Tag: finance

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers.

On my map of how the world works, we start with structures of control that distribute the good stuff–resources, assets, income and power–and the bad stuff: costs, losses and risks. As I explained in The US Economy In a Nutshell: Privatize the Gains, Socialize the Costs, the current arrangement distributes the gains to the top 10% and the costs and risks to the bottom 90% via privatizing the gains and socializing–i.e. dumping them onto the biosphere and the public–the costs and losses.

This follows a power-law distribution: the few at the top reap most of the gains, and the leftovers, scraps and crumbs are distributed in descending order, with most of what’s left going to the top 9.5% and a diminishing dribble is scattered over the lower 90%, so that by the time we get to the bottom half of households, 170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets, while the top 0.1% own 16.6%–6.6X the bottom 50%.

A key mechanism in this wildly asymmetric distribution of gains and costs is the system favors capital over wages. As the charts below illustrate, the financial gains go to the owners of capital, and since ownership of capital is highly concentrated, these few owners siphon up the vast majority of the gains.

One way to understand how the current arrangement favors capital over wages is to reverse the tax liabilities of capital and wages. Employers and employees pay 15.3% of every dollar of wages in Social Security / Medicare taxes, plus income taxes that quickly rise to 22%, for a total tax rate of 37.3% on wages. (Note self-employed people like myself pay the full 15.3% ourselves, as we’re both employer and employee.)

Capital gains are taxed at 20%, but only when the asset is sold, so the wealthy borrow against their unrealized gains and live off this borrowed money to avoid selling and having to pay tax on capital gains. And since the system depends on debt to survive, the interest on debt is deductible, giving the wealthy borrowers a tax deduction for avoiding capital gains.

Now imagine all capital gains, realized or unrealized, were taxed at 37% and the first $80,000 of wages were tax-free. The median wage is around $80,000, hence my picking that number. As for the hue and cry about unrealized capital gains being taxed, that’s easily addressed: unrealized gains in primary-residence owner-occupied homes and retirement accounts would be exempted. Every other gain made playing in the casino would be taxed.

Reversing the asymmetry of tax liabilities would dramatically alter the distribution of gains and costs. Wages have lost ground for 50+ years, and the favoring of capital is a key driver of this decline in the share of the economy that’s distributed to wage earners.

Half the nation’s households–170 million people own a grand total of 2.5% of the nation’s financial assets:

The winner-take-most arrangement favoring capital:

Another key driver is the offloading of risk from owners to consumers and workers, a perverse process that has been obscured by incremental degradation. Risk is a strange phenomenon that defies easy definition. Risk isn’t a direct loss or cost; it’s the probability of losses and costs arising in what appears on the surface to be a stable arrangement.

Consider the stunning decline in the quality of durable goods such as appliances, and global industry adopting a laughably valueless one-year warranty across the board. Appliances that routinely lasted 30 years before “Progress” took the reins now routinely fail in 3+ years.

In the good old days before “Progress” took the reins, manufacturers absorbed the risk of premature failure of the goods they produced. Now this risk has been offloaded onto consumers, who are now forced to buy “extended warranties” as the only means of mitigating the risk they now carry of premature failure.

This is in effect a form of extortion: “nice refrigerator you got there, too bad it’s at risk of breaking.” Well, if current manufacturers had the same standards as previous generations, we wouldn’t need “extended warranties.” Welcome to the Mafia Economy: low quality goods and services force “upgrades,” i.e. extortion.

Consider the offloading of risk onto workers. Employment other than casual labor once included healthcare insurance and other basic benefits. In the “gig economy” of contract employment and gigs, the worker is now responsible for paying their Social Security / Medicare taxes, healthcare insurance and retirement contributions.

The decline of hourly wages is another offloading of risk onto the worker. The percentage of workers paid by the hour has declined in favor of salaried positions with open-ended demands on workers: where hourly workers get paid for hours on the job, salaried workers are now on the hook for work beyond a conventional 8-hour work shift.

Then there’s the immense mass of risk and labor that’s been offloaded onto consumers and workers as shadow work, often the result of having to fix failures in goods and services that were once the responsibility of the provider or employer and have been dumped on consumers and workers. This is a topic I’ve often addressed.

This Is Why You’re Drowning in Busywork: We have been told that A.I. will take people’s jobs. What no one mentions is that many of those jobs are landing on us. The A.I. revolution involves a huge transfer of labor– not from worker to machine but from worker to consumer. (nytimes.com, paywalled)

Another source of risk is the dependence on debt to fund the lifestyles we deserve: as the purchasing power of wages has declined, the easy “solution” is to fill the gap between what earnings can buy and what we want / need / expect / deserve with borrowed money.

As we all know, debt comes with risk, as falling behind greases the slide to default, bankruptcy and ruin. 27% interest rates on credit cards steepen the slide into a cliff: one missed payment can trigger a cascade of events that cannot be reversed. This is why I often observe that fewer bad things can happen if you have no debt.

Last but far from least, is the current arrangement’s dependence on serial credit-asset bubbles as the sole driver of “growth”, a dependence that has led to a casino economy in which wage earners lose ground and in desperation turn to gambling as their last-ditch hope of gaining ground.

But despite 24/7 assurances that “this isn’t a bubble,” all bubbles pop with devastating consequences for those who believed the assurances of those operating the casino.

The underlying story of the past 50 years has been the offloading of risk onto workers and consumers, with the inevitable consequences being higher costs and losses leading to impoverishment and immiseration. We’re frogs in water that’s getting measurably hotter, and it’s getting harder to muster the means to jump out of the simmering pot.

*  *  *

My book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free). Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Authored by Rystad Energy via OilPrice.com,

• Venezuela could increase crude production by about 194,000 bpd by late 2028, with most growth coming from existing producing fields rather than new discoveries.

• International oil companies led by Chevron are expected to deliver nearly two-thirds of the forecast production increase through brownfield investments.

• The biggest obstacles are operational, including drilling rigs, diluent supplies, infrastructure upgrades, and a competitive fiscal regime capable of attracting long-term investment.

Venezuela’s upstream industry has entered a new phase. Following sweeping hydrocarbon reforms and broader geopolitical developments in early 2026, the conversation has shifted from whether the country can reopen its oil sector to whether it can successfully execute a meaningful production recovery. The country’s resource potential has never been in doubt. The greater challenge now lies in converting policy momentum into sustained operational growth.

