Individual Economists

Judge Orders ICE Not To Re-Detain Abrego Garcia

Zero Hedge -

Judge Orders ICE Not To Re-Detain Abrego Garcia

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge has blocked U.S. Customs and Immigration Enforcement (ICE) from re-arresting Kilmar Abrego Garcia, one of the men at the center of the Trump administration’s deportation battles.

The Salvadoran national’s case attracted attention across the country, including widespread protests, after the federal government detained him in March 2025 and shipped him to El Salvador’s maximum security prison, the Terrorism Confinement Center, along with an airplane full of other deportees.

He was later returned to the United States, where he has had long-running legal battles with the administration.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis, who ordered the administration to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s return last year, ruled on Feb. 17 that he cannot be deported again because the federal government has not presented a feasible plan for removing him from the country.

The judge said that despite releasing Abrego Garcia, the government appeared to be making plans to re-detain him, so Abrego Garcia filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order to prevent being re-detained.

The court previously granted the requested order.

In the new order, the court granted Abrego Garcia’s request to upgrade the temporary restraining order to an injunction to prevent him from being re-detained.

Abrego Garcia, who entered the United States illegally more than a decade ago, had been living in Maryland when federal agents arrested him.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security takes the position that Abrego Garcia is a “violent criminal illegal alien, and MS-13 gang member,” who “belongs behind bars and off American soil.”

Abrego Garcia, who is facing separate criminal charges, denies being a member of MS-13, which has been designated a terrorist organization.

Xinis previously ordered his release on Dec. 11, 2025, finding that because the federal government had never issued a final order of removal against him, it could not detain him in order to force him from the country.

The government said in a brief last month that Abrego Garcia may be detained because an immigration judge issued an order of removal on Dec. 11, 2025, that became final on Jan. 13 of this year.

Detention after that order “does not require that the country of removal be certain in order for detention to be lawful,” the brief said.

The judge suggested the federal government is not serious about removing Abrego Garcia from the United States.

Since he secured release from criminal custody in August 2025, the government has “made one empty threat after another to remove him to countries in Africa with no real chance of success,” she said.

The judge said that, given the federal government’s maneuvering in the case, it was doubtful that Abrego Garcia would be deported in the “reasonably foreseeable future,” so he may not be re-arrested or put into immigration detention.

“Respondents have done nothing to show that Abrego Garcia’s continued detention in ICE custody is consistent with due process,” Xinis said.

In April 2025, Xinis had ordered that Abrego Garcia be returned to the United States from the prison in El Salvador.

The same month, the Supreme Court ordered that the federal government take steps to bring him back to the United States.

The government of El Salvador cooperated, and Abrego Garcia was returned to the United States in June 2025.

At the same time, Abrego Garcia is currently facing federal criminal charges in Tennessee related to the alleged unlawful transportation of undocumented aliens.

He has entered not guilty pleas to the charges.

The May 2025 indictment brought against Abrego Garcia alleges that he “conspired to bring undocumented aliens to the United States from countries such as Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Ecuador, and elsewhere, ultimately passing through Mexico before crossing into Texas.”

It alleges that Abrego Garcia and his co-conspirators obtained financial payments from the undocumented individuals for unlawfully transporting them into and around the United States.

The indictment also alleges Abrego Garcia was “a member and associate of the transnational criminal organization ... [known as] MS-13,” which it describes as “a criminal enterprise engaged in ... acts and threats involving murder, extortion, narcotics trafficking, firearms trafficking, alien smuggling, and money laundering.”

Abrego Garcia “used his status in MS-13 to further his criminal activity” over the life of the criminal conspiracy during which he and co-conspirators “knowingly and unlawfully transported thousands of undocumented aliens ... many of whom were MS-13 members and associates,” according to the indictment.

Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have called the case “baseless.”

“There’s no way a jury is going to see the evidence and agree that this sheet metal worker is the leader of an international MS-13 smuggling conspiracy,” attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg said.

The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the U.S. Department of Justice, which represents federal agencies in court. No reply had been received as of publication time.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 20:55

Steam Deck Handheld Gaming PC "May Be Out-Of-Stock" As Great Memory Crunch Deepens

Zero Hedge -

Steam Deck Handheld Gaming PC "May Be Out-Of-Stock" As Great Memory Crunch Deepens

The high-bandwidth memory (HBM) crunch is finally being noticed by mainstream consumers. It's not just soaring HBM prices; the availability of certain consumer electronics is now being affected.

Valve's popular handheld gaming PC is reportedly out of stock in some regions - an early warning that other consumer electronics may soon face similar disruptions.

"Note: Steam Deck OLED may be out-of-stock intermittently in some regions due to memory and storage shortages. Steam Deck LCD 256GB is no longer in production, and once sold out will no longer be available," a new note Valve added to their sales page, according to tech blog Rock Paper Shotgun's Mark Warren.

The Steam Deck OLED has become one of the first consumer electronic devices to feel the effects of the memory crunch, driven by surging demand for AI data centers. We have warned for months that this moment was coming and recently cited industry insiders urging consumers to bring forward purchases: "If you want to buy any consumer goods, PCs, or smartphones, do it now," because memory chips are becoming scarce.

Related:

Goldman's Allen Chang recently revised his global PC shipment forecast lower for 2026-2028 due to the HBM crunch.

Chang warned clients, "The memory shortage is real and accelerating due to AI infrastructure demand, leaving a significant shortage for the conventional side of the industry. Think smartphones, PCs, and other consumer electronics that require high-bandwidth memory..."

Earlier this month, Goldman analyst Katherine Murphy told clients the memory crunch will likely persist for roughly two years and is "reminiscent of the Covid-19 era" shortages.

Murphy warned it's not just memory chips; she said the entire data center buildout supply chain is becoming increasingly snarled. Read her full note here for a rundown of what's already running tight.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 20:30

"Game On!": High Schoolers To Be Tested On Nation's Founding In National Competition Marking America's 250th

Zero Hedge -

"Game On!": High Schoolers To Be Tested On Nation's Founding In National Competition Marking America's 250th

Authored by Aaron Gifford via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

High school students across the nation this month will test their knowledge of America’s founding in a contest that ultimately rewards the top three finishers with college scholarships.

In 1783, Representative James Madison introduced a resolution to create a library that would give the Congress access to works about the laws of nations and about American history and affairs. The Library of Congress was then founded in 1800. This mural depicts the library in the Capitol in 1890. Public Domain

The first round of the Presidential 1776 Award takes place online the week of Feb. 22–28, according to the program website. In the second round, winners from each state advance to one of five regional semifinals in May. Round three, the national finals, are planned for late June in Washington, just ahead of America’s semi-quincentennial.

“What better way to get our students excited about learning more of our nation’s deep and rich history than a friendly competition meant to challenge high schoolers to show off their knowledge of our great nation’s founding ideals?” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a news release.

“As we prepare to celebrate America’s 250th birthday, this competition is an opportunity for young people to push themselves, learn our history, and take pride in the principles that unite us. Game on!”

The James Madison Memorial Fellowship Foundation will provide the scholarship money.

The foundation’s Executive Secretary and CEO Julie Adams said the aim of this program extends far beyond just recognizing and awarding three top students.

“The knowledge of American civics and history is vital to the survival of the Republic,” she said in a news release. “We agree with our namesake James Madison, who wrote in 1822, ‘Knowledge will forever govern ignorance.’”

Teacher-scholars from the foundation wrote “challenging but fair questions” for the young competitors, Adams said.

The upcoming qualifying round, the “Impossible Civics Test,” is an electronically proctored multiple-choice online exam. Students will have 90 minutes to answer up to 4,000 questions on U.S. history across three 30-minute sections of increasing difficulty.

Top-performing students from every state who advance to the second round will engage in a short-answer verbal competition held in five regional locations simultaneously across the country. The top four students from each region will advance to the finals.

The championship in the nation’s capital is a short-answer verbal competition. The finalists get one point for each correct answer. The three winners will receive scholarships totaling $250,000.

The program website notes that the window to register for the qualifying online test, which is free to take, is still open.

Its study library page provides digital access to the Magna Carta, the Mayflower Compact, the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, a summary of battles from the Revolutionary War, papers from 18th-century American leaders, and many other documents from the critical period and pre-colonial, colonial, and Revolutionary eras.

Its study tips page provides a roadmap to required readings, suggested practice, and test-taking strategies, along with several tips for parents and teachers.

Parents and teachers for the support system that helps students thrive,” the page says. “With your guidance, they can deepen their knowledge, strengthen their skills, and step into this competition ready to perform at their best.”

While the James Madison foundation has worked for several decades to improve the teaching of the U.S. Constitution in high schools, the federal government’s push for civics education is very recent. It includes McMahon’s “History Rocks” tour across several states so far, and the America 250 Civics Education Coalition, a partnership of more than 50 state and national organizations dedicated to providing instruction about the ideas, individuals, and events that define the American story.

K-12 civics education is gaining ground across the nation. The National Conference of State Legislatures reported that, since 2023, at least 23 states and the District of Columbia passed laws requiring the curricula. This was, in part, a response to a 2022 report from the National Center for Education Statistics revealing that one in six Americans could not name any branches of the U.S. government. On Sept. 15, McMahon announced that $160 million in competitive grants will be available for U.S. history and civics instruction as the federal government shifts money away from education programs based on racial and ethnic quotas.

Education policy experts say that, given the nation’s deep political divisions and lack of confidence in the U.S. education system, civics lessons are needed now more than ever.

America’s faith in institutions is at a low ebb,” Jenna Robinson, president of the James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, previously told The Epoch Times.

“Increased education on our constitutional history and traditions can help public knowledge and public trust.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 20:05

US Military Blows Up 3 Alleged Drug Boats, Killing 11, After Lull Since January

Zero Hedge -

US Military Blows Up 3 Alleged Drug Boats, Killing 11, After Lull Since January

The Pentagon's whole anti-narco boat operations fell relatively silent for the past more than a month in the wake of the January 3rd US military raid on Venezuela to overthrow the Maduro government. Surely there was still drug trafficking off Latin America, but with 'mission accomplished' in Caracas the public PR 'anti-drug' pretext was no longer needed, apparently.

But suddenly, this week, the US military has begun its strikes on alleged drug boats again, with US Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) on Tuesday having announced its forces launched drone assaults on three alleged drug smuggling boats in the eastern Pacific and the Caribbean on Monday.

In total eleven people were killed in the renewed operation. "Intelligence confirmed the vessels were transiting along known narco-trafficking routes and were engaged in narco-trafficking operations," SOUTHCOM said Tuesday in a post to X.

Illustrative narco-boats file, via X.

The military statements said the three boats were allegedly "operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations." The post further referred to those killed as "male narco-terrorists," detailing that eight were killed on two boats in the eastern Pacific - or the Western side of Latin America - and three were killed on a boat in the Caribbean.

No American forces were harmed, the post said, in the assault conducted at the direction of Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, who serves as the commander of Southern Command.

War (Defense) Secretary Pete Hegseth celebrated the fresh strikes in a post on X, writing, "Turns out President’s Day — under President Trump — is not a good day to run drugs."

For all the momentary celebrations at the Pentagon, the supposed 'war on drugs' will be circular and never-ending, as it's been over the past many decades, spanning presidencies.

But this is really about American influence and 'ownership' of the region and total dominance of the Western hemisphere.

From Vietnam to Iraq to Libya to Syria to Iran, Washington is always looking for some kind of casus belli - even if it has to be manufactured - to sell war to the American people. 

Going back several years, the single biggest sources of the world's fentanyl trade have been consistently identified as China and Mexico.

At this point it's impossible to know, and hasn't been disclosed, whether any of the well over 25 boats blown up by US military action off Latin America since September were actually loaded with fentanyl, or in what quantities

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 19:40

Berkshire Dumps Most Of Its Amazon Shares, Sells More Apple And BofA; Buys Small New York Times Position

Zero Hedge -

Berkshire Dumps Most Of Its Amazon Shares, Sells More Apple And BofA; Buys Small New York Times Position

In Warren Buffett's last quarter as CEO of Berkshire, the Omaha conglomerate slashed several key positions, most notably Amazon which was reduced by over 77%, as well as core holdings Apple and Bank of America, while adding modestly to a handful of stakes such as Chevron and Chubb, and entering a tiny new position in the New York Times, the just published 13F for Q4 2025 revealed. 

Berkshire's most notable moves were all sales, led by a 7.7 million share dump of AMZN, a 77.2% drop in Berkshire's holdings, to just 2.28 million shares from 10 million as of Q3. Berkshire first bought a stake in Amazon in 2019; at the time Buffett said that despite his historical aversion to technology stocks, he’d been “an idiot for not buying” the online retail giant’s shares sooner. Six years later, Buffett - or whoever runs the stockpiking there - has clearly decided they would be an idiot to keep holding on to Amazon. 

Also in Q4, Berkshire continued cutting its stakes in Apple (its largest holding) and Bank of America (its 3rd largest position), trimming these by 4.3% and 8.9% to 227.9 million shares and 517.3 million shares, respectively.  Buffett first started cutting those positions in 2024, after initiating the AAPL position in 2015.

Other holdings that were trimmed included Davita, Constellation Brands, AON, Pool and Liberty Latin. 

It wasn't all sales: in Q4, Berkshire increased its stakes in oil producer Chevron and insurance firm Chubb during the period, to 6.5% and 8.7%, respectively. The conglomerate unveiled its initial investment in Chubb in May 2024, after secretly building it the previous year. Chubb’s shares rose roughly 11% over the fourth quarter after a trade publication reported that the firm made an informal approach to buy American International Group. Berkshire also added modestly to its Dominos Pizza stake. 

Berkshire also launched a small new position in New York Times, adding 5.1 million shares valued at $352 million at the end of Q4, making it Berkshire's 29th largest holding out of 38.

Buffett, who stepped down as CEO at the end of 2025, appeared to be back on the hunt for purchases in recent quarters, reaching a deal to buy Occidental Petroleum's petrochemical business for $9.7 billion and building a $5.6 billion stake in Alphabet. Both positions were unchanged in Q4.  

The full breakdown of Berkshire's Q4 13F is below.

Source: Edgar

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 19:15

Zelensky Slams Trump Pressure As 'Not Fair' - Says Ukrainian Public Won't Let Him Cede Land

Zero Hedge -

Zelensky Slams Trump Pressure As 'Not Fair' - Says Ukrainian Public Won't Let Him Cede Land

Ukraine's President Zelensky has over some four years of war with Russia made very clear his unbending stance that Ukraine will never cede territory for sake of achieving peace under his watch. Yet reaching a peace settlement precisely hinges on this, as Russia will also not give up the territory it has conquered in the Donbas, including the four eastern territories in declared part of the Russian Federation in a 2022 'popular referendum'.

The White House finally appears to be ratcheting up the pressure on Zelensky to make some kind of serious land concession, however. This was evident in the latest comments by President Trump on the topic of Geneva talks this week. Frustration with Kiev was evident he told reporters aboard Air Force One, "Well, we have big talks." He stated that "It’s going to be very easy. I mean, look, so far, Ukraine better come to the table fast. That’s all I’m telling you."

This raised eyebrows among Western allies given Trump seemed to put blame squarely on Zelensky and Ukraine for failing to advance the talks, and the Trump-backed 20-point peace plan which is on the table.

via Associated Press

This unexpected statement of Trump's was serious enough for Zelensky to issue a response later the same day. The Ukrainian leader said in a just published interview with Axios that the Ukrainian public itself won't let him cede territory.

It seems this is his way of evading the mounting criticism and pressure from Trump - basically by passing it off as unpopular domestically. According to Axios:

  • Zelensky said U.S. mediators Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner have told him Russia genuinely wants to end the war, and that he should coordinate with his own negotiating team on that basis ahead of the talks.
  • But Zelensky made clear he's much more pessimistic. He also advised Witkoff and Kushner that they shouldn't try to force him to sell a vision of peace his own people would see as an "unsuccessful story."

