Individual Economists

Hypersonics, AI, Space Weapons, & Directed Energy: Lawmakers Release Defense Bill As Expiring Obamacare Subsidies Marinate On Back-Burner

Zero Hedge -

Hypersonics, AI, Space Weapons, & Directed Energy: Lawmakers Release Defense Bill As Expiring Obamacare Subsidies Marinate On Back-Burner

With Congress in its second-to-last week in session for this year, lawmakers on the House Armed Services Committee released the final bill text of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) Sunday night, which allocates a topline of roughly $8 billion over the $892.6 billion the Department of Defense had requested, and what the House version of the NDAA provided which stuck to the Pentagon's request. 

The NDAA is the annual law passed by Congress that sets the budget, policies, and legal authorities for the U.S. military and national defense programs. It shapes everything from troop pay to weapons development and foreign military aid.

"This year’s National Defense Authorization Act helps advance President Trump and Republicans’ Peace Through Strength Agenda by codifying 15 of President Trump’s executive orders, ending woke ideology at the Pentagon, securing the border, revitalizing the defense industrial base, and restoring the warrior ethos," House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said in a Sunday statement. 

The $8B increase is a 'compromise' - as the Senate tried to jack the budget up by $32 billion over the department's request. According to Breaking Defense, Rep. Adam Smith, the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee, noted that appropriators would have the last word on the final budget, but was optimistic that the $8 bullion figure was in the ballpark.

Close up of the Lockheed Martin Airborne Laser Turret in a clean room. Photo: Lockheed Martin.

 "We’re going to put a marker out there that’s like $8 billion above the president’s budget, but we’ll see. It’ll depend on what the appropriators work out," the DC Democrat told the outlet. 

According to a House Armed Services Committee fact sheet, the NDAA procurement plan includes: 

  • $26 billion for shipbuilding
  • $38 billion for aircraft, including "full funding" for the Navy's F/A-XX sixth-generation fighter
  • $4 billion for ground vehicles
  • $25 billion for munitions
  • $145.7 billion for hypersonics, AI, quantum, directed energy and autonomy
  • An estimated $685 million for Israel-specific missile defense (Iron Dome, Arrow, David's Sling) which is separate of ~$3.3 billion in non-NDAA aid
  • $400 million for the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative for both FY26 and FY27. Congrats to all involved.
The F/A-XX placeholder design as shown by the U.S. Navy in its vision for 2030-2035, together with a better image of the original fictional design. (Image credit: U.S. Navy and Tapatalk) Also included are: 

Servicemember Pay and Quality of Life: Provides a **3.8% pay raise**, expands bonuses and special pays, increases family separation allowances, and invests heavily in barracks/housing ($1.5B), childcare ($491M), dining facilities, healthcare improvements, and schools/Impact Aid.

Elimination of DEI and "Woke" Policies: Permanently repeals all DoD DEI offices, programs, training, and activities; prohibits new ones; ensures merit-based promotions, accessions, and command selections (no consideration of race/ethnicity/gender); bans men from women's sports at military academies; cuts funding for related initiatives.

Border Security Support: Fully funds DoD assistance to border security, including National Guard/active-duty deployments, establishment of National Defense Areas, contractor support to CBP, and over $1B for counter-drug/trafficking efforts.

Acquisition and Bureaucracy Reforms (SPEED Act): Implements major reforms to accelerate procurement, prioritize commercial solutions, reduce regulatory burdens, centralize management, empower the acquisition workforce, and streamline processes for faster delivery of innovative technologies.

Defense Industrial Base Revitalization: Establishes funds and programs for capacity investments (including critical minerals), multi-year munitions contracts, supply chain transparency (especially vs. China risks), advanced manufacturing (e.g., 3D printing, robotics), and small business/unmanned systems support.

Missile Defense and "Golden Dome": Updates policy and funds development of the Golden Dome integrated missile defense system; additional funding for THAAD, SM-3, Patriot; codifies related executive orders.

Nuclear Modernization and Deterrence: Fully funds nuclear triad (Sentinel ICBM, Columbia-class, SLCM-N); accelerates programs; codifies advanced nuclear reactor deployment and energy independence initiatives.

Deterring China/Indo-Pacific Focus: Extends and increases funding for Pacific Deterrence Initiative; prohibits acquisitions from China-linked entities (biotech, minerals, drones, solar, etc.); $2.7B+ for regional MILCON/logistics; full funding for Taiwan cooperation, Philippines assistance, and exercises.

Innovation and Technology: Advances AI, biotechnology, quantum, cyber, and software acquisition; establishes new offices/programs for rapid adoption; protects against foreign threats to infrastructure/cloud.

According to the DoD, they found nearly $20B in savings through cuts to climate programs ($1.6B), DEI ($40M+), obsolete assets, bureaucracy, consulting, and inefficient programs, while aligning civilian workforce reforms with broader civil service changes. The NDAA's stated goals are "peace through strength," restoring lethality and meritocracy, revitalizing industry, countering China, and implementing conservative policy priorities while delivering significant troop support and procurement investments.

As Breaking Defense notes further; 

  • Section 1249 attempts to places a brake on the withdrawal of US forces from Europe by requiring specific certifications be handed into Congress for 60 days before forces drop below 76,000 in European Command’s area of responsibility. That same prohibition covers any attempts to “divest, consolidate or otherwise return to a host country any parcel of land or facility” currently under control of EUCOM, or to attempt to relinquish the role of NATO’s Supreme Allied Commander. 
  • The NDAA extends the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative by $400 million for both FY26 and FY27.
  • It also repeals the 2002 Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) for Iraq.
  • Not included: any language renaming the Department of Defense as the “Department of War.” While President Donald Trump has authorized the use of Department of War as a nickname and it has been taken up by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, that title cannot be made official without congressional action.
Obama-What?

As Punchbowl News observes, lawmakers are not that motivated to deal with the expiring Obamacare subsidies - though apparently "GOP senators who represent dueling ideological factions in the Republican Conference are teaming up on a plan to extend the Obamacare subsidies for two years with income caps and other reforms."

The new proposal from Republican Sens. Bernie Moreno (Ohio) and Susan Collins (Maine), outlined in this one-pager, would cap income eligibility and eliminate zero-premium plans by requiring a $25 minimum monthly payment.

Under the Moreno-led plan, the full tax credit would be available for households with income of up to 400% of the poverty level, and then gradually phase out so that households making over $200,000 would no longer benefit.

It comes as the Senate is set to vote this week — likely Thursday — on Democratic legislation that extends the tax credits for three years, a promise Senate Majority Leader John Thune made to end the recent government shutdown. This won’t get anywhere close to 60 votes.

But Senate Republicans aren’t expected to hold a separate vote on a unified proposal of their own, a dynamic that’s fueling some GOP frustration with Thune, as we reported Friday. -Punchbowl

That said, the reality is that there isn't yet an alternative to the Democrats' legislation that unites Republicans, while Senate GOP leaders wouldn't want to promote Democrat messaging on a bill with a vote that splinters the GOP. So, expect more wheel spinning.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 18:50

Trump Envoy Says 'Benevolent Monarchies' Work Best In Mideast While Hailing Syria's Sharaa

Zero Hedge -

Trump Envoy Says 'Benevolent Monarchies' Work Best In Mideast While Hailing Syria's Sharaa

Via Middle East Eye

The US special envoy for Syria, Tom Barrack, has stated that a "benevolent monarchy" has "worked best" in the Middle East.

Speaking at a panel on Syria during the Doha Forum on Sunday, Barrack praised the Syrian administration of President Ahmad al-Sharaa’s "epic" and "heroic" achievements following the fall of Bashar al-Assad in December 2024. The US envoy warned against western efforts to impose democratic models on the Middle East, arguing that such initiatives "have not been successful".

via Tom Barrack/X

"Almost every decision that the West has imposed on the region, rather than allowing it to evolve on its own, has been a mistake," Barrack said.

"Every time we intervene, whether it's in Libya, Iraq, or any of the other places where we've tried to create a colonized mandate, it has not been successful. We end up with paralysis," he added.

Barrack urged the international community to allow Syria to build its own sovereignty, rather than impose external solutions.

"What we all need to do is help them, empower them, and encourage them, and allow them to form the kind of government and inclusive regime that they, the Syrians, wish to establish," he said.

Turning to tensions along the Syrian-Israeli border, the US envoy suggested that these could be resolved through taking "baby steps". He stressed that Syria must define its own trajectory "without the imposition of western expectations such as, ‘we want a democracy in 12 months.'"

Barrack also seemed to question Israel’s claims to democracy, stating: "I don’t see a democracy anywhere. Israel can claim to be a democracy, but in this region, whether you like it or not, what has worked best is, in fact, a benevolent monarchy."

Barrack, a billionaire real estate investor, has made similar unorthodox comments since being appointed to his post by President Donald Trump.

In August, he referred to himself as an "events-driven mercenary" during an interview with online personality Mario Nawfal. In the same interview, he said that "in Israel’s mind," the modern borders in the Middle East, drawn up by the Sykes-Picot agreement, "are meaningless":

"They will go where they want, when they want, and do what they want to protect the Israelis and their borders."

In September, Barrack made a number of candid remarks about Israel, Lebanon, and Qatar, among other issues, in an interview with The National.

The self-envisioned "Emir of Damascus" has allowed his forces to slaughter non-Sunnis, including Christians, Alawites and Druze...

He described peace in the region as "an illusion". He also stated that the US was arming the Lebanese army "so they can fight their own people".

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 18:25

NJ Governor Murphy Using Last Months In Office To Free 31 Convicted Killers...And Promises Even More

Zero Hedge -

NJ Governor Murphy Using Last Months In Office To Free 31 Convicted Killers...And Promises Even More

New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy is using his last months in office to release dozens of inmates convicted of homicide — and says many more are coming, according to NJ 101.5.

Since December 2024, Murphy has granted clemency to 283 offenders, including 31 people convicted of murder, felony murder, or aggravated manslaughter, according to NJ 101.5. Some had been serving life sentences or faced decades before being eligible for parole. All will now walk free with five years of supervision.

The governor fast-tracked the releases after creating a new Clemency Advisory Board. In November alone, he freed 23 convicted killers. Murphy has defended the move by highlighting a few cases involving women he says were victims of abuse and “received excessive sentences.”

The glasses are always the tell

NJ 101.5 reported that many of the other newly freed inmates were convicted of brutal crimes unrelated to domestic violence. For example:

  • Sammy Moore received life with 40 years before parole for murder, attempted murder and armed robbery.

  • Anthony Leahey was convicted of three murders in a fatal stabbing case.

  • Lamar Alford was sentenced to at least 63 years for shooting a drug dealer over money.

  • Jamal Muhammad helped plan multiple shootings and was convicted of felony murder.

All are now out early due to Murphy’s clemency.

Tieheen Fletcher, Convicted of murder and weapons offenses.

Advocacy groups tied to the governor’s decisions are applauding the releases. Several of the offenders were clients of the ACLU of New Jersey, whose executive director Amol Sinha called Murphy’s actions “historic” and praised “the power of compassion.” The relationship with advocacy groups has raised questions about who has access to the governor’s clemency pipeline — and who does not.

Families of victims and public-safety critics argue the state is freeing violent offenders without transparency, uniform standards, or a public safety review process. Murphy has not responded to broader concerns about risk to communities or why dozens of homicide offenders — not just a handful — were chosen.

