Michael 'Big Short' Burry Rage-Quits Market, Liquidates Hedge Fund

We'll begin with the famous quote from economist John Maynard Keynes: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

It's a reminder that even the smartest traders in the room, the ones who've built entire careers calling bubbles and shorting tops, can be steamrolled when markets detach from reality.

Case in point: "Big Short" investor Michael Burry, who periodically disappears into X hibernation, nuking his account every so often, only to reemerge months later with cryptic warnings like his latest: "Sometimes, we see bubbles."

Sometimes, we see bubbles.
Sometimes, there is something to do about it.
Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. pic.twitter.com/xNBSvjGgvs

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) October 31, 2025

Days after Burry's bubble post on X, his Scion Asset Management 13F revealed that roughly 80% of his put positions were concentrated in the high-flyers Palantir and Nvidia.

Source

Fast forward one week, and the unthinkable has happened, or perhaps thinkable, given his 2023 "Sell" call...

... Burry's Scion Asset Management terminated its SEC registration on Monday.

By Thursday night, Burry's X post clarified details about his recent bearish bet on Palantir, noting he bought 50,000 option contracts at $1.84 each, representing 100 shares per contract, for a total outlay of about $9.2 million, not the $912 million figure circulated online. The contracts give him the right to sell Palantir shares at $50 in 2027.

"That was done last month. On to much better things, Nov. 25," he wrote.

So, I bought 50,000 of these things for $1.84.
Each of those things is 100 doodads.
So I spent $9,200,000,

Not $912,000,000. @CNBC @WSJ @FT

Each of those doodads let me sell $PLTR at $50 in 2027.

That was done last month.
On to much better things Nov 25th. pic.twitter.com/9Voy3nwiTD

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) November 13, 2025

Burry sent a letter to investors late last month, noting: "With a heavy heart, I will liquidate the funds and return capital — but for a small audit/tax holdback — by year's end."

Almost admitting he is wrong: "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets."

The letter is circulating on X and has not yet been confirmed.

ZeroHedge commentary on Burry's 13Fs from last week:

All we know is that Burry appears to once again be swinging for the bubble fences, similar to what he did during the housing bubble, and is shorting the two names that are most synonymous with the current market mania — similar to what he did in 2008 when he was shorting housing using CDS.

We also know that since both names are sharply higher than where they were on Sept. 30 (the date of the 13F), Burry has already suffered substantial losses on his positions, assuming he hasn't already liquidated them (at a loss).

And while some will declare that Burry putting his money where his bubble-bursting mouth is a sign of the top, we have two words of caution: back in 2005, Burry was early by about two years, and even though he ultimately got the trade right, the carry on the CDS crushed him. Second, the last time Burry tried to top-tick the market was January 2023 when he blasted the one-word "Sell." The market is up 69% since then.

Bloomberg Intelligence Eric Balchunas' first take on Burry "taking his ball and going home":

1. Shows how bears win battles but bulls win wars.

2. Arguable a top signal that this mkt broke him, echoes Ted Aronson closing his value fund in similar existential crisis manner just prior to 2022 value comeback (brutal).

3. NO ONE KNOWS THE FUTURE (even ppl who get portrayed by Christian Bale in a movie, which may be the coolest thing that can happen to someone).

Ouch!

Michael Bury is arguably the worst investor of our generation. Here are 12 of his most smooth brained predictions.

Jan 2017 – Predicted a global financial collapse and WW3 were imminent.

Sep 2019 – Claimed index funds were the next CDOs, ready to implode like 2008.

Dec 2020 –… pic.twitter.com/KyWEyWBe6J

— RJC (@RJCcapital) November 12, 2025

Back to Keynes' quote about bears being steamrolled in bubbles... What is Burry's next move?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:50

Michael 'Big Short' Burry Rage-Quits Market, Liquidates Hedge Fund

We'll begin with the famous quote from economist John Maynard Keynes: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

It's a reminder that even the smartest traders in the room, the ones who've built entire careers calling bubbles and shorting tops, can be steamrolled when markets detach from reality.

Case in point: "Big Short" investor Michael Burry, who periodically disappears into X hibernation, nuking his account every so often, only to reemerge months later with cryptic warnings like his latest: "Sometimes, we see bubbles."

Sometimes, we see bubbles.
Sometimes, there is something to do about it.
Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. pic.twitter.com/xNBSvjGgvs

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) October 31, 2025

Days after Burry's bubble post on X, his Scion Asset Management 13F revealed that roughly 80% of his put positions were concentrated in the high-flyers Palantir and Nvidia.

Source

Fast forward one week, and the unthinkable has happened, or perhaps thinkable, given his 2023 "Sell" call...

... Burry's Scion Asset Management terminated its SEC registration on Monday.

By Thursday night, Burry's X post clarified details about his recent bearish bet on Palantir, noting he bought 50,000 option contracts at $1.84 each, representing 100 shares per contract, for a total outlay of about $9.2 million, not the $912 million figure circulated online. The contracts give him the right to sell Palantir shares at $50 in 2027.

"That was done last month. On to much better things, Nov. 25," he wrote.

So, I bought 50,000 of these things for $1.84.
Each of those things is 100 doodads.
So I spent $9,200,000,

Not $912,000,000. @CNBC @WSJ @FT

Each of those doodads let me sell $PLTR at $50 in 2027.

That was done last month.
On to much better things Nov 25th. pic.twitter.com/9Voy3nwiTD

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) November 13, 2025

Burry sent a letter to investors late last month, noting: "With a heavy heart, I will liquidate the funds and return capital — but for a small audit/tax holdback — by year's end."

Almost admitting he is wrong: "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets."

The letter is circulating on X and has not yet been confirmed.

ZeroHedge commentary on Burry's 13Fs from last week:

All we know is that Burry appears to once again be swinging for the bubble fences, similar to what he did during the housing bubble, and is shorting the two names that are most synonymous with the current market mania — similar to what he did in 2008 when he was shorting housing using CDS.

We also know that since both names are sharply higher than where they were on Sept. 30 (the date of the 13F), Burry has already suffered substantial losses on his positions, assuming he hasn't already liquidated them (at a loss).

