Month: May 2024

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Northwestern University has agreed to a controversial settlement with pro-Palestinian protesters encamped on its campus this week, including a commitment for scholarships for Palestinians, Palestinian faculty appointments, and special housing for Muslim students.

The protesters will also be allowed to continue their protests while agreeing to stay in a particular area of campus.  It will also put the students and supporting faculty on bodies to review any university investments and purchases, a major demand from supporters of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement.

Previously, protesters had reportedly prevented some students and faculty from entering buildings and engaged in property damage.

The Daily Northwestern reported the details of the deal and noted

“the University has committed to provide a conduit for students to engage with the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees. It will also re-establish an Advisory Committee on Investment Responsibility this fall, which will include students, faculty and staff.

…

In addition, the University committed to some support for Palestinian students and faculty in the agreement. NU will ‘support visiting Palestinian faculty and students at risk,’ and will provide the cost of attendance for five Palestinian undergraduates to attend Northwestern.

…

The University also committed to providing an ‘immediate temporary space for MENA/Muslim students’ — a longtime demand from students on campus — and will provide and renovate a house for MENA/Muslims students as soon as possible. The final house is expected to come in 2026.”

It also includes a commitment of the university to intervene with employers to guarantee that students suffer no consequences for participating in protests in their jobs and internships.

Northwestern (my alma mater) has always chosen the path of least resistance when it comes to protesters, including at times surrendering core academic functions. I have been particularly critical of the loss of freedom of speech and academic integrity on campus.

Students previously succeeded in cancelling a speech by former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions. Student Zachery Novicoff embodied the rising intolerance to free speech on campus. He is quoted as saying “There’s a limitation to free speech. That ends at overtly racist old white dudes.”

I criticized former Northwestern University President Morton Schapiro for his lack of support for free speech on campus. Schapiro denounced what he called “absolute” free speech positions and endorsed speech sanctions, including treating speech as a form of assault.

During his tenure, the university often seemed a mere pedestrian to mob action taken against dissenting voices. For example, we previously discussed a Sociology 201 class by Professor Beth Redbird that examined “inequality in American society with an emphasis on race, class and gender.”  To that end, Redbird invited both an undocumented person and a spokesperson for the Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  It is the type of balance that is now considered verboten on campuses.

Members of MEChA de Northwestern, Black Lives Matter NU, the Immigrant Justice Project, the Asian Pacific American Coalition, NU Queer Trans Intersex People of Color and Rainbow Alliance organized to stop other students from hearing from the ICE representative.  However, they could not have succeeded without the help of Northwestern administrators (including  Dean of Students Todd Adams).  The protesters were screaming “F**k ICE” outside of the hall.  Adams and the other administrators then said that the protesters screaming profanities would be allowed into the class if they promised not to disrupt the class.  Really?  They were screaming profanities and seeking to stop the class but would just sit nicely as the speaker answered questions?

Of course, that did not happen. As soon as the protesters were allowed into the classroom, they prevented the ICE representative from speaking.  The ICE official eventually left and Redbird canceled the class to discuss the issue with the protesters that just prevented her students from hearing an opposing view.

The comments of the Northwestern students were predictable after being told by people like Schapiro that some offensive speech should be treated as a form of assault.  SESP sophomore April Navarro rejected that faculty should be allowed to invite such speakers to their classrooms for a “good, nice conversation with ICE.” She insisted such speakers needed to be silenced because they “terrorize communities” and profit from detainee labor. Here is the face of the new generation of censors being shaped by speech-intolerant academics like Schapiro:

“We’re not interested in having those types of conversations that would be like, ‘Oh, let’s listen to their side of it’ because that’s making them passive rule-followers rather than active proponents of violence. We’re not engaging in those kinds of things; it legitimizes ICE’s violence, it makes Northwestern complicit in this. There’s an unequal power balance that happens when you deal with state apparatuses.”

Last year, the Northwestern student body banned press from meetings to protect students from the harm of media coverage. The students also have previously frozen funds of conservative groups.

The Northwestern journalism faculty is little better.  Steven Thrasher, the Daniel H. Renberg Chair of social justice in reporting at Northwestern, who trashed a reporter who waited for the facts before reporting on a police shooting.

Of course, it is not just conservative speakers that the students want to ban. In 2021, they called for the removal of the President of the Board of Trustees. Despite being a major donor and supporter of the school, J. Landis Martin was denounced as a Republican who donated money to former President Donald Trump.

The university issued a statement that “This path forward requires the immediate removal of tents on Deering Meadow, cessation of non-approved use of amplified sound and a commitment that all conduct on Deering and across campus will comply with all University rules and policies. Compliant demonstration can continue at Deering Meadow through June 1.”