Even so, the outgoing governor has made clear he’s not done. He says more pardons and sentence commutations will be issued before he leaves office on Jan. 20, 2026 — meaning additional convicted killers could soon walk free with no legislative oversight and little public input.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 18:00

Greed, Centralization, Monopoly, Ruin

Zero Hedge -

Greed, Centralization, Monopoly, Ruin

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Greed is good up to the point that it delivers ruin.

The primary characteristic of this era is the purposeful confusion of profit and greed, as if they are the same thing. Greed is good because profit is good, and profit is good because the profit motive is the engine of Capitalism which is the engine of global prosperity.

The problem with this logic is greed is not the same as profit. In the sanitized version of the story, the profit motive of each individual magically generates the best possible socio-economic outcome for all via the secret powers of The Invisible Hand of market forces.

This is a fairy tale, of course, for the most profitable arrangement isn't a competitive free-for-all, it's a monopoly that controls the market to its own advantage. Monopolies are by their nature centralized; monopolies snap up or steamroll competitors until they exert centralized power--if not in a single entity then in a cartel that centralizes control of the market.

In the fairy tale about the magic of The Invisible Hand, individuals seek to maximize their private gains by increasing productivity and producing goods and services with more utility-value: higher quality, increased durability, etc. This narrative is core to The Mythology of Progress, which is the belief that Progress is 1) unstoppable and 2) a permanent force that advances as the natural order of things.

In the real world, entities maximize their gains by increasing the price while diminishing the utility-value of the goods and services: profits are maximized by reducing durability (planned obsolescence), reducing quality / quantity and manipulating a monopoly on information to modify the price to extract the maximum profit from each transaction--dynamic pricing is the seemingly harmless cover-term for this exploitation of information asymmetry: the buyer knows little or nothing, the seller knows everything.

This use of cover-stories and terminology is the foundational dynamic of Anti-Progress and Ultra-Processed Life: the authentic term (profit motive) is now the cover story for exploitation-driven greed, and Progress is now the cover story for Anti-Progress--the degradation of quality, durability, transparency and agency.

Greed is not the same as profit. Greed maximizes gains by exploitation, not increasing value. Greed is the operative driver of the current era. The socio-political-economic system is dominated by greed-driven concentrations of power: monopolies, cartels and states.

There are three mechanisms that greatly expand the potential for assembling monopoly / cartel centralization of power:

1) Technology by its very nature leads to centralized ubiquity due to the network effect--the technology that recruits the most users becomes the default access to participate in the economy--participation that is essential to function in a technology-dominated economy. This ubiquity generates monopoly (or quasi-monopoly) which then generates high stock valuations which then provide the money needed to maintain and extend the monopoly.

Technology companies' access to the stock market via initial public offerings (IPOs) offers unique access to a nearly limitless source of "free money" to buy up competitors via issuing more shares of the company's stock.

This immense pool of wealth enables technology companies to buy control of narratives and political power.

2) Credit. If an entity cannot create "free money" by issuing more shares of its stock, if it has access to nearly limitless credit, it can use this credit top buy up competitiors and buy political protection of its monopoly. This is why John D. Rockefeller was obsessed with gaining access to more credit: that was his pathway to establishing a monopoly in the oil industry.

3. The state. Those who buy (or gain by other means) political influence can then create monopolies or cartels via state regulations. To the degree that the state has a monopoly on centralized power, all monopolies and cartels are private-sector / state entities, as centralized privately controlled power can only exist if the centralized state allows it.

As I explain in my new book Investing In Revolution, we inhabit a world in which authenticity has been replaced by self-serving artifice, artifice which enriches those who own or reap gains from centralized, monopolistic, extractive, exploitive entities created by technology, credit/issuance of stock and the state.

Orwell called this substitution double-speak: greed is positive profit, Anti-Progress is positive Progress, extraction that enriches the few at the expense of the many is just good old profit driving Progress, and so on, a hall of mirrors that spins 24/7 in a digital carnival intentionally designed to be addictive.

Greed is good up to the point that it delivers ruin. We are closer to that phase-change than we imagine--if we can imagine such a phase-change at all.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)

Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.comSubscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 17:40

"Things Are About To Snap": China's Trade Surplus Tops $1 Trillion For The First Time, Sparking Global Howls Of Outrage

Zero Hedge -

"Things Are About To Snap": China's Trade Surplus Tops $1 Trillion For The First Time, Sparking Global Howls Of Outrage

With Europe finally realizing - very belatedly, as usual - that Trump was right all along in his crusade to hammer Beijing's relentless dumping of exports to flood foreign markets with its below-cost wares as China no longer has nearly the required demand for goods and services and so has to crush and dominate foreign markets by selling at far below market prices, overnight we learned that China’s trade surplus in goods surpassed $1 trillion for the first time, highlighting the ongoing boom in the country’s exports despite US President Donald Trump’s tariff war.

Exports rose 5.9% in November on a year earlier, reversing October's rare decline, while imports rose by 1.9% according to data released by China’s customs administration, which covers goods but not services. 

The November surplus came in at $112 billion, the third-largest ever accumulated by China in a single month and far more than forecast by economists.

For the first 11 months of the year, China’s exports increased 5.4% from the year-earlier period to $3.4 trillion, while the country’s imports declined 0.6% over that same stretch to $2.3 trillion. That brought the country’s trade surplus this year to $1.08 trillion, China’s General Administration of Customs said Monday. The equivalent figure for the full year last year was just shy of $1 trillion. The record surplus comes in the wake of a de-escalation in trade tensions between Washington and Beijing, which agreed a year-long truce in October.

That remarkable surplus, never before seen in recorded economic history, is the culmination of decades of industrial policies and human industriousness that helped China emerge from a poor agrarian economy in the late 1970s to become the world’s second-largest economy.

What is remarkable is that China navigated the trade war and growing economic protectionism around the world, and needed just 11 months to catapult it past the full-year record set in 2024. While shipments to the US plummeted 29% in November...

.... the eighth month of double-digit declines and the biggest since August, strong growth in sales to regions like the European Union and Africa more than offset the slump. 

Lynn Song, chief Greater China economist at ING Bank NV, said the rebounds in shipments to the EU and Japan were “perhaps a little surprising.”

“The November export data came in a little stronger than expected, despite a further deceleration of exports to the US,” Song said.

Shipments overseas - in many cases to regions such as Vietnam which then transship to the US - have boomed for much of this year, in spite of Trump’s launch of a trade war early in 2025. The world’s second-biggest economy has emerged largely unscathed from the standoff, as it delivered more goods to markets other than the US, which have then proceeded to ship Chinese imports onward to the US.

The display of export dominance is stirring waves of resentment abroad, especially among countries which are forced to shutter domestic industries as they fail to compete with much cheaper Chinese imports.

China’s industrial heft has long been well-known to its trading partners, becoming a central point of contention in its relations with the world. Last year, its trade surplus rose to a record $993 billion. Topping the $1 trillion milestone throws the magnitude of China’s export dominance into even starker relief and is likely to draw more attention to the growing imbalances.

“It is so big that it’s obvious that it’s not just the United States or Europe but the whole world that will have to fund that gap,” Jens Eskelund, president of the European Union Chamber of Commerce in China, told the WSJ.

On Sunday, French President Emmanuel Macron, who just returned home after an otherwise cordial three-day summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing and Chengdu, warned that the EU may take “strong measures” including by imposing tariffs, should Beijing fail to address the imbalance.

French President Emmanuel Macron in China

“I told them that if they didn’t react, we Europeans would be forced, in the very near future, to take strong measures and withdraw from cooperation, like the United States, such as imposing tariffs on Chinese products,” Macron said in an interview with French daily Les Echos.

“China is hitting the heart of the European industrial and innovation model,” he said. French officials have been particularly upset about the Chinese yuan, which has fallen by around 10% against the euro this year.

During a joint appearance with Xi in Beijing last Thursday, Macron said that these trade "imbalances are becoming unbearable."

It was a remark that reflected sharpening French demands on Beijing to spur consumption and curb exports, and one Macron repeated to rapt Sichuan students and at a gathering with French and Chinese business leaders during his fourth trip to the country as president.

ING's Song added that if "the EU indeed does follow suit with tariffs, it would represent a significant risk to the external demand outlook for China."

France’s goods trade deficit with China has doubled in the past decade to €47bn in 2024. French investment in China over the same period is nearly quadruple China’s into France.

Paris is demanding Beijing recalibrate its trade and investment relationship with the EU, according to the FT.

We are at the last stop before a crisis,” a French official warned. “If we don’t change course, we will worsen global fragmentation,” they added, suggesting Paris would have to consider “protective measures”. 

Macron, who was accompanied on his trip by about 40 French business leaders, called for China to transfer technology to France in areas such as clean tech and batteries — a stark reminder of the shifting balance of power in crucial industrial sectors. The French president also defended EU trade investigations into Chinese electric vehicles, saying the bloc was taking a company-by-company approach. 

“We need more tech neutrality and a European preference” for domestic industries such as automobiles, Macron said in Chengdu, capital of China’s south-western Sichuan province.

“This is not at all aggressive or protectionist. The Americans and other players in the North American market do it, the Chinese do it,” the president said. “The major risk for Europeans is accelerated deindustrialisation.”

But it’s not just France, says Eskelund of the European chamber, who points to a raft of bilateral trade complaints and actions leveled against China in recent months, including from not just the U.S. and its Western allies, but also from countries in Southeast Asia, Latin America and the Middle East.

“I have no doubt that we’ll see more, not less, in terms of all of these trade defense initiatives all over the world,” he said.

Eskelund says that China’s trade imbalance with the world is even more pronounced than the $1 trillion figure suggests, given the relative weakness of the Chinese yuan.

When calculated by value, China accounts for roughly 15% of global goods exports. But in volume terms, Eskelund estimates that every shipping container being sent from Europe to China is outnumbered by the four containers heading in the other direction. In volume terms, he estimates that China accounts for some 37% of everything being exported in shipping containers.

“Concern is growing,” he said, warning that, in the near future, we may “get to a point where things snap.”

The EU is considering setting “made in Europe” targets of up to 70% for certain products such as cars as it pushes to prioritise domestic goods and cut reliance on China. Brussels is also planning to tighten foreign investment rules to ensure Chinese companies do not gain advantage from the bloc’s open market without generating benefits for local workers and sharing technology.

For its part, China continues to make promises and deliver nothing. China’s commerce ministry on Friday repeated promises to eliminate restrictive measures in the domestic market and to spur consumption. But experts told the FT that Beijing has little intention of drastically altering its economic model. As a result, trade tensions between China and the bloc have sparked anti-dumping investigations in both directions.

The EU dairy sector is awaiting a ruling on a probe Beijing launched last year in retaliation against Brussels’ imposition of additional levies on Chinese EV imports. China could impose tariffs of as much as 40 per cent on dairy products on top of existing duties. 

As Bloomberg notes, the trillion dollar milestone reached by China follows the recent de-escalation of tensions with the Trump administration. The huge surplus also underscores how Beijing is "struggling" to rebalance (as in it hasn't even bothered to start) the economy away from its dependence on demand abroad, with net exports accounting for almost a third of economic growth this year.

“It does look like China’s export competitiveness is still standing firm against US tariffs,” said Michelle Lam, Greater China economist at Societe Generale, referring to robust shipments to other markets than America. Rising trade tensions with the EU are “a source of downside risk to watch out for,” she said.

After Macron failed to make any impression on Xi's export aspirations, on Monday, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul arrived in China for a two-day trip, becoming the latest senior European official to visit for talks. China’s exports to the EU expanded almost 15% last month - the fastest since July 2022 - with sales to France, Germany and Italy all seeing double-digit growth as Chinese exporters grab market shares from domestic producers. Meanwhile, European domestic industries are being snuffed out in one brutal, manufacturing depression as they fail to compete with Chinese substitutes. 

