ET NEWS

The Trump administration promised a select set of universities what the government said would be a great deal. In exchange for agreeing to a list of demands, like limiting international students and protecting conservative voices, universities would get a leg up on grants, potentially beating out the competition for billions in federal funds. At least one institution, the University of Texas, said it would be eager to sign up. But to others in higher education, the Trump administration's latest effort to use federal funding as leverage to push universities to conform to its own political policy agenda has provoked outrage. They see it as another threat against their independence as the government attacks higher education over what it perceives as endemic liberal bias, and as a remarkable push to grab power for the executive branch. "This is a real inflection point," said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor of the history of education at the University of Pennsylvania. Under the compact, a mix of nine public and private universities would receive favorable terms for government aid if they agreed to conditions like banning consideration of race or sex in hiring and admissions, capping international undergraduate enrollment, requiring that applicants pass admissions examinations, and suppressing grade inflation. Universities with large endowments would be asked to waive tuition for students interested in the hard sciences. While some of the ideas might be broadly embraced, like tamping down tuition increases, Zimmerman said, he was troubled by the idea that the federal government would be telling universities how to do it. "The parts of the order that drive me crazy are the ones that I actually agree with, like we should have ideological diversity, we shouldn't stigmatize conservative thought; I'm down with all that," Zimmerman said. "Keeping tuition down -- that seems fine, in fact laudable. But the federal government being the determinant of that is terrifying." The institutions approached by the administration included the University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University and the University of Virginia. Most would not say Thursday whether they would agree to the terms. But within hours of the Trump administration's offer, the compact was inflaming divisions in higher education. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a free speech advocacy group, said the requirement that universities monitor the speech of employees could violate the First Amendment. "A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow," Tyler Coward, FIRE's lead counsel for government affairs, said in a statement. "That's not reform. That's government-funded orthodoxy." And the leaders of the American Federation of Teachers and the American Association of University Professors, which represent faculty members, argued that the government's demands on universities were hypocritical. "They would reward campuses that toe the party line and punish those that cherish their independence," a statement from the groups read. "In doing so, it would commit the very viewpoint discrimination it claims to redress." They referred to the compact as a "loyalty oath." And the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, a vocal political enemy of the president, vowed to strip state funding from any California university that signed on to the deal, saying in a statement Thursday that "California will not bankroll schools that sell out their students, professors, researchers, and surrender academic freedom." In contrast, Kevin Eltife, the chair of the Board of Regents for the University of Texas, said the proposal appeared to complement Republican policies in the state of Texas. "Higher education has been at a crossroads in recent years," he said in a statement, noting that Texas leaders had implemented "sweeping changes for the benefit of our students and to strengthen our institutions to best serve the people of Texas." Some of those changes include banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices on every state university campus and strengthening the influence of the regents, who are appointed by the governor. Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, said the document seemed to him like a naked exercise of power, lacking internal coherence. He said that if institutions agreed to the compact, it would set "a horrible precedent to cede power to the federal government." The compact is part of an emerging trend inside the administration to skirt traditional lawmaking and government spending protocols in Washington. Instead of negotiating with Congress to overhaul federal policy, the administration has increasingly reached out directly to institutions and school systems, seeking their sign-off on pledges to adopt portions of the Trump administration's agenda -- often under the threat of losing federal funding. In April, the Education Department ordered local school officials to sign pledges attesting that they had eliminated all programs aimed at promoting diversity, equity and inclusion, which the administration has argued unfairly discriminate against white Americans. That move was blocked by Judge Landya B. McCafferty of the U.S. District Court in New Hampshire, who ruled that the government had failed to adequately define "diversity, equity and inclusion." She also said the policy threatened to restrict free speech in the classroom and overstepped the executive branch's legal authority over local schools. The administration has also used signed pledges to prioritize funding for groups to develop or expand artificial intelligence courses and certification programs. Zimmerman argued that the compact was another example of a split screen in the Trump administration's priorities. Government officials are on the one hand seeking to reduce federal power over education by gutting the Department of Education while "at the same time, they've been orchestrating an unprecedented