The university has long lacked the fortitude to stand up to students engaging in disruptive protests.

The danger of such passivity is evident on our campuses. As Henry David Thoreau warned, “all rivers and most corrupt men follow the path of least resistance.”

Here is the Northwestern agreement.

Ahead of today’s FOMC statement and Powell presser, we said that the bogey for a dovish interpretation today will come not from the Fed’s rate decision, which we knew would be unchanged, but the QT tapering decision…

The big question for today: how much will Fed taper QT by?

If Taper goes to $30BN (from $60BN/month), that means less funding needed in Q3 (most likely from Bills), and means less pressure on issuance. Yields should slide

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 1, 2024

… and sure enough, the fact that the Fed announced an accelerated QT tapering and it was bigger than expected ($35BN vs $30BN) is why the market is viewing the Fed announcement as dovish and futures are now soaring.

And while we wait for Powell’s presser to conclude, here are some other hot takes from Wall Street strategists and thinkers:

David Russell, head of market strategy at TradeStation

“The Fed is still in wait-and-see mode before they get dovish. But the data hasn’t been cooperating. This statement keeps investors data dependent and focused on April numbers like CPI two weeks from now.”  

Audrey Childe-Freeman, chief G-10 FX strategist at Bloomberg Intelligence

“A first glance at the statement brings dollar bears some breathing space as the language adjustment is not as hawkish as may have been feared, though the reference about underwhelming inflation progress entertains a potential new layer of hawkishness at a later stage that could contain dollar downside ahead of the press conference. Muted dollar reaction so far captures this well.

“The language embraced thus far does not signal that the narrative has shifted back to new rate-hike debates, but rather to pushing back the timing on a rate cut. This is probably good enough for near-term euro-dollar relief given the feared hawkish pivot.”

Brian Coulton, chief economist at Fitch Ratings

“With unemployment still low and the labor market still tight, there is only a limited risk to the Fed’s employment mandate from waiting longer before embarking on rate cuts. On the other hand the risk of failing to get inflation down on a sustained basis seems to be rising as each week goes by. Patience is the watchword now for the Fed and the risk of fewer or no rate cuts this year is growing.”

Erica Adelberg, Bloomberg Intelligence’s mortgage-backed securities strategist:

“Making it explicit that any surplus MBS paydowns will be reinvested into Treasuries could adversely affect the MBS/Treasury basis, but at this point MBS paydowns are projected to be about half of the $35 monthly cap on average for the foreseeable future. The average loan rate backing the Fed’s MBS holdings is more than 300 bps below current mortgage rates, so it would take a significant interest rate rally to hit the MBS cap.”

Kathy Bostjancic, Chief Economist at Nationwide:

“We expect Chairman Powell will underscore this hawkish pivot in his press conference and emphasize that the timing of pace of rate cuts will depend highly on the future path of inflation. He likely will indicate the Fed is on an extended pause until inflation resumes its disinflationary trend.”

Ira Jersey, Bloomberg rates strategist:

“His lack of comment about the possibility of a hike is interesting, and I’d be surprised if he’s not asked about the potential for hikes in the press conference. But it seems that ‘on hold’ is his base case for now.”

Bloomberg Economics’ Anna Wong and Stuart Paul:

“For anyone wondering if this year’s hot inflation readings were just a blip, the May 1 FOMC meeting offered a clear answer: Hawkish tweaks to the statement show policymakers have lost confidence that inflation is moving in the right direction. At the same time, the Fed announced it would start tapering its balance-sheet run off in June – a month earlier than we expected — and will reduce the runoff cap by a bit more than we foresaw. That initially comes across as dovish, but the motivation here is key. If it turns out the Fed wants the run-off process to last longer — ultimately boosting the chance that its balance sheet will return to pre-pandemic size – that actually would be hawkish.”

Developing

As expected, no change in rates from The Fed, and a hawkish bias to the language changes in the FOMC statement.

The bigger than expected QT taper news is noteworthy and Powell will have to explain why they are ‘easing’ this policy more than expected while inflation remains ‘out of control’… and they are not ready to cut rates.

So now it’s down to Powell to avoid a faux pas (as we detailed below) over shifts in The Fed’s ‘asymmetric’ response function.

Watch Powell walk that tightrope live here (due to start at 1430ET):

*  *  *

As we detailed earlier, today’s Fed meeting had the market feeling (and positioned for) “HAWKISHNESS,” especially after the ECI pile-on yesterday, which didn’t simply “upside surprise,” but re-accelerated to 1.2% after ending 2023 at 0.9%, and showing that persistent wage pressures further add to the risk of keeping inflation “too elevated” for the Fed.