Wadephul said before the trip that he’d raise trade curbs, especially on rare earths, and “overcapacities” in electric vehicles and steel with his Chinese counterparts. China’s auto imports are down almost 39% in the year to date.

Shipments overseas have boomed for much of this year, in spite of Trump’s launch of a trade war early in 2025. The world’s second-biggest economy has emerged largely unscathed from the standoff, as it delivered more goods to markets other than the US.

The year-on-year increase in exports of electronic and machinery products rebounded to almost 10% last month, versus October’s rise of just over 1%, according to Bloomberg calculations based on China’s customs data. Declines in shipments of consumer goods narrowed. 

Exports to Africa surged nearly 28% in November, while those to the Southeast Asian trading bloc gained only 8.4%, the least since February. Despite escalating tensions over the self-governing island of Taiwan, imports from Japan rose faster in November than exports to there, resulting in a $1.3 billion deficit for China.

The historic trade surplus will help boost growth in China's GDP after months of deterioration in the economy. Retail sales are coming off their longest stretch of slowdowns since 2021 while investment just shrank by a record amount. Although the Chinese economy is expanding at a slower pace in the last quarter of the year, its strong performance earlier in 2025 means the official growth target of around 5% is likely within reach.

As Bloomberg notes, foreign demand has been the one consistent driver of Chinese growth, helping compensate for lackluster private consumption at home and the prolonged slump in the housing market. But the trade picture has become increasingly unbalanced, with China’s weak demand and increasingly innovative firms slashing demand for imports.

While it’s “ultimately essential” for China to embrace a growth model driven more by domestic demand, such a pivot will take time, according to ING’s Song. In reality it will likely take years, and by then Europe's domestic production will be decimated. 

“We need to see what sort of concrete measures are put into place to boost domestic consumption, and how those measures to increase win-win cooperation and establish international consumption centers play out,” he said. “It’s quite clear at this point that relying on external demand as the main growth engine is a risky bet.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 17:20

Trump Says He Has 'Other Methods' To Impose Tariffs If Supreme Court Limits Powers

Zero Hedge -

Trump Says He Has 'Other Methods' To Impose Tariffs If Supreme Court Limits Powers

Authored by Tom Ozimek via The Epoch Times,

President Donald Trump on Dec. 7 urged the Supreme Court to uphold his tariff program, saying a ruling against his use of emergency economic powers would weaken national security, while also saying there are alternative legal tools to keep the duties in place.

Trump said in a Dec. 7 post on Truth Social that the tariff regime currently before the Supreme Court is “far more direct, less cumbersome, and much faster” than other methods available under U.S. law.

“Speed, power, and certainty are, at all times, important factors in getting the job done in a lasting and victorious manner,” he wrote. “I have settled 8 Wars in 10 months because of the rights clearly given to the President of the United States.”

Trump noted “other methods of charging tariffs” exist but said that the approach challenged in the courts delivers a “strong and decisive national security result,” adding that “if countries didn’t think these rights existed, they would have said so, loud and clear!”

Speaking to reporters later that evening at the Kennedy Center in Washington, Trump again said that the case goes beyond trade policy.

“We have tremendous flexibility with the current system. It’s unbelievable for national security. I’ve ended eight wars largely because of trade, because of tariffs,” he said. “If we go the other tariff route—and there are other routes we can go—but it won’t give you the same pure national security as this one. This one is swift and very powerful.”

The Supreme Court heard arguments last month on whether Trump exceeded his authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that allows presidents to regulate imports after declaring a national emergency. A ruling is expected in the coming months.

Several lower courts have already found that Trump misapplied IEEPA when he imposed tariffs on nearly every country this year, prompting more than a dozen companies to sue.

Costco filed a complaint late last month seeking repayment of duties it says were illegally collected.

While Trump has been publicly urging the Supreme Court to uphold the program, senior administration officials have been working to reassure allies and markets that the tariff architecture will stay intact in one form or another regardless of the ruling.

Officials Say Tariffs Will Stand Regardless of Ruling

In a Dec. 5 appearance on Politico’s “The Conversation” podcast, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration has spent years preparing fallback options.

“We’ve been thinking about this plan for five years or longer,” Greer said, adding that “tariffs are going to be a part of the policy landscape going forward.”

When asked whether the White House has alternate authorities ready if IEEPA is narrowed, he replied: “Of course.”

Greer also pushed back on claims that litigation threatens the overall strategy.

“First of all, you don’t change 70 years of trade policy overnight,” he said.

“And second of all, when some people say, ‘Oh, well, this is chaos. What’s your strategy?’, what they really want to know is, can we go back to how it was before? And that’s not going to happen.”

A cargo ship full of shipping containers is seen at the port of Oakland, California, on Aug. 4, 2025. Carlos Barria/Reuters

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent delivered a similar message days earlier. In a Dec. 3 interview with The New York Times, Bessent said the government could “recreate the exact tariff structure with [sections] 301, with 232, with 122,” referring to authorities under the 1962 Trade Expansion Act and the 1974 Trade Act. He said the administration can also impose tariffs permanently and urged countries that negotiated tariff-reduction deals with Trump to “stick with it.”

Broader Toolkit for Tariffs

The administration has already deployed multiple legal pathways for recent duties, including Section 232 tariffs on strategic industries such as autos, copper, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, and aircraft, and Section 301 tariffs following investigations into unfair trade practices.

Bessent also cited Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which allows tariffs up to 50 percent against countries that discriminate against U.S. commerce, and Section 122 of the 1974 Act, which allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days in response to perceived trade imbalances.

Greer said the tariff system now functions as a tiered map of U.S. strategic priorities, with China facing the highest rates, Southeast Asia and India next, allies in the middle, and the lowest duties in the Western Hemisphere, “almost like concentric rings,” he said.

Trump has repeatedly touted tariff revenue in recent days and weeks, saying it could reduce the need for federal income taxes, help pay down the national debt, and fund $2,000 payments to some Americans.

Speaking to reporters at the Kennedy Center on Dec. 7, Trump was asked about his thoughts on tariff revenues being used to pay down the national debt rather than funding dividends.

Trump agreed in principle but said extra income from the duties could still be used for payments to households.

“We will. I agree with them on that,” Trump said. “But I also think that we’re making so much money with tariffs that we'll also be able to make a nice dividend to middle-income people ... and lower-income people.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 17:00

"Xi Responded Positively": NVDA Spikes After Trump Allows H200 Chip Exports To China

Zero Hedge -

"Xi Responded Positively": NVDA Spikes After Trump Allows H200 Chip Exports To China

Having pumped (and dumped) earlier today on reports that the Trump administration will allow H200 chip exports to China, NVDA shares extending gains the after-hours (to the highs of the day) after President issued a statement on X, confirming he will allow Nvidia to ship its chips to China and noting that "President Xi respondedly positively."

NVDA spiked...

Trump wrote that "I have informed President Xi, of China, that the United States will allow NVIDIA to ship its H200 products to approved customers in China, and other Countries, under conditions that allow for continued strong National Security."

He added that:

"President Xi responded positively!"

At a cost:

"25% will be paid to the United States of America. This policy will support American Jobs, strengthen U.S. Manufacturing, and benefit American Taxpayers."

Trump continued:

"The Biden Administration forced our Great Companies to spend BILLIONS OF DOLLARS building “degraded" products that nobody wanted, a terrible idea that slowed Innovation, and hurt the American Worker. That Era is OVER!

We will protect National Security, create American Jobs, and keep America’s lead in Al. NVIDIA’s U.S. Customers are already moving forward with their incredible, highly advanced Blackwell chips, and soon, Rubin, neither of which are part of this deal. My Administration will always put America FIRST.

The Department of Commerce is finalizing the details, and the same approach will apply to AMD, Intel, and other GREAT American Companies. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

Permission for H200 exports is seen as a compromise from Nvidia’s earlier push to sell its more advanced Blackwell design chips to Chinese customers, a person familiar with the matter said prior to the announcement.

After meeting with Trump on Wednesday, Huang expressed uncertainty about whether China would accept Nvidia’s H200 chips should the US relax restrictions on sales of the processors.

“We don’t know. We have no clue,” Huang said, as he headed into a closed-door meeting with members of the Senate Banking Committee, which has jurisdiction over export controls.

“We can’t degrade chips that we sell to China — they won’t accept that.”

So, Jensen gets his deal at a cost - if China wants the 'old chips' - and Trump gets to brag about more revenue for Washington and support the stock market.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 16:45

DC Police Chief Resigns As 'Massive Scandal' Over Crime Stats Heats Up

Zero Hedge -

DC Police Chief Resigns As 'Massive Scandal' Over Crime Stats Heats Up

Washington DC Mayor Muriel Bowser announced on Monday that Police Chief Pamela A. Smith will be stepping down, three months after we reported that the DOJ was investigating a "massive scandal" over manipulated crime data.

Smith, who also doesn't know what the term "chain of command" means, is out for unknown reasons - however she told Fox 5 that she resigned to spend more time with her family.

"After 28 years in law enforcement, I have been going nonstop," she said. 

"Serving alongside such dedicated professionals, both those on the front lines and those working tirelessly behind the scenes, has been one of the greatest honors of my career," Smith - who's been on the job just over two years, told the Washington Post

Crime Data Scandal

The DC Police are also under investigation in a pair of federal probes into alleged manipulation of crime statistics. In early September, White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller revealed an ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation into whether Washington D.C. officials manipulated crime statistics is in the process of uncovering a “massive scandal." 

Miller told reporters that when the results of the investigation are finally that, “It will stun you,” adding, “Even though D.C. had the worst crime in America–honestly measured–it dramatically understated how bad it was.”

Miller said that DOJ investigators have uncovered evidence that crime data was manipulated to the point that some murders and homicides were falsely reported as accidents.

The White House Deputy Chief of Staff also assured reporters that the full extent of the manipulation “will be uncovered and it will all be brought to light.”

In Octoberthe Washington Post reported that there was an internal scandal in the DC Police Department- which has been run by Democrats for decades - in which frustrated cops have been talking to the DOJ and have receipts, presented with a bow by D.C. Police Union Chairman Greggory Pemberton. 

WaPo detailed internal accusations that "managers were recording serious crimes as more minor ones to make their police districts appear safer or avoid the ire of top department brass" - and that officers and supervisors 'clashed' over "whether an offense was a robbery or a theft, or whether a weapon used in an assault qualified as potentially deadly."

The frustrated officers "kept lists, documenting cases where they believed a higher-up improperly classified a crime as a lesser offense," with one noting 150 such instances in March of 2024 alone in which staff in the Southeast D.C. police district believed offenses were in appropriately classified. 

"The police department is playing fast and loose with how they report their data so that they can report favorably to the citizens about crime, and I don’t think it’s fair to the city," said Pemberton - who's been assisting the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans with 'information compiled by officers.'

So, a group of pissed off cops within the DC police department have been fighting with superiors and keeping notes over misclassified crimes, and kept notes. Now they're working with the feds to blow the lid. Or as WaPo puts it - "found a receptive audience."

The other investigation is being headed up by the House Oversight Committee with a report expected to be finalized in the coming weeks, according to a committee aide who told WaPo on the condition of anonymity. 

*  *  *

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 16:40

When They Say "Democracy", They Don't Mean Democracy

Zero Hedge -

When They Say "Democracy", They Don't Mean Democracy

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

"Imagine if the US and EU were still aligned on the censorship-by-proxy strategy. Few people realize how close we were to global totalitarianism."