Rystad Energy estimates Venezuela’s crude production could increase by approximately 17%, or around 194,000 barrels per day (bpd), between the fourth quarter of 2025 and the fourth quarter of 2028. Importantly, this growth is expected to come primarily from existing producing assets rather than large-scale new discoveries, highlighting that operational execution, not resource availability, will determine the pace of recovery.

Near-term production growth will be dominated by heavier crude grades. Around three-quarters of Venezuela’s output through 2028 is expected to come from heavy, extra-heavy crude and bitumen, with the Orinoco Oil Belt accounting for roughly 60% of total production. This makes access to diluents, workover activity, infill drilling, and mature field management considerably more important than reserve additions over the next several years.

Venezuela upstream figure 1

International operators are driving the recovery

International oil companies (IOCs) are expected to contribute nearly two-thirds of Venezuela’s forecast production increase through 2028. Chevron remains the largest contributor, followed by Repsol, Eni, Maha Energy and Maurel & Prom. Most of this growth is expected to come from expanding production at existing joint ventures, reflecting renewed investment following regulatory changes and sanctions relief rather than greenfield developments.

Chevron continues to occupy a particularly strategic position. Recent portfolio adjustments have strengthened its exposure to the Orinoco Oil Belt, while future production growth is expected to rely on brownfield optimization, infill drilling and the phased development of Ayacucho 8. Beyond Chevron, companies such as Eni and Repsol continue to play a dual role in both Venezuela’s crude and natural gas sectors through assets including the Cardón IV block and the giant Perla gas field.

However, international participation remains highly selective. Companies continue to balance the opportunity presented by Venezuela’s vast resource base against fiscal uncertainty, operational complexity and long-term investment risk.

Execution, not geology, remains the key constraint

While policy reforms have improved the investment outlook, they do not eliminate the operational bottlenecks that have constrained production for years.

Sustained production growth will require continuous access to diluents, higher drilling activity, extensive workover campaigns, improved infrastructure and significantly greater rig availability. These operational requirements represent the critical link between resource potential and realized production.

Fiscal competitiveness also remains an important consideration. International operators have indicated that future capital commitments will depend on further improvements to Venezuela’s fiscal framework, particularly around royalty rates and taxation. Lower project breakeven costs through more competitive fiscal terms could materially improve investment economics and encourage broader participation across the sector.

Oilfield services could become the industry’s defining bottleneck

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing Venezuela’s recovery lies beyond the upstream operators themselves. The Venezuelan Oil Ministry has identified a requirement for 93 active drilling rigs by 2028, a significant increase from current activity levels. Achieving this target would require a phased expansion involving reactivating domestic rigs, refurbishing idle equipment, and eventually importing additional rigs from international markets.

This creates substantial opportunities for drilling contractors and oilfield service providers but also highlights the scale of the execution challenge. Companies must balance equipment mobilization costs, contract duration requirements, and country risk before committing capital.

Local contractors have begun reactivating existing fleets, while international service providers remain more cautious, waiting for greater evidence that recent policy reforms will translate into a stable, commercially attractive operating environment. As a result, rebuilding operational capacity may ultimately prove just as important as attracting upstream investment.

Venezuela upstream figure 2

The next phase depends on implementation

The 2026 Hydrocarbons Law represents one of the most significant structural reforms to Venezuela’s upstream sector in decades. By expanding opportunities for private participation and introducing greater fiscal flexibility, the legislation has created a more attractive framework for future investment.

Yet legislation alone cannot restore production. The speed of implementation, the stability of fiscal policy, continued sanctions relief, and the industry’s ability to rebuild operational capacity will ultimately determine whether Venezuela can translate ambition into sustained output growth.

For investors and operators alike, the opportunity is considerable. But the country’s upstream revival will depend less on the size of its resource base than on its ability to consistently execute across drilling, infrastructure, services, and investment policy. That execution gap, not geology, is likely to define Venezuela’s production trajectory over the remainder of the decade.

Via InternationalMan.com,

“We are writing to inform you that we cannot continue serving you.

As a result of this decision, your account will be closed within 14 days from the date of this letter.

Any remaining account balances will be sent by check to the address we have on file.”

Sooner or later, expect your bank to send you a letter like this.

They won’t even tell you why they are closing your account, and you will probably have trouble opening accounts at other banks.

De-banking is a disturbing and growing trend.

In short, the ruling elite – parasites, more accurately – have weaponized the banking system to enforce conformity to their preferred narrative.

If you don’t lap up their lies about Covid, climate, elections, wars, rising crime, or whatever the media is hyping as the “current thing,” expect the financial hammer to come down on you without warning.

You could lose your ability to take payment from your customers and pay your bills at the drop of a hat.

We’ve seen banks close the accounts of prominent doctors critical of the Covid mass hysteria and politicians opposed to schemes to centralize power on a global level (globalism).

However, for every example of a bank closing a high-profile person’s account, hundreds – or thousands – of other ordinary people likely receive the same despicable treatment but are never heard from.

Every day people are losing their ability to interact in the economy because the elite have determined they committed a thought crime.

Interestingly, the banks never canceled the accounts of the warmongers who spread the lies about WMD in Iraq or the liars that led to the toppling of the Ghadafi government in Libya and the liars that fueled the Syrian conflict.

All of their bank accounts are in good standing, even though they contributed to the unnecessary deaths of countless innocents.

Nor did the banks close the accounts of those who, for years, peddled the Russiagate lies that tore the country apart or those who claimed the Hunter Biden laptop story was phony when it was, in fact, real and probably affected the outcome of an election.

All of their bank accounts are in good standing too.

The banks also did not close Jeffrey Epstein’s accounts, even though they were likely aware of what he was up to.

These are just a few examples of the blatant double standard.

If you are skeptical about whether men can get pregnant or if cow farts will destroy the planet, you should expect very different treatment than Jeffrey Epstein or people whose lies align with the military-industrial complex.

De-banking is another example of how formerly free societies are rapidly descending into high-tech totalitarianism.

It’s only prudent to expect de-banking to worsen as governments fall deeper into bankruptcy and become more desperate to maintain control. Controlling the narrative – partly by de-banking anyone with opposing views – is crucial for them to try to hold on to their power.

Today you can be de-banked for having the wrong opinion. Tomorrow you could be de-banked for even more trivial reasons.

For example, even if you loyally follow whatever the TV tells you to think, the banks may notice you are purchasing “too much” meat or gas and are therefore exceeding your monthly carbon allowance. In the name of saving the planet and maintaining their ESG scores, they’ll close your account.

