Individual Economists

CDC Narrows Vaccine Recommendations In Response To Trump Order

Zero Hedge -

CDC Narrows Vaccine Recommendations In Response To Trump Order

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

Health officials announced on Jan. 5 that they’re narrowing the number of vaccines recommended broadly for children in response to a recent order from President Donald Trump.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is moving forward with only broad recommendations for eight vaccines for children, down from 14.

Trump, in December 2025, directed Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and acting CDC Director Jim O’Neill to review vaccine schedules in the United States and peer countries and determine if the U.S. schedule should be updated.

He named three countries, including Denmark, that recommend fewer vaccines and fewer vaccine doses.

“President Trump directed us to examine how other developed nations protect their children and to take action if they are doing better,” Kennedy said in a statement.

“After an exhaustive review of the evidence, we are aligning the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with international consensus while strengthening transparency and informed consent. This decision protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health.”

Moving forward, the CDC will stop broadly recommending vaccines against influenza, rotavirus, hepatitis A, and meningococcal disease. The CDC in 2025 already narrowed recommendations for hepatitis B and COVID-19 vaccination based on advice from advisers selected by Kennedy. The agency is maintaining its recommendation that children whose mothers did not receive a respiratory syncytial virus vaccine receive an antibody, or passive immunization, against the virus.

The old schedule can be viewed here, and the new schedule can be viewed here.

The changes were recommended by Dr. Tracy Beth Hoeg, acting director of the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, who, during a recent presentation, commented favorably on Denmark’s vaccine schedule, and Martin Kulldorff, whom Kennedy appointed a senior adviser in 2025. Hoeg and Kulldorff said in a 34-page assessment that an update was needed because of falling trust in public health, decreases in vaccination rates, and evidence that some recommended vaccines had limited benefits.

A CDC official told reporters on a call on Jan. 5 that the agency consulted with officials in Denmark, Germany, and Japan, as well as vaccine scientists at the CDC and FDA.

Vaccine manufacturers were not consulted, another official said.

The administration says the update does not prevent children from accessing vaccines and that insurers will continue to cover them without cost-sharing under the Affordable Care Act.

The CDC still recommends some of those vaccines for certain populations, such as hepatitis B vaccination for children born to women who test positive for the virus. For others, it is focused on shared clinical decision-making or recommending that people consult doctors and consider factors such as the risk of illness when deciding whether to have their children vaccinated.

The CDC is keeping in place broad recommendations for vaccines against diphtheria; tetanus; acellular pertussis, or whooping cough; haemophilus influenzae type b; pneumococcal disease; polio; measles; mumps; rubella; varicella, also known as chickenpox; and human papillomavirus (HPV).

The new schedule lowers the number of recommended HPV doses from two to one, after some recent research indicated that one dose is as effective.

“Important vaccines ... will be continued to be recommended for our children,” a Department of Health and Human Services official said on the call.

“This change is going to spark major pushback, but that reaction was inevitable,” Dr. Joel Warsh, a pediatrician based in California, told The Epoch Times in an email.

“Reducing universal recommendations doesn’t mean vaccines are being banned or declared unsafe—it means the CDC is finally acknowledging that not every vaccine has the same risk-benefit profile for every child.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics said it opposed the changes.

“At a time when parents, pediatricians, and the public are looking for clear guidance and accurate information, this ill-considered decision will sow further chaos and confusion and erode confidence in immunizations,” Dr. Andrew Racine, president of the group, which partners with vaccine companies, said in a statement.

“This is no way to make our country healthier.”

President Trump took his social media account to explain...

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 18:25

Centrus Energy Soars After DOE Awards $2.7 Billion For Uranium Enrichment

Zero Hedge -

Centrus Energy Soars After DOE Awards $2.7 Billion For Uranium Enrichment

The Department of Energy (DOE) has finally awarded the billions of dollars for uranium enrichment announced back in 2024. The contracts span the full range of uranium enrichment from low-enriched uranium (LEU) used by the current global reactor fleet, through high-assay LEU (HALEU) which is planned to be used by multiple advanced reactor designs. Yet while three companies were chosen for huge awards, peaking at almost 900 million each, a few were notably left out.

Centers Energy was awarded $900 million to support the expansion of their currently-operating 900 kg/yr HALEU production capacity and toward the development of next-generation reactor fuel. We covered their recent announcement about finally starting the production of new centrifuge units for LEU production. Centrus now has US government supply on the HALEU side and Korean government support on the LEU side.

Centrus shares rose as much as 9.2% in New York, and closed up almost 25% in the past two days, one of its biggest gains in the past year.

“President Trump is catalyzing a resurgence in the nation’s nuclear energy sector to strengthen American security and prosperity,” said Secretary of Energy Chris Wright. “Today’s awards show that this Administration is committed to restoring a secure domestic nuclear fuel supply chain capable of producing the nuclear fuels needed to power the reactors of today and the advanced reactors of tomorrow.”

General Matter, started by Founders Fund’s Scott Nolan, was awarded $900 million for HALEU capacity development at their future facility in Kentucky. General Matter has been tight-lipped about the enrichment technology they plan to utilize at their new facility, but will submit an application to the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for the facility planned at Paducah this calendar year.

Orano, a French enrichment company majority owned by the French government, was awarded $900 million for developing and constructing their planned LEU enrichment facility in Tennessee. They have vaguely discussed their intended plant size, but have remarked it will have a capacity in the “millions of SWU”. Separate Work Unit (SWU) is the measurement of uranium enrichment production capacity, with Russian imports currently clocking in at roughly 3-4 million SWU/yr.

Senator Tom Cotton last month argued that companies, such as Orano, which coordinate with China’s nuclear program should be barred from receiving US taxpayer dollars.

Global Laser Enrichment (GLE), a company co-owned by Silex and Cameco, was awarded $28 million to continue the advancement of their novel laser enrichment technology. They currently have an enrichment facility application under review with the NRC for their Kentucky facility, and are currently producing hundreds of kg of LEU at their North Carolina test center.

Notably left out of the list of award recipients was Nano Nuclear’s partner LIS Technologies, a company also developing a novel uranium laser enrichment method. While they have been busy pounding the table for months that their laser technology is the only US-origin technology, so far the US government seems to be uninterested.

Also left off the list is the only enrichment company producing commercial quantities of product in the US, Urenco. Their facility in New Mexico has been operating for years, and recently received permission from the NRC to increase their enrichment levels. Owned by a combination of UK, Dutch, and German government and private entities, the company failed to secure an award for this round.

This is likely only the first of many awards and contracts to come with companies in the domestic nuclear fuel chain, as we discussed at length last week. Many more such announcements are likely over the coming weeks. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 18:00

Trump's Capture Of Maduro Exposed The Reality Of Great Power Geopolitics

Zero Hedge -

Trump's Capture Of Maduro Exposed The Reality Of Great Power Geopolitics

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Trump's successful “special military operation” in Venezuela has prompted a flurry of reactions from governments across the world.

Venezuela’s strategic Russian and Chinese partners predictably condemned the US’ capture of President Nicolas Maduro while the US’ EU junior partner released a statement that lacked any criticism of the US but also didn’t endorse its actions either.

Therein lies the hypocrisy that was just exposed by the US’ “special military operation” in Venezuela since the EU would have certainly condemned Russia’s hypothetical capture of Zelensky in the harshest language possible.

Their implied excuse for these double standards towards the US’ capture of Maduro is that he’s illegitimate, but Russia now deems Zelensky to be illegitimate too, so third parties’ assessments of other leaders’ legitimacy is ultimately subjective and this leads to the reality that was just exposed.

At the end of the day, Great Powers like the US (which is arguably still a superpower even if it was hitherto in decline till Trump’s return to office) always pursue their perceived interests but cloak them in the language of international law or norms, which is more palatable for the global public.

The US previously relied on the “rules-based order” concept to justify its actions abroad, but this was eventually exposed by Russian media as pure hypocrisy, ergo why Trump 2.0 didn’t employ it this time.

Rather, it boldly explained how the US intends to restore its “sphere of influence” over the Americas in accordance with the new National Security Strategy (NSS), thus representing a Hyper-Realist approach in the sense of explicitly embracing the pursuit of power as a goal instead of denying it like before.

As the NSS portrays it, this “sphere of influence” is meant to ensure the US’ national security interests and prosperity, which is similar to what Russia aims to achieve in Ukraine through its own special operation.

Without the power that comes from the US restoring its “sphere of influence” over what it calls its “backyard” or Russia restoring its own over what it calls its “Near Abroad”, they’d remain exposed to a panoply of threats from their rivals, including economic ones that could reduce their people’s prosperity. Correspondingly, Great Powers therefore also try to undermine their rivals in their respective “sphere of influence”, which they perceive as a means towards giving them leverage or at least an edge over them.

This is the reality of Great Power geopolitics, which has up till now been covered up with rhetoric about “democracy”, “international law”, and/or the “rules-based order”, but the US is no longer playing these mind games.

Ideally, it’ll finally behave as a “benign hegemon” that still profits from those within its sphere (but not as excessively as before) and also genuinely provides for their security, since this Putin-pioneered model is the most sustainable way to ensure stability within a Great Power’s region.

The US’ history of “malign hegemony” led to the anti-hegemonic movements that arose in the Americas so repeating the same policy will inevitably lead to the same result and consequently harm the US’ Great Power interests.

It’s premature to predict whether Trump 2.0 will take a page from Putin’s model of “benign hegemony”, but regardless of one’s opinion about Venezuela, it’s still refreshing that the US just exposed the reality of Great Power geopolitics since no one needs to keep up the charade any longer.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 16:20

Trump Again Issues Veiled Regime Change Threat: "Make Iran Great Again"

Zero Hedge -

Trump Again Issues Veiled Regime Change Threat: "Make Iran Great Again"

(Update1618ET): President Trump in a widely circulating photo held up a ballcap which says "Make Iran Great Again" cap in a photo alongside Republican Senator Lindsey Graham on Monday, and he also posted this message:

Indeed these are some bizarre times we're living in. Let's hope he doesn't spend too much time with Graham, who is probably lobbying hard for 'muscular action' against Tehran...

And there's this unexpected and rare headline today:

Israeli PM Netanyahu asked President Putin to reassure Iran, "We will not attack them": KANN

The Iranians have every reason not to believe Netanyahu.

* * *

Three Iranian officials have told Reuters that Tehran leadership believes the United States or Israel may take military action against the Islamic Republic soon, coming off the heels of the US intervention to remove Venezuela's Maduro.

There are reports of Iranian 'emergency meetings' of top leadership to examining options for self-defense, and the country overnight engaged in fresh ballistic missile drills to signal its preparedness. 

Office of the Iranian Supreme Leader/West Asia News Agency/Reuters

The NY Times has separately cited Iranian officials who view the country as being in "survival mode" - amid a week of economic protests driven largely by the impact of US sanctions: currency collapse and soaring prices.

The past two years has seen Hezbollah leadership decimated, Assad removed in Syria, and now Iran-ally Maduro taken out - he's now facing federal charges in a New York court. 

Islamic Republic leadership is fully aware that it remains in a very delicate position:

Ali Gholhaki, a hard-line pundit in Iran, said in a phone interview that the dire state of the economy had played a central role in the downfall of the leaders in both Venezuela and Syria, creating a maelstrom of public discontent and dispirited security forces. “The lesson for Iran is that we must be extremely careful that the same scenario does not happen here,” Mr. Gholhaki said. “When the anti-riot police, security forces and the military are struggling for their livelihood, the defense lines collapse.”

The large-scale internal protests come at the worst possible time, the NY Times continues:

The three officials said that as the protests raged, senior officials in private meetings and conversations had acknowledged that the Islamic Republic had been thrust into survival mode. Officials appear to have few tools at their disposal to deal with either the pressing challenges of a tanking economy fueling unrest or the threat of further conflict with Israel and the United States. President Masoud Pezeshkian has repeatedly said as much publicly in recent weeks, at one point announcing that he had “no ideas” for solving Iran’s many problems.

“Any policy in the society that is unjust is doomed to fail,” Mr. Pezeshkian said in a speech on Thursday, his first public address since the protests began. “Accept that we must listen to the people.”

While at least a dozen people have died amid clashes with police (including at least one security forces member), the ongoing protests still aren't as big as the 2022 wave.

But Iran also has to always be on the lookout for subversion from the outside, as even Israeli media has increasingly acknowledged...

Mossad has long acknowledged that it has many assets inside Iran, and already Israeli officials have expressed that they 'stand with' the Iranian people. Of course, even the protesters themselves are wary of being coopted by outside intelligence. And then there's the professional activists and subversives of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK) - which is believed to frequently coordinate action with the Israelis and Americans.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 16:19

US Dept Of War Secures Silver Smelter Deal To Process LatAm Metals

Zero Hedge -

US Dept Of War Secures Silver Smelter Deal To Process LatAm Metals

Authored by GoldFix's Vincent Lanci via ScottsdaleMint.com,

Financed by JPMorgan, Jointly Owned by US DoD

Under the plan, the U.S. Department of Defense will hold a 40% stake in the JPM Financed smelter joint-venture.

