Category: zerohedge

Authored by Yves Smith via NakedCapitalism.com,

The Pentagon has long been concerned about the threats climate change pose to stability and how it will lead to conflicts due to mass migration and even more intense competition for scarce resources. In the early 2000s, the military warned that climate change could induce large-scale deaths and migrations out of low-lying areas such as Bangladesh due to storms and flooding.

A recent look at the dangers climate change poses to US military operations, released over the summer by the Army War College, went virtually unnoticed despite offering “Apocalypse Near” scenarios a mere 20 years out.  And it isn’t  just that very bad things are in the offing; the report finds that “the Department of Defense (DoD) is precariously unprepared for the national security implications of climate change-induced global security challenges.”

We found out about this document only as a result of an article in Vice flagged by resilc. We’ve embedded the document at the end of the post and strongly urge you to read it in full. Or if you want Cliff Notes versions, see The Center for Climate and Security or the Vice piece

The report sees the lack of potable water as a serious limitation on US military operations, which it anticipates will be overtaxed due to destabilizing climate-change induced mass migrations abroad, combined with domestic Jackpot-level threats of an overtaxed, decrepit electrical grid; diseases; and drought and potential crop failures. Vice gives a good high-level recap:

The report paints a frightening portrait of a country falling apart over the next 20 years due to the impacts of climate change on “natural systems such as oceans, lakes, rivers, ground water, reefs, and forests.”

Current infrastructure in the US, the report says, is woefully underprepared: “Most of the critical infrastructures identified by the Department of Homeland Security are not built to withstand these altered conditions.”

Some 80 percent of US agricultural exports and 78 percent of imports are water-borne. This means that episodes of flooding due to climate change could leave lasting damage to shipping infrastructure, posing “a major threat to US lives and communities, the US economy and global food security,” the report notes.

Notice that its timing is very similar to what we’ve repeatedly said: that potable water is the world’s most scarce natural resource, and it will come under stress by 2050 (we’re seeing it sooner in places like Cape Town). And even though water is theoretically recyclable and non-potable water can be made into potable water, that comes at an energy cost as well as other environmental damage (for instance, the not-trivial problem of salt disposal with desalination).
.
What is striking is the language and scenarios are at Defcon2 levels. The document stresses it has no ideological point of view about climate change and based its forecasts on what it depicted as mainstream work. And it pointed out that climate change is already happening.

The first major threat it identifies is mass migration. Here is the second, which is less well recognized, from the executive summary:

Salt water intrusion into coastal areas and changing weather patterns will also compromise or eliminate fresh water supplies in many parts of the world. Additionally, warmer weather increases hydration requirements. This means that in expeditionary warfare, the Army will need to supply itself with more water. This signifcant logistical burden will be exacerbated on a future battle eld that requires constant movement due to the ubiquity of adversarial sensors and their deep strike capabilities.

This is quite the admission:

The U.S. Army is precipitously close to mission failure concerning hydration of the force in a contested arid environment. The experience and best practices of the last 17 years of con ict in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Africa rely heavily on logistics force structures to sup- port the war ghter with water mostly procured through contracted means of bottled water, local wells and Re- verse Osmosis Water Puri cation Units (ROWPU). The Army must reinvest aggressively in technologies both in-house and commercial off the shelf in the next 5-10 years to keep pace with rising global temperatures, es- pecially those arid areas in or poised for con ict. The Army must seek partnerships with industry, other na- tions, and other militaries currently working on the hy- dration issue.

While the report does not tease out all the implications, salt water intrusion will be another driver of mass migrations, not only due to its impact on potable water but also on fishing and farming. And of course, that plus sea level rises and more frequent storms will also threaten and even cripple existing US installations, although that risk isn’t immediate.

Of course, there’s no mention of how the US military is a big greenhouse gas emitter; the article blandly notes, “The DoD does not currently possess an environmentally conscious mindset.” To its credit, the report does make changing that a top priority for the Army. It takes a “get on the bus or you’ll be under the bus” perspective:

As the electorate becomes more concerned about climate change, it follows that elected of cials will, as well. This may result in significant restrictions on military activities (in peace- time) that produce carbon emissions.

On the mass migration front, the report suggests planning for a Bangladesh-level disaster, and point out that drought was a major impetus for the conflict in Syria, with refugees from Iraq increasing pressure, which resulted in the exodus of 5 million Syrians out of a pre-war population of 22 million. Bangladesh has over eight times as many people and sits in a conflict-prone area with nuclear powers on either side.