He went so far as to proclaim to Axios that it was "not fair" for President Trump to continually call out Ukraine to make concessions, when Moscow is the aggressor.

Ukraine has recently offered a 'freeze' of the front lines, but not permanent and political recognition of territory, which has been long sought by the Putin government. Zelensky has also lately urged a face to face meeting with President Putin, but the Kremlin has made clear nothing of the sort will happen until an acceptable deal is ready to be signed.

In the interview Zelensky suggested that given Russia's size and power, it is easier for the US leader to lean on much smaller Ukraine to make big sacrifices at the negotiating table. 

"I hope it is just his tactics and not the decision," Zelensky said. "We respect each other," he said of Trump, while again thanking the US for seeking to arrange a peace agreement. According to Axios, here's where things stand on the territorial question amid talks in Geneva:

The U.S. mediators have proposed that Ukrainian forces withdraw from the parts of the Donbas they currently hold and allow that area to become a demilitarized "free economic zone." Washington has not taken a position on which country would hold sovereignty there.

At the moment, Russian forces hold some 90% of the Donbass, but are still demanding Kiev cede the whole thing. It is the ten percent which Ukraine forces still possess that Zelensky fears would be ceded over the Russia if he hastily agrees to the current form of Washington's deal.

"This is part of our country, all these citizens, the flag, the land," Zelensky said, and explained that the Ukrainian people would never go for this. That's when he specifically said that only a popular referendum where the people gave its direct input would resolve it.

But he then also stressed Ukrainians "can't understand why" their country would have to give up territory to the invader. Instead, "I think that if we will put in the document ... that we stay where we stay on the contact line, I think that people will support this [in a] referendum. That is my opinion," Zelensky explained.

That's when he basically put the onus on the Ukrainian public, suggesting his own decision-making is not of prime relevance here:

"Emotionally, people will never forgive this. Never. They will not forgive... me, they will not forgive [the U.S.]."

This begs the question: it is truly the common people who would "never" forget? Or does Zelensky more immediately fear the far Right, hawkish anti-Russian sectors within his own government and military? It's long been speculated that if he signed a deal to hand territory to Russia, it wouldn't take long for some Azov assassin to go after him.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 18:50

2 More High-Profile Transgender Surgery Cases Head To Trial

Zero Hedge -

2 More High-Profile Transgender Surgery Cases Head To Trial

Authored by Darlene McCormick Sanchez via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Two high-profile “detransitioner” cases involving young women whose bodies were irrevocably altered as teens by transgender surgery are expected to go to trial in early 2027.

Chloe Cole, an 18-year-old woman who regrets surgically removing her breasts, holds testosterone medication used for transgender patients, in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Chloe Cole, who drew national attention after speaking out against subjecting children to gender-reassignment procedures such as hormones and surgeries, has an April 5, 2027, trial date, according to Mark Trammell, CEO of the Center for American Liberty, which represents several detransitioners.

​Cole and others, known as detransitioners, stopped or reversed a medical gender transition that they started earlier.

She sued Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and other health care providers in California after receiving life-altering hormones and a double mastectomy when she was 15.

​“Kaiser has done everything in its power to keep Chloe out of a courtroom and to ensure that members of the press are not in the gallery,” Trammell told The Epoch Times.

​For Cole, getting a trial date signifies a victory after years of legal wrangling and delays, she told The Epoch Times via text.

After years of fighting for the voices of my generation to be heard, I’ve been given a date for trial. Every victim, every family who spoke up, every step in the culture, all led to this moment,” she said.

​“I’ve waited for my day in court, not just for my sake, but for that of every child who should’ve been protected from irreversible harm.”

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals did not immediately respond to a request for comment regarding the lawsuit moving forward. However, the medical group told local news outlets in 2023 that it followed medical standards of “gender-affirming care.”

​Trammell also represents Luka Hein, whose case is expected to head to trial in early 2027.

​Hein’s Nebraska case names the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians, the Nebraska Medical Center, doctors, therapists, and others as defendants.

Like others, Hein had both breasts removed in 2018, when she was 16, as the first step in her “gender-affirming care,” according to the lawsuit.

Building Momentum

Both medical malpractice cases could solidify gains made in the landmark Fox Varian v. Kenneth Einhorn case, which went to trial in New York last month. It marked the first time that a detransitioner case received a jury verdict.

​The Jan. 30 verdict held a surgeon and psychologist liable for malpractice surrounding the double mastectomy that Fox Varian received when she was 16.

The jury found her psychologist, Kenneth Einhorn, and plastic surgeon, Dr. Simon Chin, liable for failing to communicate as required about Varian’s condition. One example was laid out in an October 2019 letter that Einhorn wrote to Chin in support of Varian’s surgery, which contained errors and omitted coexisting mental issues, including autism and depression.

Chloe Cole stands near her home in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The New York jury awarded Varian $2 million—$1.6 million for pain and suffering, and $400,000 for future medical expenses.

​The Fox verdict sent shockwaves through the gender medicine industry, while offering hope for other detransitioners.

​Trammell said that while medical negligence lawsuits aren’t new, those involving transgender medicine are.

​“How do you put a price tag on a young woman having her breasts amputated and potentially never being able to have a child?” he asked.

​The hope is that detransitioners will now see that they can win a legal victory.

​“I look at that as a tremendous, tremendous victory, not just for Fox Varian, but for other detransitioners who are maybe thinking about filing lawsuits,” he said.

Chloe Cole holds a childhood photo in Northern California on Aug. 26, 2022. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

Trammell said that the success of medical negligence cases depends on establishing that doctors and hospitals failed to meet the standard of care. That’s why reviews of gender medicine, such as the recent one by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), are important, he said.

​That federal report rejected medical interventions for children with gender dysphoria, recommending therapy instead.

​The HHS report noted that evidence underpinning the alleged benefits of medical interventions in pediatric gender dysphoria was “very uncertain.”

​Trammell said the pediatric gender industry appears to be based more on politics than science.

​He pointed to European countries’ changing of their policies after studies showed problems with medical interventions for childhood gender dysphoria. The United States has lagged behind Europe in adjusting its approach to pediatric gender medicine, Trammell said.

​“It’s taken the U.S., unfortunately, years to even begin to catch up. And even still, there’s a ton of money and political power behind it,” he said.

Tools for Justice

​Civil lawsuits can be tools for changing behavior on the market level, and the landmark Big Tobacco lawsuit settlement in 1998 is a case in point, Trammell said.

​“I think these cases uniquely present the opportunity to put an end to this barbaric industry because ... it’s driven by money and power,” he said.

When doctors, hospitals, and insurers become financially liable for pediatric gender procedures, it will have a chilling effect, Trammell said.

Chloe Cole speaks in support of the Protect Children's Innocence Act as Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) looks on outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington on Sept. 20, 2022. Terri Wu/The Epoch Times

​Trammell said states have already helped protect vulnerable children by passing laws banning transgender-related hormone treatments and surgery for minors.

However, state lawmakers could have a bigger impact by creating a carve-out on the statute of limitations for medical malpractice.

In many states, lawsuits must be filed within two years of the alleged malpractice, but it can take children much longer to realize the harm they suffered.

In Texas, 60 lawmakers signed a letter supporting a detransitioner’s case, heard on Feb. 11 by the Texas Supreme Court, that was originally dismissed based on the expiration of the statute of limitations. The state lawmakers vowed to support legislation next year to extend the statute of limitations for detransitioners.

Soren Aldaco filed a lawsuit in 2023 asking for more than $1 million in damages, claiming that doctors pressured her into gender-reassignment procedures, gave her “life-altering” hormones at 17, and later “botched” a double mastectomy.

Trammell said that at the very least, the statute of limitations on cases involving minors shouldn’t start until they turn 18.

“They should have five to 10 years at least to be able to make those decisions for things that happen to them as 13-, 14-, 15-year-olds,” he said.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 18:25

Trump Threatens Iraq With Crippling Sanctions If Maliki Elected To 3rd Term As PM

Zero Hedge -

Trump Threatens Iraq With Crippling Sanctions If Maliki Elected To 3rd Term As PM

Via The Cradle

Washington has delivered a direct warning to Iraq's Coordination Framework (CF) that Baghdad could face sweeping sanctions if former prime minister Nouri al-Maliki is elected to lead the country for a third term, according to a report in US-government funded Arabic-language Alhurra this week.

An Iraqi government advisor, speaking anonymously, reportedly said the message outlined economic and institutional penalties that could follow if US President Donald Trump’s veto of Maliki's nomination is ignored.

via Associated Press

The advisor said the US threatened measures against the State Oil Marketing Organization (SOMO), the Central Bank of Iraq, as well as security and diplomatic sectors, and unnamed political figures. 

Economic steps could include restricting Iraqi oil sales, limiting Baghdad’s access to US dollars, and targeting banks, which the advisor warned could trigger "an almost complete halt in foreign trade" and create serious obstacles to paying public-sector salaries.

A member of the CF confirmed the authenticity of the message, saying it reached the alliance through a senior figure who met US chargé d’affaires Joshua Harris. 

The US embassy in Iraq later disclosed that Harris had met Abdul Hussein al-Moussawi, head of the National Approach Alliance, and reiterated Washington’s readiness to "use the full range of tools to counter Iran’s destabilizing activities in Iraq."

Trump said on Friday, "We are monitoring the situation regarding the prime minister. We will see what happens. We have some thoughts about it, but in the end, everyone needs America."

Earlier, Maliki said stepping aside would endanger Iraq's sovereignty and that he would withdraw only if the CF formally requested it, condemning what he described as "blatant American interference in Iraq’s internal affairs."

Internal resistance within the alliance has reportedly grown, with one member stating: "No one wants … to risk the collapse of the political system if Washington carries out its threats."

Earlier this month, Washington publicly reinforced its opposition to Nouri al-Maliki’s return as Iraq’s prime minister, with a US official telling Rudaw that Trump’s "policy towards Iraq requires an Iraqi government that is capable of working effectively and respectfully with the United States," and warning that the administration was prepared to use the "full range of tools" to enforce that stance. 

"Because of his insane policies and ideologies, if elected, the United States of America will no longer help Iraq," Trump wrote on Truth Social. “If we are not there to help, Iraq has ZERO chance of Success, Prosperity, or Freedom. MAKE IRAQ GREAT AGAIN!”

A reminder and recent history lesson: one byproduct of Bush's overthrow of Saddam Hussein was that the Americans essentially handed Iraq over to pro-Iran Shia leadership...

Maliki responded in an interview with Al Sharqiya that he would withdraw only if the Shia-led CF that nominated him asked him to do so, warning that stepping aside under foreign pressure would "set a dangerous precedent and undermine national sovereignty."

He described US threats to economically strangle Iraq as "pressure tools," even as the CF affirmed its support for his candidacy despite Washington’s escalating warnings.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 17:45

China's Unprecedented Oil Stockpiling Sparks Questions If Beijing Is Preparing For War

Zero Hedge -

China's Unprecedented Oil Stockpiling Sparks Questions If Beijing Is Preparing For War

Almost four years ago we pointed out something striking: while the world was still busy recovering from the covid Pandemic and suffering under soaring inflation - as seemingly everything was suddenly in short supply and prices were soaring - China was busy stockpiling pretty much everything at an unprecedented pace. Quoting a JPM report from March 2022 we noted that  "while the world is short on commodities, China is not given they have started stockpiling commodities since 2019 and currently hold 80% of global copper inventories, 70% of corn, 51% of wheat, 46% of soybeans, 70% of crude oil, and over 20% of global aluminum inventories."

Almost as if China was preparing for its inevitable invasion of Taiwan.

But if anyone expected China to ease off the hoarding pedal after its massive stockpiling spree, they would be very disappointed and nowhere more so than oil. As John Kemp of JKemp Energy notes, China has been accumulating crude oil inventories to take advantage of relatively low prices and act as an emergency reserve in any future conflict with the United States and its allies.

China’s stocks of crude oil apparently increased by 54 million tonnes (about 400 million barrels or 1.1 million barrels per day) during 2025 after a similar increase in 2024. China’s massive inventory build-up has helped avert the accumulation of stocks in other areas and limited the fall in prices even as Saudi Arabia and its OPEC partners have boosted production.

Inventory accumulation, Kemp writes echoing what we said years ago, has also been described as a “strategic warning indicator” that could indicate the country’s leaders are preparing for a future conflict with the United States over Taiwan.

“Energy production and stockpile buildups often precede great power industrial wars,” one analyst told the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission established by the U.S. Congress.

In building strategic reserves to enable its economy to keep functioning and armed forces to keep fighting during a future conflict, the country is following long-standing precedent. 

China, of course, is not alone: policymakers and military planners in the United States, Britain, France and other countries in Western Europe as well as Japan have all focused on building oil reserves in readiness for a conflict for almost a century. Yet nobody has taken stockpiling as religiously as Beijing has in recent years. 

SECRETIVE STOCKS

China’s government considers stocks of crude and refined products stored by importers, refiners and distributors as well as its own strategic reserves a state secret. Total inventories are not disclosed which has led to a guessing game about how much oil is stored and its distribution between commercial stocks (held for operational and speculative purposes) and strategic reserves.

But it is possible to obtain some indication about the magnitude and direction of changes from data the government does publish on domestic crude production, imports and processing by refineries.

Crude oil exports and the direct use of crude by industry have fallen to negligible levels in recent years so they can be safely ignored.

In 2025, China’s domestic crude output climbed to 216 million tonnes and the country imported a further 578 million, according to data published by National Bureau of Statistics and the General Administration of Customs.

But the country’s refineries processed only 738 million tonnes, leaving 56 million unaccounted for, of which perhaps 2 million were probably exported with other small volumes used directly in industry.

Meanwhile, since the start of the century, China has apparently increased its crude inventories in 24 of the 25 years, according to an analysis of government data. The exception was 2021, after an unprecedented increase the previous year, during the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic, which caused crude prices to slump to multi-decade lows.

The persistent rise can be explained in part by operational requirements stemming from the growing consumption of gasoline, diesel and other petroleum products. But consumption has grown more slowly in recent years as deployment of electric vehicles and gas-powered trucks has cut into fuel use. 

The apparent increase in stocks during 2024 and again in 2025 is too large to be attributed to operational needs and commercial incentives alone.

The massive accumulation appears to be "a precautionary measure in case imports are disrupted by sanctions or an embargo during any future conflict with the United States and its allies," Kemp writes.

ENERGY SECURITY

China imports more than 70% of the crude processed in its refineries and the government has identified this foreign dependence a critical issue for national security. The Communist Party’s Central Committee recently issued a call for “Building a Strong Energy Nation” as part of its formal input into drafting the Fifteenth Five-Year Plan covering the years from 2026 to 2030:

“[E]nergy security and stability are of paramount importance to the national economy and people’s livelihoods, and are a matter of utmost national importance that cannot be ignored.”

“Currently, the world is undergoing profound changes unseen in a century, with technological revolutions and great power competition intertwined, deeply reshaping the global energy supply and demand landscape.”

There is “an urgent requirement for enhancing energy security and gaining the initiative in great power competition. Currently, frequent regional conflicts exacerbate geopolitical risks, and the United States continues to contain and suppress China, making the politicization and weaponization of energy issues more prominent.”

“To prevent shocks in the energy sector and effectively guarantee domestic development, my country's energy system must improve its own development level and security capabilities.”

“Building a strong energy nation … is the only way for my country to achieve fundamental energy security,” the Central Committee concluded.