- Michael Shellenberger

Western Civ is choking itself to death with lawfare in the name of “democracy.” If you think just a little bit past the sale, you will realize that few will say what they mean by “democracy,” including the most ardent “democracy” cultists. What it supposedly means is legal outcomes that the political left wants, not what the law, or the truth, or justice requires.

On the surface, the left pretends to want outcomes that favor their roster of designated victim groups: women, dark-skinned people, and sexual outliers, the familiar cast of characters with its tiresome scripts.

But that’s not what they really want.

They don’t really care about the “marginalized.”

What they really want is power.

The “marginalized” are just their clients and shock troops. They want to push everybody around, tell them how to live, and what to think, including the marginalized. If society has to get wrecked in the process, that’s okay — that will just make it easier to “build back better” to their advantage, or so their operating algorithm dictates. The left does not think past its own algorithms.

The “democracy” cultists are foremost against freedom of speech, because speech is what distinguishes human beings among the rest of the animal kingdom, and if you allow it, human beings are liable to develop ideas — ideas being the product of language — and especially ideas that make the “democracy” cultists uncomfortable. For instance, the idea that the “democracy” cultists don’t deserve the power they crave because they are dishonest, unscrupulous, and sadistic. Can’t have people thinking that, or saying it out-loud.

Censorship, the outright suppression of expressed thought, is the primary device for enforcing their version of “democracy.” The “democracy” cultists of the USA were especially avid for it the past decade after Mr. Trump came on the scene and offered to oppose the “democracy” cult’s plans to aggregate power. So, under the catspaw president “Joe Biden,” the FBI, CIA, the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, Stanford University’s Internet Observatory, the social media companies, and the White House itself worked sedulously to suppress the free expression of ideas, including the idea that they were all working to suppress free expression.

When Mr. Trump miraculously survived manifold attempts to stuff him in prison via lawfare and then, attempted murder, and managed to get re-elected, he put an end to the censorship shenanigans in government. That, in turn, became inconvenient to the “democracy” cultists in Europe who were, apparently, not busy enough destroying their own countries’ cultures and their economies. They put extra effort into suppressing free expression among their citizen-subjects: serious jail time for mean texts and mere casual statements on the street.

Now they are coming after the international speech platform “X,” liberated by Elon Musk three years ago at a $44-billion price. The European Commission, a body of unelected bureaucrats under the EU, created a so-called Digital Services Act to deal with the threat of free speech. After a two-year-investigation, the commission has leveled a $140-million fine against “X” for a series of specious offenses, such as not meaningfully verifying account authenticity [blue check marks] eroding trust in verified content. Mr. Musk objected, naturally. Veep JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, called it an “attack on American tech.” It’s more than that, of course. It’s an effort to wreck the company, which would eliminate the chief remaining public arena for free speech and genuine news worldwide.

I would expect Mr. Trump to respond shortly, perhaps with tariffs that make it impossible for the Europeans to sell their cars in the USA, or their wine, or whatever else is on offer. He will squeeze them until they drop this stupid crusade to destroy an American company. And then stand by and watch as “democracy” cultists in the USA complain about him defending free speech.

We have enough trouble with the “democracy” cult here at home.

The Norm Eisen Axis-of-Evil has enjoyed endless “funding” from the dark money spigots of George Soros, British hedge fund billionaire Christopher Hohn, and Shanghai-based American billionaire Neville Roy Singham.

Norm Eisen, Lawfare Ninja Supreme

Once the money-flows are turned off, you will see a lot less nuisance litigation aimed at perverting the rule of law and destroying the country. Norm Eisen and his colleagues operate out of a set of foundations and NGOs, chiefly Brookings and the outfit Eisen founded called the States United Democracy Center. They are mere money-launderers.

The federal judiciary is the “democracy” cult’s remaining praetorian guard. The federal judges, especially the Obama and Biden appointed ones, are making sure that Lawfare ninjas won’t be prosecuted for any crimes. The two latest examples: James Comey, case dismissed on procedural issues (for now) on his charge of lying to Congress. And New York AG Leticia James, let off the hook on a mortgage fraud rap by a federal grand jury in the Eastern District of Virginia, probably a case of “jury nullification” and probably due to race — after the fashion of OJ Simpson skating on murder in 1995.

Unfortunately, the remedy of impeaching federal judges is unavailable due to the 60-vote majority required for removal in the Senate. It’s getting to the point where Mr. Trump might have to go medieval on the whole lot of them, declare the Insurrection Act, and move the action into military courts.

Then maybe we’ll see who can handle the truth.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 16:20

Offer Royale: Paramount-Netflix Bidding War For Warner Bros Heats Up In A Blockbuster Showdown

Zero Hedge -

Offer Royale: Paramount-Netflix Bidding War For Warner Bros Heats Up In A Blockbuster Showdown

Update (1324ET): 

Here's the side-by-side comparison of the Netflix versus Paramount-Skydance offers as the bidding war for Warner Bros.' assets goes into overdrive.

In markets, Netflix shares were down about 4% in early afternoon trading in New York, while Paramount shares were up nearly 10%.

Fox Business reporter Charles Gasparino noted that "shares are getting slammed, and with the investor selling, it's unclear if the collar on the stock portion of its WBD bid is being compromised - meaning it might have to come up with more money."

*  *  * 

Update (0950ET): The bidding war between Netflix and Paramount Skydance for Warner Bros.' film and television studios, including HBO and HBO Max, is intensifying heading into the US cash session on Monday morning.

Paramount has raised its bid with a $30-per-share, all-cash tender offer for all of Warner Bros. Discovery, stating in a press release that its proposal is a "superior alternative" to Netflix's deal announced last Friday.

Deal highlights:

Price: An all-cash offer at $30.00 per share, equating to an enterprise value of $108.4 billion, which represents a 139% premium to the undisturbed WBD stock price of $12.54 as of September 10, 2025. In contrast, the Netflix proposal entails a volatile and complex structure valued at $27.75 mix of cash ($23.25) and stock ($4.50), subject to collar and the future performance of Netflix, equating to an enterprise value of $82.7 billion (excluding SpinCo).

Structure: Paramount proposal is for all of WBD, without leaving WBD shareholders with a sub-scale and highly leveraged stub in Global Networks, as the Netflix agreement assumes.

"Paramount's strategically and financially compelling offer to WBD shareholders provides a superior alternative to the Netflix (NASDAQ: NFLX) transaction, which offers inferior and uncertain value and exposes WBD shareholders to a protracted multi-jurisdictional regulatory clearance process with an uncertain outcome along with a complex and volatile mix of equity and cash," Paramount wrote in a press release.

Additional facts about the deal:

  • Fully backstopped equity (Ellison family + RedBird) and committed debt financing (Bank of America, Citi, Apollo).

  • Cleaner structure: Paramount buys all of WBD rather than leaving investors holding a Global Networks spinout.

  • Regulatory path: Paramount argues its deal is simpler, while noting that Netflix-WBD would likely face lengthy global antitrust fights.

David Ellison (son of Oracle's Larry Ellison), Chairman and CEO of Paramount, stated: "WBD shareholders deserve an opportunity to consider our superior all-cash offer for their shares in the entire company. Our public offer, which is on the same terms we provided to the Warner Bros. Discovery Board of Directors in private, provides superior value, and a more certain and quicker path to completion. We believe the WBD Board of Directors is pursuing an inferior proposal which exposes shareholders to a mix of cash and stock, an uncertain future trading value of the Global Networks linear cable business and a challenging regulatory approval process. We are taking our offer directly to shareholders to give them the opportunity to act in their own best interests and maximize the value of their shares."

Ellison continued, "We believe our offer will create a stronger Hollywood. It is in the best interests of the creative community, consumers and the movie theater industry. We believe they will benefit from the enhanced competition, higher content spend and theatrical release output, and a greater number of movies in theaters as a result of our proposed transaction. We look forward to working to expeditiously deliver this opportunity so that all stakeholders can begin to capitalize on the benefits of the combined company."

Paramount listed why the Paramount-WBD would be strategic for Hollywood:

  • Creates a scaled Hollywood studio champion with larger content budgets

  • Stronger theatrical footprint and support for movie theaters

  • Bigger, more profitable direct-to-consumer platform (Paramount+ + HBO Max)

  • More competitive vs Netflix, Amazon, Disney

  • Tech boost via Oracle partnership

  • Major global sports rights portfolio

  • Stronger linear networks and ad business

  • Over $6 billion in cost synergies plus existing Paramount transformation savings

Polymarket odds for a Netflix-WBD deal fell from about 20% to 16% following Paramount's news.

pic

The Trump administration is likely aware that Netflix remains heavily influenced by the Obama era, while the Ellison family (major backers of Paramount) is in Trump's orbit. Trump has already signaled he intends to play an active role in antitrust scrutiny, warning earlier that a Netflix-WBD tie-up "could be a problem."

*   *   *   

 

Beyond President Trump's walk down the red carpet at the Kennedy Center Opera House in Washington, D.C., where he greeted actors, musicians, and entertainment industry legends on Sunday evening, he also spoke with reporters about one of the biggest developments in Hollywood: Netflix's plan to acquire Warner Bros., including its film and television studios as well as HBO and HBO Max, in a $72 billion deal.

Trump told reporters on the red carpet that he had some skepticism about the prospects of the Netflix-WBD getting approval. He suggested that regulators could push back, noting Netflix already has a large market share that would "go up a lot" if it acquires WBD.

"Well, that's got to go through a process, and we'll see what happens," the president said, adding, "They have a very big market share ... when they have Warner Bros., that share goes up a lot."

Trump said he plans to discuss the mechanics of the deal with "some economists" before giving it his approval.

"I'll be involved in that decision, too," he said. Normally, presidents don't intervene directly in antitrust reviews of corporate mergers, which makes his comments stand out. It also reinforces the growing panic across Hollywood about what this deal could mean.

"But it is a big market share, there's no question about that. It could be a problem," he added.

No other than the former WBD CEO summed things up succinctly:

If I was tasked with doing so, I could not think of a more effective way to reduce competition in Hollywood than selling WBD to Netflix.

And as we pointed out:

Besides consolidation, Benny Johnson pointed out the marriage between the two companies may only suggest a more sinister plot: Netflix's plan to "own a monopoly on children's entertainment."

Over the weekend, Barclays analysts led by Kannan Venkateshwar questioned Netflix's deal, asking why it would spend nearly $80 billion for a studio company it already disrupted, especially with only $2 to $3 billion in expected synergies and a slow integration due to existing WBD distribution and content-licensing agreements (read the report).

Also, Trump added that Netflix's CEO, Ted Sarandos, joined him at the White House last week. He said Sarandos was a "great person" who has done "one of the greatest jobs in the history of movies."

The latest Polymarket odds of whether the Netflix-WBD closes by the end of 2026 stand at 19%.

Merger approvals are typically handled by independent regulatory agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, rather than by the president directly. That makes Trump's stated involvement highly unusual. It's also worth noting that Paramount–Skydance, backed by the Ellison family, recently made a bid for WBD.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 16:15

"Do Not Mistake Compliance For Surrender" - Alina Habba Steps Down As Acting US Attorney For New Jersey

Zero Hedge -

"Do Not Mistake Compliance For Surrender" - Alina Habba Steps Down As Acting US Attorney For New Jersey

Alina Habba, the former personal attorney to President Trump, is stepping down from her contested position atop the federal prosecuting office in New Jersey.

"As a result of the Third Circuit's ruling, and to protect the stability and integrity of the office which I love, I have decided to step down in my role," she said in a statement posted on X on Monday.

