£3.6m EuroMillions prize remains unclaimed in UK
EuroMillions ticket holders have been told to search through their handbags and trouser pockets, as a prize worth a staggering £3.6 million is yet to be claimed.
The winning ticket was bought in the local authority area Fife in Scotland for the draw on Friday 13 June.
The winning numbers on that date were 2, 28, 40, 43, 45 and the Lucky Star numbers were 3 and 7, with the missing ticket holder matching the five main numbers and one Lucky Star number.
The lucky ticket holder now has until 10 December 2025 to claim their prize.
'It's time to search through handbags, purses, trouser pockets and the car – everywhere and anywhere – as a ticket is lurking which is worth £3.6M,' said Andy Carter, senior winners advisor at Allwyn, operator of The National Lottery.
He urged those who live or work in the area to take a minute to find their ticket and join the other lucky £3.6M EuroMillions winners.
The jackpot on Friday 13 June was the largest EuroMillions prize ever up for grabs in the UK and Ireland and had been capped at €250m – or £208m.
The record prize was rolled over after nobody won the jackpot. In total, more than 92,000 players in Ireland won prizes in the EuroMillions and Plus games.
Anyone not in possession of their ticket, for whatever reason, but who believes they have a genuine claim can still make a claim in writing to Allwyn, but it must be within 30 days of the draw.
If no-one comes forward with the winning ticket before the prize claim deadline, then the prize money, plus all the interest it has generated, will go to help National Lottery-funded projects across the UK.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Provexis (LON:PXS) Is In A Strong Position To Grow Its Business
There's no doubt that money can be made by owning shares of unprofitable businesses. For example, biotech and mining exploration companies often lose money for years before finding success with a new treatment or mineral discovery. Having said that, unprofitable companies are risky because they could potentially burn through all their cash and become distressed. Given this risk, we thought we'd take a look at whether Provexis (LON:PXS) shareholders should be worried about its cash burn. For the purpose of this article, we'll define cash burn as the amount of cash the company is spending each year to fund its growth (also called its negative free cash flow). We'll start by comparing its cash burn with its cash reserves in order to calculate its cash runway. This technology could replace computers: discover the 20 stocks are working to make quantum computing a reality. You can calculate a company's cash runway by dividing the amount of cash it has by the rate at which it is spending that cash. In September 2024, Provexis had UK£478k in cash, and was debt-free. Looking at the last year, the company burnt through UK£113k. So it had a cash runway of about 4.2 years from September 2024. A runway of this length affords the company the time and space it needs to develop the business. The image below shows how its cash balance has been changing over the last few years. See our latest analysis for Provexis Although Provexis had revenue of UK£1.2m in the last twelve months, its operating revenue was only UK£1.2m in that time period. We don't think that's enough operating revenue for us to understand too much from revenue growth rates, since the company is growing off a low base. So we'll focus on the cash burn, today. Notably, its cash burn was actually down by 74% in the last year, which is a real positive in terms of resilience, but uninspiring when it comes to investment for growth. Of course, we've only taken a quick look at the stock's growth metrics, here. This graph of historic revenue growth shows how Provexis is building its business over time. There's no doubt Provexis' rapidly reducing cash burn brings comfort, but even if it's only hypothetical, it's always worth asking how easily it could raise more money to fund further growth. Companies can raise capital through either debt or equity. Commonly, a business will sell new shares in itself to raise cash and drive growth. By comparing a company's annual cash burn to its total market capitalisation, we can estimate roughly how many shares it would have to issue in order to run the company for another year (at the same burn rate). Since it has a market capitalisation of UK£16m, Provexis' UK£113k in cash burn equates to about 0.7% of its market value. So it could almost certainly just borrow a little to fund another year's growth, or else easily raise the cash by issuing a few shares. As you can probably tell by now, we're not too worried about Provexis' cash burn. For example, we think its cash runway suggests that the company is on a good path. But it's fair to say that its cash burn reduction was also very reassuring. Looking at all the measures in this article, together, we're not worried about its rate of cash burn, which seems to be under control. Taking a deeper dive, we've spotted 4 warning signs for Provexis you should be aware of, and 1 of them is a bit concerning. If you would prefer to check out another company with better fundamentals, then do not miss this free list of interesting companies, that have HIGH return on equity and low debt or this list of stocks which are all forecast to grow. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trade talks probably won't be done by Trump's July 9 deadline, Treasury Secretary Bessent says