However, according to Nomura MD Charlie McElligott, the largest risk with the Fed today is that there will be no summary of economic projections / no dot plots…

…meaning that outside of the usual statement, it will be Powell’s press conference alone that dictates market behavior… and the backtest on that is a bit dicey, with some historic faux pas in-sample.

He’s gotta find a way to “keep it in the pocket,” where his language simply must message “balance of risks”…

…which means (as we detailed earlier) that he dangerously must “toe the line” on widening out the Fed path away from currently asymmetric “when cut?”-messaging dating back to Dec ’23…

…and instead back to a two-way distribution with both ‘cut’ and honest-to-God ‘hike’ –optionality.

Nomura’s rates guru Jonathan Cohn details just how narrow a path it is for Powell:

Powell’s FOMC presser and, in particular, his answer to the inevitable question around potential hikes represents a key risk.

Following meaningful policy path repricing since CPI and reorientation of Fedspeak, the bar for Powell to exceed market hawkishness is high.

Powell, pricing, positioning

What to expect

Statement:

Our economists expect two hawkish changes (see their preview here)

1. Change “inflation has eased over the past year, but remains elevated” to “inflation remains elevated”

2. Removal of “greater” in the Fed’s expectation that it would not ease rates “until it has greater confidence that inflation is moving sustainably toward 2%”

Presser:

• Powell’s FOMC presser will again be highly scrutinized, particularly his answer on whether hikes are in play. Bostic and Bowman flagged hikes as a risk and Williams did not rule them out, inviting a reassessment of two-way risk. Though Powell will likely maintain that policy is restrictive, he will also likely want to retain optionality amid high uncertainty around neutral. The phrasing of that optionality sentiment will be critical.

Is the market ready / priced?

• How much is priced: The market has repriced a lot, going from 63bp of cuts in 2024 pre-CPI to 28bp currently. Market-implied year-end rates for 2024 and 2025 are well above the median dots, granted the March dot plot had some ‘cuspy’ medians. The repricing owes primarily to sticky inflation arresting progress through H2 last year, though there has also clearly been a reduced ‘recession’ premium as well. In terms of hike appreciation, the market-implied probability of a hike by year-end is now around 15%, double what it was pre-CPI. Given the reorientation of Fedspeak amid this sticky inflation (i.e., less emphasis on cuts this year), there is a higher bar for Powell to exceed market hawkishness.

• Repositioning: At the front-end, there have been a couple waves of washouts in ‘sell hike’ trades like 1×2 payer spreads in the sell-off. An examination of open interest changes coupled with insights from our futures desk suggests a good deal of positioning post-CPI was rolled into lower strikes, not simply taken off. And with the increase in put OI in 94.625 (no cut) strike largely a function of buyers, those combining with sales in lower strikes (short skew) seem prepared for something like no cut or one hike scenario. Of course, the risk is that if Powell rhetoric around potential hikes is seen as hawkish and followed by strong NFP and CPI, we move quickly toward the low strikes as the market prices in a higher probability of multiple hikes and we get another positioning flush. I do think that if the Fed feels the need to change its directional bias and hike (not just stay on hold), one has to price in a high probability of multiple hikes, not a one and done. However, I still think there’s a very high bar for the Fed to pay more than lip service to open-mindedness.

QT slowdown

• The Fed is expected to announce a reduction in the pace of QT, likely to $30bn per month for UST. I wouldn’t expect much guidance on an end date. Slowing runoff should theoretically allow for a longer period of QT and lower ultimate level of reserves (thanks to more time for an efficient redistribution of liquidity) – a level around which uncertainty bands are very large.

Putting it together suggests a ‘middle of the road’ Powell can give way to a temporary relief rally, while a blundered characterization of hike optionality could lead to another position flush out and bear-flattening of the yield curve.

Hence, McElligott warns that with all this HAWKISH mentality / sentiment / positioning, the risk is that any surprisingly dovish Fed speak or Data (e.g. NFP Friday), you COULD see potential for an outsized SHORT SQUEEZE / RALLY RISK on stops.

Tl;dr: The Fed just told the market that ‘yields are too damn high‘.

