Individual Economists

Transcript: Bill McNabb, Vanguard former Chairman and CEO

The Big Picture -

 

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Bill McNabb, Vanguard former Chairman and CEO, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

Masters in Business Bill McNabb, former Chairman and CEO, The Vanguard Group
Host: Barry Ritholtz  |  Bloomberg Radio

(00:00:02) Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio, news. This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:16): This week on the podcast, another extra, extra special guest. Bill McNabb was CEO and chairman at the Vanguard Group. He had been with the firm for 30 years, helping to take them up to trillions of dollars. We’ve spoken to him a couple of times in the past.

He discusses his post-Vanguard career, the boards he’s sitting on, all the fintech startups and venture capital he’s working with. I thought this conversation was fascinating, and I think you will also. With no further ado, my sit-down with William McNabb. Bill McNabb, welcome back to Bloomberg.

BILL McNABB (00:00:55): Oh, thanks, Barry. It’s great to be here.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:57): So the last two times you were here, you were running Vanguard Group. I’m curious, how does a guy who rowed at Dartmouth, taught Latin and coached at the Haverford School end up running the world’s largest mutual fund company?

BILL McNABB (00:01:16): So there’s an old saying that it’s better to be lucky than smart.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:21): My mom used to say that to me all the time.

BILL McNABB (00:01:23): And that really did apply. I got very lucky, Barry, in terms of just opportunities that happened to come my way. And I had incredible mentors who sort of helped take those opportunities and make more of them than maybe they would’ve been otherwise. And one thing led to another.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:43): Huh. Really interesting. So teaching Latin and coaching, what does that teach somebody like you about leadership that you were able to apply across three decades at Vanguard?

BILL McNABB (00:01:56): Yeah, I think there were two big things, and I was very fortunate to work for somebody at Vanguard who really lived this, and I’ll come back to that in a second. But the power of “we” versus “I.” I was coaching a rowing team, and no matter how good the individual athletes were, if they didn’t really exist in order to make the boat go faster, you weren’t going to win. And we had to really get that across to people, and that collective drive for success actually is incredibly applicable in the business world. I think the other thing, maybe a little more subtle, is you lead by example. Some of the people who talk about it, they theorize, and all these fancy sayings.

I’d rather just watch somebody do what they do really well. And if they’re building good teams, just that example of how they do it is really worth emulating. I worked for Jack Brennan, as you know, and I think you’ve had Jack on here before as well. And Jack really lived that. For me, when I got to Vanguard, the “we” versus “I” was very apparent in how he was driving the firm, and no one led by example better than Jack.

And when you’ve grown up in that world as a coach and an athlete, and then you get it reinforced professionally early in your career, it becomes a way of thinking.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:24): Yeah. Big fan of Jack Brennan. Loved what he did. When you joined Vanguard in ’86, it was obviously a fraction of where it is today.

It was far less than a trillion dollars. And even in the mid-eighties, I mean, that was the beginning of the bull market that started in ’82. You had Peter Lynch and the Fidelity Magellan Fund. Berkshire Hathaway was on the rise, stock picking was on the rise.

I guess I could say indexing was a fringe idea. What did the firm look like back in the mid-eighties? Did you have any idea what was coming your way over the next couple of decades?

BILL McNABB (00:04:05): This is why I said it’s really better to be lucky than smart. I did not see this incredible explosion coming. What attracted me to Vanguard was I was working here in New York for what’s now JPMorgan Chase, and was getting a little frustrated with a lot of things and decided it was probably time to go. And again, one of my mentors said to me, go find a place where the values match your own.

And when I went in and interviewed with Jack Brennan and then Jack Bogle, I found, it was like, wow, this is so different. And there was tremendous appeal. And so I did it really based on gut and intuition at the time. And so when I interviewed with Jack Bogle, the funny story was, he had data pulled out, a bunch of stuff, and he’s like, we just crossed $15 billion under management and I have no idea how we’re going to get to 20.

So I don’t know why you would come here. You’re doing big things on Wall Street. And I didn’t even really have a response. And then he went on, he goes, but of course, and for the next hour and a half, I got a lecture about everything that needed to change in the asset management business.

I go home and my wife says to me, how’d it go? I said, I don’t know. I didn’t say anything. But she goes, well, what are you going to do?

And I said, well, if he offers me the job, I’m going. Because there was just something there, the passion and the drive and the really contrarian view. So the early days, look, we paid as much attention to active management as Fidelity did. So Fidelity had Peter Lynch in the Magellan Fund.

We had John Neff in the Windsor Fund. Arguably one of the two or three greatest value investors in history. And Jack himself was very much making sure that we were competitive.

Money market funds were just taking off. And we got into the money market fund wars. It’s hard for people to imagine today, but yields were 17, 18% at different times.

And Dreyfus, Fidelity and Vanguard were the three money market fund giants. We each had a couple billion dollars, but everybody was comparing yields. And so active management and the yield on the money market fund in the early days, those were like the big drivers.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:06:22): So my pet thesis, to put this into context: $15 billion in the early eighties, just about $15 trillion today. That’s just a crazy thousand-fold increase. That’s just an insane run. My theory is the late nineties, the scandals, the crashes, the analyst scandal, the accounting scandal, the IPO scandal, all one after another.

I think a lot of people just threw their hands up and said, you know what, just buy me the whole market. Let me know when I have enough to retire. Is that oversimplifying what happened?

Or is that a real factor?

BILL McNABB (00:07:00): So I would say that’s the psychological part of it. There was also the math part of it, which is on an after-tax basis, index funds beat 90% of active equities over any rolling ten-year period.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:15): Anything more than a decade.

BILL McNABB (00:07:16): Anything more than a decade. So if you were a long-term investor and you wanted to win, you indexed. And so it was interesting to me, as a participant in the market, I’d listen to our competitors and they’d talk, well, indexing’s having its moment, but it’s going to cycle out, and stock picking will be back any day. And the math was just overwhelming. And the real reason, and this was Jack Bogle’s, again, oversimplified discussion, but essentially if you have two big parts of the market, one that’s actively managed and one that’s passively managed, they have to add up to the market.

So the average on the active side’s going to be the market, because the index side’s going to be the market. And then you take costs into account, and all of a sudden you’ve got arithmetic working in your favor. So for us, there was this: it’s simple.

It’s easy, it’s low cost, and it works. And I think that was such a powerful thing. And our shareholders, Barry, as you know, because you’ve been a student of the game for so long, they stayed with us way longer than other investors stayed with their firms. On average, I think it was three x.

So the average duration of a relationship was three x that of the industry. That’s an incredible advantage in terms of just how you think about your business.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:43): So you become CEO in August ’08. Two weeks later, Lehman Brothers goes kaput. Remind us what was happening in that era. What was that transition like, stepping into the lead role just as it looks like the world is going to hell, and what was that experience like?

BILL McNABB (00:09:05): Yeah, so look, in the darkest days, I mean, everyone was questioning whether the system would survive. So different than other crises we’ve seen. People really looked at it like, will the market actually survive this? And we had a deep-seated belief it would. And so we kind of had this bifurcated way of looking at the world. Each and every day, what were we doing to better assure our investors that somewhere down the road things would get better and they had to stay the course? Like, the worst thing you could do was to panic, unless you really believed the world was going to end.

So we met twice a day, every morning and every afternoon. And we went through transaction by transaction, fund performance, everything you needed to try to assure our investors. At the same time, we knew that the world was going to be different. Regulation was going to be different, the competitive landscape was going to change, and maybe even some of the business models were going to change. And so we started laying the groundwork for all those changes.

And just to give you a couple of tangible examples, the role of advisors. So at that point in time, the independent advisor channel, which again, you’ve lived this, was a really tiny fraction of advisors. Most of it was the big brokerage firms. And they were primarily commission driven.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:41): Right. All transaction based.

BILL McNABB (00:10:42): All transaction based and essentially conflicted. Because the more you trade, the more money they make, and the more you trade, the more you lose from a performance standpoint. So we believed this would accelerate the move to asset-based fees and that it would be a very different model. The other one for us, we really thought this would accelerate indexing, for all the reasons that you cited earlier in terms of just, hey, it’s safe.

It’s just buy the market. And again, the math was overwhelming. Even during a downturn, stock pickers did not outperform the index.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:11:19): Which is the claim before, right? Just wait till the next downturn and you’ll see how well stock pickers have done.

BILL McNABB (00:11:25): So we started to make moves around those changes. We knew the regulations were going to change a lot. And we also knew the competitive landscape. And frankly, we didn’t get that all right.

We knew somebody would end up with iShares because Barclays Bank was under such duress. I didn’t see BlackRock doing it. I just didn’t anticipate that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:11:50): What a great buy for them.

BILL McNABB (00:11:51): It was spectacular. It was phenomenal. One of the stories we don’t talk much about, we actually were a serious bidder on it until the regulators came in and changed the game. And then we had to back away.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:03): Really? How come BlackRock would be allowed and Vanguard wouldn’t?

BILL McNABB (00:12:07): We were allowed, but they wanted to pair their institutional business with the iShares franchise. We didn’t want anything to do with that institutional business, because we were all mutual fund, retail based. And again, all the credit in the world to Larry Fink and his team and BlackRock for what they did.

But it was interesting. I had a director come to me after all this, and he says, so you’re six months in the job and you come to us about doing our first acquisition ever. It’s a very large check. And over a beer sometime I can tell you about all the nuances that went into it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:28): I’m looking forward to it.

BILL McNABB (00:12:46): It was pretty cool. Yeah. So what does that tell you about ETFs and this advisor channel? And we took that back, and that’s when we really went all in on ETFs and all in on really serving advisors better.

And that was a huge change.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:03): I want to circle back to advice and target date funds, and just stay with ’08-’09 for another moment. The first time you were on, you told a story about how you had figured out how nervous your employees were. Do you recall what I’m talking about?

Remind us of what that environment was, how it was affecting clients and staff, and what your solution to it was.

BILL McNABB (00:13:32): So all of our competitors were laying people off left and right, because transaction volumes had just gone away.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:40): Other than selling.

BILL McNABB (00:13:42): Other than selling, you’re right. The classic mutual fund company in those days was probably 65, 70% equity. And the equity market, peak to trough, was down 50%. So your revenue was down 35%.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:57): I think it was 57, 56, something like that.

BILL McNABB (00:14:00): I think like March 9th, if I recall.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:01): That’s what I recall, exactly right. It was identical to ’73-’74 in terms of the drawdown.

BILL McNABB (00:14:07): So our people were incredibly nervous. People were wondering. So we went to our people, and we got our board’s blessing to do this, and said, there will be no redundancies, no layoffs. All we want you to do is be flexible, and we may need you to move from one role to another, wherever the client demand is and whatever the need is. So we ended up doubling down on service and doubling down on fixing problems. Everybody has service issues.

If we had excess people, we turned them loose on those problems. And the theory was you couldn’t cut your way out of this. And if you had people nervous about their own jobs, how are they going to reassure clients that the world’s not ending? They were going to feel conflicted.

And I think it really worked.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:02): Everybody exhaled. Everybody took a deep breath.

BILL McNABB (00:15:05): And we went all in on educating our clients and people. Our service levels were incredible. We got a lot of positive reinforcement back from the clients. So I think strategically it was one of the most important things we did during that period.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:23): And then out of the depths of the financial crisis, you guys leaned hard into the advisor channel, into building your own advisor space, and then target date funds, which I believe came out of an offsite meeting around the crisis. Tell us a little bit about that redirection, expansion, and the new post-crisis direction for Vanguard.

BILL McNABB (00:15:48): So it really was, we did this very existential exercise with Jim Collins, the great business writer.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:59): Good to Great, is that right?

BILL McNABB (00:16:00): Good to Great. He had done the two books that were really influential on our thinking: Built to Last, how do you build a company that can be a leading company for a hundred years, and then Good to Great. And so we asked ourselves, in order to be great, we thought the first step was, what’s our why? Why do we exist?

We had a mission statement, and it was very long and a lot of adjectives and adverbs. And we took a team, and we mixed the team. It was a couple senior people, but all the way down to the front lines. And we said, come back with why. Why do we exist?

Why do we have a right to exist? And it was really simple. It was: take a stand for investors, treat them fairly, and give them the best chance for investment success. And that latter one in particular, target date funds. You do the math, we could demonstrably show that investors who went in target date funds did better than those who didn’t. Doing our own advice program, low-cost advice that’s tax sensitive, really focused on asset allocation, and very disciplined in rebalancing and not letting people, in a sense, harm themselves.

That’s where advisors add tremendous value. So build that. So these things, Barry, were in a sense logical outcomes. And the target date thing was interesting.

We had people arguing about, well, it doesn’t really take risk into account, just setting a date. And we’re like, every risk quiz I’ve ever seen gets the same answer: moderate.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:44): My experience has been, when you do the risk tolerance surveys with investors, what you really find out is what’s been going on in the market for the past six months. So if it’s doing great, they’re much less risk averse. And when it’s in the crapper, suddenly, no, no, I’m not an adventurous investor, I’m a low-risk investor.

BILL McNABB (00:18:02): So when we really looked at the math, those quizzes were adding no value in terms of the asset allocation decisions we were making. So we were like, just take it out, make it simple. Tell us when you’re going to retire, and that’s the fund we’re going to put you in. And again, you track all this, the performance of those funds versus unmanaged accounts in 401(k)s, it’s superior.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:18:22): There’s a reason that has become the default holding in 401(k)s. Because before that Richard Thaler-driven behavioral change was made, people would just leave money in cash, and when the market would run away, geez.

BILL McNABB (00:18:38): Guaranteed investment contracts and money market funds were the default options of choice. And I started out as guaranteed investment contract product manager at Vanguard. So I knew this world really well. And it’s funny you mentioned Thaler.

So Shlomo Benartzi and Dick Thaler did all of the seminal work on applying behavioral finance to 401(k) plans. We sponsored a lot of their research. And we actually worked with them.

And that really helped us think about automatic enrollment into 401(k) plans, automatic escalation of your contribution.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:10): As your salary increases.

BILL McNABB (00:19:11): As your salary increases. And then the default option being a target date fund.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:15): The more you can automate a process, the less opportunity there is for human bad decision making. And poor intervention.

Totally. So last two Vanguard questions before we move on. So Jack Bogle was at Vanguard pretty much your entire tenure.

What was your relationship like with him? I know he wasn’t necessarily a big fan of things like ETFs or overseas investing. Tell us a little bit about what it was like to work with Jack for 30 years.

BILL McNABB (00:19:48): Jack. I chuckle because I learned so much. One of my early roles, it was my second role at Vanguard, I sort of fell into running product development, which was really: whatever Jack thought up as a new investment product, you went and did the homework and then went and executed. So I got to work with him a lot in those early days.

He was incredibly demanding. Very fair, but incredibly demanding. And I had my share of, do I need to get my resume in order? Because he had, a lot of pen marks on a paper or whatever. But when I became CEO, I got a nice note from him right away.

And then a few months later I got like a 20-page series of things we should be thinking about. And I’d say all well thought out, about half of which I said, nah, we’re going to do something different. But he certainly was not shy. And so you’re right.

ETFs, global funds, international investing in general, he was not a huge fan. However, I had a couple of great people on my staff who just constantly went to see him and talked to him and really took his wisdom. And in the end, if you watch some of his last interviews on ETFs, he’d say, unless you do it like Vanguard does it. And he slowly moved there. I think the other thing, in international, the team in Australia, which was our biggest international presence when I retired, and I think it still is, Jack made a visit there after he’d retired, but he was still running the Bogle Research Center, and it was epic.

They talk about it still to this day, about how impactful it was to have the founder there. And he was so proud that the message was going beyond our borders.

And so, again, there was still—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:22:12): Still no real traction in Europe, starting to lean that way. They have just such a different, I don’t know if it’s the fact that their retirements are more or less covered.

BILL McNABB (00:22:25): State driven, and the banks control everything there for the most part. Although in the UK, we’ve had a lot of success.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:22:32): The UK, yeah. It’s shifting there before everywhere else. So last Vanguard question. I recall just at the tail end of the financial crisis, you guys crossed a trillion dollars, then $2 trillion. By the time you retire, I don’t know if it was four or $5 trillion. It’s a little over five, $5 trillion. My question for you was, your first day of retirement, what was it like waking up saying, I’m not responsible for millions of investors and trillions of dollars?

BILL McNABB (00:23:05): It was big mixed emotion, Barry. So much of my career was spent in front of clients. I helped build our 401(k) business in the early days. So I got out to see employee groups on behalf of the plan sponsors.

So I probably had more direct interaction than anyone had ever had. I missed that a lot. I just had so many incredible experiences and relationships, and I missed our people. One of the great things, both Jack Bogle and Jack Brennan were so good at this, they did not like hierarchy. We didn’t have executive dining rooms and special parking places and all that kind of stuff, because we believed everybody’s job was really important.

And we all used to love to walk the floors and see what people were up to and talk to them. So I missed that, and I missed the clients. But at the same time, the team that was there, I’d worked with most of them for 25 years. I felt good about that team, and it was like, go knock it out of the park.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:24:20): You left the place in good shape. Coming up, we continue our conversation with Bill McNabb, former CEO and chairman of the Vanguard Group, talking about his new roles in the boardroom and working with startups. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Bill McNabb. He is the former CEO and chairman of Vanguard. The firm now runs, I don’t know, is it $14 trillion?

Some wild number. So you step down as CEO at 60 with the firm pretty much running on all cylinders, doing great, great team.

As someone who just went through the process of succession planning, I have to ask you, how did you know it was time to step down? How do you think about doing succession correctly? There are so many examples of firms that get it wrong.

BILL McNABB (00:25:31): So one of the things about this, again, I had a great mentor on this, my predecessor Jack Brennan. Jack retired when he was, I think, 54.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:44): But he stayed as chairman for a few years, right?

