Getting Physical: Why Bullion Has Outperformed Gold Stocks

Getting Physical: Why Bullion Has Outperformed Gold Stocks

Via SchiffGold.com,

Gold prices have been on a tear, with bullion prices ripping upward since the outbreak of war in the Middle East late last year. While mining stocks have gone up as well, physical gold has been leaving them in the dust:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Peter Schiff (@peterschiff)

Gold stock performance is obviously tied to much more than just the bullion price. For one, shareholder value can always be diluted when you’re holding stocks, regardless of the industry. Gold mining companies also have overhead for exploration, extraction, processing, and storage. There are also price fluctuations in oil, materials, and labor that gold miners have to contend with. Physical gold also comes with some overhead — mainly with regard to storage, transportation, and security — but the costs are lower in comparison.

Still, gold mining stocks have the added benefit of paying dividends. They just come with the need to consider a longer list of variables like executive management, the cost of exploration, and aging equipment that could require repair or replacement. When the broader economy isn’t doing great and overhead costs are lower, winning gold miners can fare extremely well.

In fact, winning gold miners can be very profitable and at times can outperform bullion, especially in the shorter and medium-term. That’s why Peter Schiff still recommends allocating capital to gold miners as part of a diversified precious metals portfolio. However, to protect your wealth in the long run in spite of macroeconomic trends, you should also always hold the metal itself. Regardless of which gold mining stocks you choose, nothing beats physical bullion as a safe haven in an inflationary environment where central bank money printing is running amok.

That’s especially true during times like these, when the Fed is expected to start cutting interest rates and printing money to finance meddling in a rapidly-expanding Middle East conflict. If inflation rockets back up, it allows gold miners to set higher prices for their bullion, but increases their overhead due to having to cover their costs in a devalued currency. This doesn’t negate the wisdom of holding the right mining stocks, but reinforces that gold bullion remains the top safe haven asset when it comes to easy money policies and the chaos of war.

Peter Schiff commented on the Commodity Culture podcast:

“To the extent that the Fed just tolerates higher inflation and continues to ease in the face of it, that’s going to destroy the dollar, and then gold’s just going to go through the roof.”

Speaking of inflation, a divergence in the gold with the price of Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities could indicate that the market is far from assured that the Fed really has inflation under control. The two split in 2022, with a gap that’s threatening to widen even more in the coming months if the gold price accelerates upward.

Owning stock in the right mining companies is essential for any well-rounded gold investor. The right picks can yield higher returns than physical gold, given certain conditions. But change is one of life’s few guarantees, and with Keynesians still firmly in charge, so is money printing. Physical gold remains the king of stable long-term protection against central bank monetary tinkering and general global chaos.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 12:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/Aj70LRg Tyler Durden

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In Recent History

Inside The Most Ridiculous Jobs Report In Recent History

On the surface, it was an blockbuster jobs report, certainly one which nobody expected. Starting at the top, the BLS reported that in January the US unexpectedly added 353K “jobs” – the most since January 2023 (when the print was 482K compared to 131K) , double the consensus forecast of 185K and more than the highest Wall Street estimate (300K from Natixis). In fact, this was a 4-sigma beat to estimate, unheard of in the past year.

The headline data was stellar across the board, starting with the unemployment rate which once again failed to rise – denying expectations from “Sahm’s Rule” that a recession may have already started – all the way to average hourly earnings, which unexpectedly spiked from 4.1% (pre-revision) to 4.5%, the highest since last September, and a slap in the face to the Fed’s disinflation narrative…

… or it would be if one didn’t think of checking how the average rose: well, it turns out that, since average hourly earnings is a fraction, it did not rise due to a jump in actual wages but – since it is earnings over a period of time – “rose” because the BLS decided to sharply slash the number of estimated hours that everyone was working, from 34.3 to just 34.1, which may not sound like a lot until one realizes that the last time the workweek was this low was when the economy was shut down during covid.  Excluding the covid lockdowns, one would have to go back to 2010 to find a workweek that was this anemic.

And speaking of revisions, we had a lot of those: in January, the BLS conducted its annual “annual re-benchmarking and update of seasonal adjustment factors.” Long story short, what was until December a decline in jobs has now been miraculously transformed into gains, as shown in the chart below.

For those asking, the revisions were unambiguously designed to give the impression that the labor market is slowing much less than it is. Consider this: before the revision, the average monthly job gain in 2021 was largely unchanged (606K pre-revision vs 604K post), and while the average monthly gain in 2022 was revised lower (from 399K to 377K), this was purposefully goalseeked to make 2023 appear stronger, and indeed the average monthly increase in 2023 has been revised from 225K to 255K.

Which would be great, if only it wasn’t almost entirely due to the BLS’s latest choice of seasonal adjustments, which have gone from merely laughable to full clownshow, as the following comparison between the revised BLS Payrolls number and the ADP payrolls show: the trend is clear: the Biden admin numbers are now clearly rising even as the impartial ADP (which directly logs employment numbers at the company level and is actually far more accurate), shows an accelerating slowdown.

And speaking of seasonal adjustments, the January print was all seasonals, because while the seasonally adjusted payrolls was up 353K, the unadjusted was down 2.635 million, a 3 million jobs delta.

