Individual Economists

Question #10 for 2026: Will inventory increase further in 2026?

Calculated Risk -

Today, in the CalculatedRisk Real Estate Newsletter: Question #10 for 2026: Will inventory increase further in 2026?

Excerpt:
Earlier I posted some questions on my blog for next year: Ten Economic Questions for 2026. Some of these questions concern real estate (inventory, house prices, housing starts, new home sales), and I’ll post thoughts on those in this newsletter (others like GDP and employment will be on my blog).

I'm adding some thoughts, and maybe some predictions for each question.

Here is a review of the Ten Economic Questions for 2025.

10) Housing Inventory: Housing inventory decreased sharply during the pandemic to record lows in early 2022. Since then, inventory has increased but is still below pre-pandemic levels. Will inventory increase further in 2026?

Existing Home Sales Year-over-yearFirst, a brief history. Here are a few times when watching existing home inventory helped my analysis.

Starting in January 2005, I was very bearish on housing, but I wasn’t sure when the market would turn. Speculative bubbles can go on and on. However, the increase in existing home inventory in late 2005 (see red arrow on graph below) helped me call the top for house prices in 2006.
There is much more in the article.

Transcript: Samantha McLemore, Patient Capital

The Big Picture -



 

The transcript from this week’s MiB: Masters in Business: Samantha McLemore, Patient Capital, is below.

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

~~~

This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz

This week on the podcast, an extra special Masters in Business Live from the Phillips Collection in Washington DC I sit down with Samantha Macklemore of Patient Capital. She’s known as really the protege of Bill Miller, who she’s worked with for the past 20 years. First at Leg Mason, then at Miller Value she runs Patient Capital and then has taken over the Opportunity Equity Fund from Miller Value. Her firm now runs it. I thought the conversation was fascinating, and I think you will also, with no further ado, my live conversation with Patient Capitals Samantha Macklemore.

Barry Ritholtz: All right, let me look at my notes, which says, I’m the host of Masters in Business, a podcast that’s been on Bloomberg for the past 11 years. The first Bloomberg podcast. Now there are dozens, many, many award-winning podcasts. Forgot to button my shirt after they ran the backup mic. So let’s get that taken care of since we’re on tv. So most of you have some idea who I am. Sam, why don’t you tell people who you are?

Samantha Macklemore: My name is Samantha Macklemore, I’m the founder and CIO of Patient Capital Management. I started my career many, many years ago now, I dunno how it’s been so long as an analyst at Leg Mason working for Bill Miller, who was a, a very well known value manager.

Barry Ritholtz: So I want to talk a little bit about your time with Bill Miller, but before we get to that, let’s start in college. Magna cum laude from Washington and Lee originally chemistry, but eventually changes to accounting and business. What was the original career plan?

Samantha Macklemore: Well, I, I didn’t have so much a plan when I first decided to major in chemistry, I took chemistry in high school and thought I was really good at it. And then I got to, so I was like, I’ll major in this. I I like to be good at things. And I got to college and that first class I quickly realized I was not so good at it. You know, I, I’d never worked so hard for a B and so I was like, you know, and some of my friends were, you know, doing much better. So I was like, no, that’s not, we’re gonna have to reexamine this whole thing. So I wound up in the business school ’cause I was analytical and that was a much better fit.

Barry Ritholtz: Accounting and business, not necessarily finance and investing. When, when did that spark light?

Samantha Macklemore: Well, it was, they didn’t have a finance degree at the business school. So again, I was very good at accounting. It just came naturally. I don’t know what that says about my brain, but, and I got involved with the investment club. I’ve had some investing experience with my dad who tried to get me interested in markets in high school, you know, in the late nineties. It was a roaring tech bull market much like we’re seeing today, although I don’t think we’re peak bubble. And he bought Dell and I had some funds that were for college. So he had invested those and tried to get me engaged. So I’d had a little bit of experience in high school and then I joined the investment club and I just liked that a lot.

Barry Ritholtz: So how did you find your way over to Leg Masons? Was that your first job right outta college?

Samantha Macklemore: That was, and I like to say I won the job lottery because it was the fall of 2001. So now we were in the tech market crash. It wasn’t a great job market, fortunately, you know, there were a lot of investment banks recruiting from my alma mater. So my plan was to go there. I was ready to do the all-nighters in New York. And Bill, who also went to Washington, Lee happened to come back, you know, the fall of my senior year. He did some speaking. He met with the investment club and I got very lucky. I asked him if I could send him my resume and he said sure. So I sent him my resume and, and joined him as a junior, junior analyst right out of college.

Barry Ritholtz: I imagine Bill Miller comes to an investment club at his alma mater and every person is handing him a resume. Is that accurate or were people a little more circumspect?

Samantha Macklemore: No, you would think, I mean, if I have advice to young people, it’s like,

Barry Ritholtz: Give Bill Miller your resume.

Samantha Macklemore: Give anyone your resume. Go after it. Go for the job. Everyone said there’s no way you can get a job in investment management. And so I just think people thought, okay, this isn’t what, you know, I’ll go do banking, I’m not gonna try. So actually I think I was the only, the only one that sent in my resume. Resume. Really? Yeah, that’s a, the only one that asked to do that.

Barry Ritholtz: There’s a lesson in that. So you start as an analyst at Leg Mason. How long did you do that? When did you transition to a portfolio manager? I

Samantha Macklemore: Was an analyst for a few years. So I started in 2002 and became the assistant portfolio manager of the Opportunity Trust, which is the mutual fund that Bill and I worked on for many years together that I now run in 2008. In, in August of 2008. Right. Good Timing.

Barry Ritholtz: Yeah, right before the markets fell apart during the financial crisis,

Samantha Macklemore: The next month was all hell brokers. Yes. We’ll, we’ll talk about that in a bit. But you spend 20 years working pretty much shoulder to shoulder with Bill Miller. What was that like? What did you take away from that experience?

Barry Ritholtz: I mean, it was amazing. I, I can’t express how lucky I was. I was just so lucky. I, you know, I think it’s an apprenticeship business. So I really, my desk was always right beside bill’s and he liked to teach. And so I would go in his office, we would look at the Bloomberg and you know, look at stock charts and I got to attend a lot of meetings with great CEOs. Jeff Bezos spoke at our investment conference in 2003 the year after I joined. And I got to hear his speech and be in some meetings with him. And so I couldn’t have been luckier in terms of what I was exposed to and that learning opportunity.

Barry Ritholtz: It’s kind of interesting you work with a legendary value investor who is, doesn’t really fit the mold of a traditional value investor. How much of his philosophy did you make your own? How similar or different of you to the Bill Miller style of investing?

Samantha Macklemore: Well, we have a lot of similarities. I think that’s one of the reasons we hit it off. And you know, I, I would say at my core, I’m a contrarian value investor. I didn’t grow up with a lot of money. I had to make money go far. I looked at the markets, I like stuff that was down that was generating cash. Bill and I, you know, when I first applied, talked about Eastman Kodak, which ended up being one of our biggest mistakes, both of us. But we kind of bonded over that. And what was much more, you know, transformational to me was Bill’s view. And he was, he was criticized when I joined him as not a true value manager. ’cause he had invested in names like Amazon, you know, in the early two thousands. And people said you can’t possibly be a value manager if you’re investing in these very high multiple stocks.

And you know, Bill used to joke that he liked to hire people young so he could imprint them like the baby bird, that whatever the first thing it sees it, it thinks is its mother. So I was definitely imprinted, but when Bill made the point, listen, we don’t know what the best values in the market are today. ’cause it depends on the future and the future is unknowable so no one knows what they are. But we do know if we look back over long periods of time, what the best values are, ’cause we have hindsight bias and we can look back and say, well, what went up the most clearly that was the most, the best value. And if you look, it’s always names that can grow and compound value over long periods of time. And those types of companies, because their prospects are so promising, they don’t tend to trade at low multiples.

So he said, as a value manager, why would you have a process where you explicitly exclude what you know are the best values in the market? That doesn’t make sense. And I thought, well, yeah, that just doesn’t make sense. Now to a contrarian type investor, you know, it’s not easy to, ’cause it depends on a future that’s unknowable, it always does. And so where can you get that conviction that that can be challenging? But I think that had a, you know, certainly a big impact on me and it’s a core part of our process to look at a mix of different types of opportunities in the portfolio.

Barry Ritholtz: ] You used the word conviction a couple of times. Opportunity Equity has always been a high-conviction fund, somewhat idiosyncratic strategy. Tell us a little bit about the fund’s philosophy and what makes it so unique amongst, I don’t wanna say value funds, but funds that look at reasonable purchase prices for equities.

Samantha Macklemore: I think we are unconventional and we’ve always been unconventional. And Bill started the Opportunity Trust in 1999 at the peak of that tech bubble. And the idea was let’s create a fund with the maximum flexibility possible to go wherever it wants. And again, there’s lots of structures in the business that make that hard. ’cause style boxes don’t like that people allocators wanna put you in a box and so it hurts demand for your fund when you’re like, no, I’m just gonna go wherever the best values are. But the idea is, over time, that should allow you to earn better returns if, if executed properly. So I think the fund has migrated around over time. It has had a different mix of, you know, what we call attractively, valued compounders like Amazon and Alphabet, which we own more classic value names that everyone would recognize as value, like Citigroup or, and General Motors.

And then we, we like to look at companies early in their life ’cause they’re more likely to be misunderstood. There’s a wider range of potential future outcomes. And, you know, a lot of people don’t feel comfortable, especially in the value investing community, where I think it’s, it’s a more risk averse group who wanna see the value today there, what’s today’s value and what’s today’s price. And again, you know, growth people tend to look further out in the future, but we, we like to have a mix and I think that helps the fund do well in different environments.

Barry Ritholtz: And let me put a little flesh on those bones because this morning the first thing I did was, hey, let’s see how opportunity is done year to date. It has beaten its benchmark year to date, one year, three year, and since inception. So it’s not just like this is a theoretical stock-picking approach. It’s done better than average. Is that a fair way to describe it without getting you into trouble with the compliance department? Yeah, you’re

Samantha Macklemore: You’re gonna get me in trouble with compliance, but yet, well,

Barry Ritholtz: I said it, not you…

Samantha Macklemore: We, we have had a good track record, especially relative to value managers, which have recently, you know, struggled in a very, you know, growthy sort of market

Barry Ritholtz: Since, since the financial, so let, since you went there, since the financial crisis value has been a pretty ugly laggard compared to growth. We’ve been in a very strong era for growth, especially since the end of the pandemic. What sort of challenges does that create to someone that’s labeled a value manager?

Samantha Macklemore: Oh, well, I mean I think it creates a lot of value in terms of, some people say, oh, your value only wanna talk to you. So my colleagues here, she had a conversation the other day and they’re like, we just don’t have any demand for value. No one cares. We’re like, but we’ve done really well and we’re beating the market every year since Sam took over. And it’s like, it doesn’t matter. So I think it does, you know, my view is our, our primary job is to deliver for our clients. And so if we do that, everything else will work out. I’ve seen this in this business time and time again. If you deliver results, everything else will work itself out. And so, and I, I I strongly believe value will have its day in the sun again, but it might take a, an ugly market. So I’m not, I’m not hoping for that.

Barry Ritholtz:  I’ve always tried to figure out a way to more appropriately describe what you do, what Bill Miller does. Is it growth at a reasonable price? Is it value in growth? Like how do you sum it up in a elevator pitch?

Samantha Macklemore: Again, I think it’s value. ’cause if you look at every name in the portfolio, we think they’re all undervalued. But the value of any business is the present value of the future. Free cash flows and growth is a very, very important input into, you know, that calculation. And so, so we are valuing businesses, but I also think it’s important to have diversification between different types of names in the portfolio. And so, you know, I wouldn’t feel comfortable being fully invested in this market and all the griest stuff that has higher valuations. You know, I like having some cheaper names in there that are likely to perform well in a different sort of environment and there’s really attractive values in the value area that have just just been left for dead. So we’ll be patient waiting for the market to close those gaps.

Barry Ritholtz: Since patience was brought up, let’s talk about Patient Capital. What inspired you to launch the firm and tell us a little bit of the thinking behind the name.

Samantha Macklemore: I’ve always been pretty driven and I’ve always had entrepreneurial interests. And so when I became the co-manager with Bill on the Opportunity fund in 2014, I was also interested in developing my own independent track record. So BI Bill gave me some of his personal money to run independently and be the sole decision maker. So at the end of 2019, that had a, a really good track record. We didn’t have an institutional business at Miller Value Partners we had back in the day at Leg. But Bill was more optimizing for the kind of life he wanted to live. He didn’t wanna grow and build a business. So I said, Hey, let me go after this institutional business. And there was at least stated interest in women and minority led opportunities there. So I said, it looks like there might be interest in the marketplace for this. It was important to me to have, I think it’s a great profession for women. I think I’ve read a lot of research on the importance of role models in the industry. So, you know, that was, you know, part of my decision. So we decided to turn it into a private fund, like a hedge fund structure. And we did, we made the decision in 2019 and then we actually launched it in 2020 right. In COVID, which was not the best time to..

Barry Ritholtz:  Not a good time to launch in new fund.

Samantha Macklemore: Whenever I make these big decisions, the market, you know, goes a little wonky. Right.

