A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

A New Oil Price War Is Now Underway

Authored by Robert Rapier via OilPrice.com,

• OPEC+ raised output to defend market share, signaling a deliberate shift away from price stabilization.

• U.S. shale’s record production and rapid adaptability have weakened OPEC’s traditional pricing control.

• Oil prices now hinge as much on market psychology and expectations as on physical supply and demand.

Contrary to popular belief, oil prices aren’t determined by any one country, company, or cartel. Instead, they’re the product of a global tug-of-war among producers, traders, and policymakers. It’s a market defined not just by physics, but by psychology, where the actions of a few key players can ripple across the world in a matter of hours.

On November 2nd, OPEC+ announced a modest 137,000 barrel-per-day production increase for December, followed by a pause on further increases in the first quarter of 2026. The move surprised many analysts who expected continued restraint. On the surface, boosting supply when prices are already under pressure seems counterintuitive. But this is not a move driven by near-term pricing. It’s a move about market share and about power.

As Morningstar aptly summarized, “defending market share now outweighs defending prices.”

That’s a telling statement, and it signals a familiar shift in strategy among major producers.

We’ve seen this playbook before—in 2014 and again in 2020—when Saudi Arabia and Russia opened the taps to undercut higher-cost rivals, particularly U.S. shale producers. 

Those episodes triggered sharp price declines, but OPEC+ was trying to reassert dominance in a market that had become increasingly influenced by American production growth. The strategy largely failed in 2014 (see OPEC’s Trillion Dollar Miscalculation), but it did squeeze out some overleveraged shale producers. 

The Strategic Logic Behind a Price War

At first glance, it seems self-defeating for OPEC+ to intentionally push prices lower. But history shows that short-term pain can yield long-term control. By tolerating lower prices for a period, OPEC+ can squeeze out marginal producers whose break-even costs are higher. Once those players scale back, the cartel can tighten supply again and reclaim pricing power.

This latest production increase comes at a time when U.S. output is at record levels, surpassing 13.7 million barrels per day. That resurgence reflects the flexibility of American shale—producers can ramp up quickly when prices rise and idle rigs just as fast when prices drop. This “elastic” supply has turned the United States into the de facto swing producer of the world.

However, that elasticity comes at a cost. Unlike OPEC+, which can coordinate cuts through collective agreements, U.S. producers act independently. When dozens of companies all respond to higher prices by drilling more wells, the collective impact is oversupply. The very efficiency that makes shale powerful also makes it self-defeating.

OPEC+ understands this dynamic. By modestly boosting output now, it’s signaling to the market that it won’t easily cede share to U.S. producers, even if that means tolerating prices closer to $75 per barrel rather than the $90 level that many members would prefer.

Beyond Barrels: The Psychology of Pricing

Physical barrels of oil aren’t the only factor at play. Prices are also shaped by expectations. In oil markets, perception moves faster than production.

If traders anticipate a surplus of even 500,000 to 600,000 barrels per day, prices will start adjusting long before those barrels appear. Futures markets incorporate everything from storage levels to exchange rates, creating an intricate web of feedback loops. When economic data points to weaker global demand, traders price that in immediately. Conversely, when a refinery fire breaks out in California or tensions flare in the Strait of Hormuz, prices can change overnight—even if global supply remains unchanged.

This is why oil markets can seem disconnected from fundamentals. They’re not just reflecting today’s balance of supply and demand, but the collective judgment of millions of traders trying to guess tomorrow’s.

The New Normal: Shale vs. the Cartel

Over the past decade, the rise of U.S. shale has permanently altered the energy landscape. Once, OPEC could shift prices with a simple announcement. Now, its influence is constrained by a U.S. industry that can respond more rapidly than any government-directed producer.

But the U.S. isn’t immune to pressure. Shale drilling depends heavily on capital discipline and investor confidence—both of which can erode quickly when oil falls below $70. That gives OPEC+ leverage. The group knows it can afford a period of lower prices longer than many U.S. independents can.

If Brent crude stabilizes in the $75–85 range, that’s a price OPEC+ can live with and one that still supports healthy refining margins for global majors. But if the expected surplus materializes, a slide below $60 isn’t out of the question. That would test the resilience of both producers and policy.

What It Means for Investors and Consumers

For consumers, this tug-of-war shows up at the pump. Gasoline prices generally track crude prices with a lag, so when oil slides, relief eventually filters through—though rarely as fast as it rises. For investors, understanding these dynamics is crucial. Energy stocks are among the most cyclical in the market, and they react more to forward price expectations than current spot prices.

In a world where oil is caught between economic uncertainty, OPEC+ maneuvering, and record U.S. production, volatility is the only constant. The smartest investors are the ones who understand the forces shaping the battlefield.

Oil remains a geopolitical currency as much as a commodity. And as long as both OPEC+ and U.S. shale producers continue to fight for influence, the market will remain what it’s always been: a high-stakes contest of patience, power, and price.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:25

Disney Shares Sink Most In Seven Months As Soft Earnings, Film Costs Drag Outlook

Shares of Disney tumbled the most in seven months early in the U.S. cash session after the media company missed quarterly revenue expectations and warned that film-studio expenses will drag on the current quarter, particularly costs tied to major releases.

Disney posted uninspiring fourth-quarter revenues, flat at about $22.5 billion and below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of $22.8 billion. Adjusted EPS beat at $1.11 versus the $1.07 expected. The miss sent shares in New York down 8% in the cash session, the largest intraday decline since April 3. The company also warned about softening across its entertainment unit. 

Covid lows...

Here's the snapshot of the fourth quarter earnings:

Revenue: $22.46B (-0.5% y/y, miss vs. $22.83B est.)

Adjusted EPS: $1.11 (beat vs. $1.07 est.)

Entertainment Segment: 

• Revenue $10.21B (-5.7% y/y)

• Op. income $691M (-35% y/y, miss)

Sports Segment:

• Revenue $3.98B (+1.7% y/y)

• Op. income $911M (-1.9% y/y)

Experiences (Parks & Cruises) Segment:

• Disney+ subs: 131.6M (+3% q/q, beat)

• Domestic: 59.3M International: 72.4M

Hulu subs: 64.1M (+15% q/q, beat)

Average Revenue Per User

• Disney+: $8.04 (up q/q, beat)

• Hulu SVOD: $12.20 (slightly down)

• Hulu Live TV: $100.02 (flat)

Disney's entertainment unit (streaming, film, and TV) faces several challenges:

• Streaming: Q1 operating income forecast at $375M, below what analysts hoped for.

• TV: Lower political ad spending will drag performance

• Major film releases: Marketing and distribution for Zootopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400M

• Film releases: Marketing and distribution for ZoSports: Launch of full ESPN streaming helps, but timing of rights payments limits profit growth.otopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400.

• Avatar opens December 19, giving Disney minimal revenue inside the quarter.

Disney expects double-digit earnings growth in fiscal 2026, with most of that growth expected to materialize in the second half. 

2026 Outlook:

• Operating cash flow: $19B (well above $16.86B est.)

• Capex: $9B (vs. $7.88B est.)

Here is Goldman TMT specialist Peter Callahan's first take on Disney earnings:

DIS -6% in the pre (back to last weeks' levels)… stock had run a bit into print and the moving parts in qtr / guide underscore the debate around complexity relative to the "DD EPS" outlook that investors were debating into results (e.g. bottomline line strong, but moving parts on DTC and Parks) … conf call ongoing (started @ 830am) …  notables from print / GIR first take 

1. EBIT missed on opex and DIS' F1Q26 guidance for DTC SVOD EBIT of $375M missed GS/consensus of $514/$523M, which when combined with DIS' F2026 $24B cash content spending outlook, suggests that DIS may be investing more in DTC in F2026 than we expected. 