BILL McNABB (00:25:46): Just a year. But he had run the firm for 12 years. And I couldn’t believe it when he told me he was going to do this and I was going to succeed him. And I asked him why, and he said, look, somewhere in that 10 to 12 year range, if you’ve done a decent job, people stop pushing you and they stop questioning you, because you’ve been right more than you’ve been wrong.

And he goes, that’s not healthy. And the ability to reinvent the firm or to really push for innovation gets harder, because you really need a collective wisdom to do that. And that’s where the art is, Barry. But I felt like the team was really strong.

I was seeing signs. We’d had a lot of success. So I was seeing some of those signs, and it was, okay, time to let a new generation see what they can do, and leave the place in a good spot. And then go.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:26:40): Did you set up like a detailed plan as to your retirement? Or was it just evolving organically?

BILL McNABB (00:26:47): So, a detailed plan as to how we were going to do the transition at Vanguard, and we worked really closely with our board on that. In terms of my own thing, I didn’t want to think about it. I thought I’d wait until I was out.

I had a year where I was board chair still, and I’d originally said I would do that for as long as three years. But after a year it became clear, like, the firm’s really doing great, there’s no need for this. But that year I did a ton of travel for us, all around the world, seeing clients, regulators, whomever. And I also did a lot down in DC, because there was a lot of regulatory stuff going on.

And so I had a lot of travel time. That’s when I started to think about, okay, what am I going to do at this next phase? And I describe this phase as, there’s like three parts to it. There’s family and fun, there’s governance, and then there’s what I call pay it forward: mentoring and helping develop a new cadre of leaders and so forth. And I’ve been, I won’t say systematic, but I’ve tried to be careful.

I’ve probably overcommitted a couple times in different things. But you try to feel your way through that. And the family and fun stuff are the passion things. The governance for me, I had an opportunity to co-write a book on governance with Ram Charan.

And we did the book and we talked to everybody. It was so much fun, talking to Warren Buffett about how does he think about governance. Just incredible. And Dennis Carey was the third co-author, by the way.

So I did that, and that led to co-leading the NACD’s Blue Ribbon Commission on the future of the American boardroom. And I do work with CECP, which is CEOs for Corporate Purpose, Daryl Brewster’s organization, which does incredible work on governance as well. So I had this whole sort of academic thing around governance going on, and then got the opportunity to serve on two very large public boards, where you’re on the other side.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:29:18): So let’s talk about those boards. IBM and UnitedHealth Group, two giant companies, so different, and each going through very different transformations.

How do you shift from being a CEO to being a director, and what can a board actually accomplish other than just responding to crises as they come along?

BILL McNABB (00:29:43): I think there are sort of three broad categories that the board has to lean in on. The hardest thing being an ex-CEO is you’re used to running things, and you can’t do that. There’s a line between management and governance for a reason. And so you try to be very aware of that.

But I think where you can lean in is, if you think about it at the highest level, what you’re doing is you’re allocating capital, and you’re allocating financial capital and human capital. So for us, the way we phrased it, and we did this in our book by the way, we said, look, focus on talent, focus on strategy, focus on risk. And from a governance standpoint, it all sort of boils up to those three things. And how do you help the company think through talent and culture?

Do you have the right people to execute the strategy? Most boards want to go right to strategy, but I think you’ve got to really help the CEO and the C-suite team think about that culture and think about talent. Now, the best companies do this really well. Strategy has really evolved. It used to be, I can remember doing this with the Vanguard board early in my career.

You do a strategic plan, a five-year plan, and it was all written down, and okay, this is what we’re going to do. I mean, you’ve got to be so much more agile now.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:31:25): That’s the great Mike Tyson quote: everybody has a strategy until they’re punched in the nose. It’s got to be applicable to big corporations as well.

BILL McNABB (00:31:34): So in talking about my Vanguard experience, I got it firsthand two weeks in, in 2008. Because we had a plan, and that plan, we just threw it out. And that plan was one of the coolest sets of objectives and things we were going to do differently. Completely off.

Because the world changed. The world totally changed. And so I’ve tried to bring that mentality into the boardroom. And again, I’m very lucky that the two boards I serve on think that way.

IBM has gone through a lot of transformation. Our current CEO, Arvind, he’s really brought a strategic agility into the company. And if you look at the progress the firm has made since he became CEO, it’s really very gratifying. Look, we had a big sell-off last week or two, but we’ll talk about what’s happening in the markets. I think in the long run, what we’re doing strategically makes a ton of sense.

And again, we’re trying to remain very agile.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:42): So let’s stay with IBM, which began as a typewriter company, right? People don’t realize how often IBM, one of the few companies that has successfully pivoted time and again, to mainframes, to PCs, and so now the pivot is to hybrid cloud, AI. When you think about all the different things they’re doing, how do you help oversee this giant business model that’s being rebuilt from the ground up?

BILL McNABB (00:33:16): Look, you try to bring what experiences you have, and you try to ask really good questions. And our board has got a breadth. When you look at the breadth in the board, different people bring different perspectives. So I think when I first came on the board, the idea was, oh, you’re going to bring a shareholder perspective, just the shareholder voice in the room.

And that’s true, but I’m also doing all this work now in the venture world. And so I’m living the AI life big time. I’m seeing the pluses and minuses and everything else. So you try to bring some of that experience.

We’ve got other people who are deep, deep, deep in different elements of technology. We’ve got other people who are really deep in terms of financial services, which is a huge part of our customer base. We’ve got some people who will push on the science. We have a former president of a major university, but her whole background was computer science.

And so when we start talking quantum, her eyes light up, and she can go toe to toe with the research team on the quantum stuff. We’re never going to know as much as the management team and the people on the ground. But if you can ask the right questions, I think that becomes really important.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:39): Let’s talk about your other big company board seat, UnitedHealth. I don’t know any company that’s gone through a rougher stretch due to outside forces. The CEO gets murdered, then there was the guidance issue, big leadership change, the former CEO comes back, Stephen Hemsley, and now they’re in the midst of a turnaround. What is the board’s job in an environment where it’s just one crisis after another?

And nothing that the company has necessarily done. It seems to be almost all random externalities.

BILL McNABB (00:35:16): So this is again going back to that agility thing. A lot of business writers have talked about the need for management teams to have a more venture, more startup mentality, be quick to pivot. Boards now have to be quicker to pivot. So we’ve had to pivot. We’ve had to think about leadership differently. Steve coming back, huge blessing for us that he’s ready and able and willing to do that.

One of the greatest CEOs of our time. Most people don’t know his name, but his ability to see around corners and make hard decisions and then go and execute, it’s incredible. But that wasn’t in the plan, Barry. We had to adjust pretty quickly.

And what you try to do is you try to ask the right questions. You try to probe, you try to be supportive where you need to be supportive, and you try to be challenging where you need to be challenging.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:36:19): So it’s so fascinating to me that you’re on these two giant publicly traded companies’ boards. Vanguard is mutual. They have no outside shareholders. All their mutual fund investors are effectively the owners.

There’s no stock price to worry about. How different is it stepping into this world of public company directors? It seems like such a giant shift.

BILL McNABB (00:36:48): Yeah, it is. And look, I think there are people who in a lot of ways are way more qualified than I am. And you try to be as helpful as you can be. I think the one thing that Vanguard actually really trained me well for was to think long term.

And yet at the same time, our performance was measured every day, every week, every month. So we had this ability to do both. And again, Jack Brennan, Jack Bogle really drilled that into us. And I think our team did it exceptionally well.

The biggest aha is the pressure on the quarter, right? You’re giving guidance. You’re really thinking hard about your earnings calls and so forth. That was a new thing for me.

Because again, I never had to do that. But the analogy is, long-term performance is made up of a lot of short-term performance. So I paid a lot of attention to short-term performance. I didn’t obsess over it, but I paid a lot of attention to it, because cumulatively it leads to long-term.

So I’ve had to bring that same mentality, and I’ve had to learn that here it’s a little bit different, but how to be very focused on quarter by quarter by quarter and what we’re doing and executing. But also the one part I do try to push is, let’s not forget the long term.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:18): So I don’t know anybody that’s either on a board or is an investor that is remotely enthusiastic about, let’s stop reporting quarterly numbers. It seems kind of absurd. But at the same time, there’s an increasing number of companies that say, we don’t know the future. We’re not going to give you guidance. That’s your job as an analyst. Our job is to run the company. Reconcile those two with us.

BILL McNABB (00:38:49): So I think the move away from quarterly reporting is, frankly, a false move. It does not accomplish anything.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:58): I know they tried it in the UK and it did nothing.

BILL McNABB (00:39:01): Did nothing. Could you simplify reporting? Sure. There’s things we do that don’t add any value to the investment community, and simplify it.

I actually think quarterly reporting is very important. I think transparency about what’s happening is incredibly critical. If the regulators were really serious about the issue, guidance is where they would go. They would say, okay, we’re not going to allow guidance.

What’s interesting is, and I would’ve been in that camp 10 years ago. I went into probably a hundred boardrooms my last couple years at Vanguard, because we were the largest shareholder. And people would ask, should we give guidance or not? I’d say, no, you don’t need to give guidance. What you do see, though, is there are situations where the Street gets it so wrong that you’re giving guidance to actually protect yourself from the Street getting it so wrong.

And that’s the part that I’ve had to sort of balance in my own head, because I never really understood that until I was in the boardroom. And then you see the conclusions some of the sell side in particular come to, and you’re like, whoa, that’s not even remotely true. And then you have to guide them. But look, to me, the single biggest thing we could do, whether you give guidance or not, would be to really hold companies accountable for providing long-term outlook.

So what if you took one earnings call a year? I’m making this up, but we’ve talked about this at CECP quite a bit. And you report on the quarter, but you devote it to, here’s where we are against our five-year aspirations, or our 10-year aspirations, whatever the right timeframe is. Here’s how we’re doing.

Here’s, by the way, we told you last year that five years from now we want to do X. The world’s changed a little bit. We’ve got to pivot. So we’re not going to do X, we’re going to do two X. That, to me, would be a lot more productive in terms of getting people to think long term.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:41:14): Hmm. Really interesting. Last question on the boardroom. Are you ever in a meeting where somebody that’s on the board realizes, oh my God, this is the former CEO of Vanguard.

Hey Bill, I got a question on my 401(k). How often does that come up?

BILL McNABB (00:41:33): Actually, it happened a couple times. A couple of my colleagues on different boards were actually big 401(k) clients. So we did have good chats about that, but most of these guys are pretty sophisticated.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:41:47): I can imagine.

BILL McNABB (00:41:48): They don’t need my help.

@BR 00:41:49

Coming up, we continue our conversation with Bill McNabb, former CEO and chairman of the Vanguard Group, talking about startups and the future of advice. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

My extra special guest this week is Bill McNabb, former CEO and chairman at the Vanguard Group, now sitting on a few boards and advising private equity, venture capital and startup firms, which is really quite the pivot, from a mutual fund guy to a VC and PE sort of guy. What attracted you to those fields and some of the younger companies that you’re advising?

BILL McNABB (00:42:49): So two things I would say. One, I had no experience in the private markets. Private markets are growing dramatically. And I just felt like I need to understand this better.

And for me that was the chance to learn something new and hopefully help while you’re doing it. But selfishly, I thought I was going to learn a lot, and I’ve been overwhelmed by how much I’ve learned and how much more I have to learn. Second, during my last couple years at Vanguard, we established a research group, and we began to talk about doing some venture investing ourselves. Not about making money or on behalf of our clients, but more just being in the ecosystem. And that all came about because we did a trip to Silicon Valley, took the whole leadership team, met with every large VC there, a bunch of their portfolio companies, and we walked away blown away by what we didn’t know about our own business and what the future might look like.

And so to me, no matter where you are in the investment arc, if you will, understanding what goes on in the startup world is, I think, just important to understanding the bigger picture. And then the last thing I’d say, and this is just a passion play. Our mission, if you boiled everything down at Vanguard, we wanted to make the world a better place for investors. I mean, we got up every morning and afternoon. I’m lucky I get to do that.

And the startups I’m working with, I believe very deeply that they have the potential to make the world a better place for investors. And if I can keep doing that for the next 20 years, I’m going to be really happy.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:44:35): So you’re a senior advisor to Venrock. Are you helping them vet startups or ideas or founders? What’s your role with a fairly well-known venture fund like that?

BILL McNABB (00:44:50): So the partner with whom I work the most is this guy named Nick Beim. He’s incredible. He just sees around corners. He’s got 25 years of experience doing this.

I learn something every time I talk to him. So Nick will get approached by a lot of different people. He will meet a lot of different people. When he gets something that’s interesting, I often get a call and it’s like, hey, would you talk to these guys and see what you think? And so you and I both have good connections with Jason Wenk at Altruist, and that’s how my—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:28): A recent guest, and full disclosure, by the way, Ritholtz Wealth Management uses Altruist as a custodian. The firm’s venture arm is an investor in it. I personally am an investor in it.

I always like to get those disclosures out so nobody misunderstands what we’re talking about.

BILL McNABB (00:45:46): And I’m an investor there too. So Nick calls me after we first met and he says, there’s this guy I want you to meet, and just tell me what you think. He goes, we’ve invested. So Venrock had actually already invested in this case.

So I meet Jason and I’m like, he had me at hello, right?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:46:05): Super impressive, right?

BILL McNABB (00:46:06): Incredibly impressive. So in the early days it was Nick, Jason, and me in the boardroom. And I would say my role there was really twofold. One was just, Jason was a student of Vanguard, and like, what did we get right?

What did we not get right? How did we think about scaling? So I tried to bring that to the discussions in the boardroom. And then very importantly, over time, Jason particularly asked me, can you just talk to some of my senior team on a regular basis?

And so I do. And that’s the mentoring part. And I think that’s a big part of what, in a sense, I’m there for. I’ve made a lot of mistakes. I’ve sort of lived a lot of different movies that they’re now going to watch and live through, and where is it relevant and where is it not relevant?

There are situations where new ideas get presented, and then I will be part of the vetting process as well. So Vanilla, which is a software product to help with estate planning. There’s Steve Lockshin, who, personally, is an incredibly brilliant planner around all this. And it’s like, let’s take his brain and codify it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:35): Turn it into software.

BILL McNABB (00:47:36): Turn it into software. And I got a chance to interact. And we knew Steve a little bit from Vanguard and serving him through the investment side. We started an RIA from scratch.

So I don’t know if we’ll ever be able to compete with you, but—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:56): We’re still under $10 billion, which I have to explain to family members is walking-around cash. It’s not real money.

BILL McNABB (00:48:04): It’s real money. You guys have done a great job. But what if you had a blank sheet of paper and could create a firm from scratch? So we’re going to do that.

And we’re in the process. It’s called Arca. You may have seen some of the press releases on it. I got a chance to work with two co-founders of three. There are three co-founders of the firm. Finny.

Finny’s a little different, because what Finny’s trying to do is really help firms do a better job matching prospects and clients, and turning the right prospects into the right clients. This is a huge problem in the RIA space.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:45): People don’t understand how important fit is. And we’ve been fortunate to build that into our process. Because it’s disruptive for someone to come in.

They’re the wrong fit, they transfer everything in. It’s so much time and effort, it’s such a lift. And then six months later everybody realizes, oh, we’ve made a mistake. And then it’s a divorce, and it’s disruptive on the way out.

BILL McNABB (00:49:09): We actually were really strict on client selection in my time at Vanguard. And so when I met two of the co-founders in particular, I talked to them a lot, and they’re describing this to me, I’m like, oh my God, I love this stuff. This is exactly how, it’s one of the most important things you learn in terms of building a great business, is that fit.

And they were thinking about things from a technology standpoint that were way beyond me. I mean, they’re a bunch of AI engineers. It didn’t exist 15 years ago, 10 years ago even. And so watching that, watching their thinking on that.

But very importantly, one of the cool things, and again, I’m getting tactical here with Finny, but it’s just interesting to me, because they developed a way, they’re going to price this in a way that aligns outcomes, much more structurally sound. So at Vanguard, one of the cool things we did was where we had active equity, for example, every active equity manager was on an incentive scheme where if they outperformed over a long period of time, we would actually pay more, and the expense ratio would go up. But we were happy with that. And, by the way, if they didn’t—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:30): It goes the other way.

BILL McNABB (00:50:30): They went the other way. We’re the only firm who did that across every active equity portfolio. And we did that very early. Finny’s doing a similar concept, an analogous concept with, like, we’re not going to be your traditional SaaS company where we charge these really big seat licenses and we’re negotiating on who’s using what.

We’re going to do it all on success. If you get the right clients, we will earn more money. And if you don’t, that’s on us. That’s a really cool concept.

And so again, I got tactical there, but it makes a point that, what you’re really looking for: if they get it right, it changes the industry in a really positive way. Altruist gets it right, it changes the industry in a really positive way.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:51:18): So let’s dive down into that a little deeper, for each of those. I had always been told, hey, custody is razor-thin margins, there’s nothing you can do there. And besides Schwab and Fidelity, the giants in that space, no one’s going to take them on.

You have to be a little crazy to say, I’m going to take on the two behemoths. But Altruist has become the third largest custodian for RIAs, at least if we’re going by advisors served. I don’t know how it looks by dollar amount. What did you see when you first started talking to Jason Wenk about what has always been such a challenging, low-margin business?

BILL McNABB (00:52:06): Jason had this vision that the legacy players do a fine job, at a level. But in a sense, these businesses had become, I hate the term cash cow, but there’s not a lot of innovation, not a lot of new technology being brought to bear.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:52:25): I want to say two years ago, and I hope I’m not getting this wrong, I think it was Schwab was generating 57% of their revenue just from the cash sweep that they’re paying a few bips on, but earning three, 4% on spread.

