Individual Economists

Transcript: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors founder and chairman

The Big Picture -

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors Founder & Chairman, is below.

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

~~~

MASTERS IN BUSINESS:  David Booth
Founder & Chairman, Dimensional Fund Advisors

Bloomberg Radio — Transcript

ANNOUNCER (00:00:02): Bloomberg Audio Studios. Podcasts. Radio. News.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:07): This week on the podcast — what can I say? Legendary investor and founder of Dimensional Funds, David Booth, talks about his entire career, his philosophy, philanthropy, how he helped build DFA into a trillion-dollar fund, and why people refuse to just manage what they can and stay calm in the face of volatility and market events. I thought the conversation — and the book, Stay Calm — was fascinating, and I think you will also. David Booth, welcome back to Bloomberg.

DAVID BOOTH (00:00:53): Well, thanks for having me. It’s always a pleasure.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:00:56): I was gonna say the same — it’s always a pleasure. I know your background, but I’m gonna assume a lot of listeners may not be familiar with it, so I wanna start by going all the way back to your college and grad school education. You get a bachelor’s in economics from the University of Kansas, then you get a master’s degree focused in business, and then you go to the University of Chicago for a PhD. That very much sounds like academia was the future.

DAVID BOOTH (00:01:27): It really was, in the sense that, like a lot of kids, when you’re in college or even high school, you think, boy, I’d like to be a professor — ’cause that’s all you know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:38): And it’s a great job. You’re on a campus, it looks like fun.

DAVID BOOTH (00:01:42): Back in those days, it was a good profession. I mean, there is a thrill of teaching kids, seeing the light go on. Kind of the same thing we have in business, when you have a client and finally —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:01:59): When they get it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:02:00): When they get it, you know, it’s very cool.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:02:03): So at Chicago, you pivot from a PhD to an MBA, and eventually you become the assistant, researcher, TA to some young professor who was not that much older than you — Gene Fama. Tell us a little bit about what led to that pivot.

DAVID BOOTH (00:02:19): Well, the backdrop is, in that period of time — the late sixties, early seventies — that’s when finance really emerged as a science, and it has continued to evolve, even today. And by that I mean, for something to be a science, you need testable hypotheses — don’t worry, I’m not getting too heavy into this. And before 1960, they just didn’t have the data to test things out. So in the early sixties, the University of Chicago developed this research-quality database, CRSP. The CRSP data started in 1926, and they’ve updated it, so now we have over a hundred years of data.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:05): When did Chicago first roll that out?

DAVID BOOTH (00:03:08): About ’63. Fama, my mentor and Nobel laureate in 2013, was in the PhD program at Chicago when Jim Lorie and Larry Fisher developed this database, and they turned it over to Gene and said, look, do some papers, do something with this data. So he had a head start on everybody, and for the next 20 years he was the most cited academic —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:38): Still one of the most cited academics.

DAVID BOOTH (00:03:40): Maybe the most ever, really, in finance.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:03:44): First mover advantage, for sure. So around the time you finish your PhD, Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis — that thesis was starting to gain traction, at least in academia, if not yet on Wall Street. Tell us a little bit about what was so attractive about EMH.

DAVID BOOTH (00:04:06): Well, it was incredibly exciting. First, let me just make a slight correction — I actually didn’t get a PhD.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:04:12): Right — you were working on your PhD, and then you got an MBA.

DAVID BOOTH (00:04:16): Yeah. And eventually I decided the world would be better served if Gene Fama did research and I tried to apply the ideas, rather than the other way around. So I walked into his office one day and said, look, I think I’d like to leave the program. So he calls up Mac McQuown out at Wells Fargo in San Francisco. Mac was in charge of applying quantitative methods for the bank, and one of the areas he worked on was investing. Mac had always wanted one of his students, so he recommended me, and Mac and I hit it off, and he invited me to come work for them. And so I decided to leave the program.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:04:57): So, the first job — did you ever get your MBA, by the way?

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:00): I got the MBA on the way out. They gave me an MBA.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:03): That was nice — that was a good investment on their part. You worked for Mac at Wells Fargo, right? In San Francisco. I didn’t realize you were on the West Coast for a while.

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:13): Right. I mean, this is the early seventies, so it was still kind of a Haight-Ashbury kind of thing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:20): For sure. So Mac is the guy who’s often credited with creating the first version of an index fund. I think, if memory serves, it was for an institutional client’s pension or something like that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:33): Yeah, right. It was Samsonite.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:05:35): Samsonite, that’s right. Walk us through that. What was it like?

DAVID BOOTH (00:05:40): It turns out it was really pivotal in the history of finance, for a couple of reasons. One is, in doing all this research in finance, the fundamental question became: if you can’t outguess the market, how are you supposed to invest? Most people grow up thinking — and back in those days, everybody thought — that investing was about trying to pick the next winner stock, and time markets, and that sort of thing. And beginning in the mid-sixties, all of a sudden, with this burst of data, they could examine things like: are the professional managers that try to outguess the market worth the cost? And they’ve been doing this research for years, and there’s no compelling evidence that they’re worth the cost. In fact, I think the most practical assumption for all your readers is that the professional investors don’t seem to be able to beat the market. And that has a profound implication. And in fact — we can get around to more of the personal story — my parents grew up in the Great Depression and then fought World War II and so forth, and never had much money. But they never invested in public markets, ’cause they thought of themselves as outsiders, and the insiders would make all the money and just take advantage of them. So they never invested, and they had a little tougher time in retirement than they probably should have.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:18): And to be fair, the history before the post-World War II era was — they weren’t so wrong.

DAVID BOOTH (00:07:26): That’s right, they weren’t so wrong. So now, that’s the breakthrough. One of the implications of the new science is that the outsiders can do as well as the insiders — maybe better, once fees are considered — ’cause you can buy market portfolios very easily and very inexpensively now, and the pros don’t seem to be able to beat that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:07:45): Well, the data on the pros — it doesn’t matter if you’re looking at Morningstar or SPIVA or DALBAR or any of the annual studies — is that in any given year, less than half of professionals beat the index. And I think that’s net of fees.

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:02): In fact, just yesterday there was a front-page article in The Wall Street Journal — only 27% last year.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:11): In the last 12 months. It was a particularly bad year, because one sector dominated, and if you didn’t have exposure to that sector, you badly lagged. Then the year before, the sector didn’t dominate. So you had to pick the sector, time it right, and stay invested.

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:25): Of course, if you do all of that, you don’t need our help.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:08:28): That’s exactly right. So Mac creates the first index fund — or one of the first. I’m curious, was there much of a reaction or any pushback from Wall Street, or did it just kind of slip by unnoticed?

DAVID BOOTH (00:08:43): No, there was a huge pushback. It was stuff they didn’t want to hear. I mean, they’d been claiming for years — oh yeah, we can beat the market, we can do 15 or 20% regardless of markets — all these claims. It turned out, unfortunately, they couldn’t be backed up by the data. That’s a very powerful lesson in developing arguments: if you have data and the other side doesn’t, it’s kind of an —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:09): Unfair fight.

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:10): Unfair fight. But it gets into a lot of issues we’ll cover as to why I’m still out trying to deliver that message.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:20): It’s so hard to believe. So let’s talk a little bit about that message. You and some of your Chicago classmates — Rex Sinquefield is one, and he had worked on an S&P 500 index fund at American National Bank. And then Larry Klotz was also a Chicago —

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:39): No — we worked together at A.G. Becker.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:09:42): And that was also in Chicago — in Chicago, but not the university. Right. And then Mac basically helped fund this: hey, we wanna apply everything we learned at Chicago and express the insights of Fama in an investible thesis. Right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:09:59): And the interesting thing there was that there were really two avenues being explored simultaneously. We had one group that I worked in, and we used as our primary outside consultants Fischer Black and Myron Scholes.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:14): More Nobel laureates.

DAVID BOOTH (00:10:16): Two more. It turns out, in working on our project, they developed the Black-Scholes option pricing model, for which Myron became a Nobel laureate — Fischer, unfortunately, had passed away, so he didn’t get it. The idea of our group was: okay, we accept that Michael Jensen and the work of others says these pros can’t seem to beat the market — so what are you supposed to do? By then we’d developed quite a bit of the science, and one idea, based on the models at the time — sounds silly now — was, well, if you have a portfolio that has a higher beta than the market, it should outperform.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:10:58): What does that mean — you’re just taking on more risk?

DAVID BOOTH (00:11:01): You’re just taking on more risk. That’s one way to beat the market: take more risk, but still being diversified. So that was the Samsonite account. They figured out a way of creating a higher-beta portfolio. Basically, they would start out with equal positions in all the stocks — they bought equal dollar amounts — and a portfolio like that should have a somewhat higher beta. Let me just refresh people’s memory: the market has a beta of one. So if you fluctuate more than the market, you have a beta greater than one, and if you fluctuate less than the market, your beta is less than one. And if you have a higher beta, you should outperform — that was the thinking. Incredibly naive. And we were kind of geeky back then.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:11:55): I think you guys are still a little geeky.

DAVID BOOTH (00:11:57): Still — well, yeah, I’ve learned to kind of appreciate that, actually. So that was one of the groups. The other group at Wells was the trust department. Mac hired somebody to head up trust investments, and he wanted to do an S&P 500 index fund.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:21): Still early seventies or so?

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:22): Yeah, still.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:24): So this is decades before BlackRock, years before Vanguard. This is very, very early.

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:30): So that’s what they wanted to do. And we go, look, as a scientist, you wouldn’t do an index fund. But I think it was some marketing genius who came in and said, no, you want an S&P 500 index fund — everybody can understand that, you can track the index. And here again, the pros don’t seem to be able to beat that index, so you can at least get the index return.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:12:53): Can’t get alpha if you’re not at least getting beta, right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:12:56): Yeah, right. So now, those are two different points of view. And the reason I emphasize that is that the S&P 500 index fund idea took off. That group left and changed hands a couple of times, and now that’s the cornerstone of BlackRock.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:14): It worked its way eventually to Barclays, and then BlackRock bought that whole business. And what are they — 14, 15 trillion, something like that?

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:22): No, I mean, it’s phenomenal success. I’m not arguing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:27): And they basically proved the point: hey, it’s really hard to beat the market.

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:31): Beat the market, yeah. So hats off to them. Now, keep in mind — let’s go back to the other group, the one that I was working on that really became the basis for Dimensional. Eventually our group ended up irritating the trust department enough that they got rid of us.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:47): So this was you, Rex —

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:49): No, Rex wasn’t there at the time.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:13:50): He wasn’t? So who was the initial group?

DAVID BOOTH (00:13:53): Well, Rex was part of the initial group of Dimensional, sorry. And we brought people in to help us out — the first two people we talked to were Gene Fama, my mentor, on the research side, and Mac McQuown, who by that time had left Wells as well. Then we pulled together the other leading academics we worked with — people like Merton Miller, the 1990 Nobel laureate, and Myron Scholes, ’97, along with Fama.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:27): So out of all of this, the first fund that you launched when DFA began in Brooklyn was a small cap — or micro cap — strategy.

DAVID BOOTH (00:14:37): Right. We were the first people to use “small cap” as a term, meaning smaller companies.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:14:41): And this was based on some of Fama’s initial factors — small seemed to have persistent performance attributes.

DAVID BOOTH (00:14:50): Yeah — that was documented about 10 years later. So here we are, in some ways flying blind. We had a compelling argument, because in 1981, if you looked at large institutional investors, they weren’t holding the stocks of smaller companies in any meaningful way. So if you wanna be diversified, you want large and small, not just large.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:15:11): So was that the pitch to institutions? Small cap will diversify against the rest of your holdings?

DAVID BOOTH (00:15:18): Right. And so we got our first clients with that. So we’re off and running with a small cap fund, we had clients, and in talking to Fama, he goes, well, you know, we have a student here that did his PhD dissertation on just what you’re looking at — Rolf Banz. Rolf had done a study breaking down stocks on the New York Stock Exchange into size quintiles, largest to smallest, and the smallest quintile outperformed all the others by quite a bit over time. So, putting my marketing hat on, I think we’ll define small to be the smallest quintile of companies on the New York Stock Exchange — Mama didn’t raise a complete idiot here, you know. So that was how we got started. And there really wasn’t a counterargument, ’cause people couldn’t say, oh, I’ve got that covered — they knew they didn’t have small cap covered. So what we were able to do is provide access to small companies, and that’s really the basis of Dimensional. And about 10 years later, Fama, along with his colleague Ken French, developed this multifactor model. Back when I was at Wells, we just had the single factor, beta. So now we had a couple more factors.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:16:39): So Fama-French started with three, then it was five, and arguably there are just hundreds, most of which are tiny.

DAVID BOOTH (00:16:46): Yeah, most of which are tiny. And they kind of collapse to —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:16:51): Five to seven is plenty.

DAVID BOOTH (00:16:53): Well, three is plenty. We really have four or five now. But you get your big bang out of the first one, the market —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:01): The beta.

DAVID BOOTH (00:17:02): The beta. And the second factor, say value versus growth — that picks up a lot, not as much as the first. And then you get into size — small, that adds a little. Then you can add — pretty soon it’s just diminishing marginal utility, like everything in life.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:17:19): Quality, momentum — as you work your way down, each generates less and less of a bang. But what’s so fascinating to me is nobody had taken the approach that, hey, there is plenty of quantitative data to back this up, here is a testable thesis, a falsifiable thesis, and we can express these ideas in a portfolio. That, to me, was what set the launch of Dimensional apart from everybody else. Am I stating that correctly?

DAVID BOOTH (00:17:50): You got it. That’s it. And it shows you how powerful an idea it was, ’cause here we are starting a firm — we have no track record, I’m the first portfolio manager, I’d never managed stocks or even bought stocks before, and we’re operating outta my spare bedroom in downtown Brooklyn Heights. So you figure, how can you pull that off? Well, you can pull it off if the idea itself is so profound and backed up with incredible research. That’s hard to refute.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:18:28): So here’s the key question. Given how powerful that is — but at the time, fairly novel — what do you think Wall Street just missed about index investing? Because clearly there’s a financial opportunity, right? Whether or not your particular fund at the moment is selling performance and active selection, no one else looked at this and said, hey, there’s a business to be had here.

DAVID BOOTH (00:18:56): Well, back in those days — and fortunately this is changing now — basically nearly all financial services were distributed through commission salesmen. So Wall Street — basically, if you have a commission broker managing your money, I dunno what you’re gonna do, but you’re gonna be trading a lot, I can assure you. And if there’s anything that all this research pointed to, it’s that you don’t wanna trade a lot. Trading is a negative expected outcome, kind of like gambling in Vegas. But that’s the cornerstone of Wall Street. So they go, what do you mean, you’re telling me I shouldn’t be trading a lot? You’re ripping my eyes out. This can’t be true. And you go, hey, look, all I can tell you is we have logic, reason, and empirical evidence on our side. You have no data — all you have is bluster on your side. And over the long haul we’re winning, but it’s taken 50 years.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:19:54): Hard to make somebody understand something when their income is depending on them not understanding it, to paraphrase.

DAVID BOOTH (00:20:02): Right. And if you don’t have data to support it, then all you’re doing is bluster. And look, Wall Street firms in those days were very good at shoving product down people’s throats.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:13): Oh, for sure. I would tell you they’re still pretty good at it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:20:17): Well, I’m softening up, because along the way there was a development — an incredible development, almost as important as the development of the science — the fee-only financial advisor, which we started working with in the late 1980s.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:20:36): We are gonna get to that question. I wanna stay with Fama’s insights and your ability to express them in a portfolio. The fascinating thing about DFA to me is that it’s not simple market-cap-based indexing. The approach that you embraced early on was: how can we express something that’s a combination of what indexing would eventually become, married to a systematic, factor-based investing strategy?