Think that’s far-fetched?

Consider that already, today, Bank of America shares all gun purchases from its clients with the FBI. It would be naive to assume they and other banks don’t automatically share additional data.

Or that PayPal recently floated the idea of charging people $2,500 for promoting so-called “misinformation” – a vague propaganda term that really means “information the people in charge don’t want you to know because they’re afraid you will come to a conclusion they don’t like.”

It’s not hard to see where the de-banking train is going.

We’re only a few stops away from a full-blown social credit system.

There Is No Free Market in Money and Banking

Money is simply supposed to be something useful for storing and exchanging value.

Banks are simply supposed to be money warehouses.

However, that is not how it works today.

Governments have perverted money and banking into tools to control the population.

An unconvincing argument you may hear is that banks are private companies exercising discretion on their clients. They are within their right to de-bank whoever they want.

They say it is no different from a baker having the right to refuse to bake a cake for someone they don’t like.

You could make that argument if only there was a totally free market in money and banking… but there isn’t. Not even close.

Here’s a more accurate analogy.

Imagine a situation where the only bread available on the market is government bread, and the only way you could obtain such bread is through government-approved bakeries. Independent bakeries would not exist.

The government could then exert overt and subtle pressure on the bakeries to ensure they aligned with their preferred narrative by removing their permission to operate or threatening to. They could also impose fines, start invasive investigations, or add more regulations.

There would be no shortage of ways a bureaucrat could find to make things unpleasant for the bakeries.

The bakeries’ owners know such a dynamic exists, so they enthusiastically fall in line with the “current thing” to avoid problems.

Then, suppose it became known to the bakery that one of their customers had committed a thought crime. They wouldn’t hesitate to throw him to the curb, even if he had been a loyal customer for many years. It simply wouldn’t be worth the potential problems. Word would spread to other bakeries that he was trouble, and they’d avoid his business too.

Since the only bread on the market is government bread, which is only available from government-licensed bakeries, he would be unable to obtain bread.

A similar situation exists today in money and banking.

In Marx’s Communist Manifesto, the 5th plank calls for the “centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.”

That perfectly describes fiat currency and the Federal Reserve, which oversees the banking system.

The free market wouldn’t choose easy-to-produce government confetti as money without laws forcing their use.

Here’s another way to think of it.

Imagine if Tony Soprano forced his neighborhood to use pieces of paper with his signature as money and threatened violence against anyone who disobeyed. That’s what governments are doing with their currencies today.

It’s a far cry from when people used gold – a politically neutral, hard-to-produce asset voluntarily chosen on the market – as money.

That’s why the notion of a free market in money is laughable.

We don’t have free market money; we have communist money forced upon us with violence and threats of violence. Further, for most practical purposes, the banking system is needed to use this lousy “money.”

Similarly, modern banks are not creatures of the free market like the independent money warehouses of the past. Today banks exist at the pleasure and service of the state – and obtain special privileges as a result.

Perhaps the most obvious observation is that there would be zero government bailouts in a free market and certainly no such thing as “too big to fail” banks. Incidentally, it’s no coincidence that the most egregious de-bankers are the “too big to fail” banks.

Further, modern banks resemble government-sanctioned Ponzi Schemes, as they rely on the false belief that depositors’ (fake) money is readily available when, in fact, it isn’t because of fractional reserve banking. If only a tiny portion of depositors demanded their money back, most banks would be in big trouble.

Governments allow banks to commit this fraud that would be illegal in any other industry.

For example, imagine a fractional reserve car dealership or jewelry store where the car salesman and jewelry store owner could create 10x more claims for cars and pieces of jewelry than what actually exists in their inventories. They would be selling claims for goods that don’t exist.

Not only would such a practice be fraudulent, but it would also not be sustainable.

If even a few people who purchased fractional reserve claims on the nonexistent cars and jewelry asked for delivery, it would blow the whole scam up.

The government and the banks understand this dangerous dynamic, which is one reason they created the so-called “lender of last resort,” the Federal Reserve. When the banks get in trouble, the Fed can create new currency units out of thin air to bail them out.

Let me translate it into plain English.

A “lender of last resort” means legalized counterfeiting of the currency to backstop a legalized Ponzi Scheme.

Such blatant fraud would have no place in a free market for money and banking. However, because it is institutionalized and has the government’s blessing, most people thoughtlessly accept the situation as normal.

In a truly free market for money, people would voluntarily choose whatever was most suitable for storing and exchanging value. Historically, that meant gold because it was the one physical commodity that was hardest to produce and most resistant to debasement. Tomorrow it might be Bitcoin.

In a truly free market, banks would cease to be government-sanctioned Ponzi Schemes and revert to their historical role as independent money warehouses. Further, anyone could enter the banking business in a free market; you wouldn’t need the approval of the Federal Reserve cartel, as banks do today.

That’s why the argument that de-banking is simply private companies rightfully exercising discretion is disingenuous.

The Solution

The ideal solution is to get the government entirely out of banking and money and have a totally free market. But that’s probably not going to happen anytime soon.

So what can you do about de-banking?

First, don’t expect to use physical cash as a solution for long.

The elites have long had nefarious plans to eliminate cash. Today they’re

Ken Griffin has put roughly $40 million into Republican midterm efforts this year and could double that by November, according to the Wall Street Journal. The money runs through nearly every competitive Senate race in the country – except for one… Ken Paxton’s run for a seat in Texas, which won’t see a dime of it.

According to the report, the Citadel founder has no plans to help the Texas Republican nominee – the candidate President Trump pushed onto the ballot by helping end John Cornyn’s Senate career. The Journal notes that donors rarely broadcast who they’re refusing to fund. When one does – a day before super PACs file their quarterly reports, and eight days before Senate Majority Leader John Thune headlines a Washington fundraiser for Paxton – it’s fair to assume other donors are meant to hear it.

The refusal lands in the middle of an argument Republicans have been having since late May, sometimes privately and increasingly on the record: who pays for the candidates Trump forced on the party? The president’s own political action committee, MAGA Inc., was sitting on roughly $382 million as of last month, the Boston Globe reported, and hasn’t said what the money is for. Cornyn, asked about funding the man who beat him, told Semafor: “I think he can spend his money.”

