Traditional TV Suffers Summer Of Hell As Advertisers Scramble 

Labor Day weekend is behind us. Some households have returned from the beach, the mountains, and lake towns, and schools are now back in session. With summer officially winding down and everyday life returning, traditional television faces a critical test this fall: reversing the massive ratings collapse it suffered over the summer. 

Building on our previous reporting via two Goldman notes (here & here) and one UBS note (here), the consumer shift away from traditional cable and satellite TV toward streaming platforms has accelerated.

For the first time in 15 years, UBS analyst John Hodulik confirmed in early July that streaming officially surpassed traditional TV in terms of consumption. 

Next, we noticed Goldman's Nielsen tracker, which provided further evidence that cord-cutting accelerated at the end of summer and continued through August. 

The latest Nielsen tracker data was published by a team of Goldman analysts led by Michael Ng on Tuesday.

Data for the week ending August 31 was yet again bleak:

We update our summary of total day cable ratings (L3, target demos) to capture network viewership performance across the cable universe. In 3Q25-to-date (through week ending August 31) total day ratings declined at DIS (-14%), PSKY (-23%), FOX (-19%), WBD (-26%), AMCX (-35%), and CMCSA (-48%). 

The full story doesn't end here. Pro Subs can see the entire report (here). 

For advertisers, traditional TV ratings collapse is another blow: the viewership base is dwindling, leading some marketers to scramble for new, innovative platforms to reach consumers.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 16:40

J.Crew-Anon & The Mainstreaming Of Dissent

Authored by Cooper Davis via The Brownstone Institute,

During a recent family vacation over lobster, I watched my “vote blue no matter who” aunt, herself a paragon of New England liberal sensibilities from a leafy suburb outside Boston, argue with her Fox News–watching, burn-it-all-down brother about recent goings-on at HHS. “Just because Fauci lied about Covid,” she said, “doesn’t mean all science is fake; there’s something worth saving here.”

Meet J.Crew-Anon: affluent, educated, professional, skeptical but not nihilistic. They still read the Times and the Journal, but also subscribe to multiple Substacks and are daily imbibers of less “safe” publishers, like Brownstone.org. They triangulate. They parse information with friends and peers, seeing fact-checkers as either dangerous or useless or both. They are more interested in steelmanning the opposition than shouting it down. Having left one echo chamber—the legacy media consensus—they are wary of entering a new one. They know the dangers of epistemic bubbles, and they prize conversations that test their skepticism rather than simply confirm it. They can be angry, but not anarchic. They have mortgages, careers, kids, PTA meetings—and a deep distrust of institutions that used to feel unshakable.

If this archetype sounds unfamiliar, it may be because your friends and colleagues aren’t comfortable enough yet to reveal the depth of their own skepticism. J.Crew-Anon thrives quietly, often hidden in plain sight, surfacing only when the cost of dissent has fallen low enough to make honesty safe.

What J.Crew-Anon represents isn’t entirely new. Up until the early 2000s, the United States had a vibrant anticorporate, antiauthoritarian left that acted as a watchdog against pharmaceutical, corporate, and governmental overreach. Ralph Nader’s consumer rights campaigns, feminist health collectives publishing Our Bodies, Ourselves, and ACT UP confronting the FDA and NIH during the AIDS crisis all carried the same distrust of official reassurances, and the same heated insistence that ordinary people could see through corporate spin.

That movement didn’t disappear, but it was blunted by the professionalization of NGOs, captured by the Democratic Party’s neoliberal consensus, and gradually domesticated into policy shops. But its sensibility never dissipated. What we are seeing now is its reemergence in unexpected form. J.Crew-Anon revives that watchdog instinct, this time distributed across suburbia, podcasts, Substack feeds, and social networks, rather than marches and union halls.

As of 2025, what was previously called the mainstream media is no longer mainstream. A growing swath of ordinary folks—educated, suburban, professional—have quietly lost confidence in legacy information outlets, and the institutions and industries they have long served.

Speaking as executive director of Inner Compass Initiative, I can say that the movement of which we are a part is made up of completely normal, mostly non-ideological people, looking critically at the mental health system and working towards its reform, along with building parallel frameworks of succor and support. Many of us have learned the hard way that the experts don’t always know everything, but there’s not a single person among our ranks who feels all credentialed expertise is worthless, or that non-experts are right by default.

Among us are doctors, lawyers, town planners, small business owners, pilots, CEOs and teachers. We are indistinguishable from other broad demographics, such as “people who prefer cats more than dogs” or “people who like spicy food.” But now that broad outlook—distrust in legacy authority of all sorts—is spreading.

J.Crew-Anon exists not just because so many narratives once dismissed as “conspiracies” have turned out to be true. The second-order effect is that denial or minimization of these “inconvenient truths” is no longer a prerequisite for being invited to the neighborhood BBQ. Over the last 12–18 months, the social cost for defecting from the world depicted by legacy media and adjudicated by Harvard and Yale has been reduced to less than nothing across much of the middle and upper classes.

I don’t need to list off the various egregious counterfactuals here, but suffice it to say that the “wrong opinion” is no longer the same thing as the “actually true opinion,” and examples abound. The Twitter Files revealed government–tech collusion. Monsanto’s glyphosate cover-ups, PFAS contamination. Social media’s own architects admitting their platforms cause immense harm. Even opposition to Covid school closures, once derided, is now treated as laudable in the New York Times itself.

Closer to my own vantage point, the issue of psychiatric drug withdrawal offers an instructive vignette: For decades, patients who struggled to come off antidepressants were told withdrawal didn’t exist. Over the last couple years, we’ve seen a growing consensus across mainstream media that SSRI withdrawal not only exists, but might actually contribute to climbing rates of diagnosis (due to withdrawal symptoms being mistaken for “relapse” of depression, anxiety, or whatever the drug was originally prescribed for).

In response to this shift in public sensibility, industry pushed out a sham review in the form of Kalfas et al.’s JAMA Psychiatry paper, dismissing the problem as minor. But only a month prior, Awais Aftab, in the pages of the New York Times itself, explicitly warned against this exact folly by pointing out the obvious: if the field refuses to acknowledge what patients have come to experience for themselves, they should not then be surprised that those same people decide, occasionally with gusto, that RFK, Jr. does a better job of looking after their health and safety than the APA does. Can you blame them?

Psychiatric withdrawal is just one instance of a much older pattern. In the era of Ralph Nader’s consumer crusades or ACT UP’s battles with the FDA, ordinary citizens forced institutions to acknowledge what they had long denied. The difference now is scale. Where once denial and reversal were confined to niche activist domains, today the cycle—grassroots exposure, institutional minimization, reluctant admission—runs through psychiatry, nutrition science, pandemic response, and even foreign policy. That expansion of scope is what makes the current moment qualitatively different.

This is the environment that gave rise to the MAHA movement. It is not a top-down, anti-science reactionary crusade, as critics caricature it, but a crowdsourced, populist response to scientific and medical authority overextending itself to the point of credibility collapse.

Every issue in the coalition—psychiatric drug harm (including but not limited to withdrawal), environmental toxins, nutrition guidelines, food safety, digital addiction—has its own movement: its own subculture, heroes, villains, court cases, history. In the past, grassroots movements like these would coalesce quietly, then events in the news would eventually force a broader acknowledgement of their existence. Once they made some noise, industry took notice, and used media, professional guilds, and lobbying to marginalize them. Once securely placed in the “kooky corner” with the other “anti-” types, they often faded as leaders aged out, factions turned insular, and institutions co-opted whatever inoffensive, non-threatening energy and ideas they possessed.

The internet has altered that cycle: forums, Subreddits, Facebook groups—archives of lived experience, link dumps and independent research that do not vanish, but accumulate, compound, and refine. The next generation inherits a body of knowledge instead of starting from scratch. Whether that makes the emergent movements and political coalitions more durable remains to be seen. But it does make them more obvious.

Politics, at its core, is transactional: find a constituency, hear its grievances, and represent it in exchange for support. Kennedy’s only innovation was listening to the growing ranks of people convinced that the healthcare system itself is inflicting needless harm. Had he not done so, someone else would have. That inevitability—not his persona—made him a vehicle for the energy of J.Crew-Anon.

From this perspective, MAHA might be best understood as a window into a vast, loosely collected ecosystem of people and organizations that are, at this moment, attempting to march in lockstep for shared goals: informed consent, regulatory capture, industry overreach, etc. Like any insurgent movement, it already carries barnacles: opportunists, cranks, hangers-on. Whether it can scrape them off is an open question. If not, more established and disciplined institutions will siphon off bits and pieces on the promise of more effective representation. Either way, the underlying constituency is real, and it isn’t going away, and those who don’t understand what it is—or who it is—are already in danger of losing their own credibility.