And while some will declare that Burry putting his money where his bubble-bursting mouth is a sign of the top, we have two words of caution: back in 2005, Burry was early by about two years, and even though he ultimately got the trade right, the carry on the CDS crushed him. Second, the last time Burry tried to top-tick the market was January 2023 when he blasted the one-word "Sell." The market is up 69% since then.

Bloomberg Intelligence Eric Balchunas' first take on Burry "taking his ball and going home":

1. Shows how bears win battles but bulls win wars.

2. Arguable a top signal that this mkt broke him, echoes Ted Aronson closing his value fund in similar existential crisis manner just prior to 2022 value comeback (brutal).

3. NO ONE KNOWS THE FUTURE (even ppl who get portrayed by Christian Bale in a movie, which may be the coolest thing that can happen to someone).

Ouch!

Michael Bury is arguably the worst investor of our generation. Here are 12 of his most smooth brained predictions.

Jan 2017 – Predicted a global financial collapse and WW3 were imminent.

Sep 2019 – Claimed index funds were the next CDOs, ready to implode like 2008.

Dec 2020 –… pic.twitter.com/KyWEyWBe6J

— RJC (@RJCcapital) November 12, 2025

Back to Keynes' quote about bears being steamrolled in bubbles... What is Burry's next move?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:50

Michael 'Big Short' Burry Rage-Quits Market, Liquidates Hedge Fund

We'll begin with the famous quote from economist John Maynard Keynes: "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."

It's a reminder that even the smartest traders in the room, the ones who've built entire careers calling bubbles and shorting tops, can be steamrolled when markets detach from reality.

Case in point: "Big Short" investor Michael Burry, who periodically disappears into X hibernation, nuking his account every so often, only to reemerge months later with cryptic warnings like his latest: "Sometimes, we see bubbles."

Sometimes, we see bubbles.
Sometimes, there is something to do about it.
Sometimes, the only winning move is not to play. pic.twitter.com/xNBSvjGgvs

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) October 31, 2025

Days after Burry's bubble post on X, his Scion Asset Management 13F revealed that roughly 80% of his put positions were concentrated in the high-flyers Palantir and Nvidia.

Source

Fast forward one week, and the unthinkable has happened, or perhaps thinkable, given his 2023 "Sell" call...

... Burry's Scion Asset Management terminated its SEC registration on Monday.

By Thursday night, Burry's X post clarified details about his recent bearish bet on Palantir, noting he bought 50,000 option contracts at $1.84 each, representing 100 shares per contract, for a total outlay of about $9.2 million, not the $912 million figure circulated online. The contracts give him the right to sell Palantir shares at $50 in 2027.

"That was done last month. On to much better things, Nov. 25," he wrote.

So, I bought 50,000 of these things for $1.84.
Each of those things is 100 doodads.
So I spent $9,200,000,

Not $912,000,000. @CNBC @WSJ @FT

Each of those doodads let me sell $PLTR at $50 in 2027.

That was done last month.
On to much better things Nov 25th. pic.twitter.com/9Voy3nwiTD

— Cassandra Unchained (@michaeljburry) November 13, 2025

Burry sent a letter to investors late last month, noting: "With a heavy heart, I will liquidate the funds and return capital — but for a small audit/tax holdback — by year's end."

Almost admitting he is wrong: "My estimation of value in securities is not now, and has not been for some time, in sync with the markets."

The letter is circulating on X and has not yet been confirmed.

ZeroHedge commentary on Burry's 13Fs from last week:

All we know is that Burry appears to once again be swinging for the bubble fences, similar to what he did during the housing bubble, and is shorting the two names that are most synonymous with the current market mania — similar to what he did in 2008 when he was shorting housing using CDS.

We also know that since both names are sharply higher than where they were on Sept. 30 (the date of the 13F), Burry has already suffered substantial losses on his positions, assuming he hasn't already liquidated them (at a loss).

And while some will declare that Burry putting his money where his bubble-bursting mouth is a sign of the top, we have two words of caution: back in 2005, Burry was early by about two years, and even though he ultimately got the trade right, the carry on the CDS crushed him. Second, the last time Burry tried to top-tick the market was January 2023 when he blasted the one-word "Sell." The market is up 69% since then.

Bloomberg Intelligence Eric Balchunas' first take on Burry "taking his ball and going home":

1. Shows how bears win battles but bulls win wars.

2. Arguable a top signal that this mkt broke him, echoes Ted Aronson closing his value fund in similar existential crisis manner just prior to 2022 value comeback (brutal).

3. NO ONE KNOWS THE FUTURE (even ppl who get portrayed by Christian Bale in a movie, which may be the coolest thing that can happen to someone).

Ouch!

Michael Bury is arguably the worst investor of our generation. Here are 12 of his most smooth brained predictions.

Jan 2017 – Predicted a global financial collapse and WW3 were imminent.

Sep 2019 – Claimed index funds were the next CDOs, ready to implode like 2008.

Dec 2020 –… pic.twitter.com/KyWEyWBe6J

— RJC (@RJCcapital) November 12, 2025

Back to Keynes' quote about bears being steamrolled in bubbles... What is Burry's next move?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:50

Hotel occupancy was weak over the summer months, due to less international tourism.  The fall months are mostly domestic travel and occupancy is still under pressure! 

From STR: U.S. hotel results for week ending 8 November

Due to a comparison against election week in 2024, the U.S. hotel industry reported positive year-over-year comparisons, according to CoStar’s latest data through 8 November. ...

26 October through 1 November 2025 (percentage change from comparable week in 2024):

• Occupancy: 64.2% (+2.5%)
• Average daily rate (ADR): US$162.70 (+3.6%)
• Revenue per available room (RevPAR): US$104.42 (+6.2%)
emphasis added

The following graph shows the seasonal pattern for the hotel occupancy rate using the four-week average.
Click on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025, blue is the median, and dashed light blue is for 2024.  Dashed black is for 2018, the record year for hotel occupancy. 
The 4-week average of the occupancy rate is tracking behind both last year and the median rate for the period 2000 through 2024 (Blue).
Note: Y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the seasonal change.
The 4-week average will decrease seasonally until early next year.
On a year-to-date basis, the only worse years for occupancy over the last 25 years were pandemic or recession years.

A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

Disney Shares Sink Most In Seven Months As Soft Earnings, Film Costs Drag Outlook

Shares of Disney tumbled the most in seven months early in the U.S. cash session after the media company missed quarterly revenue expectations and warned that film-studio expenses will drag on the current quarter, particularly costs tied to major releases.