But the report also foresees that the military could be overwhelmed by domestic demands, particularly due to our crap infrastructure, namely that the aging electrical grid will face higher demands as wider-ranging temperatures = more power use. The fact that this report is considering “collapse” as a possibility is telling:

Effects of climate abnormalities over time introduce the possibility of taxing an already fragile system through increased energy requirements triggered by extended periods of heat, drought, cold, etc. If the power grid in- frastructure were to collapse, the United States would experience significant

• Loss of perishable foods and medications

• Loss of water and wastewater distribution systems

• Loss of heating/air conditioning and electrical lighting systems

• Loss of computer, telephone, and communica-tions systems (including airline ights, satellitenetworks and GPS services)

• Loss of public transportation systems

• Loss of fuel distribution systems and fuel pipelines

• Loss of all electrical systems that do not have back-up power

The caliber of the US response to power failure in Puerto Rico should give pause to the idea that the military is able do much to help.

A rise in insect-borne disease is another potential demand overseas and even here. While the report contends the US military has capabilities that enable them to help, I’m skeptical. And if a highly infectious disease emerges and spreads, it’s hard to imagine that any place in the world has the social cohesion and the public health system to respond well. The Steven Soderbergh movie Contagion was the feel-good version of what would happen if a virulent pathogen got loose. It’s hard to think that people in America would accept a quarantine or line up politely to collect food rations.

There is also considerable discussion of the threats and opportunities posed by the de-icing of the Arctic.

Finally, please do read the report before coming to conclusions about what it means for the possibility of operations in the US. The analysis by implication sees the military as asked to help in the event of a sustained domestic disaster, like a large scale electrical grid failure or a disease outbreak. It does not contemplate domestic violence. However, it’s not hard to see the possibility of martial law if the trajectory is as dire as this analysis suggests.

Having surged last Friday (and everyday since) on the back of an apparent trade deal, phase one, being completed-ish, headlines that the US and China are near completion of some aspects of the phase one trade deal that was supposedly all but papered last week has sparked yet more gains for stocks…

Fox News’ Edward Laurence tweeted:

“I have learned the phone call between the heads of the 2 trade teams has concluded. US Trade Rep Lighthizer & Treasury Sec Mnuchin spoke to Vice Premier Liu He to finalize the Phase One deal with China. US Sources say the teams are close to finalizing some sections..”

So are we closer-er to a deal that we were last Friday?

S&P is getting very close its record closing high of 3025.86 (3027.98 intra)

It’s deja vu all over again…

And all on the heels of yet another short squeeze…

Source: Bloomberg

 

It is becoming a full on, four-alarm redemption stampede at Ken Fisher’s firm, Fisher Investments.

Both the city of Los Angeles and Goldman Sachs have now joined the ranks of Fidelity, the Michigan Retirement Fund, the Iowa Public Employees Retirement System, the New Hampshire Retirement System and the Philadelphia Board of Pensions in pulling their money out of Fisher’s firm, according to Bloomberg.

The LA pension board called a special meeting on Thursday to discuss their contract with Fisher and L.A. pension commissioner Brian Pendleton said: “Fisher’s words reach millions and only do damage. Other pension funds are going to come to the same conclusion and we shouldn’t be the last ones to turn the lights off.”

Fisher Investments CEO Damian Ornani apologized to the LA pension board, stating: “I really apologize sincerely. He does too. He understands what he did. This will not happen again. This is not who Fisher Investments is. This is not who Ken Fisher is.”

The irony, of course, is that Fisher is hardly alone: in fact, the more an investor protests, the more likely they have one or more men who say the same, if not worse, as Fisher. And yet, with the magic of virtue signaling, if one pulls their money it is somehow seen – internally at least – as redemption for their sins.

Hypocrisy aside, LA commissioner Kenneth Buzzell responded: “Talk is cheap. I’d like to find out what if anything you’re going to do to attempt to right as best you can what’s been done” while board president Adam Nathanson took exception with the fact that Fisher himself didn’t attend the meeting. He stated: “It’s telling that he’s not here. He’s the one who said the comments. The accountability lies with Mr. Fisher.”

When they were told Fisher was too important to the firm to resign, and that the firm was a “great place to work”, L.A. commissioners responded by “saying they have heard that Fisher’s comments are part of a pattern of inappropriate behavior and no one at the firm can hold the founder accountable for his actions.”