GFN – WASHINGTON: Korea Zinc plans a $7.4 billion investment to construct a large-scale non-ferrous metals smelter in Clarksville, Tennessee, a project U.S. officials say will materially expand domestic critical minerals processing capacity and strengthen supply chain security.

Proposed site of the Clarksville, Tennessee smelter

The project, known as the “U.S. Smelter,” is expected to require approximately $6.6 billion in capital expenditures, with total investment reaching $7.4 billion including financing costs. It is being developed in coordination with the U.S. Department of War and the U.S. Department of Commerce, according to project materials and government statements.

Deputy Secretary of War Steve Feinberg said the investment reflects a strategic shift in U.S. industrial and defense priorities.

“President Trump has directed his Administration to prioritize critical minerals as essential to America’s defense and economic security,” Feinberg said.

“The Department of War’s conditional investment of $1.4 billion to build the first U.S.-based zinc smelter and critical minerals processing facility since the 1970s reverses decades of industrial decline. The new smelter in Tennessee creates 750 American jobs and expands access to strategic minerals across aerospace, defense, electronics, and advanced manufacturing.”

Timeline of U.S. metals refining capacity since the 1970s

The Tennessee facility will be the first zinc refinery built in the United States in more than 50 years and will operate as an integrated smelter capable of producing 13 non-ferrous metals. Most of these materials are designated as critical minerals by the U.S. government due to their role in defense production, advanced electronics, and energy systems.

Under the current framework, the Department of War will arrange approximately $2.15 billion in financing alongside private investors. The Department of Commerce will provide $210 million in funding under the CHIPS Act to support domestically sourced equipment, with JPMorgan assisting in structuring the financing.

IEA outlook for global critical minerals demand under STEPS, APS, and NZE scenarios

U.S. officials have described the project as an example of allied cooperation to secure supply chains amid rising competition for strategic resources. Josh Phair, founder and CEO of Scottsdale Mint, said in a recent Yahoo Finance interview, “We’re in a metals war’. and securing supply is crucial now

Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick said the investment would expand U.S. production of strategically important minerals.

“Korea Zinc’s critical minerals project in Tennessee is a transformational deal for America,” Lutnick said.

“The United States will produce, in volume, 13 critical and strategic minerals vital to aerospace and defense, semiconductors, AI, quantum computing, autos, industrials, and national security.”

Korea Zinc plans to deploy technical personnel and operational expertise from its Onsan Smelter in Ulsan, South Korea, during early project phases. Onsan is the world’s largest single-site non-ferrous smelting complex and is known for processing low-grade and complex materials, including scrap with high impurity content.

North America’s role in global critical minerals mining and refining

Company officials said transferring this integrated zinc-lead-copper processing capability is intended to reduce commissioning risk and position the Clarksville facility among the most advanced smelters globally. Producing within the United States is also expected to reduce exposure to trade restrictions and logistics disruptions while enabling local sourcing of scrap and raw materials.

Despite government backing, the project has prompted shareholder resistance. An alliance led by MBK Partners and Young Poong has opposed the U.S.-backed joint venture, citing concerns over potential share dilution and governance control. The group has indicated it may seek legal action to block new share issuance.

Korea Zinc shares rose more than 26% following the project announcement before declining by over 13% as shareholder opposition became public.

Once fully operational, the U.S. Smelter is expected to process approximately 1.1 million tons of raw materials annually and produce roughly 540,000 tons of finished products.

Smelter output mapped to U.S. critical minerals list

Planned output includes base metals such as zinc, lead, and copper; precious metals including gold and silver; strategic minerals such as antimony, indium, bismuth, tellurium, cadmium, gallium, germanium, and palladium; and chemical products including sulfuric acid and semiconductor-grade sulfuric acid.

According to project disclosures, 11 of the 13 metals qualify as critical minerals under the 2025 U.S. Geological Survey list. Several, including indium and gallium, are fully import-dependent in the United States.

Site preparation is scheduled to begin in 2026, followed by full construction in 2027.

Phased commercial operations are expected to start in 2029, initially focused on zinc, lead, and copper production.

Clarksville was selected due to existing industrial infrastructure, including Nyrstar’s current zinc smelter, the only operating zinc refinery in the United States. Korea Zinc plans to acquire Nyrstar’s U.S. operations, subject to conditions, dismantle the existing facility, and replace it with a larger, modern plant.

Project planners also cited strong transportation links, favorable site conditions, a skilled local workforce with decades of smelting experience, and relatively low electricity costs, a key factor in smelting economics.

Chairman Yun B. Choi said the project aligns with long-term U.S. and South Korean economic security objectives.

“With its project in the United States, Korea Zinc will strengthen its role as a strategic supplier of essential minerals for aerospace and defense,” Choi said.

“This project will serve as a model for U.S.–ROK economic security cooperation at a time of heightened geopolitical risk.”

GoldFix Analysis: Why the Tennessee Smelter Matters

The Korea Zinc investment fits into a broader pattern across commodities, trade policy, and financial market structure. Recent developments point toward a renewed emphasis on supply security and domestic control over critical industrial inputs.

U.S. policy has increasingly focused on securing domestic processing capacity for materials already designated as critical. Mining location remains relevant, but refining and smelting capacity determines throughput control, resilience under stress, and bargaining leverage. The Tennessee project expands that capacity inside the United States for materials that have largely been processed offshore.

Josh Phair, CEO of Scottsdale Mint has previously linked metals availability to industrial positioning, noting that the rapid build-out of U.S. data centers and infrastructure requires reliable access to physical inputs.

“These data centers that are getting created so fast in the United States, the U.S. has to have it [silver] to protect its position in the world.”

The investment also aligns with policy actions aimed at reducing reliance on China-centered supply chains. Export controls, strategic stockpiling, and industrial subsidies have moved in the same direction. The smelter adds physical infrastructure to that framework, supported by defense and commerce financing and built in cooperation with an allied producer.

The financing structure adds another layer. JPMorgan Chase is involved in arranging financing for the project. Over recent months, JPMorgan has also reduced silver held in COMEX registered inventories and sourced physical metal from Latin America. These actions reflect activity in physical markets where logistics, jurisdiction, and custody increasingly influence procurement decisions.

Why JPMorgan’s 232 Advice Matters

JPMorgan sits at the center of the global silver ecosystem as demonstrated above. Its role as custodian, intermediary, and counterparty across physical markets, derivatives, and sovereign channels places it at the intersection of nearly all meaningful silver flows. Activity associated with JPMorgan therefore carries informational value.

Under Section 232 the United States does not restrict commodities it still needs to accumulate. Tariffs follow supply security, not the other way around.

Once domestic and hemispheric supply chains are deemed sufficient, pricing mechanisms change. Tariffs need not target silver explicitly to reshape its price. Broad commodity measures are enough. But tariffs could come anyway

Because the United States remains the marginal buyer at scale, if it did implement tariffs, its pricing decisions propagate globally. The tariff level becomes the reference price, as sellers rationally seek the highest available bid. JPMorgan is helping the US position itself as self sufficient in metals and at some point, price will rise even further pursuant to rule 232 if it is implemented for Copper (likely) and Silver (perhaps)

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 15:25

Update: The Housing Bubble and Mortgage Debt as a Percent of GDP

Calculated Risk -

Today, in the Calculated Risk Real Estate Newsletter: Update: The Housing Bubble and Mortgage Debt as a Percent of GDP

A brief excerpt:
Three years ago, I wrote The Housing Bubble and Mortgage Debt as a Percent of GDP. Here is an update to a couple of graphs. The bottom line remains the same: There will not be cascading price declines in this cycle due to distressed sales.

In a 2005 post, I included a graph of household mortgage debt as a percent of GDP. Several readers asked if I could update the graph.

First, from February 2005 (21 years ago!):
The following chart shows household mortgage debt as a % of GDP. Although mortgage debt has been increasing for years, the last four years have seen a tremendous increase in debt. Last year alone mortgage debt increased close to $800 Billion - almost 7% of GDP. ...

Mortgage Debt GDP 2005Many homeowners have refinanced their homes, in essence using their homes as an ATM.

It wouldn't take a RE bust to impact the general economy. Just a slowdown in both volume (to impact employment) and in prices (to slow down borrowing) might push the general economy into recession. An actual bust, especially with all of the extensive sub-prime lending, might cause a serious problem.
And a serious problem is what happened!
There is much more in the article.

US Mainstream Media Had Prior Knowledge Of Trump's Venezuela Assault But Withheld Coverage

Zero Hedge -

US Mainstream Media Had Prior Knowledge Of Trump's Venezuela Assault But Withheld Coverage

Via The Cradle

The two largest US newspapers learned in advance of the secret US raid to abduct Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, but chose not to publish what they knew to avoid endangering US troops, Semafor reported on 4 January, citing two people familiar with the matter.

Despite their hostility toward US President Donald Trump regarding domestic issues, the New York Times (NYT) and Washington Post cooperated with his administration ahead of the operation to attack Venezuela.

via The Associated Press

US forces deployed more than 150 aircraft to eliminate air defenses, clearing the way for helicopters to insert troops who then moved on to President Maduro’s location.

After Maduro and his wife were abducted, President Trump and top administration officials praised the operation, citing both the lack of US casualties and the total secrecy surrounding it, including from the media.

"The coordination, the stealth, the precision, the very long arm of American justice - all on display in the middle of the night," Pentagon chief Pete Hegseth said.

Trump approved the assault at 10:46 pm Friday. Though aware of the decision, the NYT and Washington Post waited several hours before reporting it because the White House had warned that doing so would expose US troops performing the operation to danger.

However, the decision also showed disregard for the lives of Venezuelans.

US airstrikes accompanying the commando operation killed 40 people, including civilians and military personnel, a senior Venezuelan official told the NYT on Saturday.

One strike targeted a three-story civilian apartment complex in Catia La Mar, a poor coastal area just west of the Caracas airport, killing an 80-year-old woman, Rosa González, and seriously wounding a second person.

Following the airstrikes, US President Donald Trump announced that US forces had "captured" Maduro and his wife, also telling reporters that Maduro had “offered everything” to the US, from Venezuelan oil and natural resources to mediation, according to reporters.

Spokespersons for the White House, the Pentagon, and the Washington Post declined to comment on the conversations between journalists and officials Friday night. A NYT spokesperson did not immediately respond to an inquiry.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 14:45

Watch: Dems Screeched For Maduro's Ouster... Until Trump Delivered It

Zero Hedge -

Watch: Dems Screeched For Maduro's Ouster... Until Trump Delivered It

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is rushing to block President Trump’s successful operation to arrest Venezuelan dictator Nicolás Maduro, labeling it “lawlessness” and a violation of congressional authority—despite Schumer himself and a string of Democrats and their media mouthpieces previously blasting Trump for failing to end the Maduro regime.

With Maduro now in custody and the U.S. overseeing a transition in Venezuela, Democrats have immediately cried foul, with Schumer appearing on ABC’s “This Week” to decry the move as unauthorized nation-building that will cost American lives and dollars.

Schumer declared, “The American people this morning are scratching their heads in wonderment and in fear of what the president has proposed,” adding, “We have learned through years when America tries to do regime change and nation building in this way, the American people pay the price in both blood and in dollars.”

Schumer further accused the Trump administration of bombing civilian sites and vowed to introduce a War Powers Act resolution, co-sponsored with Tim Kaine and Rand Paul, to halt further actions without congressional approval. “If it’s voted positively in both houses, then the president can’t do another thing in Venezuela without the OK of Congress,” Schumer stated.

Yet, this is the same Schumer who, in 2020, ridiculed Trump’s Venezuela policy for not going far enough. In a Senate floor speech, he declared, “The President brags about his Venezuela policy? Give us a break. He hasn’t brought an end to the Maduro regime.”

The contrast couldn’t be starker: back then, Democrats demanded action against the narco-terrorist indicted on drug trafficking charges; now, they defend the status quo to spite Trump.

Democrats and their media allies are suddenly Maduro apologists, despite the fact that during Trump’s first term and beyond, they relentlessly pushed for the dictator’s removal, tying Maduro’s survival to Trump’s alleged weakness.

Watch: Sen. Chris Murphy just last year urging action against Maduro, only to flip and call Trump’s operation to remove him corrupt and unrelated to U.S. security.

Murphy has been beating this drum since 2019. Now suddenly, he’s against it? Clown.

Watch: Sen. Chris Van Hollen echoed the call in 2024, declaring Maduro “absolutely lost the election, is not legitimate, and has to be removed from power.” His about-face now is laughable.

Watch: Rachel Maddow, in September 2024, lumped Maduro with dictators like Putin and Kim Jong Un, saying, “They want no one anywhere to think it is possible let alone desirable to throw a strong man out.” Now, with Trump succeeding where Biden failed, Maddow’s silence speaks volumes.

Leftists and Dems all over MSNBC and CNN repeatedly claimed Maduro’s hold on power proved Trump was “Putin’s puppet,” ignoring how Biden’s policies later empowered the regime.