*  *  *

Since the last FOMC meeting, on March 20th, gold has been the biggest outperformer (interesting along with dollar strength), while stocks, bonds, and crude (and crypto) have all been sold (with bonds and oil equally ugly)…

Source: Bloomberg

And since March 20th, US macro data has serially disappointed…

Source: Bloomberg

More problematically, since the last FOMC meeting, inflation data has dramatically surprised to the upside and growth data to the downside – screaming stagflation in the face of the Fed…

Source: Bloomberg

Rate-cut expectations (for 2024 and 2025) have plunged significantly since the last FOMC (that is now just one 25bps rate-cut priced in for 2024)…

Source: Bloomberg

Expectations are fully priced for a nothing-burger today on rates…

Source: Bloomberg

… with a slight hawkish bias in the language-changes in the statement (and the possibility of QT-taper signaling). But it will be Powell’s press conference that everyone will be focused on.

So what did The Fed say?

Rates unchanged…

• *FED HOLDS BENCHMARK RATE IN 5.25%-5.5% TARGET RANGE

Key statement changes

Fed adds following sentence:

“In recent months, there has been a lack of further progress toward the Committee’s 2 percent inflation objective.”

Fed also replaces

“The Committee judges that the risks to achieving its employment and inflation goals are moving into better balance“

with

“The Committee judges that the risks to achieving its employment and inflation goals have moved toward better balance over the past year.

And the QT Taper is here – and its bigger than expected (-$35BN/mth vs -$30BN expected):

Beginning in June, the Committee will slow the pace of decline of its securities holdings by reducing the monthly redemption cap on Treasury securities from $60 billion to $25 billion.

The Committee will maintain the monthly redemption cap on agency debt and agency mortgage‑backed securities at $35 billion and will reinvest any principal payments in excess of this cap into Treasury securities

This means $105BN less gross issuance needed in Q3, with The Fed implicitly saying ‘yields are too high’.

Just as we said…

The big question for today: how much will Fed taper QT by?

If Taper goes to $30BN (from $60BN/month), that means less funding needed in Q3 (most likely from Bills), and means less pressure on issuance. Yields should slide

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) May 1, 2024

Read the full redline below:

What happens next (on average)?

Lululemon’s founder is taking on some lu-lu-leverage – and it’s coming at a time when Lululemon’s stock is more than 20% off its recent highs. 

Chip Wilson, the founder of Lululemon, has reportedly used a significant portion of his stake in the company to secure financing from Goldman Sachs Group Inc., according to a new report from Yahoo/Bloomberg. 

According to a recent regulatory filing, an investment firm representing the Canadian billionaire pledged 1.8 million Lululemon shares, nearly 20% of his total holdings, as collateral for a $200 million margin loan from the US bank.

Wilson’s stake, valued at approximately $660 million based on Tuesday’s closing price, comes at a challenging time for Lululemon, with its stock declining by 25% since late March due to disappointing US sales and sales projections.

While representatives for Lululemon and Wilson declined to comment, this transaction sheds light on how wealthy individuals leverage their public holdings for substantial liquidity. For Wilson, who relinquished daily management of Lululemon over a decade ago, it signifies a broader investment diversification strategy.

The report states that the 69-year-old entrepreneur has expanded his investments beyond Lululemon, increasing his stake in Amer Sports Inc. and establishing a real estate firm, Low Tide Properties, among other ventures.

Additionally, he is actively investing in research to find a cure for his rare form of muscular dystrophy.

Pledging shares as collateral is common among the ultra-rich, with examples including Elon Musk leveraging Tesla Inc. stock for personal loans.

While borrowing against shares offers tax advantages, it also carries risks, as evidenced by margin calls during market downturns, such as those experienced at the onset of the pandemic.

Wilson founded Lululemon in 1998 and stepped down as chairman in 2013 following controversies and disagreements with the company’s leadership.

Despite selling a significant portion of his stake a decade ago, he retains control of approximately 8% of Lululemon’s shares, making it his largest individual asset.

Now he better hope yoga pants stay in style…

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

When Robert Mueller appointed Andrew Weissmann as one of his top advisers, many of us warned that it was a poor choice. Weissmann seemed intent to prove those objections correct in increasingly unhinged and partisan statements.

This week, he ratcheted up the rhetoric even further in claiming that the nation is “one vote away” from the end of democracy if the Supreme Court does not embrace the sweeping claims of Special Counsel Jack Smith.

At the time of his appointment, many Republicans objected to Weissmann’s status as a democratic donor, including his reported attendance of the election night party for Hillary Clinton in 2016. My objection was not to his political affiliations but to his professional history, which included extreme interpretations that were ultimately rejected by courts. Weissmann was responsible for the overextension of an obstruction provision in a jury instruction that led the Supreme Court to reverse the conviction in the Arthur Andersen case in 2005.

Weissmann then became a MSNBC analyst and a professor at New York University. In his book, he attacked prosecutors for refusing to take on his extreme views. Weissmann called on prosecutors to refuse to assist John Durham in his investigation.

Now he is predicting the end of democracy if the Court remand the immunity case for further proceedings.