DAVID BOOTH (00:21:12): Right. And by the way, early on, even going back to the days at Wells, we had these two groups — you know, you ought to index — and then the scientists saying, no, you can do better than indexing. And that’s 45 years — that’s been our message. As a scientist, you wouldn’t index, for a lot of reasons. One is you’re putting a constraint on yourself: I want to track an index. Constraints cost — in economic terms, that’s costly, and we can get into where the cost is. The other part of it is the silly way that index funds have to behave.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:21:54): Because of the announcements of additions and deletions — they telegraph it, right?

DAVID BOOTH (00:21:58): Telegraphed. Standard & Poor’s — if they add a new stock into their S&P 500 index today, it’ll go in at tonight’s closing price. If you are an S&P 500 index fund manager, then you want to buy that stock today at tonight’s closing price.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:22:15): Even though you know it’s gonna run up in anticipation.

DAVID BOOTH (00:22:18): Right — and even though you know that every other S&P 500 index fund manager out there is also gonna want that stock at tonight’s close. So that’s where — and probably all sciences are this way — there’s the science, and there’s the art of the science. You go to medical doctors, let’s say. They all study the same textbooks; well, some of ’em are just better at execution than others. And that’s what we’re talking about here. The simplest of all ideas: if you’re trying to buy a stock at the same time everybody else is, that’s probably not a good trade. Intuition would tell you that. And I think our most recent study shows that the runup is about 4% — when it goes into the index, the index pays about 4% more than a fair price.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:23:11): And the flip side is, the deletions have a tendency to outperform the S&P over something like 12 or 24 months. Same thing — people sell in advance, and by the time it’s actually deleted, it’s appreciably cheaper, and maybe that becomes a value.

DAVID BOOTH (00:23:28): Well, let me give you the downside of our approach, which is you have to have a certain amount of trust in the manager, because we’re not slavish. I mean, with indexing, you know exactly what they track — the gosh darn index. That’s what they said — that’s all they said they would do. And our idea is saying, look, we will use a little flexibility, a little bit of human judgment along the way. Not a lot — not like the old days of wild stock picking —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:23:56): Throwing darts.

DAVID BOOTH (00:23:57): Darts, or whatever. But we’ll use a little bit of judgment, and that requires you to have a little confidence in our ability to execute. So when we started, a lot of people said, look, how do we know you can execute? Because when you go out and buy or sell, you’re gonna be trading against professional investors. They think they have undiscounted information, if you will — something special, special knowledge — and you don’t. Okay, well, it turns out there’s a flip side to that, which is: if you’re an active manager and you think you know something special, you also realize the half-life of that is really short. Minutes, probably.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:24:43): Today it’s probably milliseconds.

DAVID BOOTH (00:24:45): Probably milliseconds. So if you wanna get rid of a stock, you want to get rid of it right now — at least by the end of the day. And so we come along, and we’re kind of indifferent. We buy 10,000 stocks — you know, on any given day, we don’t buy all 10,000 of ’em. We focus a lot on what’s trading easily that day. Even a small company stock, 20% of the time it trades a lot.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:12): In other words, you can use execution and volatility as a source of better pricing.

DAVID BOOTH (00:25:17): Better pricing, yeah. And that’s worked out over 45 years — the first 45 are the toughest, I realize. But still, people slap their forehead — that’s hard to believe, that there’s this professional money manager out there trading against you. It’s not that we take advantage of them. We provide liquidity, and our clients get the benefit of providing that service.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:47): And by providing liquidity, it means you’re willing to be a buyer at times when many other people are not.

DAVID BOOTH (00:25:54): But we’re not gonna pay retail for that stock. I mean — if you can talk to me, can you do something for me on the price?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:25:59): Take a little something off. Really, really interesting. Coming up, we continue our conversation with David Booth, founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors, talking about his brand-new book, Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:26:17): I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is David Booth. He is the founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors. His new book is out — probably by the time you’re hearing this — Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. So I wanna sum up the book in a sentence, and then we’re gonna really delve into it: “Uncertainty isn’t something to fear — it’s where possibility lives.” Ooh. Explain that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:26:59): That is a good question. Every now and then, you know, you write something down —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:27:02): By the way, I have a dozen fantastic quotes, and I’m gonna try and click through all of them.

DAVID BOOTH (00:27:07): No, it’s funny, ’cause you write it, and then you forget you wrote it, and then you go back and look at it and go, hey —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:27:11): That’s not bad.

DAVID BOOTH (00:27:12): That’s not bad, yeah. And let me tell you about a breakthrough that happened to us about 10 years ago. We realized that there are a lot of parallels between investing and your life experiences, and a lot of that has to deal with how you deal with uncertainty. You know, as you grow, you learn how to deal with uncertainty, and what you realize is uncertainty is what creates opportunity. If there were no uncertainty, you wouldn’t have the ability to progress. So it’s not about eliminating uncertainty — it’s about managing uncertainty. That’s true in life, and the reason I bring that up is ’cause that’s also true in investing. If there were no uncertainty — in other words, if all investing was riskless —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:28:12): I got some 10-year Treasuries at three and a half percent that you can hold and barely keep up with inflation.

DAVID BOOTH (00:28:19): Well, if there were no uncertainty in investing, every investment would have the same return — the riskless return, whatever that is. So in investing as well, it’s uncertainty that creates opportunity. And once people start to realize that, we go — let’s go back: how do you deal with uncertainty? Well, first off, you realize that life is not totally predictable. I mean, think back 20 years ago. Could you have predicted where you are today, or where you’ll be 20 years from now?

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:28:57): Nobody in December 2019 was predicting a pandemic the next year — in a market that would scream higher. You could show it in every annual forecast we see — and we’ll talk a little bit about predictions in a minute — but the future is inherently unknowable.

DAVID BOOTH (00:29:13): And so embrace that uncertainty. That’s what gives us the opportunity in life and investing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:29:20): So what do you say to people who are investors — hey, uncertainty creates opportunity — but how does the average mom-and-pop investor live through the regular 15, 20, 25% drawdowns we see all the time in equity markets?

DAVID BOOTH (00:29:41): Well, the quick answer to that is stay calm — that’s why we call it that; it’s the name of the book. So let me give you an example of the fundamental problem we have with helping people stay invested. Let’s say bad news comes into the market — the pandemic, or a particular stock. And then you look at the stock or the market and you see it’s down 20% or whatever, and you go, holy cow, I gotta get out. There’s bad news and the market and things are dropping — that is human nature. What we’d like to have people think is: look, okay, the pandemic — bad news — came into the market, and the market’s down 20 or 30%. And people were saying, what are we supposed to do? What do you think is gonna happen? I go, hey, look, I don’t know what’s gonna happen — and anybody that thinks they can predict what’s gonna happen, I’d be a little suspicious about. But here’s what I believe will happen: people aren’t just gonna sit there and take it. Kind of the cornerstone of all of my belief in markets and how they work is human ingenuity. That’s what ends up bailing us out. When bad things happen, you don’t just sit there and take it in life — you figure out how to get back on track. And I go, so here we have the pandemic that’s hit — that’s a big smash in the mouth to these firms. They’re not just gonna sit there and take it. They’ll figure out how to get back on track. They’ll try something new and different, and along the way there’ll be winners and losers, and I dunno who the winners will be and the losers. But what I do believe is that effort, that human ingenuity, will likely get us back on track faster than most people think. Which is what happened.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:31:38): We saw that during the financial crisis. The pandemic was less than a quarter — down 34% — and from that end of the first quarter in 2020, the S&P was up 69% for the rest of the year.

DAVID BOOTH (00:31:52): Unbelievable. So that’s what we’re getting at. I mean, what was going on — and this is what I get back to: what do you tell people to get through the tough times? Go back to first principles. Okay, we have the pandemic, and there were all kinds of forecasts, but the consensus, I remember at the time, was it’s likely to be a two- or three-year kind of phenomenon. And so the market’s down about 20 or 30%. That seems about right to me. I mean, I don’t know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:22): So in other words, it’s already in the price, and trying to act in response to something everybody knows seems like a waste of time.

DAVID BOOTH (00:32:29): Yeah. I learned that really in the late nineties. I was on an investment committee — I used to sit on investment committees; I don’t anymore, other than our own. And the chairman of that investment committee went around the world. This was 1998 — I dunno if you remember —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:32:47): Sure — Long-Term Capital Management. I was on a trading desk. I remember that vividly.

DAVID BOOTH (00:32:51): Right. And you had the Russian default, you had the Asian contagion. He goes around the world — the chairman of the committee — and eventually talks about all the problems around the world, and he concludes: so why should we invest in stocks at all? And I said, well, you know, I think you’ve characterized what was going on in these different countries. Okay. But I think all you’ve done is explain why the market’s down 35%. And he goes, ah — and we stayed invested, and of course we were amply rewarded. So if people could just go through first principles — and by that I mean: bad news comes into the market, they look and they say, aha, the stock is down, now I want to get out ’cause I’m stressed. If we can get them to change their opinion and say, look, the market’s down — I mean, the price is down quite a bit — and that’s probably about right, given the bad news that we have, then: therefore, I need to stay invested. I was thinking the other day, if I come out with a second book, maybe I’ll call it Stay Invested. So we’d have Stay Calm and Stay Invested.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:33:57): I think your second book should be named What Would Gene Fama Say?

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:01): There you go.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:02): If the market’s down 30%, what would Fama say? He’d say, it’s in the price. And just sit there and relax and stay calm.

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:09): And that’s the science, you know.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:34:11): That’s really interesting. So you mentioned some forecasts and predictions. Another aspect of the book is: plan, don’t predict. You can’t foresee the future, so making decisions based on predictions — you’re essentially engaging in wishful thinking.

DAVID BOOTH (00:34:30): Well, that’s right. I mean, you need to have a plan for going forward in life and investing, but don’t waste the time on trying to predict the unpredictable. Markets are unpredictable — that’s why the pros can’t beat the market, ’cause markets are unpredictable. And yet over the long haul — if you go back, we haven’t talked about the history, but a hundred years of returns that covers the Great Depression, World War II, the Korean War, high inflation, the Great Financial Crisis, the pandemic — through all of that, 10% a year. I think a lot of what I do now, particularly talking to students, is talk about the miracle of the stock and bond markets. These public markets are truly miracles.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:19): Really, really fascinating. Here’s another thesis that I think is really very, very insightful: control what you can, manage what you can’t. You can’t control crashes, recessions, interest rates, or any of that century of terrible events — but you can manage yourself, your allocation, your ongoing saving. Discuss that a little bit.

DAVID BOOTH (00:35:44): Well, that’s right. In terms of dealing with it — it’s all about managing uncertainty. So control what you can, and manage what you can’t — manage the uncertain part as best you can. Hey, you can’t eliminate it, but you can manage it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:35:59): And by managing it, you’re talking about having a financial plan and sticking to it, continuing to dollar-cost average into it. Like, there are things within your control — that’s what you should be managing. And the things outside of your control, just accept. You can’t control what the Fed does, or what’s happening in the Straits, or who moves.

DAVID BOOTH (00:36:20): Yeah. A lot of people, they make portfolio decisions based on their forecast of what the market’s gonna do. That’s a waste of time. You wanna pay attention to what’s going on, because over your lifetime there are gonna be situations when you need to change your investment policy around — but it’s not based on what’s going on in the market. You need to change — you know, you get a new job, you wanna retire, you have a family. All these things can cause you to invest differently. But at every point, you want to have a long-term plan in place and manage to that. So you can’t control the stock market. You can control how much risk you take, basically. There are two basic decisions as you go down the path. First is the split: how much do you have in stocks at all, versus relatively riskless assets like a money market fund or a bond. So you get that right. And then the second part is, to the extent you’re investing in stocks, buy the whole market. That makes you as good as the insiders — people that think of themselves as outsiders. That’s another miracle of markets: right now you have it, unlike my parents, who never had that available to ’em. Now everybody has access. The market is good for everyone.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:37:40): So let’s talk a little bit about financial media, which you write extensively about in the book. Another quote of yours: “Modern financial media is designed to capture your attention, presenting commentary, stories and expert forecasts that are nothing more than distracting noise.”

DAVID BOOTH (00:38:00): Yeah, that’s right. I mean, today, undoubtedly, we have a lot more data thrown at us than ever before. I don’t know that we have a lot more meaningful information, but we have a lot more data, that’s for sure. And so it’s important these days for people to think critically — always go back to first principles. This year in particular, there’s been a lot of anxiety. We have, you know, some wars, we have all kinds of things —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:28): Tariffs.

DAVID BOOTH (00:38:30): Any number of things you could be anxious about. But I tell people, look — do you think you have more anxiety today, or people have more anxiety today, than during the Great Depression, or during, say, World War II, when it looked like we were losing at first? Those were real, serious anxieties. So I’m not making light of the anxiety, but what the hundred years of data shows us is the market does a really good job of pricing all that uncertainty and the risks.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:38:59): So another quote in the same section: “In investing, success often comes not from doing more, but from tuning out more.” So I have to share this with you, ’cause every time I write “tune out the noise,” I get a ton of pushback. Hey, you can’t just ignore all this. You can’t tune it out. It’s really difficult, and just telling people to tune out the noise is a waste of time. What’s your argument back?

DAVID BOOTH (00:39:29): Well, first, I’m glad to see you get your share of that — just like I do. I go: basically, what we’ve outlined is you want to have sensible portfolios — on the equity side, buy the whole market. And the market does a great job of pricing. So all the anxieties that you can express — and there are plenty of things to be concerned about; I’m not making light of ’em at all — that’s why the prices are doing whatever it is they’re doing. And so, unless you’re faster than the market, unless you think you’re smarter than the market, you just have to assume that whatever it is you’re concerned about, it’s already been priced in. You’re too late. By the time you get a certain piece of information, the market’s already reflected it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:22): It’s already in the price.

DAVID BOOTH (00:40:24): It’s already in the price. You’re too late.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:26): So this quote might be one of the most profound things I read in the book — you read it and you’re like, wow, that’s really insightful; at least that was my response: “This isn’t a book about how to invest. It’s a book about how to think about investing. It’s not about picking stocks; it’s about taking stock of what really matters.” Ooh. Right? I mean —

DAVID BOOTH (00:40:52): That’s an example of — you go back and reread it, and I’m like, I wrote that? That’s really, really good. That’s not bad.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:40:58): No, that’s damn fine. And it’s because you are implying, hey, this is about securing your family’s future — but it’s not just about money, it’s about all the things that really matter.

DAVID BOOTH (00:41:12): Well, yeah. We have a segment in there about what true worth is about, rather than true wealth. My parents I describe as being wealthy — they just didn’t have much money. So you want to focus on what’s really important to you.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:41:33): “The quiet dividend of patient compounding, in both life and investing.”

DAVID BOOTH (00:41:38): Yeah. I mean, one of the first things you’ll learn about in finance is the magic of compounding. If you get that 10% return, it means your portfolio doubles every seven years. And you double it six times if you have a 42-year horizon — that’s six seven-year periods. And life is the same way. You are the result of the effects of the compounding of decisions that you’ve made in life all the way through. And maybe that’s where wisdom comes from — the compounding of the effects of decisions.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:42:21): Really, really interesting. I really enjoyed the book — Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. Coming up, we continue our conversation with David Booth, author of Stay Calm and founder of Dimensional Fund Advisors, talking about philosophy and philanthropy. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:42:41): I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is David Booth. He is founder and chairman of Dimensional Fund Advisors and author of the new book, Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. So I wanted to talk a little bit about both your philosophy — and how it developed — and philanthropy. We’ll circle back to philanthropy in a minute, but let’s talk a little bit about Dimensional. You guys didn’t want to participate in ETFs for a long time, ’cause you preferred to offer your products through advisors to investing customers. What was the idea of working through the advisor side of it, as opposed to marketing directly to Main Street?

DAVID BOOTH (00:43:42): Well, first off, in any business, the marketing is a big component. Now, you have to understand, we’re starting outta my brownstone — in my apartment. It wasn’t like we had a big marketing machine, and we didn’t know anything about selling to the retail public. We did know institutional investors, and so our first clients were large — typically pension funds, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds. That was the first eight years or so; that was who we talked to. And then one day Dan Wheeler came along. He was a financial advisor in Sacramento —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:44:29): In California, right. I know the name.