Habba’s resignation came after district and appellate court rulings which found she was unlawfully serving in the role, a powerful post charged with enforcing federal criminal and civil law.

The Trump administration had been attempting to keep Habba in place after her interim appointment expired and she had not received US Senate confirmation.

Habba’s statement Monday said “do not mistake compliance for surrender”.

“Make no mistake, you can take the girl out of New Jersey, but you cannot take New Jersey out of the girl,” Habba’s statement said.

Attorney General Pam Bondi said that Habba would remain at the Department of Justice as senior advisor to the attorney general for U.S. Attorneys.

“I am saddened to accept Alina’s resignation,” Bondi said, calling the appellate court's decision "flawed".

Bondi credited Habba with helping to reduce crime in Camden and Newark, New Jersey, and said the DOJ would continue “to review” the appeals court ruling.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 15:00

Leading Index for Commercial Real Estate Decreased 1% in November

Calculated Risk -

From Dodge Data Analytics: Dodge Momentum Index Decreases 1% in November
The Dodge Momentum Index (DMI), issued by Dodge Construction Network, decreased 1.1% in November to 276.8 (2000=100) from the downwardly revised October reading of 280.0. Over the month, commercial planning ticked down 0.1% and institutional planning declined by 3.4%. Year-to-date, the DMI is up 36% from the average reading over the same period in 2024.

“The influx of high-value data center work, compounded by inflationary cost pressures, continues to support elevated DMI levels,” stated Sarah Martin, Associate Director of Forecasting at Dodge Construction Network. “Overall, nonresidential construction is expected to strengthen in 2027, led primarily by data center and healthcare projects. Other nonresidential sectors are more likely to face softer demand and heightened macroeconomic risks.”

On the commercial side, activity slowed down for warehouses and hotels, while planning momentum was sustained for data centers, traditional office buildings and retail stores. On the institutional side, education, healthcare, public and recreational planning saw weaker momentum, after strong activity in recent months. Planning for religious buildings, however, continued to accelerate. Year-over-year, the DMI was up 50% when compared to November 2024. The commercial segment was up 57% (+36% when data centers are removed) and the institutional segment was up 37% over the same period.
...
The DMI is a monthly measure based on the three-month moving value of nonresidential building projects going into planning, shown to lead construction spending for nonresidential buildings by a full year to 18 months.
emphasis added
Dodge Momentum Index Click on graph for larger image.

This graph shows the Dodge Momentum Index since 2002. The index was at 276.8 in November, down from 280.0 the previous month.

According to Dodge, this index leads "construction spending for nonresidential buildings a full year to 18 months".  
Commercial construction is typically a lagging economic indicator.

Border Czar Says 62,000 Illegally Smuggled Children Rescued So Far

Zero Hedge -

Border Czar Says 62,000 Illegally Smuggled Children Rescued So Far

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

White House border czar Tom Homan on Dec. 7 said more than 60,000 children who were illegally smuggled into the United States have been located by the Trump administration and that some were rescued from dire situations, including sex trafficking and forced labor.

In an interview with the Fox News show “Fox & Friends” on Dec. 7, Homan said that the previous administration “lost track of 300,000” children who were “smuggled into” the United States, saying some of those children were released to ”unvetted sponsors.”

Since President Donald Trump took office in January, 62,000 children who were taken into the United States had been found as of Dec. 5, he said.

Homan said that “many of them are in sex trafficking,” “are in forced labor,” or are being abused.

He also said, “[I] can’t discuss some of the mistreatment we found out about.”

Homan said that Trump committed to doing everything possible “to find every one of these children.” He did not provide more details about the rescued children but said that the administration “saved over 62,000 children’s lives.”

A statement released by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Dec. 5 stated that the number of border encounters is continuing to decline; 30,367 total encounters were reported to the agency nationwide in November. That’s down slightly from the 30,573 encounters nationwide in October, it said.

Border Patrol also said that it has released “zero illegal aliens” into the country for seven consecutive months.

In December 2024, the final month of President Joe Biden’s administration, there were more than 301,981 encounters at the southwest border sector by Border Patrol agents, according to data from the agency. There were about 11,600 such encounters in September 2025, the most recent month for which data are available.

“Our focus is unwavering: secure the border, enforce the law, and protect this nation,” CBP Commissioner Rodney Scott said in the Dec. 5 statement. “These numbers reflect the tireless efforts of our agents and officers who are delivering results that redefine border security. We’re not slowing down. We’re setting the pace for the future.”

The Border Patrol efforts and the mass deportation of illegal immigrants are in line with campaign promises made by Trump during his 2024 presidential campaign. And since taking office, he has signed multiple executive orders and memorandums, including declaring an emergency at the U.S.–Mexico border, designating several criminal gangs as terrorist organizations, and launching federal operations targeting illegal immigrants in Chicago, Los Angeles, and other cities.

The Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 5 to hear a case challenging the legality of an executive order issued by Trump that sought to end birthright citizenship. Multiple lower courts have ruled against the January order, which would bar children born in the United States to parents who are in the country illegally from automatically becoming citizens.

Democrats have been broadly critical of the Trump administration’s immigration policies. A House lawmaker introduced a bill in May that would prohibit the use of federal funds to enforce any order barring birthright citizenship. At the state level, multiple governors and mayors have also been opposed the federal deportation operations.

Meanwhile, in the past week, the Trump administration paused all immigration applications, including applications for green cards, for people from 19 countries that are also subject to a travel ban imposed earlier this year, as part of sweeping immigration changes in the wake of the shooting of two National Guard troops.

A policy memo issued on the website of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency tasked with processing and approving all requests for immigration benefits, said the policy applies to citizens of Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

The Epoch Times contacted the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees border- and immigration-related matters, for additional comment but did not hear back by publication time.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 14:40

India Plans Coal Expansion Through 2047 Despite Supposed "Climate Goals"

Zero Hedge -

India Plans Coal Expansion Through 2047 Despite Supposed "Climate Goals"

It's funny how no one actually seems to care about climate change malarky when there isn't an environmentalist Democrat in the White House to try and impress...

Along that vein, India is weighing a major expansion of coal power that could extend new plant construction until at least 2047, according to people familiar with ongoing discussions between the power ministry and the government policy think tank NITI Aayog. The move would represent a sharp departure from earlier projections that expected additions to peak around 2035, Bloomberg reported this week.

The talks align with Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push to make the country energy independent and reclassify it as a developed nation by its 100th year of independence. With domestic reserves expected to last a century, officials see coal as the most reliable option to support that goal. Total capacity could reach 420 gigawatts by 2047 — roughly an 87% increase from today, the people said.

Bloomberg writes that the people added that the government still plans to expand renewable energy and battery storage, but warns that solar and battery supply chains remain vulnerable, especially because “China…dominates much of the supply chain for batteries and solar panels.” Some of the planned coal units would be geared toward balancing intermittent renewable generation, with the ministry offering incentives for plants that operate more flexibly.

Such a move risks complicating India’s climate commitments. NITI Aayog projections indicate that emissions must peak by 2045 to meet Modi’s target of becoming net zero by 2070. India, the world’s third-largest emitter, has yet to submit updated emissions-reduction strategies for 2035 under the Paris Agreement, arguing that richer nations should shoulder a bigger share of decarbonization to allow developing economies to grow.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 14:25

Rickards: 8 Events Driving The Gold Frenzy

Zero Hedge -

Rickards: 8 Events Driving The Gold Frenzy

Authored by James Rickards via Investors Daily,

Events are moving quickly in the gold market. You know about the run-up in the price of gold; it has become a mainstream media story. But the gold situation is bigger than that. There are important developments almost daily that will sustain the gold bull market for years to come. Let’s look briefly at the gold price action and then turn to these breaking developments.

Gold is in its third great bull market. There really were no bull or bear markets from 1870 to 1971 because the world was on a gold standard at a fixed price. The global gold standard had flaws. Some countries joined earlier than others. The U.S. did not formally adhere to a gold standard until 1900, but the UK and the London gold market maintained a steady price from 1815 after the Napoleonic Wars until 1914 after which the U.S. maintained a world price.

There were breaks in the system in 1931-1934 when the UK and U.S. devalued their currencies against gold, but a new fixed priced was established. A true floating rate market in gold did not emerge until Richard Nixon closed the gold window in 1971.

The first bull market (1971 – 1980) saw gold soar 2,200% in eight years. The second bull market (1991 – 2011) witnessed a gold price rally of 670% in twelve years.

The third bull market (which we are in today) can be more difficult to date. If one begins at the interim low of $1,050 per ounce in December 2015 until today’s price of $4,220 per ounce, then the gain is 300% over ten years, which is less than the two prior bull markets. Of course, this bull market is far from over and material gains in the near future should be expected.

However, gold moved in a range of $1,000 per ounce to $2,000 per ounce during almost all of the 2015 – 2025 period until July 1, 2023, when a breakout above $2,000 per ounce began. If we date the bull market from that point, we see a rally of 110% in just over two years.

10k Per Ounce or Higher

If we take the average gain for the first and second bull markets, which is over 1,400%, and take an average duration of ten years and apply those metrics to a baseline of $2,000 per ounce in 2023, that suggests gold will reach $28,000 per ounce by 2033. Of course, this method is arbitrary. Gains could be much larger and come much faster. A replay of the 1971 – 1980 scenario would put gold close to $100,000 per ounce by 2032.

  • From $1,000 to $2,000 = 100% gain

  • From $2,000 to $3,000 = 50% gain

  • From $3,000 to $4,000 = 33% gain

  • From $4,000 to $5,000 = 25% gain

  • From $9,000 to $10,000 = 11% gain

With this as background, it’s entirely reasonable to suggest gold could reach $10,000 per ounce by late 2026 on its way much higher. What few investors may realize is that each $1,000 increase in the price of gold is easier than the one before. The price gain is the same at each milestone, but the percentage increase is smaller because each increase is working from a higher base. Going from $4,000 to $5,000 per ounce is a 25% gain. But going from $9,000 to $10,000 per ounce is only an 11% gain. This is why the push to $10,000 per ounce will go slowly at first and then quickly.

Underreported Events to Consider

That much is widely known.

What is less well known is series of underreported events that will turbocharge the price gains ahead.

Here is a summary of those events:

  1. Central banks remain net buyers of gold as they have been since 2010. This puts an informal floor under the price of gold while still allowing unlimited upside.

  2. Mining output has been flat for last six years. This does not mean “peak gold”, but it shows that gold is getting harder to find and more expensive to mine. Supply constraints + expanding demand = higher prices.

  3. The copper-to-gold price ratio is at an all-time low. This speaks to the relative role of industrial metals versus precious metals. The gold price can rise in recessionary scenarios and depressions. Gains are not limited to periods of inflation and hot economies.

  4. Russia has demonstrated that it can survive Western dollar-based financial sanctions by holding over 25% of its reserves in physical gold. That’s a lesson the world and especially the BRICS are internalizing.

  5. Digitally tokenized gold has become a huge new source of demand. Tether is leading the way with its XAUt token that has a current market cap (tied to the price of gold) of $2.2 trillion. The gold held in vaults to support the token now exceeds 16.2 metric tonnes, more than some countries. This gold is not traded, and the token is only redeemable for cash, not physical gold. This means Tether is the ultimate buy-and-hold gold investor and their gold is effectively off the market.

  6. Italy has recently taken steps to asset that Italian gold (2,452 metric tonnes; the third largest gold reserve in the world after the U.S. and Germany) belongs to the Italian people and not to the Bank of Italy. That dispute has cooled down, but its mere existence shows that a global struggle for possession of physical gold is underway.