2. Experiences EBIT missed and the F2025 10-K disclosures suggest to us that there was weakness in domestic theme parks with F2025 attendance -1% yoy (implies F4Q25 -4% y/y) and per capita spending +5% (implies F4Q25 +3% y/y). As expected, DIS guided to $120M of dry dock expenses in F2026 (incl. $60M in F1Q26) and $160M in preopening expenses in F2026 (incl. $90M in F1Q26). Although we're encouraged by the reiterated F2026 outlook for Experiences +HSD% y/y, it was below our elevated expectations.

3. DIS reiterated its DD% EPS growth guidance for F2026 (not including the benefit from the extra week) and for F2027 with all F2026 segment EBIT growth guidance also reiterated (Entertainment DD%, Experiences HSD%, Sports LSD%).

DIS: chart of Disney vs S&P5000 .. stock has been bouncing around / off the lows on a relative basis with bulls arguing the R/R is attractive from low-100s levels (vs bears argue too many moving parts in a complex macro backdrop)

Additional Wall Street reactions: 

• Bloomberg Intelligence: Solid Q4 supports 19% FY2025 EPS growth, but guidance looks conservative; sees catalysts ahead, especially improved streaming margins.

• Citi (Buy, PT $145): Revenue "a bit light," but weakness is mostly from linear TV, the least important business — seen as encouraging.

• Seaport (Buy, PT $130): Revenue miss and outlook suggest content and marketing spend may exceed prior expectations.

• Vital Knowledge: Calls the report "lackluster" with sales shortfall and inline operating income; Q1 looks pressured, but FY26–27 EPS outlook is encouraging.

• KeyBanc: Says the quarter "appears negative," with soft DTC operating-income guidance and weakness in content raising concerns.

The question remains: how "woke" will Disney remain in the Trump era, where the Overton Window has clearly shifted center-right and parents are increasingly tired of globalist messaging embedded in children's shows and cartoon content?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:10

Disney Shares Sink Most In Seven Months As Soft Earnings, Film Costs Drag Outlook

Shares of Disney tumbled the most in seven months early in the U.S. cash session after the media company missed quarterly revenue expectations and warned that film-studio expenses will drag on the current quarter, particularly costs tied to major releases.

Disney posted uninspiring fourth-quarter revenues, flat at about $22.5 billion and below the Bloomberg consensus estimate of $22.8 billion. Adjusted EPS beat at $1.11 versus the $1.07 expected. The miss sent shares in New York down 8% in the cash session, the largest intraday decline since April 3. The company also warned about softening across its entertainment unit. 

Covid lows...

Here's the snapshot of the fourth quarter earnings:

Revenue: $22.46B (-0.5% y/y, miss vs. $22.83B est.)

Adjusted EPS: $1.11 (beat vs. $1.07 est.)

Entertainment Segment: 

• Revenue $10.21B (-5.7% y/y)

• Op. income $691M (-35% y/y, miss)

Sports Segment:

• Revenue $3.98B (+1.7% y/y)

• Op. income $911M (-1.9% y/y)

Experiences (Parks & Cruises) Segment:

• Disney+ subs: 131.6M (+3% q/q, beat)

• Domestic: 59.3M International: 72.4M

Hulu subs: 64.1M (+15% q/q, beat)

Average Revenue Per User

• Disney+: $8.04 (up q/q, beat)

• Hulu SVOD: $12.20 (slightly down)

• Hulu Live TV: $100.02 (flat)

Disney's entertainment unit (streaming, film, and TV) faces several challenges:

• Streaming: Q1 operating income forecast at $375M, below what analysts hoped for.

• TV: Lower political ad spending will drag performance

• Major film releases: Marketing and distribution for Zootopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400M

• Film releases: Marketing and distribution for ZoSports: Launch of full ESPN streaming helps, but timing of rights payments limits profit growth.otopia 2 and Avatar: Fire and Ash will reduce Q1 earnings by $400.

• Avatar opens December 19, giving Disney minimal revenue inside the quarter.

Disney expects double-digit earnings growth in fiscal 2026, with most of that growth expected to materialize in the second half. 

2026 Outlook:

• Operating cash flow: $19B (well above $16.86B est.)

• Capex: $9B (vs. $7.88B est.)

Here is Goldman TMT specialist Peter Callahan's first take on Disney earnings:

DIS -6% in the pre (back to last weeks' levels)… stock had run a bit into print and the moving parts in qtr / guide underscore the debate around complexity relative to the "DD EPS" outlook that investors were debating into results (e.g. bottomline line strong, but moving parts on DTC and Parks) … conf call ongoing (started @ 830am) …  notables from print / GIR first take 

1. EBIT missed on opex and DIS' F1Q26 guidance for DTC SVOD EBIT of $375M missed GS/consensus of $514/$523M, which when combined with DIS' F2026 $24B cash content spending outlook, suggests that DIS may be investing more in DTC in F2026 than we expected. 

2. Experiences EBIT missed and the F2025 10-K disclosures suggest to us that there was weakness in domestic theme parks with F2025 attendance -1% yoy (implies F4Q25 -4% y/y) and per capita spending +5% (implies F4Q25 +3% y/y). As expected, DIS guided to $120M of dry dock expenses in F2026 (incl. $60M in F1Q26) and $160M in preopening expenses in F2026 (incl. $90M in F1Q26). Although we're encouraged by the reiterated F2026 outlook for Experiences +HSD% y/y, it was below our elevated expectations.

3. DIS reiterated its DD% EPS growth guidance for F2026 (not including the benefit from the extra week) and for F2027 with all F2026 segment EBIT growth guidance also reiterated (Entertainment DD%, Experiences HSD%, Sports LSD%).

DIS: chart of Disney vs S&P5000 .. stock has been bouncing around / off the lows on a relative basis with bulls arguing the R/R is attractive from low-100s levels (vs bears argue too many moving parts in a complex macro backdrop)

Additional Wall Street reactions: 

• Bloomberg Intelligence: Solid Q4 supports 19% FY2025 EPS growth, but guidance looks conservative; sees catalysts ahead, especially improved streaming margins.

• Citi (Buy, PT $145): Revenue "a bit light," but weakness is mostly from linear TV, the least important business — seen as encouraging.

• Seaport (Buy, PT $130): Revenue miss and outlook suggest content and marketing spend may exceed prior expectations.

• Vital Knowledge: Calls the report "lackluster" with sales shortfall and inline operating income; Q1 looks pressured, but FY26–27 EPS outlook is encouraging.

• KeyBanc: Says the quarter "appears negative," with soft DTC operating-income guidance and weakness in content raising concerns.

The question remains: how "woke" will Disney remain in the Trump era, where the Overton Window has clearly shifted center-right and parents are increasingly tired of globalist messaging embedded in children's shows and cartoon content?

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 11:10

California Cancels 17,000 CDLs Following Federal Audit

Authored by John Gallagher via FreightWaves.com,

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has cancelled 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses following a federal audit of the state’s CDL program, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a press statement on Wednesday, DOT asserted that state officials admitted to illegally issuing the CDLs “to dangerous foreign drivers,” and that DMV sent notices to the license holders that their license no longer meets federal requirements and will expire in 60 days.

“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses.”

FreightWaves has reached out to California’s DMV for comment.