In other words, just a 10% error rate in the seasonal adjustment (roughly where it falls) would wipe out the entire gain and make January increase a decline. Then again, this is the case with every January jobs report, because as shown below, the actual change in jobs in the first month of the year is down anywhere between 2.5 million and 3 million!

But it’s more than just the Biden admin hanging its “success” on seasonal adjustments: when one digs deeper inside the jobs report, all sorts of ugly things emerge… such as the latest divergence between the Establishment (payrolls) and much more accurate Household (actual employment) survey. To wit, while in January the BLS claims 353K payrolls were added, the Household survey found that the number of actually employed workers dropped again, this time by 31K (from 161.183K to 161.152K).

This means that while the Payrolls series hits new all time highs every month since December 2020 (when according to the BLS the US had its last month of payrolls losses), the level of Employment has barely budged in the past year. Worse, as shown in the chart below, such a gaping divergence has opened between the two series in the past 4 years, that the number of Employed workers would need to soar by 9 million (!) to catch up to what Payrolls claims is the employment situation.

There’s more: shifting from a quantitative to a qualitative assessment, reveals just how ugly the composition of “new jobs” has been. Consider this: the BLS reports that in January 2024, the US had 133.1 million full-time jobs and 27.9 million part-time jobs. Well, that’s great… until you look back one year and find that in February 2023 the US had 133.2 million full-time jobs, or more than it does one year later! And yes, all the job growth since then has been in part-time jobs, which have increased by 870K since February 2023 (from 27.020 million to 27.890 million).

Here is a summary of the labor composition in the past year: all the jobs have been part-time jobs!

But wait there’s even more, because just as we enter the peak of election season and political talking points will be thrown around left and right, especially in the context of the immigration crisis created intentionally by the Biden administration which is hoping to import millions of new Democratic voters (maybe the US can hold the presidential election in Honduras or Guatemala, after all it is their citizens that will be illegally casting the key votes in November), what we find is that in January, the number of native-born worker tumbled again, sliding by a massive 560K to just 129.807 million. Add to this the December data, and we get a near-record 1.9 million plunge in native-born workers in just the past 2 months!

Said otherwise, not only has all job creation in the past 4 years has been exclusively for foreign-born workers, but there has been zero job-creation for native born workers since July 2018!

Source: St Louis Fed FRED Native Born and Foreign Born

This is a huge issue – especially at a time of an illegal alien flood at the border – and is about to become a huge political scandal, because once the inevitable recession finally hits, there will be millions of furious unemployed Americans demanding a more accurate explanation for what happened – i.e., the illegal immigration floodgates that were opened by the Biden admin.

Which is also why the Biden admin will do everything in his power to insure there is no official recession before November… and is why after the election is over, all economic hell will finally break loose. Until then, however, expect the jobs numbers to get more and more ridiculous.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 12:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/NEkmWGX Tyler Durden

Inspired Idiot of the Week: Lizzie Warren edition

Last week when I wrote about the dumbest guy of the week, I should have known it wouldn’t be a one-time thing.

A week ago I wrote about Congressman Jamaal Bowman, who was demanding that the US government make “at a minimum” $14 trillion worth of reparations payments.

(Remember, this is the same guy who ‘accidentally’ pulled the fire alarm in the Capitol on September 30, 2023, which just happened to disrupt a critical Congressional vote that he was hoping to stall.)

As a member of Congress, Bowman surely knows that the national debt is already $34 trillion. He surely knows that last year’s deficit was nearly $2 trillion. He surely knows that Congress itself projects another $20 trillion in new debt over the next decade.

Yet in addition to all that debt, Mr. Bowman wants to dole out an additional $14 trillion in reparation payments.

And his plan for how to come up with the money? “We [spend] it into existence,” he says. In other words, more debt.

One can only marvel at this intellectual giant’s grasp of economics.

But the competition for the biggest Inspired Idiot is fierce. And this week the Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, carries the torch.

First some quick background.

In August 2022, Amazon announced plans to acquire iRobot, which makes the robotic ‘Roomba’ vacuum cleaner, for $1.7 billion.

And boy did that infuriate Elizabeth Warren.

She quickly wrote a letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) urging it to “use its authority to oppose the Amazon–iRobot transaction.”

Why? Well according to Warren’s inspired idiot logic, she claimed that the deal “could harm consumers”, as if we helpless little people will somehow suffer grievous bodily injury if Amazon buys a vacuum cleaner company.

Now, Amazon was probably planning to use the iRobot device to harvest even more consumer data, just like Amazon does with just about all of its other products and services.

Call me old-fashioned, but I believe consumers are capable of making that decision themselves, i.e. whether they are willing to trade privacy for convenience. I’m not. Others are.

But Ms. Warren is making the decision for everyone. She clearly knows what’s in your family’s best interest more than you do. And thank goodness we have people like Elizabeth Warren making these decisions on our behalf.

So, this week, after nearly 18 months of pressure from Senator Warren— plus more regulatory scrutiny from inspired idiots in the European Union— Amazon finally walked away from the deal… citing insurmountable regulatory hurdles.

The immediate response was that iRobot, devoid of additional funding that Amazon would have provided, immediately laid off one-third of its work force.

You did it Lizzy! You saved the day!

Regulatory red tape almost always hurts the economy. But in this case, there’s a clear line of destruction, from a single Inspired Idiot to hundreds of people who lost their jobs as a direct result of her fanaticism.