Disney posted uninspiring fourth-quarter revenues, flat at about $22.5 billion and below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of $22.8 billion. Adjusted EPS beat at $1.11 versus the $1.07 expected. The miss sent shares in New York down 8% in the cash session, the largest intraday decline since April 3. The company also warned about softening across its entertainment unit. 

Covid lows...

Here's the snapshot of the fourth quarter earnings:

Revenue: $22.46B (-0.5% y/y, miss vs. $22.83B est.)

Adjusted EPS: $1.11 (beat vs. $1.07 est.)

Entertainment Segment: 

• Revenue $10.21B (-5.7% y/y)

• Op. income $691M (-35% y/y, miss)

Sports Segment:

• Revenue $3.98B (+1.7% y/y)

• Op. income $911M (-1.9% y/y)

Experiences (Parks & Cruises) Segment:

• Disney+ subs: 131.6M (+3% q/q, beat)

• Domestic: 59.3M International: 72.4M

Hulu subs: 64.1M (+15% q/q, beat)

Average Revenue Per User

• Disney+: $8.04 (up q/q, beat)

• Hulu SVOD: $12.20 (slightly down)

• Hulu Live TV: $100.02 (flat)

Disney's entertainment unit (streaming, film, and TV) faces several challenges:

• Streaming: Q1 operating income forecast at $375M, below what analysts hoped for.

• TV: Lower political ad spending will drag performance

• Major film releases: Marketing and distribution for Zootopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400M

• Film releases: Marketing and distribution for ZoSports: Launch of full ESPN streaming helps, but timing of rights payments limits profit growth.otopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400.

• Avatar opens December 19, giving Disney minimal revenue inside the quarter.

Disney expects double-digit earnings growth in fiscal 2026, with most of that growth expected to materialize in the second half. 

2026 Outlook:

• Operating cash flow: $19B (well above $16.86B est.)

• Capex: $9B (vs. $7.88B est.)

Here is Goldman TMT specialist Peter Callahan's first take on Disney earnings:

DIS -6% in the pre (back to last weeks' levels)… stock had run a bit into print and the moving parts in qtr / guide underscore the debate around complexity relative to the "DD EPS" outlook that investors were debating into results (e.g. bottomline line strong, but moving parts on DTC and Parks) … conf call ongoing (started @ 830am) …  notables from print / GIR first take 

1. EBIT missed on opex and DIS' F1Q26 guidance for DTC SVOD EBIT of $375M missed GS/consensus of $514/$523M, which when combined with DIS' F2026 $24B cash content spending outlook, suggests that DIS may be investing more in DTC in F2026 than we expected. 

2. Experiences EBIT missed and the F2025 10-K disclosures suggest to us that there was weakness in domestic theme parks with F2025 attendance -1% yoy (implies F4Q25 -4% y/y) and per capita spending +5% (implies F4Q25 +3% y/y). As expected, DIS guided to $120M of dry dock expenses in F2026 (incl. $60M in F1Q26) and $160M in preopening expenses in F2026 (incl. $90M in F1Q26). Although we're encouraged by the reiterated F2026 outlook for Experiences +HSD% y/y, it was below our elevated expectations.

3. DIS reiterated its DD% EPS growth guidance for F2026 (not including the benefit from the extra week) and for F2027 with all F2026 segment EBIT growth guidance also reiterated (Entertainment DD%, Experiences HSD%, Sports LSD%).

DIS: chart of Disney vs S&P5000 .. stock has been bouncing around / off the lows on a relative basis with bulls arguing the R/R is attractive from low-100s levels (vs bears argue too many moving parts in a complex macro backdrop)

Additional Wall Street reactions: 

• Bloomberg Intelligence: Solid Q4 supports 19% FY2025 EPS growth, but guidance looks conservative; sees catalysts ahead, especially improved streaming margins.

• Citi (Buy, PT $145): Revenue "a bit light," but weakness is mostly from linear TV, the least important business — seen as encouraging.

• Seaport (Buy, PT $130): Revenue miss and outlook suggest content and marketing spend may exceed prior expectations.

• Vital Knowledge: Calls the report "lackluster" with sales shortfall and inline operating income; Q1 looks pressured, but FY26–27 EPS outlook is encouraging.

• KeyBanc: Says the quarter "appears negative," with soft DTC operating-income guidance and weakness in content raising concerns.

The question remains: how "woke" will Disney remain in the Trump era, where the Overton Window has clearly shifted center-right and parents are increasingly tired of globalist messaging embedded in children's shows and cartoon content?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:10

Disney Shares Sink Most In Seven Months As Soft Earnings, Film Costs Drag Outlook

Shares of Disney tumbled the most in seven months early in the U.S. cash session after the media company missed quarterly revenue expectations and warned that film-studio expenses will drag on the current quarter, particularly costs tied to major releases.

Disney posted uninspiring fourth-quarter revenues, flat at about $22.5 billion and below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of $22.8 billion. Adjusted EPS beat at $1.11 versus the $1.07 expected. The miss sent shares in New York down 8% in the cash session, the largest intraday decline since April 3. The company also warned about softening across its entertainment unit. 

Covid lows...

Here's the snapshot of the fourth quarter earnings:

Revenue: $22.46B (-0.5% y/y, miss vs. $22.83B est.)

Adjusted EPS: $1.11 (beat vs. $1.07 est.)

Entertainment Segment: 

• Revenue $10.21B (-5.7% y/y)

• Op. income $691M (-35% y/y, miss)

Sports Segment:

• Revenue $3.98B (+1.7% y/y)

• Op. income $911M (-1.9% y/y)

Experiences (Parks & Cruises) Segment:

• Disney+ subs: 131.6M (+3% q/q, beat)

• Domestic: 59.3M International: 72.4M

Hulu subs: 64.1M (+15% q/q, beat)

Average Revenue Per User

• Disney+: $8.04 (up q/q, beat)

• Hulu SVOD: $12.20 (slightly down)

• Hulu Live TV: $100.02 (flat)

Disney's entertainment unit (streaming, film, and TV) faces several challenges:

• Streaming: Q1 operating income forecast at $375M, below what analysts hoped for.