FMCSA Chief Counsel Jesse Elison notified Newsom and his DMV in a September 26 letter that a sampling of the roughly 62,000 drivers in California holding unexpired, non-domiciled CDLs or commercial learner’s permits issued by the state revealed that 26% – which extrapolates to roughly 16,000 – failed to comply with federal requirements.

“Even more concerning is the fact that, for three of the transactions, the DMV was unable to provide documentation showing that it validated the drivers’ lawful presence documents before issuing a non-domiciled CDL,” Elison stated.

“Consequently, based on the documentation provided, it appears that the DMV issued a non-domiciled CDL to three drivers without validating their lawful presence.”

Duffy posted a statement on the day of Elison’s notification letter warning that “California must get its act together immediately or I will not hesitate to pull millions in funding,” starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

DOT reiterated on Wednesday that it “will continue to push California’s to revoke all illegal non-domiciled CDLs or pull $160 million in federal funds.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:25

California Cancels 17,000 CDLs Following Federal Audit

Authored by John Gallagher via FreightWaves.com,

The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has cancelled 17,000 non-domiciled commercial driver’s licenses following a federal audit of the state’s CDL program, according to the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In a press statement on Wednesday, DOT asserted that state officials admitted to illegally issuing the CDLs “to dangerous foreign drivers,” and that DMV sent notices to the license holders that their license no longer meets federal requirements and will expire in 60 days.

“After weeks of claiming they did nothing wrong, Gavin Newsom and California have been caught red-handed,” said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg. My team will continue to force California to prove they have removed every illegal immigrant from behind the wheel of semitrucks and school buses.”

FreightWaves has reached out to California’s DMV for comment.

FMCSA Chief Counsel Jesse Elison notified Newsom and his DMV in a September 26 letter that a sampling of the roughly 62,000 drivers in California holding unexpired, non-domiciled CDLs or commercial learner’s permits issued by the state revealed that 26% – which extrapolates to roughly 16,000 – failed to comply with federal requirements.

“Even more concerning is the fact that, for three of the transactions, the DMV was unable to provide documentation showing that it validated the drivers’ lawful presence documents before issuing a non-domiciled CDL,” Elison stated.

“Consequently, based on the documentation provided, it appears that the DMV issued a non-domiciled CDL to three drivers without validating their lawful presence.”

Duffy posted a statement on the day of Elison’s notification letter warning that “California must get its act together immediately or I will not hesitate to pull millions in funding,” starting at nearly $160 million in the first year and doubling in year two.

DOT reiterated on Wednesday that it “will continue to push California’s to revoke all illegal non-domiciled CDLs or pull $160 million in federal funds.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:25

New 2x Levered Energy ETFs Launched As Investors Scramble For Upside Amid Relentless AI Power Demand

In pursuit of the seemingly relentless retail bid, Tradr ETFs has launched four new single-stock levered ETFs today, adding fresh instruments to a market incessantly infatuated with leverage-focused products. Notably, these new products land squarely in the middle of the energy sector - and includes names that stand to profit generously once what we dubbed the "Next AI Trade" (i.e., powering up the armada of newly-built data centers) takes off - at a time when power demand has never been greater thanks to AI.

The new offerings track Bloom Energy, Celestica, Nano Nuclear, and Synopsys and trade under BEX, CSEX, NNEX and SNPX respectively.

As noted above, what makes this offering notable is that several underlying companies sit at the intersection of energy, computing, and the rapidly accelerating AI build-out. Bloom Energy and Nano Nuclear are direct plays on emerging power technologies, while Celestica provides critical hardware integration for data-center infrastructure. Even Synopsys, not an energy company itself, enables the semiconductor designs that underpin the compute side of AI’s energy-hungry expansion.

As a result of their disruptive nature, all 4 stocks have seen their short interest surge recently, with the short pile up in the names at or near all time highs, prompting some to speculate that the Tradr ETFs may have been launched to facilitate a levered squeeze.

The increasingly granular nature of these products creates abundant choice for traders but also underscores how saturated and niche the ETF landscape has become.

Leveraged ETFs have grown so prolific that the number of such products now rivals, and in some categories exceeds, the number of public companies they reference. The overall US ETF ecosystem has ballooned into thousands of funds, and leveraged equity ETFs alone have climbed into the hundreds, doubling their footprint over just a few years.

It's clear why Tradr has decided to focus on energy: global data-center electricity consumption is projected to soar over the next decade, with U.S. and international forecasts all pointing to steep increases driven by AI workloads. As we noted overnight, some $5 trillion is expected to be spent over the next 5 years on the rollout of the AI cycle. As power demand rises, grid constraints tighten, and energy prices trend higher, companies providing generation, efficiency, or data-center hardware become more tightly linked to the broader energy narrative.

The combination of swelling energy demand, a strained grid, and AI’s relentless need for compute has created a backdrop where volatility in energy-adjacent names is likely to remain elevated. The rapid growth in artificial intelligence and cloud computing is testing America’s electric grid and exposing the urgent need for new, always-available power.

The most recent example highlighted by Bloomberg was a case where Amazon has accused PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway–owned utility, of failing to deliver enough electricity for four planned data-center campuses in Oregon.

Another recent example highlighted by Bloomberg: First American Nuclear Co. plans to build self-sustaining reactors in Indiana to power data centers. The plant will begin with natural gas in 2028, then shift to a 240-megawatt liquid-metal fast reactor by 2032 that can reprocess its own spent fuel.

“Data centers are driving the demand for power,” said CEO Mike Reinboth.

As President Donald Trump pushes to accelerate AI infrastructure, power demand from computing is forecast to more than double in the US by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. Utilities and tech giants now depend on each other — but utilities worry about straining the grid and raising bills if the AI boom falters.

For traders who seek to capitalize on short-term swings in these areas, whether in emerging nuclear concepts, distributed generation, or data-center supply chains, single-stock leveraged ETFs offer a direct, amplified tool. But their daily reset mechanics and sensitivity to volatility mean the risks scale just as quickly as the potential reward, so use them sparingly and ideally during bursts of activity to leverage the momentum.

Either way, we predict they won't be the last of their kind...

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:05

New 2x Levered Energy ETFs Launched As Investors Scramble For Upside Amid Relentless AI Power Demand

In pursuit of the seemingly relentless retail bid, Tradr ETFs has launched four new single-stock levered ETFs today, adding fresh instruments to a market incessantly infatuated with leverage-focused products. Notably, these new products land squarely in the middle of the energy sector - and includes names that stand to profit generously once what we dubbed the "Next AI Trade" (i.e., powering up the armada of newly-built data centers) takes off - at a time when power demand has never been greater thanks to AI.

The new offerings track Bloom Energy, Celestica, Nano Nuclear, and Synopsys and trade under BEX, CSEX, NNEX and SNPX respectively.

As noted above, what makes this offering notable is that several underlying companies sit at the intersection of energy, computing, and the rapidly accelerating AI build-out. Bloom Energy and Nano Nuclear are direct plays on emerging power technologies, while Celestica provides critical hardware integration for data-center infrastructure. Even Synopsys, not an energy company itself, enables the semiconductor designs that underpin the compute side of AI’s energy-hungry expansion.

As a result of their disruptive nature, all 4 stocks have seen their short interest surge recently, with the short pile up in the names at or near all time highs, prompting some to speculate that the Tradr ETFs may have been launched to facilitate a levered squeeze.

The increasingly granular nature of these products creates abundant choice for traders but also underscores how saturated and niche the ETF landscape has become.

Leveraged ETFs have grown so prolific that the number of such products now rivals, and in some categories exceeds, the number of public companies they reference. The overall US ETF ecosystem has ballooned into thousands of funds, and leveraged equity ETFs alone have climbed into the hundreds, doubling their footprint over just a few years.