Flash back to 2019: Bipartisan applause in Congress when Trump recognized Venezuela’s legitimate leader over Maduro. Democrats cheered then; now they whine.

The hypocrisy peaks in Democrats’ past smears portraying Trump as Maduro’s ideological twin, craving the same authoritarian control.

The talking point was relentlessly hammered: Trump supposedly wants to be like Maduro, depriving people of freedom. They insisted Trump praises leaders like Maduro for their iron-fisted rule. Where are they now?

“Fascism expert” Ruth Ben-Ghiat claimed in 2024 that Trump admires Maduro’s deprivation of freedoms. Her “expertise” crumbles now that Trump freed Venezuelans from that very tyranny.

Even Rep. Jamie Raskin joined in last year, demanding the world oppose Maduro’s “right-wing attack on democratic institutions.”

Predictably, Biden’s weakness invited this mess. In 2023, his admin eased sanctions on Venezuela for Maduro’s empty promise of fair elections—which he promptly stole in 2024, arresting opponents and clinging to power.

Then after it became clear what was happening, the Biden administration moved to pave the way for Maduro to be ousted.

This is all about blind opposition to Trump. Democrats would now rather prop up dictators than admit Trump’s policies are working. With Maduro gone, the U.S. secures its borders, cuts off narco-flows, and weakens globalist foes.

Their blatant hypocrisy exposes the Democrats’ terminal case of Trump Derangement Syndrome: they oppose anything Trump does, even if it aligns with their past demands, simply because it’s him doing it and they have no other direction to steer their sinking rat infested husk.

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.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 14:05

Hegseth Censures Sen. Kelly For Participation In Video Calling On Troops To Defy Orders

Zero Hedge -

Hegseth Censures Sen. Kelly For Participation In Video Calling On Troops To Defy Orders

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced Monday that he will issue a letter of censure to Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) over the senator’s participation in a video released in November urging U.S. troops to resist “unlawful orders” made by the president. Sen. Elissa Slotkin and Reps. Chris Deluzio, Maggie Goodlander, Chrissy Houlahan, and Jason Crow, all veterans of the military and intelligence community, also participated in the video.

“We want to speak directly to members of the Military and the Intelligence Community,” Sen. Slotkin said in a post accompanying the video. “The American people need you to stand up for our laws and our Constitution. Don’t give up the ship.”

“Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders,” Kelly and others state in the video, without explaining how the Trump administration had violated the Constitution.

“Six weeks ago, Senator Mark Kelly — and five other members of Congress — released a reckless and seditious video that was clearly intended to undermine good order and military discipline,” Hegseth said in a post on X.

“As a retired Navy Captain who is still receiving a military pension, Captain Kelly knows he is still accountable to military justice. And the Department of War — and the American people — expect justice.”

The Department of War has begun retirement grade determination proceedings under 10 U.S.C. § 1370(f), which could result in a reduction of Kelly’s retired rank and corresponding pay. Hegseth also issued a formal Letter of Censure, citing Kelly’s “reckless misconduct” and placing it permanently in his military personnel file.

“Captain Kelly has been provided notice of the basis for this action and has thirty days to submit a response,” Hegseth explained. “The retirement grade determination process directed by Secretary Hegseth will be completed within forty-five days.”

According to Hegseth, it wasn’t just Kelly’s participation in the video that prompted this censure. “These actions are based on Captain Kelly's public statements from June through December 2025 in which he characterized lawful military operations as illegal and counseled members of the Armed Forces to refuse lawful orders,” Hegseth explained. “This conduct was seditious in nature and violated Articles 133 and 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, to which Captain Kelly remains subject as a retired officer receiving pay.”

He added that “Captain Kelly’s status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

Even members of the mainstream media acknowledged that Kelly, Slotkin, and the others had implied that President Trump had already issued illegal orders. However, when pressed on this issue by ABC’s Martha Raddatz, Slotkin not only admitted that Trump had never issued any illegal orders, but that she couldn’t define what “illegal orders” meant. 

 “It was basically a warning to say, like, if you’re asked to do something particularly against American citizens, you have the ability to go to your JAG officer and push back,” Slotkin explained to Raddatz.

But that’s not what the members of Congress said in the video. Raddatz called her out for this.

“Couldn’t you have done a video saying just what you just said?” Raddatz asked. “If you are asked to do something—if you are worried about whether it is legal or not—you can do this. It does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.”

Slotkin also admitted that even though she and the other members of Congress who participated in the video told troops to defy “illegal orders” that she couldn’t define what that meant.

“It is very clear that no one should follow an illegal order, but it’s very murky when you look at what is an illegal order.”

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) responded to the censure by calling Kelly a “hero and a patriot” in a post on X.

“Mark Kelly is a hero and a patriot committed to serving the American people. Pete Hegseth is a lap dog committed to serving one man – Donald Trump,” he claimed. “This is a despicable act of political retribution. I stand with Sen. Kelly, who will always do the right thing no matter the consequences.”

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 13:45

Mamdani's NYC Tenant Czar Called To 'Seize Private Property,' Calls Home Ownership "White Supremacy"

Zero Hedge -

Mamdani's NYC Tenant Czar Called To 'Seize Private Property,' Calls Home Ownership "White Supremacy"

NYC Mayor Zorhan Mamdani's newly appointed tenant advocate called to "seize private property" and called home ownership a "weapon of white supremacy" in several posts on her now-deleted X account.

"Seize private property!" tweeted Cea Weaver on June 13, 2018. 

In another tweet from August 2019, she said "Private property including any kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy." 

via archive.is

In December, she pushed to "Elect more communists" while a street in Harlem was being renamed after former communist Rep. Vito Marchantonio of Manhattan. 

In May of 2020 she slammed law enforcement following the death of George Floyd, writing "The Police Are Just People The State Sanctions To Murder W[ith] Immunity." 

Weaver is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and was formerly a campaign coordinator for Housing Justice For All before serving as an adviser to Mamdani's campaign last year, the NY Post reports.

In 2019 she lobbied the state's Democratic-run legislature to tighten the city's rent stabilization laws, which one major property told the Post was misguided. 

"Without landlords how to do you build and maintain housing? You think the government is going to do it? Look at NYCHA [New York City Housing Authority complexes]," said Humberto Lopes, founder and CEO of the Gotham Housing Alliance.

"You put a system in place to destroy landlords. Why are you shitting on us?"

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 13:05

Social Security Will Be Insolvent In Six Years. What's Congress Going To Do?

Zero Hedge -

Social Security Will Be Insolvent In Six Years. What's Congress Going To Do?

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

Congress last made major Social Security changes 43 years ago...

The Wall Street Journal reports The Next Class of Senators Won’t Be Able to Dodge the Social Security Crunch

After years of Congress sidestepping and postponing the issue, the lawmakers will have to confront the program’s challenges before their new six-year terms conclude. Recent projections pegged late 2032 as the moment when Social Security’s reserves and incoming tax revenue won’t yield enough money to pay full benefits.

Failure to act would trigger automatic benefit cuts. Acting is no picnic either, because raising revenue or reducing promised payments could be politically painful.

The math is brutal for the program known for many years as the third rail of American politics. Social Security owes lifetime benefits to the huge generation of baby boomers who are already retired or almost there. That commitment locks in costs that are virtually impossible to dislodge and puts younger workers and future retirees on course for tax increases, benefit reductions or both.

Congress last made major Social Security changes 43 years ago in a less partisan Washington, staving off insolvency with just months to spare by adopting tax increases and benefit cuts intended to make the program last 75 years. Since then, Americans have been bracing for more changes, with polls showing many doubt they will get their full checks.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.), seeking his fifth term this year, said the 1983 agreement between Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O’Neill is the model. 

“I’m willing to do my part,” Graham said. “You’ve got to look at age adjustments, you know, means-testing benefits. You’ve got to put it all on the table.” Asked about taxes, he repeated: “All on the table.”

President Trump has repeatedly ruled out Social Security benefit cuts, breaking from many Republicans’ openness to the idea. The debate has been mostly dormant for a decade, and the program now requires larger changes to preserve solvency because smaller options that accumulate over time no longer yield enough money.

Huge program runs short

Congress and Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt created Social Security during the Great Depression to prevent poverty among older Americans; it is now the largest federal program. In the latest fiscal year, the U.S. paid $1.6 trillion in Social Security benefits, which is 22% of federal spending and almost double the military budget.

Social Security is funded largely with payroll taxes split between workers and employers. People receive payments after retiring or becoming disabled, getting amounts linked to their earnings history. The program also pays survivor benefits to spouses and children of workers who die. The average monthly retiree payment is about $2,000.

Tax increases and benefit cuts?

Social Security is excluded from the simple-majority budget process Congress used for recent partisan fiscal laws such Trump’s tax cuts, meaning any bill would require 60 votes in the Senate. Any durable bipartisan solution will likely have tax increases and cuts to future payouts.

There is no shortage of ideas. On the tax side, the prime target is the cap on the 12.4% payroll tax. Currently, wages and self-employment income above $184,500 are exempt from the tax, with the figure rising annually with inflation. That tax now covers about 83% of earnings, down from about 90% just after the 1983 changes.

Just eliminating the cap would cut Social Security’s long-run deficits in half. Taxing earnings above $250,000 and tying no new benefits to those earnings would remove about two-thirds of the shortfall, but that approach would change Social Security’s basic architecture that links taxes paid with benefits earned. Both options would sharply raise top marginal tax rates.

Raising the cap and devoting the money to Social Security is probably one of the few palatable ways Congress could get significant revenue from high earners outside the top 1%, said Kathleen Romig, director of Social Security and disability policy at the progressive Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

On the benefit side, the system is progressive, replacing a greater share of income for workers with lower lifetime earnings than higher earners. Lawmakers trying to protect people who rely on Social Security as their main income source could alter calculations so higher earners get less money than under current rules. 

“It makes sense to rethink what the benefit formula looks like,” Romig said, especially because higher-income retirees likely have significant savings in 401(k)-style plans.

Lawmakers could also increase the basic retirement age. The 1983 changes pushed that to 67 from 65. Romina Boccia, director of budget and entitlement policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said she would keep that going up to 70, then link the retirement age to longevity.

Other ideas are out there too. Sen. Bill Cassidy (R., La.) is pitching a $1.5 trillion sovereign-wealth fund. General revenue would pay Social Security benefits for the next 75 years, then the new fund would reimburse those costs. 

“Let’s get it done before it is too late,” said Cassidy, who is running for his third term.

Amid concerns about solvency, some Democrats have proposed minimum benefit increases. Warner said one possibility could be raising benefits for the bottom 20% of workers. That could be a political sweetener for any deal—but it would require more money that needed to simply make the fund solvent.

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.), who is running for a fourth term this year, has co-sponsored a bill from Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) that would increase minimum benefits and expand the payroll tax to cover high earners and investment income. In his town halls, Merkley said, raising the tax cap is particularly popular.

“We will solve this problem because it has to be solved,” Merkley said. “Even if it is in the ugliest possible fashion at the last second, it will be solved.”

Social Security Fairness Act

Instead of reforming Social Security to make it more solvent, this Congress made Social Security less solvent by extending benefits to the least deserving, that being public unions.

The bill was inappropriately named the Social Security Fairness Act. Cynics may suggest the name was perfect on grounds bills generally do the opposite of their name.

CATO discusses What the Social Security Fairness Act Tells Us About the Likely Future of Social Security Reform

Passing the so-called Social Security Fairness Act sends a clear message about how Washington approaches Social Security reform—and it’s a disturbing one. Congress and President Biden have chosen to ignore all expert advice, cater to organized special interest groups, and burden younger taxpayers with increasingly unaffordable costs.

Instead of sensible policy reforms that better align Social Security benefits with the ability of workers to pay for them, Congress will want to take the path of least resistance. Without significant public pressure to do the right thing, expect a multi-trillion-dollar general revenue transfer (meaning added borrowing) come trust fund depletion, and perhaps superficial fixes like the federal government borrowing money today to ‘invest’ to generate revenue from speculative gains tomorrow.

The Social Security Fairness Act increases the program’s financing gap yet further. Funding this policy with additional payroll taxes would burden 180 million workers with an additional $68 in annual taxes to fund higher benefits for 3 million public sector workers and their spouses by unfairly manipulating the Social Security benefit formula to their advantage. This is a textbook example of Mancur Olson’s theory of collective action, where small, concentrated groups secure disproportionate benefits at the expense of a diffuse majority.

The repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset creates outsized benefits for workers who had significant earnings that were exempt from payroll taxes compared to those who paid Social Security taxes over their entire careers. For example, economist Larry Kotlikoff highlights a schoolteacher whose lifetime benefits will soar by $830,625 (!) under this law, with her annual retirement benefit more than doubling and her widow’s benefit nearly tripling.