• TV: Lower political ad spending will drag performance

• Major film releases: Marketing and distribution for Zootopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400M

• Film releases: Marketing and distribution for ZoSports: Launch of full ESPN streaming helps, but timing of rights payments limits profit growth.otopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400.

• Avatar opens December 19, giving Disney minimal revenue inside the quarter.

Disney expects double-digit earnings growth in fiscal 2026, with most of that growth expected to materialize in the second half. 

2026 Outlook:

• Operating cash flow: $19B (well above $16.86B est.)

• Capex: $9B (vs. $7.88B est.)

Here is Goldman TMT specialist Peter Callahan's first take on Disney earnings:

DIS -6% in the pre (back to last weeks' levels)… stock had run a bit into print and the moving parts in qtr / guide underscore the debate around complexity relative to the "DD EPS" outlook that investors were debating into results (e.g. bottomline line strong, but moving parts on DTC and Parks) … conf call ongoing (started @ 830am) …  notables from print / GIR first take 

1. EBIT missed on opex and DIS' F1Q26 guidance for DTC SVOD EBIT of $375M missed GS/consensus of $514/$523M, which when combined with DIS' F2026 $24B cash content spending outlook, suggests that DIS may be investing more in DTC in F2026 than we expected. 

2. Experiences EBIT missed and the F2025 10-K disclosures suggest to us that there was weakness in domestic theme parks with F2025 attendance -1% yoy (implies F4Q25 -4% y/y) and per capita spending +5% (implies F4Q25 +3% y/y). As expected, DIS guided to $120M of dry dock expenses in F2026 (incl. $60M in F1Q26) and $160M in preopening expenses in F2026 (incl. $90M in F1Q26). Although we're encouraged by the reiterated F2026 outlook for Experiences +HSD% y/y, it was below our elevated expectations.

3. DIS reiterated its DD% EPS growth guidance for F2026 (not including the benefit from the extra week) and for F2027 with all F2026 segment EBIT growth guidance also reiterated (Entertainment DD%, Experiences HSD%, Sports LSD%).

DIS: chart of Disney vs S&P5000 .. stock has been bouncing around / off the lows on a relative basis with bulls arguing the R/R is attractive from low-100s levels (vs bears argue too many moving parts in a complex macro backdrop)

Additional Wall Street reactions: 

• Bloomberg Intelligence: Solid Q4 supports 19% FY2025 EPS growth, but guidance looks conservative; sees catalysts ahead, especially improved streaming margins.

• Citi (Buy, PT $145): Revenue "a bit light," but weakness is mostly from linear TV, the least important business — seen as encouraging.

• Seaport (Buy, PT $130): Revenue miss and outlook suggest content and marketing spend may exceed prior expectations.

• Vital Knowledge: Calls the report "lackluster" with sales shortfall and inline operating income; Q1 looks pressured, but FY26–27 EPS outlook is encouraging.

• KeyBanc: Says the quarter "appears negative," with soft DTC operating-income guidance and weakness in content raising concerns.

The question remains: how "woke" will Disney remain in the Trump era, where the Overton Window has clearly shifted center-right and parents are increasingly tired of globalist messaging embedded in children's shows and cartoon content?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:10

California Cancels 17,000 CDLs Following Federal Audit

Authored by John Gallagher via FreightWaves.com,

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has cancelled 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses following a federal audit of the state’s CDL program, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a press statement on Wednesday, DOT asserted that state officials admitted to illegally issuing the CDLs “to dangerous foreign drivers,” and that DMV sent notices to the license holders that their license no longer meets federal requirements and will expire in 60 days.

“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses.”

FreightWaves has reached out to California’s DMV for comment.

FMCSA Chief Counsel Jesse Elison notified Newsom and his DMV in a September 26 letter that a sampling of the roughly 62,000 drivers in California holding unexpired, non-domiciled CDLs or commercial learner’s permits issued by the state revealed that 26% – which extrapolates to roughly 16,000 – failed to comply with federal requirements.

“Even more concerning is the fact that, for three of the transactions, the DMV was unable to provide documentation showing that it validated the drivers’ lawful presence documents before issuing a non-domiciled CDL,” Elison stated.

“Consequently, based on the documentation provided, it appears that the DMV issued a non-domiciled CDL to three drivers without validating their lawful presence.”

Duffy posted a statement on the day of Elison’s notification letter warning that “California must get its act together immediately or I will not hesitate to pull millions in funding,” starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

DOT reiterated on Wednesday that it “will continue to push California’s to revoke all illegal non-domiciled CDLs or pull $160 million in federal funds.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:25

California Cancels 17,000 CDLs Following Federal Audit

Authored by John Gallagher via FreightWaves.com,

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has cancelled 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses following a federal audit of the state’s CDL program, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a press statement on Wednesday, DOT asserted that state officials admitted to illegally issuing the CDLs “to dangerous foreign drivers,” and that DMV sent notices to the license holders that their license no longer meets federal requirements and will expire in 60 days.

“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses.”

FreightWaves has reached out to California’s DMV for comment.

FMCSA Chief Counsel Jesse Elison notified Newsom and his DMV in a September 26 letter that a sampling of the roughly 62,000 drivers in California holding unexpired, non-domiciled CDLs or commercial learner’s permits issued by the state revealed that 26% – which extrapolates to roughly 16,000 – failed to comply with federal requirements.

“Even more concerning is the fact that, for three of the transactions, the DMV was unable to provide documentation showing that it validated the drivers’ lawful presence documents before issuing a non-domiciled CDL,” Elison stated.

“Consequently, based on the documentation provided, it appears that the DMV issued a non-domiciled CDL to three drivers without validating their lawful presence.”

Duffy posted a statement on the day of Elison’s notification letter warning that “California must get its act together immediately or I will not hesitate to pull millions in funding,” starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

DOT reiterated on Wednesday that it “will continue to push California’s to revoke all illegal non-domiciled CDLs or pull $160 million in federal funds.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:25

New 2x Levered Energy ETFs Launched As Investors Scramble For Upside Amid Relentless AI Power Demand

In pursuit of the seemingly relentless retail bid, Tradr ETFs has launched four new single-stock levered ETFs today, adding fresh instruments to a market incessantly infatuated with leverage-focused products. Notably, these new products land squarely in the middle of the energy sector - and includes names that stand to profit generously once what we dubbed the "Next AI Trade" (i.e., powering up the armada of newly-built data centers) takes off - at a time when power demand has never been greater thanks to AI.