I remember a similar case in 2019 when New York Rep. AOC opposed a planned Amazon headquarters that would have brought tens of thousands of jobs, and hundreds of millions in tax revenue to New York.

Her major beef was that, in exchange for billions in investment, Amazon would have received a partial tax break. AOC wasn’t having any of that.

So she chased Amazon out of town… then actually celebrated the lost investment, lost job growth, and lost tax revenue as a victory for the people!

It’s no surprise that, over the past five years, other large companies and wealthy individuals have fled the state to lower tax, more business-friendly jurisdictions (like Florida). And New York now has a massive financial deficit.

Bizarrely, voters keep re-electing these Inspired Idiots.

AOC hasn’t lost her job. Elizabeth Warren hasn’t lost her job. But iRobot staff have lost theirs.

Now, Sen. Warren has been a very special talent this week… because in addition to slaying the jobs of hundreds of workers at iRobot, she also sent another nasty letter to the CEO of Walgreens.

Walgreens recently announced that they were closing several locations in some of the crappiest neighborhoods in Massachusetts, Warren’s home state.

Naturally Warren whined that “these closures are occurring within the larger legacy of historic racial and economic discrimination that has created significant pharmacy and food deserts and lack of access to transportation in these neighborhoods.”

Yes, that may be true. I imagine no impoverished neighborhood would want to lose a vital drug store.

But maybe they ought to consider the reasons why Walgreens is leaving, which are completely obvious: it’s unprofitable (and dangerous) to operate in high-crime areas where half of your merchandise is shoplifted.

Yet Inspired Idiots like Warren (and the people who run these big cities) decriminalize shoplifting. Local prosecutors won’t do anything. The police can’t do anything. Security guards in the stores can’t do anything.

Why should any rational business owner continue operating in such an environment?

One of the honorable mentions this week goes to Rep. Ayanna Pressley, another Inspired Idiot who made these comments on the Walgreens matter:

“When a Walgreens leaves a neighborhood, they disrupt an entire community, and they take with them baby formula, diapers, asthma inhalers, lifesaving medications, and of course jobs. These closures are not arbitrary, and they are not innocent. They are life threatening acts of racial and economic discrimination… Shame on you Walgreens!”

Now, the three politicians who signed this angry letter to Walgreens— Senators Warren and Markey, plus Rep. Ayanna Pressley, have a combined 76 years in government.

You’d think that with 76 years they could have done something to lift their constituents out of grinding poverty by now.

But no, the problem is clearly racist pharmacies which—gasp—make perfectly rational business decisions to close unprofitable stores.

Warren obviously has enough pull to torpedo the Amazon/iRobot deal. But apparently, she’s a helpless babe when it comes to actually cleaning up the streets and delivering economic opportunity for her constituents.

These stories are important to highlight. The country is on a clear trajectory to the mother of all financial crises over the next 5 to 10 years, and there is only a narrow window to escape that outcome.

Averting disaster should be politicians’ top priority— encouraging productivity, cutting red tape, and being friendly to both large and small businesses.

But their approach instead is to shame companies, over-regulate the economy, and destroy jobs.

These people are dangerous lunatics, and they’re making things worse— not better. This is why it’s so critical to have a rock-solid Plan B for what’s coming down the road.

Source

from Schiff Sovereign https://ift.tt/kwfdiFR
via IFTTT

Prof. Marty Lederman (Georgetown) on Trump v. Anderson: “Two Important Things All the Parties Get Wrong, …”

The post (at Balkinization) is here; as I’ve mentioned before, I haven’t studied the issues in this case closely enough to speak to this myself, but Prof. Lederman is a leading constitutional expert, and his thoughts struck me as much worth passing along:

1. Colorado Is Not “Enforcing” or “Implementing” Section 3.

The briefs of all four of the parties in the Supreme Court (and those of many amici, as well) proceed on the assumption, articulated repeatedly in their briefs, that if Colorado were to omit Donald Trump’s name from its presidential primary ballot—something that, as I explain in this post, Colorado has not in fact done and is unlikely to do—the state would acting to “enforce” or “implement” Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, some of the parties’ arguments take this as a jumping-off point, and depend upon it.

But it’s wrong. Colorado isn’t purporting to “enforce” Section 3, and states don’t have any power to enforce its disqualification directive with respect to federal officers.

To be sure, a state has the power to enforce Section 3 with respect to state officers who are subject to Section 3’s disqualification rule. Relevant state officials or courts with statutory or state constitutional authority, for example, can refuse to appoint a Section-3-disqualified person, or remove such a person from office. And, if state law prescribes it, a state legislature might be able to remove state legislators, as well as other state officers by way of impeachment, etc.

But a state does not have any legal authority—nor, to my knowledge, has any state ever claimed such power—to enjoin a disqualified federal official from holding office, or to remove him or her from such office….