Congressional Republicans’ support for this expensive change likely stems from a political calculation. For a long time, backing the bill seemed like a low-cost way to curry favor with police and firefighter unions, key constituents in many members’ voter base without serious worry that the bill would pass. It took 24 years from when a version of the Social Security Fairness Act was first introduced in 2001 (with a congressional hearing held in 2003) to it being signed by President Biden on January 5, 2025. 

The Wall Street Journal suggests the timing—a post-election passage—points to a political payoff for groups like the International Association of Fire Fighters, which lobbied heavily for the measure and declined to endorse Kamala Harris for president (after endorsing Joe Biden in 2020).

If Congress can’t say no to popular and shortsighted benefit increases, how will it tackle the tougher job of making Social Security long-term solvent? The sad truth is that politicians probably won’t even try—at least not until the crisis is too close to ignore.

It’s easy to blame Biden for this but Republicans had to go along or the unfairness act would never would have cleared the Senate.

And as for doing something now, Trump does not want to do anything.

What Will Happen?

A strong possibility is free money. By that I mean no changes other than to guarantee benefits without raising revenue.

Don’t worry. CATO reports the cost would only be $25 trillion over the next 75 years—after taxpayers have repaid the payroll tax surpluses that previous Congress squandered, with interest.

Basically, Congress would simply tell the Treasury to keep selling bonds to finance Social Security benefits, even after the so-called trust fund is depleted.

US Population 2010 vs 2024

US Population in 2010 and 2024. Data from Population Pyramid, chart by Mish.

Lasting Until 2032 is Optimistic

Nobody has factored in recession and the accompanying reduction in FICA tax collection.

Insolvency in 5 years would not at all be surprising.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 12:45

The 2025 Tax Game-Changer: What Retirees Need To Know Now

Zero Hedge -

The 2025 Tax Game-Changer: What Retirees Need To Know Now

Authored by John Rampton via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Usually, tax laws are tweaked as we enter a new year. However, 2025 isn’t just another tax year for retirees; it’s expected to be among the most consequential in recent history.

Inna Kot/Shutterstock

As a result of new legislation, such as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), and continuing changes from the SECURE 2.0 Act (SECURE refers to Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement.), these updates will present both opportunities and challenges. While some retirees will enjoy extra relief, others may need to adjust their financial strategy.

Understanding how these new rules will affect you is essential if you live on a fixed income, manage your retirement savings, or plan your legacy. As such, to achieve a secure and confident retirement, your planning must be informed.

With that said, here are the biggest 2025 tax changes—and what they mean for retirees.

The Big Headline: A New $6,000 ‘Bonus’ Deduction for Seniors

Easily one of the most talked-about changes for 2025 is a new deduction specifically for seniors.

In addition to existing deductions, anyone 65 or older will be able to claim an additional $6,000 deduction in 2025. For married couples at least 65 years of age, that amount can be doubled to $12,000.

So, who qualifies? You can take this “bonus” deduction even if you itemize your deductions or take the standard deduction. It is, however, phased out at higher income levels:

  • Single filers. When modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) reaches $75,000, it gradually phases out until it disappears at $175,000.

  • Married filing jointly. The starting point is $150,000, with a maximum of $250,000.

Since this deduction stacks with the existing senior and standard deductions, retirees can lower their taxable income and possibly eliminate their federal tax liability.

A quick example:

Say you’re over 65 and a single filer. If you qualify, you may be eligible for:

  • Standard deduction: $15,750

  • Age 65+ addition: $1,750 (approx.)

  • New senior “bonus” deduction: $6,000

  • Total: More than $23,500 in deductions.

In a married couple with both spouses over 65, that amount can be $46,000, which moves many retirees into the zero-tax bracket, mainly if they rely primarily on Social Security and modest individual retirement account (IRA) withdrawals.

(Note: This new deduction is temporary and currently set to expire after the 2028 tax year.)

Income Tax Brackets and Rates: Stability at Last

Although deductions are rising, tax rates are also improving. In the new tax system, seven tax brackets will be permanent: 10 percent, 12 percent, 22 percent, 24 percent, 32 percent, 35 percent, and 37 percent.

In other words, retirees will be able to plan long-term with greater security, since there will be no sudden hikes or sunset provisions in 2026.

Bonus tip: With today’s tax rates still relatively low, 2025 may be a good time to consider a Roth conversion. By converting pre-tax traditional IRA or 401(k) funds to Roth accounts, you will pay taxes at today’s rates and then withdraw those funds tax-free in the future. By making this move, you can hedge against future tax increases or the eventual expiration of that senior “bonus” deduction.

Itemized Deductions: A SALT Cap Adjustment

Furthermore, the OBBBA temporarily increases the limit on state and local tax deductions (SALT) from $10,000 to $40,000 through 2029. By itemizing again rather than taking the standard deduction, many retirees can reap significant benefits.

Here’s how it works:

Higher SALT Cap

From 2025 to 2029, you can deduct up to $40,000 in state and local taxes—$20,000 if married and filing separately. And in 2030, the $10,000 limit will return.

Income Phaseout

  • The full $40,000 deduction applies if your MAGI is under $500,000.

  • An annual MAGI of $500,000–$600,000 will be phased out by 30¢ per dollar.

  • The MAGI cap will again be set at $10,000 when the MAGI exceeds $600,000.

  • Through 2029, these thresholds will rise by 1 percent per year.

Whether you itemize or not, retirees aged 65+ can claim an additional $6,000 deduction per person (2025-2028), which is not subject to the SALT cap. It is possible for a couple with both spouses over 65 to claim an extra $12,000 in deductions.

Additionally, this phase-out begins at $75,000 MAGI (single) and $150,000 (joint).

That’s a lot to take in. To help you plan for the year 2025, here are a few tax planning tips:

  • In addition to any senior deductions, compare your total itemized deductions (with the higher SALT limit) against the $31,500 standard deduction for married couples.

  • To maximize your deduction for 2025, consider prepaying your 2026 property taxes before the end of the year.

  • When approaching phaseout levels or planning Roth conversions, be sure to manage your MAGI carefully.

  • Due to AMT rules, SALT deductions are not applicable.

The SECURE 2.0 Act: Big Retirement Account Updates

Several key provisions of the SECURE 2.0 Act take effect in 2025, reshaping how retirees and near-retirees can save, give, and plan for income in later life.

‘Super’ Catch-Up Contributions (Ages 60–63)

There’s a powerful new savings boost coming to people between 60 and 63 in 2025. By introducing “super” catch-up contributions, the limit on annual catch-up contributions is raised to $10,000 or 150 percent of the standard catch-up amount. According to the 2024 limits, that’s $11,250.

By doing so, older workers can maximize savings during their final years of employment before retirement. Starting in 2026, the $10,000 base will be adjusted for inflation.

Expanded Qualified Charitable Distributions (QCDs)

For those who are 70½ and older, QCDs remain the most tax-efficient way to give. In 2025, you’ll be able to donate up to $108,000 (indexed) directly from your IRA to qualified charities—satisfying your required minimum distribution and avoiding taxes as well.

In addition, higher-income retirees can contribute a one-time $54,000 QCD to a charitable remainder trust or gift annuity, giving them more flexibility to support causes they care about while maintaining their income.

More Flexibility for Qualified Longevity Annuity Contracts (QLACs)

QLACs, which provide guaranteed income later in life, now have higher limits and fewer restrictions. In addition to the increase in maximum premiums (indexed), the old rule capping contributions at 25 percent is no longer in effect, allowing retirees to receive a higher level of guaranteed lifetime income.

Other Key 2025 Updates

Here are some other updates to keep on your radar.

Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA)

It’s estimated that in 2025, COLA will be around 2.5 percent, adding modestly to beneficiaries’ incomes.

However, higher benefits may cause an increase in your provisional income, resulting in a higher tax rate—up to 85 percent. As a result, deductions like the new $6,000 senior bonus are more valuable.

Estate Tax Exemption

In 2026, the OBBBA will permanently increase the federal estate tax exclusion to $15 million per individual, from $13.99 million. Combined, this amounts to $30 million in exclusions for married couples.

As a result of this law, the higher exclusion amount established by the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) will not expire.

Ultimately, retirees with high net worth should consider major gifts or estate transfers now before today’s limits expire.

The Bottom Line: Plan Your 2025 Pivot

It’s a mixed bag for retirees in 2025, with some big breaks and some ticking clocks.

Here are some tips for making the most of these opportunities:

  • Recalculate your deductions. Determine how much income you can shield from taxes by adding up your standard, age-based, and “bonus” deductions.

  • Review Roth conversions. Prevent future increases in tax rates by locking in today’s historically low rates.

  • Max out catch-up contributions. Use the new $11,250 catch-up limit if you’re 60–63 and still working.

  • Use QCDs wisely. By distributing your IRA funds to charities, you can reduce your taxable income and support a cause you believe in.

With these changes in place in 2025, you will be able to benefit from greater flexibility and security in your retirement plan.

The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are meant for general informational purposes only and should not be construed or interpreted as a recommendation or solicitation. The Epoch Times does not provide investment, tax, legal, financial planning, estate planning, or any other personal finance advice. The Epoch Times holds no liability for the accuracy or timeliness of the information provided.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 12:05

China-Bound 'Dark' Crude Tankers Make It Out Of Venezuelan Waters

Zero Hedge -

China-Bound 'Dark' Crude Tankers Make It Out Of Venezuelan Waters

There's a continued microscope on Caracas, and world media is also currently heavily focused on New York City where forcibly deposed President Nicolas Maduro is appearing Monday before a federal court.

But amid all the fast-moving developments, about a dozen tankers loaded with Venezuelan crude and fuel have 'snuck out' of Venezuelan waters in recent days, reportedly in dark mode - or with tracking transponders off.

Illustrative file image

Reuters says that all of the vessels are under US sanctions, with the publication pointing out that "The departures could be a relief for Venezuela's state-run oil company PDVSA, which had accumulated a very large inventory of floating storage amid the U.S. blockade, begun last month, dragging the country's oil exports to a standstill."

The 'rogue' tankers and their being able to evade the US naval blockade were first flagged by maritime monitor TankerTrackers.com:

At least four of the departed tankers left Venezuelan waters through a route north of Margarita Island after briefly stopping near the country's maritime border, TankerTrackers.com said, after identifying the vessels is satellite images.

A source with knowledge of the departures' paperwork told Reuters that at least four supertankers had been cleared by Venezuelan authorities in recent days to leave Venezuelan waters in dark mode.

There's been some degree of confusion related to the possibility that with Maduro now having been removed from power and in US custody, Washington might have altered or revised its full force "oil embargo" on Venezuela. 

But this means that these some dozen tankers will be offloaded to the Latin American country's largest customers, foremost among them China.

With Maduro out, has there indeed been a quick shift in US posture?

For now, China's impacted Venezuelan imports will be cushioned by the significant amount of tankers still at sea, per fresh reporting from Bloomberg:

"The loss of Venezuelan barrels hurts teapots the most," said Michal Meidan, director of the China Energy Program at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies. They account for roughly half of China’s imports from the South American nation, with state-owned firms taking about a third, and bigger independent refineries buying only limited volumes, she said. 

While the future of Venezuela and its oil sector is still very murky, a hoard of sanctioned crude in floating storage will cushion Chinese buyers in the coming months. Almost 82 million barrels is currently on tankers in waters off China and Malaysia, according to data intelligence firm Kpler. More than a quarter is Venezuelan and the rest is Iranian, it said. 

Also, on Monday there are reports of US-bound oil as well, with a Chevron-chartered vessel carrying Venezuela crude currently en route to the US Gulf coast, shipping data shows.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 11:25

$8,500 Gold And Other 2026 Sound Money Predictions

Zero Hedge -

$8,500 Gold And Other 2026 Sound Money Predictions

 Submitted by QTR's Fringe Finance

My buddy Larry Lepard (whose gold fund was up over 150% last year) joined me today to unpack the current macro environment — from Bitcoin’s volatility and gold’s historic breakout to what may be the most important question of the decade: is the global monetary system on the brink of a reset?

Bitcoin vs. Gold: Sound Money in Two Different Gears

The discussion opened settling an argument Larry and I were having on X the other day, when he took exception with me comparing Peter Schiff’s EPGIX to Saylor’s MSTR on a year-to-date basis at EOY 2025.

That went into an exchange over Bitcoin’s recent underperformance versus gold. While acknowledging Bitcoin’s painful drawdowns, Lepard stressed that the asset’s long-term thesis remains intact:

“Bitcoin has good years, exceptionally good years, and really awful years… that’s exactly what you expect from a new network that’s still being adopted.”

He framed Bitcoin and gold as complementary forms of sound money — gold thriving in crisis and uncertainty, while Bitcoin responds more to liquidity and risk-on conditions. Importantly, he warned new investors about Bitcoin’s extreme volatility and the necessity of proper position sizing:

“Buy an amount where if it went down, your first instinct would be to say ‘it’s cheap, I should buy more,’ not ‘I made a mistake.’”

Gold and Silver: A Structural Shift Underway

Lepard believes the surge in precious metals is not merely speculative but reflects deep structural changes in global finance. Tight physical supply, de-dollarization, and rising distrust in government finances are converging:

“We are in the first or second inning of a nine-inning game… this is a secular trend.”