The new offerings track Bloom Energy, Celestica, Nano Nuclear, and Synopsys and trade under BEX, CSEX, NNEX and SNPX respectively.

As noted above, what makes this offering notable is that several underlying companies sit at the intersection of energy, computing, and the rapidly accelerating AI build-out. Bloom Energy and Nano Nuclear are direct plays on emerging power technologies, while Celestica provides critical hardware integration for data-center infrastructure. Even Synopsys, not an energy company itself, enables the semiconductor designs that underpin the compute side of AI’s energy-hungry expansion.

As a result of their disruptive nature, all 4 stocks have seen their short interest surge recently, with the short pile up in the names at or near all time highs, prompting some to speculate that the Tradr ETFs may have been launched to facilitate a levered squeeze.

The increasingly granular nature of these products creates abundant choice for traders but also underscores how saturated and niche the ETF landscape has become.

Leveraged ETFs have grown so prolific that the number of such products now rivals, and in some categories exceeds, the number of public companies they reference. The overall US ETF ecosystem has ballooned into thousands of funds, and leveraged equity ETFs alone have climbed into the hundreds, doubling their footprint over just a few years.

It's clear why Tradr has decided to focus on energy: global data-center electricity consumption is projected to soar over the next decade, with U.S. and international forecasts all pointing to steep increases driven by AI workloads. As we noted overnight, some $5 trillion is expected to be spent over the next 5 years on the rollout of the AI cycle. As power demand rises, grid constraints tighten, and energy prices trend higher, companies providing generation, efficiency, or data-center hardware become more tightly linked to the broader energy narrative.

The combination of swelling energy demand, a strained grid, and AI’s relentless need for compute has created a backdrop where volatility in energy-adjacent names is likely to remain elevated. The rapid growth in artificial intelligence and cloud computing is testing America’s electric grid and exposing the urgent need for new, always-available power.

The most recent example highlighted by Bloomberg was a case where Amazon has accused PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway–owned utility, of failing to deliver enough electricity for four planned data-center campuses in Oregon.

Another recent example highlighted by Bloomberg: First American Nuclear Co. plans to build self-sustaining reactors in Indiana to power data centers. The plant will begin with natural gas in 2028, then shift to a 240-megawatt liquid-metal fast reactor by 2032 that can reprocess its own spent fuel.

“Data centers are driving the demand for power,” said CEO Mike Reinboth.

As President Donald Trump pushes to accelerate AI infrastructure, power demand from computing is forecast to more than double in the US by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. Utilities and tech giants now depend on each other — but utilities worry about straining the grid and raising bills if the AI boom falters.

For traders who seek to capitalize on short-term swings in these areas, whether in emerging nuclear concepts, distributed generation, or data-center supply chains, single-stock leveraged ETFs offer a direct, amplified tool. But their daily reset mechanics and sensitivity to volatility mean the risks scale just as quickly as the potential reward, so use them sparingly and ideally during bursts of activity to leverage the momentum.

Either way, we predict they won't be the last of their kind...

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:05

New 2x Levered Energy ETFs Launched As Investors Scramble For Upside Amid Relentless AI Power Demand

In pursuit of the seemingly relentless retail bid, Tradr ETFs has launched four new single-stock levered ETFs today, adding fresh instruments to a market incessantly infatuated with leverage-focused products. Notably, these new products land squarely in the middle of the energy sector - and includes names that stand to profit generously once what we dubbed the "Next AI Trade" (i.e., powering up the armada of newly-built data centers) takes off - at a time when power demand has never been greater thanks to AI.

The new offerings track Bloom Energy, Celestica, Nano Nuclear, and Synopsys and trade under BEX, CSEX, NNEX and SNPX respectively.

As noted above, what makes this offering notable is that several underlying companies sit at the intersection of energy, computing, and the rapidly accelerating AI build-out. Bloom Energy and Nano Nuclear are direct plays on emerging power technologies, while Celestica provides critical hardware integration for data-center infrastructure. Even Synopsys, not an energy company itself, enables the semiconductor designs that underpin the compute side of AI’s energy-hungry expansion.

As a result of their disruptive nature, all 4 stocks have seen their short interest surge recently, with the short pile up in the names at or near all time highs, prompting some to speculate that the Tradr ETFs may have been launched to facilitate a levered squeeze.

The increasingly granular nature of these products creates abundant choice for traders but also underscores how saturated and niche the ETF landscape has become.

Leveraged ETFs have grown so prolific that the number of such products now rivals, and in some categories exceeds, the number of public companies they reference. The overall US ETF ecosystem has ballooned into thousands of funds, and leveraged equity ETFs alone have climbed into the hundreds, doubling their footprint over just a few years.

It's clear why Tradr has decided to focus on energy: global data-center electricity consumption is projected to soar over the next decade, with U.S. and international forecasts all pointing to steep increases driven by AI workloads. As we noted overnight, some $5 trillion is expected to be spent over the next 5 years on the rollout of the AI cycle. As power demand rises, grid constraints tighten, and energy prices trend higher, companies providing generation, efficiency, or data-center hardware become more tightly linked to the broader energy narrative.

The combination of swelling energy demand, a strained grid, and AI’s relentless need for compute has created a backdrop where volatility in energy-adjacent names is likely to remain elevated. The rapid growth in artificial intelligence and cloud computing is testing America’s electric grid and exposing the urgent need for new, always-available power.

The most recent example highlighted by Bloomberg was a case where Amazon has accused PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway–owned utility, of failing to deliver enough electricity for four planned data-center campuses in Oregon.

Another recent example highlighted by Bloomberg: First American Nuclear Co. plans to build self-sustaining reactors in Indiana to power data centers. The plant will begin with natural gas in 2028, then shift to a 240-megawatt liquid-metal fast reactor by 2032 that can reprocess its own spent fuel.

“Data centers are driving the demand for power,” said CEO Mike Reinboth.

As President Donald Trump pushes to accelerate AI infrastructure, power demand from computing is forecast to more than double in the US by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. Utilities and tech giants now depend on each other — but utilities worry about straining the grid and raising bills if the AI boom falters.

