Individual Economists

New Orders Drop But US Manufacturing Surveys Still Signal 'Solid' Growth In August

Zero Hedge -

New Orders Drop But US Manufacturing Surveys Still Signal 'Solid' Growth In August

Despite sustained relative weakness in US 'hard data', US manufacturing operating conditions improved solidly again in August, according to the latest PMI data from S&P Global, but it's not all rainbows and unicorns...

  • August S&P Global US Manufacturing PMI beat, flat at 53.9 from July's print, but up from the flash print of 53.2 and better than the 53.4 expected.

  • August ISM US Manufacturing PMI miss, down from 55.6 to 54.6 (below 55.2 expectations).

Still, despite the miss, ISM still printed near four year highs, with growth moderating only slightly.

However, ISM saw New Orders and Employment dropped in August (with Prices only flat month over month)...

“Growth in the US manufacturing economy remained welcome," said Usamah Bhatti, Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence, but he warns "the August data point to some cracks in the sector’s health."

Data covering most of the second quarter and the period to August indicated that stock building was a key driver of sustained growth in manufacturing output and demand.

Moreover, Bhatti notes that "both output and new order growth slowed in August amid concerns that further price rises and material shortages would weigh on the sector."

Indeed, although purchasing activity and pre-production inventories increased further, "manufacturers continued to report difficulties sourcing and receiving raw materials because of supply delays and price rises."

These pressures were commonly linked to the war in the Middle East, which has exacerbated existing supply and inflationary pressures from tariffs.

There were, however, areas of encouragement for US goods producers.

Business expectations for output over the year ahead improved from July to a three-month high, partly reflecting hopes for an end to the war and a smoother domestic policy path.

Firms also noted that "greater stability in conditions were likely to support business expansion and customer retention plans."

In response, businesses raised employment at the strongest rate seen so far this year.

So choose your own adventure again -  both ISM and S&P Global saw orders drop, but ISM saw employment drop and prices flat while S&P Global saw prices drop and employment improve...?!

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 10:10

Europeans Blindsided By Russian Finance Minister's Presence At G20 In Asheville

Zero Hedge -

Europeans Blindsided By Russian Finance Minister's Presence At G20 In Asheville

Amid two days of talks among G20 finance ministers and central bank heads gathered in Asheville, North Carolina, an unexpected and deeply awkward issue (for some) has emerged.

The whole session is being overshadowed by the fact that the White House welcomed Russia to the meeting, which has set off anger and frustration among the Europeans. Also, some key media outlets and prominent reporters have been banned from the summit.

G20: an "unexpected" Russian guest.

Late Monday, Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov made an unexpected appearance after his official US invite, and then was welcomed by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for a bilateral meeting.

This marks Russia's first in-person invite to the G20 since the start of the Ukraine war in February 2022 - and it is happening while the US holds the rotating G20 presidency and is playing host.

The two officials reportedly focused their talks economic cooperation and on finding a way forward on finding a peace deal in Ukraine. According to the focus of the diplomatic interaction:

  • In a statement, Russia's Finance Ministry said the talks covered financial issues between the two nations and G20 engagement.
  • Bessent ruled out economic relief for Moscow as long as the war in Ukraine continues, according to a source familiar with the meeting. When Siluanov raised potential areas for cooperation, Bessent interrupted the official and made clear there'd be no progress until the war ends, the source added.

Despite Washington's effort to seize the opportunity for the sake of much-needed diplomacy with Moscow, at a moment the Ukraine war has been continually escalating, European officials vented to the press over the unwanted Kremlin presence.

"Receiving the Russian finance minister here sends a troubling signal," German Finance Minister Lars Klingbeil said. "I made it clear to the Europeans this morning in the plenary session that I would not pose for a photo with the Russian finance minister," he told reporters.

Polish Finance Minister Andrzej Domanski told Reuters that while he recognizes the right of the host country to invite guests, it remains that "We do not trust Russia. They lie constantly and you need to be really, really cautious while discussing with them." He emphasized "So for me it would be very difficult to have any kind of conversation with Russia." 

This led to the Russian representative being banned from the family photo traditionally taken at the g20 summits. This decision was apparently due to pressure by the Europeans, who may have threatened not to show up for the photo op. In the end it was taken without Siluanov.

But given the immense and rising tensions between Moscow and European capitals of late, the Europeans would do well to take the White House's example and finally engage the Russians, in order to lower the temperature and pursue badly needed de-escalation.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 09:40

Judge To Rule Today On Whether Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Will Stand Trial

Zero Hedge -

Judge To Rule Today On Whether Alleged Charlie Kirk Assassin Will Stand Trial

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times,

A Utah judge has set a hearing for Sept. 1 to consider whether the high-profile case against conservative commentator Charlie Kirk's alleged assassin, Tyler James Robinson, 23, should go to trial.

Judge Tony Graf Jr. also must weigh whether to uphold seven charges against Robinson, including one carrying a potential death sentence.

Based on evidence presented during a five-day preliminary hearing in early July, prosecutors and defense lawyers will argue at 10 a.m. MDT in the Fourth District Court in Provo, Utah.

Lawyers representing Kirk's widow, Erika Kirk, urged Graf to rule by Sept. 1, a court record says, arguing against any "undue delay" while preserving Robinson's right to a fair trial.

It was unknown whether the judge would comply with that request.

By law, the judge's sole task is to decide whether there is probable cause - a required step before the case can head to trial, prosecutors noted.

That legal standard "requires 'evidence sufficient to support a reasonable belief that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it,'" prosecutors explained in a news release, citing state law.

If Graf finds probable cause, he must "bind over" the case for trial; otherwise, the judge must dismiss the charges, and prosecutors could resubmit the charges later.

Prior to the hearing, both sides filed written arguments with dramatically different interpretations of the evidence.

Defense attorneys opined that the evidence was insufficient to prove required elements of all seven charges against their client. They also challenged prosecutors' assertion that the circumstances warrant the death penalty.

The shooting of Kirk imperiled other lives, prosecutors said, arguing that risk of harm to others is an "aggravating" circumstance that the law requires for a death-penalty-level charge.

"Common sense" dictates that "firing a gun, especially a high-powered rifle towards others puts them at great risk of death," prosecutors said.

On Sept. 10, 2025 - almost a year ago - Kirk was fatally shot in the neck as he answered questions from an audience of about 3,000 people at Utah Valley University in Orem, Utah.

Defense lawyers argued that the law requires proof beyond a mere "possibility" that someone else could have been killed. They noted a single shot was fired, not multiple shots, and that Robinson had never expressed any intention to hurt anyone other than Kirk.

Kirk, a 31-year-old father of two, was best known as a conservative speaker who started a political movement for young voters, Turning Point USA, when he was 19. Prosecutors say evidence points to Robinson targeting Kirk over his "political expression."

Robinson is accused of aggravated murder, a capital offense. He also faces six other charges: two counts of obstructing justice, two counts of witness tampering, along with causing serious bodily harm by discharging a firearm and committing violence in the presence of a child.

In a July 28 court filing, prosecutors told the judge that the case is clear-cut.

"This is as likely as straight-forward a bindover decision as this Court will ever see," they wrote, adding: "This isn't a close case. The State presented more than enough evidence to support a probable cause finding on all seven charges."

Many circumstances implicate Robinson, prosecutors said, such as admitting to his lover that he had killed Kirk. DNA evidence, eyewitness testimony, and surveillance videos all link Robinson to the shooting scene, they said.

They noted defense lawyers "did not challenge the substance of the evidence" pointing to Robinson as the shooter.

Defense lawyers instead argued that prosecutors' contentions called for impermissible "speculation" rather than reasonable inferences.

Prosecutors countered that defense attorneys ignored evidence that was damning to Robinson and improperly contorted legal standards to favor their client.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 09:00

Futures Tumble As Global Yields Hit Multi-Year HIgh, Oil Jumps On Iran Escalation

Zero Hedge -

Futures Tumble As Global Yields Hit Multi-Year HIgh, Oil Jumps On Iran Escalation

Stock futures are set to start the new month on the backfoot - having weathered a variety of challenges to post a gain for August - with tech lagging as a global selloff pushes yields to the highest level since 2008. As of 8:00am ET, S&P futures are down 0.6%, while Nasdaq futures slide 1.2% following a reports of a strike by Micron’s labor unions in Taiwan, sending the stock 2% lower in pre-market. Semis / Memory are down 1.4% and 2.2%, respectively, with neither Mag7 nor Software seeing a pre-mkt bid. Defensives and Energy are poised to outperform today as small-caps lead large-caps, despite the meltup in rates and oil. Treasury Yields are 2-4 bps higher as part of a general steepening of the curve which has sent US 10Y yield to 4.79% and 10Y JGBs above 3.00% for the first time since 1996. The Dollar is stronger, too. Reports of two supertankers being hit by projectiles are driving oil prices sharply higher and pushing WTI above $87, the highest since July 27. Metals are weaker with Precious metals lagging Base; gold is off ~6% from its Aug high and is 9% above its $4k major support. Ags remain bid after returning ~13% in Aug: the BCOMAG Index is making multi-year highs, last seen in 2022/23.  Today’s macro data focus is on ISM-Mfg and JOLTS, with ISM the more important to make sure the growth story remains intact and supportive of the broadening trade. Keep an eye on the ISM Prices Paid as inflation is more critical to markets than growth, going into the Sep 16 Fed Mtg.

In premarket trading, Mag 7 names are all lower (Apple -0.1%, Alphabet -0.7%, Amazon -1.3%, Meta -1%, Microsoft -1.1%, Nvidia -1.3%, Tesla -1.2%

  • Capricor Therapeutics (CAPR) rises 4% after Piper Sandler upgraded the biotech company to overweight, optimistic about the prospects for deramiocel, a treatment for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
  • Charter Communications (CHTR) inches 1% lower after the cable operator said CFO Jessica Fischer will step down in mid October to relocate for another professional opportunity.
  • Duolingo (DUOL) is up 6% after Evercore ISI upgraded the language-learning software company to outperform, noting investor opportunity following severe weakness in the stock, which is down more than 70% off a peak hit in mid-2025.
  • Fervo Energy (FRVO) jumps 13% on a Wall Street Journal report that the geothermal company has signed a deal to sell power to Alphabet’s Google.
  • GoPro (GPRO) soars 76%, with the stock set to extend gains after rallying more than 46% Monday.
  • Kroger (KR) slips 1% after Citi analyst Paul Lejuez cut his price target on the grocer to a Street-low $57 from $61, and adds a downside 30-day catalyst watch on the stock ahead of Kroger’s Sept. 11 earnings report.
  • Medtronic (MDT) gains 4% after the medical device maker boosted its organic revenue forecast for the full year.
  • Micron Technology (MU) dips about 2% after the Taipei-based Liberty Times reported that Micron will deliver its highest incentive pay plan to its Taiwan-based employees in response to a potential strike by its labor union.
  • NIO ADRs (NIO) slip 1% after the carmaker reported vehicle deliveries for August that were largely flat from the previous month.
  • Robinhood Markets (HOOD) rises 2% after Morgan Stanley raised its recommendation on the exchange to overweight on growth from prediction markets.

In other corporate news, Western Union and its Australian division are being investigated by the country’s financial crimes agency over concerns about whether its anti-money laundering and terrorism financing controls are effective. Airbnb is testing taking a smaller cut of rental fees from hosts, seeking to fight back against a trend of customers booking directly outside of its platform. Apple claimed in a court filing that OpenAI is actively destroying crucial evidence in an escalation of its legal battle against the AI company.

A global bond selloff has sent global yields to the highest level in years and was most pronounced in Asia, where 10-year Japanese yields hit the highest level this century.