BILL McNABB (00:52:41): Spread’s everything there. That’s exactly right. So he had this passion, and he had been an advisor. And so he’s like, what do I really want?

And so the way we thought about it was, yes, there’s custody, and we can digitize it and we can make it much more efficient. We can make it much better, lower cost, frankly, for the advisor so they can pass on value to the client. You can, though, actually make it a platform that’s more than just custody. So we introduced Hazel, which is this great tax planning capability, as you know, AI driven, and it’s taken the—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:23): Everybody in my firm loves it. And PS, Jason was more than an advisor. He’s an engineer.

So he brings sort of that coder mentality to how can we use technology to make this faster, better, cheaper.

BILL McNABB (00:53:36): So the way I always envisioned the direction we’d go was, this is going to be the platform of the future for advisors, and we will make it so much easier for them to do what they need to do. And Jason’s got that engineering mentality, he’s got that drive. He’s incredibly passionate. If you look at the Altruist flywheel, it looks a lot like the Vanguard flywheel did, in terms of just this, if it works, this self-reinforcing perpetual improvement, perpetual driver of good outcomes has been created.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:54:19): What’s the old line? I think this was Jeff Bezos. Your margin is my opportunity.

That seems to be what’s happening there. Tell us a little more about Vanilla. What are they doing, and where is the disruptive opportunity there?

BILL McNABB (00:54:34): So with Vanilla, if you think about the high net worth and ultra high net worth, which is a significant amount of assets in the industry, we talk about asset allocation, we talk about cost. And at Vanguard we really talk about cost a lot. The single biggest opportunity for value add is in estate planning. I mean, you can save people millions of dollars. There’s no other category that can do that.

And Vanilla changes the experience dramatically for the advisor providing that estate planning. Rather than whiteboards and stickies and hand-drawn flow diagrams, it just gives you this incredible automated output. And I got a chance to be kind of an early pilot, because Vanguard was actually an investor in Vanilla.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:55:30): Vanguard itself. Oh, really?

BILL McNABB (00:55:32): Yep. And they were running pilots. So I raised my hand. It was the best conversation I’ve ever had with the advice team that does our family. By far.

Because it built this whole balance sheet in one place. All the family trees, if you will, were all right there, all done in an automated fashion.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:01): And Vanilla is a product that is not necessarily for the end investor, but the advisor in between.

It’s a little complex for the average person to just log on on their own.

BILL McNABB (00:56:12): The whole estate planning process. It really is a business. It’s really being sold to advisors.

So you’re seeing wealth management firms adopt it. So the Vanguards of the world and other big firms you would know well, bringing it in and saying, this is going to be the platform where we do estate planning.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:31): So I’m hearing a very consistent theme, which is all of the disruptive fintech that you’re involved with, Finny, Altruist, Vanilla, seems to be all marketed to the advisor, which is so different from what you’re doing on the board seats. Any other startups or other technologies you’re looking at, either to the advisory community or anywhere else?

BILL McNABB (00:56:59): Yeah, so I’ve been involved in a couple of others. One, there’s a company called Moment, which is some ex-Citadel guys who really are reinventing the way fixed income gets traded. And I’m not an investor there, but I like to think of myself as a friend of the firm, and Venrock is an investor there.

And so I have those conversations. Again, the theme is not dissimilar in that you’re making the world better, because they’re doing things with fixed income trading that have been done on the equity side for years. Fractional trading of bonds. They make it like that, and they’re really having a pretty significant impact.

There’s one that we’re involved in, again, I’m not an investor in this one either, but I talk to them a lot, around litigation. So that’s a little bit different. It’s my one non-investment-oriented thing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:03): What’s the name of that firm?

BILL McNABB (00:58:05): Syllo.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:05): Okay.

BILL McNABB (00:58:06): And again, what’s really cool about them is it’s a marriage of incredible legal talent with an engineering mindset. So imagine the Jason Wenk of litigation lawyers. This is people who write code but have deep litigation experience.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:26): There have been a handful of funds over the past few years that literally are making investments based on litigation outcomes, class action outcomes. And they’re truly non-correlated, because the outcomes have nothing to do with the market or the economy.

It’s a really interesting space.

BILL McNABB (00:58:45): And this company will do things that, this is going to disrupt this industry as much as anything we’ve talked about. So for me, the fun part is all these entrepreneurs. You’re getting a chance to work with some of the brightest minds in the country. They’re all super passionate about what they do, and they’re incredibly talented. And you’re not going to get it all right, and some of them are going to be more successful than others.

But if you can sort of help them along a little bit with lessons learned and whatnot, it’s incredibly gratifying.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:59:28): You give them the best chance for future success. So the future of advice going forward. You’ve mentioned some of the robo-advisors like Betterment and Wealthfront, and in fact, the robo-advisor that Vanguard set up under your leadership quickly scaled up to a hundred billion plus and then kept going.

Now, by far the biggest robo in the world. But it doesn’t sound like you think that the future of advice is just going to be automated or technology. What does the future of advice look like, for both the average mom-and-pop investor who needs some help planning their retirement or paying for kids’ college, or the higher net worth that’s thinking about what am I going to do with this extra capital in terms of philanthropy or generational wealth, straight up to the multifamily offices and big numbers?

BILL McNABB (01:00:31): Look, I think there’s going to be a spectrum. I do think there will be people who go the automated way, fully automated, the original Wealthfront model, if you will. But increasingly, I’m pretty convinced that the bulk of the people, investors, are going to go with advisors where there’s a human touch. I think that human touch is incredibly important.

And so all the technological advances that we’re seeing, whether it’s Vanilla’s software planning, whether it’s the platform that Altruist is developing, whether it’s Finny’s ability to help you grow your business more effectively and organically, those things free up the advisor to do the personal stuff. And so I don’t know at Ritholtz what your average number of clients per advisor is, but let’s just say it’s a hundred, which in the industry is kind of a norm. I see no reason why somebody can’t serve 300 more effectively than they serve the hundred today with the technology that’s coming. And the reason I think it’s important to have that person is I think that the really thoughtful advisor can really prevent you from getting off the reservation.

The automated programs are great, but people can opt out of them pretty quickly. And we do see that. And again, you said the last six months are always indicative. One of the things that we didn’t talk about, but it’s incredibly troubling to me, is the over-gamification of investing that’s going on right now, and the amount of day trading. We’re back to day trading.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:15): I started in the nineties when that was going on. I remember the E-Trade commercials and the tow truck driver who owned an island, he just likes to help people who get flat tires. So he’s still doing it.

And it’s full circle, between the prediction markets and then all the gambling apps. We’re right back to where—

BILL McNABB (01:02:39): And you actually see it in trading volumes.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:43): End-of-day options, single-day options.

BILL McNABB (01:02:46): It’s not all being done by algos and hedge funds. There’s a retail element now that’s incredible. You take an S&P 100 stock that might have traded 10 million shares a day. Now it’s trading 50, 60, 70 million shares a day.

And it becomes this self-perpetuating thing. The more volatility there is, the more the day traders come in. The more they come in, the more volatility there is. And at the end of the day, you know that only the house wins there. The house will win.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:03:22): Same is true with the prediction markets, right? There’s a tiny percentage of consistent winners, and 90-something percent of people are making donations.

BILL McNABB (01:03:31): That’s right. So that’s why I think the person remains incredibly important. It was interesting, in a venture capital conference I was at, somebody asked the question, they said, do you think that all the AI and all the technology that’s coming is going to replace humans or enable humans? And I think there are places where you can say it’s replacement. It could be both.

Yeah, it could be both. I think here the majority of it’s going to be enable.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:03:58): So just to share a little bit of what we’ve been seeing, it’s not that we’re creating new information. We’re finding ways to take notes and keep a running dialogue of everything that’s going on with AI, but then access it and use it in a way that is just enormously helpful to clients. And very often, if you’re having a conversation with a client that’s an hour, you’re doing a year-end review, or maybe it’s a quarterly review or anything like that, lots of stuff goes by that you may not pick up in that moment. But if you have a tool taking notes and reviewing it and summarizing it and remembering that two years ago they said, we’d really like to buy a vacation property now that the kids are out of the house, but we’re not sure what we can afford. Hey, if you can access that and not forget it, if you have a permanent memory, not only can you successfully manage more clients, but you’re going to do a much better job of it.

And so the fear of all this job loss, I mean, it’s certainly not showing up in much of the data yet. You still have relatively low unemployment, and relatively low unemployment for people under 25, which usually runs about double the traditional U-3 unemployment. So I’m fascinated by this.

Do you recall in the mid-2010s, the assumption was, oh, these robo-advisors, they’re going to put all the humans out of business. Is this just an ongoing Luddite fear that every new technology leads to?

BILL McNABB (01:05:48): I think so. Because look, there is disruption. For sure.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:05:52): And certain jobs are going to go away.

BILL McNABB (01:05:54): Right. And when you’re in the middle of that, it’s overwhelming. But I do believe that the creation of new categories of jobs we can’t even imagine is going to continue.

I do think there are areas where the technology just allows you to do more, like you described. It’s interesting, we had an interesting thought experiment. So when the robos started, our idea was to take the best of Wealthfront technologically, but to have a certified financial planner at the end of the telephone or video screen to interface with the client. And my chief of staff, who was a twenty-something software engineer at the time, said, like, no, who needs a person?

And I said, well, how much? So we formed a little focus group. This is completely unscientific, but this is again, sometimes how I like to do things. And so we sat around and we said, so I give you $25,000, but you want a little bit of advice. They all wanted robo.

Like, I don’t want to talk to somebody. I said, it’s 150,000, which for them at the time was probably equal to a year’s pay. Four or five out of the six were like, I’ve got to have a person. Technology can be helpful, but I need to be able to talk to somebody for that amount of money.

And it really stuck with me. There is a comfort. And again, you’ve done a lot with Morgan Housel over the years. The psychology of that and that need for human interaction I think is very powerful.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:07:41): So I always hated the idea. Listen, I’m a middle-class kid from suburbia. I didn’t grow up with any money or any thoughts of an inheritance or anything like that. The idea of having a $10 million or even a $1 million minimum, I was never comfortable with. So we set up two digital platforms, one driven by Betterment, which is under a quarter million dollars.

And there is a group of advisors that come along with that. So if you are at $50,000 or $100,000 or $5,000, it doesn’t matter. There’s no minimum. If you are up to a quarter million dollars, the whole platform is digital.

Everything from the onboarding to the allocation. But there is a live human being there if you want to talk to somebody. And then the platform that we built from a quarter million to a million was based on buying BlackRock’s FutureAdvisor, which they figured out, oh, this isn’t the future of ETFs, we don’t need to own this. And so we ended up purchasing that from them.

Not only is that 250 to a million, but it also comes with a specific advisor. And as much as people say, I love the digital platform, I don’t need to deal with anybody, I just want to log on to the website or app and deal with it, as soon as there’s any volatility, they just want someone to talk them off the ledge and say, hey, it’ll be fine. We go through a 10% drawdown, I want to say it’s three times every two years, something like that.

So this is normal. And if you look at here’s how many drawdowns we’ve had over the past 20 years, they may not know that, they may not have access to that. But if a person says, hey, we can’t guarantee you that the market’s going to keep going up forever, but here’s what the history looks like, it’s just a huge comfort for people. And they can stay out of their own way.

BILL McNABB (01:09:43): Absolutely. So I think it’s really powerful. And again, thematically, certainly everything we’re working on in a lot of our startup land is exactly that. It’s taking that concept.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:09:57): Using the technology to make it faster, better, cheaper, but making sure a person is in the loop for that comfort level.

BILL McNABB (01:10:03): Faster, better, cheaper, way more personalized. Way more personalized.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:10:06): So we’ve covered so much stuff. Before I get to my favorite questions, is there anything we haven’t covered yet? I think we’re good. We touched a lot of stuff, so let’s jump to those questions.

And I’ve asked you these 10 years ago, but I want to circle back to them, see—

BILL McNABB (01:10:25): If I’m consistent.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:10:26): Right. Well, we’ll see what’s changed over the past decade. So I’m going to assume your mentors are all fairly much the same. Tell us, Jack Brennan clearly one of those people. Who were the mentors who shaped your career?

BILL McNABB (01:10:40): So Jack Brennan certainly, and I talked about that earlier, but lead by example and the power of “we” versus “I.” I had a rowing coach post-college, and his big thing to me when I was thinking about leaving New York and going to Vanguard was, find a place that matches your values and you’ll be happy. And I dedicated my last annual report at Vanguard, the Vanguard funds, a section of it to him, because that advice actually was what put me over the top in terms of, I’ve got to go to Vanguard. There were so many other mentors. One I’ll mention, though, we had a great board early in my career, and Charlie Ellis, the great author of Winning the Loser’s Game, Charlie was on our board. And Charlie was actually a real mentor to me, because when he was at Greenwich, he would come and present to us how we did competitively in the 401(k) market, and I was running that business.

So we developed a pretty good bond. Then when he came on the board, he just was always there to sort of push and prod a little bit and help shape me. And again, the way he thought about investing just absolutely resonated, obviously, with what we were doing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:12:05): He just wrote a new book, just dropped a few months ago. He’s still active in his eighties.

BILL McNABB (01:12:10): It’s incredible. It’s incredible.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:12:13): Speaking of books, what are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

BILL McNABB (01:12:16): So right now I’m reading Jim Collins’ What to Make of a Life, which is very different for him. It’s not a business-oriented book. As I mentioned to you at other times, Good to Great and Built to Last, Jim Collins classics, they’re the first business books I go to. But this is, what he does is he takes lives of people we know in sort of pairs, and he just asks, what were the key events that made them do what they do?

So he uses, like, two football players from when I was growing up, Carl Eller and Alan Page, Minnesota Vikings. One of them went on to have a real drug problem and then become an incredible champion of rehabilitation and did so much for his community. The other one went on to be a Supreme Court justice in Minnesota.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:13:15): Wow.

BILL McNABB (01:13:16): And what were the key decisions? What allowed them to go from this great football career to a second act? So anyway, I’m reading that. I’m partway through it. It’s phenomenal.

And I always have a fun book or two I’m reading too. I’m still a big science fiction collector. So The Will of the Many and The Strength of the Few. It’s two parts, there’s a third one coming. Imagine ancient Rome meets The Matrix.

That’s all I’m going to say. Only a weird brain like mine could find that fascinating.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:13:48): That’s intriguing. I watched and read Project Hail Mary, written by the same author as The Martian, Andy Weir. Really fascinating book. He’s such a great writer.

BILL McNABB (01:14:01): He’s phenomenal. One of my favorites.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:14:05): Speaking of movies and videos or podcasts, what are you streaming, listening to, watching these days?

BILL McNABB (01:14:14): Not a ton. The most recent podcast was the Acquired podcast. They did a huge thing on Vanguard, mostly on Jack Bogle. It was great.

It was really, really worth doing. Ben Gilbert and his partner, they just did a fantastic job. Most of the other things, the streaming, I just rewatched, Netflix did this three-year series on the Tour de France, which I’m fascinated by as a sport, called Unchained.

And it’s really good. So that was sort of a fun one.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:14:51): Our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in either financial advice, wealth management, or fintech startups?

BILL McNABB (01:15:06): Well, so on the latter, there’s never been a better time to start a company. With technology being as ubiquitous as it is and cheap, frankly, you can take an idea and you can build something pretty quickly without a ton of money. And then if it’s a really cool idea, there are people ready to help you and write a check. And so I’m encouraging people who have that entrepreneurial itch.

This is a great time to scratch it. Don’t wait. But think about what you’re trying to do. Don’t do it just because you want to, quote unquote, get rich. Do it because you have an idea that really matters.

And something I always apply, it’s a Jim Collins phrase, the hedgehog concept. What are you passionate about? What can you be great at? And I mean great.

And then how does it drive the economic engine? And so you want to have a passion, you want something that you truly believe you can be world class at, and economically, there’s got to be an engine that it drives. And today it’s just a great time to be doing that. If you’re going into the asset management, investment world, I think the two places that are going to be the most interesting, I continue to think the venture world’s really interesting, because, whatever anybody’s politics are, whatever, all this stuff—

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:16:37): It’s cutting edge. It’s the latest and greatest.

BILL McNABB (01:16:39): There are so many cool things going on right now, and the chance to actually go explore that and invest in that is kind of fun. But I think wealth management, I think this advice thing has got a long way to run. And if I were a young grad, rather than going into traditional asset management, I would be thinking much more about individual wealth, and how to start my own advisory firm or how to be part of a Ritholtz Wealth or something like that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:17:17): Our final question. What do you know about the world of investing today that might have been useful back in 1986 when you first joined Vanguard?

BILL McNABB (01:17:28): Well, so much. The long term really is the way to think about things. I think even though I joined a firm that was famous for it, I don’t think my own brain was set around long term. And the ability to sustain your beliefs and your discipline over the long run is a singular differentiator.

And I’ve had the privilege of being inside of a lot of different firms, and it’s amazing how many people still don’t actually get that. So I think that, and it took me a while before I got there, so I wish I’d had it right away. Second, for me, is really pay a lot of attention to things that nobody’s talking about. And this is much harder.

So, as you know, when you started The Big Picture, I actually started every morning with reading The Big Picture, because you did a really good job curating what was out there and getting rid of a lot of stuff.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:18:36): Right. There’s a long history there, which we will discuss offline. But when Brennan said to me, hey, I’ve been a reader of your stuff, when I first met him at some large conference room lunch 20 years ago, my head exploded.

BILL McNABB (01:18:56): I might’ve been one of the people who pushed it that way. But to me it was a really important thing. And I think, like today, people aren’t talking about leverage that much. And I worry about leverage. When you look at what the hyperscalers are doing in terms of the bond market right now, and a couple of them are not net cash flow positive because of all the infrastructure that they’re building, the leverage in the system. Private credit had its moment a year ago or whatever, six months ago, and that was one you could see coming.