Once one understands that Colorado is simply enforcing its own state-law rule prescribing exclusion of ineligible candidates from primary election ballots for purposes of state election management—a rule not confined to presidential candidates—one can see that Trump’s argument that Colorado is imposing an additional “qualification” for Trump to hold office (according to Trump, Colorado has effectively required a candidate not to be subject to Section 3 ineligibility at the time of the primary election rather than on January 20, 2025) rests upon a category error: By declaring that candidates for President may not appear on its presidential primary ballot unless they meet certain conditions (including apparent eligibility to hold the office), Colorado is no more imposing extraconstitutional “qualifications” on persons holding that national office than Virginia did in 2012 when it excluded Rick Perry from its presidential primary ballot because he failed to timely submit the necessary number of voter signatures. See Perry v. Judd, 471 F. App’x 219 (4th Cir. 2012). (I pulled that example from Derek Muller’s excellent amicus brief.)

2. Colorado Also is Not (Yet) Exercising Its Authority Under Article I’s “Electors” Clause

One of Trump’s arguments (see Part V of his brief) is that the Colorado Supreme Court violated the Electors Clause of the U.S. Constitution, Art. I, § 1, cl. 2, which requires states to appoint presidential electors “in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct,” by misreading Colorado law to require exclusion of Trump’s name from the presidential primary ballot. Somewhat surprisingly, the Anderson plaintiffs appear to accept this framing, insisting (at page 46 of their brief) that the Electors Clause “gives the states ‘far-reaching authority’ to run presidential elections, ‘absent some other constitutional constraint'” (quoting Chiafalo v. Washington, 140 S. Ct. 2316, 2324 (2020)) (emphasis added). Secretary of Griswold likewise implies (Br. at 25) that Colorado is exercising its “far-reaching” Electors Clause authority here, and several amicus briefs do the same.

The Anderson plaintiffs have misquoted Chiafalo. The Chiafalo Court did not say that Article I, section 1, clause 2 gives the states “far-reaching authority” “to run presidential elections” such as the primary election currently ongoing in Colorado. The Court wrote, instead, that “Article II, § 1’s appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint.” 120 S. Ct. at 2324 (emphasis added). By replacing the words “over presidential electors” with “to run presidential elections,” the plaintiffs’ brief misleadingly implies that the U.S. Constitution empowers the states to run presidential primary elections. But it doesn’t. And this case involves a primary election ballot….

3. Whether and How the Supreme Court’s Decision Could Affect the Content of Colorado Ballots in 2024

In my first substantive post in this series, I suggested that the case might be moot unless the U.S. Supreme Court is persuaded that its decision could possibly affect the content of the primary election ballot in Colorado—or at least the state’s general election ballot in November. As I read the state supreme court’s judgment and the Colorado Election Code, it’s not clear to me how the Supreme Court’s decision could make any difference at all on any Colorado ballots, particularly because the statute upon which the state supreme court relied to establish a governmental authority to strike from the primary ballot the names of unqualified candidates for federal office does not, best I can tell, apply to the general election….

If you’re at all interested in the subject, read the whole post.

The post Prof. Marty Lederman (Georgetown) on <i>Trump v. Anderson</i>: "Two Important Things All the Parties Get Wrong, …" appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest https://ift.tt/1bqWgtf
via IFTTT

Retirement Savers Are Piling Into Stocks. Is That A Good Idea?

Retirement Savers Are Piling Into Stocks. Is That A Good Idea?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

As the financial markets grind higher, retirement savers have consciously decided to add more to equity risk. Such was the result of a recent Bloomberg survey.

“Retirement savers want more stocks in their portfolios as a hedge against inflation, potentially offering a long-term tailwind for equities as societies age, according to the latest Bloomberg Markets Live Pulse survey.

Almost half of the 252 respondents said they were putting more funds into stocks as a response to rising prices – far eclipsing the 6% who said they’d be adding the traditional inflation hedge, gold.” – Simon White

While the respondents said they were buying stocks as a hedge against inflation, which may be part of the answer, the reality is that a surging bull market over the last 14 years is more likely the real reason. The same psychology permeated into the next question, which asked which asset classes would do the best as society ages. Given the real-world experience of most individuals of skyrocketing home prices and stocks, it was not surprising to see both ranking as top answers.

Given the recency bias of most individuals, the responses were unsurprising given the outsized proportion of market gains relative to the long-term averages. Such was the recent topic of “Portfolio Return Expectations Are Too High.” To wit:

The chart shows the average annual inflation-adjusted total returns (dividends included) since 1928. I used the total return data from Aswath Damodaran, a Stern School of Business professor at New York University. The chart shows that from 1928 to 2023, the market returned 8.45% after inflation. However, after the financial crisis in 2008, returns jumped by nearly four percentage points for the various periods. After over a decade, many investors have become complacent in expecting elevated portfolio returns from the financial markets. However, can those expectations continue to be met in the future?”

That last sentence is critical.

A Staggering Shortfall

There are a couple of apparent reasons individuals are willing to take on increased risk in portfolios, the most obvious being the rather significant savings shortfall. For example, a previous survey by CNBC found that most Americans will need $1.3 million to retire comfortably.

“When it comes to how much they will need to retire comfortably, Americans have a “magic number” in mind — $1.27 million, according to new research from Northwestern Mutual.

The survey found that respondents in their 50s expected to need the most when they retire — more than $1.5 million. For those in their 60s and 70s, who are close to or in retirement, those expectations dropped to less than $1 million.”

The problem with that data is that most individuals are nowhere close to those levels of savings.

“A recent survey conducted by Clever Real Estate polled 1,000 Gen Xers born between 1965 and 1980 to find out how they fare regarding personal finances and the road to retirement. A staggering 56% of Gen Xers said they have less than $100,000 saved for retirement, and 22% said they have yet to save a single cent.