The move came as US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent pressed the Bank of Japan to tighten policy amid fresh weakness in the yen. US Treasuries also fell across the curve, with the 10-year rate touching its highest since January 2025. Thirty-year yields extended their stint above 5%, already the longest since 2006. UK gilts sharply underperformed in Europe.

The bond selloff was further pressured by the ascent in energy prices: continued disruptions to energy flows through the Strait of Hormuz sent Brent crude above $92. In the latest escalation in the Middle East, two oil supertankers were struck by unknown projectiles in quick succession while transiting the waterway, according to maritime security consultants Marisks.

Investors are demanding ever greater compensation to hold bonds as concerns about government spending, persistent inflation and surging corporate borrowing to finance the AI buildout intensify. Against this backdrop, traders now price the odds of a September Fed hike at around 70%. Equity investors “should be much more worried about rising long-term bond yields, particularly in the US,” said Joachim Klement, a strategist at Panmure Liberum. “Continued inflation pressures and the more hawkish stance of Kevin Warsh in Jackson Hole last week all point to continued increases.”

The risk-off start to September doesn’t bode well for what is historically the year’s toughest month for the S&P 500. The index has lost 0.88% on average in September over the past three decades.

Positioning, performance dispersion and seasonality make for a tricky setup in the weeks to come. Recent risk events including Nvidia earnings and the Fed’s Jackson Hole symposium kept market sentiment mixed and eroded breadth without derailing the uptrend. Citadel Securities’ Scott Rubner notes near-term asymmetry for US equities has changed into September. He describes a summer characterized by exceptional earnings, a clean up of leverage and positioning, a collapse in volatility, the return of retail investors and systematic investors rebuilding exposure. Rubner views the month ahead as an opportunity to reduce exposure and add cheap protection, but not the beginning of a broader bearish tilt.

Short-term S&P 500 option volatility has fallen to near the lows of the past year. Meanwhile longer term contracts are signaling a bit more concern, with the spread on 1-year and 1-month volatility widening to the 96% percentile over the past year.

Ahead of Friday’s US payrolls report, job openings data for July due later Tuesday are expected to reaffirm the picture of a stable labor market, with limited layoffs. Next week’s inflation data will be more significant for the Fed’s next steps after Warsh made clear that the central bank’s focus for now is on the price-stability side of its mandate, according to Laura Cooper at Nuveen.

The rise in real yields has “a little bit more room to run,” Cooper told Bloomberg TV. “The key catalyst going forward will be that August inflation print. Payrolls are less of a concern.”

Elsewhere, companies are rushing to file for IPOs before Anthropic’s megadeal, which is expected to absorb market attention in coming weeks. Sticking with Anthropic, it’s said to have agreed to a $35 billion computing deal with Lambda, a cloud provider backed by Nvidia, part of an effort to quickly expand its AI capacity.

Inflationary pressures continue to surface - “foodflation” as measured by the Bloomberg Agriculture Spot Index just posted the biggest monthly gain since July 2012. Goldman Sachs’s Robert Kaplan says he would be raising interest rates in September assuming there aren’t any surprises, though he would strive to keep an open mind. Trump called for a federal tax credit to benefit the movie and television industry, saying it would help bring the production of Hollywood blockbusters back to the US.

Tuesday’s weakness extended to Europe, where declines in auto stocks and mining shares put the Stoxx 600 on course for its lowest close since July. Euro-area inflation quickened to the highest level in almost three years, cementing the case for a rate hike next week. Here are the biggest movers Tuesday:

  • Novartis gains as much as 5.6%, the most since April 2025, after the Swiss drugmaker showed positive trial data for its experimental multiple sclerosis pill, which analysts say holds blockbuster potential if other trials play out well
  • Drax Group shares rally as much as 5.6% after securing their second upgrade in a week as Goldman Sachs raises its recommendation to buy from neutral, citing “an attractive cash generation story with options for upside”
  • Reckitt Benckiser rises as much as 5.9% after a US jury sided with the company’s Mead Johnson unit in a bellwether trial among a group of cases alleging that formula for premature babies is linked to a deadly bowel disease
  • Air Liquide shares gain as much as 4.2% after activist investor Elliott Investment Management built a stake in the industrial gas supplier as it pushes the firm to improve margins, according to people familiar with the matter
  • Technip Energies shares rise as much as 9.2%, the most since March, after a report said the French engineering group is taking part in a tender organized by SpaceX to build a rocket fuel production plant in Louisiana
  • DFDS rises as much as 6.6%, the most since mid-August, as RBC sets a new Street-high price target on the shipping and logistics firm and says there’s “further recovery potential ahead”
  • Dormakaba shares rise as much as 6.4%, briefly hitting their highest level since April, after the maker of security systems reported results and outlined plans to simplify the group’s ownership structure
  • Bodycote shares rise as much as 4.8% and trade at their highest level in five years after Veritas agreed to buy the company with a bid that surpassed a rival offer from CVC. Shares are trading above the latest offer price
  • Partners Group shares fall as much as 8.6% after the private markets company lowered its FY26 guidance for performance income and appointed Roberto Cagnati and Juri Jenkner as co-CEOs, effective Jan. 1, 2027
  • Ashtead Technology drops as much as 4.9%, to the lowest since mid January, after the oil field services provider releases first-half resultsn which Panmure Liberum says confirm issues raised in recent profit warning
  • Standard Life drops as much as 3.7% after being downgraded to neutral at UBS following what the broker says has been a “justified” period of outperformance versus UK life peers and the wider European insurance sector

Asian stocks rose, poised for their longest daily winning streak since January, as MediaTek climbed on a new investment deal with Nvidia. The MSCI Asia Pacific Index advanced as much as 0.6% before paring more than half of its gains. It’s still on track to rise for a sixth straight day. MediaTek shares jumped by about 10% after Nvidia announced a $3.5 billion investment in the Taiwanese chip designer. TSMC, SK Hynix and Toyota also helped boost the regional gauge. Taiwan’s Taiex climbed 1.8%. Japan’s Topix also rose, along with key indexes in the Philippines and Indonesia. Stocks slumped across rest of the region with global bond yields climbing back to the highest level in almost two decades on inflation concerns and bets on Federal Reserve rate hikes. Renewed fighting in the Middle East has driven oil prices higher again and weighed on sentiment. Traders have boosted the odds of a September Fed rate hike to 66% from just 34% after Fed Chair Kevin Warsh spoke about reining in inflation on Friday, according to data compiled by Bloomberg based on swaps. Japan’s Finance Minister Satsuki Katayama played down reports of Bessent’s pressure on the BOJ.

In FX, the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index is up 0.1% with the greenback firmer versus almost all G10 peers.

In rates, the US 10-year yield is at its highest level since January 2025, with borrowing costs up across the curve, as treasuries hold curve-steepening losses in early US session — with 5- and 10-year yields reaching YTD highs — as oil prices add to Monday’s increases on growing concern about supply disruptions in the Strait of Hormuz. US yields are 1bp-3bp cheaper across tenors with 2s10s curve steeper by about 1.6bp, 5s30s by less than a basis point; 5-year topped 4.53%, 10-year 4.79%, highest levels since January 2025. IG dollar issuance slate already includes several deals following several moribund sessions at the end of August, including Monday’s single offering. Dealers expected about $10 billion this week and around $215 billion for September.  The selling pressure in Europe has been pronounced with the German 10-year yield at its highest level since 2011 on a day where Eurozone inflation printed its highest reading in almost three years. The UK equivalent yield is at levels not seen since 2008. Bunds have similar losses while gilts, reopening after Monday’s UK holiday, tumble as traders price in two 25bp hikes by the Bank of England by February.  Focal points of US session include ISM manufacturing and JOLTS job openings reports and potential for a heavy slate of new corporate bonds.

In commodities, Brent is up 2% following a report that two oil supertankers hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz. This has sapped enthusiasm for risk assets with US futures lower across the board. WTI crude oil futures are up about 2.5% near session highs as hostilities resume between the US and Iran. Gold is down 1.5% and hovering just above its 100DMA. Bitcoin is down 1.2%.

Today's economic data calendar includes August final S&P Global US manufacturing PMI (9:45am), August ISM manufacturing and July construction spending and JOLTS job openings (10am) and August Dallas Fed services activity (10:30am). The Fed speaker slate includes Governor Barr on economic outlook and financial inclusion at 9:05am. 

Market Snapshot

Top Overnight News

  • Global bond yields surged Tuesday as renewed tension between the U.S. and Iran reinforced inflation expectations, which increased the prospect of interest-rate hikes in the coming months. The 10-year U.S. Treasury yield rose to 4.792%, the highest since January 2025, according to LSEG data. 30-Year Treasuries are on their worst run since 2006. The 10-year Japanese government bond yield crossed 3% to hit a 30-year high. The 10-year German Bund yield reached 3.364%, unseen since 2011. WSJ / BBG
  • Two oil supertankers attempting to exit the Strait of Hormuz were struck late Monday by projectiles in quick succession, maritime security consultant Marisks said, the latest sign of renewed hostilities around the critical waterway.  BBG
  • Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian told the Shanghai Cooperation Organization Summit on Tuesday that Tehran would immediately reciprocate if Washington agreed to return to its commitments under the interim deal signed in June. CNBC
  • Anthropic has signed a cloud-computing deal worth $35 billion with Nvidia backed cloud provider Lambda, with Nvidia itself holding the lease on the data center, according to people familiar with the deal. The data center is being developed by Hut 8, a bitcoin miner and data-center developer, in Nueces County, Texas. Nvidia signed an agreement with Hut 8 a few weeks ago to secure the capacity, the people said.  WSJ
  • China’s factory activity expanded more than forecast in August after three straight months of slowdown, according to a private survey, showing resilience among the country’s export-oriented firms despite a broader slowdown in the economy. The RatingDog China manufacturing purchasing managers index rose to 51.5 from 50.9 in July, according to a statement on Tuesday. It’s been above the 50-threshold separating expansion from contraction for nine months, the longest upswing in five years. BBG
  • South Korea’s exports for Aug came in ahead of expectations at +68.7% (vs. the Street +63%). BBG
  • South Korea’s key policy chief Kim Yong-beom resigned. He had drawn criticism over the rapid introduction of single-stock leveraged ETFs and his proposal for a citizen dividend from the AI boom. BBG
  •  
  • Eurozone CPI was inline w/the Street on the headline at +3.3% (up from +2.9% in Jul), but core ran a bit cooler at +2.4% (vs. the Street +2.5% and down from +2.5% in Jul). BBG
  • Micron's Taiwanese labour unions are reportedly moving toward a possible strike unless the Co. agrees to reform its bonus system.
  • Shipping costs at risk of rising further as the White House escalates its crackdown on immigrant commercial truck drivers Both the Department of Homeland Security and the Transportation Department are demanding licensing data across the U.S. about immigrants driving trucks, in a hunt for what they say is a rash of drivers with improper certifications. WSJ
  • "Diesel remains at the epicenter of the rally, accounting for over 40% of the $40/bbl increase in average global refined product wholesale prices since February...Global exports of refined products declined 6mb/d (25%) year-over-year (yoy), with the Persian Gulf and Russia accounting for 75% of the decline." - Goldman Delta One

Middle East News

  • Two oil supertankers were reportedly hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz, according to Marisks. Bloomberg reported that the VLCC Sidr was hit, and the Senegal Prosperity was also struck, transiting north-east and east of Khasab, Oman, respectively. Earlier, UKMTO noted that it received a report of an incident 17nm east of Khasab, Oman, in which a tanker reported being struck by three unknown projectiles while completing outbound transit of the Strait of Hormuz. UKMTO also received a report of an incident involving a tanker and military forces in the Indian ocean.
  • The Iranian President said that "we will abide by the agreement if America does and that Iran will immediately reciprocate if ⁠the US fulfils its commitments under ‌an interim deal signed in June", Al Jazeera reported citing ISNA.
  • Iran's Foreign Ministry spokesperson Baghaei said Europe cannot claim strategic autonomy while following Washington's orders, stressing that true autonomy means making independent decisions.
  • Pakistan's Deputy PM and Foreign Minister met with Iran's Foreign Minister Araghchi in an informal manner in Bishek at the holding room of the SCO Council of Head of States, according to journalist Anas Mallick.
  • Gulf Corporation Council condemned Iran's attacks on Jordan, saying they pose a direct threat to the security and stability of the region, according to Al Jazeera.
  • Yemeni armed forces targeted early on Tuesday the bases of Saudi and Emirati mercenaries in Al Makha and Al Khuwakh located in the southwest of the country, according to IRIB.
  • Hapag-Lloyd’s (HLAG GY) CEO said it is reasonable to expect the Strait of Hormuz will remain blocked for the foreseeable future.