  7. Television and media personality Tucker Carlson has launched an online gold dealing operation. That’s only one among many online dealers, but it shows that gold ownership is reaching a wider audience and we are getting closer to the retail frenzy stage of price appreciation.

  8. The U.S. Treasury is giving serious consideration to revaluing its gold reserves by causing the Federal Reserve to restate the value of its gold certificate given when the Treasury took the Fed’s gold in 1934. The current value of the certificate is $42.22 per ounce. If revalued to $4,200 per ounce, this would not change the world price of gold (it’s just an accounting entry), but it would add about $1 trillion to the Treasury’s account at the Fed and it would show that the U.S. respects gold as a legitimate monetary asset.

Other material developments in the gold markets are occurring almost daily. We expect this to continue. If you have not invested in gold yet or if your allocation is small, it’s not too late to invest. The biggest gains are still ahead and will happen sooner than later.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 14:05

Ukraine Claims It Can Intercept Conversations Of Kremlin Officials

Zero Hedge -

Ukraine Claims It Can Intercept Conversations Of Kremlin Officials

The head of Ukraine's military intelligence agency has boasted of being capable of intercepting conversations of senior Russian officials. He made the big claim in a fresh local media interview, but didn't back it up by proof or any specifics.

"Yes, we can. We get paid for this," stated the agency's chief, Kyrylo Budanov, to RBC-Ukraine on Sunday. He had specifically been asked whether Ukrainian intelligence can eavesdrop on Kremlin officials.

AFP via Getty Images

The remarks come after recent leaks hit Western press related to Trump officials negotiating with Kremlin officials over the future of the Ukraine war and Trump's peace plan.

But Kiev has obviously not been happy with the White House plan, which offers Russia significant territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and along with European leaders has been actively trying to thwart it. Thus Ukraine has motive to try and leak as much as possible of interactions between the US and Russia.

In late November, Bloomberg reported that the 28-point peace proposal was drafted by Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff together with Russian lawmaker Kirill Dmitriev during a meeting in Miami in October. As a result, Ukrainian and EU officials tried to smear it as ultimately a 'Russian-desired plan'.

The outlet later released two transcripts of conversations involving Russian and US officials. They purported to reveal Witkoff advising the Russian side on how to best pitch the Kremlin’s ideas to Trump.

Spy chief Budanov in touting Ukraine's eavesdropping capabilities seems to be hinting at involvement; however, these leaks could have just as easily come from the Russian side, or even someone within the a delegation.

After all, the Kremlin has benefited from courting Witkoff and Kushner, while being in the driver's seat militarily on the battlefield. It is enjoying projecting to the world it is not so 'isolated', and is calling many of the shots with Washington because it has real leverage.

On Monday, President Zelensky is in London meeting with Europeans, where they are working on what they call a more 'fair' and 'just' ceasefire plan.

The European outline so far makes no mention of giving up territory, and even leaves the door open for Ukraine's future path to NATO membership. These things are of course a non-starter for Moscow, and that might be the point.

President Putin has already long said that any plan which refuses territorial concessions or to rule out NATO membership would be dead on arrival, and could never be accepted by Russia.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 13:40

Solid, Stopping-Through 3Y Auction Boosted By Surge In Foreign Demand

Zero Hedge -

Solid, Stopping-Through 3Y Auction Boosted By Surge In Foreign Demand

Due to the FOMC meeting falling on a Wednesday, the Treasury is scrambling to issue this week's coupon auctions, starting with a $58BN 3Y auction which saw solid demand when it was offered at 1pm ET.

The sale of $58BN in 3 year paper priced at a high yield of 3.614%, up from 3.579% in November, and the highest since August. The auction also stopped through the 3.622% When Issued by 0.8bps, the 4th consecutive stopping through 3Y auction.

The bid to cover was dropped to 2.641 from 3.850 but was still just above the 2.632 six-auction average.

The internals were more solid, with Indirects awarded 72.0%, up sharply from 63.0% in November and the highest since September. It was also one of the highest foreign awards on record.

And with Directs taking down 19.0%, down from 27.32 last month, Dealers were left holding just 9.03%, the lowest since September, and below the 13.1% recent average.

Overall, this was a very solid auction, one which came at just the right time: with 10Y yields surging today just shy of 4.20% before retracing the move and dipping by about 1bp on the solid 3Y auction results. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 13:25

The DPI Link To Margin Debt

Zero Hedge -

The DPI Link To Margin Debt

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

A recent article by Simon White, via Bloomberg, discussed the rising cost of margin debt for investors. While his analysis below compares the cost of debt to GDP, we will also consider a more critical comparison to disposable personal income (DPI). Here is Simon’s point.

Yet, where history does raise a red flag is if we look at the cost of carrying the margin debt. Based on an idea from Investec Research, we can estimate the total cost of carrying margin debt versus GDP (I also adjust margin debt for credit balances). This net margin debt has only been higher in the pandemic, when savings went through the roof. As we can see, cost-of-carry peaks for net margin debt have preceded significant downward moves in stocks: the tech bust in 2000, the GFC bear market in 2008, the near 20% correction in 2018 and the 2022 bear market.

Before we proceed with our discussion, margin debt now stands at a record of more than $1.1 trillion, up nearly 40% on an annual basis.

Why is that important? It is essential to reiterate a crucial point about margin debt.

“Margin debt is not a technical indicator for trading markets. What it represents is the amount of speculation occurring in the market. In other words, margin debt is the “gasoline,” which drives markets higher as the leverage provides for the additional purchasing power of assets. However, leverage also works in reverse, as it supplies the accelerant for more significant declines as lenders “force” the sale of assets to cover credit lines without regard to the borrower’s position.

The last sentence is the most important. The issue with margin debt is that the unwinding of leverage is NOT at the investor’s discretion. That process is at the discretion of the broker-dealers that extended that leverage in the first place. (In other words, if you don’t sell to cover, the broker-dealer will do it for you.) When lenders fear they may not recoup their credit lines, they force the borrower to put in more cash or sell assets to cover the debt. The problem is that “margin calls” generally happen simultaneously, as falling asset prices impact all lenders simultaneously.

In other words, the risk with margin debt is:

“Margin debt is a double-edged sword, and the edge that cuts you, cuts the deepest.”

So, why are we discussing this? Because margin debt levels are reaching a point where forward market returns are substantially lower.

Which brings us back to Simon White and the cost of carrying margin debt.

The Link Between Disposable Personal Income and Margin Debt

Currently, household allocations to equities are at a record. Of course, such should be unsurprising given the strong market advances over the past few years.

There is more to this story than just rising asset prices. When investors are chasing a bull market, they initially invest their savings in the financial markets. If prices continue to rise, they then turn to margin debt to continue investing. However, as noted above, that is a “bullish benefit” to the market as the leverage increases investors’ “buying power.”

However, margin debt is not “free,” and generally carries an interest rate that is two percentage points above the bank’s “prime lending” rate. Currently, the bank’s prime lending rate is around 7%, which suggests that most margin debt is carrying an interest rate of 9%. Therefore, investors must consider the interest rate risk associated with the borrowed capital to generate a profit. Over the last three years, returns of 10% or more have been relatively easy, at least so far.

But that brings us to our warning. Understanding the link between disposable personal income (DPI) and margin debt is crucial for assessing market risk. DPI is the income households have after taxes, available for saving or investing. When DPI growth slows, households have fewer fresh savings to deploy. In this context, some investors turn to margin borrowing to maintain or increase exposure.

In the second quarter of 2025, U.S. Disposable Personal Income (DPI) stood at approximately $22.858 trillion on a seasonally adjusted annual rate basis. This figure represents a nominal increase from $22.564 trillion in Q1 2025. While that growth suggests income levels are still rising, further data paint a more nuanced picture of investor capacity and market risk. Real disposable personal income (adjusted for inflation) for Q2 2025 grew by about 3.1% year‑over‑year. This growth rate remains below the long‑term average of roughly 3.44%. In practical terms, households are seeing slower growth in their “money left over” after taxes and basic costs, reducing the flow of new savings that could be invested.

Margin debt as a percentage of real DPI has been reported at around 6.23 %, the highest on record. This ratio also suggests that for every $100 of real DPI, roughly $6 of margin debt is outstanding, a non‐trivial amount.

Naturally, when fresh savings are lacking and investors turn to margin to participate in markets, two risks emerge.

  1. The quality of the investor base weakens because borrowed money replaces savings.

  2. The carrying cost of that borrowing becomes more salient when interest rates are elevated. If the margin debt carries higher interest and investors’ income growth is weak, servicing the debt becomes harder, reducing the buffer against loss.

In summary, weak DPI growth, combined with elevated margin borrowing, creates a vulnerability. In such an environment, the investor base is much less resilient.

The “Cost Of Carry”

In recent years, not only has margin debt surged, but the “cost of carrying” that debt has also risen. As borrowing costs increase, the break‐even point for leveraged equity exposure rises. If an investor borrows at a higher interest rate and the market stagnates or declines, the drag from interest and margin loan costs erodes returns. Simon’s view of carrying costs as a percentage of GDP is correct. However, another salient perspective is to consider them as a function of DPI. In other words, if an investor account is fully invested, margin interest must be paid either by selling assets or from disposable income.

With margin debt expense as a percentage of DPI at the highest level on record, the risk of market reversal becomes elevated. Higher interest rates also mean that margin borrowing becomes less attractive relative to other uses of capital. If margin rates rise, investors holding prominent borrowed positions may face higher servicing costs and increased pressure in the event of a correction. In such an environment, as shown above, the historical outcome has been one of increased financial fragility.

Moreover, elevated rates can suppress earnings growth across the economy, reducing incentive returns and market momentum. For leveraged investors, slower earnings growth makes it harder to absorb the cost of borrowing. Therefore, from a market‑structure perspective, the combination of high margin debt and high borrowing costs creates a vulnerability:

  • Leverage is greater.

  • Investor income growth is weaker.

  • The carrying cost of debt is higher.

These three factors form a feedback loop: high costs and weak income reduce investor resilience; a market drawdown triggers margin calls, which in turn accelerate the decline through forced selling. Academic models of margin trading indicate that this type of feedback loop can transform a modest correction into a sharper decline.