While the desire to retire may be there, the money just isn’t. A whopping 64% of respondents said they stopped saving for retirement not because they don’t want to but because they simply can’t afford to.

Furthermore, a LendingClub survey shows that 61% of U.S. consumers live paycheck to paycheck.

It’s a dire situation for most Americans, particularly those retirement savers. As such, it is unsurprising that more individuals are looking to the stock market as a solution to make up the shortfall.

However, therein lies the risk.

The Risk Of Risk

One of the incredible genetic traits of humans is the ability to forget pain. The trait is essential to the survival of the species. If cavemen clearly remembered the agonizing pain of being attacked by a predator, they would have likely never left their caves to hunt. If women vividly remembered the excruciating pain of childbirth, they would probably never have more than one. In the financial markets, investors all too soon forget the painful memories of bear markets, particularly when the bull is stampeding.

Currently, the bull market that began in 2009 remains firmly intact. Despite a mild stumble in 2022, the long-term trend remains higher, and investors feel confident that the trend will remain indefinitely. However, a risk has been overlooked amid above-average returns over the last decade. That risk is liquidity, which we discussed in more depth in “The Markets Are Frontrunning The Fed.” 

“The psychological change is a function of more than a decade of fiscal and monetary interventions that have separated the financial markets from economic fundamentals. Since 2007, the Federal Reserve and the Government have continuously injected roughly $43 Trillion in liquidity into the financial system and the economy to support growth. That support entered the financial system, lifting asset prices and boosting consumer confidence to support economic growth.”

The risk of reduced monetary liquidity may become problematic for stocks to sustain current returns. As shown below, nearly 100% of the index returns from 1900 to the present came during the 4-periods of multiple expansion. With valuations currently very elevated, the reduction of monetary liquidity may lead to the next secular period of “multiple contraction,” which would yield much lower rates of returns.

In other words, retirement savers currently allocating more savings to equity risk could well be setting themselves up for an extended period of higher volatility and lower expected rates of return.

Conclusion

As Jeremy Grantham previously noted:

“All 2-sigma equity bubbles in developed countries have broken back to trend. But before they did, a handful went on to become superbubbles of 3-sigma or greater: in the U.S. in 1929 and 2000 and in Japan in 1989. There were also superbubbles in housing in the U.S. in 2006 and Japan in 1989. All five of these superbubbles corrected all the way back to trend with much greater and longer pain than average.

Today in the U.S. we are in the fourth superbubble of the last hundred years.”

Therefore, unless the Federal Reverse is committed to a never-ending program of zero interest rates and quantitative easing, the eventual reversion of returns to their long-term means is inevitable.

It is hard to fathom how forward return rates will not be disappointing compared to the last decade. However, those excess returns were the result of a monetary illusion. The consequence of dispelling that illusion will be challenging for retirement savers.

However, throughout history, investors have repeatedly invested the most into equity risk and the worst possible times. For retirement savers, this time will likely be no different.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 11:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/IPb67dO Tyler Durden

The Delaware Judge Who Nuked Elon Musk’s $55 Billion Package Is Steeped In Bidenworld

The Delaware Judge Who Nuked Elon Musk’s $55 Billion Package Is Steeped In Bidenworld

Earlier this week, a Delaware judge voided Elon Musk’s $55 billion pay package after a Tesla shareholder, who owned just 9 shares, filed a lawsuit claiming that the package was excessive and unfair – despite the fact that it was based on milestones which the board and 80% of shareholders agreed upon, and which Musk achieved.

The judge in the case, Kathleen McCormick of the Delaware Chancery Court (in which there is no jury), agreed with the shareholder, Richard Tornetta, that Tesla’s board lacked independence in crafting Musk’s pay – and will now have to go back to the drawing board to put together a new compensation plan.

So much for capitalism, right?

The move prompted Musk to create a poll asking if Tesla should move its state of incorporation from Delaware to Texas, which more than 87% of his 170 million followers agreed with.

So much for the judiciary…

After the shocking ruling, X user KanekoaTheGreat began digging into Judge McCormick’s past, revealing yet another partisan activist sitting on the bench.

Not only did she come from a Democrat-allied law firm, she was nominated to her position by Congressman John Carney, who held a gubernatorial campaign event with Biden at said firm.

Judge Kathleen McCormick doesn’t need to speak with no manager

From Kanekoa’s post on X:

Before becoming the head of the Delaware Chancery Court, McCormick worked at a Delaware law firm called Young Conaway.

This firm and its employees have been major donors to President Joe Biden for decades.

In 2016, Hunter Biden hosted a gubernatorial campaign event for Congressman John Carney, with then-Vice President Joe Biden as the guest speaker.

This event took place at the Law Offices of Young Conaway in Wilmington, Delaware.

Carney, a close friend of Joe Biden for the last four decades, later became governor and nominated Kathaleen McCormick, a partner at Young Conaway, to her position on the Delaware Chancery Court.

In a March 2018 email, Hunter Biden claimed to personally know every judge on the Delaware Chancery Court while threatening legal action against his Chinese business partners.

“I will bring the suit in the Chancery court in Delaware – which as you know is my home state and I am privileged to have worked with and know every judge on the chancery court.”