It's clear why Tradr has decided to focus on energy: global data-center electricity consumption is projected to soar over the next decade, with U.S. and international forecasts all pointing to steep increases driven by AI workloads. As we noted overnight, some $5 trillion is expected to be spent over the next 5 years on the rollout of the AI cycle. As power demand rises, grid constraints tighten, and energy prices trend higher, companies providing generation, efficiency, or data-center hardware become more tightly linked to the broader energy narrative.

The combination of swelling energy demand, a strained grid, and AI’s relentless need for compute has created a backdrop where volatility in energy-adjacent names is likely to remain elevated. The rapid growth in artificial intelligence and cloud computing is testing America’s electric grid and exposing the urgent need for new, always-available power.

The most recent example highlighted by Bloomberg was a case where Amazon has accused PacifiCorp, a Berkshire Hathaway–owned utility, of failing to deliver enough electricity for four planned data-center campuses in Oregon.

Another recent example highlighted by Bloomberg: First American Nuclear Co. plans to build self-sustaining reactors in Indiana to power data centers. The plant will begin with natural gas in 2028, then shift to a 240-megawatt liquid-metal fast reactor by 2032 that can reprocess its own spent fuel.

“Data centers are driving the demand for power,” said CEO Mike Reinboth.

As President Donald Trump pushes to accelerate AI infrastructure, power demand from computing is forecast to more than double in the US by 2035, according to BloombergNEF. Utilities and tech giants now depend on each other — but utilities worry about straining the grid and raising bills if the AI boom falters.

For traders who seek to capitalize on short-term swings in these areas, whether in emerging nuclear concepts, distributed generation, or data-center supply chains, single-stock leveraged ETFs offer a direct, amplified tool. But their daily reset mechanics and sensitivity to volatility mean the risks scale just as quickly as the potential reward, so use them sparingly and ideally during bursts of activity to leverage the momentum.

Either way, we predict they won't be the last of their kind...

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 10:05

The post Being Tone Deaf Is Not the Same as Telling Outright Lies: That Should be Obvious appeared first on CEPR.

Schumer Who? How Centrists Broke Ranks To End Shutdown As Democratic Rift Widens

The political breakthrough that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history did not come from the Oval Office or from the Senate’s top Democrat. Instead, it emerged from a quiet, late-night meeting in a nearly deserted Capitol, where a small band of centrist Democrats forged an agreement with senior Republicans - over the objections of their own leadership.

Moderate Democrat senators who cut deal to end the government shutdown: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., top row from left, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and bottom row from left, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. AP Photo A Quiet Meeting, a Major Shift

According to the Wall Street Journal, two nights before Halloween, with federal workers missing paychecks and food-assistance programs running dry, Sens. Angus King of Maine, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire - each a former governor, slipped into Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office after the chamber had adjourned. Joining Thune were Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota, also a former governor and veteran appropriator, and Susan Collins of Maine, along with Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama.

The group had grown impatient. Nearly a month into the shutdown, they saw little sign that President Trump or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would break the stalemate. “It was a group of people trying to solve a problem,” Mr. King said.

When asked by MSNBC why he caved, King said that trying to "stand up to Donald Trump" simply didn't work...

Sen Angus King explains that the Democrat shutdown strategy of “standing up to Donald Trump” didn’t work.

This is sure to play well with the enraged base. pic.twitter.com/thSes5tE8U

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 10, 2025

Schumer was informed of the dialogues, lawmakers said, but declined to participate. The Democratic leader believed time was on his side: that Trump would eventually feel compelled to negotiate and Democrats could secure a more favorable outcome - including an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that had become the central Democratic demand.

The centrists, however, saw a riskier path. And with little progress from the White House, they proceeded.

A Deal That Divides

The negotiations produced a bipartisan agreement to reopen most of the government through Jan. 30 and fully fund several key programs, including food assistance, for a year. Thune pledged a December vote on extending the ACA subsidies, though he would promise no outcome.

To the centrists, the commitment - combined with the January funding deadline, which gives Democrats an opportunity to force another showdown - was enough. “We sat across from him, we looked him eye to eye,” Ms. Shaheen said, describing her trust in Thune’s assurances.

For many Democrats, it was not. Progressives and party activists erupted in anger, accusing the centrists of caving with little to show for it. Schumer, who voted against the measure, faced criticism from both sides: progressives for failing to keep the caucus unified, and centrists for resisting what many viewed as the only viable off-ramp.

Schumer’s allies counter that he held his caucus together longer than Republicans expected and that Democrats had successfully elevated healthcare costs as the defining issue heading into the midterms.

Internal Pressure Mounts

Centrists briefed Schumer regularly and agreed to his requests to delay any commitments until after Nov. 1, the start of Obamacare open enrollment, and then until after the Nov. 4 election. But as new Democratic electoral victories rolled in, many senators still preferred to hold firm.

That position became harder to justify as the shutdown’s effects escalated. Flight delays worsened. Federal workers missed multiple paychecks. Food-assistance and heating-aid benefits dwindled.

By Sunday, eight Democrats had peeled off, concluding that Trump would not enter negotiations anytime soon. “We were harming a lot of people in the service of a strategy that wasn’t working,” King said.

A Last-Minute Push

Schumer made his final bid on Friday: reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies. Republicans swiftly rejected it. Over the weekend, centrists renewed their push, bolstered by growing Democratic defections.

On Sunday, Schumer said he could not support a deal “that fails to address the healthcare crisis.” But the votes were slipping away. Republicans needed the support of Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to secure the necessary 60 votes. Britt, alongside GOP leadership and White House officials, worked with Kaine to add provisions reversing shutdown-driven federal layoffs and prohibiting new ones through January.

Kaine agreed. Late Sunday, the Senate advanced the measure 60–40, with no votes to spare.

Political Fallout

For Schumer, the episode marks another intraparty challenge. In March, he was criticized for voting with Republicans to avert a shutdown; now he is under fire for failing to maintain one. Still, Democrats credit him with elevating healthcare as a defining issue for the coming midterms.

On Monday, he framed the outcome as a Republican miscalculation. “Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” he said. “They knew it was coming. We wanted to fix it. Republicans said no.”

Whether voters will see it that way - or whether the schism between Democratic factions widens - remains an open question. What is clear is that, in the end, it was the quiet work of centrists—not high-level brinkmanship—that forced the government back open.

On Tuesday Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) appeared on Fox News to tell the world that "no one really knows" who's in charge of Democrats on Capitol Hill - as Schumer "never" discussed the shutdown with him. 

Fetterman addressed an Axios report that confirms the above: Schumer privately pressured a group of moderate Democrats in mid-October to keep the government closed until Obamacare open enrollment on Nov. 1. 

When asked by co-host Lawrence Jones "Who is running the show now in the Democratic Party, in the Senate, in the House?” Fetterman replied: "No one really knows."

"It’s always a hard yes to keep our government open," Fetterman explained. "I mean, that’s my principle, because it’s wrong to shut our government down. And now we knew that we would put [at risk] those 42 million Americans for SNAP and paying our military and, you know, the Capitol Police. I mean, people have went five weeks without being paid. I mean, that’s a violation of my core values. And I think it’s [a violation of] our party’s [values] as well."

Schumer who? (h/t Capital.news)

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:25

Schumer Who? How Centrists Broke Ranks To End Shutdown As Democratic Rift Widens

The political breakthrough that ended the longest government shutdown in U.S. history did not come from the Oval Office or from the Senate’s top Democrat. Instead, it emerged from a quiet, late-night meeting in a nearly deserted Capitol, where a small band of centrist Democrats forged an agreement with senior Republicans - over the objections of their own leadership.

