February 2025

[divs4ever]

i already hold useful amounts of GNC and SGLLV on the theory increased US consumption of grain ( for bio-fuels ) will leave export opportunities elsewhere

but maybe i could revisit GNC and check it there is an accumulate opportunity

 

[ducati916]

Last Week

The S&P 500 ($SPY) printed its first weekly all-time high since early December, rising +1.5% this week. Despite the recent choppiness, $SPY has rallied intraweek in each of the past five weeks. After nearly three months of digestion, $SPY is primed for a new leg higher. This was hardly a pullback but perhaps a correction through time. $SPY fell less than 5% (on a closing basis) from its December peak. Despite this single-digit drawdown, bearish sentiment reached a new 52-week high. The percentage of bearish respondents in this week's AAII Sentiment Survey rose to 47%, its highest since late 2023. The Takeaway: The S&P 500 achieved its first weekly all-time high of 2025, rising +1.5% this week. Meanwhile, bearish sentiment also reached a new high.

For next week






If Bessent reduces the issue of short term UST bills, money will start to flow back into RRP. That is a LIQUIDITY drain. Bessent has criticised Yellen for not terming out the debt (more long term) but is finding out that there is no demand for long dated paper.

Next problem, even if he stays with short term paper, the RRP is almost empty. Who buys?



Buffett 20yrs ago

Charlie and I, it should be emphasized, believe that true trade – that is, the exchange of goods and services with other countries – is enormously beneficial for both us and them. Last year we had $1.15 trillion of such honest-to-God trade and the more of this, the better.


But, as noted, our country also purchased an additional $618 billion in goods and services from the rest of the world that was unreciprocated. That is a staggering figure and one that has important consequences. The balancing item to this one-way pseudo-trade — in economics there is always an offset — is a transfer of wealth from the U.S. to the rest of the world.


The transfer may materialize in the form of IOUs our private or governmental institutions give to foreigners, or by way of their assuming ownership of our assets, such as stocks and real estate. In either case, Americans end up owning a reduced portion of our country while non-Americans own a greater part.


This force-feeding of American wealth to the rest of the world is now proceeding at the rate of $1.8 billion daily, an increase of 20% since I wrote you last year. Consequently, other countries and their citizens now own a net of about $3 trillion of the U.S. A decade ago their net ownership was negligible. The mention of trillions numbs most brains.


A further source of confusion is that the current account deficit (the sum of three items, the most important by far being the trade deficit) and our national budget deficit are often lumped as “twins.” They are anything but. They have different causes and different consequences.


A budget deficit in no way reduces the portion of the national pie that goes to Americans. As long as other countries and their citizens have no net ownership of the U.S., 100% of our country’s output belongs to our citizens under any budget scenario, even one involving a huge deficit. As a rich “family” awash in goods, Americans will argue through their legislators as to how government should redistribute the national output – that is who pays taxes and who receives governmental benefits.


If “entitlement” promises from an earlier day have to be reexamined, “family members” will angrily debate among themselves as to who feels the pain. Maybe taxes will go up; maybe promises will be modified; maybe more internal debt will be issued. But when the fight is finished, all of the family’s huge pie remains available for its members, however it is divided. No slice must be sent abroad.


Large and persisting current account deficits produce an entirely different result. As time passes, and as claims against us grow, we own less and less of what we produce. In effect, the rest of the world enjoys an ever-growing royalty on American output. Here, we are like a family that consistently overspends its income. As time passes, the family finds that it is working more and more for the “finance company” and less for itself.


Should we continue to run current account deficits comparable to those now prevailing, the net ownership of the U.S. by other countries and their citizens a decade from now will amount to roughly $11 trillion. And, if foreign investors were to earn only 5% on that net holding, we would need to send a net of $.55 trillion of goods and services abroad every year merely to service the U.S. investments then held by foreigners.


At that date, a decade out, our GDP would probably total about $18 trillion (assuming low inflation, which is far from a sure thing). Therefore, our U.S. “family” would then be delivering 3% of its annual output to the rest of the world simply as tribute for the overindulgences of the past. In this case, unlike that involving budget deficits, the sons would truly pay for the sins of their fathers. `


This annual royalty paid the world – which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses – would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy.


But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us.


Many prominent U.S. financial figures, both in and out of government, have stated that our current-account deficits cannot persist. For instance, the minutes of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee of June 29-30, 2004 say: “The staff noted that outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely.”


But, despite the constant handwringing by luminaries, they offer no substantive suggestions to tame the burgeoning imbalance. In the article I wrote for Fortune 16 months ago, I warned that “a gently declining dollar would not provide the answer.” And so far it hasn’t.


Yet policymakers continue to hope for a “soft landing,” meanwhile counseling other countries to stimulate (read “inflate”) their economies and Americans to save more. In my view these admonitions miss the mark: There are deep-rooted structural problems that will cause America to continue to run a huge current-account deficit unless trade policies either change materially or the dollar declines by a degree that could prove unsettling to financial markets.


Proponents of the trade status quo are fond of quoting Adam Smith: “What is prudence in the conduct of every family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.” I agree.


Note, however, that Mr. Smith’s statement refers to trade of product for product, not of wealth for product as our country is doing to the tune of $.6 trillion annually. Moreover, I am sure that he would never have suggested that “prudence” consisted of his “family” selling off part of its farm every day in order to finance its overconsumption.


Yet that is just what the “great kingdom” called the United States is doing. If the U.S. was running a $.6 trillion current-account surplus, commentators worldwide would violently condemn our policy, viewing it as an extreme form of “mercantilism” – a long-discredited economic strategy under which countries fostered exports, discouraged imports, and piled up treasure. I would condemn such a policy as well.


But, in effect if not in intent, the rest of the world is practicing mercantilism in respect to the U.S., an act made possible by our vast store of assets and our pristine credit history. Indeed, the world would never let any other country use a credit card denominated in its own currency to the insatiable extent we are employing ours.


Presently, most foreign investors are sanguine: they may view us as spending junkies, but they know we are rich junkies as well. Our spendthrift behavior won’t, however, be tolerated indefinitely. And though it’s impossible to forecast just when and how the trade problem will be resolved, it’s improbable that the resolution will foster an increase in the value of our currency relative to that of our trading partners.


Berkshire Hathaway 2004 Annual Letter BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC

Remember Buffett is selling down and building cash.




Trump is trying to implement a soft YCC.

Here is how he is trying to do it.

Tariffs = USD higher UST 10yr higher
Fed lowers rates into an increasing inflation

Comes out to a soft form of YCC

Add into that remonetising gold to provide additional funds to reduce issuance of debt and you have a plan of sorts.

The debt ceiling drama is also getting closer and the Treasury is fast running out of money. Meanwhile markets are hitting ATH or close to it.

Monday markets are closed again for another holiday.

jog on
duc

 

[qldfrog]

Last Week

​

​ The S&P 500 ($SPY) printed its first weekly all-time high since early December, rising +1.5% this week. Despite the recent choppiness, $SPY has rallied intraweek in each of the past five weeks. After nearly three months of digestion, $SPY is primed for a new leg higher. This was hardly a pullback but perhaps a correction through time. $SPY fell less than 5% (on a closing basis) from its December peak. Despite this single-digit drawdown, bearish sentiment reached a new 52-week high. The percentage of bearish respondents in this week's AAII Sentiment Survey rose to 47%, its highest since late 2023. The Takeaway: The S&P 500 achieved its first weekly all-time high of 2025, rising +1.5% this week. Meanwhile, bearish sentiment also reached a new high.

​

​

View attachment 193352View attachment 193351

For next week

View attachment 193355View attachment 193354View attachment 193353


View attachment 193359View attachment 193360View attachment 193361View attachment 193362

If Bessent reduces the issue of short term UST bills, money will start to flow back into RRP. That is a LIQUIDITY drain. Bessent has criticised Yellen for not terming out the debt (more long term) but is finding out that there is no demand for long dated paper.

Next problem, even if he stays with short term paper, the RRP is almost empty. Who buys?

View attachment 193364View attachment 193363

Buffett 20yrs ago

Charlie and I, it should be emphasized, believe that true trade – that is, the exchange of goods and services with other countries – is enormously beneficial for both us and them. Last year we had $1.15 trillion of such honest-to-God trade and the more of this, the better.


But, as noted, our country also purchased an additional $618 billion in goods and services from the rest of the world that was unreciprocated. That is a staggering figure and one that has important consequences. The balancing item to this one-way pseudo-trade — in economics there is always an offset — is a transfer of wealth from the U.S. to the rest of the world.


The transfer may materialize in the form of IOUs our private or governmental institutions give to foreigners, or by way of their assuming ownership of our assets, such as stocks and real estate. In either case, Americans end up owning a reduced portion of our country while non-Americans own a greater part.


This force-feeding of American wealth to the rest of the world is now proceeding at the rate of $1.8 billion daily, an increase of 20% since I wrote you last year. Consequently, other countries and their citizens now own a net of about $3 trillion of the U.S. A decade ago their net ownership was negligible. The mention of trillions numbs most brains.


A further source of confusion is that the current account deficit (the sum of three items, the most important by far being the trade deficit) and our national budget deficit are often lumped as “twins.” They are anything but. They have different causes and different consequences.


A budget deficit in no way reduces the portion of the national pie that goes to Americans. As long as other countries and their citizens have no net ownership of the U.S., 100% of our country’s output belongs to our citizens under any budget scenario, even one involving a huge deficit. As a rich “family” awash in goods, Americans will argue through their legislators as to how government should redistribute the national output – that is who pays taxes and who receives governmental benefits.