After Elon Musk purchased Twitter with the stated goal of restoring free-speech, President Biden called for a federal investigation into Musk on the podium at the White House.

Following this, the Biden Department of Justice, Securities and Exchange Commission, and Federal Trade Commission initiated legal actions and investigations against Tesla, SpaceX, and X.

And of course, receipts beyond her publicly available career path:

Meanwhile, X user ‘Teslanomics’ summed the situation up brilliantly;

Let me get this story straight.

So Elon’s 2018 compensation package was approved by ~80% of Tesla shareholders during a time the company’s valuation was ~$60B ($20 per share). The plan would require him to grow the market cap by $50B increments with the first milestone starting at a $100B valuation with the final milestone being $650B, in addition to aggressive revenue, pretax profit growth targets that many thought would be impossible, especially knowing the company was facing bankruptcy dead in the eyes during this time.

If Elon were to hit all the milestones, he would then be granted this full $55B compensation package that gave him stock options to purchase Tesla stock at a heavily discounted price and the stock could not be sold for another 5 yrs after exercising the options to prevent an “exercise & run”.

He hit all the milestones and created real value for the company & its shareholders (today, the valuation of Tesla sits at ~600B, a 10X from the year the comp package was approved, and a world class financial war chest). Also, btw, if Elon were to not hit these milestones, he would have been paid essentially nothing.

Then in 2019, a shareholder named Richard Tornetta (who held 9 shares of Tesla) filed a lawsuit claiming that the compensation package was excessive & unfair, claiming the board had not acted in the best interest of its shareholders.

Then today, the Delaware judge named Kathaleen St. Jude McCormick voided this compensation package claiming it was excessive and the process for coming up with Elon’s comp plan wasn’t independent bc he controlled the BOD and the directors who approved the plan weren’t truly independent. Further claiming that the shareholders who approved the comp plan weren’t made aware of this controlled relationship.

Wow… you really can’t make this stuff up, this is literally what just happened.

Personally, I’m not so concerned about Tesla bc I believe the board & shareholders will approve an even better & more aggressive compensation package for Elon (e.g. include the $55B 2018 comp that he deserves, give him 25% voting share, include milestones for Tesla to become the largest valued company in the world & more, etc.) which will ultimately keep Elon motivated to stay at Tesla and build the future of AI & robotics within the company.

However, my main concern here is the fundamental foundation of capitalism that America is built upon. The CEO of a company was incentivized with a compensation package & it was approved by its shareholders to create value and he did. He hit all the milestones that were laid out, it wasn’t a pump or dump, and he didn’t steal or deceive shareholders. He simply went all in, put his blood, sweat, and tears into building the best products to change the world for the better, which created tremendous value for the ones that believed, invested, and stuck through. And now a judge has retroactively removed the reward for the leader that got the company to where it is today.

Why would any CEO/founder in America want to work hard, when the result of his or her hard work can easily be taken away unfairly like this?

What happened today, is very wrong and if nothing is done to fix it, it will crush the entrepreneurial spirit & heartbeat that America was originally built upon.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 11:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/PuLVzjO Tyler Durden

China’s Private Refiners Struggle Amid Faltering Economy And High Oil Prices

China’s Private Refiners Struggle Amid Faltering Economy And High Oil Prices

By Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

Many private refiners in China, often referred to as ‘teapots’, have started this year struggling, squeezed between higher prices for importing sanctioned oil and depressed refining margins amid sinking domestic diesel prices in the face of a faltering Chinese economy.

Chinese teapots

China’s economy has struggled to take off and now the coming Lunar New Year holiday later this month has had operators reduce industrial activity. These factors have led to a collapse in diesel prices in China, and as a result—a crash in diesel refining margins, which have been typically the pillar of profitability for the private Chinese refiners, Bloomberg reports.

The aggregate margin across various fuels of the private refiners has slumped by 50% over the past year. The margin last week fell to its lowest level since early November 2023, per data from Mysteel OilChem cited by Bloomberg.

Diesel prices have slumped to the lowest level in six months, after falling continuously for weeks, according to the data.

The double whammy– falling refining profits combined with higher crude prices – makes the start of the year a difficult one for China’s private refiners.

China’s independent refiners continue to delay purchases of crude from Iran for February as the Islamic Republic is now demanding higher prices and upfront payments before loading the cargoes, trading sources familiar with the matter told Reuters earlier this week.

The stand-off between Iran and the independent Chinese refiners began in the middle of December and has cooled the market for Iranian oil – under U.S. sanctions – with the private buyers in China, which have been Iran’s top customers since the U.S. re-imposed sanctions on Iranian oil in 2018.

Also in view of slowing activity ahead of and during the Lunar New Year for nearly two weeks in February, the private refiners in the Shandong province are expected to have lower refinery run rates this month and next. But they are expected to be able to avoid deep cuts to fuel production, analysts have told Bloomberg.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 11:05

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/IiMdjfr Tyler Durden

“This Is Not Friendly” – Bret Weinstein Shows Tucker Carlson How China & The UN Are Driving The Invasion Of America

“This Is Not Friendly” – Bret Weinstein Shows Tucker Carlson How China & The UN Are Driving The Invasion Of America

“…I came away with the sense that it’s probably literally both [a migration and an invasion]…”

Those are the chilling words that renowned biologist Bret Weinstein uses to describe what he found when he visited the Darien Gap in an attempt to understand just what is behind the sudden and overwhelming flood of migrants at the southern border of America.