Where Ken Is Spending

Griffin’s biggest check this cycle, $10 million, went to the Senate Leadership Fund, the super PAC aligned with Thune, according to the Journal. He gave $2.5 million apiece to groups backing Sen. Dan Sullivan in Alaska and Sen. Susan Collins in Maine, and $1.5 million to one supporting Rep. Ashley Hinson in Iowa’s open-seat race. The Cook Political Report rates Alaska and Maine as tossups, while Iowa leans Republican – a state Trump carried by double digits in 2024. On the House side, he gave $5 million in May to the Congressional Leadership Fund and $5.5 million split between two other groups, including one that backs veterans running as Republicans. “I am able to fully fund these races because of his steady investment cycle over cycle,” said Chris Winkelman, the Congressional Leadership Fund’s president.

The people familiar with his giving told the Journal that Griffin is focused on the Senate because six-year terms give his money the longest reach into the party’s future after Trump, whose term ends in January 2029. A senator elected this fall serves until January 2033. Whoever wins the White House in 2028 will be confirmed, funded and investigated by the class Griffin is paying to elect right now.

He has already said which 2028 candidate he’d rather see. At the Allen & Company conference in Sun Valley on July 8, interviewer Andrew Ross Sorkin asked Griffin to pick between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Vice President JD Vance in a hypothetical primary. Griffin said he’d be “predisposed” toward Rubio, whose 2016 campaign he backed with $5 million to a supporting super PAC, Axios reported. (The Journal notes the question offered only those two names.) According to Revenge, Axios reporter Alex Isenstadt’s book on the 2024 campaign, Griffin urged Trump not to put Vance on the ticket at all. Vance has said he’ll decide on a presidential run after the midterms.

Griffin’s distance from Trump goes back years. Worth an estimated $50 billion-plus, he was the country’s fifth-biggest political donor in 2024, giving $108 million by OpenSecrets’ count – about 37 percent of what top donor Elon Musk spent that cycle – and none of it went to Trump, whose campaigns he has never funded. He spent $5 million that cycle keeping Nikki Haley’s primary bid alive. He voted for Trump – “not with a smile on my face,” he said afterward – gave $1 million to the inaugural committee, and has since praised the administration’s border enforcement while criticizing its tariffs and its pressure on the Federal Reserve. If his giving doubles as projected, Griffin would join the cycle’s top tier of donors, which a New York Times analysis this spring put at Andreessen Horowitz ($115.5 million), George Soros ($102.9 million) and Elon Musk ($85 million).

Then There’s Texas

Paxton, the state attorney general, launched his challenge in April 2025, and Senate Republican leadership spent heavily to stop him. Cornyn and his allies put more than $90 million into the primary, according to the Texas Tribune, including $11 million from One Nation, the nonprofit arm of Thune’s political operation; pro-Cornyn groups outspent Paxton’s side by roughly nine to one. Cornyn finished a point ahead in the March 3 first round but short of a majority. A week before the runoff, Trump endorsed Paxton, calling him “a true MAGA warrior.” Cornyn became the first Republican senator in Texas history to lose his party’s nomination, in a spring when Trump-backed challengers also took out Sen. Bill Cassidy in Louisiana and Rep. Thomas Massie in Kentucky.

Democratic nominee James Talarico, an Austin state representative, had raised more than $40 million through his primary and took in $600,000 in the two hours after Paxton won, his campaign said. Paxton had raised $7.6 million and had $2.3 million left as of early May, per FEC records cited by NBC News. Republican operatives told the network that holding the state, with its roughly 20 media markets, could cost outside groups $100 million. Meanwhile, anti-Paxton Republicans handed Democrats their script: a 2023 impeachment on corruption charges by the Republican-led Texas House (the state Senate acquitted him) and years of legal and ethics controversies besides.

That history, the people familiar with Griffin’s giving told the Journal, is why he’s staying out.

The $10 million question

There’s a catch to Griffin’s ghosting of Paxton – The Senate Leadership Fund hasn’t ruled Texas out. If the group goes in this fall, Griffin’s $10 million goes in with it; money doesn’t stay in labeled jars. So either “no plans to help Paxton” has some give in it, or the leadership PAC’s most prominent donor has effectively told it where not to spend. Neither Griffin’s office nor Latcham has answered that question on the record.

The backdrop: Republicans hold the Senate 53-47, Democrats need to net four seats, and Griffin’s side of the ledger has strengthened without him lifting a finger. In Maine, Democrat Graham Platner – who won the June 9 primary with about 70 percent of the vote – formally quit the race July 10 over a sexual assault allegation he denies, leaving the party to pick a replacement at a 601-delegate convention on July 25, two days ahead of the ballot deadline. Collins, backed by Griffin’s $2.5 million and $42 million in SLF reservations, currently has no opponent at all.

The quarterly filings land Wednesday, and the Paxton fundraiser is a week later.

Authored by Joe Schaeffer via Liberty Nation,

A Minneapolis sheriff has triggered an uncomfortable conversation by saying out loud what you are not supposed to talk about in Minnesota. “Out of control” gangs of Somali youths are terrorizing the city, and the mayhem is poised to get worse.

Ramsey County Sheriff Bob Fletcher released a livestream video on July 6 decrying widespread violence by Somali gang members over the Fourth of July weekend. He also took the opportunity to criticize media outlets in the Twin Cities and the state for refusing to cover the problem.

Fletcher “stated that the Somali gangs are responsible for at least 14 murders in the last two years as well as over 100 shootings – many of them at high-profile events like graduations and the State Fair. Fletcher also said in his promo video that he heard from a Minneapolis police officer who said that 20 percent of their homicides are now Somalis,” local news site Alpha News reports.

The situation is blowing up right in front of the public eye.

‘It’s All About Ego for 99% of It’

“Investigators say Somali gang violence is growing quickly and now spans the metro [area], with 12 Somali gangs tracked from Minneapolis and St. Paul to St. Cloud, Apple Valley and Burnsville. Most of the violence involves guns, according to the Ramsey County Sheriff’s Office,” Fox-9 TV in Minneapolis reports. “Authorities say the gangs are still young and growing, with about 300 people involved right now.”

Ramsey County Deputy Ben Seidel said the Somali youth gangs don’t operate like traditional inner-city gangs in the sense of being motivated by money. “From what I’ve seen… it’s all about showboating. It’s all about ego for 99% of it. They aren’t selling narcotics. It’s all about just gloating,” Seidel states in the video.