A more detailed look at global markets courtesy of Newsquawk

APAC stocks traded with a mild negative bias amid higher prices and yields following the recent geopolitical flare-up, although some of the losses were stemmed as participants also digested recent data. ASX 200 was pressured amid underperformance in the consumer, tech and telecom sectors, while Australia's 10yr yield was at its highest since 2011, but with downside in the index stemmed amid strength in the commodity-related industries and after better-than-expected data. Nikkei 225 traded indecisively but was off earlier lows and briefly turned positive as headwinds from higher yields were partially offset by better-than-expected Company Sales and Profits data, while a Ministry of Finance senior official said the BoJ is expected to steer monetary policy aligned with the economy and not influenced by the US, in response to a recent report that US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Japanese officials that rate hikes are needed. KOSPI initially dropped but then gradually returned to flat territory amid light pertinent newsflow and with indecisive performances in the tech heavyweights. Hang Seng and Shanghai Comp were somewhat mixed as the Hong Kong benchmark underperformed amid weakness in some big platform names and property stocks, while sentiment was also not helped by a weak debut for fast fashion retailer Shein. Conversely, the downside in the mainland was cushioned by stronger-than-expected RatingDog Manufacturing PMI data.

Top Asian News

  • US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Japanese officials that rate hikes are needed, according to NHK.
  • A Japanese MoF senior official said they expect the BoJ to steer monetary policy aligned with the economy and not influenced by the US.
  • Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Kihara said he is closely watching market moves and that rising interest rate costs risks fiscal rigidity. Will re-examine the fiscal scale and control the annual issuance of JGBs.
  • Japan's Economy Minister Kiuchi said he aims to appropriately control total bond issuance, adding that he cannot yet provide details on next fiscal year's budget and declines to comment on foreign officials' remarks.
  • Fitch said China’s mortgage easing is unlikely to significantly revive housing demand as high inventories and weak buyer confidence continue to weigh on the property market.
  • China issued new guidelines requiring automakers operating overseas to price vehicles and components lawfully.
  • Chinese Finance Ministry is to set a 20% tax level on foreign individuals' dividend income.

European bourses are underwater on Tuesday (Euro Stoxx 50 -0.9%) as the continued rise in global bond yields weigh on equities. The upside in energy prices isn't helping either, with the latest that two supertankers were hit in the Strait of Hormuz. These confluence of factors (rising yields and energy prices) have constantly been seen throughout the Iran war, which has resulted in European underperformance. Sectors have a negative bias. Energy, unsurprisingly, tops the sector pile. Optimised Personal Care and Chemicals round out the sector leaders. To the downside is Travel & Leisure, with Financial Services and Basic Resources completing the sector laggards.

Top European News

  • UK PM Burnham will signal fresh measures to help voters with the cost of living on Tuesday, while decisions on welfare are likely to be delayed into next year, according to FT.

FX

  • Yields driving action across FX today with all major currencies weaker against the Buck (DXY +0.2%). Recent updates sparked a typical geopolitical risk-off reaction with DXY reaching a new 99.63 peak and looking to return to that 99.70 peak seen after Warsh on Friday. The driver was reports via Maritime Risk firm Marisks, which said two oil supertankers were hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz. Despite the number of bullish USD factors today, downside risks could emerge again via renewed USD debasement fears, Treasury action to curtail yields, or a soft Payrolls print this Friday.
  • Continued upside in energy benchmarks (TTF Oct’26 at EUR 71/MWh) continue to weigh on European currencies with all CEE, Euro and Sterling weaker against the Buck. No EUR move to this morning’s Final EZ Manufacturing PMIs, which saw the EZ majors confirmed in expansion while headline inflation ticked higher to 3.3% as expected. EUR/USD looking to return to the 1.1577 trough which it printed post-Warsh; should this breach, the 100DMA @1.1570 could be tested. For CEE, ING writes this morning that recent hawkish repricing should limit further weakening vs. EUR.
  • Cable stopped just short of 1.3530, a zone which has proven support since mid-Aug; the pair also falling through the 21DMA for the third session in a row. All other significant DMAs are below, around the 1.3450 zone.UK yields are in focus with the 10yr at highs of 5.23%, well above the OBR’s March assumption of 4.5%. A former Treasury official notes that these moves, if applied across the curve, are a GBP 6bln increase in debt interest by 2029/30. Parliament is back from recess today with the PM’s Spokesperson scheduled at noon and Burnham himself after 15:30 BST, though no major policy announcements are expected.

Fixed Income

  • Global fixed benchmarks are in the red this morning, continuing the action seen on Monday. Overnight, JGBs were hit amidst higher energy prices, ongoing fiscal concerns and after Treasury Sec Bessent directly urged the BoJ to hike in September. Despite all this, the 10yr auction was well received, with a 3% yield seemingly enough to feed investor appetite, at least for now.
  • USTs (-5 ticks) are off by a handful of ticks, Bunds (-46 ticks) follow suit whilst Gilts (-105 ticks) are the clear underperformer on its return from holiday – in catchup trade to peers. In the European morning, the move lower has extended, with energy prices taking another leg higher on reports that two oil supertankers were hit by projectiles.
  • As mentioned above, global yields have soared to multi-year highs amid higher oil prices, and hawkish Fed repricing. This has spurred somewhat of a negative feedback loop, with higher yields only exacerbating fiscal/debt concerns. The US10yr resides beyond the 4.75% mark (highest since Jan’25), whilst the GE10yr (3.36%) holds at multi-decade highs.
  • Aside from energy-dynamics, Bunds have had domestic data to digest. In the morning, German Retail Sales fell more than expected – though spurred little reaction at the time. Thereafter, the EZ-wide Manufacturing PMI saw an incremental revision lower. The report suggested that “a further softening of producer price increases, even in the midst of sustained oil market volatility, helps to alleviate broader inflation worries. That said, the pace of disinflation is starting to level off”. The inflation picture continues to support an ECB rate hike in September, with headline inflation ticking higher to 3.3% Y/Y from 2.9%.
  • In the UK, Gilts are the clear underperformer this morning; the UK10yr (5.25%) has reached levels not seen since the GFC. This would be a significant worry heading into the Autumn Budget, which local press is beginning to increase its coverage on. An ex-Treasury official suggested that the 20yr Gilt is 70bps above what is assumed at the Spring Forecast. They noted that if this increase was applied across the curve, it would result in a GBP 6bln debt increase by 2029/30. Therefore, it is clear that PM Burnham and his Chancellor Healey will require a significant decline in yields soon, to allow them to implement some of their key commitments; energy relief, cost of living measures and transport caps. To remind, the Autumn budget will be delivered on 28 October 2026.
  • Germany sells EUR 4.281bln vs exp. EUR 5.5bln 2.90% 2031 Bobl: b/c 1.56x (prev. 1.48x), average yield 3.09% (prev. 2.89%), retention 22.16% (prev. 24.1%).
  • Japan sells JPY 1.99tln 10yr JGBs, b/c 3.29x (prev. 2.56x), average yield 2.995% (prev. 2.840%), Tail in price 0.12 vs prev. 0.46.
  • Australia sells AUD 300mln in 4.75% June 2054 bonds: avg. yield 5.6657%, b/c 3.68x.

Commodities

  • Crude futures remain underpinned after yesterday’s gains on the weekend US-Iran flare-up. Price action this morning has been supported by further shipping-related developments. Yesterday, the UKMTO reported an incident involving a tanker and military forces in the Indian Ocean off Oman, while this morning reports citing Marisks suggested that two oil supertankers had been hit by projectiles in the Strait of Hormuz, although details remain limited. On the diplomatic front, some downside in oil was seen earlier after the Iranian President struck a less escalatory tone and suggested that “Iran will immediately reciprocate if the US fulfils its commitments under an interim deal signed in June”.
  • WTI Oct and Brent Nov futures have ultimately been on a steady grind higher, barring the aforementioned dip on the Iranian President’s comments. WTI resides towards the top of a USD 86.13-88.13/bbl range (vs Monday’s USD 84.11-86.79/bbl band), while Brent sits towards the upper band of USD 90.70-92.55/bbl (vs yesterday’s 89.03-91.52/bbl range).
  • Dutch TTF has also been on an upward trajectory after initially finding resistance just under EUR 71.25/MWh, before encountering support near EUR 69.75/MWh, and then moving back to highs.
  • Precious metals have been hampered as DXY rises with oil prices once again, whilst demand is likely not helped by Bloomberg reports that Indian PM Modi has told Indians to avoid buying gold unless necessary. Spot gold fell under yesterday’s low (USD 4,396/oz) and trades near a current intraday trough at USD 4,370/oz (vs high 4,461/oz), just above its 100 DMA (4,366/oz). Spot silver is back around USD 65/oz after hitting recent highs of USD 71.17/oz two trading sessions ago.
  • Base metals are more mixed as the LME returns from its long weekend and plays catch-up. 3M LME copper has been edging lower to trade towards the bottom end of a USD 14,262.43- 14,450.13/t, with price action in line with global peers as COMEX copper posts intraday losses of some 0.7% at the time of writing.
  • US President Trump said they will fill up the strategic reserve and will want to do it with Venezuelan oil.
  • Venezuelan oil company North American Blue Energy Partners plans to dispatch over 50 drilling rigs in Venezuela in the next few years, according to WSJ.
  • Iraq set the floor prices for crude oil cargoes offered via tender for September loadings outside of Hormuz, according to a pricing document.
  • Indian PM Modi has told Indians to avoid buying gold unless necessary, Bloomberg reported.

Trade/Tariffs

  • US VP Vance said we want to have a positive relationship with China, adding we also recognise that China is a competitor, according to Fox News.
  • Brazilian and US officials spoke virtually to discuss tariffs imposed by ‌the Trump administration and agreed to hold further meetings ‌at a later date, according to Reuters

Central Banks

  • ECB's Kocher said that an ECB hike is needed if upside risks are confirmed in the projection.
  • ECB's Rehn warned that conflict of attrition in Iran could keep inflation high, according to FT.

Geopolitics

  • US Treasury Secretary Bessent told Russia's Finance Minister Siluanov the US will not provide Russia with economic relief until the Ukraine war ends, according to a source familiar with the bilateral meeting.
  • The UK government said Chancellor Healey called on allies to step up their pressure on Russia and set out new action to stop Russian President Putin evading sanctions to fund his illegal war. The Chancellor will double the maximum fine available to the OFSI from 50% to 100% of the value of a sanctions breach.
  • Russian Foreign Ministry said a Black Sea ceasefire would only push prospects for a peaceful settlement further away, IFX reported.
  • Ukraine said Russia struck port infrastructure in the southern Odessa area.
  • Explosions were reportedly heard in Ukraine's capital of Kyiv.
  • Ukraine's Air Force said UAVs were detected heading towards Zaporizhzhia.
  • Poland intercepted a Russian reconnaissance plane over the Baltic Sea.
  • Russia’s Foreign Ministry said Moscow will take countermeasures if US weapons are deployed in Japan, Al Jazeera reported.
  • Iran and Chinese Foreign Ministers reportedly held talks in Kyrgyzstan during the Shanghai Cooperation Organization summit, Al Jazeera reported.