Thus, rising carrying costs of margin debt amplify the risk embedded in the margin debt–DPI link.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 13:25

Transcript: Paul Zummo, CIO, JPMAAM

The Big Picture -



 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Paul Zummo, Chief Investment Officer of J.P. Morgan Alternative Asset Management, 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.

~~~

Barry Ritholtz: On the latest Masters in Business podcast. I sit down with Paul Zumo, he’s Chief Investment Officer at JP Morgan’s Alternative Asset Management. He co-founded this group back in 1994 with essentially pocket change. It now runs over $35 billion in assets for institutions and high net worth investors at JP Morgan. Really just a fascinating concept of everything about how to stand up a division within a large company, how to think about alternatives, how to recognize when an industry may be average, but the best players in that industry generate significant alpha. I thought this was fascinating, and I think you will also, with no further ado, JP Morgan’s. Paul Zummo,

Welcome to Bloomberg.

Paul Zumo: Thanks for having me. Great to be here.

Barry Ritholtz: I’m so excited about this because I just fell in love with your 30 pearls of wisdom. We’ll get to that later. Let, let’s start with your background. Sure. Bachelor’s from SUNY Albany and then an MBA from New York University. What was the original career plan?

Paul Zumo: Sure. So, yeah, when I was young, I was always into, always into investments or at least intrigued by investments, but also into technology as well. Like arguably my, to, to the extent we have a, a gift in life. It was probably technology, but the technology was so early stage. I, I didn’t exactly know what it, what it was. So I wound up, I wound up pursuing, obviously an investment side, but kind of used that technology from time to time, especially as we were, we were building a group, but originally I, I really wanted to get into, into equity research. And, and not that I knew exactly what it was, but it was the most like tangible and aligned with who I am in terms of, you know, problem solving and analytics and, and things like that. And wound up instead falling into the, the hedge fund world and doing what I do today as hedge fund solutions, which actually has a lot of elements in, in a sense of what equity research is. Again, you know, you, you, you’re problem solving at, at, at its core and doing analytical work. You,

Barry Ritholtz: You get the chartered financial analyst designation and you start at Chase as an analyst. What sort of work were you doing there?

Paul Zumo: Yeah, so at a outta a school I was in a pension fund consulting group. And so really what you’re doing is a, a couple things, I mean, one performance measurement across client accounts and, you know, also you’re doing some, some research stock rather manager selection on a traditional side. But I think what was helpful about it is it kind of gave you a really good purview of all different asset classes and all different styles of management. And I remember in our early days really appreciating like the, the importance of stylistic differences in equities as an example. This was, again, early days, but like recognizing, you know, small cap world versus small cap value and a drastic differences. But it really, it really has just set the stage to understand the industry and styles and types and approaches at a, at a much deeper level.

Barry Ritholtz: So you were a manager of retirement plans at the Interpublic group. Tell us a little bit about that.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, so after Chase, so I spent about two years at, at, at Chase and then went to the anti-public group. So this is a, a, a plan sponsor and maybe a, a somewhat unusual move at that stage in my career. And what attracted me to it was they, they were at a point where they were, so again, this, this is an advertising agency, but I worked in the pension fund group and they were, they were looking to revise their asset allocation materially. So, you know, change the whole asset allocation, change the manager lineup. And importantly they, they didn’t have a consultant, so they were doing it in-house. So they were affording me, I mean, not solely, but affording me a lot of responsibility to help restructure the whole plan, terminate managers, onboard managers.

Barry Ritholtz: What year was that?

Paul Zumo: So that was 1992 to 1994. And interesting.

Barry Ritholtz: I’m curious what led them to say, “Hey, we’re just going to start over.”

Paul Zumo: Well, that was, yeah, I mean, that was before, I mean, that was a kind of a decision I’d had already been made and they were changing, you know, again, changing their asset allocation and, and looking at the whole manager holistically. And interestingly, that’s when I first got involved in hedge funds, or at least first met hedge funds. So this is again, you know, early days, right? 19, 19 92.

Barry Ritholtz: Everybody was producing Alpha back then, right?

Paul Zumo:  Well Then, yeah, I mean then it was, that’s true, but it was so unknown, you know, so I, we, I met with a number of kind of market neutral equity managers, a couple long short matches. And then, and then importantly David asin. So, you know, David asin, for those that don’t know, was one of the, really the first hedge fund, for lack of a better word, blowups, where it was a mortgage backed derivative manager and, you know, obviously a quirky ish market and, and, and wound up having significant problems. So it was, you know, we did not invest with him, but it was really a, a very, you know, valuable early kind of lesson from a due diligence standpoint that, you know, obviously we didn’t pay for. So all, all, all the better, but it, it really like, I dunno, may maybe tells you two things. I mean, one, if you don’t completely understand something, and admittedly at age 24, I, I didn’t at the time then, you know, stay away, don’t put money, don’t put money there and, and, and just have the courage to say, to say no. You know, there’s, there’s a lot of choices out there and you need to be disciplined and, and walk away. But we did invest in an equity market neutral fund. And again, that was 1993.

Barry Ritholtz: So that’s the initial exposure to hedge funds. How did you go from there to JP Morgan?

Paul Zumo: Yeah, so this is probably another, you know, never burn your bridges, which, which  I’ll come to. So I had, I had, as I mentioned, I’d worked at Chase once before and at the time I was looking to leave because once you restructure the plan, there’s only so much to to do, especially when you, when you’re young. So it’s ready, you know, it’s ready to, to do something different.

Barry Ritholtz: Do you literally put yourself out of a job through the restructuring process?

Paul Zumo: Well, I mean, I could have stayed, but then you’re just, you know, you’re just overseeing the investments as opposed to-ing more actively. It’s a little less interesting. And so any any case, I was interviewing at a hedge fund solutions, a fund of funds out on Long Island and, you know, really liked the guys, couple of great guys that were there. But at the end of the day, I, I decided I didn’t want to go, you know, I didn’t want to reverse commute ’cause I was living a sit-in, I didn’t wanna go out to Long Island, so I wound up not pursuing it. But the relevance of that is that what would become my, my boss, Joel Katzman was distributing that, that fund of funds. And he was at Chase. So when it came time to do a, a reference check on me, they asked Joel to do a reference check on me. ’cause he was at Chase. I used to work at Chase and the reference check I assume was good, but it turned out I didn’t pursue it any further. And Joel, who was distributing the fund of funds at the time, got the idea of, you know what, rather than distributing it, maybe we should start this up anew. And if you wanna work in a city, why don’t you come work for me.

Barry Ritholtz: So you’re at Chase, which even back in the early nineties is still a very large bank. This seems very entrepreneurial, very startup like what was it like building this division inside a giant money center bank?

Paul Zumo: Yeah, no, it, it was great. You know, I mean, you know, bear, bear in mind it was a different world back then in many ways. Not only from an investment standpoint, but like what it takes to launch a new business. So yeah, we, we launch with a whopping $7.4 million, right? Which is, you know, which is unusual to say, to say at least walking around

Barry Ritholtz: Pocket money.

Paul Zumo: And, and I’d say yeah, maybe a, a couple. So like from an investment standpoint, it was the perfect time to start. You had ar you know, orange County issues, issues. You had, you had rates going up, you had, well David asking, as I mentioned before, you had dislocation and that created opportunities. The problem was, you know, not many people knew about hedge funds and I’d say three quarters of the people that did had a negative view. Oh really? Even in

Barry Ritholtz: Even in the early nineties. ’cause yeah, my bias is that the golden era of hedge funds was from the early nineties, right up to the financial crisis. There’s been far more challenging period, financial crisis for alpha generating the nineties, it seemed like everybody was making money.

Paul Zumo: Well, so two thing, I mean, maybe we’ll get to those points later about, about different, different cycles. But again, from an investment standpoint, I, I, there were, people were making money, there’s no question about it. I think the public’s view, and partially like what had often been written in, in, in the press was the negative side of, of hedge, you know, hedge funds going after this currency or that currency. And I, I think the perception was one of, you know, I either it was negative or just a lack of understanding. So a lot of what we did early days was just educationally, like, we would write newsletters internally and educate people on alternatives, but eventually, you know, eventually you put it together and performance kind of speaks to itself and you, you know, you build it, you build it over time. But it was great from an entrepreneur entrepreneurial standpoint, this kind of goes back to my tech side as well. I mean, one building infrastructure broadly and process,

You know, early days building technology as well. Like there was no per track, which is something people use like, so, you know, we, and I kind of built it all. So built a research database, built a a built a a system to analyze returns and yeah, that was, that was great. It was a lot of, a lot of fun.

Barry Ritholtz: So today it looks like the industry is much better known. There’s been a giant movement to try to democratize access to all sorts of alternatives from hedge funds to private credit, private equity, real assets. What do you think led to this massive interest in alternatives? It’s not like it’s been a terrible equity market for the past 15 years.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, it’s been great. So , two things.

I’d say even, let’s go back early days, like part of the vision, this is really, you know, Joel’s vision first and foremost, that was that alternatives were gonna become mainstream, which, you know, sitting back and hedge funds were gonna become mainstream eventually. And then, you know, back in 1994, that was a novel concept, you know, it was just this little thing off to the side. And, and look, we’ve more or less kind of arrived at that, right? So I think the vision is true. And then the second part is, well, why not retail investors? Right? And if you think about 2022 and you think about rising stock bond correlations, you know, there’s so many investors, many of ’em were retail oriented or, or, you know, high net worth oriented that just don’t have alternatives or enough alternatives in their portfolios. So yeah, that’s led to the democratization and, you know, launch of interval funds and, and, and tender off of funds, which is I think really interesting. So it’s giving those investors access to alternatives which are really valuable in overall portfolio context. And so it it’s about building, yeah, I mean, yeah, just to, to, to respond like, sure, equity markets are going up today, but they didn’t in 2022. And I think the takeaway is that you need to build a more resilient portfolio rather than just look at these things in isolation.

Barry Ritholtz: So you start with barely $7 million today, you have over $35 billion that you’re directly overseeing JP Morgan Chase’s giant with trillions of dollars. It sounds like there’s a whole lot more headroom for alternatives at JP Morgan to continue growing. Like, where do you see this going?

Paul Zumo: Yeah, I mean, you know, alternatives are, are definitely the fastest growing or one of the fastest growing areas within, and not, not just hedge funds, but more broadly. And there’s a tremendous amount of support for it. So, yeah, I like, I, I think, you know, for us and for other alternatives, we’re gonna, you know, continue to build, continue to launch new product, continue to, you know, get, get a larger reach into, in, you know, in, into other client types and, and, and geographies. So yeah, the future is extremely exciting. So

Barry Ritholtz: I mentioned earlier 30 pearls of wisdom for 30 years. I wanna dive into that in a moment. I have to start with one quote that kind of caught my eye, and we talk about this all the time. “Culture is king, the road to failure is paved with poor cultures”. Explain what led you to that conclusion?

Paul Zumo: Well, experience. I mean, you, you, I don’t know, I mean, hedge funds fail for and, and succeed for, for different reasons, but culture is definitely at, at the heart of many of it. And I’d say more importantly, like sometimes people ask what are, you know, what, what’s, like, what do you think about most as, as your takeaway having been doing over 30 years? Like for, for us it’s, for me it’s culture. Like the culture that we’ve built as an organization has been spectacular and clearly a differentiator.

Barry Ritholtz: But is that what’s kept you at JP Morgan Chase for 30 years? That’s kind of rare these days. Most people don’t stay at one shop almost their entire career.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, it’s a, it’s a couple things. I mean, culture and, and the team, you know, it’s like a family for sure. And we, we make each other better. We challenge each other respectfully. We, we really enjoy each other’s company and, and appreciate our, our differences. So yeah, that, that’s been, that’s been great. Leadership of Jamie is, is unparalleled. So that Jamie,

Barry Ritholtz: Jamie…?

Paul Zumo: Jamie Dimon

Barry Ritholtz:  I’ve heard of him. Remind me to tell you a funny story about him later.