centralization of power." Much about the compact was still opaque, even to the universities the administration said it had invited to participate. The University of Virginia received a letter Wednesday night from the secretary of education and White House officials regarding the compact, said a spokesperson, Brian Coy. The letter does not indicate why the University of Virginia was included, he said. The university's interim president, Paul G. Mahoney, has formed a committee to advise him on how to respond. To some inside higher education, the compact's most worrisome terms revolved around enforcement. Regulations and laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act, have long offered safeguards for universities and others in their dealings with the government. The Trump administration has faced a run of lawsuits that accused it of violating those protections, including one in which Harvard University won a significant victory last month. But as higher education officials pored over the White House's proposal Wednesday and into Thursday, some worried that the terms amounted to a waiver of varied legal protections. The universities that received the invitation to join the compact defied easy categorizing. They were a disparate collection of state universities and private institutions. But a number of them were in states controlled by Republican governors or had indicated a reluctance to fight the Trump administration or congressional Republicans. The University of Arizona, one of three public institutions on the list, recently moved quickly to shut down affiliations with four colleges in China following criticism from the House's Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party. A spokesperson for the university, Mitch Zak, said it was reviewing the compact. At the University of Virginia, where the board is currently firmly in Republican control, the president, Jim Ryan, recently stepped down under pressure from the Trump administration over his stances supporting diversity. And Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt, has frequently discussed how he at least partially agrees with some aspects of the Trump administration's criticism of academia's drift to the left. Vanderbilt responded to the administration's offer in a statement posted on social media, saying, "We look forward to carefully reviewing the compact and providing meaningful feedback to the administration." This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

The yen edged lower on Friday, trimming its sharpest weekly gain in more than four months, as traders considered the impact of potential rate increases by the Bank of Japan and a leadership election this weekend. BOJ Governor Kazuo Ueda reiterated that the central bank would continue raising interest rates if the economy and prices move in line with its forecast. Markets are also focused on a Liberal Democratic Party election on Saturday that will determine Japan's next prime minister. The dollar rebounded overnight despite a closure of the U.S. government that has halted the publication of key economic data, including the closely watched monthly jobs report for September that was due to be released on Friday. Canada's currency held near a four-month low on a slide in oil prices. "The government shutdown has not had a major short-term impact, but if anything, underlying pressure remains toward a weaker dollar," said Hirofumi Suzuki, the chief currency strategist at SMBC. "That said, with yen-depreciation pressure likely to linger ahead of this weekend's LDP leadership election, the pair is likely to hover around current levels," he added. The yen slid 0.2% to 147.52 per dollar, still on track for a 1.3% advance this week that would be the biggest since mid-May. The dollar index, which measures the greenback against a basket of key currencies, tacked on 0.1% to 97.895. The euro was little changed at $1.1721. Markets were keeping a close eye on speeches by BOJ officials this week after the central bank's tankan survey on Wednesday showed confidence among big manufacturers improved for the second straight quarter. Governor Ueda said the central bank expects the global economy to resume a moderate recovery path but much will depend on the U.S. economic outlook. Deputy governor Shinichi Uchida said on Thursday that the business mood is improving and corporate profits remain high even as U.S. tariffs weigh on exports. Ueda's comments "could be used to guide the market further towards a rate hike at the BOJ's next meeting on October 30th," IG Markets analyst Tony Sycamore wrote in a note. In the U.S. overnight, a Chicago Fed report that combines private and available public data estimated the September jobless rate was 4.3%, the same as in August and evidence that a feared rapid rise in unemployment had not yet begun. But details of the report, along with other data, pointed to sluggishness in the labor market. The ADP National Employment report on Wednesday showed private payrolls decreased by 32,000 in September, boosting expectations that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates two more times this year. Traders see a 25-basis-point cut at the Fed's October meeting as almost certain and are pricing in a 90% probability of an additional cut in December, according to the CME Group's FedWatch Tool. Dallas Fed President Lorie Logan on Thursday said the central bank appropriately cut rates last month to guard against the risk of a sharp deterioration in the job market, but said that so far the cooling has been gradual and signalled she is not eager to cut rates further. The Canadian dollar weakened to a four-month low against its U.S. counterpart on Thursday as the price of oil fell more than 2% and investors worried about negotiations to renew a U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement. The Canadian currency traded little changed at 1.3962 per U.S. dollar after touching 1.3986 on Thursday, its weakest intraday level since May 16.