The Darien Gap is a crucial yet perilous passage for migrants traveling from South America to North America that acts as a natural barrier (where, for 60 miles, the Pan-American highway ends and deadly jungle begins) that saw over half a million migrants traverse its challenging terrain last year alone.

“The jungle in the Darien Gap is some place that one does not go without careful preparation. It is quite dangerous… They’re sleeping on the ground, and so they get hypothermia. It’s extremely slippery.”

In this chilling interview with Tucker Carlson – about a topic that apparently no actual reporter is willing to investigate and write about – Weinstein expolains that his journey to the Darien Gap was spurred by his interest in the unexplained aspects of mass migration, and the findings of Michael Yon, a former Green Beret turned investigative journalist.

“You wonder why there’s not a permanent team of New York Times reporters there trying to tell the rest of us what exactly is happening.”

Through their journey, Weinstein and Yon uncovered a complex narrative involving not political asylum-seekers, but economic migrants and potentially orchestrated movements that appear coordinated by various NGOs and, of particular concern, the Chinese migrant camps they encountered.

The first camp that Weinstein described visiting was full of migrants who were very open to discussing their stories with travelers, and looked superficially like the migration of Central Americans that we are constantly told about.

“Many of them are South American, but that is by no means the whole story. People are coming from the Middle East. We met Afghans. We met people from the Caribbean, Haitians. There are people from Yemen, Iran. It’s shocking really.”

But, the supranational authorities were all evident:

“You see, the hallmark of the international community. You see NGO emblems all over the place, proudly American flags. They’ve paid for the water system, the toilets that are there. The United States government is facilitating this economic migration. And it’s unmistakable, as is an organization called the IOM, which is the International Organization for Migration. It’s a branch of the UN.

And if you read their charter, you will discover that this organization believes that migration is an inherently good thing, that it’s always good. And so they see it as their job to bring it about to facilitate it.

And in this case, that’s particularly tragic because their desire to induce people to migrate is causing people who are woefully unprepared for the Darien Gap to try to make that journey. And, the the humanitarian tragedy is, is immense.

Weinstein then pivoted to contrast that experience with a second one, highlighting for Carlson how it had been “built as a transit camp” for “almost” all Chinese migrants.

“The SENAFRONT, the Panamanian border control, actually forbid us to go into the camp. So we had to stay on the outside of it. We were also forbidden to photograph it. So what photographs we have were taken covertly,” Weinstein explained.

“These, Chinese folks who are overwhelmingly male, military age… It is not a friendly migration… This felt like people who did not want to share information, because it would be a mistake to do so.”

Weinstein criticizes the lack of distinction made between political refugees and economic migrants at the US border, suggesting that the current policy framework is inadvertently supporting an unsustainable and potentially exploitative system.

This system, he notes, not only undermines the economic well-being of Americans but also contributes to a humanitarian crisis that is largely ignored by mainstream media and political discourse.

Tuckr Carlson concludes with words to live by:

“I think we have to stop punishing ourselves for considering things that one seems crazy. I’m getting that tattooed.”

Watch the interview here:

…and read the full transcript here at TCN.

Finally, following the interview, @KanekoaTheGreat wrote a post on X following the thread that Weintein pulled about this being potentially orchestrated…

America’s illegal immigration crisis is shattering century-old records with alarming numbers.

2023: 3,201,144
2022: 2,766,582
2021: 1,956,519
2020: 405,036
2019: 859,501
2018: 404,142
2017: 310,531
2016: 415,816
2015: 337,117
2014: 486,651
2013: 420,789
2012: 364,768
2011: 340,252
2010: 463,382

On President Biden’s inaugural day, he introduced policies that incentivize illegal immigration:

  • Paused Deportations

  • Suspended “Remain in Mexico”

  • Stopped Border Wall Construction

Since Biden’s policy changes, over 8 million people have illegally entered the country, with millions more slipping past border patrol undetected.

This surge in illegal immigration is a national security crisis, costing American taxpayers hundreds of billions per year.

Major U.S. cities, grappling with the escalating financial burden, are slashing budgets for essential services such as fire, police, and education.

President Biden holds the power to halt this crisis that is draining America’s resources and endangering its citizens.

The solution is as simple as the actions that led to this crisis—Biden should use his pen to reverse his executive orders.

“No great nation can be in a position where they can’t control their borders. It matters how you control your borders. Not just for immigration, but it matters for drugs, terror, and a whole range of things.”

— Joe Biden

“We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United States undetected, undocumented, unchecked, and circumventing the line of people who are waiting patiently, diligently, and lawfully to become immigrants in this country.”

— Barack Obama

“All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs they hold might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use imposes burdens on our taxpayers. That’s why our administration has moved aggressively to secure our borders by hiring a record number of new border guards, by deporting twice as many criminal aliens as ever before, by cracking down on illegal hiring, and by barring welfare benefits to illegal aliens.”