There’s a history to Somali gang violence in Minneapolis that explains the seeming novelty of these officers’ remarks. In blue-dominated Minnesota, criticizing the Somali community in any way is immediately defined as racist. The “R card” has been so weaponized in the state that health-care fraud was allowed to flourish for years, which may have cost American taxpayers up to $9 billion.

There is nothing new about Somali gangs in Minnesota. They have been identified as a growing problem for 20 years or more. And it has never sounded like child’s play. Every few years, the issue is ventilated, only to recede amid de rigueur pressure from “anti-racist” organizations and personalities.

The City of Minneapolis commissioned a study in 2007 after a series of robberies by Somali teens in 2005. As Minnesota Public Radio detailed at the time:

“The report’s author, consultant Shukri Adan, presented her findings to members of the city council.

“Adan says at first it was thought the Somali youth were involved in loosely organized groups of ‘troublemakers.’ However, Adan says as these young people ended up in jail, they met established gang members and learned from them how to organize.

“‘They’re very sophisticated and they’ve adapted some of that into the Somali gang structure. But for the Somali gangs that I’ve identified, they were specifically Somalis and all their membership were Somalis, even though they had associations with other gangs.'”

Yet leftist MPR made sure to point out that “[t]he report says gang activity is relatively small. Statistics from the Minnesota Gang Strike Force identifies 52 Somali gang members – less than one percent of all known gang members in Minnesota.”

Three years later, the Somali youth had moved on to serious organized criminal activity.

Somali Gangs Trafficking African American Girls

A “federal indictment unsealed in November [2010] in Tennessee charges 29 people with crimes from sex trafficking to credit card fraud to witness intimidation. It said the accused were members or associates of three Somali gangs – often acting as one larger gang – bent on forcing girls into prostitution for their own profit,” the Associated Press reported in 2011. The gangs were trafficking girls from Minneapolis to Nashville and Columbus, Ohio – three cities with significant Somali populations.

The article featured a harrowing account of the brutalization of a 12-year-old girl. And there was a further revelation that the professional “anti-racists” would rather you not hear about.

“The indictment details several instances in which young Somali or African American girls were taken from place to place and forced to engage in sex acts with multiple people. One girl was under 13 when she was first prostituted. Another girl was 18 when she was raped by multiple men in a hotel room,” the AP reported in November 2010.

Whereas much of the violence perpetrated by Somali youth gangs is targeted at their fellow East African immigrant communities, underage native-born American black girls were among those being sexually exploited by this ring, as well. Where was the outrage from the Congressional Black Caucus?

Just as with MPR, the AP seemed to downplay the number of Somali gang members in 2011. “There are seven Somali gangs in Minneapolis, and a total of about 200 documented Somali gang members and associates, [Minneapolis police officer and Somali community liaison Jeanine Brudenell] said – about 10 percent of the roughly 2,100 documented active gang members in the Minneapolis Police Department’s system. The gang members are a small fraction of the Somali population,” the AP stressed.

Fast forward to 2026 and we’re up to 300 gang members (and who knows how many more yet to be identified?). Even Sheriff Fletcher, while calling out the problem nobody wants to talk about, treads carefully.

“Fletcher was careful not to castigate the entire Somali community or even all of their youth in his comments,” Alpha News noted of the livestream video. “Rather, he said that the violence is stemming from a small number of misguided, mostly male youth, which he later clarified is about 300 young people participating in about 12 gangs across the metro [area] and Minnesota.”

There’s one final element we should emphasize. As Somalis moved en masse to states like Minnesota, they retained their fiercely held tribal identities.

“[C]lan rivalry is often the most important reason for gang violence” within the Somali community, Viktor Marsai at the Center for Immigration Studies wrote in March. “Clan violence is fueled not only in the offline space. More and more Somali TikTokers and Youtubers are using online platforms to glorify their own clan tradition and savage rival groups. In many cases, tens of thousands of people are following these accounts and add hundreds of comments. The inflammatory effects spill over from the online… these influencers utilize their clout to support violence in their country of residence and in Somalia.”

Americans may not be able to comprehend the meaning behind what Deputy Seidel refers to as “showboating” among Somali gang members. How much of this comes from lingering clan identification dating back to the old country? How much is fueled by a foreign culture wholly incompatible with the American way of life?

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

Fresh footage from Northern Ireland captures police sprinting past a group of knife- and stick-wielding feral youths to cuff a local man who had grabbed a stick to protect the native women and children in his street.

The scene in Dungannon underscores a now-familiar pattern: authorities appear quicker to restrain locals standing up for their communities than to neutralise imported threats.

The video, shared widely on X, shows a large group of youths described as “foreigners” arriving armed in a Protestant area of the town. One man, who also appears to be of foreign descent, picks up a stick in response. A police officer runs straight past the armed mob and detains the defender instead.

A large group of foreigners armed with knives and sticks show up at the protestant area of Dungannon in Northern Ireland.

A police officer runs past them to arrest a local man who had picked up a stick to defend his community.

Two-tier policing… pic.twitter.com/SXlix63Pkz

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) July 14, 2026

Official police accounts confirm serious disorder in the area yesterday evening.

District Commander Superintendent Peter Stevenson stated: “At approximately 7.45pm police received a report of altercation involving approximately 10 men armed with knives and bats at a property in the Killyman Road area. The men smashed the windows and caused damage to the front door of a property. Officers attended and a 32-year-old man was arrested on suspicion of criminal damage. Two other men, aged 32 and 35, were arrested on suspicion of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. They remain in police custody at this time.”

The Superintendent continued, “At approximately 11pm, officers on patrol came across a large group of males gathered in the Newell Road area. Further reports had also been received of a number of males in the area carrying knives and bats. One man had been assaulted and sustained cuts to his hands and face. He attended hospital for treatment for his injuries. An 18-year old man was arrested on suspicion of grievous bodily harm and possession of an offensive weapon with intent to commit an indictable offence. He remains in police custody.”

DUP MLA Deborah Erskine voiced growing local frustration: “There is no place for violence, intimidation or criminality on the streets of Dungannon. Criminality is criminality, regardless of who is involved or which section of the community they come from. It must be called out and condemned consistently.”

“There can be no selective condemnation when it comes to lawlessness and public disorder,” Erskine continued, adding “People have a right to feel safe in their own homes and neighbourhoods, and any allegations of violence or intimidation must be thoroughly investigated. Too often, when residents raise such legitimate concerns, or when I raise those concerns in the Assembly Chamber, elements of the Assembly are quick to dismiss them with accusations of racism or bigotry.”