Barry Ritholtz: Since you’ve become the sole manager of the opportunity equity strategy, is it run the same way it was? How has it changed since Bill has retired from being co-manager that Yeah, so

Samantha Macklemore: The philosophy and process is exactly the same as what we’ve always done. And you know, the, the decision making is different ’cause it used to be a co-decision making structure. When I first became co-manager with Bill, he said, okay, great, you’re co-manager, but I’m not gonna let some 30 something year old tell me what to do on my fund. And I said, I got it. I gotta, you know, I have to convince you. And so over time, you know, it became more equal co and then I, I took it over, obviously when he stepped off at the end of 2022

00:15:05 [Speaker Changed] And Patient Capital has acquired this, it’s now a wholly owned subsidiary. Is that right

00:15:12 [Speaker Changed] Now Patient Capital is, you know, the, the Opportunity trust mutual fund business and the institutional business that I started under patient. And so the, all the team and the structure,

00:15:21 [Speaker Changed] How do they differ aside from a mutual fund has its own rules, regulations, and specific Well that’s

00:15:26 [Speaker Changed] The primary way again for me, I like to think one philosophy, one process, one team. And we’re just looking for the best ideas in the market. And then if it’s appropriate for the strategy, the mutual fund has more restrictions on what it can do, even though it has the widest latitude possible for a mutual fund. So, you know, we owned Bitcoin starting in 2020 in the private fund, but we couldn’t in the mutual fund. Now we own the Bitcoin ETFs, but it would be differences like that.

00:15:52 [Speaker Changed] Coming up we continue our conversation with Samantha Macklemore, chief investment Officer and founder of Patience Capital, talking about the state of the economy today. I’m Barry Ltz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. Let’s return to my previously recorded conversation live at the Phillips Collection in Washington DC with patient capitals, Samantha Macklemore. So that one doesn’t think of Bitcoin as a value trade. Tell us what your thinking was there.

00:16:49 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, well my thinking was, I really screwed that one up because Bill got involved in Bitcoin when it was a couple hundred dollars a coin. And I was like, oh, this is another one of those things that’s gonna go to zero. ’cause Bill said, you know, it could go to zero or, but if it goes up, it’s gonna go up a lot. And I was like, I don’t need another thing going to zero. Big, big, big mistake. But, you know, then it had its run, it made it almost to 20,000 in 2018. You know, I again was telling Bill, when it got to 3000 bill, you should, he had a fund. And I was like, it was a huge position. I was like, you should cut it back. You know, this is, you know, has some risk. And it went to 20 and then it did crash, but back to 3000.

00:17:28 So that was another good lesson. But by 2020 again, I thought that there was, you know, potential inflation risk given all the, you know, monetary and fiscal stimulus. And by that time, you know, bill was on the phone every day with institutions and in, and you know, big in individuals that wanted to get up to speed. And there was a bull case early on about it being digital gold. But I thought it was very unlikely because there’s one gold and it has a special psychological space in the investment universe. But by 2020 I thought it was much more likely and it was developing along the path. And usually after you have these crashes, things don’t keep coming back. And so, so I bought it in the fund there on the belief that it was digital gold, which I could actually analyze. And you can look at the market cap of gold and look at, you know, the younger generations are much more inclined to digital assets. So if this is a proxy for the long-term potential here, what’s the upside? And if you do that math today, you know, Bitcoin could be worth 1.3, $1.4 million a share or a coin sometime in the future. And so again, I I still believe that to be the case.

00:18:35 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. I would would not have guessed that that’s a fairly contrarian perspective for a, a so-called value investor. Let, let’s talk about some other fairly contrarian approaches. You were an aspiring innkeeper in Vermont. I I have to ask about that ’cause it’s just so off what I, I know of you Tell us about adventures in inn keeping. Well

00:19:02 [Speaker Changed] I was an innkeeper, I’m not the actual innkeeper, but yes, I like to learn lessons the hard way. That’s, you know, part of my unfortunate law in life and you know, so 2011 we’d gone through the financial crisis, you know, bill was this genius. We’d had a really poor performance. He spent all his time working. I just had my first daughter, which totally rearranged everything in my life and my priorities. And I was like, you know, do I wanna work that hard and do that? Or you know, now I have this daughter and she’s so important to me. So I was considering a whole bunch of things and you know, innkeeper was one of them, as crazy as that sounds ’cause it’s so not my thing. Like, but, and then it was the real estate obviously bubble and crash. And so, you know, I think I had mentioned this to my family, they live in Vermont.

00:19:53 My dad was like, oh the Vermont Inn is going up for auction. And I was like, oh this is very interesting. It’s a sign of our times. Let me go to this auction. So my husband and I went to the auction. You know, we, I did work on what I thought the end was worth before going into that. And you know, there was a first bid for the end and then we bid the second bid and then I’m like, what are you doing? That was crazy. Like don’t do that again. But that was it. It was over. There were no two bids, there were no more bids. And so, you know, we ended up with an inn that was closed down ’cause it had gone through foreclosure. Fortunately my family was all there. So then I made, I compounded the air by getting my brother-in-law and sister involved to run the inn. So got family involved in an absentee business and you know, we also were on a reality show. We won’t go into that. Did you, did

00:20:41 [Speaker Changed] You really

00:20:41 [Speaker Changed] Do a reality show? Yeah, we did a reality show. ’cause I’m not gonna tell you the name ’cause I don’t want you to go watch it, but I needed someone to help me figure out how I was gonna run this in. But we got it open. So the, the auction was in October. I wanted to get it open by the holidays ’cause that’s obviously the big ski season there, which we did

00:21:00 [Speaker Changed] December. You did? We

00:21:01 [Speaker Changed] Did that. Yeah. My dad, my husband’s dad, we got everyone involved in getting the in reopen and we had to figure out how to get people to come and it, so it was, it was not for me. I quickly figured that out. But you know, we kind of got the business running and then sold it. So,

00:21:17 [Speaker Changed] And and what was the lesson? We learned the lesson from don’t scratch your nose at auctions. Yeah,

00:21:22 [Speaker Changed] The lesson was, I like markets. I can sit at my desk and make a lot of money doing very little versus managing a chef who has, you know, a lot of issues on when I tell him the food’s not so good and he thinks he’s an artist and you know, I was like, this is not for me. And the, the maximum amount you could make on it and like that was not that much. So

00:21:42 [Speaker Changed] Not a lot of bad business model.

00:21:44 [Speaker Changed] We, we did make some money so it was okay. But it was a lot of work for, you know, how much you could make. Yes.

00:21:49 [Speaker Changed] And you were working full-time?

00:21:52 [Speaker Changed] I was working, yeah. I was working full-time so you know, I wasn’t on site again. I had people there working

00:21:59 [Speaker Changed] That. That’s an amazing story. Let, let’s talk a little bit about philosophy. You have talked about Buddhism and stoicism as related to finance and investing. Tell us a little bit about that.

00:22:12 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, well I think in investing in Mark and markets, having the right mindset is probably the most important thing. And you know, it’s a mixture of art and science and a lot of people think the scientific part is more important. But I think the art part is more important because, you know, there’s a lot of data on how much more you can make in equity markets over time. And so the reason that you can make more is ’cause you have these periodic losses and it, you know, I liken it to dieting. It’s like people don’t fail at dieting ’cause they don’t know they shouldn’t eat the cookie. Right? Like, you know, you shouldn’t eat the cookie. It’s because it’s too tempting and people know you shouldn’t sell when the markets are down mostly. But it’s hard to do that ’cause you feel like your, you know, your wealth is at risk.

00:23:00 And so I think having tools that help you have the right structure for how you think about things and how you behave are really important. I mean some people are naturally wired that way and different people, you know, have different abilities. But I think having certain tools and mindsets can help anyone be better. And so, you know, staying calm, understanding that there’s only certain things that are within your control and that’s what you can focus on. And then understanding that there will be times when you lose money but over time, if again it’s so sensitive to time horizon, if you have a long time horizon and you can put your money away for a long time, there’s almost nothing safer If you have a 20 or 25 year time horizon, you know, equities have never been down over that time. The US period. Yeah. US equities. Yes. And so I meditate regularly and you know, I keep a journal and I remember during the COVID pandemic, you know, we were all locked away, but I was emailing with Bill and he was reading stoicism and that kind of got me interested and we were, you know, he was sharing quotes. And so I think it can really help you in the moment to make better decisions if you have these tools

00:24:10 [Speaker Changed] Re recognizing what is and is not within your control and a sense of calm, it turns out to be useful in markets. Yeah,

00:24:17 [Speaker Changed] Imagine that. Who,

00:24:19 [Speaker Changed] Who? Whoever would’ve guessed that. And yet most people don’t reach that conclusion. They, they go the other direction. Yes. So, so let’s talk a little bit about where we are in the state of the market today. I’m watching real time transcription, which five years ago would’ve been magic. Mm. There’s been dictation software for decades. It’s always been pretty terrible. It’s amazing how good this is in real time. So let’s talk a little bit about artificial intelligence. What are your thoughts? How does this affect how you’re looking at overall markets and how you’re looking at individual companies?

00:24:58 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, well I think it’s, you know, anyone who knows anything about technology, I have not heard anyone who’s knowledgeable about this space. Not say that it’s completely transformational. And you know, more important, you know, I, I think you know the Capital one CEO, you know, he claims to have the first FinTech at Capital One ’cause they were very into data, but he said it’s bigger than the agricultural revolution, the, you know, invention of fire, the industrial revolution, the digital revolution. And I haven’t really heard anyone dispute that. So there’s lots of questions about how long does it take, what exactly does it do? Are companies overvalued now? But I think, you know, a anyone who knows anything believes that the impact of this is just going to be huge. And so when you’re in that sort of situation in the markets, you obviously need to be aware and try to learn, you know, everything you can.

00:25:51 I think we bought Nvidia in January of 2024. The interesting thing about this is I love markets ’cause they’re so interesting but in they’re complex adaptive systems which make them very, very difficult to outperform. They’re extremely difficult but they adapt. And so what’s interesting to me is that we have this AI bubble, you know, hysteria basically where everyone, it’s all you read all the time. And that makes sense given that we’ve had, you know, the tech bubble, we had the housing bubble, we’ve had some of these bubbles. But I think, and it’s possible that, you know, there will be something negative here, but you’re not seeing valuations at all in line with what we saw in the tech bubble. And the companies that are spending these enormous amounts of money, which they are very large sums of money, they’re basically the best companies that ever existed in the history of the world.

00:26:45 If you look at their returns on capital, their free cash flow margin, you know, their revenue growth rates. And so, so I like that there’s all this AI bubble talk because it keeps a lid on the valuations. I think it actually makes it more sustainable. Not that they’re, you know, I would have concern in some of the companies like OpenAI which you know, had under 4 billion in revenues last year and has committed to $1.4 trillion in spend. So we’re watching that very closely. And I think for me, I have children and I’m thinking what does this mean for the future of employment and is, you know, what can I advise them to go into? Which I think that’s a much tougher question now

00:27:23 [Speaker Changed] Then. So, so I’m glad you went over there ’cause I wanted to ask, you’ve talked about the value of mentorship, about training young people, whether analysts or fund managers, what have you. If you look at the unemployment rate today at 4 3 4 4 and then you look at the college graduate under 30 unemployment, it’s more than double that it’s in the nines. What does AI do for that demographic learning to being mentored, learning a trade, being able to get a job at an entry level when their competition seems to be software?

00:28:02 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I mean it’s a great question. I’m not sure I have the answer to that. I mean, what we know is you can look at industries adopting AI and those that haven’t and there’s clearly an impact on junior hires. So it is having an impact. And you know, Dario Amede, the CEO of Anthropic has said he believes that the white collar unemployment rate will be, you know, five to 25% in one to five years. So huge impact. And so I think it, you know, that’s why I’m thinking like what do you advise young people to do? I think I asked people at my, you know, college that I went to where I’m on the board, the professors there, they’re trying, you know, they’ve worked hard to set up an AI program and help students be literate and you know, well-versed in this. I think if you can use it as a tool to your advantage, you still need humans to do this work. And so, you know, being capable in that is really important. You know, I was at a Santa Fe Institute meeting a couple weeks ago, you know, that was on AI and they talked about how what the models aren’t good at, which I thought was really interesting is complex problem solving and creativity. So those seem more unique human endeavors. So leaning into areas where, you know, those are critical skills I think are important, but areas like law or you know, obviously customer service coding, some of these areas are getting quite disrupted.

00:29:30 [Speaker Changed] And you’re saying complex problem solving and creativity AI is not great at still,

00:29:35 [Speaker Changed] Still these models cannot do it. Now will they get there? I don’t know. But I think what’s useful is to have a human who is well versed and can think critically about, ’cause these models hallucinate, they’ll make up lies. They’ll tell you incorrect information, they’re getting better at that. But having someone who knows how to check facts, use different models in different situations, you know, that’s gonna be very valuable. I think who can figure stuff out that you haven’t been taught go and solve real problems in the real world, I think is also valuable.

00:30:06 [Speaker Changed] So every time we see a back test that’s based on historical data, it always looks great and built into the back test of the assumption the future is gonna look like the past. How much of what we’re seeing in artificial intelligence is sort of paralleling that, hey, we’re working off the corpus of all these documents that have been previously written. If you wanna do something that’s not gonna get replaced by ai, you have to go in a different direction.