OIL IN WARTIME

Throughout history, governments have accumulated stocks of critical materials as well as armaments in preparation for conflicts. Strategic stockpiling is arguably one of the core functions of the state. From antiquity to the medieval period, walled cities and fortresses stockpiled water, food and fuel to help withstand a prolonged siege; defensive walls without stocks of critical supplies were an invitation to famine.

Since the First World War, which saw the first widespread use of oil for battleships and other transport, the preoccupation with stockpiling has applied to oil as well.

Modern governments have accumulated strategic reserves as well as encouraging domestic oil production and incentivising alternative fuels as to protect their economies and warfighting ability in the event of conflict.

“Petroleum will continue to be the most essential fuel of industry in both peace and war,” the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee Investigating Petroleum Resources concluded in 1947. “No nation which lacks a sure supply of liquid fuel can hope to maintain a position of leadership among the peoples of the world.”

“In time of peace a nation, to maintain a first-class rating in the trade and commerce of the modern world, must have access to an abundant supply of oil because mechanized industry and transportation depend upon it. Oil is also of basic importance for purposes other than the provision of energy. Petroleum lubricates the fleets, airplanes, and machines of the world. It is a raw material in the whole field of chemicals. It is used in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products, paints, solvents, plastics, and synthetic rubber.”

“In time of war, as twice demonstrated on a large scale in the present century, a nation, to remain a first-class Power, must have petroleum resources immediately and continuously available in virtually unlimited volume. Oil is the sine qua non of military victory.

For countries with limited production on their own territory, relying on imports, ensuring uninterrupted supplies has usually meant accumulating strategic stocks to be drawn down in the event imports are disrupted.

PRE-WAR PLANNING

Since 1928, French law has required the permanent availability of three months of oil stocks with the aim of being “energy independent in case of crisis”.

In Britain, the Royal Commission on Fuel and Engines stressed the importance of holding large stocks in reserve as early as 1913 as the Royal Navy shifted its fuel from domestically produced coal to imported petroleum.

In 1934, the Oil Board, a subcommittee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, Britain’s top military planning body, was instructed to prepare plans for a war against a European enemy with a target date of 1 January 1940.

The Oil Board recommended the Royal Navy, the Army and the Royal Air Force should each lay in stocks equivalent to six months of wartime consumption (later raised to as much as one year in the case of the Air Force).

The Oil Board also recommended Britain’s oil companies should raise their own stocks to the equivalent of three months of peacetime consumption, a recommendation subsequently accepted by the industry.

In 1938, Britain’s Parliament approved the Essential Commodities Reserves Act, which gave the government power to obtain information about commodities vital in the event of war and make provisions for reserves.

In agreement with the Treasury, the act authorized the Board of Trade to make payments or loans to traders to encourage them to hold increased stocks of essential commodities, or acquire and own them its own right.

IEA EMERGENCY STOCKS

The idea of holding oil reserves equivalent to three months of consumption or net imports has remained a benchmark incorporated into subsequent iterations of strategic reserves. In 1974, following the Arab oil embargo the previous year, the governments of the United States, Japan and Western Europe concluded an Agreement on an International Energy Program.

Each participating country committed to maintain “emergency reserves sufficient to sustain consumption for at least 60 days with no net oil imports” (later raised to 90 days or three months).

The emergency reserve requirement could be satisfied by oil stocks, fuel switching capacity, or stand-by oil production.

The agreement also created a Standing Group on Emergency Questions and an International Energy Agency (IEA) to oversee and implement the programme.

In the United States, the agreement was given effect by the 1975 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which established the government-owned and run Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

In the United Kingdom, it was given effect by the 1976 Energy Act, which gave the government powers to order oil suppliers or users to maintain stocks at a minimum specified level.

Similar legislation was enacted in the other participating countries – in most cases requiring oil producers, importers, distributors or users to maintain stocks at minimum levels, either themselves or by agreement with third parties.

CHINA’S ESTIMATED STOCKS

Between 2023 and 2025, China imported between 4.1 billion and 4.2 billion barrels of crude each year, according to data from the General Administration of Customs. China’s supplies are extremely vulnerable given it relies on imports mostly along sea lanes in the Middle East, Indian Ocean and South China Sea patrolled by the U.S. Navy and allies.

Policymakers have followed their western counterparts in trying to lessen the risks by building commercial and strategic reserves at tank farms near ports and refineries as well as below ground to protect them from air attack. By mid-2024, China’s total crude storage capacity at tank farms was estimated at more than 1.8 billion barrels by consultants Kayrros and shared in prepared testimony to the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission.

Between 2016 and 2024, China’s observed stocks above ground had ranged between 850 million and a little over 1 billion barrels, according to Kayrros, using geospatial analysis on the roofs of floating roofs at tank farms. Above ground inventories included approximately 200 million barrels of strategic reserves at various sites. There was also below ground storage in at least four locations with the capacity to store another 100 million barrels.

China’s observed and estimated oil inventories are a combination of commercial stocks (held for operational and speculative purposes) and strategic stocks (held in readiness for any future disruption of imports). More recently, in March 2025, the country’s commercial stocks were estimated at around 670 million barrels, with a further 400 million held as strategic reserves, according to Kayrros.

The country also had underground facilities capable of holding a further 130 million barrels with an unknown fill rate.

Total inventories were estimated at between 1.1 billion and 1.2 billion barrels – equivalent to around 100 days or just over three months of imports. But the country’s above ground storage facilities were less than 60% full at the time, implying there was scope to increase stocks further.

China continued to import crude in excess of its refinery requirements throughout the rest of 2025 implying inventories had been raised even higher by the end of the year.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

Stockpiling can contribute to strategic stability or instability depending on point of view: it may make governments feel more secure and less prone to strike first, or embolden them to engage in more aggressive and risky behavior.

China’s policymakers have always considered the exact amount of oil held in commercial and strategic storage to be a matter of national security and a state secret. Secrecy is understandable given the country’s extreme vulnerability to any interruption of imports; there is no benefit sharing inventory levels with potential adversaries.

But the lack of transparency has fueled suspicions about the country’s intentions and whether stockpiling is defensive in nature or indicates a more aggressive preparation for war.

“China’s outsized oil storage expansion … has profound strategic implications,” one analyst testified to the Economic and Strategic Review Commission, because it can “dramatically enhance China’s ability to weather an oil blockade.”

There is also ambiguity about the distribution and management of commercial compared with strategic stocks. China’s oil inventories are much less transparent than those of the United States and other IEA members, but the stockholding arrangements themselves are not that unusual.

“Nine clearly demarcated SPR bases exist, but often sit adjacent to far larger commercial tank capacity. The stocks share access to common pipeline infrastructure and refineries.”

The somewhat ambiguous relationship between commercial and strategic inventories is not that unusual. Nor is co-location and sharing pipelines and refineries. Crude oil is not useful without access to refineries and pipelines for long-distance transmission and distribution so sharing infrastructure makes sense.

IEA members themselves employ a variety of models for maintaining strategic reserves - owned and run by the government itself, by industry, or by specialised stockholding agencies and third parties. The purpose of strategic stocks has always been somewhat ambiguous and has become more so over time as policymakers have sought to use them more actively.

Most IEA members hold stocks to deal with military and economic emergencies - outright supply interruptions as well as sudden spikes in prices. It is not always easy to distinguish between them.

GLOBAL MARKET IMPACT

China is the world’s second-largest oil consumer (after the United States) and by far the world’s largest crude importer, so the country’s consumption and inventories have a significant impact on global balances. Lack of transparency about the size of inventories, their purpose, and future trends has become a major source of uncertainty for the oil industry.

There is some evidence purchases by China’s refiners and possibly its stockpile managers have been sensitive to prices – with imports accelerating when prices have been relatively low. But this has been based on empirical observations of the rate of imports rather than a firm understanding of inventory management policies.

China’s rapid imports in 2025 absorbed some of the surplus oil production as Saudi Arabia and its OPEC⁺ partners boosted output rapidly in the face of tepid global consumption.

China’s inventory building has been described as “a secondary source of oil demand” by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). By absorbing some excess production and removing it from the open market, at least for now, stockpiling probably prevented a much faster and deeper decline in prices, especially in the spot market.

China’s inventory accumulation may have helped stabilize prices, informally and unintentionally making the country a market adjuster or buffer stock manager. But the scale and timing of future changes in both commercial and strategic inventories remain unknown and difficult to forecast.

If purchases for inventory are sensitive to prices, China might accelerate them if prices decline further (subject to logistics constraints) or taper them if prices rise. Price-sensitive purchasing policies would help dampen volatility again.

The EIA has said that: “We assume that China will continue building strategic stockpiles at nearly the same rate of about 1.0 million b/d in 2026, before reducing strategic builds in 2027.”

But given the lack of transparency around the stockpiles, it is impossible to forecast purchasing behaviour with a high degree of confidence.

Other than in time of war, the conditions under which China might release oil from commercial and especially strategic stocks are also obscure. 

China has a long tradition of actively employing state-owned reserves of food to manage prices and dampen fluctuations as well as relieving outright shortages. More recently, strategic reserve managers have purchased materials including aluminium and copper to support domestic producers and prices in periods of excess supply, before releasing them later when prices have risen.

But the conditions (if any) under which China would release oil from strategic stocks in response to high prices and shortages other than in a conflict remain unknown.

CONCLUDING OBSERVATIONS

China’s reliance on imported crude most of it arriving along sea lanes patrolled by the U.S. Navy and its allies has been identified by the government as one of the top threats to national security. China’s economy and its warfighting ability would both be vulnerable to sanctions or an embargo in the event of a future conflict with the United States over Taiwan.

Like other import-dependent countries, China’s government has responded by accumulating strategic inventories, as well as encouraging greater fuel efficiency, oil substitutes and more domestic production. 

China’s inventories are still rising, but are currently equivalent to slightly more than three months of net imports, which is comparable to stocks planned by other import-dependent countries over the last century.

China treats inventory levels as a national security matter and a state secret, which is understandable given the country’s extreme vulnerability. But the lack of transparency encourages suspicion and speculation about the country’s military planning for future conflicts.

Lack of transparency has also become the single most important source of uncertainty in forecasting future production, consumption, inventory and price balances in the global oil market.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 17:25

Memory-Holed? Western Digital Dumps $3 Billion Sandisk Stock Stake

Zero Hedge -

Memory-Holed? Western Digital Dumps $3 Billion Sandisk Stock Stake

Almost exactly a year after the spinoff officially closed on Feb. 24 last year, Western Digital is seeking to raise $3.09 billion from the sale of its remaining equity stake in Sandisk.

While WDC has risen dramatically, SNDK has been on quite a tear since the spin-off...

Chief Financial Officer Kris Sennesael said on Western Digital’s quarterly earnings call Jan. 29. that the company planned to sell its remaining 7.5 million Sandisk shares before the one-year anniversary of the separation.

And so, according to a statement Sandisk launched the sale on behalf of its former parent in a statement Tuesday that didn’t disclose how many shares it would sell.

According to the statement, Western Digital is expected to exchange the SanDisk shares for debt held by affiliates of JPMorgan and Bank of America.

For now, WDC is flat in the after-hours trade but SNDK is down around 8%, extending the losses during the day...

Amid a global shortage of flash memory, that has sent DRAM prices soaring since September, demand for Sandisk’s products, which are used in computers and mobile phones, has, as Bloomberg reports, been linked to the tech industry’s characteristic boom and bust cycles, keeping valuations in check.

The banks will sell the stock to the underwriters of the offering, whom they represent.

Did WDC's decision just mark the top in the memory melt-up?

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 17:17

Obama Says Aliens Exist But Are Not Kept In Area 51

Zero Hedge -

Obama Says Aliens Exist But Are Not Kept In Area 51

Authored by Rachel Roberts via The Epoch Times,

Former U.S. President Barack Obama said in a Feb. 14 podcast interview that aliens are real but that none are kept at the secretive Area 51 military base in the Nevada desert, later adding that he didn’t see any evidence indicating that extraterrestrials have contacted Earth during his presidency.

In the interview, when asked, “Are aliens real?” Obama replied, “They’re real, but I haven’t seen them—and they’re not being kept in [Area 51]. There’s no underground facility, unless there’s this enormous conspiracy and they hid it from the president of the United States.”

Obama became the first leader of the United States to affirm the existence of extraterrestrial life when questioned by progressive podcaster Brian Tyler Cohen in a video posted on YouTube.

After the interview went viral, Obama said on Instagram that he wanted to “clarify” his comments to Cohen, writing that he was “trying to stick with the spirit of the speed round” while speaking on the podcast.

“Statistically, the universe is so vast that the odds are good there’s life out there,” he wrote. “But the distances between solar systems are so great that the chances we’ve been visited by aliens is low, and I saw no evidence during my presidency that extraterrestrials have made contact with us. Really!”

In 2013, Obama was possibly the first U.S. leader to acknowledge the existence of Area 51, an Air Force base built during the Cold War, which has long been rumored to house extraterrestrials and unidentified flying objects (UFOs).

Cohen did not ask Obama a follow-up question on the issue. Instead, he asked the former president what his first question had been upon entering the White House. “Where are the aliens?” Obama joked in response.

Some critics, including British political commentator Calvin Robinson, said Cohen should have asked Obama for more information about aliens.

“When a former President of the United States says on the record there are aliens, YOU FOLLOW UP WITH RELEVANT QUESTIONS. You do not continue reading from your script,” he wrote on X.

The U.S. government first acknowledged Area 51’s existence in 2013 through a Freedom of Information request and has declassified documents detailing its history and purpose. The base has been a testing ground for a host of top-secret aircraft, including the U-2 in the 1950s and later the F-117 stealth fighter.

Trump Admin on Aliens

President Donald Trump has expressed skepticism about the existence of aliens, while acknowledging that “anything is possible.”

Trump addressed the subject in several media appearances during the 2024 presidential campaign. On a podcast with Lex Fridman, Trump said he would consider pushing the Pentagon to release additional UFO footage that many believe is classified.

“Oh yeah, sure, I’ll do that. I would do that. I’d love to do that,” Trump said, noting that public pressure to disclose records relating to UFOs is similar to that surrounding the John F. Kennedy assassination.

On Logan Paul’s “Impaulsive” podcast in June 2025, Trump said, “Am I a believer? No, I can’t say I am."

“But I have met with people, serious people, that say there’s some really strange things flying around out there.”

Trump added that given the size of the universe, “Why wouldn’t there be something, somebody?”

Vice President JD Vance has expressed his personal enthusiasm, telling the “Ruthless” podcast in August 2025 that he is “obsessed with the whole UFO thing.”

“What’s actually going on? What were those videos all about? What’s actually happening?” Vance probed.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard said last August that she believes aliens may exist and that the U.S. government holds classified information on the subject.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard in Washington on Dec. 2, 2025. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

Gabbard pledged to share disclosures from ongoing investigations into UFOs amid growing discussion of the phenomena at the highest levels of government.

Pentagon Cases Unresolved

The Pentagon’s All-domain Anomaly Resolution Office (AARO) continues to investigate more than 1,600 reports of “unidentified aerial phenomena,” an official term that has largely replaced “UFOs.”

At a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in November 2024, AARO’s director, Jon T. Kosloski, detailed cases the military believes it has solved—such as the widely circulated 2016 “GOFAST” video, now thought to show an object flying at 13,000 feet rather than right above the water—as well as other incidents which have so far defied explanation.

Previous presidents, including Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, have discussed their curiosity about alien life without confirming a belief in it.

Carter reported that he saw an unidentified bright object in the sky when he was governor of Georgia in 1969, although he later said it was likely a natural phenomenon.

A view of Area 51. Google Maps/Screenshot via The Epoch Times

Clinton said that he was curious about the possibility of extraterrestrial life and that he had asked aides to look into both Area 51 and the Roswell incident of 1947, which gave rise to much speculation about a government cover-up. After Air Force personnel recovered metallic and rubber debris near Roswell, New Mexico, the U.S. Army Air Forces announced that they were in possession of a “flying disc” before retracting the statement within a day.