For any such unfortunates reading this, a cheat sheet: J.Crew-Anon is not programmatically conservative, though they share suspicion of media and bureaucracy. They are not progressive, even though they live in liberal metros and heartily support diversity and pluralism. They are not centrist, if centrism means deferred trust. They are something else: a post-institutional middle.

They are educated, mid-career professionals—often suburban or urban upper-middle class. They still work demanding jobs, raise kids, join HOAs, shop at Costco, play pickleball. But they no longer believe that institutions have credibility. Instead, they filter information through group chats, endless online sources, and their own judgment. They are pragmatic, not utopian. Skeptical, not anomistic. They respect individual autonomy. They know institutions lie—but they also know truth exists and is worth salvaging. That balance—conditional trust, selective belief—makes them powerful.

What’s striking is not that they believe wild things, but that they now take for granted knowledge once known only to obsessives: sugar myths, saturated fat controversy, the concerning pervasiveness of endocrine disruptors and PFAS and glyphosate, the revolving door between regulators and industry, the opioid crisis as a consequence of captured agencies, dopamine-driven design in social media, clinical trial corruption and conflicts, even the (potential) epidemic of psychiatric drug withdrawal.

Examples of this stripe of credible-but-not-credulous, people abound: NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya is perhaps the highest profile one; Jillian Michaels and Andrew Huberman on health; Nina Teicholz and Gary Taubes on nutrition and food; Marc Andreessen and David Sacks from the VC world; journalists like Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibbi, who shifted from prestige outlets to exposing collusion between government and media; Walter Kirn and David Samuels channel this sensibility into County Highway, which one might consider the flagship chronicle of this cultural shift.

Examples aside: these people manage to straddle mainstream consensus reality while also recognizing that much of it is an illusion. J.Crew-Anon is a new gestalt, not perfectly reflected in a single character. It is a new intellectual and political class that, unlike others, is prone to growth but unlikely to shrink. Once you’ve migrated to the side of skepticism, you tend not to regain your faith in institutions, and the J.Crew-Anon template is for people who don’t need to trust institutions in order to make use of them, or even care deeply about them.

But because of its preoccupations with superficial acronyms and characters, the establishment itself is still failing to understand what it is dealing with. The gleefulness with which they herald dysfunction among the high-profile expressions of these ideas is unchecked by any awareness that this is a bottom-up movement, largely fueled by fairly recent defectors from the political left. Instead, every sign of dissidence is rendered as some version of a pesky, top-down, “right-wing fascism” or MAGA.

Perhaps the mainstream press, the institutions, and the still-credulous among the populace are holding onto hope that this is a temporary spasm of weirdness that will fade away in the coming years. There does seem to remain a chortling conviction that “normal” will return to the land in time. But that will not happen. “Normal” hung on as long as it could in a post-internet era, and ultimately blew away after Covid pulled up the last few remaining stakes holding down the threadbare tent of 20th century consensus reality. 

The question is not whether J.Crew-Anon exists. It does. The question is who it will select as its champions, and to what end. Whether its ascendance will be enough to quell the growing rebellion from working-class ranks who are not nearly as polite, elitely educated, or establishment-adjacent as their J.Crew-Anon neighbors remains to be seen.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 16:20

DOJ Opens Grand Jury Criminal Investigation Fed Governor Lisa Cook Over Mortgage Fraud Allegations

The Department of Justice has opened a criminal investigation into Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook - and has issued multiple subpoenas as part of the inquiry into whether she committed mortgage fraud, according to the Wall Street Journal, citing 'officials familiar with the matter.'

(Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

The probe - for which a grand jury has been assembled, will begin by looking at Cook's properties in Ann Arbor, Michigan and Atlanta. It comes on the heels of two criminal investigations from Federal Housing Finance Agency director Bill Pulte, who has been dropping receipts for weeks with evidence that Cook committed fraud - including claiming two properties as her "primary residence" - as well as claiming that a rented out third property was her 'second home' - all things that would qualify her for better rates and tax treatment. 

Pulte accused Cook of misleading banks on multiple mortgage applications to receive favorable lending terms, such as lower interest rates, typically given to a buyer who intends to occupy the home they purchase. 

A judge is considering Cook’s request for an emergency order stopping her from being removed from the Fed board while the case proceeds. The Fed’s next meeting is set to begin Sept. 16. -WSJ

Last Thursday, Cook filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration after President Donald Trump fired her that Monday 'for cause.' Among the excuses contained in the lawsuit for alleged mortgage fraud was a possible clerical error. 

Except, Cook described herself in her 2023 nomination hearing as having "significant experience in banking and finance, as is evidenced by my service on the board of directors of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago and of a Community Development Financial Institution in Michigan, in addition to my employment at an investment bank and a large commercial bank." 

What's more, the Federal Reserve Act allows the president to fire Fed governors 'for cause' - which the Trump administration claims applies. In a Tuesday court filing, Cook's lawyers said she "did not ever commit mortgage fraud."

Pulte shot down any notion that the fed wasn't political in a Thursday appearance on CNBC, saying "I don't believe for the last 4 years that the Fed has been independent." 

.@pulte: "I don't believe for the last 4 years that the Fed has been independent...

You've got Lisa Cook who's being represented by Norm Eisen. Norm Eisen is the guy who tried to TAKE DOWN Trump, failed at it, but led the first impeachment... This is a raging Democrat." pic.twitter.com/7yZFoJlBeC

— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) September 4, 2025

According to the report, the DOJ investigation involves Ed Martin, a top DOJ official who AG Pam Bondi designated to investigate mortgage fraud among public officials.

 

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 16:10

The post Bill Pulte Needs to Come Clean appeared first on CEPR.

From the Las Vegas Visitor Authority: July 2025 Las Vegas Visitor Statistics

Slower tourism trends of recent months continued in July as the destination saw a ‐12% YoY decline in visitation, hosting approximately 3.1M visitors.

The convention segment saw a YoY increase of 10.7% for the month, reflecting in part a scheduling nuance of the World Market Center's summer show (38k attendees) which appeared in July's tally this year; last year the show straddled Jul and Aug and showed up in 2024's August tallies.

Hotel occupancy of 76.1% (down ‐7.6 pts) and ADR of $155 (‐3.4% YoY) translated to monthly RevPAR of $118 (‐12.1% YoY).
emphasis added

Click on graph for larger image.

The first graph shows visitor traffic for 2019 (Black), 2020 (dark blue), 2021 (light blue), 2022 (light orange), 2023 (orange), 2024 (dark orange) and 2025 (red).

Visitor traffic was down 12.0% compared to last July.  Visitor traffic was down 16.2% compared to June 2019.
Year-to-date (YTD) visitor traffic is down 8.8% compared to the same period in 2019.

The second graph shows convention traffic.
Convention traffic was up 10.7% compared to July 2024 and down 44.2% compared to July 2019.  
YTD convention traffic is down 13.2% compared to 2019.

Trump's Fed Pick Stephen Miran Commits To Central Bank Independence

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

Stephen Miran, President Donald Trump’s nominee to temporarily serve on the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, committed to preserving the central bank’s independence in testy exchanges with senators.

Trump announced his nomination of Miran, the current head of the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers, early last month to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler.

Appearing before the Senate Banking Committee for his confirmation hearing, Miran expressed the necessity for monetary policy independence as lawmakers centered their questions on the Federal Reserve’s autonomy.

“In my view, the most important job of the central bank is to prevent depressions and hyperinflations. Independence of monetary policy is a critical element for its success,” he said in his opening remarks on Sept. 4.

“I will act independently as the Federal Reserve always does,” Miran told senators, adding that he welcomes listening to a diverse array of opinions “to challenge my own views and interrogate them.”

Democratic senators, including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), were unconvinced, stating that Miran would serve as a proxy for the president and erode Fed independence.

Accentuating her point, Warren asked Miran whether he thought Trump had lost the 2020 presidential election and if he believed the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ July jobs numbers had been manipulated.

Miran replied that President Joe Biden “was certified by Congress” and that the federal agency has struggled with deteriorating data quality.

“Dr. Miran, you have made clear that you will do or say whatever Donald Trump wants you to do or say,” Warren, the top Democrat on the committee, said.

“That may work in a political position, but it takes an axe to Fed independence, and will make life far more expensive for Americans.”

Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) questioned whether administration officials, “formally or informally,” had asked Miran to vote to lower interest rates.