Moderate Democrat senators who cut deal to end the government shutdown: Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., top row from left, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., and bottom row from left, Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., Sen. Angus King, I-Maine, Sen. Jacky Rosen, D-Nev., and Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H. AP Photo A Quiet Meeting, a Major Shift

According to the Wall Street Journal, two nights before Halloween, with federal workers missing paychecks and food-assistance programs running dry, Sens. Angus King of Maine, Jeanne Shaheen and Maggie Hassan of New Hampshire - each a former governor, slipped into Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s office after the chamber had adjourned. Joining Thune were Republican Sens. John Hoeven of North Dakota, also a former governor and veteran appropriator, and Susan Collins of Maine, along with Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama.

The group had grown impatient. Nearly a month into the shutdown, they saw little sign that President Trump or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer would break the stalemate. “It was a group of people trying to solve a problem,” Mr. King said.

When asked by MSNBC why he caved, King said that trying to "stand up to Donald Trump" simply didn't work...

Sen Angus King explains that the Democrat shutdown strategy of “standing up to Donald Trump” didn’t work.

This is sure to play well with the enraged base. pic.twitter.com/thSes5tE8U

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) November 10, 2025

Schumer was informed of the dialogues, lawmakers said, but declined to participate. The Democratic leader believed time was on his side: that Trump would eventually feel compelled to negotiate and Democrats could secure a more favorable outcome - including an extension of expiring Affordable Care Act subsidies that had become the central Democratic demand.

The centrists, however, saw a riskier path. And with little progress from the White House, they proceeded.

A Deal That Divides

The negotiations produced a bipartisan agreement to reopen most of the government through Jan. 30 and fully fund several key programs, including food assistance, for a year. Thune pledged a December vote on extending the ACA subsidies, though he would promise no outcome.

To the centrists, the commitment - combined with the January funding deadline, which gives Democrats an opportunity to force another showdown - was enough. “We sat across from him, we looked him eye to eye,” Ms. Shaheen said, describing her trust in Thune’s assurances.

For many Democrats, it was not. Progressives and party activists erupted in anger, accusing the centrists of caving with little to show for it. Schumer, who voted against the measure, faced criticism from both sides: progressives for failing to keep the caucus unified, and centrists for resisting what many viewed as the only viable off-ramp.

Schumer’s allies counter that he held his caucus together longer than Republicans expected and that Democrats had successfully elevated healthcare costs as the defining issue heading into the midterms.

Internal Pressure Mounts

Centrists briefed Schumer regularly and agreed to his requests to delay any commitments until after Nov. 1, the start of Obamacare open enrollment, and then until after the Nov. 4 election. But as new Democratic electoral victories rolled in, many senators still preferred to hold firm.

That position became harder to justify as the shutdown’s effects escalated. Flight delays worsened. Federal workers missed multiple paychecks. Food-assistance and heating-aid benefits dwindled.

By Sunday, eight Democrats had peeled off, concluding that Trump would not enter negotiations anytime soon. “We were harming a lot of people in the service of a strategy that wasn’t working,” King said.

A Last-Minute Push

Schumer made his final bid on Friday: reopen the government in exchange for a one-year extension of the ACA subsidies. Republicans swiftly rejected it. Over the weekend, centrists renewed their push, bolstered by growing Democratic defections.

On Sunday, Schumer said he could not support a deal “that fails to address the healthcare crisis.” But the votes were slipping away. Republicans needed the support of Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia to secure the necessary 60 votes. Britt, alongside GOP leadership and White House officials, worked with Kaine to add provisions reversing shutdown-driven federal layoffs and prohibiting new ones through January.

Kaine agreed. Late Sunday, the Senate advanced the measure 60–40, with no votes to spare.

Political Fallout

For Schumer, the episode marks another intraparty challenge. In March, he was criticized for voting with Republicans to avert a shutdown; now he is under fire for failing to maintain one. Still, Democrats credit him with elevating healthcare as a defining issue for the coming midterms.

On Monday, he framed the outcome as a Republican miscalculation. “Republicans now own this healthcare crisis,” he said. “They knew it was coming. We wanted to fix it. Republicans said no.”

Whether voters will see it that way - or whether the schism between Democratic factions widens - remains an open question. What is clear is that, in the end, it was the quiet work of centrists—not high-level brinkmanship—that forced the government back open.

On Tuesday Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA) appeared on Fox News to tell the world that "no one really knows" who's in charge of Democrats on Capitol Hill - as Schumer "never" discussed the shutdown with him. 

Fetterman addressed an Axios report that confirms the above: Schumer privately pressured a group of moderate Democrats in mid-October to keep the government closed until Obamacare open enrollment on Nov. 1. 

When asked by co-host Lawrence Jones "Who is running the show now in the Democratic Party, in the Senate, in the House?” Fetterman replied: "No one really knows."

"It’s always a hard yes to keep our government open," Fetterman explained. "I mean, that’s my principle, because it’s wrong to shut our government down. And now we knew that we would put [at risk] those 42 million Americans for SNAP and paying our military and, you know, the Capitol Police. I mean, people have went five weeks without being paid. I mean, that’s a violation of my core values. And I think it’s [a violation of] our party’s [values] as well."

Schumer who? (h/t Capital.news)

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:25

White House Says Trump Committed To $2,000 Tariff Dividend Payments For Many Americans

Authored by Kimberley Hayek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump remains committed to paying $2,000 to many Americans from funds from tariff revenues, the White House said on Nov. 12, adding that officials are exploring how to make the president’s proposal happen.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that Trump’s team is mulling implementation options for the dividend, which the president first mentioned over the weekend.

In a Nov. 9 post on Truth Social, Trump celebrated the tariffs, highlighting the funds they are bringing into the government.

He suggested using part of these funds to send a dividend of at least $2,000 to Americans, excluding those in high-income brackets, while also utilizing revenues to reduce the nation’s $37 trillion debt.

“We are taking in Trillions of Dollars and will soon begin paying down our ENORMOUS DEBT, $37 Trillion,” Trump wrote on social media.

“Record Investment in the USA, plants and factories going up all over the place. A dividend of at least $2000 a person (not including high income people!) will be paid to everyone.”

The president has also called critics of his tariff policies “fools.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments on the administration’s use of tariffs under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act and is set to rule on the case in the coming weeks or months. Trump has said he is confident in his administration’s arguments and is hopeful a decision will be made in his favor.

“I can’t imagine that anybody would do that kind of devastation to our country,” he said last week.

Trump has said the case is one of the most important in the nation’s history, highlighting that the tariffs are a “defensive mechanism for our country, as national security for our country.”

A 100 percent tariff on China led to a “wonderful deal for everybody, our farmers, as you know, with soybeans at levels that nobody’s ever seen before,” Trump told reporters last week.

“If we didn’t have the tariffs, we wouldn’t have been able to do that,” he said.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who attended the Supreme Court arguments regarding tariffs, said in recent statements that the dividend could be in the form of tax cuts rather than direct payments and limited to families making less than $100,000 annually.

“I haven’t spoken to the president about this yet, but ... the $2,000 dividend could come in lots of forms, in lots of ways,” Bessent told ABC News on Nov. 9.