DAVID BOOTH (00:44:32): And he said, I’d like to have access to your funds. Now, at that time it was kind of unusual for a firm like ours to get big institutions to invest in a mutual fund, but we had created a mutual fund, and because they were institutional clients, our fees were very low — institutionally priced. And so it made it ideal for a fee-only financial advisor — a fee-only advisor being one where we don’t pay them any money and they don’t pay us. I mean, it’s strictly arm’s length.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:10): What year was that, with Wheeler?

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:12): About 1989.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:15): So that was long before advisors had taken over from stockbrokers. The fiduciary side of the business was still relatively tiny.

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:27): It was tiny. But these were highly energized financial advisors. I mean, typically the advisor would have come from a wirehouse and felt really dirty about themselves — and I’m just repeating what they told me.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:45:40): Oh no, I’ve heard it a million times.

DAVID BOOTH (00:45:42): And to see this approach, which is based on science — you have all the data you could ever want backing up what we do, and you could come up with a sensible investment approach that undoubtedly would work over the long haul —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:46:00): It feels good. I had someone leave a wirehouse to become an advisor, and I asked them why — this is, I don’t know, the early two thousands. And I’ll never forget the line I was told: they’re called brokers because they make their clients broker. And I’m like, wow — talk about feeling like, I gotta get out of this side of the street.

DAVID BOOTH (00:46:22): Yeah. It doesn’t have to be that way. But to observe — the ability to beat the market is such a narrow advantage that it takes an incredible firm. I mean, we’re a professional manager, and we can do things that a retail client can’t do — and it has nothing to do with picking stocks, let’s keep in mind, but dealing through market mechanisms: the way you trade, securities lending, so on and so forth. There are things we can do, but the margins are very, very slim. The idea that somebody way down the food chain — a broker at a retail firm — would have some of that magic is hard to accept.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:12): So when you guys began working with advisors, it wasn’t to design portfolios. The advisor was there essentially to keep the client from abandoning their portfolio and getting in the way of compounding.

DAVID BOOTH (00:47:26): Yeah, absolutely. One of our advisors said it right. He said, you know, I don’t have clients with investment problems, I’ve got investments with client problems.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:47:38): That’s a great line.

DAVID BOOTH (00:47:39): But the difference between the two is education. And we’ve always sold through education — we bring people in for seminars and stuff. And the book — I mean, that’s why you would do the book — is to help people better understand how markets work, so they will be more confident that they can have a good investment experience.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:00): You guys have done a good job on the education side. I’m kind of curious if that’s the reason why you stayed out of ETFs for so long. And for people who are trying to put this in context: DFA launched in 1981, in 2020 was your first ETF, and today you are the largest active ETF issuer in the country. So why leave all that money on the table for 40 years?

DAVID BOOTH (00:48:30): Well, I don’t know — must have been a pandemic, you know, something. Anyway — no, it’s because early on, our advisors said they didn’t need the ETF. The beauty of a regular mutual fund is you go in at net asset value at the end of the day. That’s about as clean as you can come up with. If you buy an ETF, you’re buying it in the open market, and for some people that’s a little scary.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:48:58): Whatever the open market cost might be, the offset of the tax advantage has to wildly outweigh it. In a non-qualified account, ETFs are vastly superior to a mutual fund most of the time, for that tax reason.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:14): Well, to a conventional mutual fund, I agree with you. But we’ve been able to use —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:19): Use a dual class.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:20): Yeah. We’ve been able to eliminate a lot of the tax advantage of ETFs.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:49:28): By the way, you and Vanguard seem to be the leaders in that space, for having an ETF and a mutual fund essentially track the same holdings.

DAVID BOOTH (00:49:39): And now, coming out this summer and into the fall, we are innovating even more. Right now, we have mutual funds and ETFs that do the same thing — two pools of money doing the same thing. The SEC has given us approval to merge those two, so it’ll just be one pool of assets with two ways of accessing it.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:04): Two different wrappers, same pool of money.

DAVID BOOTH (00:50:06): Same pool of money. So that will take away the argument — you don’t have to worry about it anymore.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:14): That’s really good. Isn’t that cool?

DAVID BOOTH (00:50:17): That actually speaks to how science is developing. It’s not like we sit on our hands — we’re continually trying to work through things and become more efficient.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:50:29): So let’s talk about another philosophical belief from you guys that I’m fascinated by. People have had a hard time wrapping their heads around: is DFA an indexer? Are they an alpha chaser? And the way I kind of explained it to myself was: no — when you look at traditional indexers, they’re just using one factor of the many Fama-French factors, and what Dimensional has said is, hey, we’re going to use three, four, five factors. So we are indexers, plus the next four factors on the list. Is that a fair philosophical breakdown?

DAVID BOOTH (00:51:10): Yeah, that’s part of what we do — exactly that. And there are some people that don’t want to have a bias towards value or small cap, and for those we have kind of plain vanilla funds too, that aren’t biased. But in both cases, it’s about execution. We talked about how an index fund has to trade in a bizarre sort of way — and we don’t do that. We apply that thinking to all the funds. So that, here again, what we’re trying to do is apply the science, and by the way we structure portfolios, we think we can do better than index providers. And then secondarily, the way we trade, relative to the way index funds trade — that’s true in everything we do. But then, some clients like to have a small cap bias, some don’t. It’s their money — we try to come up with whatever they think is sensible.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:52:20): So let’s talk a little bit about philanthropy, ’cause I know part of the book discusses legacy, and you’ve been very involved philanthropically. A decade ago you signed the Giving Pledge, and — I go back two decades — right around the time of the financial crisis, you made a gift in ’08 to the University of Chicago’s business school, which I think was the largest gift ever in the country, or to Chicago, at that time: $300 million. And now it’s the Chicago Booth School of Business. Tell us a little bit about what motivated a gift of that size to that recipient, and what are your thoughts 20 years later?

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:04): Well, okay, first lemme just say it was kind of funny. The announcement for that was made in November of 2008 — like, the week after Obama got elected for the first time. And so there was a big announcement at the school — they said, big announcement coming tonight, free food, come on in — and they thought it had something to do with Obama. He’s a Chicago guy. So that’s when they announced that the school’s name was changing.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:35): Which, by the way, wasn’t a requirement of your gift. You argued against it.

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:40): Well, I didn’t argue against the Obama part.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:53:42): I heard through several people that you pushed back initially.

DAVID BOOTH (00:53:46): Well, I pushed back a little bit, but not a lot. What happened was, I approached the dean of the business school and said, you know, it’s time for payback here — for what the university has done for me, and the faculty. And not only training me in school, but then following up over the years — over the now decades, 45 years. You know, we’ve had five Nobel laureates work very closely with us; all of ’em have been significant directors of our mutual funds or the company, Fama being a founder as well. It’s time for me to pay back, and it’s gotta be a big chunk of what I have. So this is what I’m willing to do. And the dean looks at it and goes, you know, we were thinking about naming the school, and we weren’t asking for nearly this much — we’ll name the school after you. I go, okay, well, whatever. But it was about me wanting to feel good about me.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:54:46): Well, you feel a sense of obligation to the University of Chicago ’cause of everything they gave you. Undergraduate and pre-PhD, MBA — you were at Kansas, and you gave them a similar number last year: $300 million to the University of Kansas athletics program. Why focus on sports there? What’s so significant about Kansas athletics? ‘Cause, by the way, as a school, they’ve been doing pretty good.

DAVID BOOTH (00:55:18): Oh yeah, yeah.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:55:19): Athletics-wise.

DAVID BOOTH (00:55:20): Yeah. Well, first off, Lawrence, Kansas, where the University of Kansas is, is my hometown. I went to Lawrence High School and then the University of Kansas. So, with all the relatives, it’s in my blood. And for a big state school like that, what’s really important is to have a great, competitive athletic program. I mean, I know the arguments — some people go, you know, they’re not so sure about that —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:55:51): It doesn’t hurt their marketing, their ability to recruit professors, students. It makes the town better. I mean, it just multiplies across everything, regardless of how you feel about big football in college.

DAVID BOOTH (00:56:06): Right. But I happen to love it, and I particularly love college basketball. Kansas has always been really good at basketball, and it’s getting better in football. And then with NIL — a little dollop of NIL coming down the pike —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:20): Name, image, likeness. Get some money to the students.

DAVID BOOTH (00:56:24): To the students. So it puts great financial pressure on the schools, and it’s difficult for a state school to have a big budget for athletics when their professors are making what they’re making. So it’s important for private money — for alums and whatever — to step up in order to help them be successful.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:56:53): And I’m gonna assume that this isn’t the end of your academic gifts — you’re gonna be doing other stuff in the future, and obviously the Giving Pledge is a part of that. But I have to ask about a purchase you made in 2010, which is: you bought Naismith’s original document of, essentially, here are the rules of basketball — this is where basketball was invented. And I think you paid over $4 million for it, and then you gave it to the University of Kansas athletic department. Explain — tell us about that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:57:30): Well, it was really kind of an interesting auction. James Naismith invented basketball in 1891 — if you think about it —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:57:40): The peach crate.

DAVID BOOTH (00:57:41): Yeah, the whole thing. It’s the only major sport that I can think of where we know who invented it. It was a class assignment for him in school, at the YMCA in Springfield, Massachusetts. So the rules stayed in the family, and as things happen over time, they just decided that they wanted to sell it. So I decided — here again, basketball is so important; if you live in Lawrence, Kansas, you realize that the rules of basketball, those two typewritten pages, need to be in Lawrence, Kansas. ‘Cause Naismith, after he invented the game, goes to teach at Kansas for 40 years; he’s buried in Lawrence. So I realized that —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:31): Perfect match.

DAVID BOOTH (00:58:32): Match — had to buy it. So it started off, they thought it would go for about $2 million, but along the way — I was bidding over the phone, and there was somebody else bidding over the phone, and it kept ratcheting up, and I ended up paying about four and a half million. The person on the other end of the phone was David Rubenstein.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:52): Get out! Oh, that’s hilarious.

DAVID BOOTH (00:58:53): Your Bloomberg —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:58:55): Co-host — fellow host. That’s amazing. Did you explain eventually to him why you bought it and why it went to Kansas?

DAVID BOOTH (00:59:03): No — once I paid for it, it was announced who bought it. So he sent me an email the next day saying, hey, I think I cost you some money. Which is funny. So we still have a good chuckle about that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (00:59:18): So, the last piece of philanthropy I have to ask about before we get to our favorite questions: you’re known as an avid art collector. If you go down — I don’t know what river that is in Texas, but I’ve been on that boat — you can see some of your sculptures right from the river, if you’re in a boat. You’ve endowed a conservation center at the Museum of Modern Art, and — as opposed to just donating a sculpture or a painting — you’re essentially helping them preserve their entire collection in perpetuity. Tell us a little bit about that.

DAVID BOOTH (00:59:55): Well, I mean, preserving your patrimony is important for any country, and art is such a big deal, and MoMA is such a great museum —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:06): Spectacular collection.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:08): Spectacular.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:08): Of which, like, 3% is displayed at any time. It’s an enormous, enormous collection.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:18): It’s complicated. So I’ve sat on the board there for about 10 years now, and it’s just really been tremendously exciting. And then I endowed the conservation lab, because conservation is easy to overlook. But taking care of, particularly, modern art — which could be some fiberglass or something — who knows what kind of stuff goes into it —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:00:41): To say nothing about how paint decays, how canvas, paper — all that stuff is problematic over time.

DAVID BOOTH (01:00:51): In the old days, conservation was probably somebody kind of having a couple sips of alcohol and dabbing some paint on a painting and trying to clean it, or whatever. That’s changed. Now it’s incredibly sophisticated — you take X-rays of the painting or whatnot, you study the chemistry of it. So I’ve headed up that conservation committee for quite a while now. It’s very exciting to see what they’ve done to maintain the art.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:01:21): Huh, really interesting. All right — I only have you for a couple more minutes, and you and I can continue this conversation in Southern California, in Huntington Beach, in a few weeks. For now, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests, starting with: tell us about the mentors who helped shape your career. And I have a pretty good idea who they are.

DAVID BOOTH (01:01:44): Well, no, that’s right. Let’s just start with the Nobel laureates: Merton Miller and Gene Fama, Myron Scholes, Bob Merton and Doug Diamond. Kind of an impressive group of characters.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:01:56): That’s a Murderers’ Row right there.

DAVID BOOTH (01:01:58): Murderers’ Row, yeah. Then you had Mac McQuown, who really started indexing —

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:06): And he really was the initial — was he the first check into DFA?

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:11): No, he was a founder. In fact, more importantly — besides investing in the funds, he helped us raise the money, the risk capital, for the firm. And then I always have to throw in my parents. I mean, it ties into what True Wealth was about. They never had much money, but they were wealthy — they had figured out what life was about.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:40): Huh — really, really interesting. Let’s talk about books, in addition to yours. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:48): Well, I just finished 1929, Andrew Ross Sorkin’s new book. That’s very, very interesting.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:02:54): That is on my nightstand — it’s up in a few books in my queue.

DAVID BOOTH (01:02:59): Then, in the last couple years, the book I’ve really liked a lot was Paris 1919 by Margaret MacMillan. And she takes us through what became known as the Treaty of Paris. When the Armistice was signed at the end of World War I — that’s just when all kinds of crazy things happened, because the Ottoman Empire collapsed, the Russian Empire collapsed, the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed. So you had to create new countries all over the place — all through Central Europe and the Middle East. It took about six months to develop the Treaty of Paris. The first five or so, they didn’t do much, and then all of a sudden, the last month, they just got together. I don’t know if they could have done much better, but it was pretty chaotic.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:03:51): Really interesting. I’m gonna add that to my list. Tell us — are you streaming anything? What do you do to relax? Podcasts, movies — what entertains you?

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:02): Well, I mean, your podcast. But — no, we have a new season of Ted Lasso, which I’m really all over.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:09): My wife and I are waiting for there to be more than three or four in the queue. It’s just too frustrating to watch one a week.

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:16): By the way, he’s a KU alum as well.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:18): Yes, yes — I knew that.

DAVID BOOTH (01:04:20): And we have any number of series. You know, what happened was, when the pandemic hit and we couldn’t go out much, I watched more TV in that two-year period than I ever watched before — or since.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:04:34): Same — absolutely the same. I was mentioning the other day that 6:30 is the new 7:30. It used to be, if you tried to make a dinner reservation around 7 or 7:30, it was the toughest reservation to get. And now it seems the hard reservation to get is 6 or 6:30. And it’s not just that we’re aging and heading towards the early bird special. I think people want to go to dinner and then come home and watch whatever it is — Ted Lasso or Lioness or Yellowstone, whatever their thing is. It’s so funny you say that, but the pandemic was absolutely the most TV I’ve watched in my life.

DAVID BOOTH (01:05:15): Yeah, right.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:05:16): Our final two questions. I think this book offers a lot of interesting advice, but I want to ask you specifically: for a recent college grad who is interested in a career in either investing or wealth management or anything along those lines, what sort of advice would you give them about building a career?

DAVID BOOTH (01:05:39): Well, first off, I don’t give advice — but here are some thoughts. First are the thoughts that probably everybody will tell you: figure out where you have some skill — some comparative advantage or competitive advantage — and what you are passionate about. So marry those two things, passion and skill, and work really hard. Now, the part that I don’t think is emphasized enough is: by the time you get outta school, you’ve developed a set of values — your personal set of values. Pay attention to that. So find something you’re passionate about, that you have a skill in, that kind of maps into your values — and pay attention to those values, and don’t deviate from them in pursuit of just a short-term job. I mean, when you get outta school — like when I got outta school, most people, you’re just lucky to find any good job. But over time, you kind of iterate towards what you think is really valuable.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:06:57): Good advice — or good insight; I know you don’t like to call it advice. Our final question: what do you know about the world of markets and investing today that might’ve been useful back in 1981, when you were first launching Dimensional Funds?