I worry a lot about leverage. No one’s talking about it. When I first started out, that way of thinking, that contrarianness, was not part of how I had been trained or brought up. But again, this is where Jack Bogle, Jack Brennan, John Neff, the great value investor, they were really impactful.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:20:01): I was going through an old piece I was writing and never finished, and I found some notes, and I can’t figure out whose line this is. It feels like I’m stealing it from somebody. Equity crises bruise, debt crises maim. And I’ve been unable to track that down, and it doesn’t sound like something I would’ve written.

But anytime I use something from someone, I’m usually very, very fastidious about making sure the quote is attributed correctly. But it just reminds us that leverage kills. Look at what’s going on in Korea with their three x and five x funds as those unwind. Man, they’ve had a great run, and they’ve given a ton of it back.

Because of the leverage. Bill, I could talk to you for two more hours.

Thank you for being so generous with your time. This has been utterly fascinating. We have been speaking with Bill McNabb, former chairman and CEO of the Vanguard Group, board member at IBM and UnitedHealth, senior advisor to Venrock, as well as board member and advisor to so many startups. If you enjoy this conversation, well, check out any of the 654 we’ve done over the past 12 years.

You can find those at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, wherever you get your favorite podcasts from. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. My audio engineer is Alexis Noriega. Anna Luke is my producer. Sean Russo is my researcher.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Bill McNabb, Vanguard former Chairman and CEO appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Labor Day Reads

The Big Picture -

My long weekend morning reads:

• This data has helped fight workplace discrimination for 60 years. The Trump administration plans to delete it: The move marks a fundamental shift for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). Without this data, it will be much harder for the agency to identify widespread cases of discrimination in hiring and promotions, experts and former employees of the commission say. And, they warn, it will bring the Trump administration one step closer to reshaping the commission from an independent watchdog into an arm of the executive branch narrowly focused on advancing the political grievances of Donald Trump’s base. Amy Qin on the EEOC data experts say the agency can’t police hiring discrimination without. (The Guardian)

​• Labor Day on Track to Set Record at the Pump: The national average hits $4.14 — the highest ever for this time of year — with Strait of Hormuz volatility keeping crude around $90. (AAA) see also Imperialist Delusions and the Price of Fuel: Paul Krugman on the Venezuela adventure and what it’s doing at the pump. (Paul Krugman)

​• Should You Buy Alien Abduction Insurance?: Joseph Moore on the 100,000-plus Americans holding coverage — GEICO sold some, Lloyd’s underwrote 20,000, and two claims were paid. Behavioral economists would hardly be surprised. (Joseph Moore).

​• Paid Actors, AI Writing: How a New Kind of Video Business Cashed In on America’s Divided Politics: Max Tani on “William,” whose AI-scripted kitchen-table video — Mayor Mamdani Panics as Taylor Swift Triggers a $2.3 Billion Celebrity Exodus — racked up 474,000 views. (Semafor)

​• Humans Did Not Invent Art. It Was the Other Way Around: In 1940, four teenage boys chasing rumors of secret passageways near Montignac found chambers bejewelled with horses, elk, ibex, and bulls instead — Lascaux, almost perfectly preserved. (Aeon)

​• In Red States, Law-and-Order Republicans Turn Against Flock Cameras: David Ovalle on the governors of Texas and Florida moving to curtail license-plate readers, even as police say they help solve crime.. (New York Times)

USPS ‘carefully reviewing’ whistleblower claim on plan for Trump’s mail in voting order: “USPS leadership, it appears, has discarded all best practices as they speed the project to be ready for a September 1 implementation — raising questions about whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug,” said the disclosure, prepared by Whistleblower Aid, a nonprofit organization representing the anonymous federal government official with direct knowledge of the Postal Service’s development of the new system. ​Hansi Lo Wang on the disclosure warning that Postal Service leadership “discarded all best practices” racing to a September 1 launch — “raising questions about whether catastrophic failure would be a feature rather than a bug.”  (NPR)

​• More Than Half of Americans in Their 40s Are ‘Sandwiched’ Between an Aging Parent and Their Own Children: Juliana Menasce Horowitz with Pew’s numbers on the generation squeezed from both directions. (Pew Research)

​• Behind Closed Doors, John Fetterman Shows Little Interest in the Work of a Senator: Former staffers and lawmakers describe a light daily schedule, canceled constituent meetings, skipped hearings, and a focus on conservative media ties. Poised to be a possible swing vote in a divided Congress, he churns through staff as he dodges constituents, alienates fellow Democrats and courts Israel lobby (Wall Street Journal)

​• A Little League Coach’s Advice to His Team Went Viral. Anyone Can Appreciate the Message: Cory Edwards saw the fought-off tears and finger-pointing as his Henderson, Nevada team’s run ended — and didn’t want his players going out sullen. (The Athletic)

Video of the day: Aaron Sorkin on Why AI Will Fail, Facebook & The Future of America | What I’ve Learned

Be sure to check out our Master’s in Business this week with William McNabb, former CEO and Chairman of the Vanguard Group from 2007-17. He is also an advisor to Venrock, and was an investor and advisor to Altruist, which was just sold to VG for $2 billion.


More Americans Are Identifying as Democrats Ahead of Midterms


Source: New York Times

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Labor Day Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

153 Million US And Canadian Driver’s Licenses Are Being Sold On A Russian Cybercrime Forum

Zero Hedge -

153 Million US And Canadian Driver’s Licenses Are Being Sold On A Russian Cybercrime Forum

A trove of identity documents allegedly containing more than 153 million US and Canadian driver’s licenses has drawn the attention of the FBI after appearing for sale in the cybercrime underground. The collection also reportedly included millions of passports, identification cards and other sensitive records, according to Yahoo News and Tom's Hardware.

Cybersecurity journalist Brian Krebs investigated the database after a copy of his own driver’s license was posted as a promotional sample on Exploit, a Russian-language cybercrime forum. The seller operated a service known as Nexus, which allowed prospective customers to search its collection. Nexus has since gone offline.

Krebs tested the database with several people he knew, after obtaining their permission, and found records that appeared authentic. He also reported seeing a preview of information associated with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. That discovery raised the stakes of the incident, given the potential security implications of exposing identification belonging to senior government officials.

Rather than originating directly from the businesses where customers presented their IDs, the data may have passed through a common third-party verification provider. Several affected people had previously supplied identification while renting vehicles from Hertz. Security researcher Zach Edwards, whose information also appeared in Nexus, traced his record to an ID check performed at Planet 13, a cannabis dispensary.

The Yahoo report says that both companies relied on Louisiana-based IDScan for identity-verification services, according to Krebs. Timestamps attached to some of the exposed scans reportedly corresponded with the dates and times the individuals had presented their identification. That overlap led investigators to focus on IDScan as a possible common link, although the precise cause and scope of the apparent compromise have not been publicly established.

The scale extends well beyond driver’s licenses. Nexus claimed its inventory included roughly 10 million ID cards, 1.9 million travel documents, 1.3 million international driving permits, hundreds of thousands of medical, residence and employment-related records, and about five million documents in other categories.

IDScan told Krebs that it was examining the information he provided but was not yet in a position to disclose further details. Meanwhile, the FBI’s New Orleans field office has reportedly opened an investigation into the incident.

Beyond the sheer number of records, the type of information involved makes the apparent breach particularly significant. Detailed scans of government-issued identification can provide criminals with material for impersonation, fraudulent financial applications and other forms of identity theft. Some leaked licenses reportedly included photographic as well as UV and infrared scan data, potentially making misuse more sophisticated.

The episode also illustrates a broader privacy concern surrounding outsourced identity checks. When businesses rely on centralized verification companies, large volumes of highly sensitive documents can flow through a relatively small number of providers. A compromise at one point in that chain can therefore expose customers from multiple unrelated businesses at once, while creating potentially serious consequences for people whose personal information or whereabouts require additional protection.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/07/2026 - 05:35

The Reckoning Of 2028: Civilization's Ledger Is Bleeding Red

Zero Hedge -

The Reckoning Of 2028: Civilization's Ledger Is Bleeding Red

Authored by Milan Adams via Prepp Group / WordPress,

Walk through the financial districts of London, New York, or Singapore at six in the evening, and you'll catch the last act of a performance that grows harder to maintain by the quarter. The tailored suits still stream from glass towers into black cars. The conversations still touch on market adjustments and projections. But watch closely, and you'll notice the strain. There's a tightness around the eyes now, a rehearsed quality to the optimism. The numbers on their screens say one thing. The price of milk, rent, and diesel say another.

We've built an elaborate choreography around the idea that currency holds its value. Yet somewhere between 2019 and now, that assumption quietly fractured. A dollar doesn't travel as far as it once did. It buys less bread, less time, less security. Central bankers have their explanations ready - inflation is transitory, supply chains are healing, the economy is resilient. But walk through a supermarket in Stuttgart, a gas station in Phoenix, a pharmacy in Manchester, and you'll feel the truth your paycheck already knows. The purchasing power hasn't just eroded; it's evaporated, and official metrics barely capture the half of it.

The arithmetic is brutal when you look at it directly. Global debt has climbed to roughly $315 trillion. That's not a percentage point on a chart. That's a claim on future labor so vast it would take several generations working at full capacity just to service the interest, never mind the principal. In Washington, the federal government now borrows about $5 billion every twenty-four hours to keep the lights on. Weekends included. No holidays. The interest alone will swallow roughly $2 trillion this fiscal year. That's more than the entire defense budget. More than all discretionary spending combined. These figures come from the Treasury Department itself, buried in reports that few bother to read.

Since 2008, and with terrifying acceleration during the pandemic years, monetary expansion has become the silent thief in everyone's pocket. The Federal Reserve's balance sheet hovered below $1 trillion in 2008. By 2022, it had ballooned to nearly $9 trillion. Even after some reduction, it sits above $7 trillion. This wasn't money earned or produced. It was conjured through digital ledger entries, diluting every existing dollar in circulation. Official inflation numbers - those seven to nine percent figures you see in headlines - exclude the categories that actually determine whether families make it to the end of the month. Add housing, energy, and food back in, and you're looking at fifteen to twenty percent erosion of purchasing power over five years. Ask any wage earner. They'll tell you the official numbers feel like fiction.

Energy tells its own story, and it's not the one politicians prefer. Despite all the transition rhetoric, the global economy still runs on hydrocarbons. The investment required to maintain current production simply hasn't materialized. In the United States, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been drawn down to levels not seen since the 1980s - not for emergencies, but to manage political optics and prevent price spikes that might trigger unrest. Meanwhile, the easy oil is gone. What's left requires more energy to extract, more capital to process. Major fields discovered decades ago are declining faster than new discoveries can replace them. By 2027, conservative estimates suggest demand will outstrip sustainable supply by several million barrels daily. Renewable infrastructure cannot scale fast enough to close that gap. The physics don't care about our timelines.

The Portrait in Numbers

Let's try to make $315 trillion concrete. If each dollar were a grain of sand, you'd fill about 120 Olympic swimming pools. That's the debt sitting on balance sheets worldwide, earning interest, demanding service, compounding while we sleep. Every second, it grows by roughly $350,000 in new obligations. Every minute, $21 million. Every hour, $1.26 billion. The mathematics doesn't negotiate. It doesn't respond to political will or optimistic speeches.

Velocity matters too. In 1999, a single dollar of monetary base supported about $12 of economic activity. By 2023, that same dollar supported barely $3. Currency has grown sluggish, accumulating in asset markets where it inflates real estate and equity prices without building actual productive capacity. The wealth effect central banks tried to engineer - rising asset prices stimulating consumption - instead produced a split economy. Asset holders watch their portfolios swell while wage earners watch their real incomes shrink. In the United States, the top one percent now holds more wealth than the bottom ninety percent combined. We haven't seen concentration like this since 1929. Economies need circulation. When capital pools at the apex, it stops moving. It stops working.

Look at the banking sector, supposedly fortified after 2008. Regional banks in the United States carry massive exposure to commercial real estate, a sector facing structural decline as remote work permanently reduces office demand. Estimated losses exceed $400 billion, concentrated in institutions without reserves deep enough to absorb them. The Federal Reserve's emergency lending facilities see increasing use - not for routine liquidity management, but for solvency support that masks deeper problems. Liquidity issues are cash flow mismatches; time and bridging can fix them. Solvency issues mean your assets are worth less than your obligations. That's permanent impairment. And we've been papering over it with accounting flexibility and regulatory forbearance.

Energy requires looking through thermodynamics, not just economics. A barrel of oil extracted in 1950 yielded about 100 barrels of equivalent energy for every barrel spent getting it out of the ground. Today, conventional oil manages perhaps 20-to-1. Shale and tar sands run below 5-to-1. That surplus energy - the energy available beyond mere subsistence - is what built modern complexity. As that ratio declines, the complexity it supports becomes harder to maintain. Renewables help, but they cannot replicate fossil fuel energy density and storage at the scale our economy demands. Transition, if it happens, means less energy available. Less energy means less economic activity. The conversation rarely acknowledges this trade-off.

When the Margins Vanish

Historical analogies for what's coming often miss the mark because they focus on financial mechanisms rather than material constraints. The 1930s Depression occurred when energy availability was growing and industrial capacity expanding. The crisis was financial and organizational; the physical substrate could support recovery. What's approaching now differs in kind. We're facing not just a financial crisis requiring monetary adjustment, but a transition between energy regimes that will reshape economic geography, trade patterns, and the very possibility of growth.

Germany offers a real-time lesson. Europe's industrial engine, with manufacturing at roughly 23% of GDP, has contracted for five consecutive quarters. Energy costs - driven by the loss of cheap Russian gas and inadequate replacement sources - have made German industry uncompetitive globally. Chemical plants producing fertilizer and pharmaceuticals have shuttered or relocated to jurisdictions with cheaper energy. This isn't cyclical downturn. This is structural hollowing-out, the dismantling of industrial capacity that took decades to build. By 2026, projections suggest German manufacturing will contract to levels last seen in the early 1990s. The employment, tax revenues, and social stability that industrial work supported will follow.

China's trajectory presents different warning signs. Property and construction account for roughly 25% of GDP when you include materials and related services. That sector is unraveling in slow motion that accelerates as it goes. Major developers have defaulted on obligations rippling through shadow banking networks opaque even to domestic regulators. Local governments, dependent on land sales for revenue, face insolvency as property values fall and transactions collapse. The demographic dividend that powered four decades of growth has reversed; the working-age population peaked in 2014 and declines by millions annually. The infrastructure built for growth - high-speed rail, airports, highways - now requires maintenance that strained budgets cannot afford, while utilization fails to justify operational costs. The model that lifted hundreds of millions from poverty has hit thermodynamic and demographic walls.

Japan may be the clearest preview. Three decades of monetary stimulus, government spending, and demographic aging produced a society where the central bank owns most government debt and significant equity positions, where interest rates cannot rise without bankrupting the government, where the yen has depreciated 40% against the dollar in two years despite these measures. The yen carry trade - borrowing cheap yen to invest elsewhere - has sustained global liquidity for decades but now threatens systemic disruption as the Bank of Japan attempts modest normalization. Japan demonstrates what happens when monetary policy reaches its limits: additional stimulus produces only currency depreciation without growth. The United States and Europe are approaching that threshold.

The global financial architecture, designed in 1944 for American industrial dominance and commodity-backed currency, grows more misaligned with material reality by the year. The dollar's reserve status lets the United States borrow in its own currency and export inflation to trading partners. That status depends on confidence that American obligations will be honored in real terms. As debt-to-GDP ratios climb and political dysfunction prevents fiscal consolidation, that confidence erodes. Central banks worldwide have accelerated gold purchases, diversifying reserves away from dollar dependence at rates unseen since the 1970s. Bilateral trade agreements in yuan, rupees, and regional currencies multiply, creating parallel financial infrastructures that bypass the dollar system. These shifts happen gradually, then suddenly, as confidence thresholds breach.

The Reckoning Approaches

By 2028, the convergence of these pressures will likely produce discontinuities that current models cannot capture. The sovereign debt crisis that manifested at the periphery - Argentina, Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Ghana - will migrate to the core. Currency instability in smaller economies will trigger capital flight to the dollar, temporarily strengthening it before American obligations overwhelm even that haven. The euro, already fractured by divergent conditions between north and south, will face existential pressure as energy costs and demographic decline render southern European debt unsustainable. The Bretton Woods institutions, designed for American hegemony and expanding trade, will lack the resources and legitimacy to coordinate response to simultaneous crises across multiple jurisdictions.

Consider a few possibilities that sound shocking now but may seem obvious in retrospect.

By late 2027, a major developed economy - possibly Italy or Japan - could impose emergency banking holidays, restricting withdrawals to prevent collapse. Not for days. For weeks. The ATMs would run dry. The queues would form at dawn. Governments would promise restoration of access while quietly negotiating behind closed doors with the IMF for emergency liquidity that comes with sovereignty-shredding conditions.

Around the same timeframe, we might see the first sovereign default by a G7 nation on domestically-held debt. Not external debt - that's already happened to smaller nations. But a major economy informing its own pension funds, its own banks, its own citizens, that obligations will not be met in nominal terms. The "guaranteed" would prove unguaranteed. Retirement accounts would be converted to longer-dated instruments at below-market rates, a soft default dressed as restructuring.

Energy markets could deliver their own surprises. By 2028, we might witness coordinated rationing in developed European economies - not through price mechanisms, which would exclude the poor entirely, but through direct allocation. Three days of heating per week. Rolling industrial blackouts prioritized by sector. The infrastructure exists to implement this; the smart meters are already installed. What's missing is the political will to admit necessity until crisis forces the hand.