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday said he thinks trade negotiations could be 'wrapped up' by Labor Day, providing a more relaxed framework for inking deals than the previously prescribed July 9 deadline. Bessent said in an interview on Fox Business that the United States has 18 'important trading partners' that it is seeking to make deals with. 'If we can ink 10 or 12 of the important 18 … then I think we could have trade wrapped up by Labor Day,' Bessent said. The Trump administration so far has announced only a trade deal with the United Kingdom and a truce in its trade war with China. 'With all things, they get done in the end. You have to put on a deadline,' Bessent said. 'As you and I know, nothing gets done in Washington well in advance.' Bessent also said that he expects rare earth minerals from China to start to 'flow' back into the United States. China earlier on Friday announced it would approve the export of rare earth minerals to the United States. 'They were not flowing as fast as previously agreed,' Bessent said. 'President Trump and President Xi had a phone call, and then our teams met in London, ironed this out, and I am confident now that as we agreed, the magnets will flow.' Representatives from Washington and Beijing met in Geneva to discuss trade in May and then met again in London to announce a framework for implementing the trade truce. Bessent said trade negotiations with China and the United Kingdom are 'behind us for now.' Bessent said if countries don't get a deal done, President Donald Trump is open to reverting back to April 2 massive 'reciprocal' tariff levels. Wall Street and Capitol Hill have been fixated on when more trade deals might be announced, with the supposed July 9 deadline approaching. Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The taxes Reeves could raise to pay for Labour's about-turns
Rachel Reeves faces another black hole in the public finances. This time she can blame her own MPs: the revolt by more than 120 Labour backbenchers has forced the Prime Minister to back down on his proposal to slow the growth in the benefits bill. Sir Keir Starmer's reforms were supposed to save £5bn per year. But now that he has performed another about-turn, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) estimates the scheme will only save £2bn, thus blowing a fresh £3bn hole in the Chancellor's numbers. 'These changes more than halve the saving of the package of reforms as a whole, making the Chancellor's already difficult budget-balancing act that much harder,' says Tom Waters, at the think tank. It comes weeks after the policy reversal on winter fuel payments for pensioners, which will cost more than £1bn. To make matters worse, the economy is slowing – in part because of Labour's record-breaking tax raids – which will undermine the tax revenues on which Reeves's plans relied. Ruth Gregory, at Capital Economics, estimates the combination of higher benefits spending and lower growth will cost the Chancellor £22bn compared to the Office for Budget Responsibility's forecasts at the Spring Statement. If MPs will not allow the Government even the most modest restraint on spending, and if the Chancellor will not again rewrite her own 'iron-clad' borrowing rules, that means more tax rises are on the way in the autumn. Here are the options Reeves will be looking at. The Government's biggest revenue-raiser, income tax, raked in £310bn last year – almost precisely matching the £313bn spent on benefits. Adding a penny to the basic and higher rates of income tax would bring in just over £10bn extra per year, according to HMRC estimates. That means at least 2p would need to be added to come close to repairing Reeves's Budget. If it were not for Labour's manifesto pledge not to raise the tax, this would be an obvious place for the Chancellor to turn. But the manifesto is hardly a meaningful constraint. The vaunted document also promised not to raise National Insurance contributions (NICs), but the Chancellor did just that in her first Budget. The Government argued that the manifesto promise only applied to the NICs paid directly by workers, not the much larger share paid by their employers. Income tax does not lend itself quite so easily to such a ruse, but the Chancellor could extend the Conservatives' long freeze on