00:30:33 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, no, I think that’s a great point. I mean, what the models do is they look at all of the information that’s out there and they can, you know, do things with it instantaneously. And so I think there’s a belief in the technology community that they will eventually have a breakthrough where they can have novel ideas. I, you know, that’s unclear if and when that’ll happen. I, you know, it hasn’t happened yet. And so, you know, if you can do that, if you can use ideas in an innovative way, if you can, certainly, I think in the investment business for long-term investors, what you’ve seen is machine learning and LA large language models have already been used to optimize short-term trading models. And again, we don’t compete there ’cause I think it’s extremely difficult, you know, to compete. But I think long-term, you know, those models have not been used to think about long-term investments at, you know, we talk about time arbitrage and patience and you know, what do we think the world’s gonna look like in 5, 10, 15 years? The future is uncertain, no one knows. So I don’t see how the models are gonna, you know, get an edge there. I mean, if they become smarter than all humans at some point maybe, but it’ll, it’ll be one of the last things hopefully.

00:31:51 [Speaker Changed] So, so are you using AI in your firm and, and if so, how?

00:31:56 [Speaker Changed] We are and we talk about AI all the time and so I, you know, tell the employees all the time like, you have to be all over this and learn how to use these models because you know they’re gonna displace you if you know, not you specifically, but all of us if we don’t. And so, you know, it’s still so early. So I think a lot of what’s going on now is more experimentation both at big companies and small companies. There was an article in the journal yesterday about how small businesses have had, you know, have been transformed by this ’cause they can do so many things. Like I used one to create a profit sharing plan and I just went back and forth with chat GBT like no, I don’t want this, no I want that. Like what is this model? And it like created it for me, you know, know with the back and forth.

00:32:39 And I sent it to the lawyers and it was good to go. I mean it was good. It needed no changes. And so I’d been, you know, I’ve been wanting to do that for a long time and the team was busy with all sorts of stuff so I finally just did it and it probably took me like an hour to do that. But we try it, we try tools on the investment side, you know, that are both specialized and more generalized. I use chat GPT all the time for, you know, everything in terms of doing research and you know, it’s really, you know, quite amazing. And we have, you know, we have a new tech person that we hired who has played around with automating and using agents to do certain tasks that people did. So I do think it is gonna, you know, replace some work now. I don’t think we’ll have less jobs. People will just be able to do, you know, more higher level work.

00:33:26 [Speaker Changed] Make makes sense. You, you earlier compared this to the dot coms, what are the parallels that are a fair comparison to the late nineties tech and telecom bubble and what do you think is really separating this era from the late 1990s?

00:33:44 [Speaker Changed] Well, I think the clearest, you know, parallel is the market valuation overall is at high levels that we haven’t seen since then. So I think the market’s at 22 times, you know, the next 12 months earnings and it peaked at like 25 times then. So we’re, you know, after the financial crisis we were at very low levels and we’ve spent, you know, the past 16 years, you know, having great markets, some of the best markets we’ve ever had and the valuations have risen. So I, you know, again, as value managers, that makes us, you know, on alert for signs that things might be going awry. But there’s many more, I think more significant differences. So during that there was, you know, I think technology hit 50 times earnings as a sector and a lot of the technology companies were losing a ton of money and there was a lot of, you know, debt financing.

00:34:36 So there’s a lot of unsustainable things, the build out of, you know, the fiber networks they were building for future demand that wasn’t yet there. So that’s very different than today we have this, you know, big infrastructure build out, but you know, there’s still shortages of demand. They can’t meet the demand that already exists. That’s a very different situation. And the companies that are building them, you know, building this infrastructure out for the most part are, you know, extremely, the hyperscalers are extremely well capitalized with great balance sheets, high free cash flow margins. So you know, the risks that sort of risk doesn’t exist. And also at the end of the tech bubble, everyone was piled into, you know, bill recognized the peak and actually got out of those names. And what made him recognize it was that, you know, I think in the first quarter of 2000, you know, the, a very high percent, like 75% of money managers outperformed and only two sectors outperformed tech and telecom.

00:35:34 And so everyone was piled into a, a very narrow area of the market that is not at all, you know, what you’re seeing now. And so I just now, you know, I think the, the bear case would be that for some reason, you know, the demand doesn’t exist and you know, the, the spend rolls over again. I still think it would be a much more modest, you know, pullback be just because of those underlying, you know, fundamental business factors. There are are other areas of the market like quantum computing and nuclear fission that are much more speculative that have already pulled back 50% actually just in this decline. So that also is a good thing. I think it keeps the market healthier longer.

00:36:16 [Speaker Changed] So you don’t explicitly talk about economic cycles, but every now and then I hear you drifting over to unemployment and growth and infrastructure and economist type speaks. How often do you use what’s going on in the broader economy as part of your process? Do you think about that? Are economic cycles significant to your process or is the economy gonna do what it’s gonna do and it doesn’t interfere with your approach? Well we

00:36:47 [Speaker Changed] Definitely try to understand what’s going on in the economy because it can have, you know, big impacts on, you know, investments. You know, there’s a lot of, no one can forecast the economy. You know, there’s a lot of good evidence that no one does that, economists don’t do it, investors don’t do it. So it’s a futile effort. Some, a lot of people claim that they have some view about the future, forecast the world, but

00:37:08 [Speaker Changed] What do we see in a recession forecast by exactly every year for the past three or four years? They’ll get it right eventually, right?

00:37:16 [Speaker Changed] And so, you know, the best strategy is just, you know, if you have a long time horizon to stay invested, but we wanna be aware of risks and the impact. I mean, our whole process is analyzing the fundamentals of businesses and looking at what the intrinsic value looks like and that’s a distribution of outcomes. ’cause the future’s uncertain. So we’re doing different scenarios and then we compare it to market expectations. And so we like a clear gap in those two things and we like, you know, better risk rewards, but we, there’s a lot that goes into both, both of those things. You know, sentiment goes into the market, expectations, you know, where people are positioned and you know, obviously the economic cycle for certain businesses has a big impact. It’s very sensitive to your time horizon, you know, just how much it matters and the longer your time horizon, the less it matters.

00:38:05 [Speaker Changed] Coming up we continue our conversation with Samantha Macklemore, chief investment officer and founder of Patience Capital, talking about the state of the economy today. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. Let’s return to my previously recorded conversation live at the Phillips Collection in Washington DC with patient capitals Samantha Macklemore. So you mentioned sentiment, I’m trying to remember a moment in history where collectively the investor class, the pundit class, the media all in real time identified a major market bubble at once. Is it, is it just too glib to say, Hey, everybody’s forecasting a bubble, therefore it can’t be a bubble?

00:39:13 [Speaker Changed] Well I’m a contrarian. So, you know, like that that kind of, you know, thinking appeals to me. I think it is true that usually what, you know, Howard Marks wrote a great memo on the whole tech space at in January and you know, I thought the most important line in that was, you know, a bubble is characterized by psychological extremists and so it is that psychological state. So we’re not, when everyone’s bemoaning a bubble and fearing a bubble and claiming a bubble that makes a bubble much less likely. ’cause people are then not positioned in it. And usually we’re the biggest risks are, are not where you’re focused on. If you know there’s a risk in a certain area, you treat it much differently, you manage it much differently. If everyone’s doing that, you know, Nvidia, you know, so, so the risk would be NVIDIA’s earnings are unsustainable and they’ve had this huge run up and they’re, they’ve captured so far about 90% of the economic profits in ai.

00:40:09 Again, I they’re gonna report tomorrow night if I were a betting man, which I’m not, I’m an investing woman, but you know, I would say they’re gonna beat and then the market might really like that ’cause it’s coming into it, you know, oversold. But I think the risk is there’s something happens to earnings, you know, and, and they have an earning cycle. Again, I don’t see that in the near term, but there’s no, you know, valuation, you know, excesses are just not there. Like these companies, if you look at NVIDIA’s growing, you know, 40 plus percent this year, trading at 28 times next year’s earnings, that is not a bubble at, you know, that’s not bubble valuations at all. It’s not what we saw in the tech bubble. So again, I think it is true that when everyone’s worried about a bubble, it’s likely not a bubble.

00:40:56 [Speaker Changed] So people have been talking about a KS shaped economy that the upper arm is doing great, the lower arm is doing poorly, can you apply the same thing to valuations with the market? If you take the top 10 or 20 stocks, they seem to be much more richly valued than the rest of the whatever you want to use Wilshire 5,000 or s and p 500. How do you think about that bifurcation? Yeah,

00:41:20 [Speaker Changed] Well I think there are certain areas, you know, in the market like quality or like return on capital where those, again, if you have high quality, high return on capital, high free cash flow margins, those companies should be valued at, you know, overall a higher level. But we’ve seen very wide gaps there. So I think I, I have a huge respect for the market though. So because we’re, every day we’re doing the work on okay let’s, this company might be attractive, let’s do the work on that and see what the market’s pricing in and we’ll say what is the market telling us this business can do? And usually the market’s pretty good at like, okay, yeah, that’s the easiest case to make and the market will reflect that. So it’s more anomalous to find areas where that’s wrong. Especially, you know, the market’s had a huge move up.

00:42:05 So the more it moves up, the harder it is. But we’re still finding, you know, opportunities I think we added significantly to healthcare and small caps, you know, earlier this year and healthcare until recently was at a 50 year relative valuation low. And those are good businesses with good returns on capital. And so, you know, the market gets so hyper short-term focused, you know, so many people these days are focused on the next quarter and they wanna outperform every month and every quarter. So again, if you can look out longer, I think you, you do have opportunities, but the reason people don’t is ’cause you sometimes have more downside in the short term if you’re buying into, you know, weakness.

00:42:42 [Speaker Changed] So how do you think overall about valuation and future return expectations when generally the markets had a good run and valuations are, if not bilious, a little more rich than average?

00:42:57 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I mean my view on valuations is that they’re at the high end of the historical range. So again, that makes me more alert, more cautious. I think if you look, you know, at the underlying fundamentals and just the returns on capital of businesses, the free cash flow margins, the balance sheets, higher valuations are justified, but markets go through these cycles of undervaluation to overvaluation and then back again. And so that’s just part of markets. You know, again, I, I don’t think we’re at, you know, levels that I’m extremely concerned. I still think there are, you know, attractive opportunities in markets, but where we can add ballast to the portfolio defensive areas like healthcare, again, I think that helps position the portfolio for a variety of different sorts of environments. And there’s still plenty of cheap area, you know, cheap, cheap names in the market.

00:43:48 [Speaker Changed] So I have three of my favorite questions I always ask guests, but before I get to that, I wanna throw a little bit of a curve ball at you. What do you think investors are not talking about when, when they’re not thinking about AI bubbles, what are they overlooking? What topics or ideas or strategies are they just not thinking about that perhaps they should be? Yeah,

00:44:12 [Speaker Changed] Well that’s a really hard one ’cause I think, you know, there’s so many investors out there thinking about so many things and now in today’s day and age with great podcasts like yours and Twitter and x and all the research online, you can get access to all of the thinking. So, you know, I’m not sure that there’s things, people aren’t thinking about that much. But I would say, you know, one of my biggest lessons from Bill was the big money are made in the big moves. And so you need to be looking for those and you need to, you know, hold those and, and actually holding them is even harder than looking for them. And so I think people focus. If you, if you have a long time horizon and you’re interested in growing your wealth, which is what we want to do, you know, that’s our number one objective is to make money.

00:44:59 You know, I never saw Bill get upset about a stock that went down or losing money on a certain stock. ’cause you know that, you know, in our business, you know, the best investors are wrong about half the time, like half the stocks go down and that’s just part of the business. So you get really comfortable with being wrong. I never saw him mad. I saw him mad when he identified a stock Qualcomm and an analyst said, no, this is really bad at investment, like, don’t buy it. And then it went up 10 times. ’cause he is like, you just don’t get the opportunity to make money. And most of those type of errors, when something’s not in your portfolio, you don’t see it, you don’t notice it’s not there, but it has a huge impact on, you know, your ability to grow wealth. So I, I think there’s not enough discussion about that.

00:45:42 And you know, if you look at endowment returns, I think for the last decade they’re like 6.8% on average. And so the, the US equity market’s up over 13%. So that’s a huge shortfall that if you do the math on like 30 years of 13 versus 6.8, it’s like you, you either you’re up seven times versus you’re up 30 plus times. I mean that compounding math is, it’s shocking actually, even to me who I’m in this business, I know patients, I’m all about compounding and I do the math and I’m like, oh my goodness, the amount of wealth left on the table.

00:46:18 [Speaker Changed] Alright, so let’s jump to our, our speed round and then afterwards we’ll open it up for questions from the audience. I always like to get book ideas from people. Tell us what you’re reading and what are some of your favorite books?

00:46:32 [Speaker Changed] Well, I’m not rea right now what I’m reading is 1929 by Andrew Ross. So that’s nothing new. Everyone’s reading that, but I think it’s, it’s in the

00:46:39 [Speaker Changed] Probably helpful with all the bubble talk.