The psychology of this moment unsettles more than the numbers. We've been conditioned to believe economic systems self-correct, that markets find equilibrium, that intervention prevents catastrophe. These beliefs rest on assumptions of rationality and information symmetry that algorithmic trading, information asymmetry, and political capture of regulatory function have rendered obsolete. The denial isn't conspiracy. It's consensus - a shared unwillingness to acknowledge that the prosperity of recent decades was largely borrowed against a future that has arrived.

Those observing these patterns without ideological commitment to their reversal recognize we're not approaching a single catastrophic event but a reconfiguration. The global economy of 2030 will not resemble that of 2020. Trade will regionalize as shipping costs and geopolitical friction make globalized production uneconomical for all but the highest-value goods. Living standards in developed nations will decline in absolute terms for the first time since the Second World War. This won't appear as uniform deprivation but as chronic insecurity - housing instability, medical debt, the disappearance of retirement security for all but the wealthiest. Currency instability will necessitate capital controls, price controls, and gradual nationalization of financial systems that cannot function under market discipline.

This isn't prophecy. It's projection based on data that is publicly available and widely acknowledged among those who examine primary sources rather than prepared summaries. The debt curves, energy reserves, demographic pyramids, and monetary velocity measurements describe physical and social reality. That public discourse ignores them doesn't invalidate them. It merely ensures the adjustment, when it arrives, will prove more disruptive than necessary because preparation was dismissed as pessimism.

The Ledger Closes

The question that remains isn't whether the current trajectory alters, but who possesses flexibility to adapt when it does. Institutions designed for continuity - central banks, treasuries, international bodies - are not equipped for phase transitions, for moments when old rules cease to apply and new configurations emerge from disorder. Those who understand this distinction, who have studied historical precedent and recognize symptoms of systemic fragility, are already positioning themselves outside conventional structures. Not because they desire collapse. Because they see its inevitability.

Somewhere, in offices that will soon stand empty, analysts prepare reports that will never reach the decision-makers who need them. Spreadsheets calculate probabilities approaching certainty. The machinery of collapse operates slowly at first, almost imperceptibly, through erosion of trust and quiet abandonment of assumptions that once seemed permanent.

By the time the general population recognizes what has occurred, preparation will no longer be possible. The garage doors will be down. The signs will be posted. And the permanence of the closure will be undeniable.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/07/2026 - 05:00

Freedom Is Much More Important Than Democracy

Zero Hedge -

Freedom Is Much More Important Than Democracy

Authored by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Democracy invites despotism. When understood as majority rule, democracy means that fifty-one of every hundred citizens can have their way with the other forty-nine.

"But I want to keep my possessions, weapons, and children." Too bad, the majority have decided to redistribute your property to those lazy bums over there, disarm you before you can do anything about it, and indoctrinate your children in public schools, so that they learn to resent you and love the State.

Democracy is dangerous without guardrails. Unless a society has a strong sense of moral virtue that fosters personal discipline, duty, and honor, base selfishness becomes the driving motivation behind all political action. Unless certain constitutional protections exist to safeguard each individual's inviolable rights, democratic majorities devour those rights whenever expedient.

This should surprise no-one. Political philosophers such as Hobbes and Locke described humans' pre-government "state of nature" as a chaotic, violent clash of self-interest. Adam Smith's "invisible hand" regards self-interest as the engine of free markets. Consequently, it is easy to understand why forms of democracy that are unshackled from both moral and constitutional restraints prompt a society to descend back into a state of nature in which humanity's worst impulses are again indulged.

When Western leaders speak adoringly of "our democracy," citizens should prepare to guard their freedoms. My goodness, there is nothing inherently virtuous about democracy. North Korea's Kim Jong Un runs the most repressive regime on the planet, but his country is known officially as the Democratic People's Republic of Korea! China's Xi Jinping is the general secretary of the oppressive Chinese Communist Party, but his nation remains officially the People's Republic of China! Dictatorships around the globe claim to govern in the name of the people.

One might think that the blurry line between democracy and despotism would make Western leaders wary of singing democracy's praises. Defenses of majoritarianism embrace the notion that the votes of a hundred people will lead to a more prudent outcome than we could reasonably expect from the decision-making of a single person. But that doesn't make any sense. Would you rather live in a kingdom with a benevolent king or in a democracy filled with rapists, thieves, and murderers? If there is a 50/50 chance that any single dictator is good or bad, would there not be a 50/50 chance that a majority of citizens are good or bad, too? If one communist would take everything you have, wouldn't fifty communists do the same thing? Democracy is a coin toss. It is the veneer of legitimacy that makes authoritarianism look shiny and sparkly. That hardly feels like something worth celebrating.

Democracy is just a process. It shouldn't be idolized for its own sake. It can lead to just or unjust outcomes depending upon the moral virtue, shared culture, and general wisdom of the voters. Aside from these cultural attributes of a society, there is nothing more essential to a nation's long-term peace and happiness than the recognition of and protections for inviolable, natural, God-given rights.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, the right to self-defense - these rights and other natural liberties do not come into existence because of majority rule. Our natural rights exist despite majority rule. As the Founding Fathers articulated in the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." We aren't equal because of democracy; we are equal despite any democratic vote that might claim otherwise. Our lives, personal liberties, and connections to God exist because of His will, not the government's.

The idea that rights and liberties exist separately from the promulgations of government forms the foundation of our constitutional system and, more generally, of human rights.

The U.S. Constitution spells out quite succinctly what powers each of the three branches of government - Legislative, Executive, and Judicial - shall have. From where do our three branches of government get these powers? The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the source of government power plainly: "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." In other words, the government's legitimacy comes directly from the people.

Every power that one of the three branches exercises is a power that arises from and is borrowed from the individual citizens of the United States. Any power not specifically delegated to the U.S. government remains with either the individual state governments or individual American citizens. This is profoundly important. The Constitution is not a document that empowers the federal government to do whatever it wants. It is a document that says, "You get to do only these discrete things. Everything else is off-limits!"

During the Constitutional Convention, there was significant debate among the Founding Fathers about the need for a Bill of Rights explicitly defending the inalienable liberties of American citizens. Since the text of the Constitution clearly limits the delegated powers of each branch of government, some Founders resisted the inclusion of a Bill of Rights because they feared that later generations might incorrectly interpret Americans' inviolable freedoms to include only those rights specifically listed. Other delegates feared that, without a Bill of Rights, later generations might incorrectly reimagine the Constitution's limited delegation of powers to include additional authorities that directly infringe upon Americans' personal rights. Both fears proved prescient.

In order to clearly state their intentions to maximize the size of Americans' personal liberty and to minimize the powers of the federal government, the Founding Fathers gave us the Ninth and Tenth Amendments as part of the Bill of Rights:

Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Tenth Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, these two amendments provide a redundancy within the U.S. Constitution that is meant to preserve human liberty. First, the text of the Constitution restricts the authority of the federal government to a small number of specifically delegated powers. Second, the Bill of Rights repeats the framers' intent to reserve all other powers for the people or their individual state governments.

With this understanding in mind, a reasonable person should ask: How is it possible that the federal government is now so large and powerful that it encroaches upon nearly every aspect of our private lives? How is it possible that tens of millions of Americans either work directly for government agencies or receive taxpayer dollars in some form? How is it possible that there are too many administrative agencies, committees, and bureaucratic groups for any one person to name? How is it possible that three federal branches with a small number of delegated authorities have been replaced with a growing number of government programs with seemingly unlimited authorities?

The answer to each of these questions is the same: The generations between the Founding Fathers and our own progressively traded freedom for democracy. In the name of the people, lawmakers, presidents, and judges ignored the plain text of the Constitution - including the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Bill of Rights - to steal our inalienable rights and liberties.

In order to reject democracy's despotism, the American people will have to demand their rights and liberties back.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 23:40

US Military Begins Mandatory Testosterone Testing For Service Members

Zero Hedge -

US Military Begins Mandatory Testosterone Testing For Service Members

The U.S. military is expanding routine health checks to include hormone-related testing, with new Pentagon rules requiring testosterone screening for a large portion of the force. The requirements apply to both active-duty personnel and reservists and took effect immediately, according to CBC.

The biggest change affects men beginning at age 30. They will now have testosterone levels checked through bloodwork as part of the military’s broader effort to identify health conditions that could interfere with physical performance, energy or readiness. Younger men will not automatically receive the same testing, although doctors can order it when symptoms raise concerns or a service member asks to be evaluated.

Female service members will be assessed under a separate protocol rather than receiving universal testosterone tests. Medical providers will look for symptoms such as persistent fatigue or changes in menstrual cycles that could signal inadequate energy intake, hormonal disruption or related health problems.

"Dolce and Gabbana...hello?"

CBC writes that the Pentagon’s framework also gives military physicians direction on what to do when potential problems are discovered. That includes further evaluation and possible treatment rather than simply measuring hormone levels and leaving the results without follow-up.

Testosterone treatment for women is addressed as well, although in much narrower circumstances. The guidance allows doctors to consider off-label testosterone for certain postmenopausal women experiencing abnormally low sexual desire rather than recommending the hormone broadly.

The initiative follows a push by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who announced plans for expanded testosterone testing in July and has spoken favorably about the hormone. Pentagon officials are framing the program as another tool for maintaining a healthier and more capable fighting force.

Not everyone in the medical community is convinced. Some doctors have questioned whether routinely testing large numbers of otherwise healthy troops will produce meaningful improvements in military performance. They have also warned that finding borderline or naturally fluctuating hormone levels could encourage treatment that provides little benefit while carrying potential side effects.

The debate is unfolding as federal regulators separately examine testosterone therapy more broadly. The Food and Drug Administration is scheduled to bring together medical experts in mid-September to discuss the appropriate use of testosterone and the evidence surrounding its treatment applications.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 23:05

Dr. Robert Malone On Well-Being & 'Mental Illness' In Women

Zero Hedge -

Dr. Robert Malone On Well-Being & 'Mental Illness' In Women

Authored by Dr. Robert W. Malone via Malone.news,

Back in 2020, Pew Research Center surveyed more than 11,000 Americans. Political scientist Zach Goldberg subsequently examined the underlying data and broke the results down by age, sex, race, and political ideology.

What he found was rather remarkable.

Among white women ages 18 to 29 who identified as liberal, 56.3% reported that a doctor or other health-care provider had diagnosed them with a mental health condition.

  • Not 15%.

  • Not 25%.

  • Fifty-six percent.

  • For white moderate women of the same age, the number was 28.4%.

  • For white conservative women, 27.3%.

In other words, young white liberal women were more than twice as likely as their conservative counterparts to report having received a mental health diagnosis.

Now, correlation is not causation. Perhaps liberals are simply more willing to seek psychiatric care. Perhaps conservatives are less willing to admit that they have a problem. Perhaps political ideology attracts people with particular personality traits rather than creating those traits. All perfectly reasonable possibilities.

But here is where it gets interesting.

Five years later, the numbers have not exactly moved in a reassuring direction.

Gallup found that only 15% of American women ages 18-29 surveyed from 2020 through 2024 described their mental health as excellent. In 2010-2014, that number had been 48%.

That is not a small decline. That is a collapse.

And the ideological divide is still there.

The 2024 American Family Survey found that only 12% of liberal women ages 18-40 described themselves as "completely satisfied" with their lives.

  • Among moderate women: 28%.
  • Among conservative women: 37%.

Liberal women were also nearly three times as likely as conservative women to report feeling lonely several times a week or more: 29% versus 11%.

So perhaps endlessly telling young women that they live in an oppressive society, that the world is on the verge of climate catastrophe, that words are violence, that disagreement is dangerous, that our President is evil, that the patriarchy is lurking behind every corner, that Western civilization is fundamentally corrupt, and that their personal unhappiness is caused by vast structural forces over which they have virtually no control is not actually a recipe for human flourishing.

Who could have guessed?

There is an important caveat. A 2025 study found that some of the apparent liberal-conservative mental-health divide may reflect differences in how people think and talk about "mental health." When researchers simply asked people about their mood, rather than their mental health, much of the ideological difference disappeared.

Fair enough.

But that doesn't explain away the extraordinary collapse in reported well-being among young women generally, nor does it make the life-satisfaction and loneliness data disappear. Maybe the question isn't whether liberalism causes mental illness.

Maybe the more interesting question is whether a culture built around grievance, victimhood, fear and powerlessness is particularly attractive to unhappy people, makes unhappy people unhappier, or both. That seems like a question worth asking. Even if asking it makes someone very, very upset.

There is, however, an uncomfortable counterpoint to all this discussion of female unhappiness and mental illness. Men are far more likely to actually die by suicide. In the United States, the male suicide rate is nearly four times the female rate, and men account for roughly four out of every five suicide deaths. The disparity exists globally as well. Perhaps that exposes a deeper truth about the modern cult of victimhood. We have created a culture extraordinarily skilled at teaching certain groups to name every grievance, diagnose every distress, identify every oppressor and demand that society recognize their pain, while other forms of suffering remain remarkably easy to ignore. Young women may be reporting extraordinary levels of anxiety, depression and psychiatric diagnosis, but men are quietly killing themselves at vastly higher rates.

That does not diminish women's suffering. It suggests that our entire framework for understanding suffering may be badly distorted. A society obsessed with determining who is the victim and who is the oppressor can become remarkably blind to the human being who doesn't fit the approved narrative, particularly when that human being is male.

There is another possibility here that deserves far more attention: the diagnosis itself has become part of the epidemic. When more than half of young women in a political demographic report having been diagnosed with a mental health condition, the appropriate response is not simply to declare that half the population is mentally ill. It is to ask what the hell the health-care system is doing. Psychiatry has steadily expanded the boundaries of pathology, medicalizing distress, grief, anxiety, loneliness, adolescent turmoil, and ordinary difficulty as diagnosable disease. A system that can convert normal human suffering into a billing code, a prescription, and a lifelong medical identity should not be treated as a neutral observer of this crisis. At some point, an exploding diagnosis rate stops being proof of exploding disease and starts becoming evidence that the diagnostic machinery itself may be broken.

Consider what we are now being asked to accept as normal. The 2026 Lancet Global Burden of Disease study estimates that 1.17 billion human beings, roughly one person in seven on Earth, are living with a mental disorder, and mental disorders now account for 17.3 percent of all years lived with disability worldwide, making them the single largest source of nonfatal disability. Women carry an even greater burden than men, with the female age-standardized mental-disorder burden about 18 percent higher. This is insane, not because hundreds of millions of people do not genuinely suffer from serious psychiatric illness, but because at some point a civilization has to ask what these numbers actually mean. Did humanity suddenly become catastrophically mentally ill, or have we built a medical system that increasingly converts sadness, fear, loneliness, grief, adolescent turmoil and difficulty coping with life into psychiatric pathology? When one in seven people on the planet fits into the modeled category of mental disorder, the diagnostic framework itself deserves scrutiny. A medical system cannot simply keep expanding the definition of sickness and then point to the resulting mountain of sickness as proof that it was right.

Toxic Feminism

There was a feminism that told women they should have choices. Then there is the more modern version of feminism that increasingly seems to tell women which choices an enlightened woman is supposed to make. Career is achievement. Marriage is dependence. Motherhood is unpaid labor. Men are potential oppressors. Traditional families are suspect. Finances should always be kept separate, plan for a divorce, financial independence is a must. Independence is liberation, and needing another human being is somehow weakness. Delay marriage. Delay children. Establish the career. Find yourself. Become independent. Never settle. Put yourself first.

There is just one rather awkward problem with this prescription for female happiness: human beings are profoundly social animals, and the scientific literature keeps rediscovering the importance of precisely the relationships that modern culture has spent decades teaching women not to need.

Femininity is Real

There is also an uncomfortable biological reality that modern ideology would prefer to treat as an inconvenience: women are not simply smaller men with different reproductive organs. Progesterone is central to female reproduction, but its effects extend into the brain and behavior. Human research has associated higher progesterone with affiliation, social bonding, sensitivity to relationships and even greater willingness to sacrifice for another person.

Estrogen, particularly estradiol, does far more than regulate reproduction. It acts throughout the female brain, interacting with oxytocin and other neuroendocrine systems involved in mood, sexuality, emotional processing, social attachment, and stress. Together with progesterone and oxytocin, estrogen contributes to the biological systems underlying bonding, maternal behavior, and caregiving. And that capacity for nurturing does not suddenly switch off when there is no baby in the room.

Women show stronger tendencies toward caregiving, empathy, and relational investment, although there is enormous individual variation. Biology is not destiny, but neither is it imaginary. To dismiss these deeply rooted female tendencies as merely products of the patriarchy, or to teach women that caring for and depending upon others is somehow incompatible with independence, comes at a real psychological cost, and we are witnessing this worldwide. A feminism that requires women to deny important parts of their own biology is a strange definition of female liberation.

The female impulse toward attachment, relationship and nurturing cannot simply be dismissed as a patriarchal social construct. There is biology underneath it. A culture that tells women that caring for others is servitude, that motherhood is an impediment to achievement, and that putting another human being ahead of oneself represents oppression may therefore be fighting something considerably older than the patriarchy. It may be fighting female biology itself.

Psychology even has a validated instrument called the Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory, developed specifically to measure hostile prejudices and stereotypes about men. And the hostility is measurable. In a subsequent study of 488 college students, women scored significantly higher than men on the instrument's Hostility Toward Men scale, 2.76 versus 2.25 on a 0-to-5 scale.

How a broader culture came to normalize the sweeping negative generalizations about men, male sexuality, male power and masculinity that would immediately be recognized as prejudice if the sexes were reversed is an interesting question. Hostility between the sexes is not liberation. It poisons precisely the trust, affection and intimacy upon which successful relationships depend.

The evidence surrounding work, family and mental health should make us reconsider what women have been sold as liberation. In one nationally representative study of 4,714 working women, high work-family conflict was associated with 2.29 times the odds of depressive symptoms, with some of the strongest associations occurring among younger, highly educated, higher-income and never-married women. Studies of female physicians and longitudinal studies of working women tell much the same story: when professional life and family life are placed into sustained conflict, mental health suffers.