US Event Calendar

 

DB's Jim Reid concludes the overnight wrap

As it's the start of the month, Henry will shortly release our usual review on how markets fared in August. Recent years have often brought a late-summer wobble, but this August was the exception, as robust data took risk assets to new heights. That meant the S&P 500 hit fresh records, but it wasn’t all plain sailing, with longer-dated bond yields reaching multi-year highs. In part, that was thanks to the wider risk-on tone. But inflation concerns also played a role, particularly given the lack of progress on reopening the Strait of Hormuz. And as all that was happening, concerns about financial repression also saw gold prices (+9.67%) bounce back as well. See the full report in your inboxes shortly.

Markets finished August on a softer note with equities and bonds weighed down on Monday by the weekend escalation between the US and Iran, having also lost ground last Friday following a hawkish speech from Fed Chair Warsh at Jackson Hole. This pushed 10yr Treasury yields to their highest since January 2025 at 4.75% by yesterday’s close, and 10yr yields are trading another +3.4bps higher overnight. With a September Fed hike now two-thirds priced, US rates will see their next major test with the US August jobs report on Friday, while this week’s other highlights include the ISM indices (today and Thursday) for the US and today’s August inflation print for the Eurozone.

The bond sell-off has also been a global affair. This morning 10yr JGB yields have touched the 3% level for the first time since 1996 (+5.5bps to 2.99% as I type) while 10yr Aussie bonds are +9.5bps higher at a post-2011 high of 5.18%. Meanwhile, yesterday saw 10yr bund yields rise to their highest since 2011 (+4.6bps to 3.32%) and 10yr OAT yields to their highest since 2008 (+5.0bps to 4.18%).

In terms of the drivers of higher yields, yesterday’s main culprit was the weekend escalation in the Middle East that saw the US and Iran exchange strikes for the first time since late July. The US struck IRGC targets on Larak island in the Strait of Hormuz, with Iran responding with attacks on the UAE and Jordan. Trump said yesterday that the US would respond to Iran’s latest attacks against US facilities in the region, though he also sought to downplay the escalation, saying that strikes against Iran will be limited and that “this is a relatively little war for us”. Meanwhile, Iran’s foreign minister Araghchi said that the US must return to the terms of the June memorandum of understanding if the sides are to “exit this situation”.

With resolution between the US and Iran looking increasingly distant, Brent crude rose +2.71% yesterday to $90.49/bbl. It is trading another +1.09% higher this morning. Meanwhile, European natural gas prices (+4.23%) rose to their highest level since January 2023 at €69.81/MWh, adding to the pressure on EGB yields mentioned above. 

In the US, Monday’s rise in yields came as Treasury Secretary Bessent suggested that “we'll be talking… more in the coming weeks or months” about a fiscal consolidation package, having previously suggested the administration could unveil a new fiscal proposal by this week. Bessent also played down the view that he “was trying to change direction of bonds”. Monday’s +3.1bps rise in 10yr Treasury yields followed a +4.3bps increase on Friday, while 2yr yields (-0.2bps) were stable on Monday after spiking by +11.2bps on Friday following Fed Chair Warsh’s speech at the Jackson Hole symposium. 

Warsh’s Jackson Hole speech marked a notable communication shift, delivering greater specificity in terms of views on the economy and a decidedly hawkish lean. The Fed Chair corrected the arguable July press conference missteps, reaffirming 2% PCE as the target, fed funds as the primary policy tool and the Fed’s ability to act despite ongoing task forces. Notably, his inflation assessment focused on several specific hawkish points, while he also acknowledged that there were “few signs of policy restraint” and concluded by saying that “we have work to do” unless “underlying inflation is moving to our objective, clearly and at sufficient speed”. 

Fed funds futures repriced hawkishly in response to Warsh’s comments, with September Fed hike pricing rising from just 36% last Thursday to 58% on Friday and to 67% this morning, while 60bps of hikes are now priced by next June. Our US economists believe the burden is on incoming data to surprise meaningfully to the downside to avoid a 25bp rate hike in September. In turn, they continue to expect that the Fed will hike 50bps this year, with increases at the September and December meetings. See their Jackson Hole reaction here.

Following on the heels of Warsh’s forceful Jackson Hole speech, the data docket picks up this week with the main event being Friday’s August employment report in the US. Our US economists expect headline payrolls to rebound to +65k after the -23k decline in July, and see the unemployment rate staying at 4.1%, with average hourly earnings rising by +0.4% MoM (+0.1% in July). Other labour market indicators due include today’s July JOLTS report, which should continue to paint the picture of a “low hiring / low firing” environment, and ADP private payrolls tomorrow.

We’ll also get the latest signal on economic activity, with the final August manufacturing PMIs (today) and services PMIs (Thursday), which will be accompanied by the respective ISM readings in the US. Note that the ISM surveys have been pointing to strong economic momentum in the US, with the one notable exception being weakness in the ISM services employment component.

The August PMI data out of Asia this morning showed China’s private manufacturing sector expanding at a faster pace in August, with the Caixin Manufacturing PMI rising to a two-month high of 51.5, up from 50.9 in July (51.0 expected). Stronger output and an increase in new orders pointed to improving demand conditions across the sector. Meanwhile, the S&P Global Australia Manufacturing PMI was unchanged at 52.0. 

Over in Europe, this week’s data highlight comes with today’s Eurozone August HICP print. Based on the country releases so far, which included a +2.9% print for Germany yesterday (vs. +3.1% expected), our European economists see the Eurozone headline HICP print tracking at +3.36% YoY. In other releases, we’ll have Germany’s retail sales (Tuesday) and factory orders (Friday) for July, while on the central bank side we’ll see decisions in Canada and New Zealand (Wednesday). 

Monday’s challenging geopolitical backdrop weighed on equities on both sides of the Atlantic, with the S&P 500 falling -0.33% after a -0.36% decline Friday, while Europe’s Stoxx 600 slumped by -0.62% (after +0.51% Friday). Tech stocks saw a slightly better performance yesterday, with the Nasdaq down -0.12% after -0.52% Friday, which was thanks to a stabilization in the Philly semiconductor index (+0.57%) after its -3.47% slump on Friday. Remaining tech earnings this week include Palo Alto Networks and Dell today, as well as Broadcom and Snowflake tomorrow.

Cautious risk sentiment has largely carried over into Asian markets overnight with major indices posting modest declines. As I check my screens, the Hang Seng (-1.00%) is the biggest underperformer while the KOSPI (-0.08%), Nikkei (-0.26%), the CSI 300 (-0.06%) and the S&P/ASX 200 (-0.32%) are all trading slightly in the red as well. Meanwhile, in the FX space we’ve seen a notable milestone this morning with the Japanese yen trading above 160 against the US dollar for the first time since the end of July, before recovering to 159.86 (-0.08%) as I type.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 08:35

Transcript: David Booth, Dimensional Fund Advisors founder and chairman

The Big Picture -

 

 

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

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

~~~

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

Bloomberg Radio — Transcript

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

~~~

 

 

 

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

Cyber Group Finds Surveillance Backdoors In Routers Sold In US

Zero Hedge -

Cyber Group Finds Surveillance Backdoors In Routers Sold In US

Authored by Arthur Zhang via The Epoch Times,

Cybersecurity researchers have found surveillance backdoors in Chinese carrier routers made by Zbtlink and the same software in a different Zbtlink-made router sold through Amazon.

Ethernet cables are connected to the back of a wireless router. Mandel Ngan/AFP/Getty Images

Chinese law requires telecom and internet companies to provide technical assistance to police and state-security agencies.

In an Aug. 27 report, cybersecurity firm VulnCheck said it found two hidden programs in an $88 router bought through Amazon from a U.S. seller. One, which the researchers named Speakingstone, sends information about the router to a remote server and can receive instructions to redirect internet traffic, obtain login credentials, or take control of the device.

The second, named Darklantern, can allow someone on the internet to take control of an affected router without a password, VulnCheck said.

The researchers then found both programs operating on routers already connected to the internet.

The findings expand VulnCheck's Aug. 5 investigation, which involved a different Zbtlink backdoor, named ENDLESSDOORS, found across more than 20 router models sold worldwide.

The newly discovered backdoors are older. VulnCheck found them in router software dating to 2019, years before ENDLESSDOORS was disclosed.

Speakingstone was not simply dormant code sitting inside old router software. It was still running.

VulnCheck researcher Jacob Baines registered an abandoned internet address that Speakingstone had been programmed to contact. Routers began sending information to it almost immediately, according to VulnCheck.

By Aug. 21, 392 routers had contacted the researchers. Of those, 390 were in China, and 83 percent were connected through China Mobile. Another 304 used Wi-Fi names beginning with "CMCC," China Mobile's commonly used abbreviation. Baines also detailed the figures in an Aug. 27 post on X.

Most - 363 of the 392 routers - were the same model running the same software version.

Baines said the pattern appeared to be a large deployment of routers provided by a telecommunications carrier to customers inside China. VulnCheck described it as "domestic Chinese surveillance technology."

The 392 routers may represent only part of the deployment. VulnCheck counted devices trying to reach the abandoned backup address; routers already communicating with the main server would not have appeared in that count, Baines explained.

Backdoor Could Redirect Traffic, Steal Credentials

Speakingstone gave whoever controlled its remote server broad access to an affected router.

VulnCheck said an operator could collect information about the device, obtain the credentials it used to connect to the internet, redirect internet traffic, and take control of the router. Its security advisory also says the software can open another path for remote access.

Baines described Speakingstone in his Aug. 27 post as software that "phones home to ZBT infrastructure and supports remote surveillance." ZBT refers to Shenzhen Zhibotong Electronics, the Chinese networking equipment manufacturer known as Zbtlink.

The software was built into the router rather than installed later by an outside hacker, according to VulnCheck.

Darklantern provided another path into affected devices. VulnCheck said someone who could reach one of the routers over the internet could take control without supplying a valid password, according to its advisory.

Jeremiah Ford, a senior cloud support engineer with 25 years of experience in information technology, said the most serious issue was that the routers exposed administrator-level access directly to the public internet.

"This is the biggest problem," Ford said.

He said full control of a router could also give an attacker access to other devices on the same network.

Ford called the scale of the exposure significant, pointing to VulnCheck's finding that every detected Darklantern device offered administrator-level access without authentication.

"This is huge," he said. "And based on the numbers of devices affected by this, the scale could have been huge, if it went undetected."

The U.S. exposure extended beyond the single router the researchers bought on Amazon.

VulnCheck found 203 routers running Darklantern that were directly reachable from the internet across 22 countries. More than half - 103 - were in the United States. The devices identified themselves as 16 different ZBT router models.

Zbtlink Sold Under Other Brands

The same Speakingstone software found on the China Mobile-linked routers was present in the Deep Orange router VulnCheck bought through Amazon in the United States.

The researchers traced the device to Zbtlink. That device also contained Darklantern.

Zbtlink manufactures equipment that other companies can sell under different names, meaning buyers may not see the Zbtlink name on the product.

VulnCheck traced Zbtlink hardware to brands and products sold in multiple countries, including the United States, but cautioned that not every product using Zbtlink hardware necessarily contains the backdoors.

The discovery comes in a country where telecom and internet companies are legally required to assist police and state-security agencies.

China's Cybersecurity Law requires network operators to provide technical support and assistance for national-security work and criminal investigations.

Article 18 of China's Counter-Terrorism Law requires telecommunications and internet providers to give public-security and state-security agencies technical interfaces, decryption, and other technical assistance for terrorism investigations.