“That approach does nothing to solve problems or build community confidence. It is time for people to listen to genuine concerns, stop applying labels, and start taking meaningful action,” Erskine further urged.

Dungannon hosts a substantial migrant population, including a large East Timorese community drawn to local meat-processing plants, making up a significant share of the town’s non-national residents.

Social media reports tied to the footage describe the armed group as foreigners, many from East Timor, turning up in a Protestant area, while some official framing casts the clashes as internal community matters.

These foreigners are mostly from East Timor, by the way.

What the fuck are people from East Timor doing in Northern Ireland? They shouldn’t even know NI exists let alone be in the country.

— Haribo (@kerrso94) July 14, 2026

Regardless, the video evidence reveals the two-tier reality on the ground: the defender gets the cuffs while the knife-and-stick mob receives the pass.

This latest episode fits a lengthening list of migrant-linked violence and uneven policing responses across Northern Ireland. Last month, north Belfast saw a brutal street attack in which an African migrant repeatedly stabbed and attempted to saw off a victim’s head with a Stanley knife-style blade.

Bystanders had to drag the attacker off and beat him back until police arrived. The victim suffered life-altering injuries. Official and media descriptions initially softened the horror to a generic “stabbing incident,” sparking fury over downplaying and delayed accountability.

Patterns of sex crimes and grooming scandals in parts of Northern Ireland have also continually triggered nights of anti-immigration unrest, with locals expressing fury at perceived failures to protect communities or deport offenders. The same complaints of selective enforcement keep surfacing.

The Dungannon footage now joins a wider catalogue of two-tier policing examples stretching across the United Kingdom. In one recent case, officers were captured shielding three black aggressors who had assaulted a white British teenager in Birmingham, then manhandling and swearing at the victim while forcing him into a police vehicle the wrong way. Bystanders trying to explain the situation were ignored as more officers piled in.

Other documented incidents include South Yorkshire Police officers using batons, shoves and Tasers on teenage girls during dispersal operations, with the force later admitting the clip looked “nothing short of shocking.”

Separate footage showed officers manhandling a five-year-old boy, smashing a man’s head into a bollard before dragging him, and slamming an elderly woman, Siobhan Whyte, to the ground during protests linked to the murder of her daughter by an illegal migrant.

A 50-year-old military veteran was struck with riot shields and kicked in the head multiple times while sitting on a wall filming.

The inquest into the death of 18-year-old Henry Nowak continues to examine whether police handcuffing contributed to his fate after he was stabbed five times in Southampton. Reports indicated officers initially focused on restraining the victim rather than immediately addressing his wounds, while the attacker was not promptly secured.

Bodycam and witness accounts have raised questions about training priorities that appear to emphasize ideological considerations over straightforward protection of the vulnerable.

These cases share a common thread: native residents or victims frequently encounter swift, heavy-handed intervention, while threats tied to mass migration and certain imported communities receive softer or delayed responses until public outrage forces attention.

Bodycam footage and civilian videos repeatedly contradict official narratives that downplay risks or deflect criticism by labeling concerns as bigotry. The result is eroding public trust, with communities left feeling that law enforcement operates under different rules depending on who is involved.

Northern Ireland’s recent history shows what happens when these pressures build without resolution. Local people have watched graphic attacks, heard excuses, and seen footage of defenders being targeted while armed groups operate with apparent impunity. The same dynamic now plays out in towns like Dungannon, where long-standing Protestant areas face new tensions from rapid demographic change and selective policing.

Britain’s experiment with open borders and ideological policing has produced predictable outcomes: rising disorder, native communities on the defensive, and officers caught between political directives and the basic duty to protect everyone equally.

The Dungannon video is not an isolated clip. It is the latest confirmation that two-tier standards are actively undermining safety and consent on the streets.

The solution is straightforward. Policing must return to equal application of the law, without regard to background, migration status, or political fashion. Communities deserve the right to defend themselves when authorities hesitate, and they deserve officers who prioritise stopping armed threats over everyday people trying to defend their families.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Shares of struggling EV maker Lucid plunged as much as 49% after auto-industry news website Electric-Vehicles.com reported that the company is working with restructuring adviser AlixPartners to evaluate strategic options, including a potential take-private transaction or a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

Lucid (LCID) considering going private or chapter 11, according to https://t.co/lDDwzdDPdL

LUCID DOWN 45%

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 14, 2026

Lucid EV

Here’s more from the report:

According to the sources who spoke on condition of anonymity because the review is strictly confidential, AlixPartners is urging the board to run one more round of restructuring in the United States and Europe, and to narrow the company’s focus onto its Gravity SUV.

. . .

One person close to the matter told EV that the two starker questions, whether Lucid should be taken private or seek Chapter 11 protection, are among the scenarios the adviser has been asked to weigh.

Neither, the person stressed, is a decision the board has taken.

Shares were halved in late afternoon trading in New York… Multiple trading halts seen. 

How long until Lucid denies the report?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

Whose-muz?

Oil leaped 9%, the largest move since 2020. Today, it’s up another 2.5% to $85 at time of writing. It’s a good job we also have the Cleveland Fed’s trimmed-mean inflation measure out as well, right? Obviously, oil was driven by developments in Hormuz – or rather Whose-muz? There, besides reimposing the naval blockade of Iran, President Trump stated those using the waterway will now pay 20% of the value of cargo as compensation to the US, the strait’s new guardian. While the proposed Iranian toll the US rejected was $2m per tanker, or $1 per barrel of oil and $22 per tonne of LNG, Bloomberg estimates Trump fees at $30m per supertanker, the equivalent of $8 on oil and $177 on LNG. Naturally, the UN shipping agency is opposed to any fees for any strait and wants details on that Trump tariff – as if that will stop it.

More bluntly, Iran responded with missile attacks on tankers, with two from the UAE hit, as well as more strikes against the GCC and US military bases, the latter so far avoiding both energy and critical infrastructure. As we noted in ‘Comfortably Bomb’ yesterday, Iran can’t destroy such facilities and build bridges to the GCC if it sees itself defeating the US and gaining regional leadership. By contrast, the US is again in ‘take it down’ mode: Trump is reportedly weighing taking out Iran’s Pickaxe Mountain nuclear site, requiring a phenomenal explosion to neutralise.