— Bill Clinton

Watch:

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 10:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fBUKG8C Tyler Durden

No Charges For Dem Staffer Who Filmed Gay Porn Video In Senate Hearing Room

No Charges For Dem Staffer Who Filmed Gay Porn Video In Senate Hearing Room

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

The U.S. Capitol Police announced on Thursday that they have declined to press charges against the former Democrat Senate staffer who filmed a gay sex video in a Capitol Hill hearing room last month.

In a news release, the USCP said there was no evidence that Aidan Maese-Czeropski, a former aide for Sen. Benjamin L. Cardin (D-Md.), broke the law by filming himself copulating with another male inside the Hart Senate Office Building on the morning of Wednesday, December 13.

“After consulting with federal and local prosecutors, as well as doing a comprehensive investigation and review of possible charges, it was determined that — despite a likely violation of Congressional policy — there is currently no evidence that a crime was committed,” the agency said in a statement.

“Although the hearing room was not open to the public at the time, the Congressional staffer involved had access to the room,” the agency said. “The two people of interest were not cooperative, nor were the elements of any of the possible crimes met.”

“The Congressional staffer, who has since resigned from his job, exercised his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent and refused to talk to us,” the agency added.

USCP said it was closing the investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the sex tape “for now,” but that investigators “are willing to review new evidence should any come to light.”

George Washington University Law professor Jonathan Turley was one of several legal experts who speculated last month that the staffer could be charged with a crime.

“The question is whether this unofficial use would constitute trespass,” Turley wrote in a blog post.

“It also uses an official area for personal purposes, though it is not clear if there were any commercial benefits garnered from the video found on various sites,” the professor added.

“The U.S. Capitol Police answered much debated question today: it turns out that shooting a porn scene in a Senate Hearing room and posting it on the Internet is not a crime…” Turley quipped on X Thursday morning.

“The decision officially confirms for many that Congress can be legally obscene.”

Conservative X erupted in indignation at the Biden regime’s double standard when it comes to its choice of prosecutions.

“Let me get this straight… merely walking through the capitol unauthorized is a felony,” wrote Real Clear Investigations Senior Writer Mark Hemingway.

“But having public sex in the building, filming it, and putting it online doesn’t merit a public lewdness charge?”

“Please tell why I am supposed to respect rule of law in this country.”

“Jacob Chansley spent 310 days in solitary before he took a plea deal then was sentenced to 41 months in prison for saying a prayer in the Senate chamber,” former American Greatness author Julie Kelly posted on X.

“It is officially legal to have recorded sex in US Senate hearing room,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton wrote.

“Of course,” Newsbusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck posted on X. “Democrats can do just about anything without consequences.”

“You can film yourself having gay sex on a Capitol desk, but if you put your feet up on one you get four years in prison,” noted X account Amuse.

“A Democrat staffer proudly makes a gay porn video in a Senate hearing room, NO CHARGE. A Trump-supporting grandmother with cancer walks into the Capitol, JAIL TIME,” political strategist Joey Meugniot wrote on X.

“Activists tear down a statue of a Catholic Saint, NO CRIMINAL CHARGES. A Navy Reserve veteran beheads a Satanic statue in the Iowa State Capitol, charged with HATE CRIME,” Meugniot continued. “Under Biden, America has literally become Sodom and Gommorah.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 10:25

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/lyeD1ap Tyler Durden

UMich Inflation Exp Slows, Sentiment Hits Highest Since 2021

UMich Inflation Exp Slows, Sentiment Hits Highest Since 2021

After soaring in October and November, and crashing back to earth in December, consensus estimates for UMich inflation expectations in January data were basically unchanged from December, but declined more than expected in the preliminary data. Today’s final print saw 1Y hld at 2.9% and 5-1Y Inflation expectations rise very modestly from prelim 2.8% to final 2.9%…

Source: Bloomberg

This lack of fear of inflation sent the sentiment indicators soaring 9.3pts to 79.0 (up from 78.8 prelim), the biggest monthly advance since 2005.

The share of consumers spontaneously mentioning prices of food and gasoline declined substantially this month as well. Meanwhile, concerns about high home prices remain unabated.

The current conditions gauge rose 8.6pts to 81.9, but was down from the 83.3 prelim print, and a measure of expectations climbed to 77.1, extending gains from the prelim 75.9 print. Both were the highest since 2021.

Source: Bloomberg

Every sub-index was higher on the month…

Source: Bloomberg

“After reserving judgment last fall about whether the slowdown in inflation would persist, consumers now feel assured that inflation will continue to soften,” Joanne Hsu, director of the survey, said in a statement.

Buying Conditions rose for all cohorts (but were down from the prelim levels)…

Source: Bloomberg

Democrats’ confidence continued to surge but Republicans’ sentiment soured…

Source: Bloomberg

Stock market growth has generally provided some support to sentiment, particularly for consumers with larger portfolio holdings; this group posted a particularly large improvement in views this month. However, recent stock market trends are unlikely to be the dominant force behind the historically large and consensus gains in sentiment seen these past December and January.

As a comparison, the last time that stock markets reached historic highs, in October and November of 2021, sentiment edged down. This month, about 13% of consumers spontaneously mentioned stock markets during the interview, down from 16% a year ago. Consumers mentioning stock markets did report relatively higher levels of sentiment, but this group was not large enough to explain why sentiment soared as much as it did these past two months.

All sounds a bit self-fulfilling to us…

 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 02/02/2024 – 10:14

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/RoixTkg Tyler Durden