Weissmann told MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki on Sunday:

I think that it’s important to remember that at the outset, the court had already given Donald Trump the win that he was seeking, which is the delay of the DC trial.

So going into this, this was all upside for him. I mean, I think he had to be thinking, I’m making this really outlandish argument, with ramifications that couldn’t possibly be squared with the text and history. The text of the Constitution or the history of the presidency? So it’s all upside if the court would actually bite on this. And so what was surprising is that there were justices who actually were taking this seriously. And it just was, frankly, shocking.

Remember, going into this, the given was that private conduct was certainly not, immunized from criminal liability. What everyone’s talking about now is, hey, maybe they think that some of this is private and they can go forward, but that was what was given going into this. And the reason people are thinking that is because there seem to be four justices who were really taking Donald Trump’s claim of criminal immunity seriously. And we are.

I mean, I know it sounds like hyperbole, but I think your opening is so correct that we are essentially, as Neil put it, one vote away from sort of the end of democracy as we know it with checks and balances. And to say it’s an imperial presidency that would be created is, it’s frankly saying it would be a king, he would be criminally immune. And that that is what is so shocking is how close we are.

And we are really on the razor’s edge of that kind of result. But for the chief justice.

Just for the record, it sounds less “like hyperbole” than hysteria. The justices were exploring the implications of the sweeping arguments on both sides of the immunity question. What they were not willing to do (as does Weissmann) is simply dismiss any arguments of official status on the part of the accused.  That would establish a dangerous ambiguity for the future as prosecutors claim that political statements are private matters for the purpose of prosecution.

Ironically, Weissmann’s lack of concern for the implications of such an interpretation is reminiscent of his prior sweeping arguments as a prosecutor that led to the stinging defeat in the Anderson case.

Of course, there is another possibility is that the justices were not seeking the end of democracy. The Court was honestly trying to get this standard correct not just for this case but future cases. To do so, it will require a record on the underlying actions rather than the categorical threshold judgment made by the district court. The argument showed justices exploring how to avoid a parade of horribles on either extreme with a more moderate approach.

As I previously noted, it has been almost 50 years since the high court ruled presidents have absolute immunity from civil lawsuits in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. That protection applied to acts taken “within the ‘outer perimeter’ of his official responsibility.”

Apparently, that immunity did not endanger democracy.

In United States v. Nixon, the court also ruled a president is not immune from a criminal subpoena. Nixon was forced to comply with a subpoena for his White House tapes in the Watergate scandal from special counsel Leon Jaworski.

Since then, the court has avoided any significant ruling on the extension of immunity to a criminal case — until now.

There are cliffs on both sides of this case. If the court were to embrace special counsel Jack Smith’s arguments, a president would have no immunity from criminal charges, even for official acts taken in his presidency.

It would leave a president without protection from endless charges from politically motivated prosecutors.

If the court were to embrace Trump counsel’s arguments, a president would have complete immunity. It would leave a president largely unaccountable under the criminal code for any criminal acts.

The first cliff is made obvious by the lower-court opinion. While the media have largely focused on extreme examples of president-ordered assassinations and coups, the justices are clearly as concerned with the sweeping implications of the DC Circuit opinion.

Chief Justice John Roberts noted the DC Circuit failed to make any “focused” analysis of the underlying acts, instead offering little more than a judicial shrug.

Roberts read its statement that “a former president can be prosecuted for his official acts because the fact of the prosecution means that the former president has acted in defiance of the laws” and noted it sounds like “a former president can be prosecuted because he is being prosecuted.”

The other cliff is more than obvious from the other proceedings occurring as these arguments were made. Trump’s best attorney proved to be Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg — the very personification of the danger immunity is meant to avoid..

Weissmann is not concerned with the clear politicization of the criminal justice system by Bragg just before one of the most consequential elections in our history.

No, the threat is that justices may want to balance the interests over immunity by rejecting the extreme arguments on both sides. They may try to pursue a course that allows for immunity for official acts or functions while rejecting immunity for non-official acts. Some or all of Trump’s actions or statements could well fall into the unprotected category.

The sense of alarm expressed by legal experts is that the Court would not simply sign off on the absolutist arguments of Smith and, most importantly, allow for a trial before the election.

So how will democracy end if the Court adopts a middle road on immunity? It appears to come down to the loss of a possible conviction to influence the outcome of the election.

At the same time, MSNBC guests are also calling, again, for the packing of the Supreme Court. While conservative justices have repeatedly voted with the Biden Administration, it does not matter. They want the Court packed to guarantee outcomes with the appointment of reliable liberal justices. All of this is being defended in the name of democracy, as was ballot cleansing.