“It could be just the tax decreases that we are seeing on the president’s agenda. You know, no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, no tax on Social Security,” Bessent also said, noting that those items are “substantial deductions” that are presently “being financed in the tax bill.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 09:05

Coinbase Abandoning $2 Billion Deal For Stablecoin Company BVNK

Coinbase Global has scrapped plans to acquire BVNK, a London-based stablecoin infrastructure startup, ending what would have been a roughly $2 billion deal — and one of the largest stablecoin-focused acquisitions to date, according to Yahoo Finance.

“We’re continuously seeking opportunities to expand on our mission and product offerings,” a Coinbase spokesperson said. “After discussing a potential acquisition of BVNK, both parties mutually agreed to not move forward.”

Yahoo writes that talks had reached late stages, with the firms entering exclusivity in October that prevented BVNK from seeking other buyers. The transaction had been expected to close later this year or early next, but it was not immediately clear why it fell apart.

BVNK provides stablecoin payment and settlement tools used for cross-border transfers — an increasingly competitive area for crypto exchanges and payment processors. For comparison, Stripe paid about $1.1 billion for stablecoin startup Bridge earlier this year; Coinbase’s offer would have nearly doubled that.

Coinbase Ventures is already an investor in BVNK, alongside Haun Ventures, Tiger Global, and the venture arms of Visa and Citi. BVNK last raised $50 million in December at a valuation of roughly $750 million.

The decision removes a near-term uncertainty for Coinbase, which remains a central player in the booming stablecoin market. BVNK, meanwhile, is expected to attract new suitors, with Fortune previously reporting that Mastercard had also shown interest.

Under the Trump administration, stablecoins have become a central pillar of U.S. digital asset strategy. The White House has framed them as tools to strengthen dollar dominance and modernize global payments, reversing the more cautious approach of the previous administration. Senior officials have argued that regulated, dollar-backed tokens could extend U.S. financial influence abroad while boosting innovation and private-sector leadership at home.

Recent policy moves have aimed to build a clear legal framework for stablecoin issuance and reserves, bringing the sector closer to mainstream finance. Supporters within the administration view stablecoins as critical infrastructure for faster, cheaper cross-border payments and as a foundation for U.S.-led digital financial systems. The shift has also fueled competition among exchanges, payment networks, and banks to capture the next wave of growth in dollar-linked tokens.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 06:55

How Far Will Ukraine's Corruption Scandal Go?

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

A major scandal is rocking Ukraine after its National Anti-Corruption Bureau, which Zelensky unsuccessfully tried to subordinate over the summer, charged several important figures in connection with its investigation into a $100 million energy graft scandal. This includes Timur Mindich, Zelensky’s longtime business partner, who fled abroad as the authorities were closing after being tipp`ed off about his imminent arrest. He’s alleged to have also influenced the former Energy and Defense Ministers.

Speculation is now swirling that Zelensky himself either profited from this corruption or at the very least was aware of it but did nothing since it involved his close friend. This has in turn led to some wondering whether the US might demand that Zelensky step down or if it’ll work towards replacing him through other means. Tacit support for parliamentary efforts to remove him or various coup scenarios, such as a military one or a Color Revolution, are some of the possibilities being discussed on social media.

On the topic of parliament, former President Pyotr Poroshenko’s European Solidarity party already called for a new cabinet in an attempt to preempt the potential curtailment of European aid on this pretext. He’s also one of Zelensky’s fiercest rivals and could hypothetically replace him since he has experience running the country. That being said, regime change in Ukraine is extremely unlikely without the SBU’s backing, which has ruthlessly suppressed most expressions of political dissent over the past 3.5 years.

They have practically unlimited power under Zelensky too so there’s no reason for them to oust him. The US has also shown no interest in replacing him either, which would require some coordination with the SBU even if only demanding that they not interfere with the operation, despite a stream of reports from Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service over the years alleging that they’re actively preparing to do so. The only way that this will happen is if Trump approves, but he’s on excellent terms with Zelensky nowadays.

A large-scale Russian breakthrough along the front might make him reconsider if Zelensky defies whatever Trump demands of him in that event, such as immediate concessions of some sort aimed at stopping the advance and averting Ukraine’s full-blown collapse, but that hasn’t yet happened. It can’t be ruled out after Russia encircled Ukraine troops in three key areas, however, but Zelensky might have the political acumen to do whatever is then demanded of him in order to avoid enraging Trump.

After all, he’s certainly aware that this high-profile corruption scandal could be leveraged by the US for regime change purposes if it wants to, so he’s expected to be on his “best behavior” for the time being. This doesn’t mean that he’ll stop trying to manipulate Trump, such as what his government and their British co-patrons sought to do through the latest false flag provocation that Russia’s Federal Security Service just foiled, just that defying him isn’t likely since it could end with Zelensky’s removal.

With this insight in mind, Ukraine’s corruption will probably only go as far as a cabinet reshuffle since the SBU has no reason to support regime change against Zelensky (including by passively letting others carry it out instead of thwarting their attempt), nor does Trump (at least for now).

It still discredits him and his government even more than they already are, and the Europeans might curtail some funding on this pretext, but expectations that something significant might follow appear to just be wishful thinking.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 06:30

A Tale Of Two Consumer Worlds - Captured In A Single Chart

Our extensive reporting across household income tiers reveals a widening divide across the economy, increasingly bifurcated into two separate worlds. 

At the top, affluent households are reaping the windfall of wealth generated by soaring AI-linked stocks. Meanwhile, middle- and lower-income consumers remain squeezed by persistent inflation, a softening labor market, and depleted savings.

UBS analysts, led by Jonathan Pingle, describe President Trump's economy as "a big bet on AI and upper-income households." So far, expansion is very narrow, with equity market wealth propping up upper-income households, while middle- and lower-income cohorts, who generally don't own stocks, are facing growing hardships. 

Pingle and the analysts warned, "If there is an equity bubble, and it bursts, for the real economy, look out below." 

This tale of two consumer worlds is brilliantly illustrated in Federal Reserve credit card delinquency data, which shows financial stress for lower-income households and even the U.S. average now topping Great Financial Crisis levels. Yet among the wealthiest households, those same signs of strain have yet to materialize.

However, there is good news from the analysts: "Our base case is that an equity market drawdown is avoided. Households suffer for the next two quarters." 

Pingle expects a $55 billion boost to disposable income in 2Q 2026 from retroactive tax relief in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). He said these "bumper refunds" should temporarily revive household spending in mid-2026, which is just in time for the midterm election cycle. 

The takeaway is that consumers are living in entirely different economic environments depending on their income tier. Lower-income households will receive temporary relief from the OBBBA tax cuts early in 2026, while the administration has effectively placed a massive bet on AI to sustain broader economic growth, which should ramp up in 2H 2026.

Incoming economic tailwinds:

• UBS Identifies Start Of Trump-Era Construction Boom In AI, Grid; Goldman Sees Upside In Used Machinery Prices

• Leading Construction Indicator Signals Data Center Buildout Tsunami Nears

We suspect the Trump administration will need to take more decisive action to strengthen the financial footing of lower-income households, or risk seeing some of these voters drift toward Marxist-aligned Democrats promising "free stuff" in exchange for votes in 2026.

How Trump and Bessent plan to deliver that relief remains unclear. There's been speculation about possible "tariff stimulus" checks, Trump's recent pledge to tackle soaring food prices, and renewed vows to overhaul the disastrous Affordable Care Act, which has become anything but affordable as premiums keep rising.

ZeroHedge Pro subscribers can read the full note in the usual spot. It's packed with more in-depth consumer data, detailed breakdowns, and charts that add more color about the consumer health.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 05:45

Colombia Joins Britain In Suspending Intel-Sharing With US

Following the UK announcement it would not cooperate with the US military's 'illegal' actions targeting alleged drug boats off Venezuela, Colombian President Gustavo Petro is the latest to announced the suspension of intelligence sharing with the United States.