“No,” Miran answered.

Miran is likely to be confirmed as Republicans control the Senate Banking Committee and hold 53 seats in the upper chamber. All Senate GOP lawmakers voted to confirm Miran, who served in the president’s first term, to chair the president’s key economic advisory group.

Still, many of them encouraged Miran to stay committed to doing what he thinks is right rather than following the wishes of politicians.

“There’s nothing wrong with politicians in Washington offering their opinions. You can’t stop them,“ Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) told Miran.

”But we need a monetary plan that was put together by something other than vodka and darts, and that’s what we have the Federal Reserve for.”

His ascent to the Fed Board could happen before the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) meets on Sept. 16 and 17. Investors overwhelmingly anticipate that monetary policymakers will vote to lower interest rates by a quarter point for the first time since December. The institution has been on hold this year to determine the potential effects of Trump’s sweeping global tariff plans.

If confirmed, Miran would serve on the Fed Board only until Jan. 31, 2026. Trump could then renominate Miran to complete a full 14-year term or select another individual for the position.

Miran revealed that he would only be taking an unpaid leave of absence from the White House because his term would only last four months. He noted that he would resign if nominated for a longer term.

This sparked further scrutiny from Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), who called it “ridiculous.”

“You are going to be technically an employee of the president of the United States, but an independent member of the board of the Federal Reserve,” Reed said.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 15:20

This graph shows heavy truck sales since 1967 using data from the BEA. The dashed line is the August 2025 seasonally adjusted annual sales rate (SAAR) of 422 thousand.

Note: "Heavy trucks - trucks more than 14,000 pounds gross vehicle weight."

Click on graph for larger image.

Heavy truck sales were at 422 thousand SAAR in August, down from 442 thousand in July, and down 15.7% from 501 thousand SAAR in August 2024.
Year-to-date (NSA) sales are down 8.4% through August.
Usually, heavy truck sales decline sharply prior to a recession, and sales have been soft recently.  

House Approves Establishing New Committee To Investigate Jan. 6 Capitol Breach

Authored by Joseph Lord via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. House of Representatives on Sept. 3 approved the establishment of a new committee to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, breach of the U.S. Capitol.

In a 212–208 vote, the House approved a rule that wrapped in the new panel as well as a provision endorsing the House Oversight Committee’s investigation into deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

Included in the rules package was a resolution by Rep. Barry Loudermilk (R-Ga.) authorizing the creation of the panel, which will be chaired by Loudermilk. The new panel falls under the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee.

It’s the second panel approved by Congress to investigate the events on the day of and leading up to the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol breach, during which a crowd of President Donald Trump’s supporters attending the “Stop the Steal” rally entered the Capitol.

The incident delayed the vote to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election. Lawmakers reconvened to finish the proceedings after the crowd had been cleared from the building.

The vote fulfills a promise made by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) at the start of the 119th Congress to form a new subcommittee on the subject, as its Democrat-led predecessor had long faced allegations of bias and partisanship.

The resolution to authorize the new panel was introduced by Loudermilk—who was targeted for investigation by the previous Jan. 6 panel for a tour he gave of the Capitol complex in the days ahead of the Jan. 6 rally—a day before the House left for its August recess.

In a statement ahead of the recess, Johnson, who gave his backing to the bill, said, “House Republicans are proud of our work so far in exposing the false narratives peddled by the politically motivated January 6 Select Committee during the 117th Congress, but there is clearly more work to be done.”

Johnson said that the resolution would allow Congress to “continue our efforts to uncover the full truth that is owed to the American people.”

The first panel was approved by Democrats in 2021. Controversially, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not allow then-House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to select which Republicans would sit on the panel.

Instead, Pelosi chose two Republicans critical of Trump to sit on the panel: Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) was named ranking member, and Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) was also appointed to the GOP side.

The panel was highly critical of Trump, concluding in their final report that he was responsible for the events of the day and failed to take appropriate action to disperse the crowd after they entered the building.

Trump has maintained that he was not responsible. He and his allies have pointed to the administration’s offer to send National Guard to the Capitol ahead of the Jan. 6 rally. According to then-House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving, a request from the Capitol Police for National Guard support was denied because Pelosi “would never go for it.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 14:40

Despite Von Der Leyen Story Unraveling, Russia Accused Of Widespread GPS Jamming Over Baltic Sea

Swedish authorities on Thursday have alleged that Russia is behind a sharp rise in GPS interference over the Baltic Sea which has increasingly impacted aviation, creating a potentially dangerous situation for civilian travel in the region.

The Swedish Transport Agency announced a surge incidents involving disruptions to global navigation satellite systems (GNSS), such as GPS. It issued a figure of just 55 cases in 2023 to 733 so far this year.

"We’ve conducted long-term analyses and gathered extensive data. Our conclusion is that the interference originates from Russian territory," the agency’s head of aviation, Andreas Holmgren, was cited in AFP as saying.

SAS Scandinavian Airlines

"This poses a serious threat to civil aviation, especially considering the scale, duration, and nature of the interference," Holmgren added.

The Swedish agencies pointed to jamming and spoofing techniques - the latter which involves sending false location data. Media reports say the incidents were initially limited to the Scandinavian country's eastern airspace over international waters, but now the interference has become broader.

These new major allegations come after Russia has vehemently denied it engaged in GPS jamming of a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen as it prepared to land in Bulgaria on Sunday:

Bulgarian officials have denied claims they suspected Moscow of jamming the GPS of a plane carrying European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, days after the Commission cited Bulgarian authorities as suggesting the incident was "due to blatant interference from Russia."

The country’s Prime Minister Rosen Zhelyazkov told parliament on Thursday that von der Leyen's plane had not experienced "prolonged interference or jamming."

In a statement made later the same day, Zhelyazkov said that even though no jamming had been detected by "ground instruments," it didn't exclude the possibility of "onboard devices" detecting jamming.

EuroNews and others have noted this is a major U-turn on the claims, making the whole episode highly suspect and dubious. The plane landed safely, but EU officials quickly blamed Russia for the alleged interference, and yet days later the whole story seems to be unravelling fast.

Did Von der Leyen and her team just completely fabricate it? The Bulgarian government as of Thursday is denying the entire basis of the claims:

"There is no need to investigate the situation, because these disturbances are neither hybrid nor cyber threats."

According to the same report, "In an interview with Bulgarian channel bTV, Deputy Prime Minister and Transport Minister Grozdan Karadjov denied that the government had submitted any information on the matter to the European Commission, contradicting the Commission's assertion that Bulgarian authorities suspected the disruption was the result of the Kremlin's hybrid warfare."

Don't expect the mainstream media to be quick to offer corrections or walk-backs...

A couple days ago, the FT hyped a "Russian active measures" hoax claiming Russia jammed the GPS on von der Layen's plane. The story has already unraveled, but no correction from the FT. It all feels so Trump-1st termy. pic.twitter.com/LOzc1YnlTq

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) September 4, 2025

This could be another case of a media trend that we and others observed starting years ago - how Putin and Russia apparently seek to 'weaponize everything' - though most often, evidence for such claims are lacking.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 14:20

Trump Tells Supreme Court He Will Appeal In E. Jean Carroll Case

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump plans to ask the Supreme Court this fall to overturn a civil jury verdict that found he sexually abused writer E. Jean Carroll and defamed her, his attorneys said in a new court filing.

Trump’s intentions were revealed in an application docketed by the nation’s highest court on Sept. 2.

In the application, his lawyers asked the court to extend an upcoming Sept. 10 deadline for filing a petition to challenge the $5 million verdict to Nov. 10. The application was directed to Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who handles urgent appeals from New York.

Trump “intends to seek review” of “significant issues” arising out of the trial and what he termed the “erroneous” ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that affirmed the verdict, according to the application.

On June 13, a divided Second Circuit denied a rehearing in the case.

Circuit Judges Steven Menashi and Michael Park dissented from the ruling.

“These holdings conflict with controlling precedents and produced a judgment that cannot be justified under the rules of evidence that apply as a matter of course in all other cases,” Menashi said in a dissent joined by Park.

Trump’s attorney in the case, Justin D. Smith of James Otis Law Group LLC in St. Louis, Missouri, said more time was needed to file the petition.

“Undersigned counsel faces a significant press of business due to many upcoming deadlines,” Smith said.

Carroll gave evidence during a 2023 trial that Trump attacked her in 1996 in a dressing room in a Manhattan department store near the Trump Tower.

In its May 2023 verdict, the federal jury held Trump liable for sexually abusing Carroll and defaming her when he made statements in October 2022 denying her allegations.

The jury awarded Carroll $5 million in damages.