00:46:41 [Speaker Changed] Well it’s, you know, you have to be aware and I think studying history is really important. You know, I think, have you read The Comfort Crisis by Michael Easter? No, that’s a really good book. And you know, my kids get sick of me preaching, but it’s all about how, you know, we are in a society where, you know, we’re, it’s all about comfort and, and the benefits of, you know, he has this thing Maa where he goes into nature and does really physically challenging things that are challenging enough that he will, and it’s not his thing, it’s actually a Japanese thing, but that you are most likely to fail, but you, and make it challenging enough f just shy of like maybe dying. So again, I’m not a promo, I’m not a proponent of taking it to that level, but I am a proponent of, you know, if you listen to Jensen Wong at Nvidia and he talks about the value of pain and suffering. And he is like, he talks about being a CEO, he’s like, a lot of people wanna be a CEO. He’s like, but the experience is not power and glory. It’s pain and suffering and like the, all the hardest problems come to you. So I think, you know, exposing yourself to things out of your comfort zone where you have the opportunity to grow and have some pain, I, you know, I think that’s kind of what makes life interesting. And so that would be a book that I would

00:47:57 [Speaker Changed] Recommend. So final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in investing in finance?

00:48:06 [Speaker Changed] Well, I mean, back to my experience, I would say go for it and be persistent. I mean, we have a few job postings now, and so we’re trying to fill those postings and it’s amazing to me, you know, a lot of people will go on LinkedIn and they’ll blast out their resume to everywhere and that they’re putting very little time and little thought into that. And we actually have on our site, you have to email it, and we’re paying attention to who’s actually reading that instruction and emailing it. But very few people follow up. I think we had one candidate who followed up like three times. And it makes a huge difference. And it, you know, it demonstrates interest, it demonstrates, you know, you’re paying attention to it. So I would say in a, in a tough job environment, especially it’s, it’s easier than you think to distinguish yourself if you’re actually interested in something. You know, perseverance, taking the time to learn really what the firm is, the person you’re talking to, who they are, what they’re trying to accomplish with this. It’s amazing to me how little people actually spend doing that.

00:49:07 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Good, good advice. And our final question, what do you know about the world of investing today would’ve been useful 25 years ago or so when you were first getting started?

00:49:18 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. By Nvidia, I know you told me I couldn’t do this by Amazon, by Bitcoin, apple. Don’t miss, you know, but if there’s a broader point, I mean, part of it is like, you know, again, this kind of will go full circle, but the power of patience and compounding, again, it’s like teach what you need to learn. But Bill used to tell me when I was young, because I’d be like, bill, you know, I need to make more money. I need to find more stocks. You need to gimme more responsibilities. And you’re like, calm down. Like be patient. I’m like, no, I can’t be patient. This is my friend who I graduated with, he’s at Goldman Sachs, he’s making like $10 million a year and he’s like, calm down. And you know, now 20 years, 25 years later, it is amazing just the power of compounding. If you find a name like Amazon or you know, and you invest, and again, you’re gonna have a couple, you know, number of big drawdowns in those, you know, stocks that go up a lot go down a lot. And that’s just part of the journey. But it’s so easy to underestimate, you know, just how powerful that can be.

00:50:15 [Speaker Changed] That was my live conversation with Samantha Macklemore, formerly of Leg Mason and Miller Value. Now with Patient Capital, I have to thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together, especially the live event. Alexis Noriega and Elizabeth Srin have been instrumental in making these sorts of things happen. Sean Russo is my researcher, Anna Luke is my producer. Sage Bauman is the head of podcasts at Bloomberg. I’m Barry Riol. You’ve been listening to a special live edition of Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Samantha McLemore, Patient Capital appeared first on The Big Picture.

Housing December 22nd Weekly Update: Inventory Down 2.3% Week-over-week

Calculated Risk -

Altos reports that active single-family inventory was down 2.3% week-over-week.  Inventory usually declines sharply during the holiday season.
The first graph shows the seasonal pattern for active single-family inventory since 2015.
Altos Year-over-year Home InventoryClick on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025.  The black line is for 2019.  
Inventory was up 13.5% compared to the same week in 2024 (last week it was up 13.7%), and down 5.7% compared to the same week in 2019 (last week it was down 5.6%). 
Inventory started 2025 down 22% compared to 2019.  Inventory has closed most of that gap, however inventory will still be below 2019 levels at the end of 2025.
Altos Home InventoryThis second inventory graph is courtesy of Altos Research.
As of December 19th, inventory was at 758 thousand (7-day average), compared to 775 thousand the prior week.  
Mike Simonsen discusses this data and much more regularly on YouTube

Can The Dark Ages Return?

Zero Hedge -

Can The Dark Ages Return?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via VictoreHanson.com,

Western civilization arose in the 8th century B.C. Greece. Some 1,500 city-states emerged from a murky, illiterate 400-year-old Dark Age. That chaos followed the utter collapse of the palatial culture of Mycenaean Greece.

But what reemerged were constitutional government, rationalism, liberty, freedom of expression, self-critique, and free markets—what we know now as the foundation of a unique Western civilization.

The Roman Republic inherited and enhanced the Greek model.

For a millennium, the Republic and subsequent Empire spread Western culture, eventually to be inseparable from Christianity.

From the Atlantic to the Persian Gulf and from the Rhine and Danube to the Sahara, there were a million square miles of safety, prosperity, progress, and science—until the collapse of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century AD.

What followed was a second European Dark Age, roughly from 500 to 1000 AD.

Populations declined. Cities eroded. Roman roads, aqueducts, and laws crumbled.

In place of the old Roman provinces arose tribal chieftains and fiefdoms.

Whereas once Roman law had protected even rural people in remote areas, during the Dark Ages, walls and stone were the only means of keeping safe.

Finally, at the end of the 11th century, the old values and know-how of the complex world of Graeco-Roman civilization gradually reemerged.

The slow rebirth was later energized by the humanists and scientists of the Renaissance, Reformation, and eventually the 200-year European Enlightenment of the 17th and 18th centuries.

Contemporary Americans do not believe that our current civilization could self-destruct a third time in the West, followed by an impoverished and brutal Dark Age.

But what caused these prior returns to tribalism and loss of science, technology, and the rule of law?

Historians cite several causes of societal collapse—and today they are hauntingly familiar.

Like people, societies age. Complacency sets in.

The hard work and sacrifice that built the West also creates wealth and leisure. Such affluence is taken for granted by later generations. What created success is eventually ignored—or even mocked.

Expenditures and consumption outpace income, production, and investment.

Child-rearing, traditional values, strong defense, love of country, religiosity, meritocracy, and empirical education fade away.

The middle class of autonomous citizens disappear. Society bifurcates between a few lords and many peasants.

Tribalism—the pre-civilizational bonds based on race, religion, or shared appearance—remerge.

National government fragments into regional and ethnic enclaves.

Borders disappear. Mass migrations are unchecked. The age-old bane of anti-Semitism reappears.

The currency inflates, losing its value and confidence. General crassness in behavior, speech, dress, and ethics replaces prior norms.

Transportation, communications, and infrastructure all decline.

The end is near when the necessary medicine is seen as worse than the disease.

Such was life around 450 AD in Western Europe.

The contemporary West might raise similar red flags.

Fertility has dived well below 2.0 in almost every Western country.

Public debt is nearing unsustainable levels. The dollar and euro have lost much of their purchasing power.

It is more common in universities to damn than honor the gifts of the Western intellectual past.

Yet, the reading and analytical skills of average Westerners, and Americans in particular, steadily decline.

Can the general population even operate or comprehend the ever-more sophisticated machines and infrastructure that an elite group of engineers and scientists creates?

The citizen loses confidence in an often corrupt elite, who neither will protect their nations’ borders nor spend sufficient money on collective defense.

The cures are scorned.

Do we dare address spiraling deficits, unsustainable debt, and corrupt bureaucracies and entitlements?

Even mention of reform is smeared as “greedy,” “racist,” “cruel,” or even “fascist” and “Nazi.”

In our times, relativism replaces absolute values in the eerie replay of the latter Roman Empire.

Critical legal theory claims crimes are not really crimes.

Critical race theory postulates that all of society is guilty of insidious bias, demanding reparations in cash and preferences in admission and hiring.

Salad-bowl tribalism replaces assimilation, acculturation, and integration of the old melting pot.

Despite a far wealthier, far more leisured, and far more scientific contemporary America, was it safer to walk in New York or take the subway in 1960 than now?

Are high school students better at math now or 70 years ago?

Are movies and television more entertaining and ennobling in 1940 or now?

Are nuclear, two-parent families the norm currently or in 1955?

We are blessed to live longer and healthier lives than ever—even as the larger society around us seems to teeter.

Yet, the West historically is uniquely self-introspective and self-critical.

Reform and Renaissance historically are more common than descents back into the Dark Ages.

But the medicine for decline requires unity, honesty, courage, and action—virtues now in short supply on social media, amid popular culture, and among the political class.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 23:20

Burnt-Out US Air Traffic Controllers Rerouting Their Careers To Australia

Zero Hedge -

Burnt-Out US Air Traffic Controllers Rerouting Their Careers To Australia

In a year in which they endured chronic understaffing, 60-hour weeks, uneven shifts and even having to work without a paycheck for a stretch, many US air traffic controllers are re-evaluating their careers, with a growing number chasing happiness on the other side of the world -- in Australia. 

According to a Wall Street Journal report on the phenomenon, these controllers aren't chasing more money. Indeed, some of the controllers who've taken the leap were happy to take a lower salary in exchange for less on-the-job stress and a better work-life balance. One of them is Austin Brewis, a 29-year-old who gave up a $145,000 salary at an air traffic facility in Illinois for a $137,000 one in Sydney.

Three-meter-high, corrugated-iron kangaroos adjacent to the main runway at Canberra Airport (Canberra Times)

Brewis told the Journal that 60-hour workweeks had worn him down. More than 41% of US controllers work 10 hours a day for six days straight, according to the National Air Traffic Controllers Association. It's not just the high number of hours -- Brewis worked them in staggered schedules that have start and finish times changing from day to day. Chasing three-day breaks to enjoy meaningful relief from the heavy hour-load, many controllers take a "2-2-1" schedule. As the Journal explained in an earlier article

Controllers work two swing shifts, two day shifts, and one midnight shift. The second day shifts ends at 2 p.m. and the subsequent midnight shift begins at 10 p.m., just eight hours later. Such a schedule disrupts circadian rhythms, creating fatigue on the midnight shift.... 2-2-1 has long been called "the rattler," since it can come back and bite the controller, degrading his performance. 

“That grinds you down after years of doing it,” Brewis said. The contrast Down Under is stark -- with the average Australian controller's work-week spanning just 36 hours. Heightening the attraction for younger controllers is a guarantee of having some weekends off each year. Brewis said he'd have had to put at least 10 years under his belt before he'd routinely have weekends off in America, where that pleasure is driven by seniority. 

A woman in a control tower in Brisbane, Australia (Courier Mail) 

“It’s absolutely disgusting how much better their lifestyles are than ours," air traffic controller Chris Dickinson told the Journal. After 13 years controlling US airspace, he's now working in Sydney. He said concerns he had about anxiety or depression have evaporated, and he's shed 20 extra pounds too. 

In an ominous indication that Australia could become a chronic driver of controller attrition in America, when Brewis stepped into an Australian classroom for his entry training earlier this year, he found that 8 of his 10 classmates were Americans. Government-owned Airservices Australia says it isn't setting out to poach Americans from the FAA. However, of 100 controllers it expects to bring on board this year, 36 are Americans. “Qualified controllers are welcome to apply from any country,” a spokesman said. 

While those kind of numbers aren't striking in the context of a US controller force that exceeds 13,750, the chronically-undermanned FAA doesn't need any more head-count headwinds. By the National Air Traffic Controllers Association's math, the FAA is operating with a 3,800-controller shortage. 

That's not just a burden for air traffic controllers and FAA bureaucrats, it's a worrisome state of affairs for the flying public, which has seen too many scary headlines about disasters, near-disasters and mishaps in recent months: 

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 22:45

2 More Heritage Foundation Board Members Resign

Zero Hedge -

2 More Heritage Foundation Board Members Resign

Authored by Emel Akan via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

WASHINGTON—Two more members of conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation’s Board of Trustees, Shane McCullar and Abby Spencer Moffat, resigned Dec. 16, citing concerns over the organization’s direction and approach to combating anti-Semitism.

Exterior view of the Heritage Foundation building in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 18, 2025. Terri Wu/The Epoch Times

In a statement, Moffat said that leaving the board was a difficult but necessary decision.

Heritage’s handling of recent challenges reveals a drift from the principles that once defined its leadership,” she said.

“When an institution hesitates to confront harmful ideas and allows lapses in judgment to stand, it forfeits the moral authority on which its influence depends.”

Moffat is recognized as one of the most powerful women in philanthropy and has been a major donor to the think tank through the Diana Davis Spencer Foundation.

In 2023, the foundation announced a $25 million commitment, one of the largest gifts in the think tank’s 50-year history.

McCullar raised similar concerns in his statement.

“No institution that hesitates to condemn anti-Semitism and hatred—or that gives a platform to those who spread them—can credibly claim to uphold the vision that once made the Heritage Foundation the world’s most respected conservative think-tank,” McCullar said.

I leave with respect for the Heritage Foundation’s past, but I cannot support the course it has chosen for its future.

Another board member, Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor, resigned last month, citing the same reason.

The controversy erupted after Heritage President Kevin Roberts defended Tucker Carlson’s interview with controversial live streamer Nick Fuentes, known for his anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views.