If “entitlement” promises from an earlier day have to be reexamined, “family members” will angrily debate among themselves as to who feels the pain. Maybe taxes will go up; maybe promises will be modified; maybe more internal debt will be issued. But when the fight is finished, all of the family’s huge pie remains available for its members, however it is divided. No slice must be sent abroad.


Large and persisting current account deficits produce an entirely different result. As time passes, and as claims against us grow, we own less and less of what we produce. In effect, the rest of the world enjoys an ever-growing royalty on American output. Here, we are like a family that consistently overspends its income. As time passes, the family finds that it is working more and more for the “finance company” and less for itself.


Should we continue to run current account deficits comparable to those now prevailing, the net ownership of the U.S. by other countries and their citizens a decade from now will amount to roughly $11 trillion. And, if foreign investors were to earn only 5% on that net holding, we would need to send a net of $.55 trillion of goods and services abroad every year merely to service the U.S. investments then held by foreigners.


At that date, a decade out, our GDP would probably total about $18 trillion (assuming low inflation, which is far from a sure thing). Therefore, our U.S. “family” would then be delivering 3% of its annual output to the rest of the world simply as tribute for the overindulgences of the past. In this case, unlike that involving budget deficits, the sons would truly pay for the sins of their fathers. `


This annual royalty paid the world – which would not disappear unless the U.S. massively underconsumed and began to run consistent and large trade surpluses – would undoubtedly produce significant political unrest in the U.S. Americans would still be living very well, indeed better than now because of the growth in our economy.


But they would chafe at the idea of perpetually paying tribute to their creditors and owners abroad. A country that is now aspiring to an “Ownership Society” will not find happiness in – and I’ll use hyperbole here for emphasis – a “Sharecropper’s Society.” But that’s precisely where our trade policies, supported by Republicans and Democrats alike, are taking us.


Many prominent U.S. financial figures, both in and out of government, have stated that our current-account deficits cannot persist. For instance, the minutes of the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee of June 29-30, 2004 say: “The staff noted that outsized external deficits could not be sustained indefinitely.”


But, despite the constant handwringing by luminaries, they offer no substantive suggestions to tame the burgeoning imbalance. In the article I wrote for Fortune 16 months ago, I warned that “a gently declining dollar would not provide the answer.” And so far it hasn’t.


Yet policymakers continue to hope for a “soft landing,” meanwhile counseling other countries to stimulate (read “inflate”) their economies and Americans to save more. In my view these admonitions miss the mark: There are deep-rooted structural problems that will cause America to continue to run a huge current-account deficit unless trade policies either change materially or the dollar declines by a degree that could prove unsettling to financial markets.


Proponents of the trade status quo are fond of quoting Adam Smith: “What is prudence in the conduct of every family can scarce be folly in that of a great kingdom. If a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make it, better buy it of them with some part of the produce of our own industry, employed in a way in which we have some advantage.” I agree.


Note, however, that Mr. Smith’s statement refers to trade of product for product, not of wealth for product as our country is doing to the tune of $.6 trillion annually. Moreover, I am sure that he would never have suggested that “prudence” consisted of his “family” selling off part of its farm every day in order to finance its overconsumption.


Yet that is just what the “great kingdom” called the United States is doing. If the U.S. was running a $.6 trillion current-account surplus, commentators worldwide would violently condemn our policy, viewing it as an extreme form of “mercantilism” – a long-discredited economic strategy under which countries fostered exports, discouraged imports, and piled up treasure. I would condemn such a policy as well.


But, in effect if not in intent, the rest of the world is practicing mercantilism in respect to the U.S., an act made possible by our vast store of assets and our pristine credit history. Indeed, the world would never let any other country use a credit card denominated in its own currency to the insatiable extent we are employing ours.


Presently, most foreign investors are sanguine: they may view us as spending junkies, but they know we are rich junkies as well. Our spendthrift behavior won’t, however, be tolerated indefinitely. And though it’s impossible to forecast just when and how the trade problem will be resolved, it’s improbable that the resolution will foster an increase in the value of our currency relative to that of our trading partners.


Berkshire Hathaway 2004 Annual Letter BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC

Remember Buffett is selling down and building cash.


View attachment 193365

Trump is trying to implement a soft YCC.

Here is how he is trying to do it.

Tariffs = USD higher UST 10yr higher
Fed lowers rates into an increasing inflation

Comes out to a soft form of YCC

Add into that remonetising gold to provide additional funds to reduce issuance of debt and you have a plan of sorts.

The debt ceiling drama is also getting closer and the Treasury is fast running out of money. Meanwhile markets are hitting ATH or close to it.

Monday markets are closed again for another holiday.

jog on
duc

This letter is a gem! 2004......

 

[ducati916]

jog on
duc

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Thanks @ducati916 . Very interesting particularly from 21:10 on.

gg

 

[ducati916]

The thing about Trump is that he broadcasts what he is going to do over social media.

So we have accelerating inflation. Trump wants lower FFR. Even more inflation.

Tariffs equal a stronger USD which drives UST 10yr higher.

Trump needs inflation above the UST 10yr or at least at par. The result is a wash or a soft form of YCC.

How wrong was this?



Natural Gas

Two years ago, Engine No. 1 reserved natural gas turbines, a move that could prove critical to its newest project.

The investment firm has formed a new company with Chevron to power AI data centers in the United States using U.S. natural gas. The venture, which will use natural gas turbines from GE Vernova and co-locate them with the data centers, won’t use the existing transmission grid to help avoid a spike in electricity prices.

The move comes amid increased corporate demand for artificial intelligence, which requires data centers and a massive amount of energy to run them.


The new venture also follows Donald Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency to encourage more oil and gas production to power AI data centers. Trump claims domestic fossil fuel production is needed to keep the U.S. ahead of China on AI, even though there is evidence that solar can cost-effectively do the job.

Trump, whose reelection campaign received $445 million from the fossil fuel industry, has delivered a long list of benefits to oil and gas companies so far, including stopping all wind and solar projects, hampering electric vehicle adoption, and pulling the U.S. out of the The Paris Climate Agreement. Even though Engine No. 1’s project has been in the works for two years, it benefits from the policy changes.




Over the past five and a half decades, there have been two previous peaks in market concentration: one in 1973 and another in 2000. Today, market concentration has reached an all-time high – and while not shown here, is even higher than levels seen in the early 1930’s. Given these extremes, here are five ideas to consider regarding the opportunities and risks that tend to follow periods of extreme market concentration.






jog on
duc

 

[divs4ever]

The new venture also follows Donald Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency to encourage more oil and gas production to power AI data centers. Trump claims domestic fossil fuel production is needed to keep the U.S. ahead of China on AI, even though there is evidence that solar can cost-effectively do the job.

???

is that including the batteries expense to keep the supply constant , servers enjoy 24/7 power input with 99.99% reliability ( AND battery backups for that extra 0.001% )

for solar to cost effectively power all those data centers , that is

China is ramping up coal-fired power plants , traditional nuclear power plants and thorium nuclear power plants to power it's data centers , and just Western boffins think it can be done with solar ( and existing power facilities ) AND is leaps and bounds ahead in battery technology

maybe those Western computers aren't so good , or the West will be running it all on laptops

 

[qldfrog]

???

is that including the batteries expense to keep the supply constant , servers enjoy 24/7 power input with 99.99% reliability ( AND battery backups for that extra 0.001% )

for solar to cost effectively power all those data centers , that is

China is ramping up coal-fired power plants , traditional nuclear power plants and thorium nuclear power plants to power it's data centers , and just Western boffins think it can be done with solar ( and existing power facilities ) AND is leaps and bounds ahead in battery technology

maybe those Western computers aren't so good , or the West will be running it all on laptops

Or AI in the west is only available/cheap between 10am and 3pm daily.
Servers sleeping outside that window

 

[ducati916]

Full:https://www.zerohedge.com/political/might-be-biggest-fraud-history

Strong USD bad for Mag 7:https://finance.yahoo.com/news/risi...donalds-signal-more-pain-ahead-140248076.html



Cannibals are companies with heavy share buybacks, which is another way of saying that they issue their C suite lots and lots of options as alternative to cash salaries. AAPL and AXP are in there.

Politics

​

President Trump signs a proclamation for Gulf of America Day, aboard Air Force One on Feb. 9. Photo: Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images

One of the big reasons President Trump is limiting AP reporters' White House access is to protest what aides see as years of liberal word choices that the wire service's influential stylebook spread across mainstream media, top White House officials tell Axios' Marc Caputo.

• Why it matters: The trigger was the announcement by The Associated Press that it would continue using the 400-year-old "Gulf of Mexico" rather than switch to "Gulf of America," as declared by Trump in a Day 1 executive order. But it turns out that broader underlying grievances made AP a target.

The big picture: By spotlighting AP, Trump is amplifying Republican and conservative criticisms that the AP Stylebook, a first reference for most U.S. news organizations, shapes political dialogue by favoring liberal words and phrases concerning gender, immigration, race and law enforcement.

• "This isn't just about the Gulf of America," White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich told Axios. "This is about AP weaponizing language through their stylebook to push a partisan worldview in contrast with the traditional and deeply held beliefs of many Americans and many people around the world."
• The dispute with AP is part of Trump's broader effort to discredit legacy media outlets and the public's trust in the press — already at a record low.