In another lawsuit filed by Carroll, a federal jury ordered Trump to pay $83.3 million in damages over statements he made in 2019 denying the sexual assault allegations.

A three-judge panel of the Second Circuit affirmed the verdict in December 2024, rejecting Trump’s argument that the trial judge’s ruling invalidated the trial by allowing others who accused Trump of sexual abuse to testify. Three women said Trump carried out similar acts against them in 2005 and the 1970s. Trump denied the allegations.

“President Trump has consistently and unequivocally denied Carroll’s allegations in both cases,” the new application said.

Carroll obtained the $5 million award based on “incorrect findings,” after which the federal district court “wrongly” interpreted the law and “improperly [prevented] President Trump from contesting the merits in that action,” the filing said. After that, Carroll secured the “unjust judgment of $83.3 million,” the application said.

“We do not believe that President Trump will be able to present any legal issues in the Carroll cases that merit review by the United States Supreme Court,” Roberta Kaplan, Carroll’s attorney, said on Sept. 3

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 14:00

University Of California Illegal Immigrant Hiring Ban Is "Discriminatory", Court Rules

Authored by Sam Korkus via The College Fix,

The University of California system is discriminating against illegal immigrant students by refusing to hire them for on-campus jobs, a state court ruled.

However, immigration experts criticized the decision, with one calling it a “mockery of the law.”

The ruling last month found the university system violated a state law which prohibits discrimination on the basis of immigration status. However, it did not require the universities to hire illegal immigrant students.

“We conclude that the University’s employment policy facially discriminates based on immigration status and that, in light of applicable state law, the discriminatory policy cannot be justified by the University’s proffered reason,” the three-judge panel of the California Court of Appeals ruled.

“Our writ does not require the University to take any specific action, let alone one that will necessarily place the University community at risk,” the opinion stated.

“The option the University identifies—a declaratory judgment suit against the federal government—is one that remains available to it in response to this writ,” the judges wrote.

“We merely require that the University not rely on litigation risk alone as the justification for its facially discriminatory policy.”

The university argued it could not hire illegal immigrant students because it might invite legal action from the federal government. The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 prohibits employers from hiring illegal immigrants.

University of California Los Angeles’ Center for Immigration Law and Policy brought the lawsuit. The center previously has advocated for the University of California system to remove its prohibition on the hiring of illegal immigrants. Legal scholars Hiroshi Motomura and Ahilan Arulanantham argue the 1986 federal law does not specifically designate government entities as “employers.”

Neither responded to an emailed request for comment on the ruling in the past week. In 2024, the UC system disbanded a task force created to study the legality of hiring illegal immigrants, as reported by The Daily Bruin. In 2024, Gov. Gavin Newsom also vetoed legislation to allow for the hiring of illegal immigrants, citing potential legal problems.

The UC system also did not respond to a request for comment on Aug. 18.

A former attorney for the Department of Homeland Security said the University of California system would likely win a federal case if it argued the 1986 law applies to it. This is a proposal the university system brought up during litigation. 

The court also did not say the university must hire illegal immigrant workers.

“The court merely ruled that 1) UC’s policy of refusing to hire unauthorized aliens is discriminatory under California law,” George Fishman, now a senior legal fellow with the Center for Immigration Studies, told The College Fix via email. 

The court also ruled the university system “needs to reconsider its policy based on proper criteria” and the policy “cannot be justified by the University’s proffered reason.”

“I am confident that, in the end, federal courts will rule that IRCA does indeed apply to States as employers, just as Congress intended in 1986,” Fishman said.

A senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation criticized the ruling as well.

“Federal law, which trumps any state law to the contrary, prohibits any employer from hiring illegal aliens,” Zack Smith told The Fix via email.

He previously served as the Assistant United States Attorney in the Northern District of Florida, according to his bio.

“This is another absurd ruling by activist judges that makes a mockery of the law. Hopefully this decision will be overturned in short order,” Smith said.

“In the meantime, California universities would be prudent to continue following all applicable federal laws.”

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 13:20

 

 

At the Money: Want to Fly Private? Here is How! (September 4, 2025)

Flying private used to be for billionaires, but that’s no longer true. There’s fractional ownership, hourly charter, jet cards, membership & leases. There is a way to fly private for a lot more budgets than there used to be...

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Preston Holland is the founder of Prestige Aircraft Finance and hosts a weekly Private Aviation Podcast, “The VIP Seat.” He writes the newsletter “Private Jet Insider,” providing advice and strategies to help clients navigate private aviation.

For more info, see:

Professional Bio

LinkedIn

Twitter

~~~

 

Find all of the previous At the Money episodes here, and in the MiB feed on Apple Podcasts, YouTube, Spotify, and Bloomberg. And find the entire musical playlist of all the songs I have used on At the Money on Spotify

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

Flying private was once the province of billionaires, but that’s no longer true. Sure, the top 0.1% can drop 50 large buying their own jet. But there are many other ways to fly private beyond owning your own GulfStream. There’s fractional ownership, hourly charter, jet cards, membership & leases. Those are another way to go.

Let’s explore this by speaking with Preston Holland. He’s the founder of Prestige Aircraft Finance, hosts a weekly private aviation podcast called “The VIP seat,” and he’s the author of the newsletter, private Jet Insider, providing advice and strategies to help clients navigate private aviation.

So Preston. Let’s start with the basics. Besides bringing my dogs on the plane, what’s the main reason people fly private? What are the benefits and drawbacks of private aviation?

Preston Holland: The one thing that you cannot buy more of is time. They say that money can buy anything in the world except for more time. I want to challenge your audience to say there, that is almost true until you start talking about private aviation.

Private aviation the only way to buy your time back. Using dollars and actually getting time back. Time is the number one differentiator when it comes to flying private. You go to a different part of the airport, you skip security, you drive up to the airplane, get on and take off, and oftentimes you’re even going to an airport that is closer to your destination than the commercial airport is.

So time is the biggest differentiator. It is private. You don’t have to deal with a lot of other people. There’s some health benefits that come to it ’cause you’re not being exposed to so many people. But at the end of the day, it is time that you’re buying back. That is the biggest difference.

Barry Ritholtz:There are obviously a lot of key differences between flying private and commercial. Time saving is one. You’re avoiding crowds and lines. What are some of the other benefits of flying private?

Preston Holland: It’s, it’s really that the airplane moves on your time. So if you think about the last time that you had to rush out of a meeting to go get to the airport, and you needed to ’cause your flight left at 6:04 PM.

That plane is leave and weather, you get there or not. If you’ve ever had the experience in the last minute, you’re rushing on and you’re running down the airport. I live close to Atlanta, Georgia, and so I have had that experience many times in which I’m running through Hartsfield Jackson trying to get onto the plane ’cause I had a meeting that went long and I’m trying to get there.

Private Aviation is different. The plane does not leave without you.

And so it really creates maximum flexibility. It also increases a lot of your ability to de-stress, right? You’re, you’re not, you don’t have kind of that stressful moment leading up to getting on the airplane, Catering. You get to pick what type of food is on the airplane. You don’t have to say, you know, cookies or pretzels. Uh, you can say, I want both. and I actually want homemade cookies and I want real pretzels and an actual big bag.

A lot of people want to try and make the justification from a dollar standpoint. They say, okay, I value my time at a thousand dollars an hour. Let’s say I’m an attorney, and you can actually put a dollar amount on how many billable hours that you have if you and, and you say, okay, my first class ticket’s gonna be a thousand dollars, and so therefore, when can I kind of justify the difference between first class and flying private? It’s a tough comparison when you think about all of the additional fringe benefits that come with flying private.

If you just try and do a cost calculation, you’re never gonna get there. It’s never going to make sense to fly private. Probably 99% of the time there is the 1% fringe time where you’re going to Nantucket. There’s six of you, and maybe everybody’s gonna fly first class, and maybe you can kind of make it make sense on a turboprop, but if you really boil it down, it’s never gonna net out from a cost dollar standpoint.

But really what it is, is it’s all those fringe benefits that come from flying private that you really can’t replace

Barry Ritholtz: Since you brought up meetings and other related things. I’m curious, how much of private jet usage is business travel, and how much of it is recreation, vacation, fun travel?

Preston Holland: It depends on the demographic that you’re looking at. I think one big misnomer that is out there is that private jets are reserved for Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber.

You look at how the public perceives private aviation, its celebrities flying to Vegas, going on a party. They’ve got all of their friends there, but really. The bulk majority of private aviation actually looks like Main Street businesses that have multiple locations, A lot in manufacturing.

For instance, you think about just in time manufacturing and you think about uptime in a manufacturing plant, and if private aviation can make sure that your plant is staying online for longer. That can be worth millions of dollars an hour to a manufacturing plant. So private aviation a lot of times, looks a lot different than what you think. If you look at like a per hour basis, if you kind of broke it down, the majority is for business.

Now, if you own an aircraft. You want to take depreciation benefits, it needs to be 51%. This is not tax advice, but that is all of my tax friends say it’s gotta be 51% use if you want to get that depreciation. But oftentimes it really is used a lot for business.

Now you can use it for private purposes as well. You can use it for vacation. It doesn’t have to only be business, but the vast majority of travel in the private jet space is business, which is why. The use private jet and business aviation are very interchangeable, ’cause it’s oftentimes, you know, the, those two things are often seen hand in hand.

Barry Ritholtz: Let’s talk about the variety of options that exist, starting with fractional ownership. What does that mean?

Preston Holland: So there is a couple of different ways to apply private, and if it’s okay with you, I’m gonna take one half step back from there. And I’m gonna break down. The Four Ways to Fly Private. I actually wrote an article about this. Uh, it’s at my website, PrestonHolland.com. That’s a free plug for myself. Uh, but there are four ways to really fly private and they go from the least committal, the least long-term committal to the most committal.

So the least committal way to fly private is to on demand charter, that means I’m gonna call up my charter broker and I’m gonna say, I need to go from New York to Miami. I need to go tomorrow. And I have four people. You’re gonna make one transaction, you pay it, you fly the trip tomorrow and then you’re done. No more commitment. You don’t ever have to fly private again if you don’t want to. Ad hoc charter is kind of the colloquial term, ad hoc the Latin word for on demand, right?

The second committal would be a membership or a jet card, so that is kind of the second phase. Those listeners of Bloomberg will be familiar with XO Jet, they’ll be familiar with VistaJet. If you read any of the bond ratings, there’s a lot of memberships and jet card programs. You are prepaying for an hour block. So let’s say you put down a $500,000 deposit and that’s gonna buy you X amount of hours on a certain aircraft type. So that is the second, you know, second lease committal. There are, you know, membership fees that are sometimes associated with that. But you’re not necessarily committing to one aircraft type or something like that.

The next committal is fractional ownership. So you’re buying in, that was your original question. You’re buying into a program. This is NetJets, this is FlexJet, this is AirShare. There’s a few regional providers that do fractional program, but you’re buying a piece of an air.

Not too terribly dissimilar to a timeshare where you’re buying a portion of the airplane. You may never fly on the tail that you own on, but you are committing to that membership tier. So maybe you buy one 16th of an aircraft that allots you 50 hours per year.

There’s a monthly maintenance fee that’s associated with it, and then you pay per hour. You’re committing to a program, you’re committing to a flute. The most committal way to marry an airplane is to buy it. So this is, I own the airplane. Now you can do that a couple different ways. Maybe me and Barry, we both live in New York and we want to share an airplane, so we each go in 50%.

And we buy the airplane, but you’re only flying on that airplane. So it’s one tail number, one aircraft, one set of pilots. Uh, not as much membership. So that’s kind of the range to set the baseline of the different ways that you can fly private.

Barry Ritholtz: So you wrote an interesting post that con explains. The cost differences between all those four things, and what struck me as so fascinating was the least amount of money you spend annually for something like an on-demand charter is gonna be the most you spend on an hourly basis – and vice versa.

If you make a big commitment annually, your hourly costs are the lowest. When people are considering these things, is it simply a function of. Hey, how many hours do you think you’re flying this year? Do you think it’s 50 or a hundred hours? Is that what informs those choices between jet cards, hourly charter memberships, and fractional ownership?

Preston Holland: Generally speaking, yes. When you talk about the. First decision that you’re making when you’re talking about how am I gonna average my cost on an hourly basis? That is generally the right framework to think about.

It is not the hard and fast rule. I know plenty of billionaires who fly Flex Jet fractional, who can totally afford their own aircraft, and they probably fly enough hours. They just don’t want to deal with the hassle, right?

But generally speaking, if you’re gonna say. Which bucket do I fit into? Private aviation, it’s typically when you’re thinking about how much am I flying per year? If you think about it strictly on a per hour that I am going to, per hour that I’m going to actually fly, how much am I paying?

So let’s say, let’s set the benchmark $10,000 per hour. That’s gonna be a super mid aircraft that’s gonna be able to take you coast to coast. If you were to own in a fractional program and you took your purchase cost. Minus your resale costs. So there’s a depreciation factor there. You took in all of your monthly costs, um, and you average it out from time to time.

That will actually be lower on a per hour basis. But if you’re only flying 10 to 15 hours per year, you’re gonna have a lot of unused hours. You may not actually get the full benefit for it. So as you think about it, the typical breakpoint, this is, this is generally speaking, depending on the aircraft type and everybody’s different, but generally speaking anything below 100 hours, you are typically going to win in a on demand or a charter program. Anything above 100 hours, you should start considering fractional. And then somewhere between 150 and 200 hours per year of personal flying, you should consider whole aircraft ownership.

Barry Ritholtz:So I know after we broadcast this, I’m gonna get some calls from some clients and some colleagues who are gonna ask. “Hey, I’ve put some couple of million dollars away. I make a couple of million dollars a year. I’m tired of getting to the airport two hours early and fighting through through TSA, at least I don’t have to take my shoes off anymore,” and they’re gonna say, “What’s the best program for me?”

They do some business flying. They do a bunch of a few vacations a year. Every now and then they’ll fly out, oh, my kid’s in Purdue. Let me go out to the Midwest. For someone like that, what sort of program would you recommend? And I know I’m giving you broad parameters and not anything very specific.

Preston Holland: So I always suggest if you are just getting into it, an on-demand charter program is gonna be what you want to do first because you don’t know what your personal preferences are. You don’t know if you like flying on light jets or if you don’t like flying on light jets. You don’t know if you want the extra room, be able to stand up flat floor. There’s a lot of variables that go into that. So I would say find a really good broker that has education forward.

Jets are moving from one place to another and not necessarily between us. Not like a hub and spoke model like the airlines. Get a really good broker that can help educate you on what it is you might like and what it is you might not like. Try a bunch of different flavors of aircraft before you start committing to anything long-term, ’cause you just don’t know what you don’t know.

Barry Ritholtz: Since you mentioned different, uh, flavors of aircraft, let’s talk about a few. There’s, uh, Dessault and Bombardier and Embraer, Honda Jets came out a couple of years ago. They kind of surprised everybody. How broad is the range of jets that are available either for charter or lease or membership?

Preston Holland: So when you’re talking about flying in the backseat. So we’re gonna leave the people who fly in the front seat, which is another type of person. But when we look in the back seat, it ranges from turbo props, which is jet fuel, that powers a propeller. That’s your KingAirs, your PilatusPC12s. Call it the bottom end of the market.

You’re gonna have the least amount of range, the least amount of speed, but it’s also gonna be the most cost effective wheels up. If you ever watch college game day. You remember seeing, oh, the one that has the two propellers on the side, that’s a KingAir 350, for instance. So that is kind of the bottom end of the range.

You then have very light jets, which is gonna take two to three passengers. That’s, uh, very light jet qualifies as the Hondajet, the Citation M2, even the Steers Visionjet, which is. Kind of, uh, in a league of its own is a single engine jet is in the very light jet category. You then have light jets, which is gonna be Embraer Phenom 300.

The Citation CJ3 and CJ4. Light Jets are really great for regional travel, not as great for coast to coast. You’re gonna have to stop at some point.

Then you have mid, so mid-size, the Citation XLS, uh, that’s gonna be, you know, again, regional travel. You’re not quite gonna get New York to San Francisco, but you’re gonna get pretty close.

Then you have the super mid-size jet, which is kind of like, you know, the difference between large and extra-large shirts. It’s like, oh, that was lazy. Uh, super Mid Jets is a great example. Uh, super mid jets, the Challenger300, 350, 3500, is gonna qualify in that. The Citation Latitude, the Citation Longitude.

The Latitude cannot get coast to coast, but the Citation Longitude can that’s gonna be your super mid-size. Those are typically gonna have a flat floor. They’ll seat around eight people at max capacity. And that’s gonna be the super midsize jet is the first time you’re gonna unlock that New York to San Francisco, New York to LA trip.

Then you start getting into the large cabin. So when you get into the large cabin, you have the Challenger, 604, 650, 605, 650. You have the Falcon 2000, which kind of feeders on that super midsize to large cabin range

Barry Ritholtz: Can you take those New York to London, New York to Paris.

Preston Holland: You can get New York to London depending on which way the wind is blowing and how new it’s, well, that’s a little tight.

Barry Ritholtz: And my assumption is as you go from small light to mid to super, mid to large, everything, not just the cost of the jet, but the insurance, the maintenance, the hangar, the pilots. All of this scales up dramatically as you go from flying New York to DC versus San Francisco to Hong Kong.

Preston Holland: It scales up proportionately as you get larger in the aircraft, you start having higher pilot costs. You start having higher insurance costs, you have higher fuel burn on a per hour basis, so it does exponentially get larger.

That’s not to say though, that people automatically enter the light jet category, the turbo prop first. There is a vanity piece to private aviation. They, they always say that the, uh, the most expensive part of the plane is the window – and that’s because when the shade is up and you land at the FBO, you look out and you say, Ooh, I like that one, and so you’re, you’re tempted to kind of step up.

Barry Ritholtz: Really interesting. My last question. How has the technology changed private aviation in recent years?

Preston Holland: So there’s been a lot of software that’s come to market over the last, call it 10 to 15 years that have really impacted the way in which private flyers are interfacing with kind of the administrative layer of private aviation because it is such a tax complicated.

Factor there is tracking tools out there. There is services that will actually help you make sure there’s maintenance tracking softwares. There’s predictive maintenance tracking softwares, there’s logbook scanning. Aviation in general. I know this is shocking, but aviation in general lags from a technological standpoint because of how conservative it’s, so paper logbooks are still a thing. There are still maintenance records that are held in paper in a fireproof safe at the FBO. That’s like still a very common thing.

There’s been a shift towards technology and aviation. When you look at private aviation, though, the challenge for software entrepreneurs is that I get DMs all the time on X that say, Hey, I want to build X, Y, Z software and revolutionize the market.

The problem is in the grand scheme of things, it’s not that big.

Barry Ritholtz: So people listening to this conversation are thinking to themselves, Hey, I’d like to fly private ballpark figures. How much money do you need to have to make this really a worthwhile experience?

Preston Holland: Generally speaking, it’s $2 million in net income, right? So that’s kind of cash flow to you and $20 million net worth before you start chartering on a regular basis. So that’s, you know, probably vacations, that’s probably some business trips that’s not, you know, you’re not pedal to the metal, never have seen the inside of a commercial airport again. But you’re seeing it less and less at $2 million of income and $20 million in net worth.

Before you start thinking about buying a mid-size jet where you sit in the back and you have pilots and all of that. The number was between 10 and 20 million of net income and around $100 to $200 million of net worth. Now, that includes privately held companies. That includes my operating company, has been marked to market at $200 million, and then I’m starting to think about an aircraft.

But that is generally speaking. Now that is not the rule In my day job, I look at people’s financials and help them place debt. For aircraft purchases. I will tell you that that number is not a hard and fast rule. It is a good rule of thumb, but for everybody it’s different, right? It may be a higher net worth, maybe you’re a lower cash flow, maybe you’re a really cash flow person, and this is really what you want to do.

Those, that’s kind of a good general, you know, general term, uh, to start looking at kind of mid-size jets. And then as you kind of scale up, you’re, you’re really not buying a, a brand new G700 until you’re knocking on the billion dollar mark.

Barry Ritholtz: So to wrap up, if you’re doing pretty well income-wise and have a couple of shekels put away, you don’t have to go out and drop tens of millions of dollars buying your own jet.

You could do an hourly charter, you could do fractional ownership, or you could do one of the jet membership cards that allow you to spend less time in commercial airports and more time getting to where you go quicker, faster, and more comfortably. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Bloomberg’s. At the Money.