The mistake was never telling women that they could become physicians, scientists, executives, farmers, entrepreneurs or anything else they were capable of becoming. Of course they could, and they should have been free to do so.

The mistake was turning independence itself into the objective, as though dependence upon people who love us were some sort of character defect. A husband and wife depend upon one another. Children depend upon parents. Parents eventually depend upon their children. Families are elaborate networks of mutual obligation. That isn't oppression. It is much of what gives human life meaning.

And perhaps most poisonous of all is the idea that relations between men and women should be understood primarily as a contest for power. Teach a generation of women to approach half of humanity with suspicion, to interpret ordinary disagreement through the language of oppression, and to view compromise as surrender, and then act surprised when relationships become difficult. Whatever one chooses to call that worldview, it is a miserable foundation upon which to build intimacy.

Girls do not generally sit through a classroom lesson entitled Marriage Is Bad. The message is subtler than that. From school through college, the language surrounding female success increasingly emphasizes independence, autonomy, empowerment, career, individual rights and self-realization. What is striking is what receives far less emphasis: interdependence, marriage, sacrifice, obligation, motherhood, building a household, choosing a good husband and creating a stable family.

Dependence itself has acquired an almost pathological meaning, as though needing a husband, wife, children or extended family represents personal failure rather than the normal condition of human beings. A girl is repeatedly asked what career she wants when she grows up. How often is she asked what kind of marriage she hopes to build, what kind of mother she hopes to become, or what sacrifices a lasting relationship will require? The lesson does not have to be written on the blackboard to be learned: success is something you achieve individually; family is something you fit around it later, and you would be stupid not to be financially independent before having children, cause men generally aren't to be trusted to hang around long enough to raise a family.

There is an enormous difference between telling a woman you do not have to marry or have children and telling her, explicitly or implicitly, that marriage and motherhood represent lesser ambitions than professional status. Biology also imposes a deadline that corporate advancement does not. A promotion can arrive at 42. A first child may not. Women deserve to know that when they are 22, not discover it when they are 39.

In our lives, we know two women in their thirties who are in the process of freezing their eggs; evidently, they believe that when they are forty or fifty, they will be in a better position to have a child? And we have another single friend, who at fifty, has decided she has aged out of ever being a mother. All of these women are college-educated professionals, never married, and are coming to terms with their biological clocks running out.

A culture that encourages women to postpone permanent relationships, prioritize professional status, regard dependence as weakness, and treat men principally as a source of danger or oppression should at least be willing to examine the results. If the promised liberation ends with unprecedented numbers of young women anxious, depressed, medicated, lonely and unable to form the families they later discover they wanted, declaring the experiment an unquestionable success is not feminism.

It is marketing.

The Big Lie

And then there is the part nobody is supposed to mention: this arrangement is extraordinarily good for industry. The intact family is an economic institution as well as a social one. Husbands and wives share labor. Grandparents care for grandchildren. Families cook meals, repair things, care for the sick and elderly, grow food, teach children, share houses, lend money, pass down skills and provide an enormous amount of economic activity that never appears on a corporate balance sheet. Break those bonds apart and suddenly nearly everything has to be purchased. Two adults maintaining two households need two rents or mortgages, two sets of utilities, two kitchens and twice the household goods.

Put both parents into full-time employment and families purchase more childcare, prepared food, transportation and other substitutes for work once performed within the home. Send rural children hundreds of miles away to college and then into metropolitan corporate employment, and another generation is separated from grandparents, land, community, and the informal economy of extended family. None of this requires a conspiracy. It requires only incentives. And corporations benefit enormously from this arrangement.

Corporations benefit when people become workers first, consumers second, and family members somewhere farther down the list. The Big Lie was convincing women (and men) that exchanging dependence upon people who loved them for dependence upon employers, banks, universities, childcare companies, and the consumer economy was somehow independence. The destruction of family and community did not make people independent. It merely changed whom they depended upon, and unlike a family, the corporation collected the dividends.

The Result is "Mental Illness"

Going back to those numbers at the beginning of this essay, perhaps we have been asking the wrong question. When 56.3 percent of young white liberal women report having been diagnosed with a mental health condition, the immediate assumption is that something must be terribly wrong with these women. Maybe instead, something is terribly wrong with the culture they have been raised in.

For decades, young people, and young women in particular, have been sold a remarkably destructive definition of success. Leave home. Go deeply into debt for college. Build the career. Delay marriage. Delay children. Treat dependence upon another person as weakness. Treat compromise as surrender. Regard traditional institutions with suspicion. Learn to identify grievances. Put yourself first. And when the loneliness, anxiety, purposelessness and unhappiness arrive, there is an enormous medical industry waiting to provide the diagnosis and, frequently, the prescription.

Then we marvel at the epidemic of mental illness.

Perhaps a significant portion of what we are calling a mental-health crisis is actually a crisis of meaning, belonging and human connection. A pill cannot provide a husband or wife. Therapy cannot manufacture grandchildren around the Thanksgiving table. A diagnosis cannot replace friendship, faith, family, community, useful work, children who need you, parents who depend upon you, or the knowledge that one's life matters to people other than oneself. Medicine can treat disease. It is considerably less capable of treating a culture that has systematically stripped away many of the institutions that once gave ordinary people purpose.

And men have hardly escaped this experiment. While women report extraordinary levels of anxiety, depression and psychiatric diagnosis, men are killing themselves at vastly higher rates. That should be the flashing red warning light. The ideology of victimhood may teach women to describe their suffering endlessly while feminist teachings overlook the suffering of those assigned the role of "oppressor."

None of this means returning women to some imaginary 1950s existence or denying anyone education, independence or a career. It means admitting something considerably more radical in 2026: human beings need one another. Men need women. Women need men. Children need parents. Parents need children. Families need communities, and communities need people who remain invested in them. Independence was never the highest human good.

That may be the real Big Lie. We were told that liberation meant needing fewer people, carrying fewer obligations and being free to put ourselves first.

Instead, we became more dependent upon employers, corporations, universities, government programs, therapists, pharmaceutical companies and the marketplace to provide things that families and communities once provided for one another.

And now 1.17 billion people are estimated to be living with a mental disorder.

Perhaps the strangest response imaginable is to look at that number and conclude that the problem is simply that humanity needs more mental-health treatment.

Maybe people need more life.

More family. More marriage. More children. More friendship. More community. More responsibility. More people depending upon them, and more people upon whom they can depend.

That isn't oppression.

It is called being human.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 22:30

Iran Threatens South Korean Assets If Seoul Joins Hormuz Mission

Zero Hedge -

Iran Threatens South Korean Assets If Seoul Joins Hormuz Mission

Via Middle East Eye

Iranian academic Mohammad Marandi has warned that Tehran would consider South Korea an enemy and could strike its economic and military interests across the Persian Gulf if Seoul joins the US-led war on Iran.

Speaking on Al Mayadeen’s The Grand Standoff, Marandi said South Korea’s involvement in efforts to secure freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz would expose its interests in the region to Iranian retaliation.

US Army AH-64 Apache helicopters at Camp Humphreys in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, 21 August 2026 (Yonhap/AFP)

“If the South Koreans participate in this war against Iran, Iran will see it as the enemy,” Marandi said, adding that Tehran would seek to “destroy whatever assets South Korea has in this region”.

Those targets would not necessarily be military installations, he said, and Iranian strikes could include South Korean assets in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

“So the Koreans are very vulnerable to Iran,” said Marandi. “Iran can hurt them very badly.

His comments came as South Korea considers potential naval contributions to efforts to restore freedom of navigation through the Strait of Hormuz, a vital waterway for global energy supplies.Various options are under consideration, but no decision has been mad e, South Korea’s presidential office said on Friday. 

The office said general options had been discussed on possible military contributions, including combat participation, noncombat roles and search operations, Al Jazeera reported. “Please be advised that nothing has been decided yet concerning actual contributions,” the presidential office said.

Seoul was considering sending military assets to the region and seeking approval from parliament, South Korean media reported.  Options under consideration included a P-8 Poseidon maritime patrol aircraft and a naval logistics support ship, a report by The Guardian said

South Korean broadcasters also reported that a navy explosive ordnance disposal team could be included. Any new deployment of military personnel would have to be reviewed by South Korea’s National Security Council, passed by a resolution of the cabinet and approved by the National Assembly, the presidential office said.

The debate comes as South Korea faces mounting pressure from Washington to join efforts around the Strait of Hormuz. US President Donald Trump has blasted Seoul for not backing the US war on Iran and tied the spat to wider strains in the US-South Korea alliance. South Korea also depends heavily on the waterway for its energy supplies. 

Last year, the country depended on shipments traversing Hormuz for 61 percent of its crude oil imports and 54 percent of its naphtha imports.

Marandi said the potential contribution was not likely to be a game-changer in the conflict and said South Korea had little military capability to contribute to the US. “What is a ship or two from South Korea going to do? It’s foolish,” he said.

But he warned that any participation could have economic implications far beyond military assets. “Iran will not only target the South Korean military assets, but Iran could easily destroy their economic assets across the Persian Gulf region,” Marandi said.

Under pressure from Washington, South Korea expanded the deployment of an anti-piracy naval unit from Somalia to waters around the Strait of Hormuz in 2019. 

However, South Korea’s defense minister said in March that any substantially different mission in the strait would require parliamentary consent.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 21:20

Nick Shirley Sues California Over 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

Zero Hedge -

Nick Shirley Sues California Over 'Stop Nick Shirley Act'

Independent investigative journalist Nick Shirley spent the better part of a year investigating alleged fraud at nonprofits accused of diverting taxpayer funds meant for immigrant services. California responded by passing a law that makes it harder to look at those nonprofits at all. Now he is suing to have that law thrown out. 

Shirley filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California on September 4, arguing that Assembly Bill 2624, nicknamed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, violates his First Amendment rights by restricting his ability to investigate and report on immigration-related service organizations. Critics gave the bill a blunter name months ago. 

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed AB 2624 last month. The law, which doesn’t take effect until October 1, 2027, expands California's existing Safe at Home program, a shield the state originally built for domestic violence survivors, to cover nonprofit employees who help people navigate the immigration system.

Anyone who distributes information or images of a covered worker under circumstances the law defines as inciting violence or threats faces a penalty of $4,000. 

“Now, in a world where we all want more transparency and not less, it is more critical than ever that we do not just sit back and do nothing,” Shirley asked in a video posted to X announcing the lawsuit.

“That is why I am filing this lawsuit against the State of California. Because why would they create a law that pushes for less transparency when all we want is more transparency, especially when it comes to our tax dollars being defrauded? And why specifically make immigration support service providers a protected class inside of California?”

Under the law, a worker at a covered organization, or an entity acting on their behalf, can submit a written demand blocking publication of certain identifying information about them.

Shirley and other critics say that provision hands anyone under scrutiny a built-in kill switch for the story, and thus any accountability for fraud.

According to the bill’s language, "A program participant or an individual entity or organization authorized to act on their behalf may make a written demand to a person, business or association to not publicly post or publicly display, disclose, or distribute on the internet the personal information or image of the program participant," he said, reading from the statute.

"California has decided to push for less transparency and create laws that penalize citizens and journalists for looking into potential fraud inside 'immigration support services providers,'" Shirley wrote in the X post announcing the suit.

Shirley traces the bill's origin to January 31, when he announced that he was in California investigating alleged fraud.

Days later, Newsom said the San Diego Somali community felt "under siege" from what he called "right-wing provocateurs," a comment Shirley says was about him. On February 5, California Attorney General Rob Bonta held a news conference dismissing the fraud allegations, calling them "reckless, false, outrageous, and ridiculous."

Fifteen days later, Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, who happens to be married to the attorney general, introduced AB 2624.

"They needed the Stop Nick Shirley Act, AB 2624, to protect the fraud and stop people from exposing these locations inside of immigration support providers," he said.

The bill's text defines immigration support service providers broadly enough to include legal services, healthcare, and nonprofits generally, and one of the organizations that helped push the legislation has itself pulled in tens of millions of taxpayer dollars for immigration legal work in the state. Shirley's history with this beat predates the California fight. 

Shirley's lawsuit does not seek monetary damages.

“We're not suing for a single dollar,” he explained. “We're suing simply on the fact that they're taking away your First Amendment, right with this new law. In fact, I might spend months, I might spend years fighting this lawsuit for so long, think about it for so long. These corrupt politicians have been able to push and shove us around and receive no consequences for their actions.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 20:45

California Police Seize 2,400 Stolen Catalytic Converters Worth $4.3 Million

Zero Hedge -

California Police Seize 2,400 Stolen Catalytic Converters Worth $4.3 Million

A three-month investigation into widespread catalytic converter thefts in Southern California culminated Thursday with five arrests and the recovery of an enormous cache of allegedly stolen auto parts, according to KTLA.

Law enforcement agencies executed several search warrants across Los Angeles and Orange counties, uncovering roughly 2,400 catalytic converters with an estimated value of $4.3 million. Images released after the raids show converters packed into large containers and stacked throughout a warehouse allegedly connected to the operation.

Investigators believe the suspects were part of a broader system for handling stolen converters rather than simply carrying out individual thefts. Authorities say the investigation connected thefts reported across several northern Orange County communities to an organized operation that collected, stripped, transferred and purchased the stolen equipment.

KTLA writes that the searches also turned up more than $105,000 in cash, two firearms that authorities said were not registered and several boxes containing precious metals. Catalytic converters are attractive to thieves because they contain valuable metals that can be extracted and resold.

The operation brought together several agencies, including the Orange and Los Angeles county sheriff’s departments, California DMV investigators, state insurance investigators and the Orange County District Attorney’s Office. Authorities said the scale of the seizure was the product of months of coordinated investigative work.

Following the arrests, officials encouraged vehicle owners to make their cars harder targets by parking in garages or well-lit locations when possible. They also recommended catalytic converter protection devices and having identifying information etched onto vulnerable vehicle components to make stolen parts more difficult to resell.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 19:35

"Hurry Up And Die": Michigan Democrat Joins Other Radicals In Scrubbing Past Social Media Statements

Zero Hedge -

"Hurry Up And Die": Michigan Democrat Joins Other Radicals In Scrubbing Past Social Media Statements

Authored by Jonathan Turley via JonathanTurley.org,

A certain pattern is emerging on the far left. Political figures spend years currying the favor of other extremists with outrageous commentary, proudly proclaiming their commitment to eliminating the Senate, opening the border, and other measures. Then, they delete all of the comments and declare themselves mainstream. The idea is to run in the center but govern from the far left, the so-called Spanberger strategy. The latest example is William Lawrence, who is running for Michigan's 7th Congressional District. However, Lawrence's prior self reveals just how radical this movement could prove.

Like many professors, pundits, and politicians on the left, Lawrence has called for sweeping changes in our constitutional system. Lawrence reportedly has demanded a "fundamental overhaul" of the Constitution while calling for the elimination of the Senate, police, prisons, and borders.

He has even denounced the nuclear family as an "isolating, individualistic, violent way of organizing society."

Notably, he is the latest radical to show that the "Big Tent" party has little room for moderates. While establishment figures like Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries seek to use this mob, radicals have made clear that they will be next. Darializa Avila Chevalier is the latest Democratic Socialist to mock the establishment's pitch of a Big Tent party: "A big tent doesn't pay your rent, lower your grocery bill, or take on the corporations bleeding our country dry. Democratic socialism does."

In Lawrence's case, he even put this feelings to music, writing a song a few years ago that calls for the death of moderate former Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin, declaring, "Our generation says f**k you for everything...Hurry up and die so that we can get started."

He has also denounced capitalism and the very concept of the nation-state.

Lawrence was previously arrested for resisting police officers while protesting a pipeline.

As discussed earlier, candidates like James Talarico in Texas have scrubbed their social media accounts or dismissed their earlier radical claims, including attacks on capitalism. Supporters view these candidates as already proving their bona fides and understanding that they are just sanitizing their records for voters who want the illusion of a moderate. Accordingly, many applaud figures such as Socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, dismissing her own extremist statements just a few years ago as "Woke 1." like some distant childhood stage.

These radical figures are learning that their views are distinctly unpopular with American voters so they are perfecting stealth socialist candidates who can run a type of Spanberger campaign while later pursuing a socialist agenda.

Lawrence's past positions show little nuance and closely track the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. Destroying the constitutional system, rejecting the nation-state, eliminating prisons, and other radical positions propelled these candidates through the primaries. The effort to now scrub the records shows the utter contempt that many have for average voters.

Lawrence shows the delusion of establishment figures such as Gavin Newsom that they can use a mob to gain power without being eventually devoured by it. In my book Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution, I discuss the French Revolution and its decline into what the Framers called a mobocracy. What became known as "The Terror" was started not by the working class, but by educated lawyers, journalists, and even aristocrats as part of the Jacobin movement.

These are hardcore revolutionaries with an agenda that would destroy the world's oldest and most successful democratic system in history. Party leaders facilitate them because they can only think about the next election, not the next generation. Lawrence is a cautionary tale that Benjamin Franklin remains correct, this is our Republic but only if we can keep it.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 19:00

5 Dead As Amazon-Branded Cargo Jet Overshoots Miami Runway, Plows Into Tesla Cybercab Lot

Zero Hedge -

5 Dead As Amazon-Branded Cargo Jet Overshoots Miami Runway, Plows Into Tesla Cybercab Lot

An Amazon-branded Boeing 767 cargo jet overran a runway at Miami International Airport on Sunday afternoon, leaving five people dead and five others injured.