With silver breaking multi-decade resistance and physical premiums emerging across global markets, Lepard argued these moves signal a fundamental repricing of monetary assets rather than a temporary blow-off.

The Bond Market: The Real Fault Line

One of the most sobering segments of the discussion centered on the bond market. Lepard outlined a scenario where persistently negative real yields eventually force the Federal Reserve into full-scale yield-curve control — triggering an inflationary shock far larger than anything seen during COVID:

“If the bond market revolts and the Fed caps yields… the inflation that comes out of that will blow your socks off.”

In his view, the long end of the bond market is structurally broken, and the consequences for currencies and asset pricing are enormous.

Are We Heading for a Monetary Reset?

Perhaps the most important question of the interview: is the U.S. already preparing for a reset of the global monetary system?

Lepard pointed to mounting evidence — including growing official interest in gold-linked instruments, shifting geopolitical alignments, and rising distrust in fiat currencies — suggesting that such a reset is at least being discussed at the highest levels of government.

“They know the system is broken… and if inflation continues, the political cover for a reset may finally exist.”

What This Means for Investors

The core takeaway from the conversation was clear: we are entering a period of profound financial transition. Inflation, debt, and monetary mismanagement are colliding, and traditional portfolios are not positioned for what’s coming.

Lepard’s conclusion was simple and direct:

“Protect yourself in things they can’t print — gold, silver, Bitcoin, and real assets.”

As always, the full interview offers far more depth and nuance, but one thing is certain: the world is changing, and the era of sound money is no longer theoretical — it’s unfolding in real time.

WATCH THE FULL ONE HOUR INTERVIEW HERE

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 11:05

Key Events This Week: JOLTS And Jobs

Zero Hedge -

Key Events This Week: JOLTS And Jobs

While all eyes will be on geopolitical developments, whether in Venezuela or Iran, as speculation erupts that a Trump "intervention" here is next, or even Taiwan, there also are quite a few macro events this week, and the main highlight will be the US jobs report for December on Friday. That’s an important one because there’s been more weakness in the labor market over recent months, with the unemployment rate rising to a 4-year high of 4.6% in November. As DB's Jim Reid writes this morning, the deterioration in the labor market is why the Fed has delivered 3 consecutive rate cuts since their September meeting, and futures are still pricing in a 53% chance of another cut by the March meeting. So investors still think a Q1 rate cut is in the balance, and Friday’s report will go some way to determining if that happens. In terms of what to expect, DB economists think that nonfarm payrolls will rise by +50k in December, with the unemployment rate declining a tenth to 4.5%.

Over in Europe, the main highlight will be the flash CPI prints for December, with Germany and France reporting on Tuesday, ahead of the Euro Area-wide print on Wednesday. This isn’t a print expected to have too many implications for near-term ECB policy, with markets expecting them to keep rates on hold for the rest of the year. However, headline inflation is expected to fall below the 2% target early this year, largely driven by energy base effects.

DB economists think that if the decline for headline inflation is large enough, that could spill over to weaken core and inflation expectations too, which would lower the bar for further policy easing.  So that’ll be a key theme for H1. In terms of this print for December though, our economists expect Euro Area headline inflation to fall back to +2.0% thanks to those falling energy prices, down from +2.1% in November. And for core CPI, they expect that to remain at +2.4%.

Courtesy of DB, here is a day-by-day calendar of events

Monday January 5

  • Data: US December ISM index, total vehicle sales, China December services PMI, UK November net consumer credit, M4, Japan December monetary base

Tuesday January 6

  • Data: UK December official reserves changes, new car registrations, Germany December CPI, France December CPI, Italy December services PMI
  • Central banks: Fed’s Barkin speaks, ECB’s Villeroy and Cipollone speak

Wednesday January 7

  • Data: US December ADP report, ISM services, November JOLTS report, October factory orders, China December foreign reserves, UK December construction PMI, Japan November labor cash earnings, Germany November retail sales, December construction PMI, unemployment claims rate, France December consumer confidence, Italy December CPI, Eurozone December CPI, Australia November CPI

Thursday January 8

  • Data: US Q3 nonfarm productivity, unit labor costs, December NY Fed 1-yr inflation expectations, November consumer credit, October trade balance, wholesale trade sales, initial jobless claims, Japan December consumer confidence index, November household spending, Germany November factory orders, France November trade balance, current account balance, Italy November unemployment rate, Eurozone December economic confidence, November PPI, unemployment rate, Canada October international merchandise trade, Switzerland December CPI, Sweden December CPI
  • Central banks: ECB November consumer expectations survey

Friday January 9

  • Data: US December jobs report, January University of Michigan survey, October building permits, housing starts, China December CPI, PPI, Japan November leading index, November coincident index, Germany November industrial production, trade balance, France November consumer spending, industrial production, Italy November retail sales, Eurozone November retail sales, Canada December labour force survey, Norway December CPI
  • Central banks: Fed’s Barkin speaks, ECB’s Lane speaks

Finally, looking at just the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data releases this week are the November JOLTS job openings report on Wednesday and the December employment report on Friday. There are two speaking engagements by Richmond Fed President Barkin this week. 

Monday, January 5 

  • 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, December (GS 48.0, consensus 48.4, last 48.2): We estimate that the ISM manufacturing index edged down by 0.2pt to 48.0 in December, reflecting the decline in our manufacturing survey tracker (-1.6pt to 49.9).
  • 05:00 PM Lightweight motor vehicle sales, December (GS 15.8mn, consensus 15.6mn, last 15.6mn)

Tuesday, January 6 

  • 08:00 AM Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will deliver a speech on the economic outlook and monetary policy at the Economic Forecast 2026 conference held by the Raleigh Chamber of Commerce in Raleigh, North Carolina. Speech text is expected.
  • 09:45 AM S&P Global Services PMI, December final (consensus 52.9, last 52.9)

Wednesday, January 7 

  • 08:15 AM ADP employment change, December (GS +55k, consensus +48k, last -32k)
  • 10:00 AM ISM services index, December (GS 52.0, consensus 52.3, last 52.6): We estimate that the ISM services index declined 0.6pt to 52.0 in December, reflecting sequential softening in our non-manufacturing survey tracker (-0.7pt to 52.2).
  • 10:00 AM JOLTS job openings, November (GS 7,600k, consensus 7,715k, last 7,670k)
  • 10:00 AM Factory orders, October (GS -1.4%, consensus -1.0%, last +0.2%); Durable goods orders, October final (GS -2.2%, consensus -2.2%, last -2.2%); Durable goods orders ex-transportation, October final (consensus +0.2%, last +0.2%); Core capital goods orders, October final (consensus +0.5%, last +0.5%); Core capital goods shipments, October final (last +0.7%)

Thursday, January 8 

  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm productivity, Q3 preliminary (GS +4.3%, consensus +3.8%, last +3.3%); Unit labor costs, Q3 preliminary (GS -0.2%, consensus +0.5%, last +1.0%)
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended January 3 (GS 220k, consensus 220k, last 199k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended December 27 (last 1,866k)
  • 08:30 AM Trade balance, October (GS -$52.0bn, consensus -$58.4bn, last -$52.8bn)  

Friday, January 9 

  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, December (GS +70k, consensus +55k, last +64k); Private payroll employment, December (GS +75k, consensus +50k, last +69k); Average hourly earnings (MoM), December (GS +0.25%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.1%); Unemployment rate, December (GS 4.5%, consensus 4.5%, last 4.6%)
  • We estimate nonfarm payrolls increased 70k in December. On the positive side, big data indicators indicated a moderate pace of private sector job growth. On the negative side, we expect a 5k decline in government payrolls—reflecting a 5k decline in federal government payrolls and unchanged state and local government payrolls—and sequentially slower construction employment growth after an outsized increase the prior month and unusually poor weather early in the survey period. We estimate that the unemployment rate edged down to 4.5% in December from 4.6% in November: the bar for rounding down to 4.5% is not high from an unrounded 4.56% in November, continuing claims have declined slightly, and the furloughed federal workers that likely contributed to the spike in workers on temporary layoff (+171k in November vs. September) and unemployed government workers (+193k, SA by GS) that explained most of the increase in overall unemployment in November would have returned to work. We estimate average hourly earnings rose 0.25% month-over-month in December, reflecting negative calendar effects.
  • 08:30 AM Housing starts, October (GS +1.0%, consensus +1.4%, last -8.5% [August]); Housing starts, September (GS +0.3%) 
  • 10:00 AM University of Michigan consumer sentiment, January preliminary (GS 54.1, consensus 53.4, last 52.9): University of Michigan 5-10-year inflation expectations, January preliminary (GS 3.3%, last 3.2%)
  • 01:35 PM Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will deliver a speech on the economic outlook at the Maryland Bankers Association First Friday Economic Outlook Forum in Baltimore, Maryland. Speech text is expected.

Source: DB, Goldman

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 10:55

US Manufacturing Sector Ends 2026 At Weakest In Over A Year

Zero Hedge -

US Manufacturing Sector Ends 2026 At Weakest In Over A Year

The US Manufacturing sector ended 2026 on a down-note as yet another 'soft' survey data disappointed with ISM reporting at 47.9 (below the 48.4 expected) - the 10th consecutive month below 50 (contraction)...

Source: Bloomberg

Despite strong 'hard' data, that is the weakest print for ISM Manufacturing since Oct 2024.

The decline in the measure reflected producers drawing down their raw materials inventories at the fastest rate since October 2024. That indicates many firms are relying on existing stockpiles to satisfy tepid demand.

Plus, materials costs remain elevated.

The ISM prices-paid index, which held at 58.5 last month, is 6 points higher than it was at the end of 2024.

New orders contracted for a fourth month and export bookings remained weak, based on the ISM data. Headcount shrank for an eleventh straight month, albeit at a slower pace, amid modest production growth.

The ISM's gauge of imports shrank to a seven-month low, while supplier delivery times slowed and order backlogs continued to shrink.

Respondents remain focused on the 't' word...

“Morale is very low across manufacturing in general. The cost of living is very high, and component costs are increasing with folks citing tariffs and other price increases. It’s cold in our area of the country, absenteeism is worse around the holidays, and sales were lower than we expected for November. So, things look a bit bleak overall.” [Electrical Equipment, Appliances & Components]

“2025 revenue was down 17 percent due to tariffs. The lost revenue has inhibited our ability to offer bonuses to employees or create and hire for new positions.” [Miscellaneous Manufacturing]

“Things are quieter regarding tariffs, but prices for all products remain higher. Our costs have increased, so we have increased prices for our customers to compensate. Margins have deteriorated, as full pass through (of cost increases) is not possible.” [Computer & Electronic Products]

"Winding up the year with mixed results. It has not been a great year. We have had some success holding the line on costs; however, real consumer spending is down and tariffs are ultimately to blame. I hope for some return to free trade, which is what consumers have ‘voted for’ with their spending." [Chemical Products]

"Trough conditions continue: depressed business activity, some seasonal but largely impacted by customer issues due to interest rates, tariffs, low oil commodity pricing and limited housing starts." [Machinery]

But looking ahead, abating tariff uncertainty and the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act are anticipated to offer a tailwind to capital expenditures this year.

Will the soft data catch up to the hard data? Or vice versa?