In his Oct. 30 video commenting on Carlson’s interview, Roberts said that “Christians can critique the state of Israel without being anti-Semitic.”

Roberts also said that the think-tank would not bow to the “venomous coalition” that is attacking and trying to “cancel” Carlson over the Fuentes interview.

Roberts later offered an apology, expressing his regret for the video he posted.

I made a mistake, and I let you down, and I let down this institution. And I am sorry for that. Period. Full Stop,” Roberts said in a video from the foundation’s staff meeting, which The Washington Beacon first published.

“I didn’t know much about this Fuentes guy—still don’t, which underscores the mistake,” Roberts said.

Roberts told staff that he was willing to resign but felt a “moral obligation” to address the situation.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 22:10

Rand Paul Calls Partial Release Of Epstein Files A 'Big Mistake' For Trump

Zero Hedge -

Rand Paul Calls Partial Release Of Epstein Files A 'Big Mistake' For Trump

During an interview on ABC’s This Week with ABC’s Jonathan Karl on Sunday, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky delivered a blunt warning about the administration’s handling of the Epstein records, echoing concerns raised by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), who has been relentless on the issue.

Massie forced the release vote and has accused Attorney General Pam Bondi of violating the law by slow-walking and limiting disclosure. 

Paul did not dispute the core of that argument.

Instead, he went further, laying out exactly why half-measures on Epstein are political poison.

“I’ve supported transparency on the Epstein files from the beginning,” Paul said. “I’ve voted repeatedly to release them. I think it’s a good idea.”

Paul explained why that approach is doomed to fail.

“I think that trust in government is at a low ebb, and that people need to trust that justice is the same whether you’re rich or poor,” he said.

“And people tend to believe that some rich people got off scot-free in this — in the Epstein case, the Epstein files.”

 Despite the Democrats’ attempts to weaponize the release of the files against Trump, the fact remains that the Biden administration sat on the files for four years—a decision that former Vice President Kamala Harris defends—despite endless rhetoric about transparency. Trump returned to office promising real transparency, and even Trump’s allies believe the administration has failed to live up to its promise fully.

Paul made clear that the administration’s fundamental mistake came when officials hyped the release and then appeared to back away once the spotlight intensified.

“I think it’s a big mistake,” Paul said.

“Look, the administration has struggled for months and months with something they initially ginned up and then sort of tried to tamp down.”

 Paul warned that partial disclosure guarantees prolonged political fallout.

“So, any evidence or any kind of indication that there’s not a full reveal on this, this will just plague them for months and months more,” he said.

He’s right. Democrats have been insinuating for months that the Epstein files would somehow incriminate Trump, despite zero evidence. 

Paul offered simple advice that should not require a Senate seat to understand.

“So, my suggestion would be — give up all the information, release it,” he said.

“What’s going to happen to people if they don’t? That will play out over time. But my suggestion to them is be transparent and release everything the law requires of you.”

When Trump signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and the documents failed to deliver the left’s long-promised bombshell, Democrats pivoted to conspiracy theories and bureaucratic excuses. For example, Democrats pounced when a photo from the Epstein files was briefly removed from the online cache of Epstein-related material. This led to conspiracy theories that the Department of Justice was trying to protect Trump. 

In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche discussed the photo and the reason for the redactions in the files.

Blanche explained the removal had “nothing to do with President Trump” and was instead prompted by concerns over victim privacy after officials realized the images contained identifiable women. He stressed that DOJ policy allows victims, their lawyers, or advocacy groups to request that any document or photo identifying them be taken down and reviewed, a process he said explained the temporary disappearance of the materials. 

"Well, you can see in that photo, there’s photographs of women," Blanche said. "And so we learned after releasing that photograph that there were concerns about those, about those women, and the fact that we had put that photo up. So we pulled that photo down."

Blanche also noted that numerous photos of Trump with Jeffrey Epstein have long been public, and that Trump himself has acknowledged socializing with Epstein in the 1990s and early 2000s before cutting ties with him years before Epstein’s 2006 arrest. Given that history, Blanche dismissed as “laughable” the notion that the department would selectively hide a single image to protect the president when “dozens” of similar photos are already in circulation. 

Democrats have failed to produce a promised “smoking gun” linking Trump to Epstein’s crimes despite years of access to the files under the Biden administration, and are now seizing on procedural moves in the document release to sustain conspiracy theories. Nevertheless, if Republicans want to prove they mean what they say, the path forward is obvious. Release everything required by law. Let the facts land where they may. The longer Washington drags its feet, the louder the suspicion grows, and the harder it becomes to argue that this time is different.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 21:35

DOJ Seeking Appeals On Dismissals Of Criminal Cases Against James Comey, Letitia James

Zero Hedge -

DOJ Seeking Appeals On Dismissals Of Criminal Cases Against James Comey, Letitia James

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is appealing the dismissal of a pair of criminal cases against New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey, according to new court documents filed on Friday.

(Left) New York Attorney General Letitia James leaves the Walter E. Hoffman United States Courthouse following an arraignment hearing in Norfolk, Va., on Oct. 24, 2025. (Right) James Comey, former FBI director, speaks at the Barnes & Noble Upper West Side in New York City on May 19, 2025. Win McNamee, Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images

James was indicted in October by a grand jury with charges of bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution. Comey was charged in September with lying to and obstructing Congress during his testimony in 2020 about the FBI’s investigation into false claims of ties between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

Both had pleaded not guilty, and their cases were thrown out in late November.

The newest appeals by the DOJ mark the latest move in what’s been a series of unsuccessful legal actions taken against the New York attorney general specifically.

James’s original case was dismissed in late November after U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan’s appointment by the president as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

The judge tossed Comey’s case for the same reason that Halligan’s appointment violated laws restricting the DOJ from naming top prosecutors without a Senate confirmation. Halligan had presented Comey’s case to a federal grand jury by herself five days before the statute of limitations would expire on the former FBI director’s testimony he gave to Congress.

In Currie’s Nov. 24 decision, she wrote both James and Comey’s cases were a “unique, if not unprecedented, situation where an unconstitutionally appointed prosecutor” used powers that she “did not lawfully possess.”

The DOJ vowed to continue pursuing charges.

Since the case was dismissed, DOJ prosecutors attempted twice this month to secure a new indictment against James, but a grand jury refused to bring charges both times. The New York official has repeatedly claimed the prosecution against her is “baseless.”

In the latest legal filings, the DOJ is appealing James and Comey’s case dismissals, along with several other actions, including the judge’s decision that found Halligan’s appointment and her signing of the indictments unlawful.

James’s indictment alleged that she lied about her plans for a Virginia home, for which she obtained loan terms that would have saved her approximately $19,000 over the life of the loan. Her lawyer said the indictments against James were a “mockery of our justice system” and accused the president of “political vendetta.”

The Justice Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the appeals.

The attorneys for both Comey and James also did not respond to a request for comment on the latest development in their cases.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 21:00

Somali 'Medicaid Mogul' Accused Of Looting Maine Taxpayers, Family Allegedly Put Bounty On Reporter

Zero Hedge -

Somali 'Medicaid Mogul' Accused Of Looting Maine Taxpayers, Family Allegedly Put Bounty On Reporter

If you thought the alleged Medicaid fraud in Minnesota by Somalis, which federal prosecutors say could reach $9 billion, was insane, wait until you read the latest report from The Maine Wire: the head of a local nonprofit is accused of lashing out at a local journalist over an investigation, while members of his family allegedly put a bounty on the head of a journalist in Somalia for sharing the reporting.

Earlier this month, Abdullahi Ali, the Executive Director of Health Services contractor Gateway Community Services, was accused of ripping off taxpayers.

Public forensic investigation into Gateway Community Services has revealed this... 

NewsNation spoke with a whistleblower who spilled the beans: false records were filed for services that were never provided...

A former Gateway employee, Christopher Bernardini, said the nonprofit was reimbursed with tax dollars from Maine's Medicaid program and later with federal tax dollars from the Paycheck Protection Program.

While heading up the nonprofit in Maine, Ali was also running for President of Jubbaland in Africa. He boasted to a Kenyan media outlet about how he helped raise funds for the Jubaland Somali army to buy guns and bullets.

Main Wire's Steve Robinson pointed out that Ali "threatened to murder a journalist in Somalia who shared our reporting."

Robinson continued:

Gateway Community Services CEO Abdullahi Ali yesterday attacked me personally, and now his fellow clan members — his son and cousin — are threatening to murder a journalist in Somalia who shared our reporting. Why does Gov. Janet Mills continue to fund this organization with MaineCare dollars and no-bid contracts? And why are Democrats cravenly smearing the character of anyone who exposes fraud or calls out corruption?

Abdullahi Ali's son and cousin are openly placing bounties on a Somali journalist's head and calling for his killing. All because they've helped shine light on Ali's migrant agency over-billing MaineCare (~$800k per DHHS) and the fraud allegations made against his company. Ali's former employee has made credible and detailed allegations of systematic fraud. This employee has shown great courage by revealing how Ali allegedly directed his company to invent fake MaineCare claims and defraud the taxpayers of Maine.

Ali has never denied these allegations. Instead he has attacked me. Now his allies in Jubaland are calling for violence against journalists for exposing the truth, while his allies in Maine turn a blind eye or smear the reporters and politicians exposing fraud and corruption.

Attorney General Aaron Frey refuses to investigate credible allegations of fraud against Gateway. Instead, the thugs in the Mills Administration had the whistleblower audited. Imagine that! Exposing corruption, at great personal risk, only to have the Mills Team pull a mafia tactic and sic Maine Revenue Services on you.

Democrats are not only defending this behavior from the migrant NGO complex, many of them are part of it. Rep. Deqa Dhalac worked at Gateway as Assistant Executive Director while the alleged fraud was happening. So did Rep. Yusuf Yusuf. Shenna Bellows fundraised this summer with Safiya Khalid, former special assistant to Abdullahi Ali. Ekhlas Ahmed, a former Gateway employee, runs the "Office of New Americans" for Janet Mills.

Gov. Janet Mills has the authority to stop payments to Gateway, but instead she has issued them no-bid contracts. Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have gone to Maine schools or to low-income Mainers are instead funneled into Gateway Community Services and other migrant NGOs.

Why?

Because Gateway's offices in Lewiston and Portland are basically arms of the Maine Democratic Party. Those offices host vote harvesting operations that recruit migrants into welfare programs and supply Democrat votes — all paid for with tax dollars.

For those who care to pay attention, all the receipts, the contracts, the documents, and the evidence is contained within the Substack post below and the linked posts.

"Is this the type of diversity we wanted here in Maine. Are you f*cking liberals happy?" one perturbed resident said on TikTok.

In a recent interview with The National News Desk, Maine State Sen. Matt Harrington said, "It's disgusting to me that they would do this."

"You can't rob a bank for millions of dollars. You shouldn't be able to rob taxpayers of millions of dollars and get away with it. There absolutely needs to be a criminal investigation into this immediately," Harrington said.

From Minnesota to Maine ... What Democratic-run state will be next where investigations uncover appalling allegations of public resources being looted by migrants?

Maryland? California?

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 19:15

Sunday Night Futures

Calculated Risk -

Weekend:
Schedule for Week of December 21, 2025

Ten Economic Questions for 2026

Monday:
• At 8:30 AM ET, Chicago Fed National Activity Index for November. This is a composite index of other data.
From CNBC: Pre-Market Data and Bloomberg futures S&P 500 are up 21 and DOW futures are up 100 (fair value).

Oil prices were down over the last week with WTI futures at $56.79 per barrel and Brent at $60.76 per barrel. A year ago, WTI was at $70, and Brent was at $73 - so WTI oil prices are down about 19% year-over-year.

Here is a graph from Gasbuddy.com for nationwide gasoline prices. Nationally prices are at $2.80 per gallon. A year ago, prices were at $3.01 per gallon, so gasoline prices are down $0.21 year-over-year.

AI, CEOs, Yields, And Peace

Zero Hedge -

AI, CEOs, Yields, And Peace

Authored by Peter Tchir via Academy Securities,

AI largely drove the show last week on the risk front. We started poorly, as Blue Owl pulling out of a future Oracle deal triggered some fears. But we finished the week strong as Micron had a solid beat, alleviating many concerns (a nice, soft CPI print helped matters too).

This flip-flopping back and forth on the AI story fits well with last week’s themes - AI Debt Diet vs AI Spend Diet.

Bitcoin seemed to be a decent leading indicator for stocks, but the past few days watching Bitcoin’s intraday moves was about as painful as watching Elaine dance on Seinfeld.

Equity markets are hovering near important levels. I know we’ve been talking a lot more than usual about technical levels, but they often seem to play a more important role during slow, less liquid periods than normal. The Nasdaq 100 bounced, just above the 100-day moving average (like it did in November when the Fed turned dovish). It closed just above the 50-DMA on Friday, which if it holds, should let the Santa rally loose. If it fails, we could be testing the 100-DMA for the 3rd time, and that tends to not work well.

With a holiday shortened week, let’s have some fun with AI.

What If CEOs Were Being Replaced by AI?

With markets being powered by AI, it is one of the main topics of conversation. Literally, every conversation.