~~~

Find our entire music playlist for At the Money on Spotify.

 

The post ATM: Want to Fly Private? Here is How! appeared first on The Big Picture.

Ether Exchange Reserves Fall To 3-Year-Low As ETFs, Corporate Treasuries Soak Up Supply

Authored by Nate Kostar via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ether supply on centralized exchanges has plunged around 38% since 2022, as billions flow into spot ETFs and corporate treasuries ramp up their ETH holdings.

Ether (ETH) reserves on centralized exchanges have fallen to the lowest level in three years as demand grows from investment funds and corporate buyers.

According to data from CryptoQuant, reserves have dropped by nearly 10.7 million ETH since peaking at around 28.8 million in September 2022. Holdings now stand at about 17.4 million ETH, with roughly 2.5 million ETH leaving exchanges in the past three months alone.

The shrinking supply comes as new channels for Ether exposure have gained traction. Spot ETH exchange-traded funds (ETFs), launched in July 2024, have since attracted net inflows of more than $13 billion, according to CoinGlass data. Between June and August, the funds pulled in over $10 billion in net inflows, led by a record $5.4 billion in July alone.

Corporate treasuries are also driving demand. Several publicly traded companies have announced ETH treasuries over the past few months, with regular corporate purchases affecting the token’s supply on exchanges.

Ethereum exchange reserves - All exchanges. Source: CryptoQuant

ETH Treasury companies on the rise

SharpLink Gaming emerged as one of the earliest public companies to pivot its reserves into Ether in 2025. Backed by a $425 million private placement, the company launched a treasury strategy in May, with holdings in late August reaching 797,704 ETH, worth about $3.5 billion at this writing.

In July, BitMine Immersion Technologies also joined the trend, revealing it had accumulated about 1.86 million ETH — roughly 1.5% of the token’s total supply. A third major entrant, The Ether Machine, announced in September 495,000 ETH in holdings and an upcoming Nasdaq listing.

According to data from Ethereum Treasuries, 17 publicly traded companies are known to hold Ether on their balance sheets, collectively controlling more than 3.6 million ETH.

One key appeal of ETH as a reserve asset is its ability to earn yield, a Bitfinex analyst told Cointelegraph. “Unlike Bitcoin, ETH is both a macro asset and a productivity asset, generating yield via staking and securing over $100 billion in tokenized assets across L2s and DeFi.”

Staking is the process of locking up cryptocurrency to help secure a blockchain network and, in return, earning rewards paid out in that same token.

On Tuesday, Ethereum’s staking entry queue has climbed to its highest level since 2023, with 860,369 ETH worth about $3.7 billion waiting to be staked.

ETH moving into ETFs

Alongside corporate treasuries, Ether is also being absorbed by spot exchange-traded funds (ETFs). The products saw a slow start after their US debut in 2024, but demand picked up this July as a friendlier regulatory environment for crypto assets supported renewed institutional interest.

That surge is led by BlackRock’s iShares Ethereum ETF (ETHA), which has become one of the fastest-growing ETFs on record, with assets worth over $16 billion on Tuesday.

According to data from CoinMarketCap, spot ETH ETFs collectively hold about $24 billion in assets under management (AUM).

US Ether ETFs. Source: CoinMarketCap

Some analysts believe the demand reflects more than short-term speculation. Fabian Dori, chief investment officer of Sygnum, recently told Cointelegraph:

After an extended period of underperformance relative to Bitcoin and a souring investor sentiment, Ethereum has recently experienced a significant revival in the recognition of both its adoption rate and value proposition.

According to Dori, staking is the next frontier for Ether ETFs. “If spot ETH ETFs were permitted to stake their holdings… the ability to accrue an additional yield within a well-established, regulated and exchange-traded structure would likely make these products more attractive and attract additional assets.”

Unsurprisingly, several ETF issuers have recently moved to add staking features to their Ether funds.

BlackRock filed through Nasdaq to add staking to its iShares Ethereum ETF, while Fidelity has amended its spot Ether ETF proposal to allow a portion of assets to be staked.

The SEC is expected to rule on staking features by October, when final application deadlines come due.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 12:40

Today, in the Real Estate Newsletter: Asking Rents Mostly Unchanged Year-over-year

Brief excerpt:

Another monthly update on rents.

Tracking rents is important for understanding the dynamics of the housing market. Slower household formation and increased supply (more multi-family completions) has kept asking rents under pressure.

More recently, immigration policy has become a negative for rentals.

Apartment List: Asking Rent Growth -0.9% Year-over-year ...

The national median rent dipped by 0.2% in August, and now stands at $1,400. This was the first month-over-month decline since January, and marks the beginning of the rental market’s off-season. It’s likely that we’ll continue to see further modest rent declines through the remainder of the year.

Realtor.com: 24th Consecutive Month with Year-over-year Decline in Rents

In July 2025, U.S. median rent recorded its 24th consecutive year-over-year decline, marking a two-year streak of downward momentum. Rent for 0-2 bedroom properties across the 50 largest metropolitan areas dropped by 2.5% compared with the previous year, with the median asking rent at $1,712—just $1 more than the prior month.