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 10:06

Transcript: Stephanie Drescher, Apollo Chief Client and Product Development Officer

The Big Picture -



 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Stephanie Drescher, Apollo Chief Client and Product Development Officer, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

~~~

Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in business with Barry Riol on Bloomberg Radio.

00:00:16 [Speaker Changed] This week on the podcast, I have an extra special guest. Stephanie Drescher is Chief Client and Product Development Officer at Private Investment Giant Apollo. She’s been there for over 20 years. She spent a decade before that doing alternatives at JP Morgan. What a fascinating person. Apollo runs $840 billion in client assets, and she has really not over overseen the wealth division, but also worked on a variety of geographies, new products. She’s on everybody’s best of lists. She’s been on the Barron’s Women in Finance list, sits inception every year. I thought this conversation was fascinating. If you’re remotely interested in private equity, private debt, private credit, private infrastructure, you’ll find this conversation absolutely fascinating. With no further ado, Apollos, Stephanie Drescher. Stephanie Drescher, welcome to Bloomberg.

00:01:17 [Speaker Changed] Thank you, Barry. Happy to be here.

00:01:20 [Speaker Changed] Happy to have you. So we’re gonna get into Apollo and your investment philosophy in a bit, but before we do, I, I just have to start with your background. Bachelor’s in Barnard at at Columbia MBA from Columbia Business School. What was the original career plan?

00:01:37 [Speaker Changed] I, I did always have finance in my sites. So undergrad, it was econ and psych. I, I joke that I use the psych in my day-to-day field, way more than the econ right, these days. But there, there was always a draw towards doing something in, in the financial kind of arena, interest in markets and the like. So, very early internships led me down that path.

00:02:04 [Speaker Changed] And I read somewhere in your background that you were particularly inspired to go into finance by your grandmother. Tell us about that.

00:02:13 [Speaker Changed] That is true. So my father’s mother lived with us for a time, and believe it or not, she was born in the very, very late 18 hundreds. And while her brother went on to become a doctor, she capped out at an eighth grade education. And so the power of education was always a core value and a focus of, of hers and my family. And she used to read the Wall Street Journal cover to cover every day. Super smart, loved tracking stocks. And so we started to track stocks together. And how

00:02:54 [Speaker Changed] Old were you at this time?

00:02:55 [Speaker Changed] Oh, I don’t know, maybe 12. Okay. And in a very high tech way, we would put it up on the refrigerator and kind of see the, the changes in, in the holdings that she had in her portfolio and sometimes overlapped with that of my parents. Huh. Really? So that was the early start.

00:03:13 [Speaker Changed] So you get an MBA from Columbia, JP Morgan was the first job right? Outta school?

00:03:19 [Speaker Changed] It was, although there, there was a mentor right prior to the JP Morgan opportunity that, believe it or not, I started babysitting for this family. And I didn’t know what the mother did day to day until after a period of time of of babysitting, she looked at me and she said, I think your babysitting days are over. And I said, I don’t know what you’re talking about. And she said, I run a women led healthcare consulting firm. Huh? Would you like an internship? And I practically fell off my chair and I said, I would love an internship.

00:03:58 [Speaker Changed] How old are you at this time? Like 16.

00:04:00 [Speaker Changed] This, it was like late high school, maybe early college. Early, early. And it was the most amazing kind of opportunity that someone could give me, right? Just seeing a professional organization do its thing and all the analysis and client relationship management that went into that. So while I, I decided that healthcare wasn’t my thing and consulting wasn’t my thing. It was very an easy bridge to, to JP Morgan and, and the finance field.

00:04:30 [Speaker Changed] So when you started JP Morgan, what was the role? How did you, what, what areas were you toiling in?

00:04:36 [Speaker Changed] So I started with a rotational opportunity, which was terrific. I had everything from fixed income research to private banking in Geneva. Did you

00:04:47 [Speaker Changed] Go to Switzerland?

00:04:48 [Speaker Changed] I did, yeah. For about six months. I realized that I needed to buy all of my groceries during the day because it was closed by the time I got out of work. And then I liked to travel on weekends. So importantly though, and seriously, it was a terrific time in my life to be more aware of time zones and cultural nuances and really see kind of a, a client perspective outside of, of New York and the US. So

00:05:17 [Speaker Changed] Great. It it’s a big world.

00:05:19 [Speaker Changed] Totally. Yet it also can feel so small once you start to, to travel and live elsewhere. So that was a terrific opportunity. And then ultimately out of that rotational program, ended up in alternatives within the private bank. And then we were off to the races.

00:05:36 [Speaker Changed] So alternatives way back then. But before you leave Switzerland, I recall a vacation not too long ago to Lake Geneva and what’s ama And we were in this hotel that used to be a castle and like you think you have some understanding of the gilded age and old money and then you see no, no, we mean 500 years of money. It’s just such a different eye-opening. So different than here. Yeah. Yeah. Really, really amazing. So you’re in the Alts group at, at JP Morgan. You stay at JP Morgan for a decade. Tell us a little bit about the work you did there. Yeah,

00:06:13 [Speaker Changed] So it was very early days of speaking to families around the world, the ultra high net worth clients of, of JP Morgan, about the role of alternatives in their portfolio. And I remember distinctly speaking about the core and satellite within alternatives now kind of private markets as our nomenclature. But it gave me such a great perspective in terms of the educational kind of foundation that we needed to set first with those clients. And I see it now continuing to play out. But my, my time at JP Morgan, and it was a very fast 10, 10 years and an amazing kind of training ground was, was kind of a, an assessment of all the different private market strategies from private equity to hedge funds to credit. And the seat was a combination of the buy side, so kind of due diligence on the managers we were going to put on platform. And then the sell side in terms of the educational component to the end banker and, and client. Super fun traveled around the world speaking about how alts could factor in to return profiles and diversification, smoother volatility all at a time when private equity was not on the front page every day. Yeah, it was very early.

00:07:40 [Speaker Changed] Let, let’s contextualize a little bit. This is the mid to late nineties and early two thousands. The stock market was just screaming higher double digits, especially the last four years of the nineties. What was it like then? How receptive was the audience to you should consider the private markets? How, how much smaller was the whole space back then? Yeah,

00:08:06 [Speaker Changed] It was very early days and a very small fraction. I mean, I remember, you know, if we, if we launched kind of one manager a quarter, it was a big deal. Now I feel like there are probably dozens kind of on, on the shelf available for, for clients every, every day, every quarter. The but the transformation was starting to take hold where there were especially the large families recognizing the return potential that a manager in, in alternatives could provide in, in their portfolio. And they didn’t wanna rely, it was very early, but they saw that they didn’t wanna rely exclusively on public market exposure. So, you know, when we look at actually the percentages in kind of large family office clients today, it matches or frankly exceeds that of an institution. But it still, they, they started at the ultra high net worth end so much earlier kind of in, back in those days than most in wealth. So I think, you know, there were, you know, the likes of a JP Morgan client base and a select number of other private banks did start early in, in showcasing these opportunities. And the adoption as I traveled around the world was, was strong. But it was still kind of storytelling and a lot of niche opportunities where I feel like if we fast forward to today, people recognize that private market solutions can play both the core and satellite in, in their portfolio as it relates to a compliment to the public market exposure.

00:09:56 [Speaker Changed] So you join Apollo in 2004, I’m kind of curious, a few years earlier we have the dotcom implosion a few years later we have the great financial crisis. I, I hate when people call these, you know, once a century events ’cause they seem to happen a lot more frequently than that. But how significant were those giant public events to telling the story of, hey, here’s some private market investments that you don’t have the same sort of volatility and regular, you know, explosions.

00:10:32 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, no, you’re, you’re right. They, they were such an incredibly important backdrop to, to why alternatives, why private markets. And, and in fact, when I was still in my seat at JP Morgan, but Apollo was offering then our private equity flagship fund five, the, the.com boom was just at its tail and was starting to fracture. You saw the signs and Apollo came onto the platform and was talking a value story. And for the first several weeks there wasn’t as much take up. And then as the, the market started to change dramatically, there was this wake up call of, whoa, you know what, let’s look at value again. And that kind of was the tail end of the, of the story for, for that fundraise back around the 2000 period. Fast forward to the great financial crisis, it was such an incredible time. At that point I was already in my Apollo seat to, to see the investment committee dynamic.

00:11:48 And you know, there were moments that thankfully because we were so steeped on the credit side, in addition to obviously our view of private equity, where we, we could back up the truck on certain credits with conviction. And I look back now with, with honestly such pride for the decisions that were made in that period of time and frankly many subsequently during moments of dislocation where it, it, they make it look so easy on the investment side, but it actually takes so much work and rigor to be in position to make those big investment calls in those moments in time. But it, it served us incredibly well and, and continues to even liberation day, right post, when the market started to move materially, there wasn’t that much time within 48 hours. There were, there was kind of a correction from, from the volatility that we saw on household issuers and, and names. But thankfully, based on our scale and knowledge of those capital structures, we were able to, to put about 25 billion of dollars to work in just a few days. And were one of the biggest market participants during that moment of, of dislocation.

00:13:18 [Speaker Changed] You know, you mentioned high conviction investments. I I recall in the mid to late two thousands, people tossed around the phrase toxic assets. And my attitude was always, there’s no such thing as toxic assets. There are only toxic prices. Everything discounted enough become eventually becomes attractive.

00:13:41 [Speaker Changed] Look, we are, one of our kind of taglines that you’ll hear internally and externally is purchase price matters.

00:13:50 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, a hundred percent. Yeah. What you pay for something is gonna have a giant impact on what the subsequent returns are gonna be.

00:13:56 [Speaker Changed] Totally. And you know, that that does, it does require discipline, especially when multiples are going to kind of stratospheric levels. But, you know, it has, that strategy has born out in a very kind of productive and successful way for us maintaining that discipline. But as you’re saying, like spotting those moments where in investments are mispriced or not well understood and being willing to deal with that complexity at the right place, at the right price in order to generate the outcome we want.

00:14:31 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Really, really interesting Coming up, we continue our conversation with Stephanie Drescher, Apollo’s Chief client and product development officer, discussing her career at Apollo. I’m Barry Riol, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. Mike extra special guest this week is Stephanie Drescher. She’s Apollo’s Chief Client and product Development Officer. Apollo runs about $840 billion in client assets. So I love this title, but it, I gotta think people are wondering what’s a day in the life of Apollo’s chief client and product development officer? Like, it sounds like that’s a really wide bit of land.

00:15:35 [Speaker Changed] It’s, it’s a fun job. So I’ve been at Apollo now 21 years and when I first started I built out the institutional side of, of the business globally. So sovereign wealth funds, think the DB public pension plans. And that was very much our core client base with an episodic offering through a private bank or a wire from time to time. As, as that market evolved and, and matured into a very robust global business there, it was clear to Mark Rowan, now CEO and I that at some point complimenting that institutional business with a wealth strategy was in our future. We wanted to make sure though that we chose the right moment to really lean in to wealth because it, it does take a massive commitment and I’m sure we’ll talk more about it. So in my role, I am fortunate enough to build out our business as it relates to our client set of offerings, our product development as well as our partnerships with, with our distributors, with our investors. And just making sure that as we continue to innovate, we meet our clients where they are and often kind of co-author the types of offerings that are most meaningful to them. So I, in any given day I get to think about our set of products and what we’re innovating. I get to speak with our clients and, and partners, existing and, and prospects. I manage a large group of, of people and our talent and I lean in with a very keen focus on culture, which means a lot to me. So

00:17:33 [Speaker Changed] That’s really interesting. How would you describe Apollo’s culture and and what do you do to help shape that?

00:17:40 [Speaker Changed] So look, since the day I joined there have been cer certain common themes to, to our culture, which I think have always kind of propelled us forward as a firm now public, but very much feels like a partnership. And, and the first one is making sure that we continue to innovate to feel very entrepreneurial to, to empower our people to kind of find those opportunities and, and pursue them in, in an appropriate way. We manage the firm as a meritocracy, so we wanna give people responsibility and let them kind of really kind of have the greatest impact that, that they can for their own professional careers as well as for, for the firm. And we, we wanna have a winning high performance culture, meaning, you know, even with all the success that we’ve had, we want to maintain that propell it forward and continue that high level of performance. And importantly we do it together. So it’s not about any one person. I often say to my team, you know, it’s, it’s we not me. And that’s really powerful. So when we bring everything that Apollo has to offer, we call it kind of the one Apollo to, to any client situation or any goal we can use that power of, of the firm to be successful and to allow us all to win.

00:19:10 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Really, really interesting. You know, so the biggest complaint I heard from various corporate executives during the pandemic was, how do we maintain the corporate culture? We’ve spent so much time and energy trying to build over the years. Suddenly everybody’s at home on a zoom call in their pajamas. How do, how do you maintain corporate culture like that?

00:19:31 [Speaker Changed] It it is, it’s so important, frankly, whether we’re all in the office to maintain that culture or certainly the challenges during, during the pandemic making sure, certainly during that, during kind of that COVID period of creating forums, even if it was remote to maintain the connectivity was, was really important to have different, I remember many different kind of lunchtime meetings that, that we would have on Zoom or our, our family community group would have different webinars where it was the employee as parent and then their children frankly were involved as well. So I think it’s kind of forced fostering that sense of, of community, even if it is in fact remote. And then thankfully once in office, I know as I was passing through the sixth floor here at, at Bloomberg, I saw the, the very deliberate kind of floor plan that you have and food and beverage kind of accessible to employees.