For traders who seek to capitalize on short-term swings in these areas, whether in emerging nuclear concepts, distributed generation, or data-center supply chains, single-stock leveraged ETFs offer a direct, amplified tool. But their daily reset mechanics and sensitivity to volatility mean the risks scale just as quickly as the potential reward, so use them sparingly and ideally during bursts of activity to leverage the momentum.

Either way, we predict they won't be the last of their kind...

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:05

The post Being Tone Deaf Is Not the Same as Telling Outright Lies: That Should be Obvious appeared first on CEPR.

Schumer Who? How Centrists Broke Ranks To End Shutdown As Democratic Rift Widens

The political breakthrough that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history did not come from the Oval Office or from the Senate’s top Democrat. Instead, it emerged from a quiet, late-night meeting in a nearly deserted Capitol, where a small band of centrist Democrats forged an agreement with senior Republicans - over the objections of their own leadership.

Moderate Democrat senators who cut deal to end the government shutdown: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., top row from left, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and bottom row from left, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. AP Photo A Quiet Meeting, a Major Shift

According to the Wall Street Journal, two nights before Halloween, with federal workers missing paychecks and food-assistance programs running dry, Sens. Angus King of Maine, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire - each a former governor, slipped into Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office after the chamber had adjourned. Joining Thune were Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota, also a former governor and veteran appropriator, and Susan Collins of Maine, along with Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama.

The group had grown impatient. Nearly a month into the shutdown, they saw little sign that President Trump or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would break the stalemate. “It was a group of people trying to solve a problem,” Mr. King said.

When asked by MSNBC why he caved, King said that trying to "stand up to Donald Trump" simply didn't work...

Sen Angus King explains that the Democrat shutdown strategy of “standing up to Donald Trump” didn’t work.

This is sure to play well with the enraged base. pic.twitter.com/thSes5tE8U

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 10, 2025

Schumer was informed of the dialogues, lawmakers said, but declined to participate. The Democratic leader believed time was on his side: that Trump would eventually feel compelled to negotiate and Democrats could secure a more favorable outcome - including an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that had become the central Democratic demand.

The centrists, however, saw a riskier path. And with little progress from the White House, they proceeded.

A Deal That Divides

The negotiations produced a bipartisan agreement to reopen most of the government through Jan. 30 and fully fund several key programs, including food assistance, for a year. Thune pledged a December vote on extending the ACA subsidies, though he would promise no outcome.

To the centrists, the commitment - combined with the January funding deadline, which gives Democrats an opportunity to force another showdown - was enough. “We sat across from him, we looked him eye to eye,” Ms. Shaheen said, describing her trust in Thune’s assurances.

For many Democrats, it was not. Progressives and party activists erupted in anger, accusing the centrists of caving with little to show for it. Schumer, who voted against the measure, faced criticism from both sides: progressives for failing to keep the caucus unified, and centrists for resisting what many viewed as the only viable off-ramp.

Schumer’s allies counter that he held his caucus together longer than Republicans expected and that Democrats had successfully elevated healthcare costs as the defining issue heading into the midterms.

Internal Pressure Mounts

Centrists briefed Schumer regularly and agreed to his requests to delay any commitments until after Nov. 1, the start of Obamacare open enrollment, and then until after the Nov. 4 election. But as new Democratic electoral victories rolled in, many senators still preferred to hold firm.

That position became harder to justify as the shutdown’s effects escalated. Flight delays worsened. Federal workers missed multiple paychecks. Food-assistance and heating-aid benefits dwindled.

By Sunday, eight Democrats had peeled off, concluding that Trump would not enter negotiations anytime soon. “We were harming a lot of people in the service of a strategy that wasn’t working,” King said.

A Last-Minute Push

Schumer made his final bid on Friday: reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies. Republicans swiftly rejected it. Over the weekend, centrists renewed their push, bolstered by growing Democratic defections.

On Sunday, Schumer said he could not support a deal “that fails to address the healthcare crisis.” But the votes were slipping away. Republicans needed the support of Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to secure the necessary 60 votes. Britt, alongside GOP leadership and White House officials, worked with Kaine to add provisions reversing shutdown-driven federal layoffs and prohibiting new ones through January.

Kaine agreed. Late Sunday, the Senate advanced the measure 60–40, with no votes to spare.

Political Fallout

For Schumer, the episode marks another intraparty challenge. In March, he was criticized for voting with Republicans to avert a shutdown; now he is under fire for failing to maintain one. Still, Democrats credit him with elevating healthcare as a defining issue for the coming midterms.

On Monday, he framed the outcome as a Republican miscalculation. “Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” he said. “They knew it was coming. We wanted to fix it. Republicans said no.”

Whether voters will see it that way - or whether the schism between Democratic factions widens - remains an open question. What is clear is that, in the end, it was the quiet work of centrists—not high-level brinkmanship—that forced the government back open.

On Tuesday Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) appeared on Fox News to tell the world that "no one really knows" who's in charge of Democrats on Capitol Hill - as Schumer "never" discussed the shutdown with him. 

Fetterman addressed an Axios report that confirms the above: Schumer privately pressured a group of moderate Democrats in mid-October to keep the government closed until Obamacare open enrollment on Nov. 1. 

When asked by co-host Lawrence Jones "Who is running the show now in the Democratic Party, in the Senate, in the House?” Fetterman replied: "No one really knows."

"It’s always a hard yes to keep our government open," Fetterman explained. "I mean, that’s my principle, because it’s wrong to shut our government down. And now we knew that we would put [at risk] those 42 million Americans for SNAP and paying our military and, you know, the Capitol Police. I mean, people have went five weeks without being paid. I mean, that’s a violation of my core values. And I think it’s [a violation of] our party’s [values] as well."

Schumer who? (h/t Capital.news)

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:25

Schumer Who? How Centrists Broke Ranks To End Shutdown As Democratic Rift Widens

The political breakthrough that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history did not come from the Oval Office or from the Senate’s top Democrat. Instead, it emerged from a quiet, late-night meeting in a nearly deserted Capitol, where a small band of centrist Democrats forged an agreement with senior Republicans - over the objections of their own leadership.