The other side: AP — which has long been considered the gold standard of neutrality — rejects any accusation of bias. Lauren Easton, vice president of corporate communications, told Axios that AP "is a global, fact-based, nonpartisan news organization with thousands of customers around the world who span the political spectrum."

• "If AP journalism wasn't factual and nonpartisan, this wouldn't be the case," she said.
• Easton said AP provides "guidance on issues brought to us by members and customers, and it is up to them what they choose to use. Again, this is guidance. It's not surprising that political parties, organizations or even individuals may disagree with some entries. The Stylebook doesn't align with any particular agenda."

State of play: After barring AP reporters from covering several events with Trump last week, the White House said Friday that because the wire service "continues to ignore the lawful geographic name change of the Gulf of America," AP slots in the Oval Office and on Air Force One "will now be opened up" to other reporters.

• An AP reporter and photographer were blocked Friday from boarding Air Force One for Trump's weekend trip to Florida.
• The White House said AP journalists "will retain their credentials to the White House complex."

The backstory: AP said in its Jan. 23 "style guidance," released proactively to guide members and customers, that it will refer to the gulf "by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump has chosen. As a global news agency that disseminates news around the world, the AP must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences."

• AP said in the same announcement that it'll follow Trump's executive order returning the name of Alaska's Mount McKinley, which had been changed to Denali in 2015. AP's logic: The peak is solely within the U.S., and "Trump has the authority to change federal geographical names."

Behind the scenes: Five days after AP issued its guidance concerning the gulf name change, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt held her first briefing, and foreshadowed the fight the White House would pick with legacy media.

• "Karoline said she would not lie and that she would call out media organizations who do lie," a Trump adviser said, speaking on condition of anonymity. "And we knew the AP would keep calling the Gulf of America the Gulf of Mexico, and that's misinformation."

To attract maximum attention to his change, Trump signed an order in front of reporters on Air Force One as he flew over the Gulf en route to the Super Bowl on Feb. 9, declaring the "first ever Gulf of America Day."

• Two days later, the White House blocked an AP reporter from an Oval Office event.

Zoom out: Trump allies — including Mike Cernovich, a leading MAGA influencer on X — began attracting the attention of the president's advisers by highlighting longstanding complaints with AP's stylebook guidance. Among the AP guidance that rankles conservatives:

• Warning against "all views" in transgender coverage: AP's "Transgender Coverage Topical Guide" says to avoid "false balance — giving a platform to unqualified claims or sources in the guise of balancing a story by including all views."
• Using the phrase "gender-affirming care": AP says the term, commonly used by advocates and physicians, refers to "a swath of mental and medical treatments (such as counseling, hormones or surgery) that help bring a person's gender expression (such as voice, appearance or anatomy) in line with their gender identity."
• Capitalizing Black but not white for race: AP's stylebook advises that "Black" should be used for racial descriptions while the lowercase "black" is considered just a color. AP says "white people's skin color plays into systemic inequalities and injustices, and we want our journalism to robustly explore those problems. But capitalizing the term white, as is done by white supremacists, risks subtly conveying legitimacy to such beliefs." AP notes that white people "generally do not share the same history and culture, or the experience of being discriminated against because of skin color."
• Describing immigrants: The Stylebook frowns on the term "illegal immigrant" and says to "use illegal only to refer to an action, not a person: illegal immigration, but not illegal immigrant."

The Axios position: We've taken a different approach than many media companies, based on serving primarily a U.S. audience. The government, plus Apple Maps and Google Maps, call it the Gulf of America. For clarity, we call it the "Gulf of America (renamed by the U.S. from Gulf of Mexico)."

• "At the same time," Axios said in a statement Friday, "the government should never dictate how any news organization makes editorial decisions. The AP and all news organizations should be free to report as they see fit."

From JC

​ ​ Monday, February 17, 2025 ​ ​ ​ As more stocks, more sectors and more countries around the world start to participate in this bull market, any of the short sellers who overstayed their welcome are getting blown up. Good. This is a classic characteristic of healthy bull market environments. I would encourage you to go back and study every bull market ever. You'll find that investors who own stocks are much more profitable than those who are selling stocks. It's just math. Here's the thing about short sellers that I think gets forgotten. Short sellers are guaranteed future buyers. Longs are only promising to be future sellers. The thing is that when shorts are getting squeezed, these can become forcedliquidations. And margin clerks don't use limit orders. They'll spray the market, and it will crush you if you're on the wrong side of that. But if you're on the right side - pay day! Here is a list of stocks where short sellers are the most vulnerable to get blown up: ​ The list begins with names that have a high short interest. Then we look at the ones where the number of shares short are exponentially greater than the average daily volume. We call this the "Short Ratio". But then here's the trick. We sort the list by short-term rate of change. Why do we do this? Just because a stock has a high short interest, and/or high short ratio, doesn't mean it's getting squeezed. That just means that it's vulnerable to get squeezed. We sort by that momentum as an indication that the squeeze is already on! Meanwhile, there are segments of global markets that doesn't quite fit the category of a "short squeeze" per se. However, the lack of long exposure in China, combined with the record high short interest, puts China right at the top of our Short Squeeze candidates: ​ And just like we sort our short interest list by short-term momentum, we already know that there's a squeeze happening in China. Not only are investors NOT long China (we know, we have the data), but there are more short sellers in Large-cap China than ever before. And our trades are working. That's how we know these short sellers are getting wiped out. Of the 8 China-related trades that we've put out since the Election, ALL 8 TRADES HAVE AT LEAST DOUBLED IN VALUE!

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Oil News

Europe’s wind generation posted a whopping 16% year-over-year decline, triggering a largely unexpected squeeze on natural gas inventories, however despite huge wind park buildouts globally climate change could make wind generation less efficient over the upcoming years.

- The amplified warming of both land and troposphere, known as wind ‘stilling’, is expected to result in wind speeds slowing down across northern mid-latitude regions such as North America and Europe by some 4-5% between 2021 and 2050.

- With typical lifespans of 20 years, the efficiency of wind turbines in converting wind into electricity tends to be between 30% and 40%, with the Betz Limit setting the theoretical maximum efficiency at 59% (gas combined cycle power plants operate with efficiencies over 60%).

- According to recent studies, the Arctic has been warming four times faster than the tropics over the past 50 years, with the relatively smaller temperature differences triggering weaker winds, further aggravated by increasing ‘surface roughness’ coming from urbanization.

Market Movers

- US shale oil firm Diamondback Energy (NYSE:FANG) agreed to buy parts of EnCap-backed oil producer Double Eagle IV for $4.08 billion, adding some 40,000 net acres in the core of Midland.

- Brazil’s state oil firm Petrobras (NYSEBR) reported a new oil discovery to the west of the Buzios field, drilling to a pre-salt depth of 5,600m and adding to the oil field’s 11.3 billion boe reserves tally.

- US oil major Chevron (NYSE:CVX) has finally received government approval for its $4 billion Aphrodite gas project in offshore Cyprus, opting for a floating production facility and a gas pipeline to Egypt.

Tuesday, February 18, 2025

Ukraine’s drone strikes on Russian pipeline infrastructure, somewhat ironically carrying Kazakh crude oil to the Black Sea, have set a bullish tone for this week as the Monday settlement of ICE Brent climbed back above $75 per barrel. However, there seems to be no upside beyond that as US-Russia negotiations on a potential end to the Ukraine conflict could de-risk Russian supply over the upcoming months.

Drone Attacks Disrupt Kazakhstan Production. A Ukrainian drone attack damaged a pumping station on the CPC pipeline that carries Kazakh crude oil through the territory of Russia, with the operator suggesting some 400,000 b/d of production would need to be cut for the next 1-2 months.

Ukraine Rejects US Rare Earths Bid. According to the Financial Times, Ukraine has rejected a bid by the Trump administration for the US to own 50% of the country’s rare earth minerals, with Kyiv saying any US and European guarantees need to be tied directly to mineral resource deals.

US Fund Builds Up Italian Biofuels Stake. Global equity fund KKR (NYSE:KKR)signed an agreement with Italian oil major ENI (BIT:ENI) to buy an additional 5% stake in the company’s biofuel business Enilive for $615 million, bringing its total stake to 30% in the new venture that’s valued at $13 billion.

South Africa Flaunts Russian Nuclear Investment. Amidst a deepening rift between South Africa and the United States, the South African government announced its plans to add 2.5 GW of nuclear capacity to tackle the country’s electricity outages, leaving the door open for Russian bids.

LNG Carriers Return to the Red Sea. For the first time since the Houthis’ maritime offensive started in October 2023, a non-Russian LNG carrier braved a Red Sea transit with the unloaded Liberian-flagged Trader III ship moving to Asia after discharging a cargo in Turkey.

Kurdish Export Resumption Back on the Agenda. Iraq’s Oil Ministry stated that oil exports from Iraqi Kurdistan could resume as soon as next week, but Baghdad’s ongoing $1.5 billion arbitrage with Turkey and Baghdad’s shaky OPEC+ compliance could derail the return of that 300,000 b/d of oil.

Japanese Companies Want More US LNG. Australia’s energy firm Woodside Energy (ASX:WDS) has reportedly held talks with Tokyo Gas, JERA, and Saudi-backed MidOcean Energy to sell 50% of the first phase of its 27.6 mtpa Louisiana LNG project, expected to cost around $16 billion to build.