Accounts of police access to telecommunications systems date back decades.

Minghui, a U.S.-based website that documents the persecution of Falun Gong practitioners and publishes first-hand accounts from China, has documented cases in which practitioners were detained after authorities monitored their telephone or internet communications.

In a 2006 article, Minghui described special police-monitoring interfaces connecting Chinese telecommunications equipment with public-security systems. The account said police could use the systems to trace calls and identify people contacted by someone under surveillance.

The article concerned an earlier generation of telecommunications equipment, two decades before the newly reported Zbtlink backdoors.

US Takes Action

The findings were issued months after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) moved to restrict approval of new foreign-made consumer routers over national security concerns.

On March 23, the FCC added foreign-produced consumer-grade routers to its Covered List following a national security determination by executive branch agencies. The action prevents approval of new covered router models unless an exemption applies; equipment already authorized can remain on the market.

The FCC said malicious actors had exploited weaknesses in foreign-made routers to attack U.S. households, enable espionage, and disrupt networks. It also said foreign-made routers were involved in the Volt Typhoon, Flax Typhoon, and Salt Typhoon cyber campaigns targeting U.S. infrastructure.

As of Aug. 28, VulnCheck's advisories did not list patched software versions for Speakingstone or Darklantern, leaving owners of affected routers without a published fix.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 08:05

What Happens When A Metal The West Can't Live Without Runs Short

Zero Hedge -

What Happens When A Metal The West Can't Live Without Runs Short

At the end of last week, the Trump administration's halt to tungsten scrap exports took effect, as the U.S. and its allies confront a deepening supply crisis and race to find new supplies. 

China's export restrictions are accelerating the West's campaign to secure ex-China supplies, reinforcing our U.S.-China decoupling theme and placing a major spotlight on the largest Western tungsten miner: Almonty Industries.

The miner operates in Portugal and is ramping up its prized Sangdong Mine in South Korea, which is expected to account for roughly 40% of Western tungsten production once it reaches full capacity.

To understand the global tungsten crisis, readers must first remember the metal's critical importance to the modern economy.

Tungsten is essential to defense systems, industrial tooling, semiconductors, automobiles, energy infrastructure, electronics, artificial intelligence, and the power-grid buildout. Put simply, it is one of the building blocks of the industrial economy, yet its supply chain remains fractured and heavily exposed to China.

Almonty CEO Lewis Black's latest snapshot of the global tungsten market, the severity of the supply crisis, and the West's race to secure ex-China supplies deserves close attention. 

Almonty is emerging as the leading pure-play Western tungsten miner and a critical supplier capable of helping break Beijing's grip on the market

Here is CEO Black's assessment: 

Everyone keeps asking me when the tungsten price falls back. I understand the instinct, but it's a distraction from the thing that matters: what happens when a metal you can't do without becomes hard to buy. The last two weeks gave a few answers to that.

As of last week, no American can export tungsten scrap without a license. All of it – 100 percent – stays home, at least for the next year.

The plants that turn that scrap into something useful are already sitting in the United States, most of them European or Japanese owned. We collect it here, process it here, and the midstream product goes on to Europe. That cycle carries on exactly as before, and the country is in no danger of drowning in a pile of metal it can't handle.

So why the rule, with all its talk of national defense? Because a handful of American operators had found a tidier deal: sell the scrap straight to China at a premium – the very country the rule is built to shut out. That's the door Washington just shut. Who said patriotism was dead?

Those businesses know who they are. And so do we.

Tungsten markets

Michael Dornhofer, ISBP – assessment as of 28 August, 2026

For the situation on the tungsten market, a Chinese associate, with whom I spoke this week, found the right words, "off-season sleep". So, prices in China and in the west are stable. APT CIF Rotterdam/Baltimore is still around 3000 USD/mtu WO3 for APT; concentrate prices are between 2400 and 2600. Anyhow, while some downstream customers hope (or should I say dream) that prices might drop soon, other stakeholders see a persisting supply problem in all western countries.

Why can one see the situation so differently? It is a fact that tungsten prices in China are now significantly below western prices, and it is widely understood that China had set the world market price for several decades. What's different now is that since February 2025, for each individual export of intermediates, the Chinese Ministry of Commerce has to grant an export license. And as they are very restrictive (only 28 t APT could be exported in first half 2026!) there is now a firewall between Chinese domestic market and rest of the world.

Everyone understands that, as China stood for 80 per cent of the tungsten world market, without APT/Oxide from China, there is a shortage on tungsten raw material in the west. And if there is not enough tungsten raw material, coming from new sources, there is no logic argument that prices should drop significantly.

Of course, after the tungsten price went up eightfold in just over one year, there can always be a technical correction, but in principle, prices cannot go back, even close to levels, seen previously.

Michael Dornhofer is founder of ISBP (Independent Supply Business Partner) in Graz, Austria. He has spent more than 20 years in tungsten, including 13 years at Wolfram Bergbau und Hütten, Sandvik's tungsten business, and has worked as an independent agent and consultant to the tungsten and hard metal industry since 2019.

The buyback, and the thinking behind it

Last week the board approved buying back up to $300m of our own shares – about five percent of the company – over three years.

It comes out of Sangdong's earnings, spread across those three years, so the balance sheet stays intact. The convertible we priced in June dilutes existing shareholders by a little over 7 percent if it converts. Buy back 5 percent, and most of that dilution goes away. We priced the convert with the stock around $21, so anywhere below that, buying our own stock is the smartest money we can spend.

Yes, it can look like money in one door and out the other. But it comes in from the mine and goes back to the people who own the mine. That's where it belongs.

The alternative was buying a boat. An institutional shareholder asked what I'd do with the cash; I admitted I'd been eyeing up a superyacht. He asked if he could use it. Two weeks a year, I said. He wanted to know whether the SEC would allow it. Nobody's tested that, as far as I know – but the upkeep would have ruined me anyway. So my dream of a floating company vehicle will have to wait. (Edit from David Hanick – Almonty's in-house counsel: Please note that this is said in jest. Mr Black is most definitely not buying a superyacht.)

Down on volume, up on margin

Panasqueira's output dropped this quarter, and that was the plan. When the tungsten price is this high, we go after the low-grade ore – the material we'd ignore in a normal market because it wouldn't pay. High prices make it pay. So we mine it and bank the margin, and the good grades stay in the ground for another day. Fewer tonnes come out of the mine. More money goes in the till. And because we're taking ore we'd otherwise have left alone, the reserve lasts longer.

That's the difference between an operator and a junior sitting on someone else's money. A junior takes what the market gives it. An operator decides what to mine and when. The number that matters came in at a little over 60 percent – gross margin for the quarter. On a 136-year-old mine, running a fifth of the grade we have waiting in Korea. Show me another mine that does that.

What I'm reading

The auto industry's China crisis

Honda's chief executive Toshihiro Mibe went to China to see how its carmakers build so fast, and left rattled. New models there take under two years – half the time Honda needs. Xiaomi, a phone maker that started building cars two years ago, has swapped the assembly line for robots and single-piece castings and turns out a thousand cars a day. Honda's own sales in China have gone from 1.6mn in 2020 to 640,000. "We have no chance against this," said Mibe. His answer: pull thousands of engineers into a revived R&D arm and hope they can close the gap. Being the giant counts for nothing when someone hungrier builds faster.

For when the screen goes dark

Europe pays for everything by phone now, and yet weirdly the value of banknotes in circulation keeps climbing. Cash is vanishing from the checkout and piling up in drawers and safes instead. When a blackout knocked out power across Spain and Portugal last year and the card terminals died, the only money that still worked was the paper kind. The European Central Bank has drawn the obvious lesson and now treats cash as resilience – the backup for the day the network falls over. Or the zombie apocalypse finally comes.

Buying from yourself

Nvidia is putting up to $105bn behind a new data center for OpenAI – which OpenAI will then fill with Nvidia's own chips. Money goes out as investment and comes back as revenue. The market calls it circular financing, and it's nervous about it. The figure started at a reported $250bn and shrank to $105bn once investors saw the shape of it. Nvidia's boss insists it's nothing of the sort, and that OpenAI will pay its own way. Maybe. But if the customer needs the chipmaker to fund the purchase, you have to ask whether it can stand on its own.

Opinion

Everyone forecasts the West staying short of tungsten for years. On the face of it, that's everything a producer like me could want: high prices, customers with nowhere else to go. For the most part, it is. But it also comes with challenges.

Most shortages destroy demand through price. Something gets too expensive, so people use less or design it out. Tungsten doesn't work that way. You use so little in any finished product, whether a cutting tool, a gearbox or a semiconductor, that the price could double and nobody would stop building the thing.

What kills tungsten demand is absence. When a manufacturer can't get the material at all, the line stops and the product goes unbuilt, and a shuttered plant rarely reopens. And you can't engineer around it: in the work tungsten does, nothing else has the hardness or takes the heat. So a shortage suits me right until it starts shutting Western factories for want of material. I'm better off with more tungsten reaching those factories, not less – even if it comes from my rivals. A starved supply chain loses the demand I depend on.

In the media

Hot again, apparently. The Wall Street Journal ran the numbers this week under the headline "Tungsten Stocks Are Hot (Again)," with us on track for our best month in over a year. What I liked was the "again" – the paper remembers when tungsten was a curiosity, a metal people bought in little cubes for the novelty of the weight.

The retail crowd is paying attention too. Michael Sikand – an investor with a good nose for these things – put out a long interview the two of us did. His three-line version for his audience: no AI chips and no missiles without tungsten, the price up roughly sevenfold since China pulled back, and Sangdong capable of around 40 percent of the world's non-China supply. Not a bad summary of a story that took me a decade to build.

A defense take on the shortage. National Security News set out why Western militaries are exposed on tungsten: 30 years with barely any US production, and a Pentagon rule that from January turns away Chinese-origin metal. They quoted me saying what I've said for years – America walked away from tungsten and left China to it.

A television crew went down Sangdong. Korean broadcast news took its cameras underground – blasting in the dark, tungsten glowing blue under UV light, 4.7 kilometers of tunnels – and came up with the same conclusion we keep making: a mine the West wrote off 30 years ago is now one of the few places outside China that can actually supply the metal, with most of its output already spoken for by the United States.

Watch Here: Sangdong At Center Of Western Race To Secure Tungsten

. . .

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 07:45

10 Tuesday AM Reads

The Big Picture -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source: San Francisco Chronicle

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

 

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

Trump's Venezuela Energy Gambit A 'Major Problem' For Europe

Zero Hedge -

Trump's Venezuela Energy Gambit A 'Major Problem' For Europe

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

In the end, it happened as it had to: The United States will likely play a decisive role in the future development and marketing of Venezuela’s oil and gas reserves.

On Friday, U.S. President Donald Trump announced a corresponding deal on his Truth Social platform, describing it himself as "THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY." According to the U.S. president, the United States secured “majority U.S. control” over more than 65 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in Venezuela, spread across 17 oil fields – and, as Trump emphasized, “at no cost to the American taxpayer.”

Venezuela has the world’s largest oil reserves. The overwhelming majority, however, consists of extra-heavy and heavy crude, which must be diluted and processed through an elaborate procedure. Particularly in Texas, there is refinery capacity specifically designed for this type of processing – a circumstance that further reinforces America’s role as the world’s largest oil producer. Around 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves are located in Venezuelan territory, making the country the largest member of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, OPEC, in terms of reserves.

OPEC is entering one of its most severe phases of erosion as a result of the agreement with the United States: In April, the United Arab Emirates had already announced its withdrawal from the cartel, effective May 1 – now Venezuela, a second founding member dating back to 1960, threatens to undermine the cartel’s common production logic. The agreement was negotiated with the Washington-backed transitional government under President Delcy Rodríguez in Caracas. Rodríguez, a former vice president of the country, is serving as interim president after Nicolás Maduro was arrested by U.S. special forces in January 2026 and taken to the United States, where he has been held ever since on drug-related charges.