DAVID BOOTH (01:07:16): Well, I think one of the big things there is that I didn’t realize how difficult it would be to persuade people about this new way of thinking about investing. I mean, because I’m sitting there — of course, I’m totally wound up with all the University of Chicago stuff. I have all the science, the data and so forth. I go, once you explain that to people, they’ll flock to it. You know, I’ve been doing this for 55 years. People don’t flock to new ideas just based on new research or new ideas. You have to soak the ground down around ’em, let ’em sink into it. So I guess if I’d known how hard it was, I don’t know if I would’ve pursued it. But I think we’re getting close. So now I’m at the phase where it’s exciting to explain all this stuff to people, ’cause they’re starting to respond to it, and I really find it great.

BARRY RITHOLTZ (01:08:10): You’re getting close — keep at it. Eventually you’ll convince a few people. David, thank you for being so generous with your time. This has been absolutely delightful. We have been speaking with David Booth. He is the founder and chairman of Dimensional Funds and the author of Stay Calm: Learning to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put this conversation together each week: Alexis Noriega is my video producer, Sean Russo is my researcher, Anna Luke is my podcast producer. And before I say so long, I just want to thank Alexis for being a fantastic video producer and helping to put this podcast into the world of YouTube and videos. She’s departing to take a full-time gig — that’s a big promotion for her, and we wish her the best of luck going forward. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors founder and chairman appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Tuesday AM Reads

The Big Picture -

Welcome to September! Kick the month off right with your morning reads:

Higher Yields Are a Boon for Muni Bond Buyers: The rise in bond yields has been a good news/bad news story. For the U.S. Treasury, the increase has been disquieting and has elicited an extraordinary scheme to double its buying of long-term maturities to boost their prices and suppress their yields. Hilltop’s Tom Kozlik on municipal yields hitting some of their most compelling levels in years — and unlike Treasuries, munis still reward investors for extending maturities. (Barron’s)

• How Much Is the Iran War Costing Americans?: John Cassidy on why a proper calculation must take in much more than just the military costs. (New Yorker) see also How the War in Iran Is Redrawing the Global Energy Map: Coco Liu on what six months of disrupted Middle Eastern production and a contested Strait of Hormuz have done — chiefly, pushing governments and consumers toward renewables. (Bloomberg)

​• ‘A Roth IRA on Steroids’: Wealthy Americans Find Another Tax-Free Way to Invest: On the tax-free vehicle one adviser calls “a Roth IRA on steroids for people who can afford it and want to leave it to their heirs.” Private-placement life insurance contracts allow unlimited investments to grow tax-free. (Wall Street Journal)

​• America’s Next Grocery Shock Is Brewing: Erica Pandey on the forces piling up beyond beef, coffee, and chocolate — expensive grain, soaring fertilizer, and more.  (Axios)

• Scott Bessent Takes On Bond Vigilantes in $32tn Treasury Market: George Steer on the Treasury’s plan, which stunned Wall Street, to “at least double” its purchases of long-term government bonds — dismissed by investors as a “band-aid on a bullet hole” amid a $40tn debt burden and smouldering inflation. (Financial Timessee also What Is Scott Bessent Doing With the $32tn Treasury Market — and Will It Work?: Claire Jones on the former financier’s sternest test yet. (Financial Times)

​• The Online Shopping Trend Where You Buy Nothing: Itika Sharma Punit on South Korea’s “dopamine sites,” where the pleasure comes from browsing, curating, and tracking — not from a delivery. (Rest of World)

How Paris swapped cars for bikes – and transformed its streets: Under Anne Hidalgo – mayor for 12 years until last week – the French capital added bike lanes, cut traffic and reclaimed public space, but not without resistance (The Guardian)

​• These Generals Fought for Israel. Now They See ‘Jewish Terrorism’ as the Threat.: Ronen Bergman on the growing number of former Israeli generals, intelligence officials, and prime ministers accusing West Bank settlers of ethnic cleansing with government support. “Once a society behaves this way, that society is doomed.” (New York Times)

​• Your Brain May Not Actually “Make” Decisions: Indiana University’s Tom James on why the perceive-then-decide sequence we all imagine may be very different from what actually happens inside the brain. (ScienceDaily)

​• How Arena Club and Fanatics Are Turning Baseball Cards Into Online Casinos: Derek Jeter, fresh off his Hall of Fame induction, became the face of a startup that digitizes pack-ripping — turning an age-old hobby into something that resembles online gambling. (Barron’s)

Video of the day: I Tracked Down the Company Ruining Fruit

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business with David Booth, Founder, Chairman, and former CEO of Dimensional Funds Advisors. DFA just crossed $1 trillion dollars, and has become the largest active equity ETF manager. Booth’s new book is “Stay Calm: Learn to Embrace Uncertainty in Investing and Life.”

Earth’s oceans just broke a heat record. The implications will be massive

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

The Long Shadow Of Judge Indira Talwani

Zero Hedge -

The Long Shadow Of Judge Indira Talwani

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

Below is my column in The Hill on the latest controversy from the chambers of Judge Indira Talwani. While the court could be upheld in halting the executive order on mail-in balloting in this case, Talwani is one of a number of jurists who have been habitual blockers of executive reforms and policies. Talwani has been criticized in the past as something of a one-stop option for forum-shoppers. Her record reaffirms the rationale for justices in using the emergency docket, or so-called "shadow docket," to deter gaming the system.

Here is the column:

This week, the Trump administration found itself in a familiar position: facing an injunction from Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. Indeed, it had just secured an order from the Supreme Court on its emergency docket lifting her earlier injunction on the U.S. Postal Service requiring voting lists to confirm U.S. citizenship.

The case against the executive order on mail-in ballots has reasonable arguments on both sides, although (as I have said previously) the challengers are likely to prevail in defeating the rule or at least delaying the policy until after the midterm elections. The Constitution gives states the primary responsibility over "the times, places, and manner of holding elections."

However, the U.S. Postal Service is a federal agency, and the federal government does have a role in the funding and regulation of federal elections. More importantly, the Trump administration is arguing that it is not barring mail-in voting but merely imposing "modest informational requirements." Non-citizens cannot vote in federal elections, and the new rule "does not displace a single state election law. And it need not and should not prevent a single voter from voting by mail."

The controversy over Talwani is not necessarily the merits of her decision that the rule convenes the constitutional framework. Indeed, the Supreme Court did not rule on the merits and could well rule in favor of her interpretation.

The controversy is the pattern of sweeping injunctions by Talwani and a few other judges.

Litigants have been accused of forum-shopping by going to liberal, Democratically appointed judges to prevent Trump policies from being implemented in a wide array of areas, including immigration, elections, reduction in government bureaucracies, and foreign aid.

Like her colleague in Boston, U.S. District Court Judge Brian Murphy, Talwani is viewed by many as a one-stop-shop judge for forum-shopping. Both have issued hair-trigger injunctions, and both have been repeatedly reversed.

Talwani was reversed on Aug. 24 for imposing an injunction against the mail-in balloting policy. Her injunction was taken to be premature and without a legal injury, since the administration had not issued a formal rule. The truth is, the challengers had her at hello. She did not wait for a showing of a cognizable injury before issuing another injunction, because the decision appeared made before the case hit her own docket.

Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases.

For example, she issued an injunction against revoking the humanitarian parole program for hundreds of thousands of immigrants from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela. Her order was lifted on appeal.

She also issued an injunction to stop the Trump Administration from defunding Planned Parenthood. That order was also set aside on appeal.

Regardless of the outcome of this latest injunction, Talwani has offered the strongest case in favor of the expanded use of the emergency docket, also known as the "shadow docket." Liberal law professors and litigants have bewailed the expanded use of this docket at the Supreme Court to resolve cases without the need for a long briefing and oral argument. However, judges like Talwani have created legitimate concerns over the use of the appellate system to slow or freeze new policies. This is why the "shadow docket" has become more prominent.

This year, confidential memoranda were leaked from the court on the use of the emergency docket and published by the New York Times. It was only the latest such strategic leak from a court that was once the paragon of confidentiality and civility.

The internal exchanges of the justices were illuminating as to the majority's underlying reason for allowing this fast-track review. The immediate issue was a move by the Environmental Protection Agency to impose unlawful regulatory burdens on electric utilities despite a countervailing earlier ruling in Michigan v. EPA. Chief Justice Roberts believed (as did many) that the EPA was using the ongoing litigation to force utilities to spend billions of dollars to comply with new regulations that the Supreme Court had already rejected.

"In other words," Roberts wrote, "the absence of stay allowed the agency to effectively implement an important program we held to be contrary to law."

As with the national injunctions that plagued the Trump administration in its first year, this tactic was all too familiar. Litigants would go to liberal judges in Washington, Boston, and other blue cities to secure injunctions that would take years to fully litigate. That approach effectively allowed individual judges to pursue their own preferred policies or to prevent a president from carrying out promises made during an election. At most, the president might have a year left after these cases slogged through the conventional appellate process. It is an administrative version of the old adage that "justice delayed is justice denied."

What concerned the justices was that many of these injunctions directly contravened earlier precedent, exposing the cynical purpose of these orders. For a president to be able to carry out major changes, he had to run a gauntlet of hundreds of judges, any one of whom could effectively negate reforms. In response, the Supreme Court ramped up the use of the emergency docket and cracked down on national injunctions, quickly reversing the rapidly increasing number of injunctions against the Trump administration.

With the midterm elections rapidly approaching, the odds favor challengers in either running out the clock or prevailing on the merits on the mail-in ballots. But Talwani and some other judges have reinforced suspicions of the Roberts court that some courts are willing allies of partisan groups in seeking to gum up the system.

Ironically, Roberts is one of the most likely conservative justices to be concerned with the Trump administration's effort to force election integrity reforms on the states. Either way, it is the shadow of these judges, not the docket, that is casting the most ominous concern for many of the Supreme Court justices.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the best-selling author of "Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution."

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:55

'Betrayal': Internal Pentagon Spat Emerges Over Leaked Middle East Deployment Plans

Zero Hedge -

'Betrayal': Internal Pentagon Spat Emerges Over Leaked Middle East Deployment Plans

A number of US military top generals have taken the rare step of formally registering warnings to Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth over potential plans for a new phase of strikes against a non-compliant Iran. 

The warnings reportedly emerged through the Secretary of Defense Orders Book, which enumerates the availability of US military resources and force posture around the world - with direct input from American regional commanders.

via Reuters

The book is typically published twice a month, but this time it was reportedly filled with pushback by those overseeing operations in Latin America, Europe and Asia - who have seen training missions canceled, and ships and aircraft diverted to the Middle East for counter-Iran operations.

The Washington Post reported over the weekend that a chief complaint by the top officers was that the Iran conflict "has degraded their ability to fulfill homeland-defense obligations."

Amid fresh troop movements based on new orders reportedly issued in mid-August, commanders made clear they do not agree with the new force trajectory, but are ready to carry out the Commander-in-Chief's orders regardless.

Still, the leaking of this information, and such a rare public airing of grievances, has Hegseth and the Trump administration furious. The Washington Post reports:

The Aug. 14 orders book directs some troops deployed in the Middle East to remain there through September and some others into 2027, said those familiar with the document. The prospect of extending those forces further compelled military leaders to voice their concern, these people said.

Leaders of the U.S. European Command, the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Southern Command, along with the Navy’s top admiral, responded with what is characterized in the SDOB as a “non-concur,” those familiar with the assessment said — meaning they disagree with the secretary’s order to extend their forces but will execute it nevertheless.

Another key line from generals cited in the WaPo reporting is that the Iran war - which the Trump White House early on had promised would be 'swift' - has been "too much for too long".

Some pundits are warning that this alleged rare leak is an alarming sign Trump could be preparing to do something 'big'...

That section from the WaPo report reads as follows:

Army and Air Force leadership concurred with Hegseth’s desire to extend their deployed forces, but each emphasized that doing so would come with significant risk, these people said.

Overall, the tenor from the military leadership is that the ongoing Iran operation, having reached the six-month mark, has been “too much for too long,” said one person familiar with the assessment.

The military’s warning to Hegseth, which has not been previously reported, offers new insight into the administration’s dilemma as Trump seeks to end the conflict on terms favorable to the United States while Iran, cognizant of the war’s unpopularity with most Americans and its mounting toll on the U.S. arsenal, refuses to capitulate.

As expected, the Pentagon has responded by calling it fake news and saying that leakers of classified information will be sought and dealt with.

"This fake news, poorly sourced reporting is full of inaccuracies," Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell said in a statement. More from Parnell on X:

He added: "Decisions regarding the scope and duration of specific force commitments to any Combatant Command are made based on the current threat assessment, strategic priorities established by the President, and the advice of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Combatant Commanders. However, the Department of War does not discuss internal operational processes, including the Secretary of War Orders Book (SWOB), or specific concurrences, non-concurrences, or risk assessments provided by the Services or Combatant Commands during force allocation deliberations."

But the reality is that this conflict is a full six months in, and the generals are perhaps keenly aware it is now in quagmire stage, with no plans for an exit or final strategic 'mission accomplished' vision in sight. Meanwhile, every escalation in the Persian Gulf tends to beget more escalation. What's the endgame here? 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:30

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll Submits Resignation Amid Tensions With Hegseth

Zero Hedge -

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll Submits Resignation Amid Tensions With Hegseth

Army Secretary Dan Driscoll is out. Early Monday evening The Wall Street Journal is the first to break the news, describing that he submitted his resignation to President Trump, following months of tensions with Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth.

Some national security sources have already been quoted as saying the development is "unsurprising" - with the WSJ writing that "Driscoll had been expected to step down this year from his role as the civilian leader of the Army after clashing with Hegseth."

via Associated Press

White House spokesperson Anna Kelly has confirmed that Driscoll resigned. It comes just days after the Iran war hit the six month mark, with no apparent exit strategy articulated by the White House or military leadership.

"Secretary Driscoll has been highly effective in advancing President Trump’s agenda to Make America Strong Again at the Department of the Army by providing outstanding leadership during historic military operations, restoring an emphasis on readiness and lethality, assisting with negotiations between Russia and Ukraine, and more," Kelly said in a statement.

There could be more high-level resignations at the Pentagon to come, amid several simultaneous controversies gripping internal Department of War ranks over several months. To review:

On this latter front, the Journal presents some of the latest developments as follows:

Last week, Driscoll attended the retirement ceremony at Fort Bragg for Gen. Chris Donahue, who served as the top Army officer in Europe until Hegseth downgraded his positioneffectively bringing an end to his military career

Donahue’s abrupt departure was presented as part of Hegseth’s broader push to shrink the number of generals and admirals by 10% overall, plus a 20% cut to the number of four-star positionsthe Journal reported

Hegseth's efforts at bringing radical change to the Pentagon has resulted in huge, rare frictions between his office and top generals and admirals across the globe, particularly centered on questions of force readiness and future vision and doctrine.

There are some political dynamics as well, with WSJ also noting that "Driscoll is a former law school classmate of Vice President JD Vance. A former Army officer, he forged a close relationship with George, the former Army chief of staff who was fired by Hegseth in April. The two pushed soldiers to adopt new technology and become more adaptable battlefield threats."

So all this further seems bound up with personalities, loyalties, as well as contrasting visions for the future of America's armed forces. It should be noted that Driscoll as a Vance-ally was probably - just like the Vice President - deeply skeptical of many of the Trump's administration's Iran-related decisions.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 20:05

Universities Could Lose Foreign-Student Certification Over Internship Rule Violations, Trump Admin Says

Zero Hedge -

Universities Could Lose Foreign-Student Certification Over Internship Rule Violations, Trump Admin Says

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump's administration has issued a memo to universities aimed at restricting certain internship work authorizations for international students. Officials cautioned that schools failing to comply could have their certification to enroll foreign students revoked.