Venezuelan Production to Hit 7-Year Highs. President Trump’s constructive attitude vis-a-vis Caracas has allowed Venezuelan output to rally, led by Chevron’s (NYSE:CVX) projects as Petropiar is set to reach 143,000 b/d in output this month whilst Petroboscan climbed to 101,000 b/d.

European Diesel Prices Signal Tightness. Europe’s ICE gasoil diesel futures hit the steepest backwardation since March 2024, with the M1-M2 spread rising to $14 per metric tonne as the March contract trades around $720/mt, prompted by tight US diesel stocks and cargo divertions there.

Iraq Eyes First Ever LNG Import Terminal. The government of Iraq plans to build its first LNG import terminal in Basrah, with a 40km pipeline set to connect it to the country’s power grid, a move prompted by a recent halt in Tehran’s gas deliveries to Iraq amidst higher Iranian domestic demand.

Glencore Rejects Congo Takeover Bid. Global trading firm Glencore (LON:GLEN) disclosed that it had rejected an unsolicited approach for its mining operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo at the end of 2024, with rumors suggesting Middle Eastern buyers would be keen to expand there.

Algeria Pushes Back 2025 Bid Round. Algeria’s hydrocarbon regulator Alnaft has extended the deadline for its 2025 licensing round by three months to 17 June, allegedly to allow companies that expressed interest late to submit their bids with 5 out of 6 offered blocks containing gas discoveries.

Nigeria Boasts of Lower Oil Theft. Nigeria’s upstream regulator said that oil production losses from theft have plunged to less than 5,000 b/d, a mere fraction of the 150,000 b/d that was siphoned off from producers back in 2018, claiming some 1,861 illegal pipeline connections were removed last year.

​ After a painful bear market, China was one of the most crowded shorts heading to 2024. However, it outperformed the S&P 500 last year and is dominating again in 2025. Over the past year, the China Large Cap ETF ($FXI) has gained more than twice as much as the S&P 500 (+61% vs. +25%) ​

Europe

​ ​

Trans-Atlantic Rupture​ You know a big geopolitical event when you see it, and last week’s speech by US Vice President JD Vance to the Munich security conference was one of them. You can read it all here, and view it here. This was the most important line: The threat that I worry the most about vis-à-vis Europe is not Russia. It’s not China. It’s not any external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within — the retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. He made various complaints about free speech and cultural issues in Europe, not all of which were wholly accurate. Some disagreement on cultural issues is inevitable; some dislike US book bans, for example. But the idea that an American administration would say these were more dangerous than a nuclear-armed Russia currently waging a war in Europe and that murders political dissidents with impunity horrified the audience. Former UK Prime Minister John Major, a Conservative euro-skeptic, said this to the BBC: It’s extremely odd to lecture Europe on the subject of free speech and democracy at the same time as they’re cuddling Putin. In Mr. Putin’s Russia, people who disagree with him disappear, or die, or flee the country, or — on a statistically unlikely level — fall out of high windows somewhere in Moscow. Quite. Such a speech has been unthinkable for the last 80 years, thanks to the trans-Atlantic alliance. Europe must now assume that that’s over. Even NATO itself is called into question. Blunt barely describes it. Photographer: Alex Kraus/Bloomberg The repercussions are already spreading. Europe is now under pressure to nominate its own envoy for Ukraine peace talks; leaders are discussing a common defense policy (and starting at least a decade late); the US appears to have made the crucial concessions that Ukraine doesn’t regain its borders and stays out of NATO. Europe is now bracing for the possibility of paying a potential bill to put Ukraine back together that could come to $3 trillion. Postwar reconstruction proved to be a boon eight decades, but they won’t have a Marshall Plan to help this time. Given all this, it’s startling to see that European stocks have beaten the S&P 500 by almost 10% since Christmas: The shock administered by Trump’s election has now been completely reversed, although Europe is still suffering from the political quagmire in France. It helped that European stocks started cheap, but Andrew Lapthorne, chief quantitative strategist at Societe Generale SA, shows that this is more than a rebound for the cheapest; it’s a broad-based rally: This seems delusional at first, but there is at least one obvious beneficiary — the European arms industry. EU politicians are in discussions to improve their defense, while there are even proposals to allow common European borrowing on weaponry. If Europe is indeed going to divert spending from butter to guns, then buy European arms-makers. That’s certainly the judgment at present, as they’ve outperformed the Magnificent Seven since Election Day. It’s an ill wind, but it’s made European arms one of the hottest sectors on earth: Higher defense spending cuts both ways. It more-or-less forces increased government borrowing. That in turn could mean higher bond yields and less spending on everything else. It does, however, seem a good bet that the spending commitments will benefit stocks at the expense of bonds. Likely monetary easing and US tariffs could counteract this, but European equities have performed far less well compared to bonds than their US counterparts: The effect of the Vance shock can be overstated. Europe’s defense spending has been increasing markedly since Trump 1.0, as this chart by Mark Wall of Deutsche Bank AG demonstrates: The EU may still be short of its 2% target, but the Trump foghorn diplomacy has had quite an impact, even during the Biden interlude. Weapons expenditure has trebled since 2018, a shift that can also presumably be attributed to Vladimir Putin: Previous periods when European nations upped their spending on arms didn’t end well. That is the risk that the US seems to ready to accept. For now, the message is to buy stocks, particularly in defense, and sell bonds. ​ ​ Over to Germany​ This weekend’s German elections are the next critical development. The center-right Christian Democrats under Friedrich Merz will likely win, with the anti-immigration Alternative für Deutschland on course for second with about 20%. Vance chided German parties for excluding the AfD from government, prompting unified opposition from them. But asylum seekers are a huge issue for voters, as BCA Research’s Matt Gertken demonstrates: Source: BCA Research Vance is right that German voters care a lot about this. But the “never again” policy of refusing to deal with far-right parties has deep roots in the mistakes of 1933. If a party like the AfD wants power, it will need to get 50% of the vote, and German electors are probably happy with that. But with 20% of seats in the legislature, it limits others’ room for maneuver while its growth forces other parties to adjust, particularly on migration. AfD’s performance now grows even more important. The bigger their vote share, the harder it is for the German and European establishments to maintain a united or coherent policy. If they do well enough so that the big two traditional parties cannot form a coalition on their own but need to take on a partner from their left, the next government will be fragile. Vance’s speech (followed by meeting the AfD’s leader, but not current Chancellor Olaf Scholz) was seen as a deliberate attempt to help this happen. Demonstrators protest against the AfD. Photographer: Krisztian Bocsi/Bloomberg But you never know how such interventions will work out. In April 2016, ahead of Britain’s referendum on EU membership, President Barack Obama gave a speech in London encouraging the country to stay. His language and demeanor were more courteous than Trump’s or Vance’s, but the bottom line was similar — bad consequences on trade if Britons didn’t do what he wanted: Maybe some point down the line there might be a UK-US trade agreement, but it’s not going to happen any time soon because our focus is in negotiating with a big bloc, the European Union, to get a trade agreement done. The UK is going to be in the back of the queue. Betting markets wrote down the chances that the UK would vote to leave. It didn’t work out that way: Many factors influenced the narrow victory for Brexit, but Leave campaigners talked about Obama’s intervention more than the EU’s defenders did. His speech may even have aided the cause of Brexit. Like the British, German voters probably dislike being told what to do by a US president. They now have a choice between rebuking their own establishment, or the new team in Washington. A Rough Guide to Geopolitical Shocks​ Geopolitics matters to markets, a lot, in the long term. In the short term, much depends on whether markets were cheap or expensive, while the greatest impacts take many years to play out. Arguably the single greatest geopolitical shift of the last half-century was Chinese accession to the World Trade Organization, largely unremarked in December 2001. For other shocks that we felt at the time, markets didn’t always react: The Berlin Wall Reform had been rising in Eastern Europe for months, but allowing the wall to come down was the unmistakable signal that things had profoundly changed in the Soviets’ Cold War empire and came as a huge surprise. German stocks rallied, but in the US the event had no discernible impact. A year later, with Germany embroiled in unification talks and the world dealing with Saddam Hussein’s occupation of Iraq, the S&P 500 and the DAX were both down about 10%: In the longer term, the fall of the wall was as epochal as it appeared. The “peace dividend” was a key driver of the great 1990s bull market. The price that France exacted for German reunification was the euro, perceived by President Francois Mitterrand as a bulwark to maintain peace. Germany’s own price of reunion, allowing the East to convert money at an absurdly generous exchange rate, drove inflation and contributed to the imbalances that have bedeviled the euro zone for decades. None of this was clear at the time. 9/11 The horrifying 9/11 attacks came as a total shock. It was instantly obvious that they would provoke a response, while the physical destruction guaranteed a swift initial selloff. But markets, even in the US, recovered within weeks. In context, that selloff looks a brief interruption to the steady bear market that followed the bursting of the tech bubble a year earlier: There would have been no US invasions of either Afghanistan or Iraq without 9/11, the deficit would have been far smaller, and there might well have been no President Obama or President Trump. It’s not possible to say how, but history and markets would have been different had those attacks been averted. Iraq’s Invasion of Kuwait This came as a blindside and had obvious implications for the oil price, so it drove a very big selloff. Once Operation Desert Storm had expelled the Iraqis from Kuwait’s territory, the market recovery was all but complete. A year later, developed market stocks were exactly where they’d been before the invasion. This was the rare geopolitical shock that came as a total surprise but could be decisively resolved within months. It might appear to be a template, but is rather the exception that proves the rule. Resolving shocks is usually far messier. Brexit Everyone knew that the referendum would be close, but it was stunning when Britain voted to leave. That prompted a massive sterling selloff, wider market disruptions, and — it turned out — a buying opportunity. A year later, the UK was still in the EU. British stocks, and the S&P 500, were comfortably ahead of where they had been: In the longer term, Brexit hasn’t yet helped the UK economy. The FTSE 250, covering mostly domestic stocks, is up 3% since the referendum in dollar terms, while FTSE’s index for the rest of the world is up 122% and the FT-Wilshire index of 5,000 US stocks is up 188%. Russia Invades Ukraine Russian forces were massed on Ukraine’s border, but the invasion on Feb. 24, 2022, still came as a surprise. Points of Return described it as “the greatest negative shock to the international order since the end of the Second World War,” and European stocks sold off hard. Yet the S&P 500 rose in the next 24 hours, on the basis that Russia would win an easy victory. That was wrong, but a year later European stocks were higher: The invasion still mattered. It ended any hope that the “transitory” rise in inflation could quickly reverse, and the European energy crisis it caused has had immense political and economic repercussions. It certainly contributed to Trump 2.0 and a critical shift in US foreign policy. The financial consequences will be profound, but it’s not clear which sectors and asset classes win from this in the long run. It’s not necessarily wrong for European stocks to gain on recent news, but that tells us nothing about the future.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Europe:

Europe faces two great crises — in the economic and security spheres — that are, ultimately, two sides of the same coin.