ET Intelligence Group: WeWork India, a flexible workplace operator, plans to raise ₹3,000 crore through an offer for sale. The promoter stake will fall to 48.1% after the IPO from 73.6%. The company's revenue and Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (Ebitda) are higher than its peers. However, it has just started recording profit in FY25, due to deferred tax credit. About 47% of its revenue comes from Bengaluru and 24% comes from Mumbai, reflecting geographic concentration. Occupancy rate in mature centres is less than peers. Given these factors, investors may wait to see clarity in financials after the listing.BusinessIncorporated in 2016, Bengaluru headquartered WeWork India provides flexible workspace solutions, custom-designed buildings, floors and offices, and hybrid digital solutions. The company has an exclusive license of the WeWork Brand in India. As of June 2025, it operated 68 centres across eight cities including Bengaluru, Mumbai, Pune, Hyderabad, Gurugram, Noida, Delhi, and Chennai, with a total capacity of 114,077 desks spanning 7.7 million square feet. Occupancy rate in mature centres is 80.7% compared with 84-89% for its peers.124280697FinancialsThe company's revenue and operating profit before depreciation and amortisation after adjusting for lease rental payments grew 22% and 48% annually between F23 and FY25 to ₹1949.2 crore and ₹1,235.9 crore respectively. The company reported a profit of ₹128 crore in FY25, due to a deferred tax credit of ₹286 crore. Adjusted Ebitda margin expanded to 21.6% in FY25 from 14.6% in FY23. Net debt declined to ₹215.3 crore from ₹339.1 crore during the period.ValuationPrice-to-earnings multiple will be an inappropriate tool to ascertain the valuation since the company has just started recording profits while most of the peers are yet to be profitable. The price-to-sales (P/S) multiple for WeWorks is 4.6 compared with that of 3.4-4.7 for peers, which includes Smartworks Coworking Spaces, IndiQube Spaces and Awfis Space Solutions.

Mumbai: The dovish monetary policy stance by the Reserve Bank of India calls for a tweak in the fixed income investment strategy. Fund managers suggest that investors could retain the core of their debt portfolio in accrual mutual funds - which focus on interest income -while putting a small tactical portion into duration funds - which benefits if bond yields fall.The recalibration comes in the wake of renewed expectations that RBI may deliver at least one 25-basis point rate cut in this financial year, which could drive a rally in bond prices. Bond yields and prices move in opposite direction. "Allocate a core portion of 75-85% to accrual strategies, with a small tactical bet on duration to benefit from any rate cuts," says Nirav Karkera, head of research, Fisdom.Duration strategies, which invest in long-tenure government securities, could benefit from potential capital gains as bond prices rise when interest rates fall. Some of the duration scheme categories are 10-year constant maturity gilt funds, gilt funds and dynamic bond funds, which have the option to increase average maturity of schemes.RBI has already cut interest rates by 100 basis points during this calendar year. However, with the GDP growth forecast for 2025-26 revised upwards to 6.8% from an earlier estimate of 6.5%, and CPI inflation lowered to 2.6% from 3.1% for the same period, fund managers expect at least one more rate cut. This changing growth-inflation dynamic may have created room for further policy easing."There is a high probability of a 25-basis point rate cut in the December policy. As rates fall, longer-duration bonds typically gain in value, boosting returns," says Sneha Pandey, fund manager, Quantum Mutual Fund. Pandey expects the benchmark 10-year to move down by 20-30 basis points by the end of the current financial year once the demand supply equation improves. If rates do fall, it could translate into an additional 75-100 basis points returns over the next 6-8 months, taking returns from a 10-year government secrurity to 7.25-7.5% before expense and tax.124280541Risky betSome advisors, however, believe that given the uncertainty around global tariffs, investors should avoid taking excessive risk and stay away from duration strategies, as the risk-reward is unfavourable.Instead, they recommend investing in a mix of short-term bonds maturing in 2-3 years. “Tariffs remain an uncertainty and the rupee depreciation needs to be watched out for. On the domestic front, a cut in GST could increase demand, it could also push up inflation in the coming year,” says Amit Bivalkar, founder, Sapient Finserv. Bivalkar believes investors should adopt a conservative approach and stick to accrual strategies and invest in short-term funds. Dhawal Dalal, CIO — Fixed Income at Edelweiss Mutual Fund believes the spreads of 90 basis points of AAA rated corporate bonds over government securities in the 2-3 year maturity space is attractive and retail investors should stick to accrual strategies and corporate bond funds