This development is less of a surprise, however, given Colombia's relations with Washington have been severely strained since nearly the start of the Pentagon's Caribbean adventurism which began in September.

via CBS

Petro made the announcement on X on Tuesday, vowing that intel-sharing would be blocked so long as these US operations continue.

"The fight against drugs must be subordinated to the human rights of the Caribbean people," Petro wrote, also following UN officials blasting the actions as tantamount to extrajudicial killings.

He confirmed the immediate end of "communications and other agreements with U.S. security agencies" - a relationship which has long focused on the 'war on drugs' in Latin America as well as counterterrorism. 

Already, amid a public back-and-forth spat, the Trump administration imposed sanctions on Petro, his family, and multiple cabinet members.

Like with Maduro in Caracas, the White House has accused Petro, his family and close officials of having ties to drug cartels - something which Bogota has vehemently denied.

The NY Times has noted that a rise in illegal drugs out of the country has been a trend which began before Petro took office, though the cocaine trade has continued to worsen under his leadership.

"The cultivation of coca, the base product in cocaine, has soared since Mr. Petro took office in 2022. It also soared under his predecessor, Iván Duque, a conservative and close ally of Washington Republicans," the publication writes. The NY Times reviews further:

Mr. Petro, a leftist, is one of few leaders in Latin America who have been vocal in their criticism of Mr. Trump’s decision to bomb boats carrying people his administration says are drug traffickers. The bombings have killed dozens of people, and Mr. Petro has said that Colombians have been among them and has accused the United States of committing murder.

Mr. Trump has responded by calling Mr. Petro “an illegal drug leader” and said that he would cut off aid to Colombia. About $377 million was designated to Colombia in the 2024 fiscal year, according to the Congressional Research Service. About a third of that money is meant for law enforcement and narcotics control.

But when it comes to the many decades-long so-called 'war on drugs' - there's plenty of blame to go around. The CIA has at times even participated in it at times, to raise funds for the Nicaragua Contras in the 1980s, for example.

On Tuesday Britain cited that it does not want to be complicit in ongoing US military strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats, and this could lead to more US allies doing the same as the Pentagon build-up off Venezuela continues.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/13/2025 - 04:15

Peter Schiff: Printing Money Is Not the Cure for Cononavirus



In his most recent podcast, Peter Schiff talked about coronavirus and the impact that it is having on the markets. Earlier this month, Peter said he thought the virus was just an excuse for stock market woes. At the time he believed the market was poised to fall anyway. But as it turns out, coronavirus has actually helped the US stock market because it has led central banks to pump even more liquidity into the world financial system. All this means more liquidity — central banks easing. In fact, that is exactly what has already happened, except the new easing is taking place, for now, outside the United States, particularly in China.” Although the new money is primarily being created in China, it is flowing into dollars — the dollar index is up — and into US stocks. Last week, US stock markets once again made all-time record highs. In fact, I think but for the coronavirus, the US stock market would still be selling off. But because of the central bank stimulus that has been the result of fears over the coronavirus, that actually benefitted not only the US dollar, but the US stock market.” In the midst of all this, Peter raises a really good question. The primary economic concern is that coronavirus will slow down output and ultimately stunt economic growth. Practically speaking, the world would produce less stuff. If the virus continues to spread, there would be fewer goods and services produced in a market that is hunkered down. Why would the Federal Reserve respond, or why would any central bank respond to that by printing money? How does printing more money solve that problem? It doesn’t. In fact, it actually exacerbates it. But you know, everybody looks at central bankers as if they’ve got the solution to every problem. They don’t. They don’t have the magic wand. They just have a printing press. And all that creates is inflation.” Sometimes the illusion inflation creates can look like a magic wand. Printing money can paper over problems. But none of this is going to fundamentally fix the economy. In fact, if central bankers were really going to do the right thing, the appropriate response would be to drain liquidity from the markets, not supply even more.” Peter explained how the Fed was originally intended to create an “elastic” money supply that would expand or contract along with economic output. Today, the money supply only goes in one direction — that’s up. The economy is strong, print money. The economy is weak, print even more money.” Of course, the asset that’s doing the best right now is gold. The yellow metal pushed above $1,600 yesterday. Gold is up 5.5% on the year in dollar terms and has set record highs in other currencies. Because gold is rising even in an environment where the dollar is strengthening against other fiat currencies, that shows you that there is an underlying weakness in the dollar that is right now not being reflected in the Forex markets, but is being reflected in the gold markets. Because after all, why are people buying gold more aggressively than they’re buying dollars or more aggressively than they’re buying US Treasuries? Because they know that things are not as good for the dollar or the US economy as everybody likes to believe. So, more people are seeking out refuge in a better safe-haven and that is gold.” Peter also talked about the debate between Trump and Obama over who gets credit for the booming economy – which of course, is not booming.