Moderate Democrat senators who cut deal to end the government shutdown: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., top row from left, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and bottom row from left, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. AP Photo A Quiet Meeting, a Major Shift

According to the Wall Street Journal, two nights before Halloween, with federal workers missing paychecks and food-assistance programs running dry, Sens. Angus King of Maine, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire - each a former governor, slipped into Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office after the chamber had adjourned. Joining Thune were Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota, also a former governor and veteran appropriator, and Susan Collins of Maine, along with Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama.

The group had grown impatient. Nearly a month into the shutdown, they saw little sign that President Trump or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would break the stalemate. “It was a group of people trying to solve a problem,” Mr. King said.

When asked by MSNBC why he caved, King said that trying to "stand up to Donald Trump" simply didn't work...

Sen Angus King explains that the Democrat shutdown strategy of “standing up to Donald Trump” didn’t work.

This is sure to play well with the enraged base. pic.twitter.com/thSes5tE8U

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 10, 2025

Schumer was informed of the dialogues, lawmakers said, but declined to participate. The Democratic leader believed time was on his side: that Trump would eventually feel compelled to negotiate and Democrats could secure a more favorable outcome - including an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that had become the central Democratic demand.

The centrists, however, saw a riskier path. And with little progress from the White House, they proceeded.

A Deal That Divides

The negotiations produced a bipartisan agreement to reopen most of the government through Jan. 30 and fully fund several key programs, including food assistance, for a year. Thune pledged a December vote on extending the ACA subsidies, though he would promise no outcome.

To the centrists, the commitment - combined with the January funding deadline, which gives Democrats an opportunity to force another showdown - was enough. “We sat across from him, we looked him eye to eye,” Ms. Shaheen said, describing her trust in Thune’s assurances.

For many Democrats, it was not. Progressives and party activists erupted in anger, accusing the centrists of caving with little to show for it. Schumer, who voted against the measure, faced criticism from both sides: progressives for failing to keep the caucus unified, and centrists for resisting what many viewed as the only viable off-ramp.

Schumer’s allies counter that he held his caucus together longer than Republicans expected and that Democrats had successfully elevated healthcare costs as the defining issue heading into the midterms.

Internal Pressure Mounts

Centrists briefed Schumer regularly and agreed to his requests to delay any commitments until after Nov. 1, the start of Obamacare open enrollment, and then until after the Nov. 4 election. But as new Democratic electoral victories rolled in, many senators still preferred to hold firm.

That position became harder to justify as the shutdown’s effects escalated. Flight delays worsened. Federal workers missed multiple paychecks. Food-assistance and heating-aid benefits dwindled.

By Sunday, eight Democrats had peeled off, concluding that Trump would not enter negotiations anytime soon. “We were harming a lot of people in the service of a strategy that wasn’t working,” King said.

A Last-Minute Push

Schumer made his final bid on Friday: reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies. Republicans swiftly rejected it. Over the weekend, centrists renewed their push, bolstered by growing Democratic defections.

On Sunday, Schumer said he could not support a deal “that fails to address the healthcare crisis.” But the votes were slipping away. Republicans needed the support of Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to secure the necessary 60 votes. Britt, alongside GOP leadership and White House officials, worked with Kaine to add provisions reversing shutdown-driven federal layoffs and prohibiting new ones through January.

Kaine agreed. Late Sunday, the Senate advanced the measure 60–40, with no votes to spare.

Political Fallout

For Schumer, the episode marks another intraparty challenge. In March, he was criticized for voting with Republicans to avert a shutdown; now he is under fire for failing to maintain one. Still, Democrats credit him with elevating healthcare as a defining issue for the coming midterms.

On Monday, he framed the outcome as a Republican miscalculation. “Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” he said. “They knew it was coming. We wanted to fix it. Republicans said no.”

Whether voters will see it that way - or whether the schism between Democratic factions widens - remains an open question. What is clear is that, in the end, it was the quiet work of centrists—not high-level brinkmanship—that forced the government back open.

On Tuesday Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) appeared on Fox News to tell the world that "no one really knows" who's in charge of Democrats on Capitol Hill - as Schumer "never" discussed the shutdown with him. 

Fetterman addressed an Axios report that confirms the above: Schumer privately pressured a group of moderate Democrats in mid-October to keep the government closed until Obamacare open enrollment on Nov. 1. 

When asked by co-host Lawrence Jones "Who is running the show now in the Democratic Party, in the Senate, in the House?” Fetterman replied: "No one really knows."

"It’s always a hard yes to keep our government open," Fetterman explained. "I mean, that’s my principle, because it’s wrong to shut our government down. And now we knew that we would put [at risk] those 42 million Americans for SNAP and paying our military and, you know, the Capitol Police. I mean, people have went five weeks without being paid. I mean, that’s a violation of my core values. And I think it’s [a violation of] our party’s [values] as well."

Schumer who? (h/t Capital.news)

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:25

White House Says Trump Committed To $2,000 Tariff Dividend Payments For Many Americans

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump remains committed to paying $2,000 to many Americans from funds from tariff revenues, the White House said on Nov. 12, adding that officials are exploring how to make the president’s proposal happen.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump’s team is mulling implementation options for the dividend, which the president first mentioned over the weekend.

In a Nov. 9 post on Truth Social, Trump celebrated the tariffs, highlighting the funds they are bringing into the government.

He suggested using part of these funds to send a dividend of at least $2,000 to Americans, excluding those in high-income brackets, while also utilizing revenues to reduce the nation’s $37 trillion debt.

“We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” Trump wrote on social media.

“Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

The president has also called critics of his tariff policies “fools.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the administration’s use of tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act and is set to rule on the case in the coming weeks or months. Trump has said he is confident in his administration’s arguments and is hopeful a decision will be made in his favor.

“I can’t imagine that anybody would do that kind of devastation to our country,” he said last week.

Trump has said the case is one of the most important in the nation’s history, highlighting that the tariffs are a “defensive mechanism for our country, as national security for our country.”

A 100 percent tariff on China led to a “wonderful deal for everybody, our farmers, as you know, with soybeans at levels that nobody’s ever seen before,” Trump told reporters last week.

“If we didn’t have the tariffs, we wouldn’t have been able to do that,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the Supreme Court arguments regarding tariffs, said in recent statements that the dividend could be in the form of tax cuts rather than direct payments and limited to families making less than $100,000 annually.

“I haven’t spoken to the president about this yet, but ... the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways,” Bessent told ABC News on Nov. 9.