What could the deal look like in practice? Little is known, but it can be assumed that the United States will establish a special-purpose company with participation from major oil producers such as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips or Chevron, the only U.S. company with an operational presence in the country. The agreement still rests on shaky constitutional ground, however, since the Venezuelan constitution requires state control over the core activities of the oil industry. Will Caracas therefore first have to reform its laws?

Economically, the project sounds interesting. According to Rodríguez, the agreement is expected to initiate around $100 billion in investment in Venezuela’s oil sector. Caracas will also benefit: Over the 25-year term of the agreement, the country expects at least $209 billion in tax revenues – a gigantic leap forward, considering that the socialists under Maduro had also run this crucial economic sector into the ground, turning it into a self-service machine of corruption and cronyism.

The decision was announced just weeks before Chinese President Xi Jinping’s state visit, which is expected to take place in Washington on September 24. Xi therefore faces a fait accompli: The two important sources of oil for China – Venezuela and now Iran as well – appear to be blocked and are coming under U.S. political control. Donald Trump is thus creating facts in the rivalry between the two superpowers – control over oil is a bargaining chip, measured in millions of barrels of daily oil production.

With regard to the conflict with China and the increasingly difficult relationship with the EU, Trump’s geopolitics follows the logic of the sledgehammer: America First, debates are unwelcome. One can criticize this strategy; one may even have to. However, in order to obtain a complete picture, one should view the events from the American perspective: Until the energy-policy shift, the deregulation of fossil fuels and the unleashing of the fossil resources available in the United States, EU climate policy dominated in Washington. Above all, it was Barack Obama who, in 2009, submitted to the CO₂ diktat of ideological desk-bound technocrats from Davos, Brussels and Berlin. Since Trump’s return to the White House, the motto has been: Drill, Baby, Drill – now also by means of a state agreement covering Venezuela’s oil and gas fields.

The United States divides the world into Manichean categories – those who stand by its side are good, whether in the conflict with Iran, in gaining access to Greenland’s rare earths, or in removing the dictator Maduro in Venezuela. Those who refuse to submit are bad. The European Union undoubtedly belongs to the latter category and is increasingly perceived in Washington as an enemy.

For the EU, which is heavily dependent on energy imports, Trump’s aggressive energy policy could become a major problem.

Having fallen out with Russia and virtually powerless in the face of the crisis in the Strait of Hormuz, Europe is dependent on American liquefied natural gas supplies. This is precisely why the question must be asked: What prevents Europeans from activating their own energy reserves? A rhetorical question: Brussels and Berlin have become trapped in ideological delusion and in the hope that the specter in the White House will be gone again in two and a half years and that they can return to business as usual. In this case, “business as usual” means that the United States will once again submit to European climate rules as it did before.

But that is still a long way off.

And the role of the eternal childish antagonist does not suit the Germans particularly well. Destructive climate and energy policy, whose provisional climax will be the flooding of the coal mines of the Ruhr region, appears childish in an international context – economically, it is simply a catastrophe. All of this weighs heavily – it burdens the country’s political culture, it tears its economy apart and exposes the ever-deeper divide between citizens and politics. In retrospect, it proves tragic that the country’s decisive affairs of state, its energy policy and the economy in general were placed in the hands of left-green degrowth fanatics and socialists.

It is hardly surprising that the path to the future technology of nuclear power appears blocked, and that no one dares to pursue fracking or the development of Germany’s own gas fields in the North and Baltic Seas. The country is intellectually and ideologically paralyzed and is now paying the economic price for its pre-Enlightenment ideology.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 06:30

Restaurants Face GLP-1 Squeeze As Adopt-Or-Die Inflection Arrives

Zero Hedge -

Restaurants Face GLP-1 Squeeze As Adopt-Or-Die Inflection Arrives

Bernstein's latest GLP-1 tracker has Eli Lilly's Mounjaro leading script growth, with downstream effects compounding pressure on the restaurant industry already facing weakening consumer confidence, as gas prices nationwide remain above a politically sensitive $4 a gallon in late summer.

Turning to UBS's latest note on the restaurant industry, Dennis Geiger, who covers U.S. restaurants and consumer discretionary names, wrote in a note on Sunday that restaurant investors are struggling to identify opportunities across the space amid sharp share-price volatility, weakening consumer confidence, growing uncertainty over the second-half outlook, and increasing GLP-1 adoption

He points to a widening divide across the industry:

  • Fast casual: Cava and Chipotle remain preferred, while Wingstop is attracting interest after its selloff. Investors see the NFL season, easier comparisons, and new value promotions as potential catalysts for Wingstop.
  • Casual dining: Brinker International and Cheesecake Factory remain favored because of resilient sales momentum. Sentiment toward Darden is more cautious amid signs of slowing Olive Garden same-store sales.
  • Quick service: McDonald's faces the most negative sentiment among large global chains as weak U.S. trends collide with difficult comparisons. Domino's is attracting more interest because of its depressed valuation and expectations for improving sales.

Geiger's note touched on not just an increasingly bifurcated U.S. consumer environment and dismal University of Michigan consumer sentiment, but also pointed out that quick-service chains face a particularly difficult combination of sluggish traffic, persistent inflation, and GLP-1 adoption.

Geiger cited a new survey from the National Restaurant Association that showed GLP-1 impacts: users are ordering smaller portions and fewer indulgent items after starting the wonder anti-fat drug, with Gen X cutting desserts and portion size most aggressively and Gen Z more likely to swap entrees for appetizers, add fiber, and drink less alcohol. The result is pressure on check averages and mix, especially desserts, sugary drinks, alcohol, and oversized entrees, rather than an immediate collapse in visits.

He expanded: 

While GLP-1 users are less frequently going out to eat at restaurants, ordering takeout and using delivery, users are purchasing a meal / snack / beverage from a restaurant / coffee shop / snack place more often than non GLP-1 users, according to a recent webinar from the National Restaurant Association (NRA). GLP-1 users skew toward a higher-income cohort that is likely to eat out more frequently, but as GLP-1s become more accessible (w/ lower prices and oral forms), adoption across income cohorts should be more balanced. We note the NRA also indicated: a high percentage of GLP-1 users agree that healthy menu items are available at restaurants; GLP-1 users enjoy going out to restaurants; and users indicate going out to eat is a way to socialize, suggesting changing eating habits do not greatly affect affinity for dining out. Additionally, a high percentage of users indicate better communication of healthy options and portion size options is preferred at restaurants. The NRA highlights 1) value is not just the amount of food for a low price, but can include high protein, other nutrients, or health benefits for a low price, 2) growth in snacking and smaller portions among GLP-1 users, 3) lower ticket averages for users offset by increased visit frequency, add-on, and upcharges, and 4) beverage consumption away from alcohol, towards non- alcoholic options. The NRA also called out select brands with menu changes that have responded to GLP-1 preferences, including Chipotle, Olive Garden, and Shake Shack.

Figure 1: After starting GLP-1 drugs, users increasingly order smaller portions and less indulgent items.

The second chart shows why consumers are pulling back on alcohol at restaurants, citing mostly personal preferences and health concerns.

Figure 2: Reduction in alcohol consumption is driven by personal preferences and health reasons.

Traders are still searching for winners inside an increasingly pressured restaurant complex as several headwinds hit at once: weakening confidence, $4 gasoline, a bifurcated consumer, and rising GLP-1 adoption.

No Direction in S&P500 1500 Restaurant Index 

UBS's Geiger and the NRA survey only suggest that consumers are trading down, ordering smaller portions, skipping desserts and sugary items, and drinking less alcohol - more selective, not necessarily boycotting visits. This is a lower-ticket issue that restaurants must adapt to.

Professional subscribers can read the full note here at our new Marketdesk.ai portal

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 05:45

Lavrov Says NATO Military Activity In Arctic Threatens Russia's Security

Zero Hedge -

Lavrov Says NATO Military Activity In Arctic Threatens Russia's Security

Authored by Chris Summers via The Epoch Times,

NATO military activity in the Arctic poses a direct threat to Russia's security and could lead to disastrous consequences, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov wrote in an article published by the Russian Foreign Ministry on Monday.

A Russian soldier stands guard beside a Pansyr-S1 air defense system on Kotelny Island, part of the New Siberian Islands archipelago located between the Laptev Sea and the East Siberian Sea, in Russia on April 3, 2019. Vladimir Isachenkov/AP

In February, NATO conducted Arctic Sentry, a large-scale military exercise in the Arctic and High North regions, amid concerns over the threat posed by both Russia and China. Russia, which has a naval fleet in the Arctic that includes nuclear-armed submarines dating back to the Soviet era, has long viewed the region as its sphere of interest.

"Intensive military preparations are underway in close proximity to our northern borders," Lavrov said. "NATO is conducting large-scale military exercises involving non-regional countries and introducing new components of its command-and-control system."

He said such activity increases the "risk of incidents that could trigger an armed confrontation with potentially disastrous consequences."

NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte said in February that Arctic Sentry was launched as a result of "Russia's increased military activity, and China's growing interest in the High North."

Lavrov said the West was also attempting to undermine Russia's international cooperation in the Arctic with countries from the "Global Majority," a term the Kremlin often uses to describe African and Asian countries.

Last month, at the NATO summit in Turkey, U.S. President Donald Trump again pressed for the United States to take control of Greenland, which he said has become a national security concern because of increasing Russian and Chinese influence in the Arctic.

'Landmark' Shipping Voyage

Moscow is keen on developing the Northern Sea Route, an Arctic shipping corridor that creates a shortcut between Europe and Northeast Asian markets, including China, South Korea and Japan. It could cut the time for a container ship by 10 days compared with the regular route via the Indian Ocean and the Suez Canal, according to the Korea Institute for International Economic Policy.

In his article, Lavrov said a "landmark event" in Arctic shipping occurred on Aug. 19.

"For the first time, a container ship from China arrived at the port of Murmansk via the Northern Sea Route, a vital part of the Trans-Arctic Transport Corridor," he said.

The Barents Observer reported that the vessel was the Xin Xin Hai-1, a cargo ship that sails under a Hong Kong flag.

Lavrov said the Arctic contributed at least 10 percent of Russia's GDP and was home to more than 2.5 million Russian citizens.

China's Foreign Affairs Minister Wang Yi (L) and Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov (R) exchange documents during a signing ceremony following talks in Moscow on May 8, 2025. Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images

He said Moscow was ready to cooperate with other nations over the development of the region.

"There are prospects for interaction in the Far North with Brazil, Indonesia, Iran and other BRICS countries," Lavrov said, referring to an economic bloc which also includes India, Egypt, and Ethiopia.

"The vast resource, transport, and logistics potential of the Far North, its unique natural and climatic features, long-standing traditions of regional cooperation, and the rich cultural heritage of its indigenous peoples offer broad opportunities for advantageous partnership."

Russia's neighbor Norway said on Aug. 20 that it had expanded its Arctic brigade with an artillery battalion, an anti-aircraft battery, and a joint company.

"Russia's illegal war of aggression against Ukraine and the worsening security situation underline the need to build up the Finnmark Brigade as quickly as possible," the Norwegian Armed Forces stated.

Norway will also ignore the European Union's demands for a moratorium on hydrocarbon exploration in the Arctic Circle and continue drilling for oil and gas in the Barents Sea, the country's energy minister said last week.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 has led to increased fear among NATO member countries in Scandinavia, the Baltic, and eastern Europe that Russia poses a renewed threat, and there has been an uptick in defense spending as a result.