Meanwhile, arguably the biggest abuser of chauvinistic harsh language – anyone who has been in the middle of the Goldman trading floor during the mid/late 2000s knows precisely what we mean – Goldman Sachs, is now pulling out $234 billion from Fisher, according to CNBC. One source commented that the final sum withdrawn from Fisher Investments could wind up being “even greater”. 

About 3 days ago, we reported that Fidelity had pulled $500 million from Fisher’s firm. Days prior to that, we reported that Iowa had pulled out $386 million from the firm. This was only hours after we reported that the city of Boston had also pulled out of Fisher Investments to the tune of $248 million.

Shawna Lode, spokeswoman for the IPERS, had said: “IPERS staff has taken time to evaluate this situation, and it is our opinion that Mr. Fisher’s comments have damaged the credibility of the firm and its leadership. As a result, the risk to IPERS is that the firm could lose investment talent, and/or it may be unable to recruit high caliber talent in the future.”

“Furthermore, the negative publicity will probably continue to be a major distraction to Fisher Investment personnel,” she correctly prognosticated.

Several weeks prior, Lode had commented that the IPERS was reviewing their relationship with Fisher Investments: “Fisher’s remarks are obviously concerning,” she said at the time. “Although our investment management contracts do not include a conduct policy, we hold our partners to the highest standards and reserve the right to amend or sever any contract at our discretion.”

Recall, just days after the $70 billion state of Michigan retirement fund pulled its assets from Fisher Investments, the city of Boston also did the same.

Fisher managed $600 million in retirement funds for Michigan and the state’s exit ends a 15 year relationship with Fisher’s firm.

Boston Mayor Martin Walsh said at the time: “Boston will not invest in companies led by people who treat women like commodities. Reports of Ken Fisher’s comments and poor judgment are incredibly disturbing.”

Michigan’s chief investment officer, Jon Braeutigam, notified the state investment board of the termination on October 10. In his letter, he said that Fisher’s comments were “unacceptable” and that although employees at his fund hadn’t witnessed similar comments, “history does not outweigh the inappropriateness of the comments.” 

Fisher was managing about $10.9 billion on behalf of 36 state or municipal government entities at the end of 2018, down from $13.2 billion at the end of 2017. That number will likely be sizeably lower at the end of 2019. 

For those confused what caused all of this, recall that three weeks ago we reported that at a conference in San Francisco, Fisher – whose firm manages more than $100 billion – “shocked” attendees when he compared gaining a client’s trust to “trying to get into a girl’s pants.” Fisher also said at the same conference that executives who were “not comfortable talking about genitalia should not be in the financial industry.” 

Authored by Sarah Cowgill via LibertyNation.com,

What a week it was for the folks in flyover states. The first hard frost banished those annoying little insects back to the Hell from whence they came, fall foliage erupted in a burst of reds, umber, and orange, and the harvesting of crops was finally underway. But mouths fell agape as one Texas dad went to court in an attempt to keep his ex-wife from transitioning their seven-year-old boy into a girl, jeers at hints that Hillary may be attempting a comeback, and cheers as the Republicans seemingly – finally – grew a pair and stormed a secret squirrel Democratic Caucus meeting.

Adam Schiff

If nothing else was accomplished, the look of astonishment on the sour face of Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) raised spirits of an impeachment-exhausted nation.  Just this past week, 184 Republicans backed a bill to censure Mr. Schiff for his handling, or mishandling, of the impeachment investigative requirement. But frustrations reached a fevered pitch, and Republicans stormed a closed hearing room to demand answers.

Rep. Michael Waltz (R-FL) rallied the beleaguered electorate through remarks on Twitter: “I have fought from #Afghanistan to West Africa – I have operated in countries in third world countries who have fairer processes to deal with their elected leadership than what we see today.”

Of course, the Democrats warbled and whined, but it was all for naught as the once Silent Majority applauded the efforts of 24 Republican representatives. As Idaho Falls voter Steve Preuss stated, “Well, there are now 24 republicans I would vote for in 2020. I’m not very interested in those who are sitting on their hands.”

And most heartlanders agreed: It was a good start that needed to gain momentum.

In Traverse City, MI, Kay Doty celebrated the uprising:

“We the people want action. I’m glad some members of Congress have the guts to call these people out,” while down the road a pace in Shelby Township, Bob Bucci went a bit further: “I say we storm the polls come election day. Not only just for Donald Trump but to vote these crooked Democrats out. We owe that much to Donald Trump after all he’s done for us. PS … no RINOs.”