Why it matters: Europe has experienced subpar economic growth for a generation, and has underinvested in its own defense. Both problems are coming to a head, with the Trump administration's hostility as the catalyst.

• After decades of underinvestment and sluggish productivity, Europe faces receding U.S. security commitments, new tariffs on its exports, and a regulatory environment that puts domestic companies in a regulatory straightjacket.
• European elites are increasingly acknowledging that a lack of competitive fire, in both the economic and national security arenas, has resulted in overdependence both on U.S. companies to drive innovation and the U.S. government to defend Europe from Russia.

The intrigue: In a high-profile speech in Munich, European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen described a new world — one in which there is a heightened focus on geopolitical conflict and economic security.

• Von der Leyen proposed loosening the continent's fiscal rules to boost defense spending and protect member countries from possible threats from Russia — a rare move, last exercised at the COVID-19 pandemic's onset.
• "I believe we are now in another period of crisis which warrants a similar approach," Von der Leyen said.

Mario Draghi, the former European Central Bank president and Italian prime minister, said EU policies have strangled the economy more than the U.S. tariffs could.

• In an op-ed in the Financial Times on Friday, Draghi wrote that the EU has failed to address supply and demand issues caused by tough regulatory policy and depressed government investment. "Both these shortcomings — supply and demand — are largely of Europe's own making. They are therefore within its power to change."
• "Up to now, Europe has focused on either single or national goals without counting their collective cost," Draghi wrote.
• "But it is now clear that acting in this way has delivered neither welfare for Europeans, nor healthy public finances, nor even national autonomy, which is threatened by pressure from abroad," he continued. "That is why radical change is needed."

What to watch: In an extensive report on the EU's troubles, Draghibacked the idea of the continent borrowing as a whole for economic investment.

• "There are two very large systemic challenges coming down the pike," Heidi Crebo-Rediker, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and former State Department chief economist, tells Axios.
• "It might be easier for Europe to negotiate on tariffs than to agree on a collective borrowing mechanism for the sheer amount of spending they need for their national security in as short an amount of time as possible," she adds.

Trump:

View in browser​

PRESENTED BY WALMART Axios AMBy Mike Allen · Feb 19, 2025
Hello, Wednesday! Smart Brevity™ count: 1,995 words ... 7½ mins. Thanks to Noah Bressner for orchestrating. Copy edited by Bryan McBournie.

1 big thing: Trump's boundary-busting provocations
Photo illustration: Sarah Grillo/Axios. Photo: Rebecca Noble/Getty Images


Whether you admire — or abhor — President Trump's boundary-busting first month in office (today = Day 30), it's important to see with clear eyes what's truly stretching the law and shaking long-held traditions of White House occupants before him, Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen write in a "Behind the Curtain" column.

• Why it matters: As we've written before, every "unprecedented" move becomes a new precedent for future presidents. Trump supporters should expect Democratic presidents in the future to use the same new tactics and legal interpretations against them. So understanding each move matters.

The big picture: U.S. presidents face very few restraints. They're free of conflict of interest laws, enjoy the presumption of immunity in all official acts, and have wide latitude to impose their agenda.

• So it's worth paying attention when Trump says, as he did over the weekend on Truth Social and X: "He who saves his Country does not violate any Law."
• That followed Vice President Vance saying on X: "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Vance's comment is technically correct. But when taken together, the quotes suggest a belief there are few practical or legal restraints on a president. This isn't a new theory: Several Republican-appointed members of the Supreme Court have long held very elastic views of presidential power.
• Also important to note: Trump did promise in the Oval Office, a few days before his post about saving the country, that he'll always abide by court rulings — "and we'll appeal."

So after one month in office and a dizzying amount of rhetoric and real action, what has Trump done that truly pulls America into uncharted waters? (This is our attempt to help readers sift out the hyperbolic reactions, and instead focus on legitimate boundary-busting actions worthy of deeper reflection.)

1. Claiming power clearly granted to Congress. This might seem like a nerdy social studies argument, but it's massive in consequence. The Constitution clearly gives Congress the power to allow and then set spending for the federal government. Take it away, and Congress is left as a weakened branch of government.

On Day 30 of President Trump's term, Jim and Mike list more ways he's moving America into uncharted waters:

4. Empowering Elon. Trump and MAGA supporters love the most inventive business mind of the 21st century rifling through agency budgets and databases to cut spending.

• But Musk and DOGE are deep in uncharted waters by gaining access to personal data, and by operating with minimal vetting. Imagine future presidents letting friends set up inside the government, and secretly get the power to see your most sensitive information while they help govern.

5. Profiting from the presidency. This isn't illegal. But it defies a long history of unspoken presidential behavior. Most presidents avoided any actual — or perception of — commingling of their presidential power with personal business deals. Former President Biden took a public beating from Trump and his supporters after it was revealed Biden's son and brother profited off his name and actions.

• Three days before taking office, Trump launched a cryptocurrency that, on paper, was worth as much as $50 billion for the Trump family, depending on how you count coins not yet released to market. (Most of the meme coin's value has been erased since then.) No limits keep foreign leaders, or anyone seeking influence, from buying coins to benefit the Trump family.
• As The New York Times reported this week, Trump held an Oval Office meeting to help boost a merger between the PGA and LIV pro golf behemoths. Trump's family is a major LIV financial partner.

6. DOJ dictates. Trump supporters seem jazzed by, or at least cool with, more than a half-dozen seasoned Justice Department lawyers quitting instead of helping to kill the corruption indictment of New York Mayor Eric Adams. Trump apparently wants to free Adams to help the administration crack down on immigration, which he can't do from court or jail.

• This specific case is unprecedented on its face. This many top U.S. lawyers quitting en masse hasn't happened since the infamous "Saturday Night Massacre" under President Richard Nixon 51 years ago. It begs the question: Will MAGA be cool if the next Democratic president forces Justice officials to do his or her bidding — or quit?

Reality check: Trump has every right to do and say everything unfolding overseas, from taunting Canada to belittling Europe to freezing Ukraine out of his war negotiations.

• All presidents are free to conduct foreign policy as they see fit. He can also rid his government of DEI staff and offices, and fire as many unprotected government workers as he chooses. There's a difference between shattering expectations and shattering laws.

What they're saying: Alex Pfeiffer, White House principal deputy communications director, told us everything Trump is doing is democratic — "in fact, the most democratic thing possible. President Trump won the election, made promises in the election and is enacting those promises."

• "Elon is a White House employee," Pfeiffer added. "He and political appointees act on behalf of the president to do the things voters voted for. ... Letting bureaucrats run everything is the opposite of democracy."
• "President Trump is restoring control to the people ... swiftly enacting what was voted on," Pfeiffer continued. "And that is as democratic as it gets."

Our thought bubble: Axios tries to cover Trump's actions seriously and clinically without overreacting to random social media posts, given his penchant for ephemeral provocation.

• Our aim: Arm readers with facts and context for making sense of the velocity of news and change.

The bottom line: The first Trump term seemed unprecedented, and sometimes was. This one is authentically unprecedented in totality.

• Trump has dismantled USAID ... moved to shut down the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau ... tried to freeze trillions of dollars in federal grants and loans ... targeted at least 20,000 federal jobs ... and on Tuesday signed an executive order to rein in independent agencies by declaring that "all executive branch officials and employees are subject to his supervision."
• The Supreme Court, one dominated by conservatives in 1975, ruled unanimously that a president couldn't "impound" congressionally authorized funds, as President Richard Nixon had tried to do.
• Congress could stymie presidential actions like this. But this Congress, controlled by Republicans, is ceding its power to check Trump.

2. Rewriting an actual Constitutional amendment. Trump is already locked in a court fight after seeking to unilaterally rewrite — again by executive order — the 14th Amendment, which grants birthright citizenship to those born here.

• Trump wants to exclude babies born to mothers who are in the country without authorization. Four federal judges have blocked this executive order. This one is likely headed to the Supreme Court.

3. Firing watchdogs. President Trump has fired a lot of people fast, following through on a campaign promise. He has wide latitude to staff the federal government as he sees fit.