Keeping out of the fight so far is Israel: the 2026 headline there from the New York Times is Mossad trying to recruit former Iranian President Ahmadinejad as an agent, and potential front man, in a failed plan for regime change. However, the Yemeni government, OK’d by the Saudis after Trump approval, bombed a runway in Houthi-occupied Sanaa to try to prevent an Iranian plane landing; now the Houthis are firing at the Saudis again for the first time in years, potentially endangering vital east-west oil flows via Yanbu on the Red Sea.

The realpolitik take is more evidence of a new (old) Mahan world disorder where countries use force to impose or restrict maritime trade flows: first Iran, now the US; the devastating Ukrainian attacks on Russian ships in the Sea of Azov is another concurrent example; and note the Hong Kong press asks, ‘Will Manila and Hanoi’s maritime deal challenge Beijing in the South China Sea?’

It’s also the US underlining that it’s fighting for a region, and world economy, that benefits from an open Hormuz but will no longer do it for free. Indeed, there’s a US message to the GCC and NATO/Europe/US allies – help us win this fight rather than saying ‘Not our war’ again. Don’t be surprised if anyone who aids the US now gets the 20% tariff lifted – which still implies it will have to be imposed on others to create that incentive.

If you think that’s cynical, in some see this as the US keeping Hormuz closed so it benefits as an LNG exporter. Indeed, as Dubai plans a new east-coast port for oil, LNG giant Qatar looks badly placed, Doha now looking at a project with the US (which likely won’t pay a penny?) for an Iraq-Syria pipeline. Even outside energy, the Asian press note the US has emerged as the helium winner amid the Iran war and China’s restrictions on exports of that key gas needed for chipmaking, with Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea turning to America for flows.

Which model?

Obviously not recalling all the reports on how Germany was artificially competitive within the Eurozone because of the low FX rate it was allowed to join at, Chancellor Merz just called for a dialogue with China on its monetary and FX policy, saying that the EU could not win, no matter how innovative or good the bloc may be, against a competitor that artificially manipulates its currency. He argued that CNY is 20-30% undervalued and needs to be allowed to float more freely so that it can appreciate to a fairer level. In this, listening to Europe in 2026 is like listening to the US in 2016.

To be clear, there is no world in which China will allow, or Europe is in any way able to impose, a new Plaza Accord on China: it is not going to happen. End of discussion. China could decide it wants to see CNY appreciate for its own reasons, such as to shift towards consumption as a growth driver, which is different. However, that’s a strategic theme echoed for decades by (mostly Western) economists, who are constantly surprised when it doesn’t happen and China’s trade surplus grows, and ever higher up the value-added ladder.

Yet the surging Chinese trade surplus with the EU, which is now larger than with the US and is close to doubling since 2020, must be addressed by October (by magic; or Chinese pledges of purchases of EU soybeans; or of Airbus aircraft when Beijing is also winking at Boeing?) or Europe says it will be forced to follow the US high tariff path after many years of patronising eyerolling at how disruptive such atavistic tactics are. China trade data today saw its imports up 36% y-o-y vs. 26.1% expected and exports up 27% vs. 19%: we will have to wait for the breakdown of the EU numbers, but they are unlikely to show what Brussels wants to see.

The larger point here is one repeatedly underlined in this Daily for many years: the problem is not one of FX levels, per se. Rather, it is of economic statecraft (a neomercantilist model) vs. neoclassical/neoliberal economic policy (a ‘free trade’ Merkelcantilist model), between which there is only one realpolitik winner: the former. If you dispute that fact, look at any pertinent production data, especially on the military side, or ask yourself which of the two is better placed to ride out an energy crisis. The logical trajectory on that basis is therefore to either assume the macroeconomic and market dynamic wherein:

• (i) the latter model adapts to the former by mirroring it, as we specifically projected in the case of the US vis-à-vis China in 2017 – and here we are in 2026; or
• (ii) the latter model doesn’t change, so continues to see ever-wider trade deficits, deindustrialisation, political polarisation, lack of strategic autonomy, and “slow agony,” as Draghi put it. And that’s before we get the fast-forward pain of who controls Hormuz.

Anyway, while we wait for Warsh’s take on the above, the Fed’s Waller has just warned of sticky inflation suggesting more rate hikes might be needed, as has the RBNZ’s Conway. Yet that all depends in large part on who wins the current battle in the Middle East, and how quickly – which is a reflection of the effectiveness of a given political-economy model.

Whocouldanooed?

Authored by Michael Zhuang via The Epoch Times,

China has imposed a temporary ban on helium exports, adding fresh uncertainty to global supplies of a gas essential to semiconductor manufacturing, aerospace, medical equipment, and other high-tech industries.

The July 10 announcement by China’s Ministry of Commerce and General Administration of Customs comes as Beijing faces mounting pressure on its own helium supplies following disruptions to imports from Qatar and Russia.

Analysts who spoke to The Epoch Times say the move appears primarily aimed at safeguarding China’s domestic supply rather than directly targeting the United States. However, since Chinese companies have increasingly served as intermediaries for Russian helium exports, the restriction could further disrupt global supply chains, particularly in Europe.

Beijing Announces Temporary Export Ban

The Chinese regime said the export restriction was imposed under the country’s Foreign Trade Law. It took effect immediately. The regime did not specify how long the temporary measure would remain in place.

Helium is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic inert gas extracted as a byproduct of natural gas processing. Since it cannot be manufactured or replenished, it is considered a strategic resource.

The gas plays a critical role in semiconductor production, where it is used for wafer cooling, plasma etching, chemical vapor deposition, atomic layer deposition, photolithography support, and leak detection. It is also widely used in medical imaging, aerospace, scientific research, and advanced manufacturing.

Despite expanding domestic production, China still relies heavily on imported helium.

According to industry data from China Fortune Securities, approximately 84 percent of China’s helium supply is dependent on foreign imports, with natural gas producers Qatar and Russia accounting together for nearly half of global helium production. The United States is the world’s largest helium producer, producing more than 40 percent of global production.

China sources roughly 46 percent of its helium imports from Qatar and about 35 percent from Russia. But these import channels have come under increasing pressure this year.

According to a report on Chinese news portal Sina, maritime routes carrying Qatari helium through the Persian Gulf were disrupted amid the Iran war. In April, Russia announced temporary export controls on helium through the end of 2027, reducing export quotas to Asia to roughly 40 percent of 2025 levels. The China Liquefied Natural Gas Association estimated that those developments have created a helium supply shortfall exceeding 60 percent for China.

Cheng Cheng-ping, a professor of finance at Taiwan’s National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, told The Epoch Times that Beijing’s decision appears to be driven largely by domestic supply concerns rather than geopolitical retaliation.