This is much more in the article.

WTI Holds Losses After Big Surprise Crude Build

Oil prices continue to decline on concerns that OPEC+ will once again bolster supply at a meeting on Sunday, compounding fears of higher volumes later in the year.

Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak subsequently said OPEC+ will “look at the current situation as a whole” before making a decision.

Several delegates from the group said it has yet to decide on how to proceed.

Additionally, API reported a surprise (though small) build in crude inventories

API

• Crude +622k (-3.4mm exp)

• Cushing

• Gasoline -4.57mm

• Distillates +3.68mm

DOE

• Crude +2.415mm (-3.4mm exp)

• Cushing +1.59mm - biggest build since Mar 2025

• Gasoline -3.795mm - biggest draw since Apr 2025

• Distillates +1.68mm

The official DOE data shows a very mixed bag with a big surprise crude build, large jump in stocks at the Cushing Hub and a big draw in gasoline stocks....

Source: Bloomberg

With the addition of 509k barrels to the SPR, total commercial crude stocks rose for the first time in 3 weeks...

Source: Bloomberg

US Crude production remains near record highs despite the plunge in rig counts...

Source: Bloomberg

Algorithmic traders also may have contributed to oil’s slide on Thursday. Trend-following commodity trading advisers have been steadily selling crude since reaching “buying exhaustion” at the $65-a-barrel level, “creating just a few ripples and weighing on prices,” according to Daniel Ghali, a commodity strategist at TD Securities.

“We think a tidal wave is coming next,” Ghali said.

“We expect that algos are now set to imminently sell a massive 40% of their maximum size.”

WTI traded down to two week lows ahead of the official inventory and supply data...

Bloomberg reports that US oil has retreated more than 10% this year as OPEC+ has boosted production targets at a rapid clip to reclaim market share from rival drillers. At the same time, producers from outside the alliance have ramped up output, while concerns about demand have intensified as the Trump administration imposed a wave of trade tariffs.

The combination has spawned widespread predictions for a glut that will swell global stockpiles, pushing many investors to the sidelines until clarity on OPEC’s output plans is achieved this weekend, brokers say.

“We still see the current oversupply in oil markets intensifying,” Samantha Dart, an analyst at Goldman Sachs Group Inc., said in a note, forecasting Brent in the low $50s in late 2026.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 12:08

Schiff, Johnson, Collum On Trump’s Trade Wars

LIVE NOW

https://t.co/dhOGAvwTtX

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) September 4, 2025

*****************

Will Trump’s trade moves prove brilliant or blow up in America’s face? ZH readers likely know where die-hard Austrian Peter Schiff stands: as the world’s largest importer, the U.S. has no cards to play. But as Brent “Dollar Milkshake” Johnson has long argued, “the world isn’t Austrian”, the dollar’s network effect will not easily be broken, and sometimes American belligerence works… whether we like it or not.

Tonight at 7pm on the ZH home and X account, the two will duke it out while the great Dave Collum moderates.

Tariffs are not about Trade they are about Power and Sovereignty and National Security https://t.co/u9GnTqhrxc

— Santiago Capital (@SantiagoAuFund) July 7, 2025

Ahead of the debate, here’s where Trump’s tariff (and threat of tariffs) stand with some of the largest U.S. trading partners:

Canada & Mexico

• Broad-based 25% tariffs were imposed starting March 4, 2025—but thanks to USMCA exemptions, over 85% of cross-border trade remains unaffected.
• Canada suspended most retaliatory tariffs after receiving exemptions, though around 70% of its own tariffs on U.S. goods remain active per Canadian officials.
• U.S. steel and aluminum tariffs were doubled to 50% by June; Canada countered with plans for additional retaliatory measures if talks falter.
• Courts are challenging the administration's emergency-authority-based tariffs.

China

• Trump raised tariffs incrementally—from 10% in February/March to a sweeping 34% “reciprocal tariff” in April.
• China responded with equal tariffs (34%) on U.S. imports plus bans and export restrictions on rare-earth elements.
• Earlier this week the US announced it will require TSMC to get special permits for the import of its products manufactured on the Chinese mainland.

India

• Trump has slapped a proposed 50% tariff on Indian imports, partly due to India's continued Russian oil purchases.
• Analysts (e.g., ICRIER) warn that 70–87% of Indian exports to the U.S. could be severely affected.
• India–Russia relations are strengthening in contrast, with Russia offering support amid U.S. pressure.

Japan & South Korea

• Tariff relief promised in exchange for investment and purchases (e.g., reducing auto tariffs from 25% to 15%) has not been formally enactedl.

EU & UK

• While some “partial exemptions” or reductions were negotiated with the EU and UK, these remain inconsistently documented.
• For the UK, there's a looming threat of semiconductor tariffs up to 200–300%, though no enforcement has occurred yet.

Brazil

• As of August 1, a 50% tariff on Brazilian products is in force. Brazil has filed a complaint with the WTO and imposed retaliatory duties under its Trade Reciprocity Law.
• Trump framed it as retaliation against Brazil’s judicial actions against Bolsonaro—but the U.S. actually ran a substantial trade surplus with Brazil in 2024.

We'll see you tonight at 7pm ET, right here on the ZH homepage and X account. It will also stream via our YouTube. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 11:25

Chinese Stocks Crash After Beijing Seeks To Contain Bubble: What Happens Next

China’s equity rally lost steam in the past few sessions, with the Shanghai Composite sliding -1.3% and losing the 3800 level just 9 days after breaking above it and breaking out above the historic trendline we pointed out two weeks ago. The index is now down 3 days in a row, the longest such streak since May. 

The sell off today was triggered by a Bloomberg report of China’s financial regulators mulling cooling measures for the market after a US$1.2t rally stoked worries of a speculative frenzy a la 2025 style. Policymakers are reportedly considering moves such as the removal of short-selling restrictions and the introduction of other measures to curb speculative trading.

To be sure, none of this is not new: as Goldman HK trader Fred Yin writes this morning, since late last week there were already signs that regulators are trying to cool the temperature on the rally. This however, did not come from the government - as a reminder, in China's centrally planned markets everything is officially sourced - but from "people familiar" so this is almost certainly a plant by someone who missed the China rally and hoped to spark a selloff to get in cheaper. It also expains why the National Team stepped in at the close today to lift stocks - why would they do that if they wanted to hammer the bubble risk?

In any case, some brokers last week raised its margin requirement although it was not an industry-wide action, while over 400 mutual fund products have either announced a halt or cap in subscriptions in August. CSRC Chair Wu Qing signaled determination to ensure stock market stability at a symposium this past weekend, pledging to consolidate the “positive momentum” of the market, while promoting “long-term, value, and rational investing”. 

Sure enough, Goldman points out that a list of ETFs favored by state-backed funds (“National Team”) saw elevated volume vs 20d average (translation: China was actively stepping in to prop up markets). However it was nothing extreme, suggesting the correction is still within comfort level for regulators 

Tech/innovation names were most hard hit: STAR50 had its 4th largest single day loss since inception in Jul 2020

Source: BBG as of 4Sep25, past performance not indicative of future results

AI infrastructure / data centers / semis / humanoid robots all suffered losses, result of perhaps extreme crowdedness 

Cambricon (which we profiled two weeks ago as China's Nvidia) sank 14.5% on the day, bringing its YTD gains to just +82.7%

Adding to the risk-off sentiment, Chinese auto giant BYD (002594) cut its annual sales target by 16% due to intense competition and cooling demand, resulting in -3% slide and extending the recent selloff. 

There are some bright spots however: China Solar basket +2.3% was top performing theme after an executive from a leading polysilicon producer said the sector has likely bottomed out

Over on the Goldman high touch execution desk, Yin writes that China A was by far the largest net sold market in the region. Notional traded was over 2x the 4w daily average for a very busy day. The outflow was driven almost entirely by Long Onlies, selling concentrated within Consumer space, ongoing selling namely in EV space stood ou . In addition LOs also sold Industrials / Info Tech and only net bought Utils / Healthcare. Hedge Funds skewed seller too but in smaller size, focusing selling in Healthcare / Info Tech instead.

On the derivs desk, as broader market has corrected for 3 consecutive sessions and falling through 20dma, we are seeing two way traffic in spot (profit taking vs fresh dip buying). Also worth noting is the rotation in size factor since mid-August, which is to some extent correlated to quants performance. Futures basis reverts higher. Even though such inverse spot/basis dynamics observed recently dampens realize volatility, fixed strike vols are in strong bid over the day especially around the afternoon dip. Goldman thinks spot can continue to trade choppy due to thin spot/futures liquidity so convexity remains favorable to own, even though they seem hard to carry on a close-to-close basis. 