In general, I’m on board with the importance of AI. I use it. It is improving rapidly. Having said that, using it “hampers” learning (not searching, reading, and digesting info on my own) and creates “work” around looking for hallucinations. I’d rather do some of the original, interesting work, including going down the wrong path, than searching for ticker symbols that don’t exist, etc. I do worry about the spend versus the results, at today’s costs and usefulness.

What I’ve been wondering lately is how much demand there would be for AI if CEOs thought they were going to be replaced by AI?

First, let’s make it abundantly clear, the CEOs can be guilty of “herd mentality.” Remember when every company had to have a China strategy? When any announcement of investment in China by U.S. companies triggered stock price gains! See Free Money. The rationale was there:

  • The potential to sell into a market of 1 billion people, whose incomes and net worths were growing.

  • Even cheaper supply chains.

Yeah, yeah, there were people who questioned whether a 51% stake for China made sense. Questioned whether China would ever truly open their markets and whether Chinese consumers would ever spend much on “American” goods? Heck, some even questioned the ability to protect IP.

  • At the time, naysayers were drowned out and CEOs were rewarded for their skills in driving business to China. It didn’t always work out quite as planned.

I’m not arguing that the investment in AI is anything like the “need” to have a China plan, but I’m not sure that it is completely irrelevant.

But anyways, why not replace CEOs with AI?

At the moment the trend is to try to reduce jobs and hiring at lower levels in the organization.

Virtually everyone in “our industry” is talking about the ability to have fewer analysts, or do more with existing analysts (code for hiring fewer people). While I’m more familiar with what is going on in our industry, I think it is safe to say that most of the AI spend is centered around reducing labor costs at the lower end of the corporate ladder.

But why?

  • At today’s cost, is it really cheaper to spend on AI than to have a few more junior people?

    • Sure, if you can spend $100k and replace 3 junior people, it’s a huge win. But are those the numbers we are currently seeing? If it is $1 million to save 3 jobs, maybe it isn’t the correct trade off?

  • Why not empower junior employees? The cynical side of me (which is by far the bigger side) sometimes thinks the management consultant industry exists because CEOs prefer to pay a lot of money to be told by recent grads at the consulting firms what their own recent grads could tell them as part of their daily duties.

    • I will admit that perspective on the consulting industry is a bit over the top, but all too often it seems that it is difficult for people doing a job every single day, to get their own voice heard on what would make their job more effective. Maybe it is easier for AI to cancel the 10am Monday meeting, than to listen to some junior person argue that it is pointless? Maybe management is scared to empower the people who might know best what would make their jobs easier? Certainly, before embarking on AI spend, it would make some sense to see what can be done internally? I highly expect the conclusions wouldn’t be that dissimilar, but you’d have people who will grow with the organization, and the organization will be better for it in the long run.

    • The U.S. military, and my colleagues at Academy who have served (and in some cases are still serving in the reserves) relies heavily on NCOs. The Non-Commissioned Officer class (typically sergeants) is one of the unique features of the U.S. military relative to other militaries. Not that other militaries don’t have that rank, they just don’t empower them. General after General, Admiral after Admiral, all tell me that empowering the NCOs is one of the big advantages the U.S. military has. They carry on the culture. They mold those who serve with them (including sometimes, junior officers at the start of their career). They can take action in the field, of their own volition, in pursuit of goals and targets. Those actions often are the difference between winning and losing, which in the military, really is a matter of life or death.

    • Maybe I’m rambling, but I suspect we could all listen to juniors more, even as part of any AI implementation, and be pleasantly surprised how many good ideas for efficiency and growth are there, just waiting to be tapped?

  • The CEO’s job is extremely difficult.

    • No other job requires so much input. In my role at Academy, I have relatively few inputs to take into account while delivering what I deliver. As you move up the management chain, you have to deal with more and more inputs. Almost a mind boggling amount of information for a CEO of a large company. And the consequences of their decisions matter! If you hate this T-Report, you may not open the next one. That is probably the biggest downside from my decision today. Decisions to open or close business lines have far bigger impacts, ones that cannot be changed quickly.

    • So why isn’t AI groomed to be CEO?

      • The job is more difficult and requires more information to be processed, so isn’t AI better suited for that? Aren’t the “real” benefits of AI more relevant to the CEO than to the average employee? If you “fix” junior jobs, you are talking about dollars and cents. If you fix the CEO jobs you are talking about millions, and maybe billions?

      • I did use AI to find that in 2024 the average CEO to worker pay ratio for S&P 500 companies was 285:1. The same AI, also told me that CEOs on average made $21.45 million while employees earn on average about $51,394 – which is 400 times.

      • Yes, there is only 1 CEO and leadership is also a crucial role the CEO plays. Not just the decision making part, but also getting the team focused and working together. AI cannot replace leadership, and it really can’t replace leadership at junior levels, where that leadership is also critical.

Just like China strategies evolved, I expect that we could see AI strategies evolve, hopefully in a way that we maximize the Human Intelligence (HI?) while trying to be cost effective in our AI deployment.

I do think this section, as offbeat as it might seem, is something people are thinking about and may slow the AI spend, as costs continue to rise.

It will also drive the AI (and data centers) to new solutions and products to feed the evolution of the industry and the use cases.

Back to Yields

If the “scary” chart of the past couple of weeks has been Oracle CDS, it was Japanese bond yields by the end of this week. For the record, Oracle CDS finished a couple bps tighter on the week – making the end of my interview last Friday seem better than it did early in the week when it was still widening.

The Japanese 10-year bond yield broke 2% for this week. It spent most of the past decade below 0.5%.

So far this rise in Japanese bond yields has been accompanied by a weakening yen. Not exactly what the “textbook” would predict, but markets often follow narratives of their own (in theory as the yield differential decreases, the currency should appreciate, or so I read).

The yen carry trade is either some huge overriding trade that drives global markets, or it is a niche trade, where many overstate the importance of it. I’m in the latter camp, but since it is gaining a lot of attention lately, it is worth revisiting.

In theory many funds borrow in yen to fund positions in other assets. The interest rate on borrowing in yen was so low that you could “outperform” your borrowing costs (even taking FX risk). The corollary or flipside of this, is that many Japanese bond investors would buy U.S. Treasuries and attempt some currency hedges to outperform direct investments in Japanese government bonds.

That trade is less appealing on the interest rate differential. The difference between Japanese and U.S. central bank rates was 5.4% as recently as February 2024. It is down to 3.1%. Still a large differential, but it could impact the so-called “carry” trade.

A return to a strengthening of the yen would put far more pressure on the trade as many don’t hedge the FX risk. Again, this is a bit of a murky trade where some argue it is a huge driver of risk premium across the globe, while I suspect its importance is overstated. But not so overstated that we can completely ignore it.

This may go a long way to explaining why U.S. 10-year yields are still stuck between 4.1% and 4.2%.

The EU Had “One Job”

Periodically, I search the “you had one job” meme on social media. It never fails to deliver a smile.

Today, I’m not smiling.

Our assessment of what the EU can do to support Ukraine, maybe even as part of their commitment to NATO, was to seize Russia’s frozen assets and use them to purchase military equipment.

The EU does not have the military equipment or personnel to contribute, so aside from fully enforcing sanctions (which they have also been loathe to do), they could fund more equipment purchases for Ukraine.

Seizing Russia’s frozen reserves seemed to be the “easiest” way for Europe to do this:

  • It would not only fund the war effort, but it would also hurt Putin.

  • It would avoid Europe dithering for weeks or months, on issuing debt to fund some sort of purchases. Not exactly the sort of business arrangement the President likes (and I cannot blame him – we’ve argued that many of Trump’s comments seem to have laid down the gauntlet around Europe and Russia’s reserves). In any case, this time, despite the sound of it, I’m not being cynical. Sometimes what sounds like cynicism is just reality.

Without this seizure, we are seeing European bond yields rise. The “mitigating” factor is that it is probably safe to bet that Europe won’t really act. That there won’t be a deluge of European debt offerings to fund weapons purchases for Ukraine because weapons purchases won’t happen at scale.

What a “Peaceful” Ukraine/Russia Will Look Like

The consensus of the GIG is that we aren’t headed towards peace any time soon, but that Putin has the capability to outlast Ukraine, and Ukraine will ultimately come to the table.

Without the seizure of Russia’s reserves, I think Ukraine has to come to the table faster than they would otherwise.

They may not like what the U.S. is proposing, but it is “reasonably” concrete. If you were Ukraine, you could try and keep some of the U.S. proposals at bay, while waiting for Europe to come through. Whatever machinations Europe goes through, if I’m Ukraine, I’m more skeptical about any sort of game changing help from Europe. When headlines read Belgium and Putin win, you have to be nervous (the Weakest Link was almost more popular in the U.K. than in the U.S., maybe because it is the politics of the EU – the UK was part of the EU when that show was at peak popularity). Unanimous decisions within the EU are hard to reach, so appeasing every country makes it difficult to do much. And that is ignoring the hard truth that many European nations have their own economic concerns to deal with.

So, time to think a little bit more about what “peace” might look like:

  • Stronger security guarantees by the U.S. for Ukraine.

    • These will be given because Ukraine will give the U.S. (and its corporations) extremely favorable deals for years. The admin will not provide security guarantees so much to protect Ukraine, but to protect the business interests that will be generated.

  • The business deals with Russia will be even better for U.S. corporations.

    • Whatever Ukraine may have to give up, as they realize they cannot get enough support from Europe to continue, will be big for the U.S. Russia will give up even more since Europe clearly had no interest in giving them anything and they are being pushed to the brink by the U.S. It will be interesting to see what China and maybe even India have to say about any favorable treatment given to the U.S. and U.S. businesses.

  • Look for Poland and even Romania to thrive.

    • Whatever the prognosis is for lasting peace, many companies will want to stage their operations outside of Russia, and even outside of Ukraine. When deciding where to launch your expansion into Russia and/or Ukraine, both Poland and increasingly, Romania make sense. Poland has proven itself to be resilient and extremely competent during the war. Romania, in my understanding, and I’m learning more, has also played a key role and has some advantages in terms of its borders.

Much of what the admin is looking for in the region fits our ProSec™ narrative, and I think we are one step further towards seeing the admin achieve those goals.

Bottom Line

Despite signs that inflation is abating, bond yields will be a bit stubborn, because of what is happening across the globe, rather than due to our domestic policy/data. I want to buy the long end, and own flatteners, but it is still a touch early.

Credit was a little weaker than stocks this week. Fear of the calendar seems to be keeping spreads from tightening even when other risk assets do well. That will likely persist, but I think the start of the new issue season will be a sign to load up on credit. A lot of “room” has been made to absorb the supply, and if we are correct on the AI Debt Diet thesis, some fears, currently priced into the market, will dissipate.

Something looks seriously “off” in the crypto market (I cannot unsee Elaine dancing). Even with the support this admin and the regulators have for the business, it seems prudent to remain cautious. It continues to be erratic and stuck at levels that seem to make little sense given the ongoing drumbeat of positive news.

If stocks can open decently on Monday, look for strength into year-end, and then some more choppiness. If stocks cannot hold onto the gains from Friday, we will all have a far more anxious holiday season than we were hoping for, as support and “blindly” buying the dip don’t seem to be there.

The AI Debt Diet and AI Spend Diet will be key factors for the markets early next year.

Any peace with Russia and Ukraine is likely to lower commodity prices (as access is granted), but look for U.S. companies to dominate any rebuilding and look for the admin to focus on refining and processing even more than extraction.

And no, CEOs should not be replaced by AI, but we should all be figuring out the right balance and what the real cost/benefits are. I think that could drive down spend a little bit, and actually drive up productivity.

Hopefully, markets cooperate and let us enjoy the holiday season as we ramp up for what should be a busy 2026!

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 18:40

California Faces Fuel Disaster As Refineries And Gas Stations Shut Down

Zero Hedge -

California Faces Fuel Disaster As Refineries And Gas Stations Shut Down

The Democrat crusade to divert blame for the stagflation crisis triggered during the Biden Administration led them down a path of economic lies.  The central theme of their narrative was that corporations were "price gouging" consumers and inflation was actually a product of "corporate greed."  In reality, helicopter money and dollar devaluation during the pandemic triggered a massive consumer demand rush as well as shortages in a variety of goods and raw materials.

The profit margins in many of these industries were paper thin as their manufacturing and labor costs skyrocketed, yet Democrats tried to scapegoat them anyway.  The word "accountability" is not in the leftist vocabulary.

We are only now starting to witness the aftermath of the legislation and policies put in place by blue states as a means to control prices.  California under Governor Gavin Newsom may have staged its own economic demise (the final nail in the coffin) after laws were passed requiring even greater state interference into oil refineries and gas stations.

Gavin Newsom 's major refinery law, ABX2-1 (signed Oct 2024), gives the state power to mandate minimum fuel storage levels and control refinery maintenance to prevent price spikes, empowering the California Energy Commission (CEC) to stabilize supply. This builds on earlier efforts (like SB X1-2) creating an oil market watchdog (DPMO) to increase oversight, aiming to stop refiners from manipulating supply for profit, while also adding data reporting requirements for companies.

In response, companies are shutting down refinery operations in the state.