Clinton said he was told there was no evidence of alien life in connection with the incident. In 1995, he joked about the Roswell incident, saying, “If the U.S. Air Force did recover any alien bodies, they didn’t tell me about it.”

The American public is increasingly convinced that aliens exist and have visited Earth, according to recent polls. More than half (56 percent) of Americans believe extraterrestrials definitely or probably exist, according to a 2025 YouGov poll.

Democrat (61 percent) and Independent (59 percent) voters are more likely than Republicans (46 percent) to believe aliens exist, with 73 percent of Americans believing the government would hide evidence of UFOs if it had any, and just 13 percent thinking it would be transparent, according to the same survey.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 17:00

Escalation: Iran, Russia, China To Hold Naval Drill In Flashpoint Strait Of Hormuz

Zero Hedge -

Escalation: Iran, Russia, China To Hold Naval Drill In Flashpoint Strait Of Hormuz

Are Russia and China finally standing up to America's addiction to regime change wars in the Middle East? They appear to at least be flashing some muscle in this incredibly tense moment, as the US deploys no less than two nuclear-powered aircraft carriers to the region.

Russia, China, and Iran have deployed naval vessels to the Strait of Hormuz for joint exercises this week, Russian presidential aide Nikolay Patrushev announced Tuesday, according to Anadolu and Iran state media. This comes as Iran's elite IRGC Navy is already in day two of military drills in the vital oil transit point, having closed some sectors of the chokepoint.

Mehr News

In a fresh interview with Turkish media, Patrushev said Moscow is advancing a "multipolar world order on the oceans" to counter what he blasted as Western hegemony.

"We will tap into the potential of BRICS, which should now be given a full-fledged strategic maritime dimension," he said. These fresh mid-February drills are being called Maritime Security Belt 2026.

It turns out Russian and Chinese warships have already been in the region as part of prior Iran-hosted drills, and without doubt they've lingered to keep a very close eye on developments after President Trump started threatening Tehran over its nuclear as well as ballistic missiles programs.

Also coming off last month's BRICS naval drills in South Africa which were dubbed "Will for Peace 2026" - Chinese, Russian, and Iranian ships have in recent years showed deepened coordination and cooperation, in an increased number of joint drills.

"The Maritime Security Belt 2026 exercises in the Strait of Hormuz, where Russia, China, and Iran sent their ships, proved to be relevant," he added.

If the US were to launch a 'surprise' attack on Iran, it remains unlikely that either Russia or China would come to Tehran's direct aid and engage militarily with Washington.

However, it's possible more Chinese and Russian ships would be sent to patrol flashpoint waters, making things more delicate and difficult in terms of US Navy maneuvering and firing.

Likely Moscow and Beijing would team up to issue a UN Security Council condemnation, and would seek to rally the globe against another Iraq-style war in the Middle East, with likely disastrous consequences for the whole region.

The second round of Iran-US talks wrapped up Tuesday in Geneva with mixed results. The Iranians have said the sides could be headed toward a new deal, and yet diplomats have admitted it was a heavy, and not very positive or amicable atmosphere. So things remain ultra-tense and charged, to say the least.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 16:40

Bayer Soars After $10.5 Billion Settlement On Current And Future Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Zero Hedge -

Bayer Soars After $10.5 Billion Settlement On Current And Future Roundup Cancer Lawsuits

Bayer stock jumped the most in three months after the company announced a $10.5 billion settlement push to settle current and future cancer lawsuits over its Roundup weedkiller. The news was first reported by Bloomberg. 

The German chemical giant proposed a $7.5 billion class-action settlement through cases filed in state court in Missouri designed to resolve Roundup suits that already have been filed and potential claims that could be filed over a 20-year period.

Bayer also announced $3 billion in settlements of existing U.S. cases in which former Roundup users blame the herbicide for causing their non-Hodgkins lymphoma, it reported.

The company has paid about $10 billion to settle most of the Roundup lawsuits that were pending as of 2020, but failed to get a settlement covering future cases. New lawsuits have continued to pour in since then. Plaintiffs have said they developed non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and other forms of cancer due to using Roundup, either at home or on the job.

Roundup, which was acquired by Bayer, is among the most widely used weedkillers in the United States

The class settlement aimed at resolving current and future claims that Roundup weedkiller caused non‑Hodgkin lymphoma is an important addition to its Supreme Court case, Bayer CEO Bill Anderson said on Tuesday.

"We are entering into the settlement because it is an important addition to the case before the Supreme Court, thereby minimising the legal risks as comprehensively as possible," he said. "Both elements are necessary independently of each other and reinforce each other," he added.

Bayer stock surged on news of the settlement.

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 12:20

Investors Overreacting To Starlink's Threat To Traditional Telcos; Goldman Says

Zero Hedge -

Investors Overreacting To Starlink's Threat To Traditional Telcos; Goldman Says

Talk of space-based data centers has suddenly become a major conversation on Wall Street. One key driver is Elon Musk's merger of SpaceX with his AI venture, xAI, aiming to eventually build "orbital data centers" at scale.

With a potential IPO later this year, the space industry - first in low-Earth orbit, then on the moon - will be center stage for years to come.

Goldman analysts, led by Andrew Lee, hosted a webcast titled "Space - Datacentres Opportunity and Telecom Risk," featuring Justin Hotchkiss (Associate Partner), Gregor Eichler (Principal), and Federico Torri (Partner) from TMT consultancy Altman Solon.

The webcast conversation looked ahead to a future in which space-based data centers could become a reality.

Goldman's telecom analysts and tech consultants discussed two major ideas:

  1. Space data centers: Not yet deployed, but could become a reality in the near term. The advantages are low-cost solar power in space, easier cooling, no property costs, and no permitting issues. One big hurdle is the need for cheaper rocket launch costs and a lightweight cooling system. If launches drop below $200/kg and cooling hardware is very light, the cost could start to look similar to building on Earth.

  2. Satellite connectivity for telecoms: It already exists, but investors are overreacting to the idea that satellites will "replace" traditional telcos. Satellites (especially LEO networks like Starlink) have limited capacity, variable service quality, and challenging economics for serving many everyday urban customers. They're most useful where building cell towers or fiber is expensive: rural, sparsely populated, higher-income areas. Think of Starlink and other LEO networks as complementary to telecoms.

A major technological leap is underway in space-based communications. Data centers in space are likely to become a reality within this decade, thanks to SpaceX's Starship rocket. Goldman's webcast suggests that Starlink and other LEO constellations should be more complementary than competitive to telcos for the foreseeable future.

Lee noted:

In the longer term, space data centres appear an increasingly likely reality. More relevant today, our conversation suggests the extent of investor concerns on satellite competition to telecoms and towercos are overstated - as we wrote in our 2025 satellite/telco report.

Satellite technology is more likely to be complementary rather than competitive to telcos due to satellite capacity constraints, service quality restrictions, and inferior economics for the majority of geographies. Telcos can leverage satellites to extend their own network coverage into rural areas where terrestrial build-out is costly.

Investing world impacts:

This would imply modest downside risk to towerco growth if rural connectivity is partially rerouted via satellites.

For towercos including Cellnex and INWIT, some of this satellite risk is already priced into their shares, but we do not see a catalyst for a re-rating in the near term.

For telcos including TMUS (majority owned by DT), where satellite risk to its broadband growth has pressured the share price, we see scope for a rerating as investor concerns over satellite risk abate over time and ongoing consensus upgrades continue.

We retain our bullish view on European telcos as laid out in our recent report - select Buy ideas include BT, Nordics, DT, KPN. We outline our key takeaways from the satellite webcast below.

The big question is: At what point does Starlink start to challenge them directly?

Professional subscribers can read the full note on our new Marketdesk.ai portal​​​​.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 11:40

What Price Will You Pay For What You Need?

Zero Hedge -

What Price Will You Pay For What You Need?

By Michael Every of Rabobank

A Material Shift

It was that 2026 rarity of a genuinely ‘quiet day’ on Monday with the US out for Presidents’ Day and much of Asia already on holiday for Lunar New Year. However, despite China staying out for the rest of the week, things are likely to shift to a higher gear from today onwards.

The RBA minutes this morning, which explained why rates were hiked 25bps, stated “the latest forecasts produced by the staff were materially stronger than those produced in August and November.” One would hope so, but why were those forecasts stronger? Far more useful is the repeated mention of “material shift” – higher. That’s the case in Australia and world-wide; but not in the way the RBA meant it. We are no longer in a world in which RBA references to (and models of) “aggregate demand” and “aggregate supply” have much relevance. Yes, demand exists. Yes, supply does too. But neither are “aggregate”. Both are now very starkly variate.

The IMF just warned Australia that it’s 5% deposit scheme for first-time home buyers will push up housing inflation and should be scrapped – as others warn it’s already too late to do so. The RBA had warned of the same thing months ago too yet now seems surprised it might have shifted their forecasts and Overnight Cash Rate. That’s as the Fed is also set to loosen bank capital requirements to try to encourage more mortgage lending, and at lower rates – though it has to be said that the US bank share of such lending has declined from 60% to 35% since 2003, arguing some reversal could be warranted in the market.

Beyond such traditional macro stories, raw materials are again of supreme importance and, as in the past, linked to national security. Demand is vast; yet supply is limited in terms of natural availability and the ‘unnatural’ outcome of China dominating their processing. There is nothing aggregate about this. You have something or you don’t. A machine minus one key widget won’t work, so is worthless. Equally, a gun minus a bullet renders you defenceless. So, what price will you pay for what you need?

This is linked to AI, which ‘Anthropic in Venezuela’ shows is about national security. Indeed, the EU Parliament just blocked its MEPs from using AI tools over cyber and privacy fears – though these are perhaps not the high priority targets for foreign intelligence services that they think they are. While politics is hardly a synonym for productivity, should the EU military drop AI, it will be left even further behind the US. Should the EU private sector drop AI too, it would only widen a productivity gap between it and the US and China. If Europe still wants in on any front, that only increases the global urgency to get raw materials and electricity flowing at as cheap a price as possible. What’s the correct interest rate for that?

Yet things are not all inflationary: quite the opposite. As China rolls out its latest agentic AI, Qwen 3.5, and Wall Street smashes firms that suddenly may not have a viable business model, a recent summit in India saw experts warn that the country needs to take immediate action to manage the AI threat to the vast number of services sector jobs it’s created. They offer that “more training” can help the country avoid being left with “obsolete skills” – but is that true? The possibilities opened up by AI could arguably see white collar jobs destroyed at a scale and pace that no political economy is prepared for, let alone a stock market. What’s the correct interest rate for that?

These are, in both the literal and the metaphorical sense of the term, material shifts. Central bank thinking is, as usual, struggling to keep up. The Fed’s Barr speaks on AI and the labor market today, and Daly on AI and the economy: they both wrote those speeches themselves, right?

Meanwhile, US talks with Iran continue today against a backdrop of the IRGC carrying out naval exercises in the Strait of Hormuz. It needs to be repeated that the US continues to surge military power into the region daily: it remains to be seen if that will see Tehran bend or not. Oil prices are up around 1.3% this morning as the market starts to get twitchy.

Russia-Ukraine peace talks continue in Geneva, as Lithuania warned against a ‘hollow” Article 5-like guarantee being offered to Ukraine, Finland warned that Russia is reinforcing its nuclear and Arctic assets near its border, the UK press speaks of Europe creating a deterrent with tactical nukes as if this is a cost-free and risk-free exercise, and Ukraine, in the background, reportedly made its fastest battlefield gains in 2.5 years.

Also note an unconfirmed report Russia allowed limited dollar trading for the first time in years. That follows the Bloomberg story last week that Moscow is prepared to offer the US a major economic deal. As noted here many times before, the geopolitical and geoeconomic landscapes are one and the same, and our financial architecture merely sits on top of it. Likewise:

  • Trump said he’ll make a decision soon on whether to sell the planned $20bn package of arms to Taiwan or not – there will be regional, if not global, consequences either way.

  • The EU floated that 70% of EVs must be made in there to qualify for state aid, with similar rules for aluminium: that’s a material shift towards either Gaullism or Trumpism. Yet as the Economist claims that ‘Russia’s economy has entered the death zone’, the Ukrainian press reports EU companies are keeping Moscow’s war machine running via their exports to its auto sector.

  • The Eurogroup president said a new Franco-German-led ‘E6’ format to push ahead with deeper structural reforms will only be “temporary”, as Ireland, which was left out, is pushing back. Does that imply that a vanguard group form new structures and then other EU members can then join at their leisure, or will they have to go through some form of a new ‘accession’ process to qualify for this inner sanctum? That’s another material shift.

  • Canada’s natural resources minister is going to Poland to promote Canada’s nuclear energy expertise. That’s as the Financial Post notes, 'We need to wake up': Atlantic Canada a microcosm of the problems facing the rest of the country’, and shares ‘David Rosenberg: Memo to Mark Carney: Don’t bring a butter knife to an economic gun fight.’

The same can be said about central bank models.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 11:20

SpaceX Enters Secretive Pentagon Contest To Build Voice-Controlled Drone Swarm Tech: Report

Zero Hedge -

SpaceX Enters Secretive Pentagon Contest To Build Voice-Controlled Drone Swarm Tech: Report

Last week, we asked whether Anthropic's AI tool, Claude, played a role in the kill chain during the U.S. Delta Force raid targeting Maduro last month. We've also reported on the Department of War's search for "war unicorn" startups, and what appears to us to be the early innings of the rise of dual-use technologies - from humanoid robots to drones - reshaping the modern battlefield.

A new Bloomberg report states that Elon Musk's SpaceX and its wholly owned subsidiary, xAI, are competing in a classified DoW contest to develop voice-controlled, autonomous drone-swarming technology. This report is based solely on "people familiar with the effort."

The people describe the DoW content as lasting for 6 months with an end price of $100 million. The aim is to use chatbots to direct commands to drones across multiple domains, air and sea, to complete a set of missions.

The contest is jointly run by the Defense Innovation Unit and a new Defense Autonomous Warfare Group element within U.S. Special Operations Command, and remains associated with the Biden-era "Replicator" push to deploy drones on the modern battlefield.

The report highlights a potential shift for Musk: While SpaceX is already a major defense contractor in the space domain, he has supported limiting offensive capabilities for autonomous weapons and previously signed a 2015 open letter warning about AI weapon risks.

Why Musk has changed his mind on autonomous weapons remains unclear. But as we've shown readers, the war in Ukraine has supercharged the development of drones, ground robots, and AI kill chains, pulling 2030s-era war technology forward and leaving the world dangerously unprepared for the rise of this new war tech.

However, the DoW has recently recognized this new, challenging future, as we note that the rise of "war unicorns" is underway, with major defense primes facing an "adapt or die" moment.

xAI has been recruiting engineers with active "secret" or "top secret" clearances and has already secured DoW-related work to integrate its Grok chatbot into government systems, including a previously reported $200 million contract.

Bloomberg noted, "xAI isn't the only advanced AI company working on the new Pentagon effort. OpenAI is supporting a successful submission from Applied."

Related:

The writing is on the wall: 2030s war tech is here.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 11:00

Trump Calls In FEMA To Respond To Sewage Disaster In Potomac River

Zero Hedge -

Trump Calls In FEMA To Respond To Sewage Disaster In Potomac River

Authored by Jill McLaughlin via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump is directing federal emergency teams to respond to a sewage spill on the Potomac River, calling it a “massive ecological disaster” and blaming local leaders for not handling the crisis, which began nearly a month ago.

“There is a massive Ecological Disaster unfolding in the Potomac River as a result of the Gross Mismanagement of Local Democrat Leaders, particularly, Governor Wes Moore, of Maryland,” Trump posted on Truth Social on Feb. 16.