Below are illustrative buy/sell flows in major markets on the bank's high touch desk:

Source: GS GBM as of 4Sep25, past performance not indicative of future results

It is worth noting that with the notable exception of 2014-2015 “crazy bull” market rally, Chinese equity market has mostly kept pace with underlying economic conditions. Yet this time around things are showing early signs of stress, or as the Goldman trader puts it, "perhaps the market is getting slightly ahead of the fundamentals." We were less politically correct:

We got ourselves another bubble folks. pic.twitter.com/5kDJmhPmHl

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 25, 2025

Upcoming data releases will be key to watch on whether the economic recovery is on track, including trade data (Sep 8), inflation (Sep 9), and new loan trends (Sep 12) 

Taking a step back though, risk appetite remains positive, with activity level remaining extremely high. For a 17th day in a row, turnover in A shares exceeded 2t yuan, the longest stretch on record 

Outstanding margin balance earlier this week climbed to 2.28t yuan, surpassing the previous record of 2.27t yuan record set in 2015.

Source: BBG as of 4Sep25, past performance not indicative of future results

GS PB data shows Chinese equities last month with long buys dominating the flows. 

A-shares led both net and gross activity. H-shares and ADRs saw net inflows led by short covers.

Flows into China equity funds picked up, with US$4.1b of net buying last week being the largest since Apr

That’s still unlikely to meaningfully address the fact China is still the most U/W market for EM funds (active only)

This chronic U/W to China could trigger a flurry of inflows from global allocators, especially with other major markets trading close to ATHs

More in the full Goldman note available to pro subscribers in the usual place.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 10:45

Wary Of Gasoline Shortage, California Pauses Price-Gouging Penalty On Oil Companies

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

California regulators fearing a dramatic drop in gasoline supply placed a five-year pause on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s penalty on oil industry profits Aug. 29.

The decision is a blow to Newsom’s legislation aimed at penalizing the oil industry for allegedly driving up the state’s gas prices in 2022.

California Energy Commission Vice Chair Siva Gunda said the state must shield motorists from price spikes at the pump even as it tries to transition to clean-energy fuel sources for transportation.

The commission says the pause on its penalty program was needed to further study the industry.

“We believe this additional time will increase industry confidence enough to secure investments in refinery maintenance and is therefore a prudent way to ensure employee safety and maintain a safe, reliable, affordable supply of fuel during this critical point in the transition to a carbon-free transportation system,” a spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email Sept. 2.

California drivers continue to pay the nation’s highest prices at the pump, with the cost exceeding the national average by more than a dollar per gallon, according to the federal Energy Information Administration.

Fuel demand in the state has slowly dwindled since 2019 as more Californians switch to electric vehicles, but the decrease in demand is not fast enough to keep up with even sharper drops in the state’s fuel supply as refineries continue to leave.

The state would need to increase overseas crude imports, possibly creating serious delays in fuel for consumers, which is what prompted staff to propose the regulatory pause, reported Drew Bohan, the energy commission’s executive director.

The agency also hasn’t been able to prove Newsom’s claim that the oil industry was gouging.

“The data at this point is just not sufficient to indicate that there’s ongoing market manipulation, or a structural failure, that would justify immediate regulatory intervention,” Bohan said.

The decision sparked criticism from Consumer Watchdog, a California-based nonprofit that supported Newsom’s price-gouging law in 2023.

“Gov. Newsom and the Energy Commission have abdicated their responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging,” the group’s president, Jamie Court, said in a statement. “By taking away the hammer of a penalty, the administration will leave consumers vulnerable to the same price spikes and profit spikes that struck in 2022. Gov. Newsom will be as much to blame as the oil refiners for the next price spikes because he left this job unfinished.”

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks in the rotunda of the Capitol in Sacramento on March 28, 2023. Courtesy of the Office of Governor Gavin Newsom

The group also believes Newsom’s administration is “tying the hands” of the next governor by imposing the five-year freeze.

Western States Petroleum Association, a trade group advocating for the oil industry, said the commission’s five-year pause was a step in the right direction, but it fell short of the group’s recommendations.

“While today’s action by the CEC stopped short of a full statutory repeal or a 20-year pause, it represents a needed step to provide some certainty for California’s fuels market,” association President Catherine Reheis-Boyd said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times.

According to Reheis-Boyd, the decision showed the energy commission understood how the policy would have impacted future investment in the state’s refineries.

Vehicles pass a gas station in Rosemead, Calif., on Sept. 23, 2024. Frederic J. Brown/AFP

Newsom and Democratic state legislators suspended regular operating rules to rush through the regulations in less than a week in 2023. Those regulations put in place extensive oversight and new reporting regulations for oil companies, and gave the energy commission the authority to issue fines and penalties for excessive profits.

Upon signing the law, Newsom said they proved they could “beat big oil.”

The commission has not approved penalties since the regulations passed.

The commission’s move last week followed months of handwringing by California lawmakers after a second major oil refinery—Texas-based Valero Energy Corp.—announced in April its departure from the state.

Houston-based oil giant Phillips 66 announced last October that it plans to close one of the company’s two Southern California refineries at the end of 2025.

A tank at the Valero Wilmington Oil Refinery adjacent to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles in the Wilmington neighborhood of Los Angeles on April 10, 2025. Patrick T. Fallon / AFP

The closures mean a loss of 17 percent of California’s refining capacity—a huge loss for a state that is mostly cut off from the rest of the nation’s fuel supplies and must import oil from overseas.

The refinery closures will leave more than 20 million gas-fueled vehicles in California with only seven refineries to produce specialized blends required by state regulations.

Beyond the penalty pause, Newsom’s administration is also proposing to temporarily streamline approvals of new wells in existing oil fields in an effort to maintain a stable fuel supply.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 10:25

The BEA reported this morning that light vehicle sales were at 16.07 million in August on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis (SAAR).

This was down 2.9% from the sales rate in July, and up 6.2% from August 2024.

Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows light vehicle sales since 2006 from the BEA (blue) through July (red).
Vehicle sales were over 17 million SAAR in March and April as consumers rushed to "beat the tariffs".
Then sales were depressed in May and June. 
Sales were boosted in August due to the termination of the EV credit at the end of September.

The second graph shows light vehicle sales since the BEA started keeping data in 1967.

Sales in August were at the consensus forecast of 16.1 million SAAR.

'Soft' Survey Data Shows US Services Surging... And Plunging In August

Following the rise in US Manufacturing surveys earlier in the week, US Services sector surveys were expected to show slight improvements

• S&P Global US Services PMI fell to 54.5 (August final) from 55.7 in July and August flash of 55.4.

• ISM US Services PMI rose to 52.0 from 50.1 in July (better than the 51.0 exp) - the best ISM Services print since Liberation Day

And all that as 'hard data' went nowhere...

Source: Bloomberg

Under the hood of the ISM beat we saw New Orders soar, employment stagnate, and price fears ebb modestly...

Source: Bloomberg

Spot the odd one out...

Source: Bloomberg

“Although weaker than signaled by the preliminary ‘flash’ PMI reading, and below that seen in July, the expansion of the service sector in August was still the second strongest recorded so far this year," according to Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

"Together with a robust manufacturing PMI reading, the surveys are consistent with the US economy growing at a solid 2.4% annualized rate in the third quarter."

“Fuller order books, reflecting a summer upturn in customer demand, has meanwhile encouraged service providers to take on additional staff in increasing numbers, accompanied by a return to hiring in the manufacturing sector," but then Williamson says, somewhat confoundingly:

"While low household confidence is reportedly keeping spending on consumer services relatively subdued, demand for financial services is showing especially strong growth amid improving financial market conditions.

However, the brighter news on current economic growth and hiring is marred by concerns over future growth prospects and inflation.

"Business optimism regarding the year ahead outlook has dropped to one of the lowest levels seen over the past three years amid escalating worries over the uncertainty and drop in demand caused by federal government policy, most notably tariffs, as well as the associated rise in price pressures. Inflation concerns have been fanned by a further steep rise in input costs which have fed through to another marked increase in average charges for services.

“The survey data therefore point to some downside risks to growth in the coming months while signaling upside risks to inflation, as import tariffs feed through to prices charged for both goods and services.”

With tariffs on everyone's minds still:

For now,. as is usual, the market is more focus on the ISM data (which improved significantly).

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/04/2025 - 10:06