• But his abrupt sacking of more than a dozen inspectors generals (IGs) appears to violate the law stating he must give 30 days' notice. Again, this might sound nerdy and technical. But IGs were put in place to investigate — independently — "waste, fraud and abuse." Imagine if every new president, instead of leaving experienced IGs in place, simply ousts them and puts in loyalists instead. That is the precedent that could be set here.

The European Financial ETF (($EUFN) broke out to an all-time high for the first time in over a decade today after clearing its 2014 peak. It's up +15.9% YTD, while the S&P 500 is up +4.2%. European Financials have been a serial underperformer since the Great Financial Crisis. After several failed attempts to clear $26, $EUFN is finally emerging from a massive base that dates back to its inception. The top five holdings in $EUFN are HSBC Holdings ($HSBA), Allianz SE ($ALZ), UBS Group ($UBS), Banco Santander ($SAN), and Zurich Insurance Group ($ZURN). The Takeaway: The European Financials ($EUFN) ETF achieved its first all-time high since 2014 today. It's breaking out of a massive base, and the risk is to the upside if it's above $26.

This is what they are scared of:






Article on govt. jobs:https://www.optimisticallie.com/p/governments-are-people-my-friend



DOGE is dangerous:

Because If we cut everything by 10-35% without devaluing the US debt dramatically first (i.e., reval gold & buyback debt), cutting everything by 10-35% is mathematically guaranteed to drive a decline in GDP & a blowout of the deficit from 7% of GDP today to 12-15% of GDP after the cuts. This is a problem.


More DOGE:

For more than a century, Congress has entrusted many policy areas to agencies that the president does not directly control. President Trump, with an executive order last night, seeks to change that. Why it matters: The order claims direct presidential authority over the work of federal boards and commissions designed by Congress to operate without day-to-day oversight by the White House, with especially broad implications in the financial regulatory arena. The order, pending legal challenges, creates more White House control of agencies including the FDIC, SEC and CFTC. It covers the Federal Reserve in its role as a regulator of the banking system but explicitly carves out its role in setting monetary policy as exempt from new presidential oversight. State of play: Independent agencies are led by presidential appointees who share the president's philosophy. But once installed, they are generally left to lead as they see fit. They oversee the writing of regulations and the enforcement of rules while, in many cases, navigating the politics of multimember boards with appointees from both parties. The idea is that agencies act on the president's big-picture agenda, but that day-to-day agency decisions — how to regulate bank capital levels, for example, or which securities fraud cases to bring — are insulated from politics. Driving the news: Trump seeks to upend all of that. The order states that these agencies' ability to exercise independent authority "undermine such regulatory agencies' accountability to the American people and prevent a unified and coherent execution of Federal law." The order requires previously independent agencies to submit all proposed regulations to the White House's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs first. It states that the director of the Office of Management and Budget will set performance standards and objectives for independent agency heads, and adjust their budgets, including stopping them from spending money on particular activities. What they're saying: "Congress and presidents of both parties have created regulatory agencies structurally independent of the president because the bipartisan consensus for generations has held that this was in our economic interest," Aaron Klein, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, tells Axios. "This executive order upends that multigenerational bipartisan consensus." Between the lines: The order turns' the OMB director into a kind of uber-regulator, with power over agency heads across the government, including those that historically operated with little White House meddling. The intrigue: Trump's leaving the Fed's monetary policy decision outside the purview of the new order is a relief for believers in the importance of separating control of the money supply from politics. But it doesn't answer some tricky questions around where the new presidential authority over the Fed's regulatory apparatus ends and its continued independence on monetary policy begins. Some major Fed functions, including its control of the payments systems that route trillions of dollars between banks, and its lender-of-last-resort function to protect against bank runs, are at the intersection of bank regulation and monetary policy.

On a positive note:



Inflation has it's winners. Just not the little guy.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Trump:

President Trump's first month of his second term has exceeded the wildest dreams of his most loyal supporters, and the darkest nightmares of his fiercest detractors, Axios' Zachary Basu writes.

• Why it matters: Both groups can agree that the America Joe Biden left behind at noon on Jan. 20 is no longer recognizable — erased in four frenetic weeks by an empowered, implacable and historically popular MAGA presidency.

Like Trump 1.0, the firehose of news and norm-busting behavior is — and will continue to be — the defining feature of this administration.

• Unlike Trump 1.0, the chaos is calculated — and explicitly designed to institutionalize MAGA, paralyze the president's enemies and permanently break the Washington establishment.

Zoom in: Above all else, Trump's first month has been dominated by his war on the federal bureaucracy — and his various efforts to probe, prod and blow through the limits of presidential power.

• The White House's early attempt to freeze federal funding has set the stage for a massive legal fight over Congress's "power of the purse," which is laid out in Article 1 of the Constitution.
• Elon Musk and his DOGE allies are slashing and burning their way through government agencies.
• The rapid dismantling of USAID and the government-wide assault on DEI have sent clear signals that any programs misaligned with Trump's MAGA will be on the chopping block. The Education Department could be next.
• At the Justice Department, the purging of career prosecutors and FBI agents punctured any veneer of independence from the White House.

Data: FiveThirtyEight. Chart: Axios Visuals
Between the lines: The shock treatment of the U.S. government by Trump and Musk has overshadowed the two huge issues that dominated the 2024 campaign — immigration and inflation.

1. On immigration, Trump has moved with lightning speed to enforce his promise of a sealed border.

• Arrests from border crossings plummeted to 21,593 in January — down from 47,316 in December, and an all-time high of 250,000 in December 2023. "Call it the Trump Effect," the White House said.
• Trump's goal of deporting millions of undocumented immigrants has proven more difficult, with the pace of operations stalling because of a lack of funds, officers and infrastructure.

2. "Inflation is back," Trump acknowledged in an interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity this week. "I had nothing to do with it," Trump argued, pinning the blame on Biden.

• Despite promising to "end inflation" starting on Day 1, Trump is right that the effects of his policies won't show up immediately.
• The danger: Trump's sweeping use of tariffs is injecting deep uncertainty into global markets, and could turn inflation into a long-term feature of the U.S. economy.

What to watch: With the dust still settling on America's new normal, Congress soon will move to codify vast swaths of Trump's agenda.

• With a razor-thin majority in the House, Trump's vision for "ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL" is a huge gamble — but one that would clear the way for a historic, and enduring, reordering of the American economy.

Inflation:

Bond markets are betting that inflation will stay elevated in the years ahead, and some evidence from business surveys and forecasters points in the same direction. Why it matters: This belief suggests the Trump administration and the Federal Reserve face a headwind in securing a return to low inflation — concerns that have escalated just in the last few weeks, as the president has threatened tariffs on a variety of U.S. trading partners. State of play: The gap between interest rates on standard U.S. Treasury securities and inflation-protected bonds gives a window into how much bond investors expect prices to rise in the future. That gap, known as the breakeven rate, has been on a tear in recent weeks. Bond prices now imply 2.7% annual Consumer Price Index inflation for the next five years, up from 2.4% at the start of 2025 and 1.95% as recently as last summer. The only times five-year breakevens have been higher, in a data series that dates to 2003, were during the peak of the 2022 inflation surge and a brief period in 2005. There are hints in surveys that it isn't just bond traders who are revising their inflation outlook. The Philadelphia Fed's survey of manufacturers in its region showed that indexes for input prices and prices they can charge both rose to their highest levels in more than two years. The New York Fed's survey of manufacturers showed the same. The median professional forecaster upped its projection of 2025 CPI inflation to 2.8% from 2.4% three months ago, per a separate Philly Fed survey. Between the lines: The Fed will be reluctant to cut interest rates again if the higher inflation expectations look to become more widespread and entrenched. Yes, but: Longer-term measures of inflation expectations look less worrying. The bond market breakeven for annual inflation, in a window of five to 10 years from now, is down slightly this year — at levels consistent with the Fed's 2% target. Reality check: The simmering inflation occurs against a general backdrop of business optimism for growth. CEOs are broadly bullish on the outlook for the years ahead, and the stock market is scraping new highs. The Conference Board's survey of CEO confidence, released this morning, rose to its highest level in three years. The improvement "was significant and broad-based," Stephanie Guichard, a senior economist at the Conference Board, said in the release. "CEOs were substantially more optimistic about current economic conditions as well as about future economic conditions — both overall and in their own industries."

DeepSeek:

DeepSeek’s square-up with Nvidia was much like the biblical story of David and Goliath, in which diminutive and inexperienced shepherd boy beats the giant. But it looks like Goliath wins this one. Barely a month ago, after Nvidia Corp.’s share price plunge had erased almost $600 billion from its market cap, there was a sense that the Chinese startup had sprung a David-esque upset. But since then, Goliath, in the form of Nvidia and an army of mega tech platforms and other companies that stand to profit from the AI boom, have pushed back hard. They’ve now regained nearly all their lost ground. Questions about exactly what rosy assumptions are embedded in the exorbitant high valuations of Nvidia and the rest of the Magnificent Seven have returned as though they never went away:


There were initial claims when the DeepSeek whale struck that the AI bull market was over, and that there would be a durable collapse in valuations, but this wasn’t universal. During the market selloff, Louis Navellier, a veteran growth investor and unapologetic bull on Nvidia, suggested that the startup’s ascendance “may not persist” — describing as improbable DeepSeek’s claims that its AI models are energy efficient. Since then, he’s posted a podcast alleging that the DeepSeek app no longer works.