A student walks toward Royce Hall on the campus of University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) on March 11, 2020. Robyn Beck/AFP via Getty Images

The memo, which is dated Aug. 24 and issued by the Student and Exchange Visitor Program under U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said the agency "has observed a rise in Curricular Practical Training (CPT) authorizations that appear to violate regulatory requirements which permit CPT only where the training is an integral part of an established curriculum."

"Failure to comply with SEVP regulations may result in an institution losing certification to enroll foreign students," the memo said.

Some schools have already stopped processing applications. The University of California, Los Angeles ceased issuing certain CPT authorizations while it reviewed the guidance.

"UCLA has paused certain Curricular Practical Training authorizations while it reviews recent federal guidance and determines next steps," a UCLA spokesperson said.

At the University of California, Berkeley, the international office described the Aug. 24 memo as "more narrow in focus, more direct, and includes content that is more restrictive in nature."

An earlier memo had been issued in mid-August. Berkeley said it is unlikely to process certain work authorization applications "in the near future" and told international students to plan accordingly.

The university will keep handling "degree-requirement" CPT as usual and plans to resume "Doctoral Dissertation and Master's Thesis Research CPT."

University officials said they would consult legal experts to align processes with the new federal requirements.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE's parent agency, said the underlying regulations have not changed.

"However, schools and employers should consider themselves on notice: under President Trump, abuse of this generous system will no longer be tolerated."

CPT allows eligible international students to participate in internships or training when the work forms an integral part of their academic curriculum. The memo stresses that the training must connect to an established academic program.

This step fits into an overarching set of changes for foreign students. In July, DHS completed a rule ending the long-standing "duration of status" policy. That system had permitted many F, J, and I visa holders to remain in the country without a fixed departure date.

The new rule, published in the Federal Register on July 17 and effective Sept. 15, limits most stays to four years unless students apply for extensions through the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Extensions will require screening, background checks, and fraud reviews. The grace period after the conclusion of studies is reduced from 60 days to 30 days.

"For nearly half a century, the outdated 'duration of status' system has compromised national security and created an environment ripe for immigration fraud," DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin said at the time.

"By implementing clear, finite limits on these visas, the United States is reclaiming its ability to properly screen, vet, and monitor individuals within our borders."

The rule is being challenged in court by a coalition of unions and advocacy groups that say the new rule makes the United States less competitive as a destination for international talent.

Earlier this year, ICE published the findings of an investigation into Optional Practical Training, a separate post-graduation work program.

Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons said investigators "have identified over 10,000 foreign students who claim to be working for highly suspect employers."

Visits turned up empty buildings, locked doors, and addresses associated with hundreds of students who were not involved in the activity they claimed, he said. Officials also found "phantom employees" who never reported to the listed sites, as well as complex international financial transactions, according to Lyons.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 19:15

Take-Two Tumbles Most In Months As BofA Calls Grand Theft Auto Reveal "Impressive, But Unlikely To Surprise"

Zero Hedge -

Take-Two Tumbles Most In Months As BofA Calls Grand Theft Auto Reveal "Impressive, But Unlikely To Surprise"

Take-Two Interactive shares plunged the most in nearly seven months on Monday as investors weighed a series of "Grand Theft Auto VI" leaks in recent weeks ahead of the Nov. 19 release. 

The leaked clips reportedly expose plot details, character scenes, and gameplay mechanics, prompting Rockstar Games (a studio owned by TTWO) to call the leaks "gut-wrenching" and warn that some of the game's surprises may have been spoiled. 

What X users are saying:

Omar Dessouky, an equity research analyst at Bank of America focused on gaming, digital advertising, and consumer internet companies, penned a note on Monday titled "GTA 6: Impressive Gameplay Reveal, but Unlikely to Surprise." 

Dessouky pointed out that the trailer released by Take-Two Interactive last week reduced the risk of another launch delay by showing GTA VI is already playable. 

"Some details in the footage are consistent with access to a genuine playable build. Were a distributable copy to circulate, it could weigh on sales (particularly the PC version); at this stage, however, there is no clear evidence one exists," the analyst said. 

Dessouky added that the footage delivered few surprises. Many of the mechanics had already been disclosed, while clips released by an anonymous account called CyberLeek stripped away some of the mystery ahead of the mid-November release. 

He forecasts that GTA VI will sell 45 million units during fiscal 2027, generate $3.44 billion in combined bookings with GTA Online, and deliver $898 million in incremental net income. Take-Two's total bookings are forecasted to jump 36% to $9.16 billion. 

Dessouky maintained his Buy rating and $368 price target. The stock dropped 6.3% late in Monday's cash session, marking its largest decline since Feb. 12, when it fell 6.6%. 

Gamers have waited 13 years for this point. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 18:50

FDA Authorizes Generic Ivermectin Shot To Prevent Screwworm

Zero Hedge -

FDA Authorizes Generic Ivermectin Shot To Prevent Screwworm

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Federal regulators have authorized a generic ivermectin injection for the prevention of New World screwworm in cattle.

The Food and Drug Administration on Aug. 27 granted emergency use authorization for Bimectin, the injection, for use within 24 hours of birth.

The drug can also be used when castration is performed, or when a wound appears. It cannot be used in lactating dairy cows or in calves destined for veal.

Bimectin is a generic version of Ivomec, which the FDA authorized in February. The FDA previously approved Bimectin for treating and controlling parasites in cattle. The application for Bimectin came from Bimeda Animal Health, an Ireland-based company.

Based on available evidence, FDA officials concluded that the injection may prevent screwworm in cattle, and that the known and potential benefits outweigh known and potential risks. That information includes studies carried out in Brazil and Argentina in the 1990s, and a 2019 study conducted in Brazil, which found ivermectin injection prevented screwworm infestations in cattle, according to an FDA fact sheet.

"The animal safety profile for cattle, including male and female reproducing cattle, is well-characterized, and the information provided support that the food products obtained from the treated animals are safe for human consumption when used under the conditions described in the authorization," the fact sheet stated.

"This authorization reflects the FDA's commitment to expanding generic drug options against New World screwworm," Timothy Schell, director of the FDA's Center for Veterinary Medicine, said in a statement. "By authorizing both generic and pioneer products, the Agency is ensuring producers aren't dependent on a single manufacturer or product to protect their herds."

Ivermectin is an antiparasitic medication widely used in animals. The drug is also available for humans, primarily to prevent worm infections.

Screwworm, a flesh-eating pest, entered the United States from Mexico earlier in 2026 for the first time in years.

The Trump administration has since approved or authorized more than a dozen drugs for screwworm prevention and/or treatment, including an ivermectin oral solution for horses, a medication for dogs and puppies, and a generic treatment for dogs, puppies, cats, and kittens.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, in its latest update, with data current through Aug. 25, said that there have been three screwworm cases in August, all in Texas. Two of the cases were among sheep, and one was in a goat.

There were 14 cases in July and 30 in June.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 18:25

Fauci Told Aide To Delete Email About Risky Research

Zero Hedge -

Fauci Told Aide To Delete Email About Risky Research

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Dr. Anthony Fauci said an aide should delete an email about risky research his agency was funding, according to documents released on Aug. 29 by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).

"Please delete this e-mail and then delete from the deleted file," Fauci told Dr. Clifford Lane, a senior official at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), in a missive on March 4, 2012.

Fauci, NIAID's director at the time, was commenting on an op-ed that criticized risky research that created a more transmissible H5N1 influenza virus. The research, led by European scientist Ron Fouchier, was funded by the NIAID.

The op-ed said the virus appeared to spread easily and would be lethal to humans if it escaped confinement or was stolen by terrorists. It highlighted the government's funding of the research.

It also noted that the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity had recommended that papers prepared by researchers such as Fouchier omit key details that might help terrorists make their own versions of risky viruses.

Fauci told Lane that "people are getting to" Phil Boffey, the writer of the op-ed, "and he is swallowing it." He said that the board's decision was wrong. And he wrote that if the board maintained its stance, "the field of research on influenza transmissibility and host adaptability has a very serious problem."

Fauci and Lane did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.

Boffey could not be reached.

Fouchier had told Science magazine that his team created "probably one of the most dangerous studies you can make."

Several weeks later, Fauci coauthored an op-ed in the Washington Post that said work by Fouchier and another group funded by the NIAID involved careful work in isolated laboratories and advanced understanding of how mutations of H5N1, sometimes known as avian influenza, worked.

"This research has allowed identification of genetic pathways by which such a virus could better adapt to transmission among people," the op-ed, titled A flu virus risk worth taking, stated.

Fauci's agency later funded research in China that made a modified coronavirus more pathogenic than the original version, among other gain-of-function experiments.

Fauci's directive to Lane was one of five times he told aides to delete emails, according to documents obtained and released by Paul. The other instances took place in 2009, 2011, and 2020. Fauci left the government in late 2022.

Paul said in a statement that the documents "show years of 'delete this email' orders." He has referred Fauci to the Department of Justice for prosecution after Fauci, during an appearance before the Senate panel Paul chairs, declined to answer questions. Fauci has not been charged.

Prior to leaving office, President Joe Biden gave Fauci a preemptive pardon covering conduct from Jan. 1, 2014, to Jan. 19, 2025.

It is a federal crime to destroy or attempt to destroy federal records. Dr. David Morens, one of Fauci's former aides, recently pleaded guilty to violating that law.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 17:40

SCOTUS Rules Trump Can Build White House Ballroom, Roberts Joins Dissenting Liberals

Zero Hedge -

SCOTUS Rules Trump Can Build White House Ballroom, Roberts Joins Dissenting Liberals

The U.S. Supreme Court just issued an order allowing construction of President Trump’s White House ballroom project to continue while the administration contests a lower court order that would block much of the development.

The justices voted 5–4 (with Chief Justice Roberts joining the three 'liberal' judges in dissent) to grant the federal government’s request to stay a lower court’s order halting above-ground construction of the ballroom while a lawsuit against the project by a historic preservation group plays out.

“We do not pass upon the legality” of the project, the court said in an unsigned eight-page decision from five of the court’s six Republican-appointed justices.

As The Wall Street Journal reports, two lower courts had declared the ballroom project illegal and said construction must be halted.

But a judge’s stop-work order was put on hold while the administration pursued appeals.

The Supreme Court’s ruling keeps that order on hold indefinitely, effectively giving a green light to one of Trump’s most visibly audacious projects, which critics see as the latest instance of the president ignoring Congress and flouting norms.  

Writing for the dissenters, Roberts said the project is “likely unlawful.”

“The White House is an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture,” Roberts wrote, adding that it is critical to “ensure that those responsible follow the rules in deciding what to tear down and what to build up at the People’s House.”

Roberts had already blocked the stop-work order from kicking in on Aug. 22 with a temporary measure that gave the justices more time to deliberate.

In his emergency appeal to the high court, the solicitor general warned that stopping work now would leave the half-built project “susceptible to strong winds during extreme weather, and vulnerable to erosion, water, foundation damage, and other setbacks that will fundamentally compromise the integrity of everything currently built.” 

The green light means the project could largely be completed before a final ruling on its legality.

Construction on the project, which calls for building a 90,000-square-foot ballroom, began in September 2025.

Building it required demolishing the East Wing, which Trump said was too small and in poor shape.

The facility is now expected to accommodate 1,000 guests, up from the initial 650 people projected, and its original $200 million price tag has doubled, though the true cost of the project is unknown.

Trump has pledged the project will be paid for entirely with private donations, but taxpayers could help fund security-related upgrades if a GOP-led Congress approves it. 

Developing...

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 17:20

Trump Mulling New 'Limited' Strike Package, After Iranian Attack On Jordan Base

Zero Hedge -

Trump Mulling New 'Limited' Strike Package, After Iranian Attack On Jordan Base Summary
  • Trump vows retaliation, mulls more 'limited' strikes after Iran's own 'retaliatory' missile attacks on US bases in Jordan.
  • Eight Iranian missiles were intercepted by Jordan amid the first major tit-for-tat military strikes in a month.
  • US forces struck Iranian missile launchers on Larak Island, reportedly killing two people.
  • Iran threatens further retaliation, while regional tensions reignite across UAE, Qatar and Red Sea.
  • Global oil prices rose Monday in wake of the overnight renewed fighting.
//--> //--> Strait of Hormuz traffic returns to normal by October 31?
Yes 11% · No 90%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

* * *

Trump Mulling New 'Limited' Strikes (Again)

New reporting from Axios: "President Trump and his senior aides have been considering waging limited strikes in the Strait of Hormuz to prevent Iran from reconstituting its radar and missile capabilities to attack ships, according to three U.S. officials."

This suggests that once again when US 'bad options' tighten related to Iran and the Hormuz crisis, there is still this (bad) idea among decision-makers that the Pentagon can just 'bomb its way out' of a crisis that's of Washington's own making. Such an assumption has already been tried and tested several times before, amid what is now six months into the war.

"The plan, which was developed over the past week by U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) and supported by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, had not been approved by Trump ahead of this weekend's exchange of fire with Iran," Axios continues. "But he could greenlight it after the new escalation."

And still this reported new potential escalation is being presented by Axios as if it's somehow the US fully in the driver's seat, when in reality this continues to be a "bombing campaign in search of a strategy". More from Axios:

  • One U.S. official said the idea behind the plan is to reduce the risk of Iranian attacks on oil tankers, U.S. Navy ships and Air Force aircraft — to "mow the lawn," as this person put it.
  • A White House said: "The President retains all options at his disposal. The Iranians want to make a deal, but they are always a day late and a dollar short."

This comes as some top generals have taken the ultra-rare action of leaking their views of this to the press. "Several U.S. military leaders have advised Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that prolonging large-scale operations against Iran is unsustainable and risks weakening their ability to confront threats elsewhere, including the U.S. homeland, according to people familiar with a recent assessment prepared for the Pentagon chief," wrote the Washington Post on Sunday.

More latest from Trump (via Newsquawk):

US President Trump says Iran strikes will be limited; Strait of Hormuz is in extremely good shape; A lot of oil coming out of Hormuz; Ships came through Hormuz last night with Navy assist.

The Iranians meanwhile appear to be ready for the possibility of renewed dialogue, but they also certainly don't appear to be "begging" - as Trump has maintained. "The US must return to its commitments and abide by the terms of the memorandum; only then can we exit this situation," Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said on Telegram Monday.

"The solution is clear and unambiguous: the US must return to its commitments and to the agreement its own president signed" - and, he continued, "Should that happen, everything can be put back on track." The Iranian top diplomat said, "All countries share the concern that the war must end as quickly as possible."

Trump Vows US will Respond to Iranian Attacks

President Trump has continued teasing possible 'retaliation' on Kharg Island after an Iranian overnight ballistic missile attack on American bases in Jordan. Trump says the US will respond to the Iranian attacks, according to Fox. According to further context via Newsquawk: 

  • Note, the remarks from US President Trump were broadcast as part of a interview on Fox on "Sunday Night In America".
  • Follows the US hitting Larak Island on Sunday. In response, Iran fired on US bases within Jordan.
  • Reports since indicate that Iran's retaliation did not cause any significant damage.
  • Modest upside seen in energy benchmarks and downside in the risk tone in proximity to this remark.

Iran state media is meanwhile reporting that two were killed in the CENTCOM attack on Larak Island late yesterday, which triggered this fresh round of fighting.

"During the attack on Larak Island late Sunday, two people were martyred and several others were injured. The injured in the incident are receiving medical services and their treatment is ongoing," the official IRNA news agency said.

Also, the Iranian foreign ministry stated: "The Armed Forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran will have no hesitation in exercising their inherent right to self-defense and will respond decisively, as appropriate, to any military aggression by the enemy."

The Jordanian government has meanwhile confirmed the Iranian ballistic missile attack

The Jordanian Armed Forces said Sunday it intercepted eight missiles that had entered the country's airspace, according to Jordan's Al-Mamlaka TV broadcaster.

A spokesperson for the military said all eight missiles were destroyed before they could do any damage, according to the broadcaster.