Moore’s office didn’t immediately return a request for comment on Trump’s statement.

On Jan. 19, a section of the Potomac Interceptor sewer line collapsed, causing the failure of a 60-year-old, 72-inch concrete pipeline along the Clara Barton Parkway in Montgomery County, Maryland.

Over 250 million gallons of sewage poured into the Potomac River in one of the largest spills in U.S. history, according to University of Maryland researchers. Water samples collected at the site show high levels of E. coli and Staphylococcus aureus, the bacteria that causes staph infections, researchers reported.

“People coming into contact with the impacted water or land are at risk of becoming infected with these bacteria, which can lead to serious health conditions,” said Dr. Rachel Rosenberg Goldstein, a microbiologist and assistant professor at the university.

Trump said the spill was the “result of incompetent local and state management of essential waste management systems.”

“It is clear local authorities cannot adequately handle this calamity,” Trump stated.

“Therefore, I am directing federal authorities to immediately provide all necessary management, direction, and coordination to protect the Potomac, the water supply in the Capital region, and our treasured National Resources in our Nation’s Capital City.”

Despite state and local leaders not asking for federal assistance, Trump said he “cannot allow incompetent local ‘leadership’ to turn the river in the heart of Washington into a disaster zone.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), will play a key role in coordinating the response, the president stated.

FEMA and DHS are facing a partial funding lapse as Democrats in the U.S. Senate demand changes to immigration enforcement.

Crews work to keep raw sewage from flowing into the Potomac River after a pipeline rupture, in Glen Echo, Md., on Jan. 23, 2026. Cliff Owen/AP Photo

According to Virginia’s health department, the utility DC Water is handling repairs to the pipe, while Maryland has regulatory authority over the Potomac River for recreational advisories, water quality monitoring, and issuing bans on shellfish harvesting.

The Virginia Health Department was working with the Maryland departments of Health and the Environment during the crisis.

DC Water has stated that drinking water is not affected by the incident.

The nearest Virginia location using the Potomac River as a primary source of water is the city of Fairfax, with an intake located several miles upstream of where the sewage spill entered the river, according to Virginia.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 10:40

Hyatt Executive Chairman Thomas Pritzker Resigns Over Epstein Ties

Zero Hedge -

Hyatt Executive Chairman Thomas Pritzker Resigns Over Epstein Ties

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

Thomas J. Pritzker, the longtime executive chairman of Hyatt Hotels Corporation, announced his retirement effective immediately on Feb. 16, acknowledging what he described as “terrible judgment” in maintaining contact with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and his associate Ghislaine Maxwell.

Pritzker, 75, said in a statement released by the company on Monday that he will also not stand for reelection to Hyatt’s board of directors at the company’s 2026 annual shareholder meeting.

In a letter shared by the company, Pritzker said that “good stewardship also means protecting Hyatt, particularly in the context of my association with Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell, which I deeply regret.

"I exercised terrible judgment in maintaining contact with them, and there is no excuse for failing to distance myself sooner,” he said.

“I condemn the actions and the harm caused by Epstein and Maxwell, and I feel deep sorrow for the pain they inflicted on their victims.”

Hyatt’s board said in a separate statement it had appointed president and CEO Mark S. Hoplamazian to succeed Pritzker as chairman, combining the roles of chairman and CEO effective immediately.

“Tom’s leadership has been instrumental in shaping Hyatt’s strategy and long-term growth, and we thank him for his service and dedication to Hyatt,” Richard Tuttle, chair of the board’s Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, said in a statement.

“The Board has engaged in thoughtful succession planning, and we are confident that Mark’s deep knowledge of Hyatt’s business, strong relationships with owners and colleagues, and proven track record as CEO of nearly two decades positions him well to serve as Chairman and continue driving Hyatt’s long-term success.”

Pritzker had served as executive chairman since 2004 and had been involved with Hyatt and its predecessor entities for more than four decades. During his tenure, the Chicago-based hotel operator went public, expanded its global footprint, and shifted toward an asset-light business model.

In his Feb. 16 letter to fellow directors, Pritzker described the company as being in a “strong and sustainable position” with a “world-class management team” and said he would turn his attention to his family foundation and other activities.

Neither Hyatt nor Pritzker detailed the extent of Pritzker’s contacts with Epstein or Maxwell, and there have been no allegations of criminal wrongdoing against Pritzker.

His resignation comes amid a wave of high-profile departures following the Department of Justice’s recent release of millions of documents related to Epstein, who was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges and later found dead in a Manhattan jail cell. New York City’s medical examiner ruled the death a suicide.

Maxwell, a longtime associate of Epstein, was convicted in 2021 of helping recruit and groom underage girls for sexual abuse and was sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The released files show that Pritzker and Epstein exchanged friendly emails after Epstein was convicted in 2008 of soliciting a prostitute and procuring a child for prostitution.

In recent weeks, several prominent figures have stepped down from leadership roles after their names appeared in emails and other documents linked to Epstein.

Among them, Kathryn Ruemmler announced she would resign as Goldman Sachs’s general counsel after emails she exchanged with Epstein were made public. Ruemmler has said she regrets ever knowing Epstein and described her contact with him as professional.

Others who have left posts include talent executive Casey Wasserman, law firm chairman Brad Karp, and senior corporate and diplomatic figures whose communications with Epstein or Maxwell drew public scrutiny.

Tyler Durden Tue, 02/17/2026 - 10:00

Transcript: Douglas and Heather Boneparth, Money Together

The Big Picture -



 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Douglas and Heather Boneparth, Money Together, is below.