“The timing suggests this is primarily an act of self-preservation,” he said. “It is different from previous export controls on rare earths, which were more directly aimed at the United States.”

Beijing has been working to expand China’s domestic semiconductor industry while reducing reliance on advanced chips restricted by U.S. export controls.

“China is engaged in intense competition with the United States in high-end industries but remains behind technologically,” Cheng said. “Restricting exports allows it to retain more resources to support its own advanced manufacturing.”

Shen Ming-shih, a research fellow at Taiwan’s Institute for National Defense and Security Research, told The Epoch Times that several factors likely influenced the decision, but domestic industrial demand appears to be the primary consideration.

“The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can still import helium from Russia for now,” Shen said. “But if Russian supplies tighten further through 2027 while imports from other sources remain constrained, China’s own helium resources will become increasingly scarce.”

China’s Role as a Russian Helium Middleman

While the export restrictions may help preserve domestic supplies, they could also tighten international markets because Chinese companies have become important intermediaries in the global helium trade.

According to a June report by U.K.-based industry intelligence firm Gasworld, Western sanctions have largely prevented Russia from exporting helium directly to Europe. Instead, Chinese companies have been importing Russian helium at relatively low prices – often in volumes exceeding China’s own domestic consumption – and re-exporting part of those shipments to overseas markets, including Europe.

Russian helium exports to China averaged 38 million cubic feet per month in 2025, a 60 percent increase from the previous year, according to the report. Shipments reached 71 million cubic feet in December alone.

China’s export ban could further tighten global helium supplies because of the country’s growing role as a redistribution hub for Russian helium.

Cheng said the United States is unlikely to be significantly affected because of its own supplies.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the United States accounted for 44 percent of global helium production in 2024, followed by Qatar at 34 percent, Russia at 9 percent, and Algeria at 6 percent.

“The impact will be much greater for Europe and other countries that previously relied on Russian or Qatari helium but increasingly obtained those supplies through China,” Cheng said.

With Russian exports constrained by sanctions and Middle Eastern supplies facing periodic disruptions, China has gained considerable leverage as an intermediary, he said.

“By restricting exports now, China is increasing risks across the global supply chain,” Cheng said.

He added that Beijing has previously leveraged its position in global supply chains to exert pressure on agricultural imports from Australia, Brazil, and Taiwan.

“Now, helium has become another example,” Cheng said. “China is only an intermediary, but it is using that position as a tool to influence markets and supply chains. Companies trading with authoritarian regimes need to factor these risks into their supply-chain planning.”

Shen said the ultimate impact of the export restrictions will depend on how heavily individual countries rely on Chinese helium exports and whether they can secure alternative suppliers.

European countries may experience greater short-term disruptions, he said, but the move could also encourage importers to diversify their sources and reduce dependence on China.

Tang Bing, Luo Ya, and Reuters contributed to this report.

From 1926 through 2025, just 27.6% of stocks beat the broader market. Nearly 60% actually destroyed shareholder wealth, and the median stock delivered a lifetime return of -6.9%. Yet despite those sobering odds, U.S. stocks collectively created roughly $91 trillion in wealth over the last century, with just 46 companies responsible for half of it.

Those are some of the headline findings from a new study by Hendrik Bessembinder of Arizona State University’s W.P. Carey School of Business, who examined the performance of nearly 30,000 U.S. stocks over the last century. The research paints a striking picture of how wealth is actually created in the stock market: while broad market indexes have generated exceptional long-term returns, the vast majority of individual stocks have failed to keep pace.

Bessembinder analyzed 29,754 publicly traded U.S. stocks between 1926 and 2025. Over that period, the overall stock market produced an annualized return of about 10.1%, turning every dollar invested into more than $15,000, according to the study, detailed in this white paper. 

But those impressive aggregate returns mask an uncomfortable reality. The typical stock fared far worse. In fact, the median stock lost 6.9% over its lifetime, fewer than half of all stocks generated a positive lifetime return, only about 41% outperformed Treasury bills during the time they were publicly traded, and just 27.6% managed to outperform the market itself.

The reason is simple: stock market returns are incredibly uneven. While any stock can fall to zero, there is effectively no limit to how much a winner can rise. Over long periods, a tiny number of extraordinary companies generate gains so large that they more than offset the thousands of stocks that stagnate, disappoint, or disappear altogether. Those rare winners account for an outsized share of the market’s overall success.

Perhaps the most surprising finding is that this concentration has become even more extreme. In Bessembinder’s original research covering 1926 through 2016, 89 companies accounted for half of all shareholder wealth created by the U.S. stock market. After adding the last nine years of data, total wealth creation more than doubled to roughly $91 trillion, yet the number of companies responsible for half of it fell to just 46.

At the top of the list are many of today’s biggest technology names. Apple ranks first, generating more than $5 trillion in shareholder wealth, followed by Nvidia, Microsoft, Alphabet and Amazon. Collectively, those five companies account for more than one-fifth of all net wealth created by the U.S. stock market over the past century, while Apple and Nvidia alone make up more than one-tenth of the total.

The concentration becomes even more remarkable further down the data. Out of more than 29,000 companies included in the study, just 1,082, less than 4% of the total, were responsible for all of the market’s net wealth creation. Meanwhile, nearly six out of every ten companies actually reduced shareholder wealth relative to simply investing in one month Treasury bills.

The study also pushes back against the idea that market legends are built on impossible annual returns. Many of history’s greatest investments didn’t earn 50% or 100% per year. Instead, they compounded at annual rates in the low to mid teens over extraordinarily long periods. The lesson is that consistent returns sustained over decades are often far more powerful than eye popping gains that prove impossible to maintain.

For investors, the findings reinforce one of the strongest arguments for diversification. While the stock market as a whole has created enormous wealth over the past century, identifying the relatively small group of companies that ultimately drive those returns has always been exceptionally difficult. Missing just a handful of those long-term winners can dramatically reduce investment results, which helps explain why broad index funds have consistently outperformed most active stock pickers over long horizons.

Bessembinder concludes that the tendency for a small number of companies to drive most of the market’s returns is unlikely to disappear because it is a natural consequence of how returns compound over time. The bigger question, he suggests, is whether technologies like artificial intelligence will make wealth creation even more concentrated in a handful of dominant firms, or broaden the playing field enough to create the next generation of market leaders.

You can read the full white paper here.