Meanwhile, mega tech companies largely stuck to their commitments on massive AI infrastructure investments, reassuring the market. Marta Norton, chief investment strategist at Empower, says the selloff wasn’t anything other than flipping on the sidewalk and standing back up. It turns out that it’s not enough to drive a repricing of the value proposition of the companies leading the AI charge:

When you look at how the DeepSeek narrative was so quickly rewritten, the first reaction was about efficiency and how models can be done with less. That was overtaken by the narrative that it was driven by both investors and by big tech, which was to say, this is a demand issue and this is suggestive that the demand is gonna be so big that we have to move. And so the capex not only stayed the same but accelerated.

Utilities pared their losses, as DeepSeek did little to alter the conviction that data centers powering AI models would make big demands for electricity. Bloomberg Intelligence’s Nikki Hsu notes that regulated electricity utilities have gained momentum as investors reassess possible demand from data centers and the valuations they put on power producers. Consequently, the S&P 500 utilities sector is back above its level from before DeepSeek. More remarkable is the record surge in the Global X Data Center and Digital Infrastructure ETF, which has climbed to its highest since its debut five years ago:


If it’s easier than we thought to build an AI model, the thinking appears to be, then there could be even more data centers. And there is no evidence as yet of any dip in power demand post-DeepSeek. If anything, Hsu notes that most utilities have used their fourth-quarter earnings calls to increase their projections for data center load growth, and give details on the extra demand coming in the pipeline.

But tech valuations remain very high, and must be vulnerable to more “DeepSeek” incidents that call their narrative into question. Norton argues that valuations make sense “if we assume that all the capex is properly allocated and it builds something incredible.” If the capital turns out to be poorly invested, however, the current share prices will look overblown and need to come down a lot.

As recovery from the DeepSeek rout continues, the wake-up call shouldn’t be forgotten. The US leads the race, but it’s not out of reach as was previously imagined. Competition from places like China can only intensify, especially as Chinese tech firms, despite their massive potential, haven’t benefitted from the AI hype as much as elsewhere. Capital Economics’ James Reilly argues:

DeepSeek’s success suggests that catching up to the technological frontier in AI may be easier for China than we expected. So even if Chinese firms remain followers rather than leaders in cutting edge AI as we expect, there is still scope for a positive re-rating of Chinese AI innovators. A more positive outcome where Chinese become the leaders presumably merits some discounting in markets too.

For now, US tech has repaired much of the damage done by the whale that suddenly appeared in its moat.


Strazza:

They said it was game over for these stocks.

They’ll never see those valuations again.

They are just stories. They don’t have profits.

They can’t survive a rising rate environment.

We’ve heard it all about speculative growth stocks over the past few years.

Cathie Wood and the entire ARK Invest strategy has been lambasted by the media.

You’ve seen the cover stories. They tried to destroy her.

But Cathie’s ARK didn’t wreck. It survived the storm.

And I think it’s bigger than that. I think the most speculative, highest risk, longest duration equities are about to have their time in the sun again.

Everything I’m seeing suggests we are entering that part of the cycle where the worst stocks become the best stocks.

The animal spirits are living it up out here these days. Here’s how I know.


This is a fresh trend reversal for the flagship ARK fund. After 3 years we can finally say the path of least resistance is higher for these stocks.

We’ve always used the ARK funds as our main speculative growth information index. We never wavered on this, even when the fund was getting killed at the depths of the 2022 bear market.

Because it’s not about the performance. It’s about what it tells us. It’s not perfect, but Cathie Wood and ARK are the best in the business at picking these stocks. And this is where all the money flows to express this risk-on theme, particularly in the later innings of the cycle.

When these indexes are going up it tells us investors are positioning offensively and embracing an increasing amount of risk. It’s bullish.

Just like these new highs in ARKF:


Or how about ARKW. This one has been the preferred ARK index this cycle. It has led the flagship fund consistently.


But the strongest index in the ark suite has really been space and exploration. That’s true over just about all timeframes too. These stocks are red hot.

Here’s ARKX, the first to make fresh record highs.


And frankly, I think the rest get there before the bull market ends. That means some serious upside from here.

And the best opportunities are in the individual components. We have so many great options. A growing list of ARK-y stocks are completing trend reversals.

That’s my favorite part about this theme. It’s fresh. These are brand-new uptrends. These stocks are in the early innings. We can’t say the same about their large-cap growth counterparts.

So speculative growth is where I think the alpha will be in 2025.

Large and mega-cap, mature growth stocks had their moment. They’ve been the leaders for long enough. There’s a new game in town.

And for all the Cathie haters, I think it’s important to get used to this. You should have seen this coming. Shame on you. It’s not the first time she made a comeback, and it won’t be the last.

The ARK Invest strategy is always going to go big or go home. And it’s by design. It’s not a secret.

These stocks stand to be the biggest victims during bear cycles and the biggest beneficiaries during bulls. It’s just what it is. Don’t take it personally.

As for me, I’m glad to see ARK stocks back on trend. They are fun to trade. They are optionable. They come with big growth stories. And they have some serious beta.

What more could you want? These are ideal bull market vehicles. Learn to love them. They are going to make us a lot of money again this time around.

We’ve been leaning into the spec-tech theme over and over again since last fall. It keeps working, so we keep going back to the well.

Here are some ARK-y names we hit big on already. I’ve unlocked all the original trade idea posts below for educational purposes.

So stuff from yesterday:



Housing is actually a big deal, remember 2008? If you are a bull, you don't want this rolling over.



Fu*king BTC.



I'm still long FXI.

One for @Captain_Chaza



And Mr Saylor:



This ends badly.

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

Crypto:



Full:https://www.zerohedge.com/crypto/bybit-exchange-hacked-over-14-billion-steth-moved


Oil News:

The Tuesday drone attack on the CPC pipeline, Kazakhstan’s key export conduit, has set a bullish tone for this week with four straight daily gains and ICE Brent trending around $76 per barrel. In the United States, rising oil inventories were largely offset by distillate stocks slipping below the 5-year range. Overall, the average February Brent price of $75.50 per barrel is exactly where the current mood lies, indicating a stagnant short-term view.

Trump Expedites Water Permits Across US. Citing its own ‘energy emergency’, the Trump administration has decided to fast-track some 700 water permits across the US, including a tunnel for Enbridge’s Line 5 pipeline, dredging for the Elba Island LNG project and repairs at Sabine Pass LNG.

EU to Slap Sanctions on Russian Aluminium. EU member countries agreed on the 16th sanctions package against Russia, including a ban on primary aluminium imports, sales of gaming consoles to Russia as well as adding 73 so-called shadow fleet tankers to Brussels’ list of sanctioned ships.

Oil and Biofuels Industries Join Forces on Mandates. The US oil industry, represented by the API, and biofuel interest groups joined ranks in demanding higher renewable biofuel mandates from 2026 and beyond, leaving behind decades of disputes as they jointly oppose the proliferation of EVs.

Russia Extends Gasoline Export Ban. Following a string of recent Ukrainian refinery drone strikes that culminated with this week’s attack on the 150,000 b/d Syzran refinery, Russia’s Energy Ministry has extended its gasoline export ban for another six months starting in March, exempting only producers.

US Oil Major Eyes Chile’s Lithium Bounty. US oil major ExxonMobil (NYSE:XOM)is reportedly meeting Chilean government officials over the upcoming weeks, expressing interest in developing lithium projects in the country as it sees parallels between conventional drilling and direct lithium extraction.

Barrick Ends Months-Long Mali Dispute. Canada’s gold mining giant Barrick Gold (NYSE:GOLD) signed a new deal with the Malian government over its projects in the West African country, ending a two-year dispute that involved employee arrests and paying $438 million to Bamako as compensation.

Saudi Aramco Seeks New Retail Markets. Saudi national oil company Saudi Aramco (TADAWUL:2222) has agreed to purchase a 25% stake in Philippine fuel retailer Unioil, marking its return to the East Asian market, some 17 years after it sold its 40% stake in the country’s only refiner Petron.

Oxy Ends Years of Profits with Q4 Loss. Dragged lower by weak chemical and midstream results, US oil major Occidental Petroleum (NYSE:OXY) posted a rare loss of $297 million in Q4 2024 after the Houston-headquartered firm allocated $1.1 billion to an environmental liability increase that it disputes in court.

Brazil Launches Giant Licensing Round. Brazil’s oil and gas regulator ANP has opened up 332 blocks in both onshore and offshore basins as part of its next licensing bid round, with licences to be offered as concession contracts with lower royalty rates to finally bolster waning exploration activity.

Midstream Developers Mull New Deepwater Port. Coming only days after Enterprise (NYSE:EPD) shelved its SPOT project, US midstream firm Sentinel Midstream announced that it intends to take a final investment decision on its Texas GulfLink deepwater port in Freeport, the first onshore port to load a VLCC.

Mystery Tanker Attacks Scare Shippers. Four tankers have been hit with inexplicable explosions in 2025 to date, with Greek shipper Thenamaris reporting an incident this week with a blast on its Seajewel tanker docked in Italy’s Savona, all linked by the ships sailing to Russian ports prior to being attacked.

South Korea to Build Two New Nuclear Plants. The government of South Korea finalized a new energy strategy that should lift the share of nuclear energy in the country’s energy mix to 35.2% in 2038 from 30.7% last year, envisaging the construction of two additional large-scale plants with 3.5 GW capacity.