“It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security,” Bessent also said, noting that those items are “substantial deductions” that are presently “being financed in the tax bill.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:05

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Part 2: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-November 2025

A brief excerpt:

Yesterday, in Part 1: Current State of the Housing Market; Overview for mid-November 2025 I reviewed home inventory and sales. I noted that the key stories this year for existing homes are that inventory increased sharply, and sales are down slightly year-to-date compared to last year (and sales in 2024 were the lowest since 1995). That means prices are under pressure.

In Part 2, I will look at house prices, mortgage rates, rents and more.
...
The Case-Shiller National Index increased 1.5% year-over-year (YoY) in August and will likely be about the same year-over-year in the September report compared to August (based on other data).
...
In the January report, the Case-Shiller National index was up 4.2%, in February up 3.9%, in March up 3.4%, in April report up 2.7%, in May up 2.3%, in June up 1.9% in July 1.7% and in August 1.5%.

And the August Case-Shiller index was a 3-month average of closing prices in June, July and August. June closing prices include some contracts signed in April.

So, not only is this trending down, but there is a significant lag to this data.

There is much more in the article.

Coinbase Abandoning $2 Billion Deal For Stablecoin Company BVNK

Coinbase Global has scrapped plans to acquire BVNK, a London-based stablecoin infrastructure startup, ending what would have been a roughly $2 billion deal — and one of the largest stablecoin-focused acquisitions to date, according to Yahoo Finance.

“We’re continuously seeking opportunities to expand on our mission and product offerings,” a Coinbase spokesperson said. “After discussing a potential acquisition of BVNK, both parties mutually agreed to not move forward.”

Yahoo writes that talks had reached late stages, with the firms entering exclusivity in October that prevented BVNK from seeking other buyers. The transaction had been expected to close later this year or early next, but it was not immediately clear why it fell apart.

BVNK provides stablecoin payment and settlement tools used for cross-border transfers — an increasingly competitive area for crypto exchanges and payment processors. For comparison, Stripe paid about $1.1 billion for stablecoin startup Bridge earlier this year; Coinbase’s offer would have nearly doubled that.

Coinbase Ventures is already an investor in BVNK, alongside Haun Ventures, Tiger Global, and the venture arms of Visa and Citi. BVNK last raised $50 million in December at a valuation of roughly $750 million.

The decision removes a near-term uncertainty for Coinbase, which remains a central player in the booming stablecoin market. BVNK, meanwhile, is expected to attract new suitors, with Fortune previously reporting that Mastercard had also shown interest.

Under the Trump administration, stablecoins have become a central pillar of U.S. digital asset strategy. The White House has framed them as tools to strengthen dollar dominance and modernize global payments, reversing the more cautious approach of the previous administration. Senior officials have argued that regulated, dollar-backed tokens could extend U.S. financial influence abroad while boosting innovation and private-sector leadership at home.

Recent policy moves have aimed to build a clear legal framework for stablecoin issuance and reserves, bringing the sector closer to mainstream finance. Supporters within the administration view stablecoins as critical infrastructure for faster, cheaper cross-border payments and as a foundation for U.S.-led digital financial systems. The shift has also fueled competition among exchanges, payment networks, and banks to capture the next wave of growth in dollar-linked tokens.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 06:55

My morning train WFH reads:

• The Year’s Hottest Crypto Trade Is Crumbling: Selloff in bitcoin and other digital tokens hits crypto-treasury companies. Shares of “crypto-treasury” companies, like Micro-Strategy, have fallen significantly, with Micro-Strategy’s value dropping from $128 billion at its peak to $70 billion. (Wall Street Journal)

• Nobody’s Buying Homes, Nobody’s Switching Jobs—and America’s Mobility Is Stalling: The paralysis has left many people in houses that are too small, in jobs they don’t love or shackled with ‘golden handcuffs.’ For everyone, there are economic consequences. (Wall Street Journal) see also The Affordability Curse: Politics isn’t just about the words you put on your bumper stickers. It’s about what you do if the bumper stickers work. (The Atlantic)

• China’s Stocks Are Flying as Beijing Doubles Down on Tech. Why the Economy Is Still Struggling. China’s commitment to innovation poses a long-term threat to U.S. companies. What it needs now is for its citizens to spend more. (Barron’s)

• OpenAI’s Chairman Is Thinking a Lot About Bubbles Right Now: Bret Taylor, who helped shape Google and Facebook and now runs a $10 billion AI customer service startup, thinks Silicon Valley will be just fine. (Businessweek)

• A Flood of Green Tech From China Is Upending Global Climate Politics: At this year’s climate summit, the United States is out and Europe is struggling. But emerging countries are embracing renewable energy thanks to a glut of cheap equipment. (New York Times)

• How luxury apartments became basic: Old money v. new money is a debate as old as New York. When it comes to housing, luxury apartments are giving older buildings a run for their money. A boom in apartment construction has meant new luxury might be more attainable. (Business Insider) see also Builders Are Offering Mortgage-Rate Discounts. Home Buyers Aren’t Biting. New homes are sitting unsold, despite builders using sweeteners to shift inventory. (Wall Street Journal)

• An old manufacturing city sputters back to life: Once a hub for guns and electrical wiring, Bridgeport, Connecticut, is now home to artisanal manufacturing businesses and a healthy real estate market. (Washington Post)

• How to help friends and family dig out of a conspiracy theory black hole: Some tried and trusted techniques that might help. (MIT Technology Review)

• NASA’s Quiet Supersonic Jet Takes Flight: The X-59 successfully completed its inaugural flight—a step toward developing quieter supersonic jets that could one day fly customers more than twice as fast as commercial airliners. (Wired)

• How a beloved TV nerd became ‘one of the greatest actors of his generation:’ Jesse Plemons broke out on “Friday Night Lights.” Now, he’s entering the best actor Oscars race with his riveting performance in “Bugonia.” (Washington Post)

Be sure to check out our Masters in Business interview this weekend with Kristin Olson, global head of alternatives for wealth at Goldman Sachs. She led GS’s alt capital markets group for 23 years, overseeing $500 billion in alt investments annually from wealth management clients.

It’s easier to make a case for using fairly priced, proven active bond funds than it is for active stock funds.

Source: Morningstar

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

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