The problem with the escalating rhetoric is that there is not much room for further hysterics. Where does Weissmann and others go from here after predicting the imminent death of democracy?

Pundits have now predicted the creation of camps for democrats, killing journalists and homosexuals, the death of the free press, and tyranny. That leaves only systemic mutilations and Roman decimation.

For lawyers to fuel this hysteria is a sad commentary on the state of our country. Whether a true crisis of faith or simple opportunism, it disregards centuries of constitutional history in overcoming every threat and obstacle. We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world. To suddenly embrace tyranny would require all three branches, and the citizens as a whole, to shred an elaborate system of checks and balances.

We are better than that . . . and these inflammatory predictions.

Proponents of gold and bitcoin often hail from the same ideological background: Austrian economists, dollar bears, Libertarians tired of State manipulation of fiat currencies and, generally, the anti-Fed crowd. Yet shared principles have not eased the age-old rivalry between the two assets.

Relative to Bitcoin, gold lost considerable value last year as an ounce of gold fell from 0.11 BTC to almost 0.03 BTC, a historically important level. The last month has seen the precious metal rebound somewhat relative to ‘digital gold’:

However, as Benjamin Graham said: “In the short run, the market is a voting machine, but in the long run, it is a weighing machine.” So we are more interested in the fundamentals:

• Does Bitcoin’s instant transferability and infinite portability make it the superior asset/security? Or is it a worthless string of numbers with infinite substitutes?

• Will gold’s thousand-year history as the preferred monetary commodity continue in the digital age? Or does its reliance on third-party custodians (at least at scale), and significant bulk, make it inferior to BTC?

We’ll answer these questions – and more – this Friday.

On May 3 at 7pm ET, ZeroHedge is partnering with Crypto Banter to bring together top macroeconomic minds to debate.

In the anti-crypto corner is the man whose name is synonymous with “gold”, infamous crypto bear Peter Schiff. Alongside Schiff will be “Dr. Doom”, renowned economist Nouriel Roubini.

Arguing in favor of crypto will be Anthony Scaramucci – wealth manager with over $10 billion in AUM – as well as day-one crypto veteran Erik Voorhees, founder of ShapeShift and torch-bearer for the asset class’ libertarian roots.

The debate will be moderated by Ran Neuner, founder and host of Crypto Banter, one of the largest digital asset news channels on YouTube.

Learn more about our VIP ticket offering to attend the debate in person and grab dinner with the participants here.

ZeroHedge would also like to thank our sponsors for this debate: Preserve Gold and BITLAYER — “Layer 2. The future of Bitcoin.” Whether you’re a fan of gold or Bitcoin, you probably see the wisdom in diversifying away from U.S. dollars. Do so by visiting their websites and checking out their products.

ZeroHedge Goldbugs can access a special offer from Preserve Gold by texting “ZERO” to 50505.

Federal prosecutors are investigating compliance issues at Block, the fintech firm co-founded by Jack Dorsey, according to a new report from NBC, citing “two people with direct knowledge”. 

Questions about the company started swirling back in March 2023 when short seller Hindenburg Research released a report called “Block: How Inflated User Metrics and “Frictionless” Fraud Facilitation Enabled Insiders To Cash Out Over $1 Billion”. 

In it, they concluded that “the ‘magic’ behind Block’s business has not been disruptive innovation, but rather the company’s willingness to facilitate fraud against consumers and the government, avoid regulation, dress up predatory loans and fees as revolutionary technology, and mislead investors with inflated metrics.”

Now, a former employee has shared documents revealing insufficient customer information collection, transactions involving sanctioned countries, and cryptocurrency dealings with terrorist groups, the latest report from NBC says.

The employee claims many transactions weren’t reported as required, and Block failed to address the breaches despite being notified. The documents detail transactions with entities in sanctioned countries, including Cuba, Iran, Russia, and Venezuela, as recent as last year.

One former told NBC: “From the ground up, everything in the compliance section was flawed. It is led by people who should not be in charge of a regulated compliance program.”

“It’s my understanding from the documents that compliance lapses were known to Block leadership and the board in recent years,” Edward Siedle, a former Securities and Exchange Commission lawyer who represents the former employee and participated in the discussions with prosecutors told NBC. 

Cash App, a mobile payment platform under Block’s ownership, faced allegations of compliance failures from two other whistleblowers in mid-February. Introduced in 2013, Cash App enables instant money transfers and stock and Bitcoin purchases. By December, it boasted 56 million active transacting accounts and $248 billion in inflows over the previous four quarters.