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

~~~

Interview with Doug Boneparth and Heather Boneparth Podcast Transcript

[00:00:02] Announcer: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in Business with Barry Ritholtz on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:00:16] Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast I have an extra special guest. Guest, plural Heather and Doug Boneparth. I’ve known Doug for, I don’t know, 10 years. Yeah, maybe something like that. And Heather, for a couple of years when I went to their book party and dragged my brother-in-law, ’cause he was in the neighborhood, he was there, we sat and had a conversation and I’m like, yeah, a book about couples money. This is gonna be, you know, it is what it is. And as we were chatting, I’m like, son of a gun. This is a really interesting topic for the podcast. I have to have them on. And I thought this conversation was absolutely fascinating. Not just about power dynamics within a relationship, but everything from budgeting, prenup agreements, inheritance communication. Really. This was really fascinating. I found it super interesting. And I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth. Thanks for

[00:01:16] Doug Boneparth: Having us. Thanks for having us, Barry.

[00:01:18] Barry Ritholtz: So I’ve been excited to have you come talk about this since your book party. ‘Cause it is not the usual financial book. It is a lot of stories. You guys have interviewed hundreds of couples. But before we get to the book, I wanna just dive a little bit into your backgrounds. Heather, you went to law school at, at my alma mater, Benjamin and Cardozo School of Law in New York City. I didn’t

[00:01:45] Heather Boneparth: Know

[00:01:45] Barry Ritholtz: That. Yes, we both went there. Oh, I love that. Not, not at the same time. And Doug, you got your MBA from NYU Stern, very different career paths. Tell us what, what were the original plans?

[00:01:57] Heather Boneparth: Well, the original plan for a, for an elder millennial like myself, I think got thrown out the window, you know, during the Great Recession in 2008. So I was in law school when that happened. Ooh. Yeah. And so I graduated in a very different labor environment than the one I entered school in. So my expectations were not met. I mean, that’s an understatement. So, you know, I, I ended up in the world of commercial insurance, which shouldn’t surprise you that that was not exactly what I went to school for.

[00:02:25] Barry Ritholtz: I thought you loved commercial insurance.

[00:02:27] Heather Boneparth: You know what, I, I, I ended up having, you know, having a fine career in that for over 13 years. And I, I really like learning a lot about risk, which we write a lot about in the book. But that was certainly not the path and the reason that I went there and, and so much of my earliest money stories as a young adult were really wrapped up in the shame that came from graduating law school with six figures of student loan debt to a labor environment that was not welcoming to, to young lawyers.

[00:02:54] Barry Ritholtz: And, and the studies show you graduate into a recession, your lifetime earnings are actually lower than people who graduate into a boom, which is really interesting sort of thing. Doug, MBA from NYU Stern, what was the plan?

[00:03:08] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. So by the time I made it to grad school, I was still focused on building my own wealth management firm and building a book of business. I grew up the son of a certified financial planner. So I’ve done nothing else in my professional life. That

[00:03:19] Barry Ritholtz: Was always the plan from start

[00:03:21] Doug Boneparth: Was always the plan. That’s what I was doing during college. Undergraduate, went to New York City as a love story, wanted to be with Heather. And that was October, literally October, 2008. I’m getting off a plane. Nothing was really

[00:03:33] Barry Ritholtz: Going

[00:03:33] Doug Boneparth: On. Nothing was happening. Nice and chill, watching it all.

[00:03:37] Heather Boneparth: He moved to New York City with a duffle bag and a dream. Absolutely. Like straight out of a movie.

[00:03:40] Doug Boneparth: I shipped up three boxes and went to Sleepy’s on fifth to get a bed that day. Random roommate on Craigslist.

[00:03:45] Barry Ritholtz: My, my wife and I watched a whole bunch of rom-coms over the holidays. And this is like, this is setup

[00:03:53] Doug Boneparth: For one of them. We’re

[00:03:54] Barry Ritholtz: We’re leaving out, you two meet as freshmen at the University of Florida. So you guys have been together since freshman year, is that right?

[00:04:02] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, since 1918. 19.

[00:04:04] Heather Boneparth: Since 1819.

[00:04:05] Doug Boneparth: 1819. Since 1819.

[00:04:06] Barry Ritholtz: So it’s a hundred, 130 years

[00:04:08] Heather Boneparth: Going on, you know, and, and, and I think we make this point too, then, and, and we’re, we’re transparent about this. We’re not perfect. I mean, Doug and I, I would say lived the lifecycle of some marriages before even getting married. Right. I mean, we had to figure out what it would look like to, to be adults and grow up together or apart. I mean, they were a couple years there where we didn’t know whether we had a future together. When I went to New York City, he moved home to work for his father and, and and where’s home?

[00:04:36] Doug Boneparth: South Florida. Boca Raton.

[00:04:38] Barry Ritholtz: Okay. Oh my god. Boca Raton. Wow. So, so wait, so you meet when you’re 18 or 19 years old? Yeah. Just about when did you first start talking about money with each other? Was that way off in the future or was that an early conversation?

[00:04:54] Heather Boneparth: It was not a conversation for a long time. I don’t think we really started talking about money together until we came back together and said like, it was really after law school that we took a hard look at, at each other and where we had been and where we were. And we said, we wanna give this a real shot. We wanna start our adult lives

[00:05:11] Doug Boneparth: Together. Our adult shot together. Yeah. But we were observing money behaviors for our entire time dating throughout. That’s right. Undergraduate. And probably me observing Heather more than Heather observing me. You’re an only child product of divorce. Her story is shared in detail in the book. So I was, as the son of a financial advisor and working in an advisory practice, probably getting a lot more observation points on Heather than her on me. But to Heather’s point, when we ultimately had decisions, joint financial decisions to make, such as sharing rent, the typical stuff that couples come together for, I would say because we had those observation points around each other, and obviously being together for so long before we needed to make decisions, it played in our favor and helped us navigate it. Although I don’t think you or I anticipated multiple six figures of graduate student loan debt. Right. As this big boulder. We had to figure out how to move in our financial puzzle.

[00:06:09] Heather Boneparth: And I don’t think that he could have anticipated the weight that the debt would have on me. And, you know, it, it is so interesting and, and, and we interviewed a couple for the book, and I would say the same for Doug too. Like, there’s people who view debt, especially like debt from higher education as you know, this is an investment in myself. It’s an opportunity. It was a necessary evil to get where I need to go. That was not the message that I was telling myself. My debt was not a, some outside, you know, hurt financial hurdle. My debt was me. It stood for everything that I wasn’t really,

[00:06:42] Barry Ritholtz: I’m so shocked to hear. I mean, having read the book, and I know you not as much as I know Doug, but I know you, I’m, I’m really kind of surprised at that. I can compartmentalize things like that. And just like, I remember when we were young and broke and my wife used to sit there Sunday nights writing checks out and she’s like, we don’t have enough money to send all seven checks. I’m like, that’s easy. Send the check, don’t sign it to whichever one. And they’ll bounce it back and, you know, try again. Just remember which one you could do. You could rotate through seven and by then hopefully we’ll have a little more money. She was aghast at that. I could not possibly care less. It,

[00:07:23] Heather Boneparth: It, it’s so interesting. And there, there were elements of it that we were totally okay with. Like I remember we first moved in together on the upper West Side. We would go to Fairway to the grocery store and we had like our set of like, of of very affordable meats that we could get every week. Yeah. Every week we ate the same things and I packed us lunch every single day. Yeah. To go to work. And I was completely okay with that. But anytime there was a major financial decision we had to make, or anytime there was even like the smallest hiccup with my student loan debt repayment. Oh, oh. I mean, I would, it would send me into these like deep emotional spirals. And they were not just about the money. It was like, I am worthless. I’m never going to get anywhere in my career. I can’t believe I did this to myself. Like it really ran so deep I was punishing myself.

[00:08:09] Barry Ritholtz: So there’s a line in the book that I, I wanna bring up here. ‘Cause it very much relates to what you’re saying. Quote, most money conflicts aren’t really about money. Explain what, what are, what are they actually about? Yeah,

[00:08:24] Doug Boneparth: It’s, so we have a whole first section of this book that touches on our beginnings, right? Who we are in our relationship with. Money starts long before you meet your partner. It is the meals you shared with your family where you went on vacation. Maybe it’s some trauma you experienced or the socioeconomic status both from the side of being privileged all the way to food insecurity or housing insecurity. Our cultures, our religion. It is almost endless the amount of touch points in our past that shaped the way we feel about money that we bring into our relationships that we bring into our adulthood. So when we are having an emotional response to money, it’s usually not the number on the screen or the check you’re writing and the bill you can or cannot pay. It is something you’re fixing it to that you’ve experienced. And if you can get to the bottom of that, if you can create that relationship, you’re gonna be that much better off in evolving and having a better financial relationship. Because now you gotta bring all that to your partner who also has all of that in their own unique way. And I think that right there shows you how difficult this particular topic is around love and money.

[00:09:38] Barry Ritholtz: So when you guys sit down with a couple to talk about money and financial planning, what’s the biggest mistake you see? What do most couples, what’s the biggest error that that comes up? Time. And again,

[00:09:50] Heather Boneparth: They’re not communicating, they’re not communicating either substantively about these issues, about, they’re not going deep enough to understand why they feel the way they feel in a very surface level, very surface level. And they’re getting caught in these surface level disagreements, right? It’s, it’s these behaviors that happen over and over again because we’re not taking the time to dig deeper to understand what’s actually going on, like what Doug just said. Because that’s how you build empathy for one another. You may not agree with the way your partner approaches it, but if you don’t even understand why they feel the way they feel, you’re never going to get past those squabbles over spending or about what you’re saving for and being misaligned on your goals unless you’re taking that extra step to really understand empathy builds that bridge in people

[00:10:35] Barry Ritholtz: Communication. Doug, you you wanna say something else? Yeah, I

[00:10:37] Doug Boneparth: Like putting examples and stories behind that. You have someone who does the shopping in a household, they come home with an extra bag of rice or we already have that item. The other partner gets very upset. We already have four chicken broths and you bought two more. Maybe, you know, is it that they spent the money on two more boxes of chicken broth or is it because there were some issues with food security growing up and that is plaguing their identity around money. So they fight about the chicken broth.

[00:11:05] Heather Boneparth: Not we did interview. Yeah, yeah. We interviewed someone who came from, and it’s, I think it’s a great example, came from extreme adverse childhood experiences. They experienced homelessness, abuse,

[00:11:17] Barry Ritholtz: Living in the car, I remember.

[00:11:18] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. Living in the car. And one of the ways that played out in his young adult life was always overstocking his fridge and always overstocking that his pantry, because you never wanted to feel the safety, you feel safety in being over con over consumptive as an adult. So just one example of how that shows up. I, I’m

[00:11:37] Barry Ritholtz: Not a prepper, but we had plenty of paper towels and toilet paper heading into the pandemic, which you write about. One of the things that shocked me in the book was the whole debate about joint accounts, separate accounts, hybrid. I mean, to me, this is partnership blasphemy. I had to ask my wife this morning, Hey, when did we set up our joint account? And she’s like, don’t you remember we were leaving for our honeymoon. We got married on a, on a Sunday afternoon, we got home a Sunday and knew we got home at like six, seven o’clock. We signed all the checks, gave it to our neighbor to deposit. That was our opening deposit in our joint account. Anybody I know that doesn’t have a, everybody I know who’s married disproportionately has joint accounts if they’re still married. And we went over the other day talking about this over all the couples we know that are divorced, how many of them did not have joint accounts and a disproportionate number that we knew about because she’s usually friends with the wife. I’m friends with the husband. Sure. Sometimes we, after divorce, you inherit one side or the other. I don’t choose. I don’t, I don’t understand how you could get married and not pull your assets, pull the financial responsibility or at least the discussions about what are we spending, how much is a vacation, what are we spending on shoes or watches or whatever. And I I I’m genuinely shocked. That’s a debate. What did you guys find?

[00:13:15] Heather Boneparth: I would start with the caveat that I think that there are legitimate reasons why people are apprehensive to join and pool all of their finances together. If it’s a second marriage or if somebody came from maybe an abusive family, like there could be legitimate reasons why

[00:13:29] Barry Ritholtz: Or come from a lot of money

[00:13:30] Heather Boneparth: Or come from a lot of money, which, you know, there’s,

[00:13:32] Barry Ritholtz: Well, they may have a separate trust or a separate account, but at the very least isn’t there a households account you’re paying the mortgage and rent, you’re paying for vacations, clothes, food. Oh, we’ve, its entertainment. We’ve

[00:13:43] Heather Boneparth: Seen it all. We

[00:13:44] Doug Boneparth: Completely agree. Completely agree with you on this. That having a joint account puts you in the best position to work as a team.

[00:13:50] Barry Ritholtz: You’re partners. Right? Exactly. Yeah.

[00:13:52] Heather Boneparth: Communication, again, playing team again. And also just the transparency, right. Of of being able to see what comes in and out and save for joint goals together. I mean, we talk about this, there’s of course there might be reasons why you don’t. Yeah. But there’s no question that you’re gonna, all the data work, it’s gonna work better

[00:14:07] Doug Boneparth: At the all the data points to that your relationship will work out better in general and financially. If you are taking a team approach to your finances, imagine, you know, playing the same game on two separate fields. That’s insane. Right? Right. What are you doing here? But there is one thing, regardless of how you set it up, and I think in practice we always encourage clients to do what works for them. But the thing you need to have is transparency. You wanna have your own individual account, you wanna have your own individual account. You wanna chop up the expenses. By the way, that scales horribly. Right? When you start bringing family into it, having

[00:14:43] Barry Ritholtz: Children, yeah. Whatcha

[00:14:44] Doug Boneparth: Gonna do pay 25% of the formula because they make 25% of the household income for the baby. This isn’t, this is crazy stuff, right? But if you have transparency and everyone has access to each other’s bank accounts and you’re doing these reviews and everyone knows where everything is, sure, I could see pathways for that working. But again, I don’t, and we would all agree this is not the most effective way to manage a household financial situation. And what

[00:15:09] Heather Boneparth: We found in speaking to so many relationship coaches and couples, therapists and psychologists, is that this, this money, this money topic actually translates to couples therapy as well. The idea of yours, mine and ours. No one is saying that you need to come together as some like homogenous blob. And now you’re just one person and all your assets are pulled goals, all

[00:15:29] Doug Boneparth: Your goals are the same.

[00:15:30] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. Pulled

[00:15:31] Doug Boneparth: No, you are supposed to maintain your individuality and have individual goals, whatever that may mean. If that could mean individual financial goals, we take no issue with that. Yours, mine, and ours. It’s, it’s the same in couple’s work.

[00:15:43] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My guest today are Heather and Doug Boneparth. They are the authors of the book, Money Together, How to Find Fairness in Your Relationship and Become an Unstoppable Financial Team. So communication and transparency, pretty straightforward. And with a little hindsight obvious, what was the biggest surprise? What did couples say to you where you kind of looked across each other and said, what the hell is that about? Like, what shocked you?

[00:16:47] Doug Boneparth: Heather would always say, and I would agree with her, often the things that shocked us were the things that were not being said. For example, you would ask a very forward question, or rather you would pick up, I would do a lot of this over Zoom. You’d pick up body language. You would see one partner zoning out or spacing out or not engaging. So those were all tells that there was something greater going on. On that particular topic.

[00:17:14] Barry Ritholtz: What sort, what sort of topics engender that sort of response? Is it the full spectrum or were there things that were like, I could imagine credit card debt and reckless spending being an issue. That’s obvious. What what surprised you?

[00:17:32] Heather Boneparth: You know, where I saw this come up and I, and I, it, it always caused me to kind of tilt my head and and wanna know more was when you would see one spouse, it was typically a, a man who was running his own business or an entrepreneur. And it really felt like it was, was his show and, and the risks that he were to be taking, and this happened more than once, felt like they really did not consider the family as a whole. It felt very, very much like, well this is my plan and if it doesn’t work, burn it all to the ground. And you could see his wife sitting next to him aghast, like aghast, but silently aghast. Like you could see that it was like, she’s like, you’re right. Like this is, this is his ride. And, and we are all, I would say along with it, but being held hostage by it.

[00:18:20] Heather Boneparth: Wow. And that, that was where we saw this, the silence and the body language play in. And I’ve set Doug, like we interviewed a a couple folks who like had been in bankruptcy for business ideas of theirs. And that’s fine. But like, just the, just the, the lack of accountability to the rest, to his partner and to his children and just saying, well, and I’ll try again and I’ll, and I’ll keep trying again. Like, what kind of rollercoaster are you bringing your family on if she doesn’t feel like she has a voice to even be part of this discussion that we’re having right

[00:18:49] Barry Ritholtz: Now. Seeing someone without agency. Yeah. Is not a good thing to look at. It doesn’t look good. And you can see it if you’re asking the right questions or you’re a financial professional and you’re looking at that situation. Yeah. It’s, it’s pretty ugly. And I have to ask about this since we were talking earlier about dividing some household work and, and responsibility. How did you do this work together? How did each of you contribute? You work together as writing together a different experience?

[00:19:21] Heather Boneparth: It’s a journey. Yeah, it was a journey, Barry. This was something. So I, writing is a huge part of my life. I was a journalism major in undergrad. I, there was a very long time of my life where I had only hoped to get back to a moment like this where I could use my words and my storytelling ability and my, and my question asking ability, which was honed three years as a lawyer to write something like this, to find a way to help people through my writing. So the, we always kind of knew that I would be taking the lead when it came to writing. Yeah. The words on the page of this book. But Doug and I sat together on 90% of these interviews. Of the couples. Yeah. Many of the experts. And the way that we would do this is we’d have like a big picture meeting.

[00:20:02] Heather Boneparth: We would talk through different chapters. Eventually they all fell into the five sections of the book. And then I, I would draft it and I would put it to him. And I would say, does this one make sense from a, from a practitioner standpoint? Like, are we covering enough of the basis from a practitioner standpoint and two from a, from a male lens, we wanted to write a book. I think one of the greatest challenges in writing this book was not us working together. We’ve worked together in many different ways over the course of our careers, but how do we write something that resonates with all genders?

[00:20:34] Barry Ritholtz: So I know Doug’s voice, which is kind of snarky and funny. And I got the sense that you did most of the writing in this, at least in terms of, I don’t wanna say feminine, feminine, but it’s a gentle se sensitive, the right word. Like, like

[00:20:53] Heather Boneparth: Empathetic,

[00:20:53] Barry Ritholtz: Empathetic tone. Yeah. Which I don’t get from Doug’s tweets. No, but here’s the, the more interesting question. When you guys went through the whole process of drafting and editing and writing the book, did it change at all how you guys talked about money with each other? How you thought about it? Yes. Like reading the book might affect some people. How did writing the book affect you two as a married couple?