00:20:41 [Speaker Changed] Everybody has to go through six. It causes all these random meetings that you have, oh, I haven’t seen you in a long time, how’s everything going? ’cause everybody shows up for coffee or treats.

00:20:50 [Speaker Changed] Totally. And, and we have the same, so ours is on the eighth floor, but we call it the casual collision. And that’s really important to our culture to kind of show up certainly as soon as we could do, do so from a practical perspective and a allow for that collaboration. It’s, it’s super important for people to, to share and get to the best answer possible together.

00:21:14 [Speaker Changed] So I wanna talk about the wealth channel, but before I get there I have to ask about something that Apollo does that not every large private markets firm does. You have talked about realigning the interest of the firm with clients, making sure that you’re on the same side of trades. And towards that end, Apollo is a regular co-investor along with clients in certain projects. Tell, tell us about that.

00:21:43 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, so from a, from a kind of balance sheet perspective, we are often one of, if not the largest investor side by side with our third party clients in the investments and strategies that we manage. So through our retirement services business, Athene as well as our third party business, we, we invest side by side. And so the decisions we make on behalf of the balance sheet are aligned with, with the outcomes of, of the strategies in which we invest third party capital. So we often say, well, we can’t guarantee the outcome, we guarantee a shared outcome. And, and that means a lot to us in terms of our commitment and focus, but also to our clients. ’cause they, they know how important it is to us in multiple ways.

00:22:42 [Speaker Changed] I I would imagine if anybody has hesitation on a investment, if you see the private equity firm co-investing along with you, that has to be a big confidence driver.

00:22:56 [Speaker Changed] It it is. And in certain instances, like when you look across the industry, a commitment from an asset manager might be at the 2.5% or 3.5%. It’s, it’s an outlier if it’s a 5% commitment,

00:23:16 [Speaker Changed] But not double digits.

00:23:17 [Speaker Changed] Exactly. Where in one strategy of ours, which has a diversified portfolio of, of private markets, we are two thirds Wow. Of that portfolio. So when, when we say that it’s, it’s meaningful to our balance sheet, we, we mean it,

00:23:39 [Speaker Changed] How does that work in terms of direct stakes and performance fees? Like if you are most of the invested assets that has to have an impact on what the balance sheet looks like, how do you guys align that?

00:23:52 [Speaker Changed] So look, we, we are performance first. At the end of the day, our, you know, our relationships and the trust that we build are overtime through performance and, and through service. I mean, we wanna make sure that our partners feel our, our support in just about every way. So for us it’s, it’s never about a particular fee of one type or or another. Ultimately we’re not focused on an AUM goal that is the reward for good performance. And as long as we are making the best investment decisions and showing up, frankly as a best in class partner for our clients, that is what drives our business forward.

00:24:45 [Speaker Changed] So let’s talk a little bit about the wealth channel, which is where, where you focus some of your time early in your career at Apollo. Tell us how this has changed over the past 20 years and tell us a little bit about what type of clients show up there. Yeah,

00:25:02 [Speaker Changed] So you know, the, the wealth business I saw certainly in my very early days of JP Morgan, but then for my first kind of 16 plus years at Apollo, the private bank or, or wire was really more the exception than the rule. It was a more of a episodic type of, of relationship that all completely transformed into a strategic commitment from, from all of us at, at Apollo starting about four or five years ago. So when Mark Rowan took the reins as CEO, all the stars aligned to build a wealth business to compliment the institutional and that that decision truly needed to come from the top CEO on down because it is strategic, it’s, it’s not transactional if you’re going to do it well, it needs to be a long term commitment to, to the channel. And in my view, there are actually only a small number of firms that can really show up and do this well in partnership with, with all the financial intermediaries involved with wealth.

00:26:21 And the reason I say that is when you look at what’s required, it’s a pretty massive lift. You need to make sure that you build out the right relationships and you need the team globally in place to do that across channels and geographies. You need to make sure that the product mix is extensive enough so that you’re relevant as it pertains to our investment capability. But you want to make sure that you’re showing up with the right structures for the right clients. Then there’s the educational component, there’s the servicing, there’s technology for example, we, we have spent actually a billion dollars, $1 billion from our balance sheet in wealth tech investments alone to make sure that we’re partnering and investing in firms that will help the industry. So the, I think there are very few that can do that well and, and truly meet the well clients where with, in order to meet their portfolio needs.

00:27:27 [Speaker Changed] So within that channel, family offices, high net wealth sovereign funds, are you also selling through other intermediaries like brokerage firms or RIAs? Tell us a little bit about that.

00:27:40 [Speaker Changed] Yes, so the, the channels represented in wealth include the private banks and wires as one channel. The independence, which includes RIAs and and independent broker dealers family office is also kind of under our, our wealth umbrella. So that’s the ultra high net worth space, selectively. And then we have geographic focus, you know, out outside of, of the US across EMEA and, and Asia. The rest of of North America is, is covered appropriately out of Canada and latam. So, so each of those channels are, are represented and while each has differences and we definitely approach them with different resourcing and and commitments, the common denominator of of all of them is helping the intermediary, the advisor or the banker or the CIO of the family office, either build for retirement in the case of their underlying client or bill to a certain level of wealth. And so whether it’s, you know, a, a wire like A-A-U-B-S or a a Morgan Stanley and their set of advisors or you name kind of a, an RIA, we wanna show up to that intermediary with offerings that are gonna work for their platform and, you know, their, their base and make sure that we can speak to semi-liquid as well as draw down and really kind of listen closely to what they’re looking to provide their clients.

00:29:30 [Speaker Changed] So the challenge we always see on, on the RAA side is on the privates it seems everything is sort of a one-off and whereas on the public side, the custodianship is standardized, the reporting is standardized, all the compliance and due diligence is pretty, you know, turnkey. Tell us about a, the challenges of, of all the private investments that may not all be identical and is there a solution out there, a platform in development that might make this more like a turnkey, more public security like than private? Yeah,

00:30:11 [Speaker Changed] It’s a journey, but I think it’s already getting better and I do see a world where it, it becomes so much easier, more efficient to, to access. And so if we look at what we’re already seeing, you know, when we think about an interval fund structure where you can buy many different underlying strategies, it’s point and click through an advisor, but it’s point and click, there isn’t kind of the fulsome subscription process that we’ve seen, right? There’s innovation, which, you know, we have worked on in, in partnership with State Street for example, where there are ETF structures of which private markets are apart. And I think the technology is moving from kind of more of an analog to digital in, in just kind of the, the plumbing and the infrastructure that supports the, the private markets overall ecosystem. So there’s, there’s definitely a lot of time and effort to try to simplify the processes and I think it’s going to go hand in hand with an evolution that’s already starting where allocators are looking to, to managers like ourselves to not only offer specific parts or specific strategies, but to increasingly offer more holistic solutions.

00:31:47 So a bundle of private market solutions, which could be multi-strategy, going to eventually kind of multi-strategy multi-manager as as well, which can then be housed not only in the accounts, brokerage accounts or self-directed that we see so often today, but in a range of pools of, of capital and models and a number of discretionary pools of capital that are highly applicable for private markets.

00:32:23 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Really, really interesting coming up, we continue our conversation with Stephanie Drescher, Apollo’s Chief client and product development officer, discussing the state of private markets today. I’m Barry Riol, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Mary Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest is Stephanie Recher. She’s the chief client and product development officer at Private Investment giant Apollo helping to oversee $840 billion in client assets. So we’re living in a moment where private credit and private equity, they used to be a small niche that’s no longer the case. Not only are they mainstream, they’re one of the fastest growing parts of the investment world. Tell us a little bit about what’s happening in that space and what’s driving that shift.

00:33:34 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I, I think there’s been a transformation in terms of public and private holdings in a portfolio and what does it mean to be safe or risky? I think historically people have thought that because something was liquid in the public markets, it was inherently safe or frankly safer than something less liquid in the private markets. And as we look at 2022 and frankly many moments of dislocation in the public markets, I think there’s now a, a much clearer recognition that the public markets can be both safe and risky as can the private markets. Because when we look at the public markets, let’s say the s and p 500, for example, the performance and frankly moments of underperformance have been so concentrated in terms of the attribution to roughly seven stocks. Sometimes people will say 10 stocks, but when there’s so much concentration or frankly lack of diversification in the public markets, it, it creates a moment where people start to zoom out and say, frankly, what if the toolkit for my equity piece of the portfolio should have a combination of both public and private. And frankly, what if my fixed income segment of the portfolio should have both public and private? Then the toolkit for advisors and for for families is much broader to create that excess return. And what we’ve seen is the desire to incorporate the private markets not just as an add-on to an otherwise traditional 60 40 portfolio, but rather thinking of it as part of their core holdings in equity and debt and think and now thinking simply of alternatives as an alternative to public stocks and bonds.

00:35:46 [Speaker Changed] So 60 40 becomes 50 30, 20 or 60 20 20 or something along those lines. Yeah. Or,

00:35:53 [Speaker Changed] Or it could even keep whatever percentages are split between public, between equity and debt, but have both the public and private options available within each of those percentages to maximize the return, to maximize our diversification and to reduce the volatility. It’s a game changer. It’s no longer nice to have private markets in a portfolio. It’s a need to have in order to meet the long-term financial goals of the client.

00:36:26 [Speaker Changed] So one of the things I can’t help but notice over the course of my career, which began more or less around the same time as yours in the mid nineties, is that the total number of public equities has shrunk dramatically. Yeah. The Wilshire 5,000 is about 3,400 stocks, the s and p 500, still 502 stocks because of a shares it’s a little over 500. But even the Russell 2000 and some of the other broader indexes, far fewer public names in there. How much is the shrinking of the public float driving activity onto the private side?

00:37:06 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I I think it’s very real. You, you’re right, it’s about half the number of public companies. It was, you know, just, you know, even a couple of decades ago at the same time when, when you look at the number of companies, total number of companies globally, 90% are in fact private. So if someone truly wants representative exposure in their portfolio, it’s really hard to rationalize eliminating 90% of the total number of companies out there, right? And focusing exclusively on public because it’s liquid. Realistically, one needs to look at what is the return profile goal for the portfolio? What, what type of illiquidity can, can someone accept and, and then create a portfolio that allows for that excess return. Institutions have realized that now over decades, and they’ve been the beneficiaries of that excess return by accepting some amount of illiquidity with the advent of new structures in the private market, certainly for wealth and increasingly even for institutions, you can, you can select offerings out there that provide more interim liquidity. It’s, it’s not, you’re ATM no one should think that it is, right? But it provides a much broader suite of solutions across a range of liquidity profiles offering far more liquidity than one would have received in a traditional private equity drawdown structure. In, in our view, in a, as we develop portfolios with our clients, depending on what they’re looking for in terms of underlying return and, and liquidity, we believe there’s a, a role for a mix of both. More, more liquid private markets structures as, as well as draw down depending on the strategy.

00:39:15 [Speaker Changed] So, so let’s talk about liquidity and semi-liquid as well as illiquidity. The academic perspective has always been, hey, when you’re moving into an illiquid market, you get the benefit of the illiquidity premium. It’s a smaller market, it’s less efficient, there’s opportunities to create alpha here, but the trade off is your money is locked up for three years, for five years, for seven years, whatever it is, when first with the semi-liquid product. So you’re giving up some of that upside in exchange for semi liquidity.

00:39:52 [Speaker Changed] Our, our view is that the, the structure and the design should marry the underlying assets in the portfolio.

00:40:00 [Speaker Changed] So two year credit notes are gonna be more liquid than perpetual open-ended

00:40:06 [Speaker Changed] E Exactly. So we have, you know, in our, our view the strategy is within private markets are so wide ranging, which to your point in terms of portfolio construction, you know, our, our view is that since a private market holding can span everything from short term investment grade credit all the way through to your traditional kind of private equity drawdown, that’s a very wide range. And when you think broadly about that type of exposure, why shouldn’t an allocation in a portfolio be maybe even 50% to private markets just given the breadth and applicability of the underlying assets from the short dated investment grade credit all the way through to more traditional private private equity. But, but to your point, there are options where private markets can be a part of an overall portfolio like an ETF format where it is in fact daily as part of a broader portfolio or if you go to kind of an investment grade strategy, it may be, you know, monthly in nature, but you’re, you’re right, the, the trade off for stepping out a bit on the liquidity curve, albeit, you know, not too much further is a pickup in in the access return.

00:41:34 [Speaker Changed] Huh. Real, really interesting. You know, I’m, I’m not gonna quote you exactly, but I did read something you had said a a about private credit is that you see a full on fundamental rethink taking place in the space. Explain what you mean by fundamental rethink.

00:41:55 [Speaker Changed] You know, the, the idea of of private markets or alternative of our alternatives being that very high risk portion of a portfolio and therefore small percentage of one’s allocation locked up for a long period of time. That’s just no longer the modern thinking of the use of private markets in a portfolio. There’s no reason right now why an advisor and a banker can’t think in a far more flexible way about how they are meeting the need to save for retirement or the ability to build wealth with private market structures in mind. So it kind of goes back to that idea of public markets being safe and private markets being risky. That’s no longer kind of the, the thinking in in the market. I think most intermediaries have really challenged that historical way of building portfolios and they want the same benefits that the institutions have now had for decades. The reality is that the, the size of the wealth market in terms of assets held by families, by individuals is about the same size as that held by institutions, right. Each about 150 trillion or so globally. The institutions right now have an a an average allocation of over 20% to private markets, the individual on average 3%.