Flight-tracking website Flightradar24 said the Boeing 767-300 cargo aircraft, operated as 21 Air Flight 7598, was arriving from San Juan, Puerto Rico, shortly before 2 p.m. when it overran Runway 30, struck several vehicles, and came to rest in a parking lot. 

Footage from the scene shows the 767 cargo jet colliding with multiple vehicles before coming to rest in a parking lot filled with Tesla Cybercabs, Cybertrucks, and other vehicles.

NBC News quoted Miami-Dade Fire Chief Raied Jadallah as saying that five people died in the incident and five others were injured. Three of the injured were transported to a trauma center in critical condition, while two others were taken to a local hospital.

Amazon spokesperson Kelly Nantel told the outlet, "This is a fast-moving situation and we're still gathering details. We're working closely with local authorities and officials to understand exactly what happened," adding, "Right now, our absolute priority is the safety, well-being, and care of everyone involved."

Flightradar24 said that, as of 1700 ET, departures at MIA had resumed.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it is gathering data and working with the FAA to determine the cause of the crash.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 18:26

Army To Spend $465 Million On 'Group 3 Killer' Anti-Drone Laser

Zero Hedge -

Army To Spend $465 Million On 'Group 3 Killer' Anti-Drone Laser

Authored by Jeff Schogol via Task & Purpose,

The Army has awarded a $464.8 million contract for a laser weapon designed to destroy the type of drones that Iran has launched against U.S. troops and partner nations in the Middle East for more than five months.

The Army has awarded a $464.8 million contract to AeroVironment, Inc. for the LOCUST X3 laser system. Image via AeroVironment, Inc.

The service has selected the LOCUST X3 laser made by AeroVironment, Inc. for its Enduring-High Energy Laser program, according to a company news release.

The 30-kilowatt laser is specifically designed to counter mid-sized drones that the U.S. military refers to as Group 3 unmanned aerial systems, said John Garrity, vice president of directed energy systems at AeroVironment, Inc. One such unmanned aerial system that has frequently been used against U.S. troops in the Middle East is Iran's Shahed-136 one-way attack drone.

"LOCUST X3 is intended to be the Group 3 killer," Garrity told reporters on Aug. 7. "When we talk about Group 3, that's just one of the more prevalent threats that you see in warfare today, seen in conflicts in Iran and in Ukraine with Shahed drones."

The laser allows U.S. troops to destroy drones at greater ranges than other types of weapons, and the LOCUST X3 can bring down targets in seconds, Garrity said. Those attributes allow the weapon to rapidly destroy drone swarms.

"When you talk about a LOCUST laser weapon system, you're able to put effects on target at wide ranges at the speed of light," Garrity said. "If you're able to kill off drones in single-digit seconds or less, depending on the range and the type of material, you're able to jump between targets quite effectively and efficiently."

The laser is also meant to destroy smaller drones, which the military calls Group 1 and 2 unmanned aerial systems, he said.

"Unfortunately, all three classes of those drones can do a tremendous amount of harm to our assets and our servicemen and women," Garrity said.

The LOCUST X3 is meant to be "the apex predator" of the Army's layered defenses against small to mid-level drones, said Aaron Westman, senior director for business development at AeroVironment, Inc.

"It can really kill a lot of threats," Westman said during the media roundtable. "Its job is to really, let's say, thin the herd to be able to kill high volumes of threats."

That allows the military to save its more expensive interceptors for specific threats so that its system of layered defenses "doesn't run out of bullets," Westman said.

Currently, the U.S. military's inventory of ground-based air defense missiles has been so depleted during the Iran war that experts estimate it will take years to replenish all the interceptors that have been fired.

The LOCUST X3 laser is designed to be mounted on Army vehicles. Image via AeroVironment, Inc.

Westman added that a missile can miss its target, but with a laser, "as long as you can see something, you can hit it."

AeroVironment, Inc. will deliver dozens of LOCUST X3 lasers to the Army over the next few years as part of the contract, a company news release says. The laser is designed to be mounted on vehicles, such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle. Efforts are ongoing to determine if the laser can also be mounted on the Infantry Squad Vehicle.

An Army spokesperson previously told Task & Purpose that if the laser were approved and fielded as planned, it would become the service's first directed-energy program of record.

Over time, the company expects to field higher power versions of the lasers, Garrity said.

Earlier versions of the LOCUST laser have already been fielded, with some laser systems deployed within the continental United States, Garrity said. One feature common to the company's lasers is that they use an Xbox controller.

"To a young soldier, sailor, airman, guardian that's using these systems, it's not unlike what they're using at their own house for video games," Garrity said.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 18:00

Trump Admin Weighs Child Care Subsidies For Stay-At-Home Parents

Zero Hedge -

Trump Admin Weighs Child Care Subsidies For Stay-At-Home Parents

The Trump administration is drafting a rule that would allow some married couples with a stay-at-home parent to receive federal child care subsidies, an initiative reportedly championed by Vice President JD Vance, according to the New York Times

The proposal would use the existing Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF), which has traditionally helped lower-income parents pay for child care while they work, attend school or receive job training. Federal guidance currently ties CCDF assistance largely to those activities.

Under the proposal, a married couple meeting income requirements could qualify when one spouse works at least 35 hours a week and the other cares for their child at home. The subsidy would effectively help compensate for income forgone by the stay-at-home parent. Unmarried couples with a stay-at-home parent and nonworking single parents would not qualify under the draft.

The Times reports that the change reflects a broader effort within the administration to support families that choose parental care over commercial day care. Vance has previously argued that “Young children are clearly happier and healthier when they spend the day at home with a parent.”

Critics warn that expanding eligibility without adding funding could reduce assistance available to working parents and threaten child care providers that depend on subsidy payments. Joshua McCabe of the Niskanen Center said, “Expanding the eligibility without increasing funding would mean more parents competing for the same dollars, and leaving more parents — particularly single working parents — worse off.”

Krystal Gastineau, a Colorado child-care center owner who said about half of the children she serves receive subsidies, warned that the proposal could pull funding away from providers: “If they could, I think parents would choose to take the money and stay home.” She added, “That would take away a major source of income.”

Supporters argue that federal policy should treat parental care more like paid child care and give families greater flexibility. The proposal could potentially be implemented without new legislation, although questions have reportedly been raised about its legality, particularly the preference for married couples, as well as possible fraud risks.

The draft still requires White House approval and a public-comment period and could change before becoming final.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 17:30

Ex-CNN Propagandist Don Lemon Mulls Presidential Run

Zero Hedge -

Ex-CNN Propagandist Don Lemon Mulls Presidential Run

Authored by Luis Cornelio via Headline USA,

The Democratic Party has long attracted peculiarly strange individuals who have been floated as potential presidential candidates, including convicted felon Michael Avenatti, disgraced former first son Hunter Biden, Jerry Springer and anti-Trump filmmaker Michael Moore. Add former CNN anchor Don Lemon to that list.

Lemon, now a YouTuber whom CNN fired amid allegations of misogyny, toxic workplace behavior and friction with female coworkers, hinted at a potential presidential campaign in a Thursday interview with Politico.

"I'm not a politician. I'm a journalist. But now I get to learn about maybe what's to come and how to do it," Lemon said. "And maybe how to do it better."

He later added that he would run for president if enough people ask. "I'm an American patriot. I'm a son of the South, and if people call on me to do it, I'll do it."

Lemon previously flirted with the idea of running for president on the July 15 episode of the Can't Be Censored podcast, where he said he was "totally serious" about mounting a presidential campaign in 2028.

In response to a question about whether he has political ambitions, Lemon claimed that people have been asking him if he is running for president.

"And I don't know. I might. I'm serious. I don't know. I might, because people keep asking me to do it, or if I'm going to do it," Lemon said.

In another interview with Vox, Lemon appeared to make the case for why he would be a better candidate than the politicians expected to join the crowded Democratic field for president in 2028.

"I'm not an insider and I am not a Democrat. I'd have to register as a Democrat in order to run," Lemon claimed. Asked if he believed voters wanted an outsider, Lemon replied, "I think people want independence."

Lemon has long claimed to be independent but has widely embraced policies heralded by the Democratic Party. For instance, he publicly voiced his support for the presidential campaign of then-Vice President Kamala Harris in 2024.

"I'm not a Democrat," he said at the time during an interview on NewsNation. "Not a Democrat. Not a Republican. I'm an independent. ... Some political leanings that are conservative and some that are liberal, like most people."

A potential Lemon bid, however, would have to overcome some hurdles in his legal, professional and personal life.

Lemon is facing federal civil rights charges after he allegedly participated in a 2025 anti-ICE riot inside Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. Lemon has pleaded not guilty.

Lemon hosted a primetime CNN show from 2014 until 2022 before he was publicly moved to a morning show. His stint as co-host of CNN This Morning fell apart after he said women in their 40s are past their "prime."

He also repeatedly clashed with his co-hosts live on-air. Separately, an explosive Variety exposé accused Lemon of "diva-like behavior," while describing tensions between him and colleagues.

In 2019, former bartender Dustin Hice filed a federal sexual assault lawsuit against Lemon, accusing the then-CNN anchor of fondling himself and putting his fingers on Hice's face. Hice later dropped the lawsuit in 2022.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 17:00

Diplomatic Blitz: Witkoff, Kushner Hold "Substantial" Ukraine Talks After Putin Meeting

Zero Hedge -

Diplomatic Blitz: Witkoff, Kushner Hold "Substantial" Ukraine Talks After Putin Meeting

President Trump's diplomatic sprint shifted from Moscow to Kiev over the weekend, with White House special envoy Steve Witkoff and presidential son-in-law Jared Kushner arriving in Ukraine for talks with senior officials. The visit came one day after the pair met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Russian state media outlet TASS cited Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, who said Putin's meeting with Witkoff and Kushner had created an "atmosphere of trust, at least through this channel of communication."

"The very fact that the meeting is taking place means that an atmosphere of trust does indeed exist, at least through this channel of communication, and that it is strengthening. As a rule, however, expanded exchanges of such welcoming remarks emerge when there are messages that the head of state considers necessary to convey," Peskov explained to the outlet.

A White House official said Witkoff and Kushner's three-hour meeting with Putin "discussed substantive plans for next steps, which will be announced in the coming weeks."

Last week, Reuters cited Kremlin aide Yuri Ushakov, who said Putin, Trump, and Chinese President Xi Jinping may hold a trilateral meeting at the next Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit in November.

After the Moscow meeting on Saturday, Witkoff and Kushner traveled to Ukraine for the first time during Trump's second term as part of his pledge to bring the conflict to an end.

Bloomberg reported early Sunday that Witkoff and Kushner's first round of talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and other high-level officials had ended.

Witkoff was quoted by the outlet as describing his talks with Ukrainian officials as "substantial," although no further details about what was discussed were released.

"We all want to end the war, and we are on the same page here," Zelenskyy said in brief remarks to reporters after the first meeting. "Every such meeting gets us closer to peace."

Zelenskyy was expected to speak to the reporters later in the day alongside the US envoys.

The push for a diplomatic end to the four-and-a-half-year conflict began with CIA Director John Ratcliffe's unexpected visit to Moscow nearly two weeks ago.

Ahead of the weekend meetings, Bloomberg reporters were increasingly less optimistic about a breakthrough peace deal, saying the prospects for ending the war remained low.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 13:05

Waste Of The Day: $79M To Not Work

Zero Hedge -

Waste Of The Day: $79M To Not Work

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Contractors working for the State of Illinois took a 470,000-hour paid lunch break on taxpayers' dime.

A company hired during the Covid-19 pandemic to fill staffing shortages at hospitals and long-term care facilities spent more than a third of its time on "standdown," a contract provision that paid them to be on-site and available in case they were needed.

The contractor, Favorite Healthcare Staffing, was supposed to notify the state any time its employees were on standdown for more than 24 hours. There was no evidence those notifications occurred, and the state only conducted limited oversight, according to an Aug. 11 report from Auditor General Christopher Meister.

Key facts: Favorite Healthcare earned $220.3 million from Illinois from 2022 to 2023, including $78.5 million for standdown hours.

The audit found 270 employees who billed for standdown time without actually working a single hour in two years. They earned $7.5 million.

At least eight employees even billed overtime at rates of up to $330 per hour during weeks they were on standdown for five consecutive days, according to the audit. One employee billed for overtime while he was in quarantine and not working.

Other employees billed more than 24 hours in a single day. The state paid their invoices without flagging the discrepancy, the audit found,

Favorite Healthcare was reimbursed $1.4 million for lodging costs, even though its employees were staying in their personal residences.

Upon discovering the issues, Illinois hired the consulting firm Innovative Emergency Management to review Favorite Healthcare's invoices.

But Innovative Emergency Management also had its own billing issues, the audit found. The company billed Illinois using duplicate timesheets and for employees who did not report working any hours.

Illinois later had to hire yet another firm, Crowe, to review Innovative Emergency Management's invoices. Crowe earned $1.3 million.

Summary: The public should not have to pay contractors to sit around and twiddle their thumbs, nor pay consultants to figure out why.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 11:40

Twelve Companies Make DOE's Latest Nuclear Launch Pad Cut

Zero Hedge -

Twelve Companies Make DOE's Latest Nuclear Launch Pad Cut

The DOE's National Reactor Innovation Center announced 12 companies covering 13 projects for its latest Nuclear Energy Launch Pad (NELP) round on August 24th. Similar to the project coverage from the first round, this new group also spans multiple stages of the nuclear industry

As we covered when the first four companies were selected, the initial group included the uranium enrichment company General Matter and reactor developers Radiant, Deployable Energy and NuCube Energy.

Multiple companies are seeing repeat entries into the fast-track nuclear development programs under the DOE:

  • Oklo, Antares, and Valar are all returning after achieving criticality on their pilot reactor designs under the DOE's Reactor Pilot Program
  • Deployable Energy is returning with two programs after also being included in the initial NELP selection round.

The NELP offers access to nuclear expertise and infrastructure with a prioritized pathway through DOE authorization. The NELP is the new program that succeeded the DOE Reactor Pilot Program and DOE Fuel Line Pilot Program that have kick-started the nuclear renaissance in the US.

While not every company has been open about what they're working on under the NELP, we collected what we could find on each of the companies and their various programs:

Antares Nuclear: Transportable microreactors for military and space applications. Its R1 design combines TRISO fuel with sodium heat pipes, targeting 100 kilowatts to 1 megawatt of electricity. Its selection uses “Launch Pad USA”, which means they do not have to be at the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) site to enjoy the benefits of the program

Atlas Atomics: They’re developing heavy-water reactor technology intended to combine electricity generation with medical and industrial isotope production and the reuse of spent nuclear fuel. Not much is known about their reactor design, but based on it being heavy water, it makes it similar to the CANDU reactor fleet in Canada. And with a previously written letter of support for Utah being one of the locations considered for the Nuclear Lifecycle Innovation Campuses, it is anticipated the company will be starting in the same state for their initial work.

Deployable Energy: Working on Unity, a transportable, high-temperature gas-cooled “nuclear battery” designed to generate 1 megawatt using helium cooling and conventional <5% enriched LEU fuel for industrial, defense, maritime and remote applications. Its two NELP selections cover a full-power demonstration at INL and a maritime demonstration with Hornbeck Offshore under Launch Pad USA.

Forge Atomics: Developing Ember, a factory-built, 25-megawatt reactor for data centers and the grid. It's one of the least novel designs on the list, leaning into the industry's decades of experience with pressurized water designs and conventional LEU fuel. Components are sized for highway transport, with factory manufacturing intended to bring down construction costs and delays.

Hexium: Developing laser-based isotope enrichment, initially targeting lithium for fusion and fission applications. The company is modernizing Atomic Vapor Laser Isotope Separation, technology developed at the DOE's national labs, and has also outlined plans for uranium enrichment. The company announced partnerships with Oklo and TerraPower when they initially came out of stealth last year.

Lightbridge: Developing twisted uranium-zirconium metallic fuel rods for existing and new reactors, including small modular reactors, aiming to improve heat transfer, increase output and extend refueling intervals. Its NELP project is SHED, a planned INL manufacturing facility for lead test assemblies destined for testing in U.S. commercial power reactors.

Nusano: Developing accelerator-based radioisotope production for cancer diagnosis and treatment, with additional work on industrial isotopes and nuclear batteries. Its energy business is pursuing mass-separation technology that enriches uranium metal to produce high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) for advanced reactor fuel.

Oklo: Developing Aurora fast-fission reactors to supply electricity and burn used nuclear fuel from traditional reactors. Their business model calls for owning and operating plants and selling their output under long-term contracts. The company is also pursuing nuclear-fuel recycling and isotope production for medical, industrial and research applications.

Raven-Flint Nuclear: Developing the Corvus Route for uranium conversion, producing uranium hexafluoride without elemental fluorine gas. Following laboratory production, its NELP project is Torch, a planned pilot conversion plant at INL targeting 500 tonnes of uranium annually. That would add capacity between uranium mining and enrichment.

Scaled Atomics: Developing the MN-350, a mobile nuclear power system designed for a standard 20-foot shipping container and a ten-year refueling interval. It targets military missions, disaster response and remote commercial sites. The company says Launch Pad USA will help advance MN-350 from advanced design toward demonstration and commercial deployment.

Sublime Nuclear: Focused on rebuilding the domestic nuclear fuel supply chain and reducing dependence on foreign suppliers. Unfortunately, that's about as much information as is currently available. The website doesn't have much else to it, and no press releases have been put out by the company yet.

Valar Atomics: Developing high-temperature gas-cooled reactors for mass production and deployment. Its ambitions extend across AI data centers, industrial heat, hydrogen and synthetic fuels, with manufacturing and deployment concentrated at what it calls gigasites. The company made headlines recently with a recent funding round that reached over $1 billion in equity and debt.
 