Cheryl Wuelfing in Tennessee took aim at the lame stream press, “What has happened to our press??!! When did it become ok to support and help communism tactics??!!! I hope to God President Trump’s fight rubs off on the Republicans.”

Yet it was John Baldasarre’s words that had commenters signing up to assist: “They should have gave Pencil neck a wedgie while they were at it!”

This Is Out Of Hand

An event in Texas has the Lone Star voters and the rest of the common-sense thinking electorate foaming at the mouth to lock up a pediatrician for child abuse. Dr. Anne Georgulas, a mother of twin seven-year-old boys, apparently wants a little girl and has petitioned the court to allow a chemically medical transition on one twin, which would include puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. One thoughtful Oklahoman asked, “If he doesn’t go through puberty how does he even know he wants to be a girl?”

“James” or as the mother refers to him, “Luna.”

A good question, though a lot of folks went a bit radical on answers. No one was for allowing the mother the right to practice medicine on any other child, and many were all for removing the twins from her custody.

In Texarkana, Jimmy James was shaken.

“So sick. Shouldn’t be allowed to do this. It’s a decision that this kid when an adult should make.  The mother is insane !!!”

Tinna Alongi wasn’t very kind in her assessment of the situation:

“Hard to fathom a jury sided with the mother, allowing her sole medical rights.  Also hard to fathom this bats**t crazy mother is a pediatrician.”

She’s Back – Ugg

Also during the roller coaster ride through the Middle America came the drumbeat emanating from the Swamp that Hillary Clinton was prepping to run – and win – in 2020 against President Donald Trump.  Becky Ronstadt in North Dakota simply asked, “Hillary who?”  While others repeated a single word: “Benghazi.”

But along with the horror from many at the thought of Hillary running again, some welcomed a second, perhaps even more humiliating jaunt through the history books for the Clinton Clan matriarch.  Or as Mike Culver, said: “That’s Hillaryous.”

Attorneys John Bolton, President Trump’s former National Security Adviser, are in discussions with House committees about the possibility of giving a deposition in their impeachment investigations, according to journalist Shimon Prokupecz.

!!! John Bolton’s lawyers have consulted with the impeachment inquiry committees about a possible deposition. @kylieatwood

— Shimon Prokupecz (@ShimonPro) October 25, 2019

Bolton, who some speculated was the original “first-hand” source of the whistleblower complaint which launched the impeachment inquiries, was fired after President Trump says he “disagreed strongly with many of his suggestions.”

According to sources, while Trump had been growing displeased with Bolton’s belligerent recommendations and overall demeanor (recall “Bolton ‘Deep in His Heart’ Believes Trump Is a ‘Moron,’ Former Aide Claims“), the tipping point happened when Bolton expressed his displeasure with Trump’s impromptu invitation of the Taliban to Camp David on the week of the Sept 11 anniversary, a peace overture which as we reported over the weekend, collapsed in the last moment.

Developing…

After the flash October sentiment survey extended September’s rebound from August’s slump, expectations were for the small positive to hold or improve further, but the final print was slightly disappointing – dropping from 96.0 to 95.5 (still up from 93.2 in September).

• Expectations index rose to 84.2 vs. 83.4 last month.

• Current economic conditions index rose to 113.2 vs. 108.5 last month.

Source: Bloomberg

As UMich notes, the focus of consumers has been on income and job growth, while largely ignoring other news.

The most spontaneous references were to the negative impact of tariffs, which fell to 27% in October from last month’s 36%; the impeachment inquiry totaled just 2% in October, less than the 5% who mentioned a negative impact from the GM strike. To be sure, the multiple sources of uncertainty will keep consumers focused on potential threats to their prevailing optimism, with the most critical being threats that could significantly diminish their job and income prospects.

Buying conditions for vehicles and large appliances bounced notably, not so much that of housing…

Source: Bloomberg

The middle- and lowest-income cohorts saw sentiment improve the most…

Source: Bloomberg

And finally, the divide between Democrats and Republicans remains wide with those on the left the most unhappy since Trump was elected…

Source: Bloomberg

 

 

Authored by Patrick Buchanan via Buchanan.org,

Imperial Capital But America-First Nation

“Let someone else fight over this long blood-stained sand,” said President Donald Trump in an impassioned defense of his decision to cut ties to the Syrian Kurds, withdraw and end these “endless wars.”