Block commented to NBC: “Block has a responsible and extensive compliance program and we regularly adapt our practices to meet emerging threats and an evolving sanctions regulatory environment. Our compliance program includes systems, tools, and processes for sanctions screening, as well as investigating and reporting on sanctions issues in accordance with our regulatory obligations.”

They continued: “Continually improving the safety and security of our ecosystem is a top priority for Block. We have been and remain committed to building upon this work, as well as continuing to invest significantly in our compliance program.”

Federal prosecutors are also examining Square, another key component of Block’s operations, which serves millions of merchants. According to documents provided to prosecutors and reviewed by NBC News, Square allegedly failed in basic customer due diligence on international merchant sellers and mistakenly reimbursed some merchants’ funds frozen for sanctions violations.

The documents also reveal that new customers triggering sanctions alerts were allowed to conduct transactions before resolution, with instances of inadequate screening against sanctions keyword lists, the report adds.

Cash App, due to its design, also apparently heightened compliance risks, NBC wrote. A document highlighted the challenge, stating that stored balances in Cash App are typically depleted by the time of review, limiting the platform’s ability to block or reject funds.

The former employee also informed prosecutors of findings from an external consultant hired by Block, which identified nearly 50 deficiencies in monitoring suspicious activities and screening for sanctions violations.

Board members including Lawrence Summers and Sharon Rothstein have also recently departed the company.

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

In an op-ed for the Washington Post on November 5, 2010, Ben Bernanke did a victory lap, praising the Fed’s efforts in stemming the financial crisis. In the article, he discusses how QE and other Fed policies eased financial conditions, bolstering investor confidence.

And higher stock prices will boost consumer wealth and help increase confidence, which can also spur spending. Increased spending will lead to higher incomes and profits that, in a virtuous circle, will further support economic expansion. 

If Bernanke wants credit for his Fed policies that boosted stock prices, he should also take responsibility for the costs. Those same monetary policies, which have been repeated many times since 2008, have played an important role in exacerbating the wealth gap in America. Accordingly, we should question his use of the term “virtuous circle” to describe how modern monetary policy works.

Graphing The Wealth Gap

Inspiration for this article comes from our recent article, Wealth Gap and the Road to Serfdom.

Before discussing the Fed’s role in widening the wealth gap, we put context to the problem. The graphs and quote below are from the article.

For 80% of Americans, the end game of too much debt, an aging demographic, and the push for “socialistic policies” is the continued extraction of wealth from the “middle class” to the “rich.”

Trickledown Economics and Monetary Policy

“Trickledown economics” was coined by John Kenneth Galbreth in 1982 and made famous by President Ronald Reagan. The expression is another name for supply-side economic policy. The policy theorizes that the populace benefits when government interference in the economy is minimal. For example, lower taxes and reduced regulations should promote economic activity and prosperity for the entire populace.

The theory is logical, but politicians have done a poor job enacting it.

In 2008, the Fed took a page from the supply-side economic playbook to stem the financial crisis. From that point forward, the Fed’s modus operandi has been trickle-down monetary policies.

Does QE Trickle Down?

Ben Bernanke wasn’t the first Fed Chair or central banker to use QE. But he did make it a household name and seemingly a permanent tool in the Fed’s toolbox.

QE has two significant impacts on the financial markets and the banking system.

First, removing assets from financial markets alters the supply-demand balance in favor of higher prices. Additionally, when investors believe QE is positive for asset prices, as is the case, demand increases, which provides even more impetus for higher asset prices.

Second, the Fed buys bonds from the banks with reserves. Reserves are a form of money that is only viable in transactions between banks or with the Fed. Reserves support bank loans and asset purchases. Therefore, when more reserves are available, banks can more easily make loans and buy assets. Further, some bank loans, specifically margin or repo loans, generate additional demand for assets.

The scatter plot below shows the positive correlation between the one-year percentage change in margin debt and the Fed’s balance sheet.

Higher stock and asset prices coupled with more leverage is a winning combination for investors.

The Graph of All Graphs

With that explanation of how trickledown monetary policy bolsters asset prices to accomplish the Fed’s goals, we share a graph explaining why the Fed’s policies widen the wealth gap.

Since 1990, the dollar’s purchasing power has declined by over 50%. At the same time, the S&P 500 has risen by over 1,300%. Those with a sufficient portfolio of stocks could more than offset the decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. Those without stocks are left behind.

Further, it doesn’t help that real household income for the lowest 20% has been unchanged since 1990. Over the same period, they have risen by about 50% for those in the upper 20% of incomes.

Share Of Wealth

The wealthier have seen their wages and the value of their financial assets rise much more than inflation. At the same time, the lower wealth and income classes have seen marginal real income gains at best and little in the way of benefits from rising stock prices. 