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 11:05

September Market Weakness: The Setup Has Teeth

Zero Hedge -

September Market Weakness: The Setup Has Teeth

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The Setup Has Teeth

Earlier this week, in our Daily Market Commentary, I flagged that the market was testing support after three straight down days, starting in September, with the calendar. That was just the warm-up, as the real story lies in a note from Scott Rubner at Citadel Securities, whose read on September market weakness is among the best that I have read. Rubner’s case is not that the bull market has ended. It is that the near-term math just changed, and hardly anyone is positioned for the shift.

Why September Market Weakness Is A Record, Not A Fluke

September has a losing record that is worth paying attention to. Since 1928, September is the only month in the year that closes lower more often than higher. Over the past century, the average return is a loss of roughly -1.1%, and in midterm election years like this one, it slips to roughly -1.5%. Furthermore, the back half of the month is the weakest two-week stretch of the calendar year.

As CNBC noted in its writeup of Rubner’s work, this is not a “quirky stat” from a cherry-picked window, it is close to a century of data pointing the same direction, and the average intra-month selloff of -4.7% (nearer -6.2% in midterm years) is the kind of air pocket that turns a quiet drift into a real drawdown before most investors update their models. Such is the reputation September has earned honestly.

The Buyers Who Carried August Are Leaving The Table

Here is what makes this year different. Every cohort that pushed the S&P 500 to records in August is stepping back at the same time. The earnings tailwind that carried the tape is largely behind us. Retail buyers, who returned in force through the summer, tend to fade in September, and Citadel’s own data show their buying on down days has run near half its normal pace since 2019. (Chart courtesy of Citadel Securities)

As we have discussed previously, the corporate bid, which has been a net buyer of equities since 2000, turns negative. Companies authorized more than $1.1 trillion in buybacks through August, but that buyer goes quiet as blackouts accelerate around September 12, right before third-quarter reporting. (Chart courtesy of Citadel Securities)

The systematic crowd, the CTAs and volatility-control funds that reloaded off the July lows, have already spent most of their capacity. (Chart courtesy of Citadel Securities)

When you add up the cohorts, the demand side is quietly EMPTYING.

So, here is the most common criticism hitting my inbox this past week: Yes, but that seasonality is just a statistic.” That is a fair statement, and it is indeed an average of returns. However, a statistic is exactly what it is. A statistic with five structural tailwinds draining out behind it, though, stops being a coin flip and starts being a setup

Protection Has Rarely Been This Cheap Into The Noise

Now, the part that should get your attention. Volatility collapsed in late August. The VIX fell to around 14, its lowest reading of the year, and S&P skew sank to the first percentile of its range, which is a technical way of saying downside insurance was the cheapest it had been all year. The one-month, 25-delta put changed hands near its most affordable level since December 2024.

As we headed into the month, a garden-variety three-day decline popped the VIX back toward 16 in just a handful of sessions. The size of that move, given the very mild decline, tells you how little cushion was priced in. Cheap protection is landing just as the macro calendar turns increasingly noisy, with the jobs report yesterday, then CPI, and an FOMC decision all stacked into the next two weeks. When protection is this cheap and buyers are this tired, the cost of being caught without a hedge climbs quickly. As Howard Marks likes to remind investors, you cannot predict, but you can prepare, and September has consistently been a month to prepare for.

To wit: cheap insurance is a gift the market rarely leaves on the table for long, and it never rings a bell on the morning it decides to take the gift back.

The Options Market Is Carrying A Record Into Expiry

The last piece of the September puzzle is purely mechanical. On the third Friday of the month, the September options expiry will occur. That event is currently on track to set a record. Roughly $9.6 trillion is set to roll off through September 18. Then about $6.2 trillion of that is concentrated to expire on the 18th alone. That single day would clear the June triple-witch near $7.7 trillion, which was itself a record. Add quarter-end pension rebalancing, with funding ratios near 112% and plans de-risking out of stocks and into bonds, and the plumbing itself leans against equities into month-end.

Notably, none of this guarantees a market selloff. However, it does stack the odds against overly aggressive investors. Currently, every major desk from JPMorgan to BofA has turned cautious. However, CNBC’s own investment committee is refusing to sell a single share into the weakness. That crowd can be right about the direction and still be wrong, or early, on the timing. Such is the nature of a market that loves to punish the obvious trade.

A Second Desk Lands On The Same Downside

While Scott Rubner reads the market through flows, BTIG’s Jonathan Krinsky reads it through the tape. Interestingly, he lands in nearly the same place as Rubner. Krinsky’s framing is that the post-summer rally has been a game of “musical chairs” rather than a true “broadening.” Money rotated out of Technology and AI into Consumer Cyclicals and Large Cap Value. At the same time, the index sits roughly where it did on June 2. Breadth has quietly rolled over. The share of Russell 3000 names above their 50-day average is the lowest since early April. Furthermore, the one-month correlations just jumped to their highest level since June. That is a classic tell that names begin to fall together.

 

The other half of the concern is investor complacency. The five-day put/call ratio sits near 0.82. That is one of the lowest readings in years. Notably, the tape has not printed a single 80% NYSE downside-volume day in almost a year. That long stretch falls against a historical average of 21.

Lastly, Krinsky’s base case is a failed retest of the 7,600 breakout, followed by a slide toward 7,200-7,300. Such a pullback would encompass 7% to 8% off the highs. While not a meaningful decline, given the market’s low volatility and high investor complacency, it will “feel” much worse. That lower zone sits right on Rubner’s midterm seasonal math and the rising 200-day average near 7,127.

Think about it this way. When both a flow desk and a technical desk reach the same number from opposite directions, you should at least respect it. Crucially, none of that means that it will happen with absolute certainty, nor does it pinpoint the day. But it is certainly a risk worth appreciating.

 

What Should Investors Do Now

So, what does this all mean for investors? Most importantly, this is a tactical market reset, not a call to abandon equities and go hide in cash. Scott Rubner himself framed the September weakness as a “better entry point ahead of a more constructive mid-October.”

He is correct. Once mid-October arrives, the options expiry will have cleared, the FOMC will have met, and corporate buybacks will have resumed. Notably, the market will be focusing on Q3 corporate earnings reports. which typically support markets heading into November.  

Therefore, the investor playbook is to use market strength to rebalance portfolio risk rather than chase it.

The moves worth making now are the unglamorous ones. Start by taking profits and banking gains where a position has run well past its intended weight. Raise a little cash so a pullback becomes an opportunity rather than a scramble. Then add downside protection while it is still on sale. Why? Because the whole point of Rubner’s note is that the insurance is cheap today and may not be next week. Such is the value of preparing before the crowd decides it has to.

September rarely hands out cheap insurance and a clear warning at the same time. When it does, the disciplined move is to take both.

*  *  *

Heading into next week, the support and resistance levels are evident. The first resistance is the record at 7,796, about 1% away. Just above that are the round numbers at 7,900 and 8,000. (Those are our year-end targets that sit just above previous all-time highs.) Conversely, support starts at the 50-day near 7,585. That level also marks the breakout that a failed retest would expose. Just below that level is the 7,300 zone, then the 200-day at 7,137, the same downside band the seasonal math points toward.

With that setup going into next week, we will want to continue playing defense rather than offense. Secondly, investors should consider increasing cash buffers keep stops under the 50-day. Lastly, use any push toward the record market levels to trim rather than chase.

To be fair to the bullish camp, a decisive close back above 7,796 would neutralize the momentum warning and reopen those round-number targets. There are several risks ahead, from the mid-term election cycle to the loss of corporate buybacks, so this is a two-sided setup rather than a directional call. However, pay close attention to the 7,585 next week. If the market can hold that level, the uptrend will remain intact. If it fails, the seasonal downside risk increases.

Key Catalysts Next Week

Next week is a holiday-shortened trading week with one question that will dominate it.

“Does inflation confirm the hike that Friday’s jobs report just put back on the table?”

With the market closed on Monday for Labor Day, that stacks the two prints that will matter the most at the very end. PPI lands Thursday morning and CPI follows Friday, both at 8:30 AM ET, and both feed straight into the September 16 FOMC decision.

This week is where the Fed debate will get settled. Ellen Zentner, chief economic strategist at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, framed it well after the jobs report. The upside payroll surprise certainly heightened rate-hike concerns, but the outcome will hinge on next week’s inflation numbers. If CPI and PPI come in cooler than feared, the Fed can discount the hot labor market signal. However, if both prints come in hotter than expected, a September hike moves from a coin flip to the base case.

As far as the rest of the week goes, the slate is fairly thin. Tuesday brings NFIB small business optimism and consumer credit. Then on Thursday, we will see jobless claims, existing home sales, and wholesale inventories. As noted, PPI also drops on Thursday, with Friday’s CPI report coming alongside the preliminary Michigan sentiment read. The Fed itself goes quiet, with the pre-meeting blackout that began September 5 keeping every official off the tape through the decision.

Overall, the earnings calendar remains very light, with the vast majority of earnings already behind us. However, of note, Oracle reports on Thursday after the close and will be scrutinized for AI cloud demand and hyperscaler capex. Its numbers and backlog commentary will swing semiconductors and the broader AI complex more than any single macro release.

Adobe follows the same afternoon. Crude is the other wildcard, with a 9% weekly surge on Middle East supply fears keeping energy and inflation risk alive. Thin post-holiday liquidity can exaggerate the reaction to both inflation prints, so expect sharper intraday swings than the calendar alone would suggest.

Friday’s CPI is THE report for the week, and everything else is pretty much a sideshow until that number crosses.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 10:30

UN Demands African Statues In London As Britain Is Told To Atone For Slavery

Zero Hedge -

UN Demands African Statues In London As Britain Is Told To Atone For Slavery

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

The United Nations has decided that Britain has not grovelled enough.

After years of toppled statues, boarded-up war memorials and official lectures about "colonialism," a UN human-rights committee now wants the country that ended the Atlantic slave trade to fill its public squares with statues of "people of African descent,"

The globalist body also suggests Britain should rewrite what children are taught, and treat historic slavery as a live brief for migration policy and hate-speech enforcement.

This comes in the form of formal "reparatory justice" guidance from the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, published six months after member states voted in New York to treat the transatlantic trade as the "gravest crime against humanity" and to press former slaving nations for apology, restitution and cash.

Britain abstained. The committee has carried on regardless.

The recommendations sit in guidance largely drafted by CERD panellists Gay McDougall, an American lawyer, and Pela Boker-Wilson, a Liberian legal expert. Former slave-trading states, the committee says, have a moral and legal "obligation to repair" the damage of slavery.

The guidance suggests that "Public spaces should honour the contributions of people of African descent and clearly acknowledge the wrongs of those who supported or benefited from historical atrocities."

That, the authors add, can mean artworks, statues, memorials and "dedications," and "Satisfaction to people of African descent can include the right to investigation and truth, public judgments and acknowledgements, apologies, acceptances of responsibility and public commemorations."

Full on virtue signalling grovelling, in other words.

The committee adds that schools "must ensure that schoolbooks and curricula present accurate, unbiased accounts of transatlantic chattel slavery, its aftermath and current realities, based on thorough research."

It adds that political leaders should "educate the public on the importance of reparatory justice for building a healthy, inclusive society." And on speech and migration, states "must act early to prevent prejudice and address misinformation about transatlantic chattel slavery and its ongoing harms to people of African descent."

It further outlines that reparations should include policies "eradicating xenophobia towards migrants and others perceived as such."

In other words: monuments, classrooms, archives, apologies - and a tighter leash on anyone who objects.

The report even revisits the 2020 Black Lives Matter summer. Protesters who tore down monuments linked to slavery and empire, it complains, were unfairly "disparaged" in the media, their cause painted as "obscure" and "Left-wing."

Edward Colston, dumped in Bristol harbour, is cited as the exhibit. The vandalism is recast as a moral lesson the United Kingdom has still not learned.

The political class in London has spent years flattering this mood. The public has not.

Historian and GB News presenter Matt Goodwin put the demand in one line: UN lawyers want "British people who never owned slaves and whose ancestors helped end the slave trade to pay people who were never slaves while ignoring the many millions of slaves in non-Western nations today." His verdict: "jog on."

Cambridge historian Professor Robert Tombs, founder of History Reclaim, called the campaign "sinister" and aimed at "censoring free discussion and imposing a certain view."

"Those who supported and benefitted included the predecessors of those who now demand reparations," he said. An "accurate, unbiased" account, he added, "would mean paying tribute to those in Britain and elsewhere who struggled to end the Atlantic slave trade."

"On that subject, we hear a lot about how Britain paid compensation to White slave owners in its colonies, but I have rarely if ever heard public recognition of the money paid to black slave traders for the same reason." His conclusion was blunt: "the whole thing is a huge financial and political scam."

Professor Lawrence Goldman, emeritus fellow in History at St Peter's College, Oxford, made the same point from another angle. "It's ironic that the UN should be telling Britain what to do about slavery. It was in Britain more than 200 years ago that the anti-slavery movement started, and we then led in the fight to end slavery across the world in the Victorian era, long before the UN existed."

He added, "But millions of people today are modern slaves, unable to live and work freely. Rather than lecture the leading anti-slavery nation about the past, the UN should do something about slavery in the present. That's its job."

That job is the one the UN keeps declining. Descent-based slavery still exists in parts of the Sahel. The Arab and East African trades ran for centuries after Britain banned its own. The committee's guidance barely glances at any of it. The target is always the same short list of Western capitals.

James Kariuki, formerly Britain's chargé d'affaires at the UN, has said London engaged in talks with the UN but "continues to disagree with fundamental propositions of the text." The EU's explanation of vote was even clearer: suggestions of retroactive international law and reparations claims were "incompatible with established principles of international law."

A UN judge has already floated a figure of more than £18 trillion as Britain's supposed bill - a sum several times the size of the UK economy. The Brattle Group's earlier estimate for Western states ran to tens of trillions. Many are adamant that these numbers are a shakedown dressed as justice.

The fashionable story treats Britain as the author of African slavery. The record is the opposite of that cartoon.

Parliament banned the British slave trade in 1807. The Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 then dismantled slavery across most of the empire, freeing more than 800,000 people in the Caribbean, the Cape and Mauritius.

To force the measure through against the West India interest, the Treasury committed about £20 million in compensation to registered owners - roughly 40 percent of annual government spending at the time.

The debt was financed through gilts. When the Treasury modernised the gilt portfolio in 2015, the last of those instruments was redeemed. That fact is now used as a taunt. It is also evidence of something the UN will not say: Britain paid an enormous price, in cash and in political capital, to end a system it had once joined.

Then came the part no UN committee wants to see on a plinth. From 1808 the Royal Navy's West Africa Squadron hunted slaving ships off the African coast. Over roughly half a century it seized around 1,600 vessels and freed some 150,000 Africans.

Sailors died of fever in large numbers doing work no other great power was willing to fund at that scale. At its height the suppression effort consumed a serious slice of national effort - diplomatic pressure, mixed courts, bribes and gunboats - to drag other nations into line.

Wilberforce, Clarkson, Sharp, Equiano and the Quaker networks did not wait for a UN working group. They built a mass movement inside a slave-trading country and won. African brokers and kingdoms, meanwhile, captured and sold people into the Atlantic system for generations.

The trans-Saharan, Red Sea and Indian Ocean trades ran longer still. Will any of these facts be included in an "accurate, unbiased account"?

Instead the official culture treats "colonial" as a magic word that wipes the slate. Nelson, Wellington, Picton, explorers, viceroys, even figures whose later lives were spent against bondage are folded into one smear.

In June 2020, after Colston went into the harbour and "was a racist" was sprayed on Winston Churchill in Parliament Square, London boxed up its own history.

Churchill, a statue of George Washington, and the Cenotaph - the memorial to the British dead - were boarded over before further marches.

Robert Milligan was lifted from outside the Museum of London Docklands. Guy's and St Thomas' talked of moving figures linked to slavery. Oriel's Rhodes statue became a permanent siege. Within months the argument had spread from slave traders to anyone who could be tagged "empire."

Sadiq Khan then appointed a Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm: a 15-member panel of curators, campaigners and cultural operators tasked with reviewing statues, street names and memorials so that London might be 'corrected'.

The mayor's office insisted the body was "not being established to preside over the removal of statues." Khan had already said "there are some slavers that should come down, and the commission will advise on that." Jacob Rees-Mogg called the exercise a stack of "loony, left-wing wheezes." Shaun Bailey called the appointees "unelected activists."

The net widened. Figures whose records included opposition to slavery were swept into the same "contested heritage" files. The point was never a careful ledger. It was to make British history look illegitimate in its own capital.

Wales made the method official. Labour's devolved government audited commemorations and issued "best-practice" advice that statues of "powerful, older, able-bodied white men" may be "offensive" to a "more diverse" public.

Councils were told to set the "right historical narrative." Options included concealing monuments, boxing them, wrapping them in new artworks, renaming streets - or destroying them.

Nelson, Wellington, Thomas Picton and Henry Morton Stanley were named. Diversity, the guidance lamented, was "hardly visible at all in public commemorations," which risked the "perception that the achievements that society considers noteworthy are those of powerful, older, able-bodied white men."

That sentence is the tell. A country is instructed to be ashamed of the men who built its navy, won its wars and, in the same era, smashed the trade the UN now pretends Britain never opposed. The term "Colonial" does the rest of the work.

The people who never owned a slave, and whose great-great-grandparents were more likely to have been mill hands than planters, are the ones invited to feel the shame. The governments that still tolerate bondage get a pass. The UN, which cannot keep slaves out of the Sahel or young protesters off Iranian gallows, finds the time to lecture the country that policed the Atlantic.

Britain abolished the trade. Britain spent a fortune and a navy making that abolition stick. The UN's answer is more statues, more guilt, and a warning to be nicer to the next boat full of illegal migrants. That is not reparatory justice. It is a political project that needs British history to stay on its knees.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Sun, 09/06/2026 - 09:20

Pages