Moscow has previously dismissed allegations that it poses a ​threat to NATO.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 05:00

Merz Warns Right-Wing Victory Will Hurt Germany, But Nomura Says Investors Aren't Buying It

Zero Hedge -

Merz Warns Right-Wing Victory Will Hurt Germany, But Nomura Says Investors Aren't Buying It

German Chancellor Friedrich Merz spent Sunday fearmongering on public broadcaster ARD, warning that a potential victory for Alternative for Germany in next Sunday's Saxony-Anhalt election could inflict economic damage on the region.

Merz's assessment conflicts with Nomura's political analysis, which suggests investors no longer reflexively fear right-wing victories. Instead, markets are increasingly focused on the economic consequences of left-wing policies, particularly deindustrialization, elevated energy costs, and uncontrolled mass migration, all of which have been nothing short of nation-killing.

"If things turn out the way the polls suggest, this federal state will face significant problems," Merz told broadcaster ARD. He questioned whether international companies would invest or build factories in a state governed by an AfD premier.

Polls show the AfD attracting more than 40% support, potentially double the roughly 20% backing for Merz's Christian Democratic Union. The center-right party has governed Saxony-Anhalt for more than two decades.

"The state will suffer considerable damage if the scenario we currently fear comes to pass," Merz said during the interview.

An AfD victory this coming weekend could produce Germany's first state government led by the right-wing party.

Merz's fearmongering comes as his approval ratings are the lowest recorded for any postwar German chancellor. Economic troubles have rocked Europe's largest economy, while voters have grown increasingly frustrated with Berlin.

Andrzej Szczepaniak, a senior European economist and executive director at Nomura, wrote last week about "the seeds of political change" and noted that "politics in Europe is lurching towards more populism."

Szczepaniak said, "Five years ago, financial markets would not have seemed so at ease with such a prospect. But then again, these populist right-wing political parties were previously not as fiscally prudent as they are perceived to be today. Indeed, Italy's Giorgia Meloni is the standard-bearer for financial markets of how a populist right-wing political party can govern: fiscally prudent enough to show investors that the party can govern responsibly while focusing heavily on social issues, including immigration and culture wars, to keep grassroots supporters happy."

He added, "Financial markets are much more concerned about populist left-wing parties being elected due to their desire to increase spending, often paid for through higher borrowing or higher taxes, which are likely to shut the engine off of already stuttering economies."

Polymarket:

Looking ahead, Szczepaniak noted that right-wing parties are positioned to make significant gains across Germany, France, Spain, Switzerland, and the UK over the next 18 months.

Read the report.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 04:15

Former US Intel Officials: Dangerous Talk Of Putin's 'Loss' In Ukraine

Zero Hedge -

Former US Intel Officials: Dangerous Talk Of Putin's 'Loss' In Ukraine

Authored by Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Dangerous Talk of Putin’s ‘Loss’ in Ukraine

VIPS tells President Trump that once apprised of the reality on the ground (and in the air) by his intelligence advisors, he might choose to do what is in his power to end the disaster in Ukraine.

Dear President Trump:

The New York Times is reporting that the outlook for Russia in Ukraine is “bleak.” C.I.A. Director John Ratcliffe is said to have explained that to the Russians while in Moscow Tuesday. He reportedly urged them “to cut a deal before their military and economic situation gets worse.”

We write you on the chance you may be taken in by this latest song and dance. We believe it is orchestrated by the same kind of geniuses who told President Joe Biden to announce on July 13, 2023, in a major speech in Helsinki, that the Russians had “already lost the war” in Ukraine.

We suggest that you “kick the tires,” if they try to sell you that same car. Nothing could be further from the truth. Your predecessor was ill-served by intelligence. We suspect you are getting the same tendentious treatment from your own advisers. Indeed, many of them seem unconscionably relaxed about risking wider war with Russia over Ukraine.

White House image

We offer you, as we offered Biden, the following jogs to memory:

December 3, 2022: “Russia is using up ammunition quite quickly. It’s pretty extraordinary. Our sense is that Russia is not capable of indigenously producing what they are expending at this stage.” (National Intelligence Director Avril Haines)

— March 18, 2022: Russia has lost in Ukraine. The West should recognize this Russian defeat.” (Anatol Lieven, Quincy Institute)

July 1 & July 7, 2023: “Putin’s war has already been a strategic failure for Russia – its military weaknesses laid bare; its economy badly damaged for years to come.” (C.I.A. Director William Burns)

The Church of Latter-Day Pundits

Two NY Times journalists who specialize in intelligence matters report Thursday that this latest version of the Russia-has-already-lost story is “the current C.I.A. director’s assessment.” They warn somewhat quizzically that, despite this, President Putin might ignore it “and choose to keep fighting.” But why would Putin do that?

Indeed, the Gray Lady and her intelligence sources seem quite baffled by why Putin would keep trying when, according to U.S. officials and pundits, he started losing three and a half years ago and continues to lose. Could it possibly be that it was they that were wrong – terribly wrong?

Dismissing that as a possibility, they perform a somersault, straighten up, and chose to blame Putin’s advisers who, the Times says, have not “given Putin honest assessments of the war’s trajectory and toll.”

If Black Humor is at work here, we do not find it funny. The slaughter in Ukraine brings hundreds of victims daily.

Russia is methodically advancing in Donbass along a thousand-mile front, it is weathering drone attacks on its oil and civilian infrastructure with enhanced interception and has enforced a virtual blockade on Ukraine’s largest port, Odessa, with withering aerial attacks. Ukraine’s manpower and interceptor shortages make it impossible for it to ever recover its lost territory, as you acknowledged after your meeting with President Putin in Alaska.

Mr. President, if you were given access to reality-based, honest intelligence, you would be able to decide for yourself whose advisers have gotten it right over these past five years. And, once apprised of the reality on ground (and in the air), you might choose to do what is in your power to end the disaster in Ukraine.

Déjà Vu

This is not the first time we advised a president to seek unbiased advice with a view toward avoiding unnecessary, catastrophic war. We did that just a few hours after Colin Powell’s deceptive presentation to the U.N. Security Council on February 5, 2003.

Today, we strongly suggest that you broaden your circle of advisers, as we urged President George W. Bush to do then, in our first VIPS Memorandum, which ended with this recommendation:

After watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

FOR THE STEERING GROUP, VETERAN INTELLIGENCE PROFESSIONALS FOR SANITY (VIPS)

  • Fulton Armstrong, former National Intelligence Officer (ret.)

  • Marshall Carter-Tripp, Foreign Service Officer (ret.); Division Director, State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research
  • Philip Giraldi, C.I.A., Operations Officer (ret.)

  • Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq and Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan (associate VIPS)

  • Larry C. Johnson, former C.I.A. and State Department Counter Terrorism officer

  • John Kiriakou, former C.I.A. Counterterrorism Officer and former senior investigator, Senate Foreign Relations Committee

  • Karen Kwiatkowski, former Lt. Col., U.S. Air Force (ret.), at Office of Secretary of Defense watching the manufacture of lies on Iraq, 2001-2003

  • Douglas MacGregor, Colonel, USA (ret.) (associate VIPS)
  • Ray McGovern, former U.S. Army infantry/intelligence officer & C.I.A. analyst; C.I.A. Presidential briefer (ret.)

  • Elizabeth Murray, former Deputy National Intelligence Officer/NE, National Intelligence Council & C.I.A. political analyst (ret.)

  • Scott Ritter, former MAJ, USMC; former U.N. Weapons Inspector, Iraq

  • Coleen Rowley, FBI Special Agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel (ret.)

  • Sarah G. Wilton, CDR, USNR, (ret.); Defense Intelligence Agency (ret.)

  • Ann Wright, retired U.S. Army reserve colonel and former U.S. diplomat who resigned in 2003 in opposition to the Iraq War

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 03:30

Le Pen Would Beat Every Rival In 2027, Major French Poll Finds

Zero Hedge -

Le Pen Would Beat Every Rival In 2027, Major French Poll Finds

Marine Le Pen would win France's 2027 presidential election against every major rival now being measured, according to a major survey by Elabe published on August 29 for BFMTV and La Tribune Dimanche.

Marine Le Pen, 2022. Albert Gea / Reuters

France elects its president in two rounds: a crowded first round on April 18 cuts the field to the top two - no one will win outright - and the survivors meet again on May 2. Elabe has Le Pen at 34% to 35.5% in round one depending on who else runs, far clear of the pack, then beating every potential runoff opponent it tested. The new poll comes on the heels of a Nomura report which showed Le Pen with a commanding first-round lead. 

The rest of the field is fighting over second place. Édouard Philippe, the former prime minister and the most plausible face of the post-Macron center, leads that pack at about 17% when he stands alone. Jean-Luc Mélenchon is on 14% to 14.5%, having lost his summer lift. Raphaël Glucksmann, now in the race, is between 11.5% and 14%. Gabriel Attal's presence mainly splits the moderate vote.

According to the poll, here's Le Pen:

  • versus Philippe: 52.5% to 47.5%
  • versus Attal or Glucksmann: 57% to 43%
  • versus Mélenchon: 69.5% to 30.5%

For a generation, French presidential politics assumed a front républicain: a cross-party second-round squeeze that would keep the National Rally out of the Élysée. It elected Chirac 82-18 over her father in 2002 and Macron twice over her; yet the margin has narrowed every time. According to the Elabe poll, that squeeze is no longer automatic. Le Pen is not only first in April. She is ahead in May against every opponent Elabe put up. Even against Philippe, the closest of them, she leads by five points.

Le Pen's popularity has perhaps been boosted by her status as a martyr - created by what some might consider establishment efforts to throw her off track. On July 7 the Paris court of appeal upheld her embezzlement conviction in the European Parliament assistants case. It shortened the ban on holding office enough for her to stand and imposed a year of house arrest with an electronic tag. Her appeal to the Cour de Cassation freezes that sentence while she campaigns. The court has said it aims to rule before the first round. A confirmed tag would not take her off the April ballot. It would frame the May runoff. Le Pen herself has said she could not campaign tagged - though sentence remission could free her by early 2027 either way. Jordan Bardella remains the party's designated stand-in.

At the summer gathering of MEDEF (France's main employers' federation) at Roland-Garros on August 27 she set out a €125 billion savings path and a plan to let long-tenure workers retire at 60 to 62, costed at about €9 billion and described as a "societal choice." French banks are still wary of financing National Rally campaigns. On these numbers, voters are less so.

Bond markets are pricing the wider strain - as French 10-year yields have been near 4.1%, their highest since late 2008. The extra yield over German Bunds is about 80 basis points, the wide end of a 59-to-85 range over the past year. That premium reflects a hung Assembly, a government that has already stumbled on the budget, a 2027 finance bill due in October that may not pass in ordinary form, a deficit still near 5% of GDP, and IMF debt figures already around 118.5% this year and through 120% in 2027

The working rule of French politics was that Le Pen could reach the steps of the Élysée and not the door - but rules were made to be broken

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 02:45

Is Germany Preparing To Unveil A Wealth Tax?

Zero Hedge -

Is Germany Preparing To Unveil A Wealth Tax?

Submitted by Thomas Kolbe

Will 2027 be the year the wealth register is introduced? Labor Minister Bärbel Bas confirmed this week on Bild that her ministry plans a representative survey of citizens next year on their assets and their views on distributive justice. A classic about-face by this government: just three weeks earlier, Bas had categorically ruled out any such plans.

Concretely, a tax-funded data collection effort involving roughly 5,000 citizens is planned. The rollout will run through an external research institute as part of an EU-wide tender, whose bidding deadline closes September 1.

"Survey experiment on wealth inequality in the population" is the innocuous-sounding name for this study — likely nothing more than a first step toward a comprehensive wealth register.

Cloaked in the mantle of scientific inquiry, politics is edging, step by step, toward the sensitive issue that has hung over the political debate for years like a sword of Damocles: the wealth register. This register — one of numerous European Union projects — is ultimately meant to enable seamless, individualized wealth assessments: the perfect tax base for the perfectly transparent citizen.