Military Strike Tit-for-Tat Resumes After Weeks 

Brent crude futures climbed back above $90 a barrel, while West Texas Intermediate topped $86 after the US and Iran exchanged strikes for the first time in about a month. Tehran also claimed that an unidentified supertanker was struck by naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz.

Meanwhile, diesel crack spreads are approaching $100 a barrel again, suggesting an increasingly severe shortage across refined-product markets as the summer draws to a close. 

US Central Command said American forces struck Iranian rocket launchers that were preparing to deploy anti-ship mines in the critical waterway. The US has touted the Oman shipping corridor as open for business and moving crude and other energy products. Tehran's inability to halt tankers passing through that part of the strait may suggest that its offensive capabilities have been degraded.

Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it retaliated by targeting US air bases in Jordan, while the United Arab Emirates intercepted an Iranian drone over its territorial waters.

Trump: 'Failed Nation'

Trump on Monday morning issued a Truth Social declaring Iran a "failed nation":

The US military (CENTCOM) has said it did not target Kharg Island in the overnight strikes. According to a summation of there things stand:

The latest U.S.-Iran escalation appears increasingly centered on control of the Strait of Hormuz. Iran has been using small boats to monitor and identify commercial vessels transiting the Strait using Omani waters for an undetermined period. The boats can blend into civilian maritime traffic, making them difficult to distinguish from ordinary vessels. This comes amid sporadic Iranian attacks and attempts to restrict ships transiting Hormuz without Iranian permission.

The U.S. then struck Iranian missile launchers on Larak Island after assessing they were preparing to deploy sea mines into the Strait. Iran responded with missile attacks targeting U.S. bases in Jordan, with eight missiles reportedly intercepted. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar was also reportedly targeted, though that remains unconfirmed.

The pattern suggests Iran is attempting to reassert control or disrupt maritime traffic through Hormuz, while the U.S. is acting to prevent Iran from closing or mining the waterway. Various reports indicate transits through the strait of Hormuz have declined. What remains to be seen is whether the strikes from both sides tonight will continue in the coming days.

Crude Transit Opening?

"Brent crude is firmer at $90.48/bbl, up 2.5%, as tensions around the Strait of Hormuz support the geopolitical risk premium," UBS analyst Dharmesh Gangaram wrote in a note.

Gangaram continued, "Overall, the desk sees a cautious, risk-off start to the session. Geopolitical developments and lower European liquidity are likely to remain the key drivers, with particular attention on the resources complex amid broad-based weakness in precious metals."

Despite the overnight tit-for-tat attacks, an estimated 6 million to 8 million barrels per day of crude, primarily from US-allied Gulf producers, continues to move through Hormuz.

We previewed this in a note last week titled:

"The key is to watch the barrels, and as long as they continue to flow through the Strait of Hormuz, the buying appetite in the market remains muted for fear of being caught out," Ole Hansen, head of commodity strategy at Saxo Bank, wrote in a note.

Last week, the top US commander for the Middle East said American forces had cleared Iranian mines from the Hormuz waterway, declaring the shipping lanes open.

With its missile batteries, drone launchers, naval units, surveillance networks, or command infrastructure degraded, Iran appears to be shifting from conventional sea denial toward a lower-cost asymmetric strategy.

Weekend Developments
  •  US attacked two missile launchers of the IRGC on Larak Island on Sunday, which were said to be on standby to launch missiles with sea mines toward the Strait of Hormuz, while there were later reports of explosions heard near Larak Island.
  • US Central Command said IRGC claims of US aggression in the Strait of Hormuz are false, but added the US conducted limited precise action against IRGC minelaying forces that posed an imminent threat in the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Iran’s Revolutionary Guards warned the US strike on Larak Island would be met with a response and punishment, while it said several soldiers and civilians were killed and wounded in the assault.
  • Iran's Revolutionary Guards later announced that they retaliated with missiles and drones against two US bases in Jordan and warned that any attack against them will be met with a more devastating response, although a US official cited by Fox News stated no major damage in Iranian attacks on US forces in Jordan and that all missiles were intercepted.
  • Iran's Press TV noted reports of Iran firing missiles towards US vessels in the Strait of Hormuz, and there were reports of explosions heard in the UAE and in Qatar, while Iran's army later said it launched tens of drones at the Al Minhad air base in the UAE.
  • IRGC said a supertanker caught fire and was halted after being struck by two naval mines in the Strait of Hormuz, while it added that the tanker was attempting to pass illegally through the Strait of Hormuz and that ships must comply with its rules for passage. IRGC separately announced that it shot down a US MQ-9 drone over the Strait of Hormuz.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry said it will respond decisively to any further enemy military aggression, and stated that the US and parties supporting its military actions bear full responsibility for consequences of escalation.
  • US President Trump reiterated in a pre-recorded Fox News interview that Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and said the Iran blockade has been unbelievable, while he also commented that the US had to intervene in the Middle East to prevent Iran from using a nuclear weapon against Israel and other countries in the region and possibly against the US.
  • US President Trump posted a generated video with the caption "Kharg Island being blown to smithereens!!!"
  • US Treasury Secretary Bessent said the US Treasury plans to impose more Iran secondary sanctions every week, starting with banks. He also stated that they are telling banks it's not okay to have Iranian money and to aid the Iranian regime, and they will probably just sanction a bank outright next time, after the US imposed curbs on an Egyptian bank's United Arab Emirates branches.
  • Iranian President Pezeshkian said they are not looking for war, but will give a decisive response to the aggressors, while he added that instability and unrest in the region are not in the interest of any countries and will create challenges for everyone.
  • Iran's President said on Friday that Iran is ready for cooperation and understanding with regional countries, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while it is to open its route if four commitments are met. He also stated that Iran is to increase gasoline prices, and that exports and imports have decreased by up to 35% because of US sanctions and the blockade.
Overnight Developments
  • US officials said they are monitoring the Strait of Hormuz and will strike any forces that threaten navigation in the waterway, Al Arabiya reported.
  • Iran's IRGC Navy said compliance with regulations issued for the Strait of Hormuz is mandatory and warned against being “misled” by the US, Press TV reported.
  • Yemeni armed forces reportedly targeted Saudi ships in the Red Sea, ISNA reported citing Yemeni media reports.
  • UAE Ministry of Defense denied reports that Al Minhad Air Base was targeted by missiles, calling the claims unfounded and saying it remains on high alert and fully prepared to respond to any threats.
  • Iranian oil operations are continuing on Kharg Island, and the oil sector there has not stopped, Al Hadath reported.
Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 15:15

Rickards: The Dollar's Not Dying

Zero Hedge -

Rickards: The Dollar's Not Dying

Authored by James Rickards via The Daily Reckoning,

Last week's financial media was full of apocalyptic headlines: "$40 trillion in national debt!" "U.S. debt in a doom loop!" "The end of the dollar is near!"

Gold and bitcoin soared in lockstep with the dollar doom and gloom. If you took the headlines at face value, one would assume the dollar was already toast and U.S. Treasuries were worth no more than digital confetti.

The truth is that the dollar's position as the leading reserve currency is not in jeopardy. Of course, foreign exchange reserves are not simply piles of currency. They are largely held in liquid financial assets, including U.S. Treasury securities denominated in dollars.

Dollar-denominated assets will dominate global reserves for decades to come.

The reason is simple. There are few sovereign bond markets with the size, liquidity and depth of the U.S. Treasury market. Other large government bond markets, including Japan and major European markets, do not offer the same combination of scale and liquidity. King dollar will remain king.

This does not mean interest rates won't rise or inflation won't increase. Both are likely. But neither means the end of the dollar. It just means the Treasury pays more to borrow and you pay more at the gas pump and grocery store.

So, there are problems in the dollar bond markets, but debasement-trade hysteria is not a useful way to understand them.

BESSENT GOES AFTER THE BOND MARKET

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has just announced a plan to address higher interest rates in U.S. Treasury securities markets and, by extension, mortgage and credit card markets. It has both long-term and short-term components.

One short-term component involves U.S. support for Japan's efforts to prop up the yen, including joint currency intervention and potential greater use of the Federal Reserve's FIMA Repo Facility. That facility allows Japan to borrow dollars against its U.S. Treasury holdings rather than selling those securities outright.

In turn, that could take pressure off U.S. interest rates. Japan is the world's largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasuries, with about $1.12 trillion as of June.

Another short-term component is for the Treasury to purchase longer-dated Treasury securities, specifically those in the 10- to 30-year sectors. The Treasury recently announced that it will at least double the size of certain scheduled buyback operations from $2 billion to $4 billion, with the possibility of going higher.

Treasury has also relied heavily on short-term maturities such as one-month, three-month and six-month Treasury bills in its overall financing mix. These Treasury bills generally carry lower interest rates than longer-dated notes and bonds. Greater reliance on shorter maturities can lower U.S. interest expense, at least in the short run.

Treasury bills are also prized by dealers and hedge funds because they are highly liquid and are widely used as collateral in financial transactions. Supporting liquidity at the long end while maintaining a large supply of short-term Treasury securities makes sense. Why it is causing such hysteria in the media is a bit of a mystery.

BESSENT'S 3-3-3 GAMBIT

The longer-term component of the Bessent Plan is sometimes referred to as the Three Arrows.

The first arrow is to keep annual deficits at 3.0% or less of GDP. The second arrow is to achieve GDP growth of 3.0% or more. The third arrow is to increase U.S. energy production by the equivalent of 3 million barrels of oil per day.

That's where the shorthand 3-3-3 comes from: a 3% deficit, 3% real GDP growth and 3 million additional barrels of oil equivalent per day.

Since oil output does not directly impact fiscal policy, we can leave that to one side in our analysis. The deficit and GDP growth targets, however, are critical.

The metric that really matters in terms of whether investors have confidence in U.S. Treasury securities is the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio. It's silly to hyperventilate about $40 trillion as the U.S. national debt unless you put that number in the context of the GDP available to finance and roll over the debt.

Right now, gross U.S. federal debt is roughly 123% of GDP. That's the result of approximately $40 trillion of debt divided by roughly $32.5 trillion of annualized nominal GDP. That ratio is near the highest levels in U.S. history.

High debt-to-GDP ratios can be a drag on growth and leave governments with less room to respond to crises. A ratio of 60% is much more comfortable. A ratio of 30% is more comfortable still. The previous postwar high was reached around the end of World War II.

The annual deficit will not go down to zero. That's a fantasy. The level of U.S. national debt will also not go down anytime soon. That's another fantasy.

But that doesn't matter.

What does matter is whether the debt-to-GDP ratio goes down.

The way to do that is to grow the economy faster than the debt. If you can do that, the ratio goes down even if the debt goes up. That's Bessent's plan. That's what he meant when he said the U.S. could "grow its way out" of the debt problem. In theory, he was right.

For example, let's say annual deficits are $2 trillion so that a year from now the national debt will be $42 trillion. That's a 5.0% increase in the national debt.

But if GDP grows from $32.5 trillion to $34.5 trillion, that's a 6.2% increase. The debt-to-GDP ratio drops from roughly 123% to 121.7%. That's still high, but it's lower than the year before.

That's all the so-called bond market vigilantes need to see. As long as the debt-to-GDP ratio is coming down, bond investors have reason to retain confidence in U.S. Treasuries and the U.S. dollar.

The U.S. has done this before. The gross federal debt-to-GDP ratio reached roughly 119% in 1946 and was down to about 31% by 1980. That process took more than three decades and occurred under both parties using a combination of fiscal and monetary policy, strong nominal growth and inflation.

During that period, the national debt increased substantially. But GDP increased by more than 1,000%. And that was the key. If GDP grows faster than debt, the ratio comes down and America's fiscal position improves.

HERE'S THE DIRTY LITTLE SECRET

So, that's the plan. But there's a dirty little secret that Bessent has not emphasized.

When the government computes debt-to-GDP ratios, it's using nominal numbers, not numbers adjusted for inflation.

In the example above, GDP grew by about 6.2% while the national debt grew by 5.0%. That lowers the ratio, but it does not reveal how much of the GDP growth was real and how much was inflation.

The 6.2% nominal growth could have been 4.2% real growth plus 2.0% inflation. That's fairly healthy. But it could have been 2.2% real growth plus 4.0% inflation.

At 4.0% annual inflation, the purchasing power of the dollar is cut roughly in half in about 18 years and cut in half again over the next 18 years. That kind of inflation can destroy your net worth and income if you're not prepared.

So, how much inflation is included in the Bessent Plan? Secretary Bessent didn't say.

Investors should assume the worst.

The U.S. has had difficulty sustaining real growth of more than about 2.0% per year on average since the global financial crisis. If we need roughly 6.0% nominal growth to outrun the growth in debt and if we can only produce 2.0% real growth per year, then the difference has to come from inflation.

That could mean 4.0% inflation.

That's not a policy preference. It's just fifth-grade math.

In describing how the U.S. lowered its debt-to-GDP ratio dramatically between the end of World War II and 1980, I conveniently omitted the fact that consumer prices rose about 50% between 1977 and 1981.

That's one way the U.S. government took care of the debt problem.

I lived through that period. It was a fun time if you owned gold or real estate, if you used leverage and if you had a job that gave you a raise every few months.

It was not a fun time if you depended on fixed-income streams like annuities, insurance policies, pension plans or Social Security.

Which side of that trade are you on?

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 15:00

'You Will Only Have Yourselves To Blame': Trump Warns Anti-Data-Center Crowd Not To 'Kill The Golden Goose'

Zero Hedge -

'You Will Only Have Yourselves To Blame': Trump Warns Anti-Data-Center Crowd Not To 'Kill The Golden Goose'

Despite recent polls showing that 70% of Americans oppose building AI data centers in their area (including 60% of Republicans), President Trump on Monday warned that communities that don't embrace them will "end up being backwards and poor."

"The only reason that communities throughout the U.S.A. should not want Data Centers is if they want to end up being backwards and poor," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "If they want to be successful and rich, with far lower taxes and jobs all over the place, let Data Reign."

And if people "kill the Golden Goose" by successfully resisting AI data centers, "you will only have yourselves to blame," Trump continued, adding "China could not be happier with this anti Data Center movement. Actually, they can't believe it is happening!"

According to a Gallup poll published in May, 71% of Americans oppose building AI data centers in their local area, including 48% 'strongly opposed' - and only about a quarter in favor. Opposition crosses party lines: Gallup's breakdowns showed 63% of Republicans strongly or somewhat opposed to a data center where they live, while a July Fox News poll found that 60% of Republicans and 53% of self-described "MAGA Republicans" oppose data centers where they live.  

At the same time, Beijing structurally benefits from anything that slows US compute (and according to X, are amplifying the outrage).

Some observations
  • Eighteen months ago, American frontier models from Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, and xAI had virtually no competition - and the entire AI bubble (circle-jerk) was based on already-insane revenue projections. 
     
  • Then, Chinese labs began rolling out open-weighted AI models that are up to 90% cheaper per token, for around 95% the same performance as US frontier models. Suddenly, the American AI buildout thesis that led the market to all-time highs this year, was pricked - and companies are migrating towards these cheap Chinese models they can run on their own infrastructure. Chinese providers went from under 2% of OpenRouter tokens a year ago to over 45% of weekly volume by April 2026, and Chinese models surpassed US models in weekly token volume for the first time in February. An a16z partner estimated roughly 80% of US startups build on Chinese base models.
     
  • The July tape made it official: chip stocks shed more than $1 trillion as investors began asking whether AI infrastructure spending is peaking faster than expected - even as the hyperscalers, undeterred, still guide to roughly $660-690 billion in 2026 capex, nearly double last year's.  
     
  • Chinese AI firms are also starting to run proprietary chips - a workaround to years of banning Nvidia's top of the line AI chips. Beijing's Cyberspace Administration barred major tech firms from buying Nvidia chips in September 2025, and state-backed data centers now require domestic silicon. Domestic suppliers are projected to capture nearly 90% of Chinese AI accelerator sales this year. That said, Huawei's Ascend still trails Nvidia on raw performance and software, and its flagship CloudMatrix cluster draws roughly four times the power of Nvidia's comparable system - a trade Beijing happily makes, because China is substituting electricity (which it has) for chip quality (which it doesn't).