Lawmakers in California at both the state and federal levels are warning that refinery closures could push prices higher while leaving the state more dependent on foreign oil.  At the center of the warning is the planned shutdown of two major refineries: Valero’s Benicia facility and Phillips 66’s Los Angeles plant. Together, the closures would eliminate nearly 20% of California’s in-state refining capacity.

Experts suggest prices could go as high as $10-$12 per gallon as a result of the supply squeeze, spreading outside of CA to Arizona and Nevada. Republican lawmakers say that the loss of in-state production threatens not only consumer prices at the pump but also the state’s military readiness; a matter of national security. 

The refineries make jet fuel and diesel and gasoline for military bases across California.  California is home to more than 30 military bases, many of which rely on fuel refined in-state.  Gavin Newsom has mostly dismissed concerns as exaggeration, asserting that foreign shipments of fuel will fill the supply gap.  He argued in a recent statement:

“The claim that California policies pose a national security risk isn’t grounded in fact. The state has proactively engaged defense fuel customers throughout this energy transition, and no credible concerns have been raised about future fuel supply for the military. California is leading this transition responsibly while ensuring families have access to a safe, reliable, and affordable supply of transportation fuels..." 

California law, primarily through Senate Bill 445, also mandates that all single-walled Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and piping must be permanently closed or replaced with compliant double-walled systems by December 31st, 2025.  The claim is that this will prevent leaks and environmental contamination, with significant fines for non-compliance.

The state created a program called "RUST" to supposedly help small businesses meet the deadline by providing subsidies to pay for new tanks.  However, many mom-and-pop gas stations are reporting that they never received any aid from the RUST program, even though they applied far in advance.  Hundreds of small business gas stations in CA are set to shut down in 2026.  A large number of them are rural and operate as the only gas stations for long stretches of highway.  

In October, the newly created Division of Petroleum Market Oversight released its first annual report meant to discover why CA gas prices are so high.  The report merely confirmed what was already known - CA prices are much higher than other states because of the differential in taxes and regulatory costs.  No concrete evidence of price gouging on the part of energy companies was found.

Blue states like CA have been increasingly subjecting their citizens to an experiment in artificial energy scarcity; reducing access to "fossil fuels" while raising taxes to force consumers into the electric car market.  All of this is being done in the name of stopping "man-made global warming", a problem which does not exist.  Newsom claims that he is trying to help CA citizens by lowering gas prices, but all of his actions are leading to a price explosion.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 18:05

Pentagon Fails Audit For 8th Consecutive Year

Zero Hedge -

Pentagon Fails Audit For 8th Consecutive Year

Authored by Ryan Morgan via The Epoch Times,

The Pentagon has failed to pass a full financial audit for the eighth year in a row.

Congress initially mandated annual independent audits across the Department of Defense in 2018. In that time, the department has failed to pass a single full audit.

The Department of Defense—also known as the Department of War—lists $4.65 trillion in assets and $4.72 trillion in liabilities through fiscal year 2025, which ended on Sept. 30. The Pentagon cannot account for its full balance sheet.

An audit report, finalized on Dec. 18 by the Department of Defense Office of Inspector General, identified 26 material weaknesses and two significant deficiencies in the Pentagon’s financial reporting practices for the year.

Auditors rendered adverse opinions in 10 of 28 subaudits contained within the overall Pentagon audit for the year. Adverse opinions are issued when audits find financial reporting to be inaccurate.

The audit also listed further disclaimers of opinion, meaning auditors could not be certain one way or another whether the balance sheets of certain funds or programs were accurately recorded.

Auditors applied the disclaimers of opinion to the Department of the Army General Fund, the Department of the Army Working Capital Fund, the U.S. Navy General Fund, the Department of the Air Force General Fund, the Department of the Air Force Working Capital Fund, the U.S. Transportation Command Transportation Working Capital Fund, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, the Defense Health Program General Fund, the Defense Information Systems Agency General Fund, and the Defense Logistics Agency Working Capital Fund.

The audit report said the disclaimers of opinion cover programs and funds that comprise a combined 43 percent of the U.S. military’s total assets and at least 64 percent of the military’s total budgetary resources.

Auditors found material misstatements within the Joint Strike Fighter program, which oversees the F-35 Lightning II stealth fighter used by the various U.S. military branches and numerous partner nations.

The report found the program did not properly account for its global pool of spare parts.

The audit also found misstatements in the various programs the U.S. military uses to build up the military strength of various global allies and partners. Auditors determined there were $18.9 billion worth of material misstatements across partnership programs.

Despite eight attempts and eight failures, the Pentagon still has a way to go before it passes a full audit. The Pentagon is currently set on a goal to pass its first audit in 2028.

“We have reviewed the audit report and acknowledge the findings and results. The Department of War is committed to resolving its critical issues and achieving an unmodified audit opinion by 2028,Jules Hurst, who is performing the duties of the Pentagon comptroller, said in a Dec. 18 statement attached to the audit report.

Despite the setbacks, the Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the latest report showed continuing improvements across the Pentagon’s accounting efforts.

“This year’s audit revealed remediations in key areas, reflecting significant progress in financial management,” Hegseth said in a statement attached to the audit report.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 17:30

"Dollar Store Obama": House Oversight Chair James Comer Torches Hakeem Jeffries

Zero Hedge -

"Dollar Store Obama": House Oversight Chair James Comer Torches Hakeem Jeffries

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer isn’t backing down from his probe into the massive Somali-led fraud draining Minnesota’s social services, slamming Democrat Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries for shielding the scandal with personal attacks.

With federal investigations now revealing losses potentially exceeding $9 billion across multiple state-run programs, Comer’s takedown highlights how unchecked immigration policies have enabled epic taxpayer rip-offs under Democrat watch.

Comer launched the investigation earlier this month, targeting widespread fraud in Minnesota’s welfare and social services exploited by Somali immigrants. In a letter to Governor Tim Walz and Attorney General Keith Ellison, he demanded answers on the theft of billions from state and federal coffers.

“The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is investigating reports of widespread fraud in Minnesota’s social services programs. The Committee has serious concerns about how you as the Governor, and the Democrat-controlled administration, allowed millions of dollars to be stolen. The Committee also has concerns that you and your administration were fully aware of this fraud and chose not to act for fear of political retaliation,” Comer wrote.

He added, “The Committee therefore requests documents and communications showing what your administration knew about this fraud and whether you took action to limit or halt the investigation into this widespread fraud.”

The probe follows reports of schemes like the Feeding Our Future scandal, where fraudsters siphoned off funds meant for child nutrition, autism services, and housing aid. Federal prosecutors recently charged six more defendants in related autism and housing frauds, with one pleading guilty, as part of an ongoing crackdown.

Latest updates from U.S. attorneys indicate fraud in 14 Minnesota programs could top $9 billion, swamping state resources and prompting Treasury probes into potential terrorism ties. Governor Tim Walz, facing heat, admitted accountability but vowed fixes amid mounting charges.

When pressed on Walz and Ellison’s cooperation, Jeffries dodged the question and unleashed insults, labeling Comer “a joke, an embarrassment, an unserious individual, and a malignant clown.”

Comer fired back hard, dismissing the barbs and turning the tables on Jeffries’ hypocrisy.

“That’s the third time he’s called me a clown. Look, everyone that watches his interviews and sees how he tries to imitate Obama, they wonder why he’s got the nickname Dollar Store Obama. Look, he’s a low-IQ individual who has to resort to name-calling; that’s what he criticizes Donald Trump over. I don’t care what he calls me. He can come to Kentucky and campaign against me. I’ll pay for his gas bill,” Comer said.

“But at the end of the day, to defend Tim Walz is going to be a huge mistake for the Democrats because everyone in Minnesota knows that this fraud has been taking place for a long time. All I’m doing is my job, getting the backs of the taxpayers. If Hakeem Jeffries doesn’t like it, he can go fly a kite because, at the end of the day, the American people expect their tax dollars to be spent wisely.”

Adding fuel to the fire, Trump advisor Stephen Miller framed the scandal’s scale on Fox News, comparing it to Somalia’s GDP and blasting the importation of criminal elements.

“Well, first of all, regarding the situation in Minnesota, by the way, not just Minnesota — we have Somali refugees that were dumped here by Democrats in Ohio and Massachusetts. Let me just say we should not be shocked. When you import a population whose primary occupation is pirate, that they are going to come here and steal everything we have,” Miller said.

“Somalia has this giant coastline, and the only industry they have created, after hundreds of years is piracy, stealing what anyone going through who has actually built something has made. So, yes, the pirates have stolen all of our money, and they have to go home, Jesse. That’s the situation we’re in right now,” Miller further urged.

Miller continued: “So he has presided over — this corrupt, incompetent loser has presided over the largest theft of American taxpayer dollars in history. It’s never been equal before. The amount of money that’s been stolen is larger than the entire GDP of Somalia. In other words, the Somalians they brought here have theft and more than all the Somalians in Somalia have ever created for themselves in all the time that has existed up until now.”

So there needs to be a lot of people going to jail. And I can promise you, the Department of Justice is launching an investigation that is commensurate in force and in purpose with the scope, scale, size and magnitude of this controversy,” Miller declared.

This explosive exchange underscores the failures of open-border policies, where America First priorities get trampled by globalist agendas that prioritize foreign grifters over hardworking Americans.

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

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 15:10

From War 'On' Silver To War 'For' Silver

Zero Hedge -

From War 'On' Silver To War 'For' Silver

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

You know Steve Quayle as a renowned radio host, filmmaker, book author and archeological dig expert. Most people do not know that Quayle has four decades experience in the gold and silver markets.

Quayle says the exploding record high prices for gold, and especially silver, are signaling big trouble brewing for the financial system. Are prices rising because we are near a global sovereign debt crisis or a wider war with Russia and Ukraine? Are currencies under pressure or is the bond market about to tank? It might be anyone of these, or all of the above, but one thing is for sure, the price of silver is going up well beyond the latest record high price. Quayle says,

“This has been one of the most explosive weeks with events taking place. Those of us in the business have known that the powers that be have been making their war on silver for 50 years. For 50 years, they have been manipulating the price of silver... robbing primarily from the individual investor. The war on silver has passed. Now, we are looking at the war for silver that is underway.

We are looking at a global treasure hunt for gold and silver, primarily silver ,for the burgeoning and exploding technology. Silver has properties that no other metal has.”

For example, Samsung just cut a deal in Mexico to reopen a mine and take all the production over the next two years. They are bypassing COMEX, CME and the LBMA and getting their raw silver directly from the mine. Quayle knows of nearly a dozen other big tech companies scrambling for silver. Quayle points out:

“This is critical because the amount of silver that would normally be available to individual investors is being cut off at the mine.”

Quayle says China is one of the biggest players getting control of silver supplies around the globe. Quayle says,

People would be astonished that the industrial demand for silver outstrips the available silver...

Here is the bottom line: on the production side, silver is oversold dramatically...

By the way, I am told the official price for silver behind the scenes is $86 an ounce...

The question is how fast will the silver market accelerate and make it impossible for the average investor or private investor to acquire?”

Quayle is also seeing the end of the futures markets and the way silver and gold has been priced. Quayle says:

 “We are watching the end of the futures market in the United States and in London. The London Bullion Metals Exchange cannot deliver. In my opinion, they have cheated and lied.”

If they don’t have the metal to deliver, they cannot set the price. Quayle says,

“Would you trust them with anything such as cattle futures, hogs or soybeans? Heck no. . .. Physical silver in hand still exists, but for how long? This is not a scare tactic. It is supply and demand...

I am telling people to get what you can while you can because the day will come when silver and gold will be unobtainable...

It’s critical for people to acquire what they can acquire now in silver. Gold is always your savings. Silver, historically, has been your barter fund.

Gold is your savings account for the future, and silver is your way to make it to the future.”

There is more in the 58-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes one-on-one with Steve Quayle warning you to prepare for much higher prices for silver and the financial storm that a failure to deliver physical silver will cause for 12.20.25.

To Donate to USAWatchdog, click here

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 14:00

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

Zero Hedge -

Citizens In Eastern Ukraine Will Not Be Allowed To Vote, Zelensky Says

President Volodymyr Zelensky has confirmed that Ukraine and Washington are in talks about holding elections, after earlier this month he much belatedly said while under pressure from Trump that he's ready to allow national elections, so long as they can be done fairly and freely.

Zelensky indicated current discussions also hinge on the US and other partners helping set the conditions so Ukrainians can vote in safety. He previously stated the country could hold a vote within 60 days - but only if there are security guarantees.

Already over the weekend he erected more barriers to holding a vote, stipulating that citizens in Eastern Ukraine would not be able to participate. 

"Any election in Ukraine can not be held in Russia-occupied parts of the country," Zelensky has been quoted in international press as saying, and he once again added that a proper voting process can take place only if security is ensured.

via Al Jazeera

He has also lately said that Ukraine's foreign minister had started the initial work on the infrastructure needed for Ukrainians living abroad to participate.

The four oblasts that President Putin has called "our four new regions" and "our citizens forever" include Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions - and were annexed after a popular referendum during the first year of the war.

Putin has blasted Zelensky's rule as illegitimate given the canceled elections based on enacting a state of martial law, and President Trump has expressed increasing agreement with this perspective.