Colombia Posts Much-Needed Reserve Boost. Colombia’s state oil firm Ecopetrol (NYSE:EC) reported 260 million barrels of new reserves discovered in 2024, finally posting a positive reserve replacement ratio of 104%, however, the 1.88 billion boe in its portfolio still equals only 7.6 years of consumption.

Tariff Fears Lift Gold to Another Record. Trump’s latest tariff-slapping frenzy that put cars and semiconductors at the forefront of discussion has triggered another rally in gold prices, with the bullion hitting an all-time high of $2,955 per ounce this week and being up 12% since the beginning of 2025.


More Trump:

Since Trump's executive order claiming new power over historically independent federal agencies this week, Fed watchers have been trying to parse what it means for America's central bank.

• Some answers can be found in the law that created the Fed, plus a legal footnote.

Why it matters: The Fed's independence from direct political influence is more deeply established in law and precedent than some of the discussion around Trump's assertion of power might suggest.

Catch up quick: This week's executive order states that independent agencies must submit proposed regulations to the White House for approval and have their leaders accountable to the Office of Management and Budget's director.

• The OMB director is also granted the authority to withhold funding from agencies to ensure they are complying with the president's agenda.
• The order did carve out the Fed's monetary policy responsibilities as exempt from White House control — though as a choice by Trump, not a constraint under law.

Yes, but: The Federal Reserve Act — passed by Congress 112 years ago and amended many times since — describes clear authorities for the Fed's Board of Governors, making no mention of White House review.

• "The Board shall determine and prescribe the manner in which its obligations shall be incurred and its disbursements and expenses allowed and paid," says Section 10 of the law. Translation: The Fed sets its own budget.
• The law lays out a series of authorities held by the board, sets the structure of hybrid public-private reserve banks across the country, and empowers the Federal Open Market Committee to set monetary policy.

State of play: Trump's executive order is based on a constitutional argument — "Article II of the U.S. Constitution vests all executive power in the President," says a White House fact sheet, "meaning that all executive branch officials and employees are subject to his supervision."

• If the administration seeks to deploy this constitutional argument to override the Federal Reserve Act and Fed leadership defends its legal prerogatives, it would set up a collision course at the Supreme Court.
• Then the question becomes, "What would the court do?"

The intrigue: Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that the unusual funding structure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — receiving funds from the Fed rather than Congressional appropriations — is unconstitutional.

• In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito included a footnote differentiating the CFPB structure from that of the Fed.
• The Board "is a unique institution with a unique historical background," dating to the founding of the republic. Its structure is the result of decades of financial panics in the 19th century and an "intensely-bargained compromise" between those who wanted a private system versus one under government control.
• Therefore, Alito wrote, "the funding of the Federal Reserve Board should be regarded as a special arrangement sanctioned by history."

The bottom line: As of nine months ago, one of the Supreme Court's most conservative justices seemed to view the Fed's unusual structure and independence from the rest of the government as passing constitutional muster.




Fund managers are pretty much ALL IN.


Trump and Ukraine:

Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky angered President Trump so much during the peace talks with Russia that Trump was on the verge of withdrawing American military support from Ukraine, three U.S. officials familiar with the discussions tell Axios' Marc Caputo.

• Why it matters: The conflict between Trump and Zelensky escalated into a war of words between the two. It scared European allies who worry about emboldening Russian President Vladimir Putin and rewarding his brutal expansionism.

The big picture: Trump and Zelensky have had an awkward relationship ever since Trump was impeached in 2019 for trying to leverage U.S. military aid to the war-torn country, in return for Zelensky having Joe Biden's son investigated over his sinecure with a Ukrainian gas company.

• Today, Trump is finding it more difficult than expected to make good on his pledge to quickly implement a deal to end the Russia-Ukraine war.

Six administration officials tell Axios that during the past nine days, there were five incidents that angered Trump, Vice President Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Mike Waltz.

1. Feb. 12: Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent met Zelensky in Kyiv to offer a proposal that would give the U.S. access to Ukrainian mineral rights in return for de facto U.S. protection. Trump later told reporters Zelensky was "rude" and delayed his meeting with Bessent because he slept in.
2. Feb. 14: At the Munich Security Conference, Vance and Rubio met Zelensky to get his approval for the mineral rights deal. But Zelensky surprised the Americans by saying he didn't have the authority to approve it without parliament, the officials said.
3. Feb. 15: Zelensky publicly rejected the offer at the conference. White House sources noted that his remarks to reporters — that the deal was "not in the interests of a sovereign Ukraine" — were markedly different from more positive-sounding comments he'd made on X the day before.
4. Feb. 18: As Rubio, Waltz and presidential envoy Steve Witkoff sat down with Russian negotiators in Saudi Arabia to talk peace, Zelensky criticized the meeting for occurring without Ukraine at the table. An angry Trump lashed out at Zelensky, falsely suggesting Zelensky had started the war with Russia and had an approval rating of only 4%.
5. Feb. 19: Zelensky fired back, saying the U.S. president "lives in a disinformation space." Trump ratcheted up the pressure by posting on Truth Social that Zelensky, a former actor, was a "modestly successful comedian" who became a "dictator without elections." Trump has refused to criticize Putin as a dictator.

Between the lines: In the White House view, Zelensky grew too accustomed to former President Biden's open-ended support for Ukraine's war effort, the full-throated backing of NATO countries and the positive press that went with it.

• "Zelensky is an actor who committed a common mistake of theater kids: He started to think he's the character he plays on TV," a White House official involved in the talks said. "Yes, he has been brave and stood up to Russia. But he would be six feet under if it wasn't for the millions we spent, and he needs to exit stage right with all the drama."

Another official involved in the negotiations said: "We created a monster with Zelensky ... And these Trump-deranged Europeans who won't send troops are giving him terrible advice."

• The China Large Cap ETF ($FXI) closed at a four-month high today, rising +1.9%. $FXI has outperformed the S&P 500 for six consecutive weeks, gaining +17.4% year-to-date, vs +4.2% for $SPY.
  
• Shorts continue to build despite the recent outperformance. Short interest on $FXI increased from 41.2% last week to 55.5% this week. Jonathan points out that $FXI has returned to the 'Tepper Top' from October.
  
• Legendary investor David Tepper was ridiculed for buying China after rallying +20% in September. However, $FXI was due for a correction; it has fully recovered, and Tepper was quietly doubling down the entire time.
  

The Takeaway: China ($FXI) has outperformed the S&P 500 for six consecutive weeks. Shorts continue to pile in, and we're about to find out if the 'Tepper Top'was really the top.





Rotation into defensives.



Short term, 5 day chart, looking ugly.

In a 6mth timeframe:



Still sitting in a support zone.

All the 'tawk' going forward will be: was that a failed breakout?

The underlying fundamentals of this market are horrible. It should break and break big. Of course that does not mean that it will. It is VERY important to the powers that be, that this market moves higher. Tax revenue depends on this market going higher. If it falls say 20% or more, the deficits will blow out by +/- another trillion or so.

Trump seems to be attacking the Fed. Trump and the Treasury need lower FFR and QE or YCC on the long end. In short, Trump needs high inflation. Which is correct. An out and out default crashes the globe.

jog on
duc

 

[divs4ever]

DOGE is dangerous:

Because If we cut everything by 10-35% without devaluing the US debt dramatically first (i.e., reval gold & buyback debt), cutting everything by 10-35% is mathematically guaranteed to drive a decline in GDP & a blowout of the deficit from 7% of GDP today to 12-15% of GDP after the cuts. This is a problem.

PART of the problem is the GDP calculation itself it has more junk in it than a CDO ( and that was full of junk debt )

now IF DOGE can cut some waste as well as ' GDP ' maybe the debt will grow less viciously , MAYBE encouraging lower interest rates on the way

dangerous , for sure , but doing nothing ( or more of the same ) must end in a fatal outcome , how much of the global economy will go into cardiac arrest IF the US hard-defaults ( it has already soft-defaulted a couple of times in the past )

if the US loses it's AAA status ( as it should have several years back ) who will invest in the US at pitiful rates

 

[divs4ever]

With a razor-thin majority in the House, Trump's vision for "ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL" is a huge gamble — but one that would clear the way for a historic, and enduring, reordering of the American economy.

the problem is Trump might get his "ONE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL" but how many 'earmarks will be taped to it ( and THAT has been a major problem in the US legislature ) to get it through

 

[ducati916]

Interesting end to the week:



I'm hearing Yen carry trade again:




JPM on no news yesterday



And all the banks today



XLF same story



So either they fix this over the weekend or we have a really bad Monday.

That they couldn't hold it today does not bode well. Last time, 1 August 2024, we had issues on the Friday and it got real funky on the Monday. The Fed eventually put swap lines in.

Now Trump via Bessent wants a lower $USD. Are they willing to sacrifice some stock market gains to get a weaker $USD?




LOL. Really?

jog on
duc

 

[ducati916]

• Stocks sold off on Friday, with the S&P 500 ($SPY) and Nasdaq 100 ($QQQ) dropping -1.7% and -2.1%, respectively.
  
• Both indices made record highs earlier this week before Friday's sell-off. This qualifies as a Failed Breakout, or Bull Trap, as it's also called.
  
• Caution is warranted if $SPY and $QQQ remain below their former highs. As the saying goes, "From failed moves come fast moves in the opposite direction."

The Takeaway: After a nasty failed breakout this week, $SPY and $QQQ are vulnerable to further downside in the near term.




Goes part of the way in explaining the failure to make new highs in SPY.



jog on
duc