Are our troops in Syria, then, on their way home? Well, not exactly.

Those leaving northern Syria went into Iraq. Other U.S. soldiers will stay in Syria to guard oil wells that we and the Kurds captured in the war with ISIS. Another 150 U.S. troops will remain in al-Tanf to guard Syria’s border with Iraq, at the request of Jordan and Israel.

And 2,000 more U.S. troops are being sent to Saudi Arabia to help defend the kingdom from Iran, which raises a question: Are we coming or going?

In his conflicting statements and actions, Trump seemingly seeks to mollify both sides of our national quarrel:

Is America still the world’s last superpower with global policing obligations?

Or should we shuck off this imperial role and make America, again, in Jeane Kirkpatrick’s phrase, “a normal country in a normal time”?

In Middle America, anti-interventionism has carried the day. As Trump says, no declaration at his rallies is more wildly welcomed than his pledge to end our Middle East wars and bring the troops home.

But in this imperial capital, the voice of the interventionist yet prevails. The media, the foreign policy elite, the think tanks, the ethnic lobbies, the Pentagon, the State Department, Capitol Hill, are almost all interventionist, opposed to Trump’s abandonment of the Kurds. Rand Paul may echo Middle America, but Lindsey Graham speaks for the Republican establishment.

Yet the evidence seems compelling that anti-interventionism is where the country is at, and the Congress knows it.

For though the denunciations of Trump’s pullout from Syria have not ceased, one detects no campaign on Capitol Hill to authorize sending U.S. troops back to Syria, in whatever numbers are needed, to enable the Kurds to keep control of their occupied quadrant of that country.

Love of the Kurds, so audible on the Hill, does not go that far.

While surely loud, the neocons and liberal interventionists who drown out dissent in D.C. appear to lack the courage of their New World Order convictions.

In 1940-41, the anti-interventionists of “America First” succeeded in keeping us out of the world war (after Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland in September of 1939 and Britain and France went to war). Pearl Harbor united the nation, but not until Dec. 7, 1941, two years later — when America First folded its tents and enlisted.

Today, because both sides of our foreign policy quarrel have powerful constituencies, we have paralysis anew, reflected in policy.

We have enough troops in Afghanistan to prevent the Taliban from overrunning Kabul and the big cities, but not enough to win the war.

In Iraq, which we invaded in 2003 to oust Saddam Hussein and install a democracy, we brought to power the Shia and their Iranian sponsors. Now we battle Iran for political influence in Baghdad.

Across the Middle East, we have enough troops, planes and ships to prevent our expulsion, but not enough to win the wars from Syria to Yemen to Afghanistan.

Bahrain in the Persian Gulf is the home base of the U.S. Fifth Fleet. We have 13,000 troops and a major air base at Al Udeid in Qatar. U.S. Army Central Command and 13,000 U.S. troops are in Kuwait. Trump has sent more troops to Saudi Arabia, but it was the “infidel” troops’ presence on sacred Saudi soil that was among the reasons Osama bin Laden launched 9/11.

To the question, “Are we going deeper into the Middle East or coming out?” the answer is almost surely the latter.

Among the candidates who could be president in 2021 — Trump, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders — none is an interventionist of the Lindsey Graham school. Three are anti-interventionist and anti-war, which may help explain why Democrats are taking a second look at Hillary Clinton.

According to polls, Iran is first among the nations that Americans regard as an enemy. Still, there is no stomach for war with Iran. When Trump declined to order a strike on Iran — after an air and cruise missile attack shut down half of Saudi oil production — Americans, by their silent acquiescence, seemed to support our staying out.

Yet if there is no stomach in Middle America for war with Iran and a manifest desire to pull the troops out and come home, there is ferocious establishment resistance to any withdrawal of U.S. forces. This has bedeviled Trump through the three years of his presidency.

Again, it seems a stalemate is in the cards — until there is some new explosion in the Mideast, after which the final withdrawal for America will begin, as it did for the exhausted British and French empires after World War II.

That we are leaving the Middle East seems certain. Only the departure date is as yet undetermined.

Clearly frustrated by her treatment at the hands of the Democratic Party, presidential candidate and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard announced Friday morning that she will “not be seeking re-election to Congress in 2020,” the latest sign that Gabbard, who hails from Hawaii, might be planning a third-party run during the 2020 presidential election.