00:43:44 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I was gonna say single digits clearly. It’s absolutely, and, and all of the, when we, when we look at the projections and a variety of war game scenarios, this looks like this is gonna continue to grow over the next decade. The the, I know this is a speculative question and no one really knows, but how large can the private markets get relative to the public markets? Can they be the same size eventually?

00:44:13 [Speaker Changed] Look, our, our view is that origination is the great differentiator. So we, we focus not as kind of a UM as a limiter, but rather origination and making

00:44:32 [Speaker Changed] Sure and define that because when I hear origination, I’m thinking not all private investments are created the same,

00:44:40 [Speaker Changed] Right? It’s the ability to create proprietary investment opportunities is, is in our view a huge differentiator for a platform. And we partner with financial intermediaries and that is additive in, in terms of the flow of, of investment opportunities, but not exclusively. In fact, over the last almost 15 years now, we’ve built out 16 proprietary origination engines so that we can create that investment alpha in-house for the benefit of, of our clients. And that proprietary origination fuels our underlying portfolios, which ultimately in, in our view is critical to delivering on the return.

00:45:39 [Speaker Changed] So those 16 different engines, I’m gonna assume they’re each in a different type of space.

00:45:44 [Speaker Changed] E Exactly. So,

00:45:45 [Speaker Changed] So yeah, so real assets, infrastructure, private credit, private debt, which isn’t always the exact same thing. Private equity, there’s gotta be many more. What, what other spaces are you, what other geographies are you looking at? What other spaces are you looking at? What’s the product makes look like? Yeah.

00:46:04 [Speaker Changed] So on on the origination side, it it is quite broad. Think everything from fleet finance to

00:46:13 [Speaker Changed] Fleet jets, ships,

00:46:15 [Speaker Changed] E all the above. Exactly. And, and even trucking, you know, there’s a whole range in terms of everything from aviation to kind of ground transport. There’s consumer finance, there’s specialty finance that’s, there’s mortgages. So it’s, it’s quite broad in terms of the reach, but it’s, it’s ultimately originating the investment in what we call kind of the industrial renaissance. And the need for that private capital is, is real and additive to, to what could otherwise be found in the public markets.

00:46:55 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Really, really fascinating. But before I get to, I only have you for a limited amount of time. Before I get to my favorite questions, lemme just ask you one more question. What do you think investors who are looking at the private markets aren’t thinking about or talking about, but should be? What sort of topics, geographies, policy issues, what’s out there that is getting overlooked but perhaps shouldn’t?

00:47:24 [Speaker Changed] So what what I’m seeing more and more is, is a global trend of, of the democratization for private markets. And as I look at what’s happening, certainly in our own backyard in terms of the executive orders around 401k, and then I look to, to Europe and I see their regulation around the L TIF 2.0 or I look even to the UK and I see regs in the UK and France in terms of certain requirements and percentages to private markets in their retirement plans. To me there’s a global theme of the desire to allow more access of private markets to, to the individual and through their advisors, through the intermediaries to truly be able to adequately plan for retirement. And, and we see obviously the state of, of kind of retirees here in, in the US and there’s a dire need to give them, you know, through managed accounts, through target date access to investments that will provide that additional excess return.

00:48:55 And you know, as, as we think about it, you know, most of those 4 0 1 Ks have time horizons of decades, right? Yet the solutions they have available to them are daily liquid. That mismatch does not need to exist. And, you know, with, with the changes that we’re we’re seeing come out of dc you know, we’re, we’re hopeful that the framework for the benefit of those retirement plans will continue to be one that shifts from the historical view of maximizing those pools of capital to the lowest possible fee to one where they look to maximize outcome and truly maximize the result for, for those participants. Hmm.

00:49:48 [Speaker Changed] Really, really very fascinating. Let’s jump to our, our final five questions that I ask all of my guests starting with tell us about your mentors who helped shape your career.

00:50:03 [Speaker Changed] Well, I, I, I mentioned in, in a prior part of our series, someone that I used to babysit for who gave me my first shot in a healthcare consulting firm. So she will remain part of my, kind of my personal advisory board while at JP Morgan, Mary Erdos is kind of rockstar status Yep. In, in my book. And, and an amazing mentor throughout my career. And then, you know, many at, at Apollo that I won’t name ’cause I won’t embarrass them, but that have been incredible sponsors of, of my career with, of a lot of opportunities just to continue to grow and develop as a professional.

00:50:48 [Speaker Changed] Let’s talk about books. What are you reading? What are some of your favorites?

00:50:53 [Speaker Changed] So, well, in terms of what I’m reading right now, there’s a, a book called Such Good People, which I will give a disclaimer. It’s written by Amy Feld and she is a great close friend from college and it’s a great read. And so I’m, I’m at the end and I don’t want it to end. So that’s, that’s a great one. I was actually just away this weekend and I have to say I was struck when I was in the Berkshires and I was struck by the fall foliage and just how it’s

00:51:26 [Speaker Changed] Amazing this year.

00:51:27 [Speaker Changed] Beautiful. Like coming, you know, I live and work in New York City, so seeing those surroundings and being back in nature, it did make me think of Emerson and Throw who I did love. And it’s been a while since I’ve, I read their works, but it inspired me to go, to go back and dust that off.

00:51:47 [Speaker Changed] Let’s talk about what’s keeping you entertained these days? What are you streaming or, or listening to

00:51:52 [Speaker Changed] Other than you,

00:51:53 [Speaker Changed] Well, this doesn’t count. Give us, give us a different one.

00:51:58 [Speaker Changed] Okay, well one that is top of mind who we actually just had participate live at a, a client forum of ours is Dr. David Sinclair of Lifespan and he is affiliated with Harvard. And his work fascinates me in, in terms of, is

00:52:21 [Speaker Changed] That the Happiness series?

00:52:22 [Speaker Changed] Oh, I love that

00:52:23 [Speaker Changed] Too. Love the longitudinal study.

00:52:25 [Speaker Changed] I I love that. That’s a different one. And I, I I I love that professor as well in terms of the value of happiness at different stages of our lives. Right? I love that. But this actually relates to longevity more in terms of genetics and all the research and science and even drug development that is going into the kind of health and wellness from a longevity perspective.

00:52:49 [Speaker Changed] The health span study, is that what this one is? Yes,

00:52:52 [Speaker Changed] Yes, exactly. And research that they’re already doing in terms of eyes that could have applicability to many other parts of our body. So I just find it kind of a, a fascinating field that I think will develop so much over time. And of course from a work perspective as I think frankly of the work of both of those Harvard professors and doctors is now how does it tie into the high performance culture and mindset that we have as a firm? Like how do we take that thinking and, and try to think about our own employees over time?

00:53:25 [Speaker Changed] And our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interest in a career in investing privates alternative investings? What, what’s your advice?

00:53:38 [Speaker Changed] Well, first off, go for it because I think it’s, there’s still so much growth ahead and I would just say stay curious because, you know, as, as we think about kind of the innovation that’s happening just about from every angle of product innovation and channels, and frankly even applicability of AI to what we do today. If, if you’re tuned in from a, a curiosity perspective coupled with kind of strong work ethic, I, I think that’s a winning recipe.

00:54:21 [Speaker Changed] And our final question, what do you know about the world of alternative and private market investing today would’ve been useful 30 years ago or so when you were first getting started?

00:54:33 [Speaker Changed] Well, no fun if you have the answer key, right? But look, I, I would say the one thing that stays the same is change and to embrace that and to be flexible to recognize that there will be so much evolution and change that continues in front of us from an industry. And certainly as someone starting, if someone’s starting out now to kind of enjoy that ride and recognize that there will be many chapters that unfold and the best we can kind of try to see where that puck is going. But certainly, and, and embrace that, that there’s so much more innovation and opportunity to come. Hmm.

00:55:26 [Speaker Changed] Really, really interesting. Thank you Stephanie, for being so gen generous with your time. We have been speaking with Stephanie Drescher, Apollo’s Chief client and Product Development Officer. If you enjoy this conversation, check out any of the 589 we’ve done over the previous 11 and a half years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, wherever you find your favorite podcast. And be sure and check out my new book, how Not to Invest the ideas, numbers, and behavior that destroys wealth and how to avoid them wherever you get your books at. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my producer. Sage Bauman is the head of podcasts at Bloomberg.

I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: Stephanie Drescher, Apollo Chief Client and Product Development Officer appeared first on The Big Picture.

ISM® Manufacturing index Decreased to 47.9% in December; "Lowest Reading of 2025"

Calculated Risk -

(Posted with permission). The ISM manufacturing index indicated contraction. The PMI® was at 47.9% in December, down from 48.2% in November. The employment index was at 44.9%, up from 44.0% the previous month, and the new orders index was at 47.7%, up from 47.4%.

From ISM: Manufacturing PMI® at 47.9% December 2025 ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report
Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in December for the 10th consecutive month, following a two-month expansion preceded by 26 straight months of contraction, say the nation’s supply executives in the latest ISM® Manufacturing PMI® Report.

The report was issued today by Susan Spence, MBA, Chair of the Institute for Supply Management® (ISM®) Manufacturing Business Survey Committee.

“The Manufacturing PMI® registered 47.9 percent in December, a 0.3-percentage point decrease compared to the reading of 48.2 percent in November and the lowest reading of 2025. The overall economy continued in expansion for the 68th month after one month of contraction in April 2020. (A Manufacturing PMI® above 42.3 percent, over a period of time, generally indicates an expansion of the overall economy.) The New Orders Index contracted for a fourth straight month in December following one month of growth; the figure of 47.7 percent is 0.3 percentage point higher than the 47.4 percent recorded in November. The December reading of the Production Index (51 percent) is 0.4 percentage point lower than November’s figure of 51.4 percent. The Prices Index remained in expansion (or ‘increasing’ territory), registering 58.5 percent, the same as November’s reading. The Backlog of Orders Index registered 45.8 percent, up 1.8 percentage points compared to the 44 percent recorded in November. The Employment Index registered 44.9 percent, up 0.9 percentage point from November’s figure of 44 percent.
emphasis added
This suggests manufacturing contracted for the tenth consecutive month in December.  This was below the consensus forecast, and employment was very weak and prices very strong.

Iran Protest Deaths Rise As Trump Warns Tehran It Could "Get Hit Very Hard" By US

Zero Hedge -

Iran Protest Deaths Rise As Trump Warns Tehran It Could "Get Hit Very Hard" By US

Over the weekend as the world watched Trump's Venezuela intervention unfold, the Iran protests reached a full week. While AFP and others have reported in some locales clashes between demonstrators and police, which have after entering day nine have left 12 people dead, including members of security forces, it is clear that this wave of largely economic-driven protests have yet to reach the size of the 2022 'anti-hijab' protests.

Protests have hit 26 of Iran's 31 provinces, leading to around 1,000 arrests - and there have been some signs of the usual mayhem: in some instances cars or buildings burned, governors' offices broken into, and sporadic reports of live fire. Still mainstream Western press has admitted the following in reference to the prior 2022 'anti-hijab' protests: "While smaller in scale, the latest protests pose a fresh challenge to the 86-year-old Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, following a brief war with Israel in June that damaged nuclear facilities."

Deutsche Welle cites Norway-based rights groups Hengaw and Iran Human Rights who newly report that four Kurdish protesters were killed on Saturday in Malekshahi county (in Ilam province), with dozens more injured.

Screengrab: AFP

Iranian media has been focused on the killing of at least one member of the security forces by "rioters" - and details surrounding the deaths and injuries of other protesters remain murky. While there have clearly been some isolated instances of violence, it must be remembered that the Islamic Republic is geographically large for the region and has 90+ million people.

The lingering big question of whether the protests will be sustained or spread, amid a collapsing currency and soaring prices, has not stopped President Trump from reiterating tough threats directed at Tehran leaders. He told reporters aboard Air Force One that Iran will get "hit very hard" by the United States if further protesters were killed.

"We’re watching it very closely. If they start killing people like they have in the past, I think they're going to get hit very hard by the United States," he said without providing further details.

This time, the warning hinted more strongly in the direction of a military response, after last week he said something similar but somewhat vague - that he would come to the protesters "rescue" if they start being killed. Big on everyone's mind following Venezuelan President Maduro's capture is: will Iran be next?

There's little question that Israel's Netanyahu hopes so, after reports that in last month's Mar-a-Lago meeting, the Israeli prime minister lobbied Trump to go after Iran's ballistic missile program. For this reason and others, Tehran authorities continue to allege a foreign hidden hand which seeks to exploit the current crisis.

Iran's head of the judiciary has released a fresh statement warning of no leniency to "rioters" while saying that peaceful individuals have a right to air their grievances in public.

"I instruct the attorney general and prosecutors across the country to act in accordance with the law and with resolve against the rioters and those who support them… and to show no leniency or indulgence," Gholamhossein Mohseni Ejei was cited in the judiciary's Mizan news agency as saying.

At the same time authorities have cast a cloud of suspicion over the protests, linking them to the US and Israel:

Spokesperson Esmail Baghaei said statements by some American and Israeli officials amounted to interference in Iran’s internal affairs and incitement to violence under international norms and rejected what he described as foreign efforts to present themselves as supportive of the Iranian public.

"Actions or statements by figures such as the Israeli prime minister or certain radical and hardline US officials regarding Iran’s internal affairs amount, under international norms, to nothing more than incitement to violence, terrorism, and killing."

But interestingly this type of 'foreign influence' accusation has been somewhat softened (compared to in prior waves of protests that rocked Iran) - perhaps given Iranian leaders' fearing more backlash from Trump. 

After all, they have have watched Maduro get taken out of power (and whisked out of the country) by the US in rapid fashion, and have to be careful not to provoke Washington.

* * *

Hawks now salivating over regime change options in Iran?...

Tyler Durden Mon, 01/05/2026 - 09:45

Pages