[00:21:18] Heather Boneparth: Oh my goodness. In

[00:21:19] Doug Boneparth: Profound ways.

[00:21:20] Heather Boneparth: In profound ways. In so many ways. I mean, I, I will tell you that some of the couples we interviewed completely changed my perspective on what it means to have enough. Yeah.

[00:21:31] Barry Ritholtz: Really.

[00:21:32] Heather Boneparth: And, and, and that it was, these were perspective shifting relationships that we’ve made with some of these folks.

[00:21:39] Barry Ritholtz: Give, give us an example.

[00:21:41] Heather Boneparth: Well, on one hand we interviewed many couples who objectively on paper live a very different socioeconomic life than we do. They live in a, in a lower cost of living area. They make it work on a lot less. And they, they have love, they have family, a roof over their head. Have they have a roof over their head? And they have enough. We asked every couple that we interviewed, do you have enough? And the answers said so much. And they gave us such perspective. So like there are couples that on paper are, are, are living a very different life. Sure. Than we are, you know, objectively of less privilege. And they just were so happy and content and proud of where they were. And I think sometimes when you’re an ambitious, Doug and I are both,

[00:22:24] Doug Boneparth: We’ll flip it, we’ll flip it around, right? We interviewed a lot of people who are highly successful entrepreneurial building their second, maybe third business. And we asked that same question, don’t have enough. It was never enough.

[00:22:36] Heather Boneparth: Brought them to tears

[00:22:37] Barry Ritholtz: Really

[00:22:38] Doug Boneparth: So serious when, when they realized like, Hey, we just reflected on all this amazing stuff you did. You know, you’re telling us you, you don’t have enough. And then kind of that moment, that pause where they realized like, oh my God, what is my enough? Or they look at, I mean, it ran deep sometimes the, the family, they didn’t start the second child. They maybe didn’t have the time. They didn’t get with their spouse to enjoy something in their life.

[00:23:01] Heather Boneparth: I think that maybe one of the greatest things we learned. And it, and it made its way into the book, not only through those conversations, but we had conversations with folks who were dealing with life threatening sickness or terminal illness. And we realized that time is the greatest currency that we have. Of course. And I know we can say it, but to really believe it and feel it. And I think that we embody that now in our life.

[00:23:25] Barry Ritholtz: Let, let me float a theory at you about enough. I think if you’re in middle class or upper middle class or lower middle class, the range is pretty tight. Like upper middle class is a lawyer, an accountant making a couple hundred grand bottom of that group is somebody in civil service making 40, 50, 60 grand. That’s the range. Once you’re in the top 10, 1.1%, it’s from a million a year to billions. And no matter how much money you have, there’s always a tier above it that seems to be, gee, you know, if I just made another million dollars a year, I could fly private move from

[00:24:06] Heather Boneparth: Succession. The fi. Didn’t Tom say that in Succession?

[00:24:09] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Tom says it to Greg. Oh, 5 million, you know. Yeah. It’s, you know, the worst kind of rich there is not, not enough to retire. Right. You know, too much to do nothing, you know, whatever. Too know

[00:24:21] Doug Boneparth: Too much to do. Nothing. Not enough to retire.

[00:24:23] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. You know, I love that show. But going back to what this process did for us in our relationship, you have thought, and, and I will chime in and say, for me personally and selfishly the amount of work that needed to be put into myself in order to, because this, this book is a product of major life decisions Heather and I made three and a half years ago to leave 13 years of being a corporate attorney, which was the very reason that’s stability, the, the benefits, the salary. That was the stability I needed to grow and be the entrepreneur. And I, I

[00:25:07] Barry Ritholtz: Have, I have to interrupt you. I have the exact same experience. My wife was a teacher for 35 years. The firm launched in 2013. I didn’t feel like it was a risk, but at the very least, hey, healthcare is covered. Yep. All these things you don’t have to worry about. And I had the conversation with my wife, are you okay, first of all, changing careers from a lawyer to finance, but then, hey, I know I’m making a decent salary, but I want to go do this on my own. Yeah. I think there’s an opportunity here. And she was like, go for it.

[00:25:37] Doug Boneparth: Not to spoil the book, but I got very comfortable after having reached certain goals in building the firm, that I probably would’ve kept feeling comfortable and having Heather continue being an attorney at her job forever

[00:25:56] Heather Boneparth: Burying the lead here. Yes. That in that moment in time was also the time that we had two very small children. COVID hit. COVID hit when we had an 11 month old and a 4-year-old. Wow. At

[00:26:06] Barry Ritholtz: Home. So you’re stuck at home. That’s time.

[00:26:08] Heather Boneparth: That’s tough. Yep. I’m working a corporate job, corporate legal job in a GC’s office of a Fortune 100 company from home taking care of our two children and also moonlighting as Doug’s business associate for the firm, which I’ve basically helped to build from the ground up, you know? Yeah.

[00:26:21] Doug Boneparth: There’s never been a day that I haven’t been doing that she wasn’t my co-pilot helping me make critical decisions. I was, she’s working three jobs

[00:26:27] Heather Boneparth: Here, but I was working three jobs and I was being stretched so thin that I felt like I had completely lost myself in trying to stay above water. And there was a moment where we said, you know, we formed this whole cruise ship of our life around servicing the risk that you were taking in starting this firm. But when is it about me again?

[00:26:48] Barry Ritholtz: So let’s, let’s talk a little bit about. Sure. The stories from your marriage, and I have to ask, it’s all narrative, no spreadsheets. Why did you decide to tell this story in a narrative format?

[00:27:02] Doug Boneparth: There’s been too, there’s enough books on budgeting and spreadsheets. Tons. Yeah. Enough people have tried to do it. And I, and also,

[00:27:09] Heather Boneparth: Also also a perfect budget’s not gonna solve much for the dynamics of your relationship with someone.

[00:27:16] Doug Boneparth: That’s right. There’s a reason that folks have not read this book before and it’s because doing this stuff is emotional work. It’s personal work. It requires understanding stories and hearing things you may not want to hear. That goes way, way, way deeper than the numbers. So we wanted to do something that we felt like would really uncover the things that weren’t being said. Like there were so many invisible moments that I, I hope we made visible in this book.

[00:27:44] Barry Ritholtz: So you bring a lot of therapists and psychologists. Yes. And, and couples counselors into the book. The question that was running through my head as I was going through that is, hey, at what point should any couple get professional help? Be it working with a financial planner or go into a couple’s therapy or, or a shrink to help them work out their emotional issues?

[00:28:09] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. So, you know, probably self-serving statement here all along on people using professionals to help them find the time and the space and the agency to talk about things that need to be discussed. But, you know, there’s never a bad time. I think if you can first recognize that you’re going to need help finding the space, finding the time, right. Self-starting is, for me personally, one of the hardest things that I struggle with. So I’m always open to finding people who can help me do that. But I think in practically speaking, if you are both wanting to improve and not being able to get past step one, like every conversation you’re having, Hey, let’s, let’s sit down and have our, you know, money date, our conversation and every time you’ve attempted to do that has resulted in, you know, a fight

[00:28:58] Heather Boneparth: Or, or you avoiding it for two months afterwards. So you didn’t get anywhere

[00:29:01] Doug Boneparth: Or you’re not develop. So what we want you to do is develop a practice around talking about money with your partner to Heather’s point, it’s been eight months, you were supposed to talk three months after that first one. You’re not creating practice and discipline and consistency. If this is happening you two over and over again, and the frustration, is there time to start finding other solutions? Maybe outsourcing that to a professional is the way to go. That could be a financial professional, that could be a therapist, that could be a marriage counselor of

[00:29:26] Heather Boneparth: This or a financial therapist. I mean, correct. There, there are some folks that are carrying such deeply rooted shame around money into their relationship. That’s not something your partner can unwind by themselves. It’s

[00:29:38] Doug Boneparth: Not their job to fix it either.

[00:29:39] Barry Ritholtz: You, you talk about money stories that people bring into a marriage or a relationship. Right. What are some of the ones that you know really resonated with you?

[00:29:48] Heather Boneparth: The stories that we heard? Yeah. You know, I think stories that were steeped in people’s culture, the cultural messages that they brought into their relationship. There was a woman from Taiwan who, who received a higher education here in the US and she brought into her marriage these scripts about what she, what she could, what she felt like she deserved, and what she was allowed to strive for in her life.

[00:30:20] Barry Ritholtz: Is this the woman who had to go home to settle her father’s estate?

[00:30:23] Heather Boneparth: No, no. Different, different woman. We heard a little bit about her story in the, in the culture chapter of the book. But I just remember her talking to us about how she was always taught not to live a small life, but to live like a demure life. To not showcase her wealth, to not strive for too much wealth. Perfect example. She graduated with a grad degree from Columbia and she was waiting tables at the restaurant down the street from her, her dorm. And she was eating the leftovers off people’s plates. She felt like that was what she deserved. Deserved. Yeah. Like i i the, these are stories that she carried into her relationship and trying to find a way to like marry those messages with one somebody else’s, but two, to like build a life that reflects both of your values when you’re kind of questioning what place those values even have in your life. Right. So somebody, one of the financial therapists that we spoke to, my friend Asia Evans, I remember she said, people who carry that into their adult relationship have to be asked, are the circumstances in which you were taught those things actually even present in your life today? And if you’re answering that question, no, well, there’s stuff that needs to

[00:31:32] Barry Ritholtz: Change to let go.

[00:31:32] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. So, so how do you have couples that have never really had this money conversation? How do you have them take the first step? Where should they be beginning?

[00:31:42] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, so we are very long on, we call them money dates. You can call them whatever you like, but you have to have a forum in which you first are sitting down to discuss things relating to your financial life. And we talk about the best practices of having to do this. Right. You don’t start with the numbers typically. That’s a great way to get someone to flee the scene right then and

[00:32:02] Heather Boneparth: There. And, and that’s why at the end of each section in the book, we offer a list of like eight to 10 conversation starters. You don’t need to do them all at once. You don’t even need to do them all ever. Yeah. But the point being conversation starters on how we start to learn a little bit more about what’s bothering the other person, what they’re carrying into the relationship. Sure.

[00:32:18] Doug Boneparth: And what you do here, instead of focusing on numbers and talking about, here’s another one you don’t wanna do. Talk about what went wrong this quarter or what’s not working. Flip both those things around. What did work? What are the wins you should be celebrating? We wanna build momentum here. Talk about the goals that you both share. I know if I say, Hey, can we talk about that vacation? We wanna go on that chair’s pulling right up. We’re sitting down and I got a nice way to then talk about the budget and get into the numbers. Right? We almost do this categorically backwards. And what we need to do is understand the rule book for creating those consistent conversations that we need to be having regularly. Little things, time and place matter, right? We call it family rush hour. The time the kids come home from school to just shy of going to bed. This is probably the absolute worst time to conduct anything having to do with our lives, let alone our financial lives. You loved

[00:33:11] Heather Boneparth: That, that was your favorite time to talk about money.

[00:33:13] Doug Boneparth: I, I would run out of my three o’clock appointment when we were marooned in our house. Heather, guess what? And she’s like, kids throwing food all over the place. One kid, she’s like, what do you got for me, Doug? This is a great time to talk about this. It was the worst. A spaghetti hanging on you. Yeah. She would return the favor. We’re exhausted. It’s 10:30 at night, she wants to get into all the serious stuff. We’re gas. I’m like, I, I can’t, I can’t even keep my eyes open, let alone follow along. So time and place matter. What do you like to do together? Can you carve that out? Put it on the calendar, set the reminder, pre-schedule those meetings, do stuff you like to do. So I say can’t wait to go do that. And you’re not canceling that. These are little things that when you build a practice around them, go a very long way.

[00:33:56] Doug Boneparth: Because if you’re doing this quarterly and we suggest you do speak comprehensive or not the data, you’re gonna talk day to day about money, week to week about money. We’re talking comprehensive view of your financial life on a quarterly basis. That’s not a lot of cracks at that during the year. Right. You’re getting four. Great. We now can divide by four. So over multiple years, right? Two years. Eight, 12, count by four here. That’s not a lot, but it’s going to take a very long time. These are long games. Do you go to the gym one time after not working out and find yourself in the best shape of your life? No. You will be sore. Go to the gym four times a week for six months. I can almost guarantee you will be in the best shape of your life. Do these quarterly meetings over three years. You should have this figured out and you should be getting there with your partner. I

[00:34:40] Barry Ritholtz: Love this quote from one of the chapter titles. Being prepared is better than trying to predict what will happen. Is that preparation, is that planning, is this all part of the same concept of getting people to talk, having them focus on this? Yeah,

[00:34:54] Heather Boneparth: Absolutely. I, I think that one of the hardest things for people to do is accept that we don’t know what’s going to happen. Right. And I spent years dealing in risk for, for work. And I think it’s just really hard to accept that you could do everything right and it, things still may not pan out the way that you wanted them to. But when we embrace that, we embrace that there’s 10 different ways to get to the goal. You want not just the one that you guys locked in on five years ago and you hoped this was the one way we would get there. ‘Cause disappointment looks for space closest to home. Right? So if you are not making it there, you’re not, those expectations aren’t being met. We can’t take those five steps to get to that one financial goal. And then you’re taking it outta one another. You’re beginning to to resent one another. But when you embrace this idea that life is fickle, things are unexpected, we don’t know what’s going to be required of us next year. We don’t know whose job is going to be stable two years from now. Even though it feels great today. Everything’s gravy today. We don’t know two years from now when you embrace that idea of flexibility, fluidity, and being nimble in your relationship, you’re able to work better together as a team and pick up slack for one another when you need each other.

[00:36:03] Doug Boneparth: Do you wanna know, you know, when people say, oh, enjoy the journey, you know, you’ll get to the end goal, but enjoy the journey. The people that are capable of actually enjoying whatever journey they’re on are the ones that have put themselves in flexible enough of a situation that when life inevitably hits you across the face. And I guarantee you it will, it does it every single time. Those who are more proactive in their response versus those who are reacting and running around as if this is the worst thing that ever happened. Those are the people that are enjoying their journey. Hey, we knew something, you know, something wild was gonna take place. We have a plan for that. Let’s go. Well great.

[00:36:39] Heather Boneparth: Change it up. Great example from our own lives. We always knew that someday I had hoped to work at the firm and that we were gonna do our business together. But the time in which that came about was because my corporate job very pretty suddenly wanted us back in the office four days a week. It kind of came outta the blue. We weren’t prepared for it from a childcare standpoint. And instead of, you know, we could have solved for it, we could have solved for it. I could have gotten a babysitter, I could have gone back. We looked at each other and we said, is this the moment to accelerate this goal that we’ve always had? Do we take this as a sign from the universe? It was a little, it was a little backwards from what we were planning. We thought we had a couple more years of runway before we would take this leap together. But we took it and, and you know what, like it was unexpected, but it worked out for now, you know, everything’s for now. ‘Cause we don’t know what two years from now will bring.

[00:37:29] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. I mentioned there’s a lot of narrative letter storytelling in the book, but there was a data point jumped right outta the book and grabbed me 15% or more of marriages today involve a prenuptial agreement 20, 25 years ago that was less than 5%. Oh yeah. That’s a shocking change. What’s behind it? Why is this changed so much?

[00:37:54] Heather Boneparth: I think that there’s lots of ways to obtain a prenup now. I mean there’s even companies now that are offering more of a prefab, there

[00:38:01] Doug Boneparth: Are platforms for this right

[00:38:02] Heather Boneparth: There, there are platforms solving, solving

[00:38:03] Barry Ritholtz: There forms for a prenup. But

[00:38:06] Heather Boneparth: Yeah. But now we’ve made it. Yeah, we’ve made it frictionless. Now

[00:38:10] Doug Boneparth: You took the word outta my mouth. This has become a, a frictionless process for a lot of folks.

[00:38:14] Barry Ritholtz: A prenup app. You just work your way through it. Yes.

[00:38:16] Heather Boneparth: That’s it. Yes, there are several, but I think also the way that millennials feel about prenups is that they’re starting. I think also when this is anecdotal, I don’t have any data to back this up, but I think a lot of us are products of divorce. I think you have, you have a generation. Yeah, yeah. Right. You have a generation aging into adulthood and, and into marriages where we’ve seen our parents, half

[00:38:35] Doug Boneparth: Marriage, millennials have watched their parents, you know, go through divorce and they’re saying, well, I don’t wanna witness or be a part of what I just saw them go through.

[00:38:44] Heather Boneparth: And I, and I think so much now, people understand that a prenup is not setting your marriage up to fail. It is outlining expectations for certain situations happening. It’s just a contract. Right. It can also outline certain expectations for during the course of your marriage. It doesn’t have to just be limited to the dissolution of your marriage. And I think that our generation. Yeah. In particular is very, is is very keen on opportunities to have our expectations managed even with the people that we love the

[00:39:15] Barry Ritholtz: Most. So there’s a quote in the book that I was kind of never really thought about, but you made me think about it. Quote, when you marry into money, the privilege might come with strings attached. Oh yeah. Explain that.

[00:39:25] Doug Boneparth: Absolutely. So speaking of expectations here, so when you’re the married in, the person who is marrying in a family of, you know, substance or, or wealth, right? You’re probably gonna get to experience a number of things that are a product of the family that you’ve married into. It could be vacations, it could be here’s your house or a down payment on your house. And you would think, well that’s really wonderful. Go give your in-laws, you know, a hug and a kiss for that on

[00:39:56] Heather Boneparth: It. And it is really wonderful. It is.

[00:39:57] Doug Boneparth: Yes it is. It is. But I hear a but coming. But in many cases, this sets up expectations now that this family has for this person. It could be how they raise their kids. It could be how you act and behave on vacations. How you spend the idea that maybe your financial household isn’t even your financial household. It’s there. So where’s your agency? Where’s your independence? It sets up a lot of what ifs. Right? What if this doesn’t work out? Where does that leave me? What if I might lose my husband due to really sad state of affairs? Then what am I going to be supported? So setting expectations around this is critical to the married in otherwise they’re going to, through the entirety of their marriage, find themselves asking what if and will I be okay? It’s not a great way to go into a long-term committed relationship.

[00:40:57] Heather Boneparth: And I think some of this is really difficult to talk about because you’re not just, yes, you can set certain expectations in terms of the mechanics of some of these things, but like some of this is you have to observe how is your spouse with his parents, how much have they financially supported him or her over the years? How, what, what level of control have you observed them trying to exert over that adult child of theirs in exchange for the wealth and generosity that they’re giving your family? We’ve seen it, we’ve all seen it. I, I, I think, you know, it’s, you

[00:41:31] Barry Ritholtz: You wrote write in the book about, and I