thresholds. A classic stealth tax, this method means that as workers receive pay rises they are pulled more quickly into higher tax brackets – even if inflation means the spending power of their pay packets is not actually growing. The freeze on thresholds, which is currently set to last until 2028, is already expected to bag the Chancellor nearly £50bn per year by the end of the decade. Extending it by another two years would bring in an extra £10bn per year, the IFS estimates. Given the sums involved and the fact that stealth raids do not affect workers in an obvious way, this is seen as a likely option. The Chancellor is unlikely to whack businesses with another raid. She has promised hostile bosses that she will not pull the same stunt on National Insurance contributions again. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has also warned that last year's tax raid is now weighing on the economy, meaning increasing the rate again could be counterproductive. But that does not mean the tax, which is set to bring in £200bn this year, has to go untouched. One option is to raise the rate paid by workers. This would breach even the revised version of the manifesto pledge, but could be framed as reversing reckless Tory tax cuts – under Jeremy Hunt, Reeves's predecessor in No 11, the rate was chopped from 12pc to 10pc and then down to 8pc. Each of those two percentage point moves cost more than £10bn, so reversing the cuts could help Reeves considerably. Increasing the rate of capital gains tax (CGT) is popular in Left-wing circles. Unfortunately, jacking up the tax paid on profits made from the sale of assets comes with a range of downsides, which can result in a higher tax rate in fact costing the Treasury revenue. A large share of CGT is paid by a very small number of people. If the higher rate means they simply decide not to sell their assets, then the tax take will plunge in short order. HMRC estimates that a one percentage point increase in the top rate ends up costing the Treasury £30m per year. A 5p increase costs £870m per year. A 10p jump loses a staggering £3.6bn per year for the public purse. As a result, increasing the rate of CGT seems unlikely. Another option ruled out in the manifesto, this levy on a large share of the things people buy is on track to bring in £200bn per year by the end of the decade. Currently charged at a rate of 20pc, increasing VAT might not be the most popular measure when households are already reeling from a cost of living crisis. None the less, it could be a tempting option when a 1p increase brings in £9.6bn per year. Alternatively, the Chancellor could slap the tax on items that are currently exempt – as she did with private school fees this year – or those that attract the reduced rate of 5pc, such as energy bills. Reeves has maintained the accounting wheeze employed by successive Conservative chancellors: freeze fuel duty year after year but pencilling in extra revenues from future increases. About half of her headroom comes from the official assumption that the tax on petrol and diesel will rise in future – yet few expect she will actually jack up the cost of driving. The fuel duty escalator has been frozen for a decade and a half, making it politically difficult to unfreeze. Most economists believe it will be kept frozen. It would be a shock to voters, but Reeves may find it an attractive revenue-raiser: reintroducing inflation-linked increases in fuel duty would raise an estimated £5bn a year. It is not just the big taxes that are on the table. Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, wrote to Reeves with a raft of proposed tax increases ahead of the Spring Statement. Suggestions included: a higher bank surcharge, raising up to £700m from lenders; scrapping inheritance tax relief on Aim-listed shares, for anywhere between £100m and £1bn; removing the dividend allowance to bag £325m, as well as raising the tax rate on dividends; and further freezing the threshold at which high earners pay the additional rate of income tax. Raising the tax on enveloped properties, which are largely owned by companies, could raise another £200m, while closing a commercial property stamp duty loophole could net £1bn. Reinstating a lifetime allowance on pensions contributions might gain close to £800m per year. Rayner also suggested clawing back more child benefit from higher-earning households, for £600m, and tightening migrants' access to benefits. Together those measures could increase the Treasury's haul by £4.6bn or more. That would be useful, but is barely enough to cover the cost of Starmer's latest about-turns, let alone cover the other costs. The scale of spending commitments mounting up means Reeves is facing unpalatable choices when it comes to the Budget. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more. 擷取數據時發生錯誤 登入存取你的投資組合 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤 擷取數據時發生錯誤