We are living in crazy times. I have a hard time believing that most of the general public is not awake, but in reality, they are. We've never seen anything like this; I mean not even under Obama during the worst part of the Great Recession." Now the Fed is desperately trying to keep interest rates from rising. The problem is that it's a much bigger debt bubble this time around , and the Fed is going to have to blow a lot more air into it to keep it inflated. The difference is this time it's not going to work." It looks like the Fed did another $104.15 billion of Not Q.E. in a single day. The Fed claims it's only temporary. But that is precisely what Bernanke claimed when the Fed started QE1. Milton Freedman once said, "Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program." The same applies to Q.E., or whatever the Fed wants to pretend it's doing. Except this is not QE4, according to Powell. Right. Pumping so much money out, and they are accusing China of currency manipulation ? Wow! Seriously! Amazing! Dump the U.S. dollar while you still have a chance. Welcome to The Atlantis Report. And it is even worse than that, In addition to the $104.15 billion of "Not Q.E." this past Thursday; the FED added another $56.65 billion in liquidity to financial markets the next day on Friday. That's $160.8 billion in two days!!!! in just 48 hours. That is more than 2 TIMES the highest amount the FED has ever injected on a monthly basis under a Q.E. program (which was $80 billion per month) Since this isn't QE....it will be really scary on what they are going to call Q.E. Will it twice, three times, four times, five times what this injection per month ! It is going to be explosive since it takes about 60 to 90 days for prices to react to this, January should see significant inflation as prices soak up the excess liquidity. The question is, where will the inflation occur first . The spike in the repo rate might have a technical explanation: a misjudgment was made in the Fed's money market operations. Even so, two conclusions can be drawn: managing the money markets is becoming harder, and from now on, banks will be studying each other's creditworthiness to a greater degree than before. Those people, who struggle with the minutiae of money markets, and that includes most professionals, should focus on the causes and not the symptoms. Financial markets have recovered from each downturn since 1980 because interest rates have been cut to new lows. Post-2008, they were cut to near zero or below zero in all major economies. In response to a new financial crisis, they cannot go any lower. Central banks will look for new ways to replicate or broaden Q.E. (At some point, governments will simply see repression as an easier option). Then there is the problem of 'risk-free' assets becoming risky assets. Financial markets assume that the probability of major governments such as the U.S. or U.K. defaulting is zero. These governments are entering the next downturn with debt roughly twice the levels proportionate to GDP that was seen in 2008. The belief that the policy worked was completely predicated on the fact that it was temporary and that it was reversible, that the Fed was going to be able to normalize interest rates and shrink its balance sheet back down to pre-crisis levels. Well, when the balance sheet is five-trillion, six-trillion, seven-trillion when we're back at zero, when we're back in a recession, nobody is going to believe it is temporary. Nobody is going to believe that the Fed has this under control, that they can reverse this policy. And the dollar is going to crash. And when the dollar crashes, it's going to take the bond market with it, and we're going to have stagflation. We're going to have a deep recession with rising interest rates, and this whole thing is going to come imploding down. everything is temporary with the fed including remaining off the gold standard temporary in the Fed's eyes could mean at least 50 years This liquidity problem is a signal that trading desks are loaded up on inventory and can't get rid of it. Repo is done out of a need for cash. If you own all of your securities (i.e., a long-only, no leverage mutual fund) you have no need to "repo" your securities - you're earning interest every night so why would you want to 'repo' your securities where you are paying interest for that overnight loan (securities lending is another animal). So, it is those that 'lever-up' and need the cash for settlement purposes on securities they've bought with borrowed money that needs to utilize the repo desk. With this in mind, as we continue to see this need to obtain cash (again, needed to settle other securities purchases), it shows these firms don't have the capital to add more inventory to, what appears to be, a bloated inventory. Now comes the fun part: the Treasury is about to auction 3's, 10's, and 30-year bonds. If I am correct (again, I could be wrong), the Fed realizes securities firms don't have the shelf space to take down a good portion of these auctions. If there isn't enough retail/institutional demand, it will lead to not only a crappy sale but major concerns to the street that there is now no backstop, at all, to any sell-off. At which point, everyone will want to be the first one through the door and sell immediately, but to whom? If there isn't enough liquidity in the repo market to finance their positions, the firms would be unable to increase their inventory. We all saw repo shut down on the 2008 crisis. Wall St runs on money. . OVERNIGHT money. They lever up to inventory securities for trading. If they can't get overnight money, they can't purchase securities. And if they can't unload what they have, it means the buy-side isn't taking on more either. Accounts settle overnight. This includes things like payrolls and bill pay settlements. If a bank doesn't have enough cash to payout what its customers need to pay out, it borrows. At least one and probably more than one banks are insolvent. That's what's going on. First, it can't be one or two banks that are short. They'd simply call around until they found someone to lend. But they did that, and even at markedly elevated rates, still, NO ONE would lend them the money. That tells me that it's not a problem of a couple of borrowers, it's a problem of no lenders. And that means that there's no bank in the world left with any real liquidity. They are ALL maxed out. But as bad as that is, and that alone could be catastrophic, what it really signals is even worse. The lending rates are just the flip side of the coin of the value of the assets lent against. If the rates go up, the value goes down. And with rates spiking to 10%, how far does the value fall? Enormously! And if banks had to actually mark down the value of the assets to reflect 10% interest rates, then my god, every bank in the world is insolvent overnight. Everyone's capital ratios are in the toilet, and they'd have to liquidate. We're talking about the simultaneous insolvency of every bank on the planet. Bank runs. No money in ATMs, Branches closed. Safe deposit boxes confiscated. The whole nine yards, It's actually here. The scenario has tended to guide toward for years and years is actually happening RIGHT NOW! And people are still trying to say it's under control. Every bank in the world is currently insolvent. The only thing keeping it going is printing billions of dollars every day. Financial Armageddon isn't some far off future risk. It's here. Prepare accordingly. This fiat system has reached the end of the line, and it's not correct that fiat currencies fail by design. The problem is corruption and manipulation. It is corruption and cheating that erodes trust and faith until the entire system becomes a gigantic fraud. Banks and governments everywhere ARE the problem and simply have to be removed. They have lost all trust and respect, and all they have left is war and mayhem. As long as we continue to have a majority of braindead asleep imbeciles following orders from these psychopaths, nothing will change. Fiat currency is not just thievery. Fiat currency is SLAVERY. Ultimately the most harmful effect of using debt of undefined value as money (i.e., fiat currencies) is the de facto legalization of a caste system based on voluntary slavery. The bankers have a charter, or the legal *right*, to create money out of nothing. You, you don't. Therefore you and the bankers do not have the same standing before the law. The law of the land says that you will go to jail if you do the same thing (creating money out of thin air) that the banker does in full legality. You and the banker are not equal before the law. ALL the countries of the world; Islamic or secular, Jewish or Arab, democracy or dictatorship; all of them place the bankers ABOVE you. And all of you accept that only whining about fiat money going down in exchange value over time (price inflation which is not the same as monetary inflation). Actually, price inflation itself is mainly due to the greed and stupidity of the bankers who could keep fiat money's exchange value reasonably stable, only if they wanted to. Witness the crash of silver and gold prices which the bankers of the world; Russian, American, Chinese, Jewish, Indian, Arab, all of them collaborated to engineer through the suppression and stagnation of precious metals' prices to levels around the metals' production costs, or what it costs to dig gold and silver out of the ground. The bankers of the world could also collaborate to keep nominal prices steady (as they do in the case of the suppression of precious metals prices). After all, the ability to create fiat money and force its usage is a far more excellent source of power and wealth than that which is afforded simply by stealing it through inflation. The bankers' greed and stupidity blind them to this fact. They want it all, and they want it now. In conclusion, The bankers can create money out of nothing and buy your goods and services with this worthless fiat money, effectively for free. You, you can't. You, you have to lead miserable existences for the most of you and WORK in order to obtain that effectively nonexistent, worthless credit money (whose purchasing/exchange value is not even DEFINED thus rendering all contracts based on the null and void!) that the banker effortlessly creates out of thin air with a few strokes of the computer keyboard, and which he doesn't even bother to print on paper anymore, electing to keep it in its pure quantum uncertain form instead, as electrons whizzing about inside computer chips which will become mute and turn silent refusing to tell you how many fiat dollars or euros there are in which account, in the absence of electricity. No electricity, no fiat, nor crypto money. It would appear that trust is deteriorating as it did when Lehman blew up . Something really big happened that set off this chain reaction in the repo markets. Whatever that something is, we aren't be informed. They're trying to cover it up, paper it over with conjured cash injections, play it cool in front of the cameras while sweating profusely under the 5 thousands dollar suits. I'm guessing that the final high-speed plunge into global economic collapse has begun. All we see here is the ripples and whitewater churning the surface, but beneath the surface, there is an enormous beast thrashing desperately in its death throws. Now is probably the time to start tying up loose ends with the long-running prep projects, just saying. In other words, prepare accordingly, and Get your money out of the banks. I don't care if you don't believe me about Bitcoin. Get your money out of the banks. Don't keep any more money in a bank than you need to pay your bills and can afford to lose.











The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more













The Financial Armageddon Economic Collapse Blog tracks trends and forecasts , futurists , visionaries , free investigative journalists , researchers , Whistelblowers , truthers and many more

The FBI released a summary of its file from the Hillary Clinton email investigation on Friday, showing details of Clinton's explanation of her use of a private email server to handle classified communications. The release comes nearly two months after FBI Director James Comey announced that although Clinton's handling of classified information was "extremely careless," it did not rise to the level of a prosecutable offense. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced the next day that she would not pursue charges in the matter. "We are making these materials available to the public in the interest of transparency and in response to numerous Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests," the FBI noted in a statement sent to reporters with links to the documents. The documents include notes from Clinton's July 2 interview with agents, as well as a "factual summary of the FBI's investigation into this matter," according to the FBI release. Throughout her interview with agents, Clinton repeatedly said she relied on the career professionals she worked with to handle classified information correctly. The agents asked about a series of specific emails, and in each case Clinton said she wasn't worried about the particular material being discussed on a nonclassified channel.