[00:41:32] Barry Ritholtz: Have it all caps, the family sort of a Succession like yeah, wealthy family that wants to control everything, control the relationship. They’re holding all the, all the cash and they’re manipulating everybody to get what they want. Not just outside in the world of whatever acquisitions are going on, but within the family dynamics itself. How do you deal with that?

[00:41:56] Heather Boneparth: It’s not easy. It is not easy. And we keep coming back to the obvious answer of communication, transparency. It does require the person you are marrying to, the family member that you’re marrying. You have to find a way to become transparent and open and honest about your relationship with them. This is not the time to just sit there quiet and let this happen to you. You have to be able to advocate for yourself in some way because it is your life and it’s gonna be a life that you share together with someone. These are probably uncomfortable questions and conversations, but what’s more uncomfortable is when you don’t address them and something happens five, 10 years down the road or you have two, three kids. You cannot put the toothpaste back in the tube at this point.

[00:42:43] Doug Boneparth: And it’s not to say that you should not accept the generosity. Right? This is a wonderful thing and there’s many benevolent parents that just wanna see their child and their child’s spouse and their family succeed and they want to offer that generosity during the course of their life. It can be a beautiful thing. But having the conversations upfront about what this means, do they wanna have they wanna offer to help you buy a house? Do they believe that they’re entitled to help you look for that house? Are there stipulations on around where that house needs to be? Does it need to be in the town in which your, the mar which the adult child grew up in? Are there certain expectations there? They wanna help pay for the grandchild’s college? Are there stipulations there as well? But I think that one way to also, you know, kind of pose and gauge how, how enmeshed the adult child is with his parents is saying, I would like for us to have our own financial advisor. I would like for us to grow our independent wealth as a family. How do you feel about that? Say that to your spouse. How,

[00:43:42] Barry Ritholtz: How do these big wealth gaps, and it doesn’t have to be Succession, it could just be reasonable wealth gaps. How do they distort the power dynamics inside the relationship? Forget the relationship of the couple to the in-laws or the parents within couples, how does that dynamic play out and, and what’s, what should be done about these sort of gaps?

[00:44:08] Heather Boneparth: Well, I think that privilege cuts both ways and that’s what we, we like to, we write about privilege and, and the many angles of it so that you can understand also, like socio you are socioeconomic conditions could have been great, but your perception of them is what matters. We can’t say, oh, you grew up with more money than me, so you had it easier. You had a silver spoon in your mouth and your life was gravy and I had a terrible life. And so none of your feelings around it with your family matter, that’s something we dispel as well, right? Your story is your story. You don’t know if your partner who yes, may have objectively grown up with greater privilege than you. You don’t know if they’re carrying deep rooted expectations like the long shadow of the family name. It’s, that is, that is a heavy load to bear for some people.

[00:44:51] Heather Boneparth: So I think there are ways, like different ways this shows up in a relationship for another example would be like how that privilege plays out in terms of your values. You know, what, what are you trying to accomplish together as a couple? That may not be something that if you didn’t grow, if you didn’t grow up with privilege, maybe your goals and expectations are, are I, I don’t wanna say more limited, but maybe they’re more proximate. Like, I wanna build a life that just involves not being strapped for cash. Us being able to afford that roof over our heads. Then you have a, a partner who grew up with such privilege, they didn’t even have to consider their salary when they chose their career because they knew that there would always be kind of this existential safety net available to them. How do you marry those two, those two belief systems. Yeah. Together to kind of find a life that, that, that can identify the meaning for both of you.

[00:45:44] Doug Boneparth: I, I would also add in these situations, it’s easier to assume that these conversations will go down a road of upsetting the family or something bad or negative. And I just want for a minute to throw in the possibility of it working out well that a family would appreciate the fact that their child and the person they’re marrying are forward thinking enough to make sure they’re okay. That everyone is comfortable. You know, the family isn’t always oh, the evil rich family, right? A lot of times, in fact, I would argue most of the times, this is all out of love. This is all I love. And if you don’t approach and you don’t ask, you’ll never know. We just

[00:46:24] Heather Boneparth: Assumed you were very happy with

[00:46:25] Doug Boneparth: All this wonderful stuff we’ve been doing for you and Ryan. We didn’t know it made you feel uncomfortable every time you came on the cruise ship.

[00:46:33] Heather Boneparth: Last,

[00:46:34] Doug Boneparth: Why didn’t, why didn’t you say anything

[00:46:36] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Heather and Doug Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together, talking about writing a book as a team. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My guests today are Heather and Doug Boneparth. They are the authors of the book, Money Together, How to Find Fairness in Your Relationship and Become an Unstoppable Financial Team. Last, last prenup question. I mean, it’s a given that the person who’s marrying into the wealthy family should have their own legal counsel, is it fair for them to ask the wealthy family to pay the bill? Ooh, for the lawyer?

[00:47:40] Heather Boneparth: Oh my goodness. I mean, I I if you off the cuff, I think it’s fair. Okay. I think it’s fair. What’s

[00:47:47] Doug Boneparth: The, what’s the worst that could happen?

[00:47:48] Heather Boneparth: What’s the worst that can happen in asking? I think, I think you prove a very good point because again, like when we’re talking about negotiating power and power dynamics,

[00:47:56] Barry Ritholtz: Disparity can be giant.

[00:47:58] Heather Boneparth: You know, there’s, there’s the lawyers who handle, you know, Beyonce and Jay-Z’s prenup, and then there’s Joe Schmo down the street and whatever. I, I don’t think that it would be unreasonable to ask that if we are entering into this and that this is something that impacts not just me and my spouse, but also your family as well, that maybe you’d be willing to subsidize a piece of this on

[00:48:16] Doug Boneparth: Heck of a way to broach the conversation by saying, Hey, we’ve been doing all this work here, pay the legal bill versus I want you to know we’re gonna do some work here so everyone’s comfortable, we’re taking care of ourselves, that you’re comfortable. By the way, would you pay the bill?

[00:48:30] Barry Ritholtz: Very, very different way you’re phrasing it. So let’s talk a little bit about estate planning. Quote. People go on a journey when they inherit money. I never really thought of that, but explain what, what’s the inheriting money journey?

[00:48:45] Doug Boneparth: Well, first and foremost, we love stats, right? Like most inheritances are five figure numbers.

[00:48:52] Barry Ritholtz: 10 grand. Yeah. The book, the numbers you have, the median was like $45,000, but it’s totally skewed. Oh yeah. Yeah. By the very wealthy inheritances.

[00:49:02] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. The big, big ones.

[00:49:03] Barry Ritholtz: And the average person’s inheritance is five grand. Little or nothing.

[00:49:06] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. Yeah. So then you have to ask yourself, so what’s really being inherited here? What’s really being transferred from, you know, the decedent to, to the children or the heirs? And typically it’s obviously memories and the experiences both good and bad, that end up in the possession of the, of the child, of the heir.

[00:49:30] Heather Boneparth: There there’s a quote and I I it’s slipping my mind, but it’s something like, inheritance inheritances are the numeric symbolic delivery of all you have left from someone and you wish you had more time, you wish you had more memories, you wish you had more moments. And one more chance for one more conversation. And so for people that $12,000 as a bonus from your job is very different from $12,000 from your mother.

[00:49:58] Barry Ritholtz: So let, let’s talk about what I think is the most interesting trend I’ve seen in estate planning over the past few decades. I know what you’re, which is invos

[00:50:09] Doug Boneparth: Giving gifts. Yeah. During lifetime.

[00:50:10] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Doing this while you’re alive so you can enjoy it with each other.

[00:50:13] Doug Boneparth: Yeah, I love it. I love it. That was a big Wall Street Journal article a handful of years ago. I absolutely love it. I see it show up in practice quite a bit. Probably one of the nicer, you know, boomer mechanics in estate planning that I’ve seen happen over the last few years. Yes, you should, you should get to create these experiences while you’re alive. You know, and everybody can enjoy that. You see your hardworking millennial children dealing with the high cost of home prices and they can’t get ahead or settle down with their family, and you wanna step in and do some gift things that they can afford it. I think it’s probably one of the most beautiful things out there. Wish that happened to us here. It didn’t happen. All right. If you know, guys, if you know anyone, let let us know.

[00:50:52] Doug Boneparth: But you’re seeing this trend emerge and I’m seeing it show up in practice. It’s, it’s really a beautiful thing. And also perhaps a sad, I don’t know, the, you know, particulars of these situations, but good planning’s, good planning, right? You know, as a financial advisor where the rubber meets the road and all of the topics that we cover in comprehensive planning, estate planning’s the one, it’s the biggest piece of all of it at the end of the day. And what you’re doing here, it’s about legacy, right? So now you have children and you have their parents creating these experiences knowing they helped. Let me back up for a second, just to give you an idea of, of how I truly feel around the other way that this typically happens. It is, we’re not gonna talk to our children about money. It’s taboo. You know, you’ll figure it out. Or the worst one. We don’t want to burden them today with this. And it’s so ironic

[00:51:44] Heather Boneparth: That it gets really on one

[00:51:45] Doug Boneparth: About this. I really, it’s so ironic because what you’re going to do is exact, is the exact opposite of what it is you just said. You, you don’t clue them into the estate planning. Now you’re dead. And not only did you leave a burden to them, the whole

[00:51:59] Heather Boneparth: Estate process, whether you’re a beneficiary or the executor,

[00:52:03] Doug Boneparth: By the way, even

[00:52:03] Heather Boneparth: The, it’s a lot of work. That’s a lot.

[00:52:04] Doug Boneparth: Even the best plans are a ton of work, right? You see this all the time. Like, oh man, my dad did a really good job of laying this out. Five weeks of go, you know, it it’s insane. While you’re

[00:52:15] Heather Boneparth: Grieving top, while you are grieving, you’re grieving.

[00:52:17] Doug Boneparth: All of thi all of this is happening here. And, and it’s just such a joke to take the line that I don’t wanna burden my kids and then literally burden them, you know, to no end. And you’re dead. You don’t even get to see, you know, thank, thanks mom. Thanks dad. That was great. And it’s a, it’s a disaster. It’s a disaster. So that’s how I truly feel about it. That’s why these gifts during the lifetime I think are just absolutely wonderful. Great.

[00:52:44] Heather Boneparth: But it just goes to show that it works both ways, right? Like we just spoke about the family where wealth, two things can be true, wealth can be used to control people, and to can be used to show that you love someone and to create legacy and, and, and deepen the love that you have for your family. Two things can be true.

[00:53:01] Barry Ritholtz: So before I get to my favorite questions, I ask, well, my guests, I, I just have to ask, what, what are the red, other red flags we haven’t gotten to? What do you think is the biggest issue that we just haven’t spoken about over the past hour?

[00:53:16] Doug Boneparth: Holding mistakes over your partner’s head. A lot of people do a lot of foolish stuff early in their adult life. In your twenties, you make some mistakes. You carry a little bit of consumer debt for in

[00:53:28] Heather Boneparth: Your forties, in your fifties. Yeah.

[00:53:29] Doug Boneparth: But, you know, whatever. Like, you, you, it happens. You YOLO’d it in your twenties and you had 10 grand in credit card debt. Then you met their, you met your spouse, they helped you pay it off. And now all they ever talk about is how were not money of it. They remind, remind them of it because I helped you pay off your debt. So I guess my point is not getting over things that are just missteps. They’re not mistakes in your life. Holding them over your spouse’s head. Because what that does is it erodes their confidence and it pulls them away from being a meaningful participant in their financial lives. Huh.

[00:53:58] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really interesting. All right, let’s jump into our favorite questions. We ask all our guests. Starting with, and this is like our speed round. We only have about five, six minutes. I love it. Who were your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:54:11] Doug Boneparth: I’ll give you a hot take. You know, Heather and I maybe still agree with me on this one. We really had a lack of mentors in the beginning of our career. We, we found ourselves really having to figure a lot out for ourselves. And this isn’t a flexer look how, you know, I, I look, look what a big boy I am.

[00:54:25] Heather Boneparth: We’re in the market for mentors. Yeah. So if anybody listening would like to be our individual mentors, we would love that.

[00:54:30] Doug Boneparth: For me. For me, they became, they came mid-career into where we are today. Friends of ours for sure. But early on it was, it was lacking. I do view it as something where, you know, it, it built me up. It built some character here. But if I’m being honest, I really wish I had someone there to sit younger, professional Doug down regularly and say, how

[00:54:49] Barry Ritholtz: Are doing could save some time and effort.

[00:54:51] Heather Boneparth: I had one woman, one female attorney who was always one grade level above me and has been a driving force in my legal career and even brought me back to a job in a soft landing after a tough situation. She was good. So I had one mentor in my career, so

[00:55:07] Barry Ritholtz: You could give her name if you wanna give a shout.

[00:55:10] Heather Boneparth: Oh, her name’s Julia. Hey

[00:55:11] Barry Ritholtz: Julia. Let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

[00:55:16] Heather Boneparth: You know, it’s really hard. I have to say. I love to read. But this past year, when you’re writing a book and promoing a book, kills it kills you,

[00:55:22] Barry Ritholtz: Kills you. Other than the research you’re doing, there’s no pleasure reading.

[00:55:25] Heather Boneparth: Every book I read was a personal finance book. Yeah. Although I love cultural commentary because again, like journalist’s brain, I read What Happened to Millennials by Charlie Wells, which I really enjoyed as somebody who,

[00:55:37] Barry Ritholtz: He’s a Bloomberg guy.

[00:55:38] Heather Boneparth: Oh, it’s, it’s a, he, he basically tells the story of, of where we were post nine 11 through the eyes to present day through four different folks, like, and followed them on their journey. It was just, I thought it was a, a brilliant commentary on, on where we were and where we find ourselves. And it was, it found a way to like frame it all very positively on, on our future. And I just, I, I loved it. But I’m actually looking forward to reading more nonfiction or more fiction this year. And should I say it, I’m about to read the Heated Rivalry books. Rachel Reads. Rachel reads books. If you know, you know,

[00:56:13] Barry Ritholtz: I hear heated rivalry. I think of Doris Kearns Goodwin, I don’t know. There

[00:56:17] Heather Boneparth: Is Residence if you know, you know,

[00:56:22] Doug Boneparth: Last book I read. I have to go fiction. I have to go sci-fi. I have to escape the world of business and finance. I, you know, we, we write these books and, and I know all our friends who write them as well, but I like to escape. Like if I’m gonna read, I’m gonna enjoy them.

[00:56:34] Barry Ritholtz: You you’re talking to a sci-fi guy hit me.

[00:56:36] Doug Boneparth: It was long overdue. I read Snow Crash was the last one I read, which if you know was the first. Did

[00:56:41] Barry Ritholtz: You read Neuromancer

[00:56:42] Doug Boneparth: Also? No, no, not yet. But it’s a little geeky here. It’s okay. I’m, I’m here for it. But you know your first, you know Wow. Calling the Metaverse before the Metaverse. Right. That, that was really cool. Finally got it. Took two more.

[00:56:53] Barry Ritholtz: I’m trying to remember which book The Future is here. It’s just not evenly distributed. Is that Snow Crash?

[00:56:59] Doug Boneparth: I don’t think so.

[00:57:00] Barry Ritholtz: Okay.

[00:57:00] Doug Boneparth: No, but that was great for a video game guy who always dreamed of a world that was, you know, alt reality. That was super cool.

[00:57:07] Barry Ritholtz: And I, and you read, I’m assuming you read Ready Player One, right?

[00:57:11] Doug Boneparth: No, I actually have Get Out, I haven’t even watched the movie so before because I wanted, ’cause I wanted to read Snow Crash before it, so

[00:57:18] Barry Ritholtz: I was flying on a plane. Yeah. And sat down with that book and we landed and I was done. Yeah, yeah. It

[00:57:23] Doug Boneparth: Was that. Yeah. I’m told it. I’m told It’s amazing that that’s next flight. That’s

[00:57:26] Barry Ritholtz: Your assignment for

[00:57:27] Doug Boneparth: Today. Next. Well, that’ll be my next flight book.

[00:57:29] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. Absolutely. 30 seconds. What are you streaming or listening to these days?

[00:57:33] Doug Boneparth: Landman. Awesome. Show

[00:57:35] Heather Boneparth: Next on our queue. That’s

[00:57:36] Doug Boneparth: Next. You have to watch it. The Pit of course.

[00:57:38] Heather Boneparth: Pit massive.

[00:57:39] Doug Boneparth: It’s a little too grizzly.

[00:57:40] Barry Ritholtz: Oh, fair enough,

[00:57:41] Heather Boneparth: Fair enough. My life was like watching like this fall

[00:57:43] Doug Boneparth: Out.

[00:57:43] Heather Boneparth: We watch a lot of sci-fi. Yeah. Fallout is our, is our comfort.

[00:57:47] Barry Ritholtz: Have you guys seen Three Body Problem? The book?

[00:57:49] Doug Boneparth: No. I, I caught it. I didn’t, we didn’t go there. We love a lot of postapocalyptic type stuff. We watch

[00:57:55] Heather Boneparth: A lot

[00:57:56] Doug Boneparth: Of apocalyptic Silo, Fallout. Those types of shows really, really take us there. I know.

[00:57:59] Barry Ritholtz: Try, try Three Body Problem. I think it’s Apple TV. I don’t remember. But it was really, it was really worth seeing. Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in fill in the blank? Journalism, legal practice, financial planning.

[00:58:17] Doug Boneparth: Yeah. If we’re talking personal finance and financial planning, you’re playing a long game here. Give yourself, like, if you’re gonna figure out how to get this career going, figure out how to survive for like five, seven plus years. It’s just gonna take that kind of time to actually mature as a person in your life. So find out how to do that. Play long game. This isn’t a 1, 2, 3 year learning curve. It’s like a five to seven year learning curve.

[00:58:40] Heather Boneparth: Huh? Keep a list of your wins, keep a, keep a running list of everything good you do. And all the value that you bring to your organization. Carry that with you because being your own self-advocate is more important now than ever.

[00:58:53] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. And I, I have heard women say that’s especially important for them. Critical versus men blundering into things full of self, undeserved, self-confidence. And women often don’t apply. Let me mansplain sexism to you. Women also often I’ve had a lot of women tell me they haven’t applied for things ’cause they think, yep, I don’t check every box. Yeah. Out of 10 I have eight. And a dude

[00:59:19] Heather Boneparth: Tell is

[00:59:19] Barry Ritholtz: Like, I have three, but how hard can it be,

[00:59:21] Heather Boneparth: Be I can’t tell you how many men I know have fallen up in their careers. Right. While women have told themselves that they aren’t qualified for a position. So yes, keeping a running list and finding a way to art, to, to really articulate package that and show your value.

[00:59:34] Barry Ritholtz: And, and our final question, what do you know about the world of financial planning, investing couples money therapy today might have been useful. You know, back in 20 years ago when you guys were really first ramping up,

[00:59:49] Heather Boneparth: Understanding that time and money are inextricably linked concepts and how we spend our time is a currency when we talk. So much of this work that we did is about how we allow for couple equity at home to create greater, greater, sorry, greater equity for women out in the world in particular. And the link between time and money I love that is, is critical.

[01:00:10] Barry Ritholtz: I love that.

[01:00:11] Doug Boneparth: Fair doesn’t mean equal.

[01:00:13] Barry Ritholtz: Okay. Yeah. Okay. Solid

[01:00:14] Doug Boneparth: 50 50. Probably not a practical approach to everything you do in life. Find out what your split is. There are many couples out there who are happy with 80 20, 70 30. It works for them. What doesn’t work is when you’re not talking about it, to find out what fairness is in your relationship. That has helped us out a great deal in the last few years. Guys,

[01:00:32] Barry Ritholtz: This has been absolutely fascinating. We have been speaking with Heather and Douglas Boneparth, authors of the book Money Together. If you enjoy this conversation, well check out any of the 600 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get your favorite podcast. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack staff that helps with these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: Douglas and Heather Boneparth, Money Together appeared first on The Big Picture.

Pages