What's new here isn't really the format: similar wealth surveys have already been conducted every four years by institutes like Berlin's DIW. What's truly new is the explicit political framing and normative interpretation of the results.

Of course wealth distribution in Germany is unequal — a natural outcome of a free-market order, and an integral part of a system rooted in the principle that reward should follow performance.

The survey design and the interpretation of its results dock directly onto this inequality, and are meant to legitimize policy options such as introducing a wealth tax, raising inheritance taxes, or other redistributive measures. At least Berlin still bothers to maintain a veneer of scientific reasoning before executing its brazen raid on the middle class's savings.

That the German government has done more than merely glance at citizens' wealth became apparent, at the latest, this past Monday. The Federal Statistical Office reported a nationwide deficit of €71.3 billion for the first half of the year — an increase of €36.6 billion over the same period last year. The need is dire. The damage that Berlin's and Brussels' ideological policies have inflicted on the economy in recent years threatens to melt down the tax coffers.

Just a week earlier, the ifo Institute had warned of a fiscal tipping point. Economists concluded that tax revenue could actually shrink going forward, putting an end to Berlin's cornucopia politics. As possible countermeasures, Berlin is now clearly planning tax hikes as well as an expansion of the tax base to include citizens' wealth.

The situation is dire: cyclically sensitive taxes such as corporate and trade tax have shown a negative trend for several quarters now, and the wave of insolvencies sweeping the country, the growing number of business closures, and rising unemployment give no indication that this trend will reverse anytime soon.

From the citizen's perspective, the situation looks like this: given the towering fiscal burdens an ever-expanding state apparatus imposes on him, a sovereign risks becoming a tax vassal — if he hasn't already become one.

A state that cannot get its own budget under control tends toward fiscal highway robbery — and will not hesitate to slap heavy levies on the already multiply-taxed wealth of families and businesses.

You know the drill: it's all done in the name of social justice. Reasons can always be found — but under this kind of policy, what erodes is the remaining sovereignty of civil society itself, the very engine of prosperity, social stability, and republicanism.

Friedrich August von Hayek would likely have judged: Germany is on the road to serfdom — and has already traveled a good stretch of it.

And anyone who still believes the reach for wealth, inheritances, and land will stop at the supposedly rich is in for a rude awakening: the truly wealthy escape the fiscal raid precisely because of their high geographic mobility.

No - the state has its sights set on those who cannot get out of its way: the classic middle class, the Mittelstand, those bound to the land, so to speak - to put it in neo-feudal terms.

The opposite of feudal would be an unrestricted right to private property — one that, naturally, also includes wealth accumulation, entirely without political debate. People are not sovereign when the sword of Damocles of arbitrary taxation hangs over them: once the state can seize assets at will, private property becomes borrowed possession — and the citizen becomes a tax serf. This is precisely why envy-fueled debates over wealth taxes and distributive justice are so dangerous: they shift power from the citizen to the state apparatus, which by its very nature knows no limits — and by now no longer even bothers to hide it.

In the end, only one bitter realization remains: a state that shamelessly lays its citizens bare, and strips away the sanctity of private property along with the last refuges of the once-sovereign citizen using a cheap, resentment-laden argument, has already broken the bond of trust between state and citizen. Wealth as the citizen's last line of defense simply evaporates.

* * * 
About the author: Thomas Kolbe, a German graduate economist, has worked for over 25 years, he has worked as a journalist and media producer for clients from various industries and business associations. As a publicist, he focuses on economic processes and observes geopolitical events from the perspective of the capital markets. His publications follow a philosophy that focuses on the individual and their right to self-determination.

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 02:00

Chinese Scientists Flagged Glacial Flood Danger One Year Before Nepal Catastrophe

Zero Hedge -

Chinese Scientists Flagged Glacial Flood Danger One Year Before Nepal Catastrophe

Authored by Sophia Lam via The Epoch Times,

More than a year before the catastrophic flash flood devastated the China-Nepal border crossing at Gyirong last week, Chinese geologists had raised concerns about the impending danger.

CCTV footage shows people running away as wall of mud and water destroys buildings in a valley at the Nepal-China border, in Gyirong, Tibet region, China, on Aug. 26, 2026. Social Media/via Reuters

On August 26, a glacial-related collapse tore through Gyirong Port, one of the principal land crossings between Tibet and Nepal, destroying roads and bridges and leaving entire communities isolated and struggling to reach survivors. Villages and communities along the border have been left in ruins, with homes, roads, and infrastructure swept away.

At least 789 people have died, and more than 3,000 people are still missing.

More than a year ago, on July 8, 2025, a glacial lake outburst flood struck Gyirong County, in Shigatse, Tibet - the same area hit by the recent flash flood - destroying the Friendship Bridge on the China-Nepal border and leaving 17 people missing, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency.

Chinese scientists at the State Key Laboratory of Geohazard Prevention and Geoenvironment Protection at Chengdu University of Technology published a study three days after the 2025 flood, warning that the area could experience another glacial lake outburst flood in the wake of the July 8 disaster.

They called for stronger upstream flood warnings and recommended conducting detailed assessments of the susceptibility and risks of all glacial lakes in the basin "as soon as possible" to support "post-disaster reconstruction and long-term stability."

A Warning Ignored

Drawing on their Qinghai-Tibet Plateau glacial lake database and risk assessments, these scientists identified 55 glacial lakes covering about 3.39 square kilometers [36 million square feet] in the watershed upstream basin of the Friendship Bridge.

Based on satellite imagery from July 8, the researchers determined that the flood was triggered by the outburst of a supraglacial lake upstream of the Purepu Zangbu River. The report found that the lake had also experienced an outburst in mid-July 2023.

According to the study, the lake began forming in 2018 and is a typical seasonal supraglacial lake rather than a permanent one.

Researchers said rising temperatures across the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau have intensified meltwater runoff and accelerated glacier melt, causing the lake to reach its largest recorded area.

Meltwater carrying large amounts of glacial debris may also have blocked subglacial drainage channels, preventing the lake from draining effectively. The water level eventually rose beyond historical extremes, triggering the July 8, 2025, outburst.

Chinese land on the left and Nepalese land on right after Friendship bridge, a key bridge over the Bhotekoshi River connecting Nepal with China, was swept away in monsoon rain at Rasuwagadi, 120 kilometers (75 miles) north of the capital, Kathmandu, Nepal, on July, 9, 2025. AP Photo/Sujan Gurung

The researchers warned of "the possibility of another glacial lake outburst flood" due to the "many glacial lakes in this river basin."

They also called for "strengthened" upstream early flood warning systems and more detailed hazard and "susceptibility and risk" assessments for all 55 lakes "as soon as possible."

Xu Qiang, president of Chengdu University of Technology, repeated the findings from the 2025 report to explain the recent flood in an interview with the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP's) propaganda outlet People's Daily.

"Against the backdrop of climate warming, the risk of glacial lake outburst floods and debris flows triggered by ice and rock collapses along the Himalayas is continuing to rise. Glaciers across the region are retreating, and glacial lakes are expanding, increasing the likelihood of disasters such as glacial lake outbursts and ice avalanches," Xu said in the interview on Aug. 28.

Xu didn't mention the cross-border early warning system, and he didn't say explicitly whether China had taken any preventive measures or issued any warning before the flood.

China expert Li Linyi noted that Xu's remarks echoed recommendations the Chengdu research team had already laid out a year earlier, effectively amounting to an implicit admission that the preventive measures previously proposed to authorities were never implemented.

"This is not simply an unforeseeable natural disaster," he said in a recent interview with The Epoch Times, "but the inevitable result of absent early warning, delayed decision-making, and systematically underestimated risk."

On Aug. 27, the South China Morning Post reported that Chinese scientists have had a cross-border early warning system with counterparts in Nepal since 2017 to monitor Himalayan glacial lake outburst floods, and that the system had reportedly issued timely alerts in past years that helped prevent casualties.

Yet despite this track record, the report did not clarify whether the system detected any anomalies or issued any alerts ahead of the Aug. 26 disaster this year.

Independent verification of such claims is difficult because under CCP rule, Tibet remains largely closed to foreign journalists, researchers, and diplomats.

Natural Disaster, or Man-Made?

The Gyirong Port is built in unstable geological terrain, according to Chinese state-run media platform Sohu. The Chengdu research report lays out in more detail the risks and hazards in the upstream regions.

By 2024, trade through Gyirong Port had already hit 4.25 billion yuan (roughly $590 million) - nearly 30 percent of all China-Nepal trade.

The disaster has drawn accusations that the CCP's focus on the economy and disregard for known risks turned a natural hazard into a man-made tragedy.

Ethan Tu, founder of Taiwan AI Labs, wrote on Facebook on Aug. 28, "The greatest crime any of us can make is to call a man-made disaster a natural one."

He referred to the CCP's building of the port complex right in the middle of the river, blocking water flow and causing the disaster.

Lin Ting-hui, former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Society of International Law, criticized the CCP for building dams, roads, and tunnels that have destroyed local ecological conditions and geological stability in Tibet and neighboring areas.

"On top of that, accelerating glacial melt means meltwater keeps seeping into loosened mountainsides - so when heavy rain hits, the resulting mudslides can end up far bigger and more destructive than they'd otherwise be," Lin said in a recent interview with The Epoch Times.

He blamed the CCP for building the entire port complex right on top of a riverbed, calling it a move that "defies nature."

Lin said that Gyirong has served as a vital route since the seventh and eighth centuries, once used by Tang dynasty envoys and Buddhist monks, and holds deep significance in Tibetan Buddhist history.

"In all those centuries, the area had never suffered a disaster on this scale. However, in recent years, flooding began recurring," Lin said in a recent interview with The Epoch Times.

"The CCP's atheism has led it to believe man can conquer nature. But people must instead respect nature, or nature will strike back."

Tang Bing, Chang Chun, and Rex Widerstrom contributed to this report.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 23:25

Politician Busted After FBI Finds $62,900 Buried In His Backyard

Zero Hedge -

Politician Busted After FBI Finds $62,900 Buried In His Backyard

A Southern California corruption case unraveled in dramatic fashion after federal agents discovered tens of thousands of dollars hidden underground at the home of a longtime local politician, according to the NY Post.

Ricardo Pacheco, a former Baldwin Park councilman, was sentenced to 18 months in prison for taking bribes while in office. Investigators recovered $62,900 buried in his backyard, part of more than $83,000 ultimately seized from him.

Federal prosecutors said Pacheco used his position to help private interests win favorable treatment from the city. Much of the misconduct involved companies seeking approval to operate marijuana businesses in Baldwin Park.

Galvan

Pacheco also took money from a police officer who was secretly cooperating with the FBI. Authorities said he received $37,900 from the officer and later backed a police association agreement valued at more than $4 million over three years.

The Post writes that another former elected official, ex-Compton Councilman Isaac Galvan, was caught up in the same investigation. Galvan admitted giving Pacheco $70,000 in exchange for assistance with marijuana permits and separately acknowledged failing to report more than $500,000 in income.

Both men received 18-month federal prison sentences. Pacheco was fined $10,000 and ordered to surrender nearly $220,000, while Galvan was ordered to pay more than $323,000 in restitution.

After pleading guilty and leaving office, Pacheco began cooperating with federal investigators and helped build cases against several other people tied to local government and the marijuana business.

Tyler Durden Mon, 08/31/2026 - 23:00

The Long Shadow Of Judge Indira Talwani

Zero Hedge -

The Long Shadow Of Judge Indira Talwani

Authored by Jonathan Turley via Jonathan Turley,

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

Here is the column:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previously, Talwani showed the same inclination in other cases.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zero Hedge -

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

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

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

via Reuters

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That section from the WaPo report reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pages