     
  • China is also able to rapidly expand both data centers and electricity generation because the CCP gives zero fucks about NIMBY Chinese 'having a say' over whether they plunk a loud data center or power generation facility next to their house. Instead, provincial officials are rewarded for building, the grid is state-owned, and the new Five-Year Plan explicitly treats data centers as a demand sink to soak up surplus renewable generation. In China, data centers are the solution to too much electricity. In America, they've become the cause of expensive electricity.
China Is Loving This

Trump isn't wrong that Beijing benefits from anything that slows the US buildout. But the astroturf version of the argument was quickly dispelled: data center investor Kevin O'Leary claimed China was behind the protests, admitted he had no evidence, and is now being sued for defamation by two Utah groups. And the polling is real too - Heatmap asked the identical question about data centers in Americans' backyards four times in 12 months and watched a 33-point collapse, from a 43/42 split last August to 75% opposed now. Public opinion doesn't move like that because of foreign bots. It moves like that because of utility bills.

The grievances have receipts. PJM's independent market monitor found data centers responsible for 63% of the capacity auction spike - $9.3 billion recovered from ratepayers in a single year, with measured bill impacts of $21/month in DC, $18 in western Maryland, $16 in Ohio. Total PJM capacity costs went from $2.2 billion to $14.7 billion to $16.1 billion in two years - and the latest auction only stopped at $329.17/MW-day because of a price cap Pennsylvania's governor demanded. Gallup's own open-ended data shows what's actually driving opposition: half of opponents cite resource consumption - 18% each naming water and energy - plus noise, pollution, and traffic. Not anti-AI ideology. Bills.

And when the industry had the chance to carry its own costs, PJM members voted down all 12 proposals to shift them in July. Ratepayers remain the unpaid sponsors of the buildout. Meanwhile, dozens of companies – including Meta, Amazon and Google - have signed onto Trump's "ratepayer protection pledge" to cover increased energy costs. You don't create a ratepayer protection pledge against an imaginary grievance.

Meanwhile this is about as bipartisan as it gets: Greg Abbott has frozen new data centers in Texas, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee - Senate Republicans' own campaign arm, warned in an August memo that the campaign against them "will expand far beyond Ohio," where the issue has Jon Husted in a dead heat with Sherrod Brown - a Democrat Ohio voters fired statewide just two years ago.

And what Trump fails to see, apparently: the CCP would entertain exactly none of this. There is no mechanism in China for citizens to oppose infrastructure - and what the no-veto model produces isn't just speed. Many local-government data centers run at 20-30% utilization, Beijing is now planning a national scheme to resell the surplus compute, and even SMIC's own chairman warned the rushed buildout "has not been fully thought through." The people of Licking County get a say. The people of Gansu get a ghost data center.

Trump says China "can't believe" the anti-data-center movement is happening. Of course not - there is no version of it available to Chinese citizens.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 14:40

Amazon Shares Tumble Amid News Of FTC 'Advertiser Deception' Lawsuit

Zero Hedge -

Amazon Shares Tumble Amid News Of FTC 'Advertiser Deception' Lawsuit

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is about to drop a lawsuit on Amazon today alleging that the e-commerce platform manipulated prices paid by businesses to advertise on its retail platform, which made the company tens of billions of dollars over a seven-year period, WSJ reports, citing agency officials. 

According to the report:

The lawsuit, joined by a bipartisan group of more than 20 state attorneys general, will allege that Amazon deceived advertisers by secretly raising the minimum price advertisers had to pay to place ads promoting their products, FTC officials said.

The case, to be filed in a Seattle federal court, will become the consumer-protection agency’s third major case against Amazon, which agreed to pay $2.5 billion last year to settle an earlier suit alleging it tricked people into signing up for its Prime service and made it hard to cancel the subscription. Another lawsuit alleging that Amazon engaged in illegal monopolization is headed for trial next year. -WSJ

Amazon's digital advertising platform is the third-largest in the world, behind Alphabet's Google and Meta - earning $68 billion in ads in 2025, according to the report - which claims that advertisers suffered billions of dollars in harm by paying higher prices for ads. Some states may attempt to claw some of the money back. 

Shares shot sharply lower on the news.

Every time a shopper searches for a product on Amazon, merchants compete to offer different types of ads to get in front of consumers. According to the FTC, Amazon began changing its ad auction strategy in 2018 - raising prices on advertisers in a way they wouldn't notice. 

The way this worked was through a mechanism called a "soft reserve": 

The company had historically run a special type of auction, popular in Silicon Valley, designed to attract more bids and protect winners from dramatically overpaying. That formula tended to reduce the price a merchant paid to advertise.

To raise the price, Amazon began entering its own bid, known as a “soft reserve,” which was higher than the price of the runner-up bidder, the FTC will allege. Under the rules of the auction, that raised the price paid for an ad. Amazon knew the merchants’ competing bids and didn’t disclose its new practice, officials said.

Amazon’s ad executives tracked the “surcharge” they earned from the strategy and sought to limit how much others knew about it, FTC officials said. The executives initially deployed the strategy only on popular shopping days when companies would think higher ad rates resulted from intense competition for shoppers’ attention, the officials said. -WSJ

According to the FTC, Amazon's goal was to capture more of the value of each retail sale connected to a successful ad - in recent years intervening in auctions to raise the minimum price 70% - 80% of the time. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 14:20

"Prepare For More Severe Scenarios": Bank Of England Chief Warns Of AI Threat To Global Financial System

Zero Hedge -

"Prepare For More Severe Scenarios": Bank Of England Chief Warns Of AI Threat To Global Financial System

As the world marches towards open-weight, efficient, unrestricted frontier AI models out of China, Western leaders are starting to panic over the lack of guardrails. Most recently, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey suggested that the threat posed by AI could lead to a chaotic correction in global financial markets, as frontier models are now showing "increasingly sophisticated autonomy and problem-solving abilities, as well as threat capabilities."

Governor of the Bank of England Andrew Bailey addresses the media during a press conference concerning interest rates, at the Bank of England, in London, Britain, November 2, 2023. HENRY NICHOLLS/Pool via REUTERS

"Financial institutions, financial market infrastructures, and technology providers will therefore need to strengthen vulnerability management, response and recovery capabilities, and prepare for more severe scenarios involving simultaneous disruption across multiple firms or shared technology dependencies," Bailey wrote in a two-page letter published Monday to G20 finance ministers and central bank governors in his capacity as chair of the Financial Stability Board - an international body that coordinates international policy and provides recommendations to national authorities. 

Bailey says the cyber risk posed by AI is "the most immediate concern" for the global financial system. 

"Frontier AI may have the ability materially to alter the speed, scale and economics of cyber risk, which could undermine market confidence system-wide, especially due to highly concentrated third-party service providers," he wrote, adding. "Recent developments have also highlighted to me that many jurisdictions do not have the protocols in place to manage the development, release, and deployment of advanced frontier AI models, heightening risks for the financial sector and beyond." 

Bailey's warning comes one month after the Bank for International Settlements warned that the AI bubble itself is one of three of the most alarming threats to global prosperity at this time. 

"Disappointment in returns could trigger a sudden pullback in financing and turn the capex boom into a protracted investment bust, with potential knock-on effects on financial conditions," the BIS said, before observing that "a major equity-market correction could have larger macroeconomic consequences today than in the past."

Officials highlighted vulnerabilities linked to funding, including complex arrangements such so-called “circular financingdeals that can mix equity and debt with supplier-client contracts (as discussed here "The $1.8 Trillion Off-Balance Sheet Time Bomb At The Heart Of The AI Supercycle")

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 14:15

Lake America Name Begins Appearing On Google Maps In US

Zero Hedge -

Lake America Name Begins Appearing On Google Maps In US

Authored by Tom Gantert via The Epoch Times,

Google Maps has updated its site to include Lake America in place of Lake Ontario, following the direction of President Donald Trump's executive order renaming the Great Lake.

"It's official! LAKE AMERICA on Google Maps," Steven Cheung, assistant to the president and White House director of communications, posted on X on Aug. 30.

Google released a statement on the changing of the name of the body of water.

"The U.S. Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) has formally changed the name for 'Lake Ontario' to 'Lake America' in the United States," the company said.

Since it updates Google Maps to reflect name changes in official government sources, people using the application in the United States will see "Lake America," Google said.

In Canada, users of Google Maps will continue to see "Lake Ontario," and those outside of the two countries will see both names, the statement reads.

Trump signed an executive order on Aug. 27 directing the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names to update federal records to identify Lake Ontario as Lake America.

The president said the change recognizes the United States' role in protecting and maintaining the Great Lakes. The order cites nearly $4 billion in U.S. spending on the Great Lakes ecosystem during the past decade and said the U.S. Coast Guard operates nine of the 11 icebreaking vessels serving the lakes.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney rejected the change, saying that Canadians would continue calling it Lake Ontario. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul has also said the state will retain the lake's traditional name.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum announced on May 9 that her government had sued Google over the company's decision to label the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America after Trump changed the name of that body of water.

Google made the change for U.S. users after Trump's executive order directed the federal government to adopt the new name. Users in Mexico continued to see the Gulf of Mexico, while users elsewhere saw both names.

Sheinbaum had threatened legal action in February, arguing that the United States could rename only the portion of the gulf under its jurisdiction, not the body of water. She disclosed the lawsuit during her briefing but provided no details about where it was filed or what relief Mexico was seeking.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 13:40

Lindsay Clancy And The Political Weaponization Of Mentally-Ill Women

Zero Hedge -

Lindsay Clancy And The Political Weaponization Of Mentally-Ill Women

Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us

After the publishing of George Orwell’s 1984, communist governments and organizations around the world condemned the book as “anti-Soviet slander” and “capitalist propaganda.” Orwell died only eight months after the book’s release and his personal feelings on the details of the story are limited to a few personal letters to friends and publishers.

Orwell was a Democratic Socialist, but even he was disturbed by the path that socialist movements had taken in light of genocidal far-left governments. His criticisms of Stalinist politics were treated by leftists as a betrayal.

However, it was Orwell’s depiction of women within authoritarian systems that angered the political left most of all. They have attacked 1984 for decades as “misogynistic”and “blind to gender oppression”. But as time passes, Orwell’s views on leftist women have proven more and more prophetic and they were written well before second wave feminism became a reality. In 1984, the character of Winston Smith described them thus:

He disliked nearly all women, and especially the young and pretty ones. It was always the women, and above all the young ones, who were the most bigoted adherents of the Party, the swallowers of slogans, the amateur spies and nosers-out of unorthodoxy…”

She had not a thought in her head that was not a slogan, and there was no imbecility, absolutely none, that she was not capable of swallowing if the Party handed it out to her…”

The women in Orwell’s Stalinist world were a key tool in controlling society. They are easily brainwashed to serve “Big Brother”, turning them into affection-less robots. Their ability to nurture a family is conditioned out of them and if they are allowed to have children, they have no care for them. The children immediately become property of the state.

It’s not just women’s biological habit of following the dictates of the herd, it’s also their inherent desire for chaos that makes them destructive to society at large. Nearly every civilization from the beginning of recorded history has understood this problem and sought to keep it contained. Only in the modern west in the past century have we abandoned reason for madness.

I have said it many times in previous articles and I will repeat it here now: Feminism is by far the most destructive movement in the history of western civilization. In the US, almost every political and social crisis we face today can be linked directly or indirectly back to the rise of feminist ideology. The weaponization of mentally ill women is the single most effective attack on the foundations of our culture.

It’s not because women are particularly scary or dangerous. It’s because, as western men we have adopted principles of fairness; to care about elevating those who are weaker than us and value their contributions. Feminism is designed to exploit our love of fairness and our love of women and it turns our love into a weakness.

Compare the west to almost any other civilization in this regard and you will find undeniable differences. There is no such thing as fairness, equal rights or feminism throughout most of the world. Women are, at best, barely tolerated. At worst, they are chattel to be abused with impunity.

Often considered one of the greatest accomplishments of the First World (as opposed to the third world), men have ALLOWED women to rise to equal standing. In many cases, we have prioritized them and given them privileged status, and this is where we made a big mistake.

All of our problems with feminism are self created. Western men allowed the ideology to spread. Conservatives talk a lot about the dangers of “suicidal empathy” when it comes to liberals and mass immigration, but we suffer from suicidal empathy when it comes to women.

The early women’s suffrage movement had numerous ties to Marxist causes and the communists saw very early how useful women could be in destabilizing western nations. Marxists like Friedrich Engels argued that women’s oppression began with the institution of private property and class division, not biology.

This, of course, is pure nonsense – A great lie which requires us to ignore thousands of years of recorded history from every feudal monarchy and empire that existed previous to the 18th Century Enlightenment.

Because of their biology, women are naturally removed from the power dynamic except for influencing men to take actions in their favor. For women as a group to have power requires numerous artificial social constructs and laws be put in place.

Marxists also argued that the family unit must be targeted for deconstruction as a social pillar. They claim that the family unit is “how capitalism uses women as free labor to raise new workers for the system.” In reality, the family unit represents the atomic core of any civilization. Breaking it apart, and using women to do it, will inevitably destroy that civilization and make it ripe for conquest.

Leftists and their globalist cohorts do not care about women. Feminism does not care about women. The goal of these movements is to turn women into suicide bombers. Their goal is to radicalize women to forsake their biological and psychological imperatives, turning them into corrosive saboteurs willing to sacrifice their own happiness for the sake of the Marxist cult.

Millions of women have even been convinced that their grand mission requires them to kill their own children. Sometimes this is done in the name of freeing themselves from the “shackles” of the family unit. Sometimes it’s done as an offering to the collective feminist coven to prove they are “worthy.”

This is why a child killer like Lindsay Clancy, a woman who openly confessed to the crime, has attracted the full attention, adoration and protection of the liberal congregation. She didn’t just go to a clinic and abort a baby, she went the Full Monty; she murdered her own growing children in cold blood. She looked into their eyes when she did it, and the feminists are impressed and they want more.

What has followed is a sort of hysterical worship, a swirling vortex of dark-feminine chaos as the brood searches for ways to protect Lindsay Clancy from punishment while also rationalizing her crimes. The case has become a nexus point for the ever festering conflict between the champions of moral order and the terrorism of morally relative chaos.

In my recent articles I have talked about the eternal battle between the producer class and the pillager class, but this is only half the story. The other half is the battle between the champions of conscience and the purveyors of subjective nihilism. The political left has happily embraced nihilism.

We might find it bewildering, but this is why these people are defending a child murderer. If Lindsay Clancy can be glorified, even deified as a oracle of the feminist calling, then any evil can be justified. “Do as thou wilt” could become the prevailing ideal of a soulless age brought into being by female insanity.

All they have to do, in their view, is help Clancy to escape blame and responsibility for her crime.

The postpartum excuse is the most common strategy because it works. Around half of all female child murderers who use this defense get off with a jury decision of “not guilty by reason of insanity.” The concept ignores the fact that ANYONE who kills kids is mentally ill or broken in some way. Postpartum is simply a more acceptable excuse for diminishing the crime.

It’s a way to paint the killer as a victim; a more empathetic victim than the dead children.

If western women can be convinced that they can get away with murdering their offspring out of the womb, we would be setting a new and horrific precedent. The feminist mob will jump on every crime involving a woman in an effort to leverage them out of repercussions. The legal system already has so many double standards in favor of women, but we are getting dangerously close to a two tier system.

If Clancy escapes with a lesser charge or institutionalization instead of prison, leftist women will see this as political victory. That said, the case is opening the door to an awakening among men. Young men are using the case to “test” their girlfriends and wives. If these women show any inkling of sympathy for Lindsay Clancy, men are dumping and divorcing them without a second thought.