The two graphs below show how the percentage of the wealth owned by the top 1% and the change in the S&P 500 are well correlated.

On the contrary, the aggregate wealth of much of the bottom half of the nation, as a percentage of total wealth, has a negative relationship with the S&P 500.  

There is a straightforward explanation as to why the correlation between the share of the wealth of the rich versus that of the rest of the population has opposing correlations to the S&P 500. 10% of the population holds nearly 90% of the stocks.

Trickledown Monetary Policy Handicaps Capitalism

QE and other Fed policies may help the economy on the margin and save some jobs. However, there is little evidence that, over the longer term, the economic benefits increase the prosperity of most of the populace. Further, as we share, there is compelling evidence it further exacerbates the wealth gap.

Capitalism has proven to be the best economic system for growing the wealth of the entire population. A key tenant of capitalism promises financial incentives for those who work hard and have unique skill sets. That incentive results in productivity gains, which benefit economic growth and allow for higher wages and a broad distribution of wealth.

Unfortunately, when financial incentives are not only a function of capitalism but also an offshoot of government and Fed policies, the benefits of capitalism are reduced.

For example, Elon Musk is extraordinarily wealthy and should be rewarded handsomely for everything he has accomplished. However, how much of his wealth is based on his hard work and ingenuity, and how much was gifted to him by the Fed via their stock-boosting monetary policies. While slightly off-topic, we should also question how much of his wealth is attributable to government subsidies for electric vehicles. 

Summary

President Biden’s poll numbers on economic confidence are poor despite robust economic growth and a historically low unemployment rate. While there are many reasons for the odd divergence, we think it’s fair to say that the benefits of the post-pandemic growth spurt have disproportionately accrued to those in higher-income classes and those with stocks. Those left behind, representing a large majority of the population, are not confident in Biden’s handling of the economy and suffer from higher prices.

Most Americans continue to see wages that cannot combat inflation and have little to no wealth invested in the stock market. Can you blame them for lacking confidence?

QE may have served as an emergency way to add bank reserves to the system and boost confidence. However, its continued use, even during economic prosperity periods, only makes the wealth gap wider.

Advanced Micro Devices, the second-largest maker of computer processors, disappointed investors with its sales outlook for processors used in data centers. The company also reported weak demand for chips used in gaming hardware, which could serve as a warning for Nvidia bulls as they await the company’s earnings report in three weeks.

On Tuesday, AMD reported first quarter earnings that were in line with Wall Street’s expectations. However, this wasn’t enough to overly excite bulls as shares traded down 6.7% in the early cash session. 

First-quarter earnings, excluding certain items, were 62 cents per share on revenue of $5.47 billion. This report exceeded the estimated profit of 61 cents per share and projected revenue of $5.45 billion.

AMD’s computer chip division had around $1.4 billion in revenue, compared with a $1.29 billion estimate. Datacenter chip sales were $2.3 billion, which is in line with Wall Street’s expectations. Sales of gaming-related chips reached $922 million, falling short of analysts’ expectations of $965.5 million.

The company stated that its second-quarter revenue forecast is around $5.7 billion, plus or minus $300 million, compared with the average estimate of $5.72 billion. 

Although earnings met expectations, the updated guidance of $4 billion for data center chips was considered conservative. Despite being an improvement over the previous $3.5 billion estimate, some Wall Street analysts forecasted a higher figure. 

“We are firm believers in AMD’s revitalized product roadmap strategy, and product traction is compelling,” KeyBanc strategists led by John Vinh wrote in a note. 

Vinh continued, “However, expectations for share gains and growth are high. We’re concerned that any moderate downtick to expectations could add substantial risk to the stock based on valuation levels well above peers.”

Oppenheimer analysts led by Rick Schafer noted, “We remain on the sidelines for now as AMD’s emergent AI growth story is diluted by sluggish” sales in other areas. Perhaps this is an ominous sign that the parabolic trend of the AI bubble is unsustainable. 

AMD and Nvidia are rivals in the PC GPU and AI data center markets. Nvidia bulls and bears are awaiting the company’s May 22 earnings report for hints about the state of the AI industry. 

Qualcomm will be reporting earnings on Wednesday afternoon. Then Arm Holdings on May 8. 

Bloomberg data shows the Philadelphia semiconductor index is priced around 26 times projected profits, down from a March peak of 30 times profits. However, the index trades well above the 10-year average of 17 times. 

Chipmaker valuations are being driven by multiple years of future earnings growth fueled by the AI bubble. Perhaps the collapse of ASML’s order book is an ominous sign of what’s to come (read here).