In recent days, a flurry of stories highlighting Wall Street’s fears of an Elizabeth Warren presidency hinted that Democratic power brokers in the industry are looking for a viable third-party candidate to ensure that Warren, who has threatened to hike taxes and break up the biggest banks, never becomes president.

In a 6-minute video, Gabbard recounts how she first entered politics, participating in Hawaii’s state legislature, before becoming a political protege of Hawaiian Sen. Daniel Akaka, who left office in 2013. After spending some time in Washington working as a top aide to Akaka, Gabbard deployed to Iraq with the Hawaii national guard, saying she couldn’t stay home and watch as her neighbors went off to fight (she eventually served two deployments).

BREAKING: Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) announces that she “will not be seeking reelection to Congress in 2020” pic.twitter.com/SlH6eSAv5N

— Ryan Saavedra (@RealSaavedra) October 25, 2019

Gabbard appeared on Sean Hannity’s show the other night to “fight for peace”, and accused “warmongering” Hillary Clinton of smearing her as a “traitor”.

It is just the latest response from the congresswoman to accusations from Clinton, who has accused Gabbard of being a Russian agent.

Gabbard first hit back at Clinton after the 2016 Democratic candidate suggested in a podcast that the congresswoman was “a favorite of the Russians” and was being “groomed” for a third-party candidate. 

Authored by Marie Huillet via CoinTelegraph.com,

A professor at Stanford Graduate School of Business says cryptocurrencies will put an end to the windfall that banks currently enjoy from low-interest deposits.

image courtesy of CoinTelegraph

In an Oct 24 interview for the university,  Dean Witter Distinguished Professor of Finance Darrell Duffies said that one way or another, cryptocurrencies are likely to upend banks’ business model within the next decade.

Major disruption inevitable

Professor Duffie said the public should not be misled by the relatively still-low levels of adoption of decentralized cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin (BTC); nor should they take the pushback against Facebook’s Libra as the sign of a moratorium on major private initiatives.

“The future is coming, and it will be very disruptive to legacy banks that don’t get with the program,” he said.

Whether it in the form of a dollar-backed stablecoin, a Facebook product, or a central bank digital currency, the benefits of the digital asset model will likely mean that banks lose their access to lucrative low-interest deposits within ten years, he said, adding: 

“New payment methods will trigger greater competition for deposits. If consumers have faster ways of paying their bills, and merchants can get faster access to their sales revenue without needing a bank, they won’t want to keep as much money in accounts that pay extremely low interest.”

As the report notes, consumers and businesses currently store around $14 trillion in deposits with United States banks alone that pay out an extremely low rate of interest on average.

Banks currently pay less than 0.1% interest on checking and savings accounts, and only a slightly higher rate on one-year certificates of deposit. Meanwhile, the amount banks receive from routine overnight loans has climbed from 0.3% in 2015 to over 2% in 2019.

Slow adopters will fall by the wayside

This dependence on deposit accounts to process payments by the vast majority of the population ensures huge profits for banks. In addition, banks charge high fees from credit card vendors — a cost that is mostly then passed on to the consumer. 

Different models for future central bank digital currencies could also develop in ways that would bypass commercial banks for at least part of the payment process. 

And if adoption is driven by the private sector — as with Libra, due to the unprecedented scale effects it has — it could have a huge impact on the status quo. 

He argued that the current system is not sustainable and that technology, economics and public pressure will wrest control of the global payment system away from banks.

“The smartest banks will be on the front edge of this, but others will be reluctant to cannibalize their very profitable franchises,” he said. To those banks that are slow on the mark, he cautioned:

“The future is coming, and it’s not good.”

Amazon shares are down dramatically overnight following a dismal earnings report, and while that is painful for all the highly-levered momo followers invested in the firm, it is without doubt more painful for one person in particular.

AMZN shares are down over 8% in early trading…

Bezos owns 57,657,362 Amazon shares, according to the most recent SEC filing, and so at the pre-market price, Bloomberg reports that Bezos would have a net worth of $102.8 billion, ranking him second, and almost $5 billion behind Gates, according to the Bloomberg Billionaires Index.

Of course, Bezos net worth already took a tumble earlier this year due to his amicable divorce. Bezos wealth is below that of Bill Gates for the first time since Oct 2017…

Source: Bloomberg

Notably, Mackenzie Bezos’ net worth would drop to $32.9 billion with Amazon shares priced at $1,637, but she’d remain the world’s fourth-richest woman.