Still, Zelensky's new 'openness' with holding an election has been coupled with plenty of caveats and likely immense barriers. For example last week he said--

...that a ceasefire with Russia must be in place before elections can be held in Ukraine, "at least for the duration of the election process and voting". Ukrainian law forbids wartime elections but US President Donald Trump is pressuring Zelensky, whose term ended last year, to hold a vote.

But Trump this month finally put some real pressure on him, it appears. Given Zelensky had put the brakes on the US-proposed pace plan by definitively rejecting the territorial concessions aspects to the document, the US president's assessment in a recent Politico interview was blunt and highly critical, going so far as to basically call Ukraine not a democracy.

"They haven’t had an election in a long time," Trump said. "You know, they talk about a democracy, but it gets to a point where it's not a democracy anymore."

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 13:25

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

Zero Hedge -

Jim Beam Shuttering Kentucky Distillery, Halting Production, For 2026

One of Kentucky’s largest bourbon producers will halt whiskey production at its main Clermont site for 2026. Jim Beam plans to pause distillation at the James B. Beam campus in Happy Hollow beginning Jan. 1 while investing in site enhancements, according to the Lexington Herald Leader.

“We are always assessing production levels to best meet consumer demand and recently met with our team to discuss our volumes for 2026,” the statement said. “We’ve shared with our teams that while we will continue to distill at our (Freddie Booker Noe) craft distillery in Clermont and at our larger Booker Noe distillery in Boston, we plan to pause distillation at our main distillery on the James B. Beam campus for 2026 while we take the opportunity to invest in site enhancements. Our visitor center at the James B. Beam campus remains open so visitors can have the full James B. Beam experience and join us for a meal at The Kitchen Table.”

Bottling and warehousing will continue at Clermont, and the visitor center will remain open for Kentucky Bourbon Trail tourists. The pause was first reported by the Louisville Business Journal.

The Herald writes that the move comes as Kentucky’s $9 billion bourbon industry faces oversupply and weaker demand. Production statewide is down more than 55 million proof-gallons—over 28%—through August, the lowest level since 2018. Exports have also fallen, with U.S. whiskey sales to Canada down more than 60% through October amid a boycott tied to trade tensions.

Beam has not filed a layoffs notice with the state, and it is unclear how many jobs could be affected. Workers are represented by United Food and Commercial Workers, and the company said it is in discussions with the union “to assess how best to utilize our workforce during this transition.”

The Clermont facility produces Jim Beam’s flagship bourbon along with Basil Hayden and Knob Creek. A larger distillery in Boston, Ky., will not be affected. Distilling at Maker’s Mark also is unaffected. As of 2024, Jim Beam employed nearly 1,500 people in Kentucky.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 13:25

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

Zero Hedge -

DHS Locates Nearly 130,000 Unaccompanied Missing Children, Says Noem

Authored by Naveen Athrappully via The Epoch Times,

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of Health and Human Services have located over 129,143 unaccompanied illegal immigrant children whom the prior administration had lost track of, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in a Dec. 19 post on X.

“Too many of these children were exploited, trafficked, and abused,” Noem wrote. “We will continue to ramp up efforts and will not stop until every last child is found.”

In August 2024, the DHS Office of Inspector General published a report revealing that 323,000 illegal immigrant children were unaccounted for in the United States.

As of May 2024, over 32,000 of these children had been served notices to appear in court but failed to do so. In addition, the safety of 291,000 children could not be verified.

In a Nov. 14 statement, DHS announced that the Immigration and Customs Enforcement had launched an initiative with local and state law enforcement partners to conduct welfare checks on the hundreds of thousands of illegal, unaccompanied children smuggled across the border and placed with unvetted sponsors under the Biden administration.

The main aim of the initiative is to ensure they are not being exploited, DHS said.

“Many of the children who came across the border unaccompanied were allowed to be placed with sponsors who were smugglers and sex traffickers,” DHS Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Tricia McLaughlin said.

“We’ve jump-started our efforts to rescue children who were victims of sex and labor trafficking,” she said.

“President [Donald] Trump and Secretary Noem are laser-focused on protecting children and will continue to work with federal, state, and local law enforcement to reunite children with their families.”

Crackdown on Child Predators

The Trump administration recently launched Operation Relentless Justice to identify, track, and arrest child sex predators, according to a Dec. 19 statement from the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The two-week enforcement operation led to a nationwide crackdown that resulted in the arrest of more than 293 child sexual abuse offenders, with over 205 child victims located.

“Operation Relentless Justice shows no child will be forgotten and that all predators targeting the most vulnerable amongst us will be held accountable,” FBI Director Kash Patel said.

“This year, the FBI has led multiple nationwide surges across the U.S. to find and arrest hundreds of child predators. We will not stop until every child can live a life free of exploitation. We will utilize the strength of all our field offices and our federal, state, and local partners to protect communities across the nation from such horrific crimes.”

Prior to Operation Relentless Justice, the Trump administration had implemented Operation Restore Justice in May, which led to 205 child sex abuse offenders being arrested and 115 children being rescued.

Later in August, Operation Enduring Justice resulted in the arrests of 234 offenders and the rescue of 133 children.

Commenting on Operation Relentless Justice, FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said in a Dec. 19 post on X that this was “one of many successful” operations conducted to crack down on violent crimes against children this year.

“The Director and I have prioritized their life-saving work from the moment we swore in. And we assured them an agency-wide effort to punish the demons who violate the sacred trust of children,” Bongino wrote.

On Dec. 19, the DOJ announced that a member of the Nihilistic Violent Extremist group “764” pleaded guilty to multiple acts involving the sexual exploitation of children.

The group is an online criminal network that methodically targets and exploits minors. The perpetrator, who pleaded guilty, is alleged to have coerced minors into engaging in sexual acts and committing self-harm.

The perpetrator “led a group of online predators whose ultimate purpose is to destroy our society,” said Sue J. Bai, principal deputy assistant attorney general for National Security.

“They tried to achieve that heinous goal by desensitizing innocent children to violence—coercing them to perform gruesome and harmful acts against themselves and animals—with the hope of encouraging further violence and spreading chaos.”

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:50

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

Zero Hedge -

Delaware Supreme Court Reinstates Musk’s Record-Setting 2018 Tesla Compensation Plan

The Delaware Supreme Court has reinstated Elon Musk’s 2018 CEO compensation package from Tesla, reversing lower-court rulings that had twice voided the award and bringing an end to a yearslong legal fight over one of the largest pay packages in corporate history, according to CNBC.

In a per curiam decision issued Friday, the court ruled that the Delaware Court of Chancery erred in canceling the pay plan outright. The justices said rescinding the award was “inequitable” because it “leaves Musk uncompensated for his time and efforts over a period of six years.” The Supreme Court reversed the rescission remedy and awarded $1 in nominal damages.

The compensation plan, approved by Tesla shareholders in 2018, granted Musk the option to purchase about 303 million split-adjusted shares through 12 milestone-based tranches tied to market capitalization and operational goals. When the award vested, it was valued at roughly $56 billion. At Friday’s closing share price, the package would be worth about $139 billion.

The case arose from a derivative lawsuit filed in 2018 by Tesla shareholder Richard J. Tornetta, who accused Musk and the Tesla board of breaching their fiduciary duties. In January 2024, Delaware Chancery Court Chancellor Kathaleen McCormick ruled that the pay plan had been improperly granted. She found that Musk “controlled Tesla” and that the process leading to board approval was “deeply flawed,” including failures to disclose all material information to shareholders before seeking their vote. Although shareholders approved the package twice, McCormick rejected it both times, writing that the Tesla board “bore the burden of proving that the compensation plan was fair, and they failed to meet their burden.”

The Supreme Court disagreed with the remedy imposed. In its opinion, the justices said the lower court’s decision to cancel the plan entirely was too extreme and noted that Tesla had not been given the opportunity to determine what a fair compensation award might look like. The ruling restores the 2018 pay package but leaves other aspects of the Chancery Court’s decision untouched.

Legal scholars emphasized that distinction. Dorothy Lund, a professor at Columbia Law School, told CNBC that while the decision revives the pay plan, it does not undo earlier findings about governance failures. “The court had previously decided that Musk was a controlling shareholder of Tesla and that the Tesla board and he arranged an unfair pay plan for him,” she said. “None of that was reversed in this decision.”

CNBC wrote that lawyers for Tornetta echoed that view in an emailed statement, saying, “We are proud to have participated in the historic verdict below, calling to account the Tesla board and its largest stockholder for their breaches of fiduciary duty.”

Musk responded to news of the ruling on X, writing, “Thank you for your unwavering support.”

Musk is already the world’s richest person, with an estimated net worth in excess of $600 billion, largely due to his Tesla holdings and his stake in SpaceX, which he plans to take public as early as next year. Tesla shares are trading near record highs.

The ruling also nullifies a shareholder-approved contingency plan that would have replaced Musk’s 2018 compensation if the appeal had failed. Separately, Tesla shareholders approved a new, much larger CEO pay package for Musk in 2025, consisting of 12 tranches tied to future milestones and potentially worth up to $1 trillion over the next decade.

The Supreme Court’s decision likely closes the final chapter of the Tornetta litigation and restores the compensation plan that helped cement Musk’s status as the wealthiest individual in the world, even as broader questions about Tesla’s corporate governance remain unresolved.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 12:15

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Zero Hedge -

Bitcoin's Quantum Debate Is Resurfacing & Markets Are Starting To Notice

Authored by Shaurya Malwa via CoinDesk.com,

What to know:
  • The majority of Bitcoin developers argue that quantum computing does not pose an immediate threat to the network, with machines capable of breaking its cryptography unlikely to exist for decades.

  • Critics express concern over the lack of preparation for quantum threats, as governments and companies begin adopting quantum-resistant systems.

  • The Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360 aims to introduce quantum-resistant address formats, allowing users to gradually transition to more secure cryptographic standards.

Quantum computing and the threat it poses to encrypted blockchains has once again crept into online bitcoin conversations, raising concerns that it poses a long-term risk that investors and developers are still struggling to talk about in the same language.

The latest flare-up in the debate followed comments from prominent Bitcoin developers pushing back against claims that quantum computers pose any real risk to the network in the foreseeable future. Their view is straightforward: that machines capable of breaking Bitcoin’s cryptography do not exist today and are unlikely to for decades.

Adam Back, co-founder of Bitcoin infrastructure firm Blockstream, described the risk as effectively nonexistent in the near term, calling quantum computing “ridiculously early” and riddled with unresolved research problems. Even in a worst-case scenario, Back argued, Bitcoin’s design would not allow coins to be instantly stolen across the network.

Back’s assessment is broadly shared among protocol developers. Critics, however, say the problem isn’t the timeline, but it’s the lack of visible preparation.

Bitcoin relies on elliptic curve cryptography to secure wallets and authorize transactions. As CoinDesk previously explained, sufficiently advanced quantum computers running Shor’s algorithm — a quantum algorithm used to find the prime factors of big numbers — could derive private keys from exposed public keys, putting a portion of existing coins at risk.

The network wouldn’t collapse overnight, but funds sitting in older address formats — including Satoshi Nakamoto’s 1.1 million bitcoins, which have been untouched since 2010 — could become vulnerable to threat actors

For now, that threat remains theoretical. Yet governments and large enterprises are already acting as if quantum disruption is inevitable. The U.S. has outlined plans to phase out classical cryptography by the mid-2030s, while companies such as Cloudflare and Apple have begun rolling out quantum-resistant systems.

Bitcoin, by contrast, has not yet agreed on a concrete transition plan. And that gap is where market unease is creeping in.

Nic Carter, a partner at Castle Island Ventures, said on X that the disconnect between developers and investors is becoming hard to ignore. Capital, he argues, is less concerned with whether quantum attacks arrive in five years or 15, and more focused on whether Bitcoin has a credible path forward if cryptography standards change.

Plans to fight back

Developers counter that Bitcoin can adapt well before any real danger appears. Proposals exist to migrate users toward quantum-resistant address formats and, in extreme cases, restrict spending from legacy wallets. All of this would be preventive rather than reactive.

One such plan is the Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP)-360, which introduces a new type of Bitcoin address designed to use quantum-resistant cryptography.

It provides users with a means to transfer their coins into wallets that rely on different mathematical algorithms, which are believed to be far more resistant to cracking by quantum computers.

BIP360 outlines three new signature methods, each offering varying levels of protection, so the network can gradually shift rather than force a sudden upgrade. Nothing would change automatically. Users would opt in over time by moving funds to the new address format.

Supporters of BIP360 argue the proposal is less about predicting when quantum computers arrive and more about preparation. Moving Bitcoin to a new cryptographic standard could take years, involving software updates, infrastructure changes, and user coordination.

Starting early, they say, reduces the risk of being forced into rushed decisions later.

However, Bitcoin’s conservative governance becomes a challenge when addressing long-horizon threats that require early consensus.

Quantum computing is not currently an existential threat to Bitcoin, and no credible timeline suggests otherwise.

However, as capital becomes more institutional and long-term, even distant risks require clearer answers.

Until developers and investors converge on a shared framework, the quantum question will continue to linger — not as a panic, but as a quiet friction weighing on sentiment.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Sun, 12/21/2025 - 11:40

Pages