12.88%) was playing a satisfying tune to investors on Thursday. The company’s stock flew almost 14% higher that trading session, thanks mostly to a fourth quarter that featured notably higher-than-expected revenue guidance.
Sweet music
Chime published its fourth-quarter and full-year 2025 results just after market close on Wednesday. For the former period, the company’s revenue was $596 million, bettering the same quarter of 2024 by 25%. The company’s strongest revenue stream, payments, rose 17% to $396 million. Its take from platform-related activity rose more precipitously, advancing 47% to $200 million.
Image source: Getty Images.
Meanwhile, Chime’s net loss under generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) more than doubled. It was $45 million, or $0.12 per share, compared with a fourth-quarter 2024 deficit of $19.6 million.
Advertisement
On average, analysts tracking the stock were modeling revenue below $578 million and a deeper bottom-line loss of $0.20 per share.
In its earnings release, Chime pointed to the take-up of its Chime Card as a particular catalyst for growth. Regarding the product, the company said, “Among new member cohorts, over half are adopting Chime Card, and those members are putting over 70% of their Chime spend on the product, which earns materially higher take rates compared to debit.”
Today’s Change
(12.88%) $2.72
Current Price
$23.83
Advertisement
Key Data Points
Market Cap
$7.9B
Day’s Range
$22.30 – $24.63
52wk Range
Advertisement
$16.17 – $44.94
Volume
562K
Avg Vol
3.3M
Advertisement
Gross Margin
86.34%
Double-digit growth expected
Chime management proffered revenue and non-GAAP (adjusted) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA) guidance for full-year 2026. The company expects to post a top line of $627 million to $637 million, which would represent at least 21% growth over the 2024 result. Adjusted EBITDA should be $380 million to $400 million. No net income forecasts were provided in the earnings release.
It isn’t easy to find a niche in the financial industry, which is crowded with companies offering every imaginable type of service to clients. Yet Chime seems to be achieving that, as the Chime Card is clearly a hit among the company’s target demographic of clientele underserved by mainstream banks. This growth stock is definitely worth considering as a buy.