It’s a smart move and, for now, it’s the only strategy against the ongoing cancer of liberal female derangement. But it doesn’t solve the greater issue of feminism as a societal influence. In the meantime, families are not being built.

I would point out that there are men who kill their own children as well. It’s not as if this crime is exclusive to women. However, I can’t find a single instance in which a mob of men rallied together to defend a father who murdered his family. This is strictly female behavior.

The Clancy trial is nearly over, and regardless of what the jury decides to do there’s no denying that the event has reminded us, once again, that western men have ignored the single most poisonous problem in our society for far too long.

Liberal women are the most privileged, most entitled and most coddled people on the planet. No other group comes close. Their obsessive grasping for power by any means necessary is corrosive. Their rabid efforts to elevate their own egos as the focal point of politics, government and the social contract is sinking our nations one by one.

Perhaps this quest for power needs to end? Perhaps western men need to finally abandon the liberal experiment in equality or “equity” and bring our countries back to the models they were founded on? Or at the very least, we need to bring back certain limitations. Not all freedoms are good and we have seen where our current path leads.

If liberal women have been weaponized, then liberal women need to be nullified and controlled. Or, at the very least, their level of participation in institutions of power needs to be restricted. In other words, we would have to set aside our empathy, be the bad guys and TAKE power (and rights) away from the leftist cabal. We would have to fundamentally overturn every facet of feminism and erase it from our daily lives.

We have seen what these women do with liberty and we’re not impressed. The celebration and adoration of a child murderer is, in my view, the last straw. If their first inclination is to use their freedoms as a license to tear the world down instead of building things up, then they no longer deserve those freedoms.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 13:00

PG&E, California Utilities Crash As Wildfire Bill Spark Downgrade Wave

Zero Hedge -

PG&E, California Utilities Crash As Wildfire Bill Spark Downgrade Wave

Shares of California's largest publicly traded utilities crashed on Monday morning after state lawmakers unveiled wildfire legislation that failed to provide the liability protections Wall Street analysts had hoped for.

PG&E plunged as much as 21%, its sharpest decline since 2020, while Edison International crashed as much as 24%, its largest drop since 2018. Sempra fell 5%.

The development sparked a wave of Wall Street downgrades tracked by Bloomberg. Mizuho Securities downgraded PG&E, Edison, and Sempra to neutral from outperform, citing the absence of meaningful liability reform, while also reducing its price targets.

BMO Capital Markets analyst James Thalacker, who downgraded PG&E to market perform from outperform, wrote in a note to clients that California's proposed wildfire legislation failed to provide durable liability protections.

Thalacker cut his price target to $21 from $28, writing that Senate Bill 492 "sets fire to hopes for meaningful reform."

Thalacker wrote:

Bottom Line:

We move to Market Perform following the release of SB492, which failed to address/improve upon key elements of the state's wildfire framework. The proposed legislation does nothing to ensure the wildfire fund's long-term solvency (and associated liability cap), which exposes investors to open-ended wildfire-related tail risk.

We currently do not see support to revisit this critical deficiency. Our $21 target now reflects assumptions for uncapped future wildfire liability post-2030. While management is expected to respond with a revised capital allocation strategy shortly, we do not see that response as sufficient to improve investor sponsorship.

Thalacker continued:

Although the state's iterative approach established a robust legislative wildfire framework via AB1054/SB254, the proposed SB492 in our view falls woefully short of codifying the elements necessary to ensure the wildfire fund's solvency and protect the state's investor-owned utilities (IOUs) from wildfire-driven bankruptcies. As such, we expect PCG to be down materially at the open tomorrow and, longer term, to find it incrementally harder to attract capital relative not only to its utility peers given investors' preference for accelerating, large-load-driven growth and aversion to significant wildfire-related liabilities, but also for generalist investors given the challenge of open-ended wildfire-related tail risk despite the company's low absolute valuation. Moreover, given the lack of progress this year despite a more wildfire-educated legislature, the CEA's third-party road map and clear message on "the cost of doing nothing," it is unclear if there will be sufficient political interest in 2027 to revisit the legislation (particularly absent Newsom's support for reform) to improve further California's wildfire framework, which is key to unlocking PCG's terminal value and associated upside.

Despite the significant relative discount to its utility peers, we are downgrading PCG to Market Perform and reducing our target price to $21 to reflect revised wildfire liability assumptions in our MTM/SOTP framework. While we still employ the framework that discounts the liability to PCG shareholders from future wildfires through 2040, we raise assumed liabilities above the 20% T&D liability cap for fires beyond 2030 to reflect a depleted fund/eliminated liability cap. While our revised target price still implies meaningful upside capital appreciation, without the visible prospect for a meaningful improvement to the state's wildfire framework, we believe PCG shares will struggle to find both dedicated and generalist sponsorship, leaving the stock range-bound despite its attractive absolute valuation (~8x).

Thalacker outlined a downside scenario that values PG&E at just $3 a share if wildfire claims exhaust the state fund and adverse regulatory outcomes follow. His upside case reaches $35 if lawmakers enact meaningful reform in 2027.

California Democrats need utilities to invest tens of billions of dollars in grid reliability, wildfire prevention, electrification, and power capacity for AI data centers. Yet, lawmakers have refused to provide the liability framework needed to attract new investment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 12:40

Key Events This Week: Jobs, JOLTS, Beige Book And ISM

Zero Hedge -

Key Events This Week: Jobs, JOLTS, Beige Book And ISM

Following on the heels of Warsh’s speech at Jackson Hole last Friday, which was hawkish yet which also sent yields to multi-year highs thus refuting claims the Fed Chair regained some credibility, the data docket picks up this week with the main event being Friday’s August employment report. Regarding Warsh, he delivered a crisp message to market participants last Friday that resolved much of the confusion from his July post-meeting press conference. Indeed, Warsh went one step further and provided his own views on recent data trends. On inflation Warsh stated, “And while this summer's PCE and CPI readings were better than expected, they do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved.” It will be interesting to see if Governor Waller reinforces this message when he takes part in a moderated discussion on inflation this Thursday at Reuter’s Next conference.

On the labor market, Warsh noted that “When labor supply is barely growing, monthly job gains are naturally going to run low. There are always areas of concern in the labor market—for example, among recent graduates. In general, though, people who want to work, by and large, are holding or finding jobs. They may well be concerned about possible future labor disruptions, but as of now, I believe the labor markets are consistent with full employment.” In short, Warsh delivered a message that was bullish on the economy and hawkish on inflation, reinforcing our longstanding view that the Fed will hike rates at the September 16 FOMC meeting.   

Market participants will no doubt be trading upcoming data within the context of the views Warsh laid out last Friday. Though economists expect headline nonfarm payrolls to rebound (+65k forecast vs. -23k previously) due to payback from state and local education hiring, the private payroll forecast is somewhat more muted (+25k vs. +30k). Meanwhile, Bloomberg economists say there is a "decent chance" of a second consecutive negative print... and the Fed has never hiked after two negative prints.

That said, with average hourly earnings (+0.4% vs. +0.1%) also expected to rebound following some unusually soft prints in specific sectors last month, the year-over-year growth rate of the DB payroll proxy for nominal income should remain around 4.0%. To be sure, Fed officials are likely to focus greater attention on the unemployment rate, which economists expect will remain unchanged at 4.1%, though there is some risk that it rounds up to 4.2%. However, even if the unemployment rate ticks up a tenth, it is unlikely to result in the Fed reappraising its labor market view, particularly given as Chair Warsh noted “Unemployment claims, on a four-week average—an empirically robust real-time indicator—are near their lowest level in decades.”

As DB notes in its weekly preview, there are a few data points ahead of Friday’s employment report print that could on the margin impact sentiment heading into the print. While Tuesday’s JOLTS data are somewhat dated given that they correspond to July, they will nonetheless provide the latest readings on the hiring, layoffs and quits rates. Broadly speaking, most of these rates are expected to remain unchanged from recent tight ranges – still painting the picture of a “low hiring / low firing” labor market environment that we’ve been accustomed to for the past three years. Wednesday’s ADP private employment survey (+44k exp) should reinforce the picture of a stable labor market, albeit at depressed levels of gains partly due to low labor supply growth that Chair Warsh mentioned. Our ADP forecast is consistent with the latest reading for their weekly series.

Lastly, Tuesday’s manufacturing ISM (55.8 vs. 55.6) and Thursday’s services ISM (54.1 vs. 54.1), while not directly impacting forecasters’ payroll expectations, will nevertheless provide a more forward-looking view from businesses on hiring trends. Note that while the employment component of the manufacturing survey has been trending up over the last three months, the employment component of the services series has been moving in the opposite direction and remains below 50.

In summary, should this week’s labor market data come in close to expectations, it will reinforce monetary policymakers’ view of a stable labor market that is consistent with their maximum employment mandate. As Chair Warsh emphasized “Inflation is running above our 2 percent target. So the Fed's predominant focus right now should be on prices.” As we noted in our Jackson Hole recap note, the specificity of Warsh’s comments and the uniformity of the color in a hawkish direction, has changed the setup for the September FOMC meeting. As long as incoming data do not surprise meaningfully to do the downside, Warsh’s speech has established a rate hike as the most likely policy outcome next month.

Here is a day by day preview courtesy of Rabobank

  • Monday: sees German inflation numbers for August, starting with the regional states and followed later that day by the first estimate for the nationwide and harmonised gauge. Last week, data from France, Belgium and Spain already indicated that the rebound in energy prices would push inflation higher again following its easing trend since May. We expect the same in Germany. In the US, the main figure to watch is the (second-tier) Dallas Fed Manufacturing Activity survey for August.
  • Tuesday: German retail sales (July), Italian GDP details (Q2) and UK money supply and credit (July) all feature in the morning session, but the key figures to watch are Eurozone headline and core inflation for August. In particular, a renewed rise in core inflation (not our base case, but a possibility) could trigger further rate hike expectations beyond the September meeting. No change in the Eurozone unemployment rate for July would only underscore those risks. In the US, we have the JOLTS (July) labor-market flows data. Normally not a market mover, it could nevertheless shed more light on the recent slowdown in job growth. Meanwhile, only a small fall in the US ISM manufacturing survey for August (as per the consensus) could be interpreted by the market as a sign that US, as well as global, manufacturing activity is recovering despite ongoing concerns over tensions in the Middle East.
  • Wednesday: Australia releases its Q2 GDP numbers. Consensus expects quarterly growth to match Q1 at 0.3%. The Fed also releases its Beige Book, but Wednesday’s key event is likely to be the Bank of Canada’s interest rate decision, which investors may suddenly see in a different light since the eruption of the US-Canadian trade war. There are no signs that negotiations will resume anytime soon.
  • Thursday: Australia releases July trade balance figures, while the US calendar includes the July trade balance and August ISM services survey. Final S&P Global PMI releases and country extensions are also due, including for Spain and Italy, alongside Eurozone PPI and German factory orders for July.
  • Friday: The US nonfarm payrolls and unemployment figures are the highlight of the day. The street forecasts net job creation of 55,000 in August, following an unexpected dip in July. Although the jobs report is always a market mover, Fed Chair Warsh’s comments at Jackson Hole suggest the Fed’s focus is now on the near-term path for inflation rather than the labour market. Eurozone retail sales for July are expected to recover from a dip in June, but the underlying trend remains lacklustre as households face slowing real wage growth. The ECB’s Lane speaks in Dublin, but since –by then– the ECB’s pre-rate decision quiet period has commenced, he may not address current policy issues. 

Finally, looking at just the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data release this week is the employment report on Friday. There are several speaking engagements with Fed officials this week including events with Governor Barr on Tuesday and Governor Waller on Thursday. 

Monday, August 31 

  • There are no major economic data releases scheduled. 

Tuesday, September 1 

  • 09:05 AM Fed Governor Barr speaks: Fed Governor Michael Barr will speak about the economic outlook and financial inclusion at the Second Chance Lending Forum in Washington DC. Speech text and Q&A are expected. 
  • 09:45 AM S&P Global US manufacturing PMI, August final (consensus 53.3, last 53.2)
  • 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, August (GS 56.0, consensus 55.2, last 55.6): We estimate that the ISM manufacturing index edged slightly higher to 56.0 in August, reflecting a modest improvement in regional manufacturing surveys—our manufacturing survey tracker increased by 0.3pt to 56.3 in August—and a slight tailwind from residual seasonality.
  • 10:00 AM Construction spending, July (GS -0.1%, consensus flat, last -0.1%)
  • 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, July (GS 7,300k, consensus 7,313k, last 7,359k): We estimate that JOLTS job openings edged down to 7.3mn in July based on the signal from online measures of job postings from Indeed and LinkUp.

Wednesday, September 2 

  • 08:15 AM ADP employment change, August (GS +55k, consensus +47k, last +44k)
  • 10:00 AM Factory orders, July (GS -0.2%, consensus +0.6%, last -0.3%)
  • 02:00 PM Fed releases Beige Book, September meeting period: The Fed’s Beige Book is a summary of regional economic anecdotes from the 12 Federal Reserve districts. The Beige Book for the July FOMC meeting period noted that economic activity increased at a slight to moderate pace in all but one Federal Reserve Districts and that consumer spending edged up as higher prices, particularly for fuel, dampened sales in other categories. In this month’s Beige Book, we will mainly look for anecdotes related to how consumers and firms are responding to the increase in energy prices from the conflict in the Middle East, the evolution of labor demand, and firms’ expectations of activity growth for the remainder of the year.

Thursday, September 3 

  • 08:30 AM Trade balance, July (GS -$91.1bn, consensus -$90.0bn, last -$73.3bn)
  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm productivity, Q2 final (GS +1.4%, consensus +1.4%, last +1.4%); Unit labor costs, Q2 final (GS +1.1%, consensus +1.3%, last +1.3%): We estimate that nonfarm productivity growth will be unrevised at +1.4% quarterly annualized in the second release for 2026Q2. Since 2019Q4, labor productivity has grown at an annualized rate of 2.1%, a much stronger pace than the 1.6% average pace of the prior cycle. We estimate that unit labor costs—compensation divided by output—will be revised down by 0.2pp to +1.1%.
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended August 29 (GS 205k, consensus 205k, last 203k): Continuing jobless claims, week ended August 22 (consensus 1,787k, last 1,778k)
  • 08:30 AM Fed Governor Waller speaks: Fed Governor Christopher Waller will speak in a moderated conversation at the Reuters Next event about the outlook for inflation, the U.S. economy more broadly, and the Fed's policy response;  
  • S&P Global US services PMI, August final (consensus 56.8, last 56.8); 10:00 AM ISM services index, August (GS 54.1, consensus 54.1, last 54.1)  We estimate that the ISM services index was unchanged at 54.1 in August, reflecting a decline in our non-manufacturing survey tracker (-1.1pt to 53.5) but a tailwind from potential residual seasonality.
  • 03:00 PM Cleveland Fed President Hammack (FOMC voter) speaks: Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack will give pre-recorded opening remarks at an event called Connecting Communities: When Every Dollar Counts: Worker Perspectives on the Economy. On August 27, Hammack said, "I think it’s appropriate for us to put some restraint there to help bring inflation back down to target... The longer inflation stays above our objective, the harder it will be for us to bring it back down."

Friday, September 4 

  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, August (GS +40k, consensus +55k, last -23k); Private payroll employment, August (GS +40k, consensus +53k, last +30k); Average hourly earnings (MoM), August (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.1%); Unemployment rate, August (GS 4.1%, consensus 4.1%, last 4.1%): We estimate nonfarm payrolls increased 40k in August, reflecting a softer signal from alternative data. Additionally, August payrolls have exhibited a consistent negative bias—particularly in initial prints—over the last decade. We estimate average hourly earnings rose 0.4% month-over-month in August, reflecting positive calendar effects. We estimate that the unemployment rate was unchanged at 4.1% in August, reflecting a stabilization in continuing claims.

Source: Rabobank, DB, Goldman

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 11:30

Pages