Paul Zumo: And, and then lastly, like, you know, the, the job itself allows you obviously to meet with some of the, you know, best investment minds in the world, right? Which is just such a privilege. And then to be able to like, dig in deep on so many different asset classes, so many different geographies, you’re, you’re constantly learning. Hmm. So those, those three things for sure.

Barry Ritholtz: I mentioned you are not exactly very public facing, you’re a little below the radar, but you publish these really interesting things. And one of my favorite pieces you wrote was 30 Pearls of Wisdom from our last 30 years.

We don’t have time to go through all 30, but I picked a few that they’re just so simple and yet so insightful and we tend to overlook things like this. This one just jumped out,

Don’t buy the portfolio, buy the process:  Stories change, positions are fleeting, but a robust investment process should endure.”

Like that just sums up so much in, in two sentences. Tell us about that.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, no, it’s definitely one of my favorites as well. I, I, I mean it applies to like all different types of hedge funds, but I’d say especially discretionary macro, right? So you’re interviewing a discretionary macro manager. The vast majority of ’em are very smart. They tell a very good story, they have great views, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re a money maker, right? And, and again, I think sometimes people make the mistake of agreeing with the view, agreeing with the manager, getting, you know, seduced by someone having insight. And that obviously it’s really important. But again, it doesn’t necessarily speak to the process. And especially in something like discretionary macro, where it’s, it’s not a high sharp strategy. It tends to be more volatile strategy. And if you don’t develop that conviction, and again, first and foremost in the process, you can get shaken from, you know, from that idea, right? The ideas change, the process should endure. So really, really important for sure,

Barry Ritholtz: “Have the courage to make mistakes, mitigate unnecessary risks, but take calculated bets.”

Again, two simple sentences, so much involved in that. Yeah. I find a lot of people in our business don’t like to admit mistakes.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, I think it’s, it’s, it, it’s something not, not the admitting mistakes so much, but the, the, the courage to make mistakes. When I think about take a risk, a calculated risk,

When, when I think about like, things that I’ve done better over the years, that that is definitely one of ’em that comes to mind where I, I’ve given myself more freedom to, to, to make mistakes and to maybe size and lean into themes or, or high conviction managers to a greater degree as well, where I think, you know, maybe there’s a perfectionist in many of ’em, many of us. And sometimes the flip side of that, or the problem with that is you become too conservative, right? So now, yeah, if you make a mistake, you need to, you need to figure it out quickly and, and change course. But allowing yourself to maybe make mistakes is, is, is definitely helpful.

 

Barry Ritholtz: I really like this. “Don’t be afraid to run into fires.” Some of the greatest investment opportunities and manager access are sourced during dislocation. Tell us about running into fires.

Paul Zumo: Yeah, so this, you know, is, is obviously really important. Like I, I I love behavioral issues and behavioral finance and, and, and like the challenges that come to that. Of course, we’re all wired, you know, inappropriately from an investment standpoint and that we’re, you know, we’re wired to avoid avoid pain, which is why many people make the wrong decisions during, you know, periods of crisis or periods of heightened volatility. I think some managers do a great job. You know, I wrote it about, you know, I guess the manager had in mind was David Tepper, you know runs into fires all the time, you know?

Barry Ritholtz: He moved to Florida kind of chilled out a little bit,

Paul Zumo: But he, I, you know, like he, he, again, having watched things play out over 30 years, I always thought he, he did, you know, he’s done a really good job. But, and again, like this is something I think we’ve done a better job at over time as well. When I think about, you know, the crisis, you 1998, 2008, 2020, like, you know, as they say, many of these things rhyme and you’ve seen it before. Like, you know, you, you know, what it feels like kind of coming out of it and going in. And if you’re playing appropriate defense, like you should afford yourself the opportunity to really lean into where you think there is dislocation, especially more technical oriented dislocation. So yeah, it’s, it, it’s critically important. I mean, that’s where you make outsized returns during those inflection points.

Barry Ritholtz: Let’s talk about outsized returns. Success can be a dangerous achievement. Complacency, distractions and misalignments can be silent killers.

Paul Zumo: Yeah. So I guess you could come at that one from a, a, a couple of different ways, but one of, one of which the most important is like when you find success, sometimes people, you know, the, the firm grows, the number of analysts grow, the complexity of the business grows, and the portfolio manager, you know, goes from managing portfolios to managing people. And you like, I’ve seen that movie so many times like that. Maybe

00:20:44 [Speaker Changed] They have that skillset, maybe they don’t

00:20:45 [Speaker Changed] And maybe they don’t, and that, and that’s probably not where you want them to spend their time, you know? So I think like if you think about the hedge fund graveyard and like what the issues have been over this like that, there’s a big area that kind of has that, that footprint if, if you will. So yeah. People, you know, the star portfolio portfolio manager no longer spending the appropriate time on a portfolio, managing people, getting distracted, or the second piece of it is just quite frankly, making too much money, right? So, you know, when, when I, when I bought the third yacht, I

00:21:17 [Speaker Changed] Was about to say, it’s that

00:21:19 [Speaker Changed] It’s time to leave, you know, it’s probably time to leave after, before the first yacht, but the

00:21:23 [Speaker Changed] First time I heard that has to be like 20, 25 years ago. Hey, when your fund manager buys a 40 foot or a 50 foot boat, it’s time to move on.

00:21:33 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. I mean, it, it’s more than that. But yes, you have to, you, you have to watch the personal lifestyle at times as well, and it makes sure people are focused. Now, you know, there are people that, that are, are billionaires and they’re still in the office, right? 70 hours a week. Right? But, and it’s, it’s just an eight. They don’t, they couldn’t do anything but that. But yeah, you have to, you know, you, you have to understand what, what am I buying? And, and maybe it changes, right? So maybe that star portfolio match is built out enough of a team and you’re not buying anyone singularly, you’re buying something broader and that process

00:22:09 [Speaker Changed] You mentioned earlier,

00:22:10 [Speaker Changed] But, but yeah, it’s, it’s, it’s a risk for sure. And it’s, and it’s an area where many of successful hedge funds have kind of either become, you know, potentially mediocre or have had challenges because they’ve taken her eye off the ball in one way or another.

00:22:24 [Speaker Changed] Huh, really, really interesting. I love this one. The opposite of long is, in short, great short sellers are wired differently. Don’t expect success on the long side to necessarily translate to a successful short book. First. I love the quote. Second, are there really any short sellers left? I think this last run feels like it. They steamrolled over everybody.

00:22:47 [Speaker Changed] So yeah, maybe a couple things. So I mean, just on the quote itself, I have to like, of all the lessons learned and all the mistakes we’ve seen people make, that that one has probably right at the top or certainly right toward the top. Like the, the opposite of a long is definitely not a short, and, you know, sometimes people will, will suggest it is, I mean, the math is different, risk management is different. It like the, the timing is different. And like, I I would even say like, successful shorting is about risk management first and stock picking second. And you see that, I mean, you’ve seen that when the, you know, 1999 when the internet is blowing is, you know, going nuts. You see that in the meme stocks, you see that today with quantum computing and some of the AI names, again, it’s risk management first. Stock picking second timing is critical. Timing and sizing is just

00:23:41 [Speaker Changed] Critically,

00:23:42 [Speaker Changed] Critically important.

00:23:44 [Speaker Changed] Go ahead. I was gonna say, I have a buddy who used to run a hedge fund trading desk, and he always used to say the opposite of love is in hate. The opposite of love is indifference. There you go. And it, it’s the same basic kind. And he was talking about stocks, but it’s the same sort of thing. They’re not mirror images, are they?

00:24:01 [Speaker Changed] No, definitely not. Are

00:24:03 [Speaker Changed] Are there any short sellers around, I know like one 30 thirties have become popular. Yeah. There and a lot of quants approach it that way. So

00:24:10 [Speaker Changed] Maybe there’s two, you know, two different aspects of it. So there, there are successful and, and good short sellers out there. I’d say there are, there are, you know, less that are dedicated short sellers. So from 1995 to 2008, we used dedicated short sellers and short bias managers. And it was really interesting and actually a tremendous source of overall alpha after 2008. We no longer use dedicated short sellers and short bias managers. So I, I don’t follow the space nearly as much, but there are, you know, there, there are certainly good ones within long short equities, you know, maybe, you know, I’m sure there is some on a standalone basis. It’s a, it’s a very difficult business model. Yeah. Tough, tough gig. And one, one of the interesting things in short Sound, which I think people don’t, you know, I don’t know, I’ve never heard it spoken about before, is, you know, and this, again, this is dated, but the, when you, when you looked at again, let’s say pre 2008 where there were probably, I don’t know, I don’t know, there’s, you know, a certainly a few dozen dedicated short sell and short bias managers.

00:25:10 I wanna say like 40% of them were women, really? Which, which people own. That’s fascinating. You know, so Charlotte, you, Stephanie, Ross, Dana Ante, like all, all these, you know, very successful short sellers and in an industry that was more male dominated, it, it always struck me as just really interesting that in that segment that, you know, an an overwhelming amount, at least on a percentage basis, right? Maybe, you know, maybe it wasn’t greater than 50%, but like,

00:25:38 [Speaker Changed] But compared to the rest of

00:25:39 [Speaker Changed] The industry, it was outsized. It was, it, it was outsized, you know, which is, it is interesting, there

00:25:43 [Speaker Changed] Have been a number of academic studies that say female fund managers outperform their male counterparts by anywhere between 50 and a hundred basis points. And it’s always, you know, the joke is testosterone poisoning. But it’s fascinating to hear. I’m, I’m curious as to why female short sellers, I, is it an objectivity? Is it just a different approach? It’s kind of really intriguing. Yeah.

00:26:13 [Speaker Changed] Well my wife would probably say it’s, it’s, it’s because they don’t have the egos of the man, right? That’s the poisoning. It’s absolutely, if

00:26:20 [Speaker Changed] It doesn’t work out, they cover it and move on.

00:26:21 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I, you know, I think there’s probably some, you know, of, of course there’s great examples of both, but I, you know, again, risk management and discipline is definitely, is definitely the key to successful short selling. So let’s, that has to be something about it. Let’s,

00:26:36 [Speaker Changed] Let’s go with another bullet point that speaks directly to that. I love this one. Avoid casinos. Black isn’t on a roll and red isn’t due. Very few managers add value over time through timing the market. Even if it sometimes look like, looks like it. Don’t reward a manager for gambling. Yeah. Again, so much insight in two sentences, explain how you reach this conclusion, which I just think is brilliant.

00:27:04 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. So I, I give credit to Chris Marshall on the team. He ca I think he, he’s the one that came up with that quote. But it, it really again, is the observation that the vast majority of managers are, are, you know, the vast majority of of them are good stock pickers, but bad portfolio managers and

00:27:26 [Speaker Changed] Two, making skills. It’s two different

00:27:28 [Speaker Changed] Skills. Yeah. And timing decisions, you know, the vast majority of managers are, are, are subtracting value from that portfolio manager decision.

00:27:36 [Speaker Changed] Really? The vast ma you’re gonna say top quartile. Top decile. Where, where’s the alpha coming from?

00:27:41 [Speaker Changed] I mean, the alpha’s coming from, like, if, if you look at, let’s put it this, if you look at fundamental long short equities that live within the pods, and you look at alpha generation with them on, on, you know, eternal leverage or whatever you wanna say. And then you look at the standalone long short universe and the alpha that’s generated there, there’s a disconnect, right? And it’s not because they’re not good stock pickers. The disconnect I, I think is because the portfolio manage, you know, bad portfolio management or subpar portfolio management is subtracting value from their stock picking. So maybe they’re adding, you know, 5% of alpha in the stock picking and decaying that by 3% from, from portfolio management decisions. And I just think it’s, it’s difficult and, you know, there, there’s been tremendous factor moves in the last number of years. There’s also issues when you’re operating on a standalone basis. Like there’s business considerations rightly or wrongly, right? So if someone’s operating in a 10 vol and markets are going down and they’re, you know, in a hole by 8%, now are they acting differently from a po You know, they should be buying a lot more ’cause the markets are down and things look interesting. But are they, are they, you know,

00:28:52 [Speaker Changed] They’re playing scared,

00:28:53 [Speaker Changed] They’re playing scared, you know, and I, I think it’s, again, it’s not, it’s not everybody for sure. And there’s some that do it. Well, I just think it is very challenging to do, you know, it’s, it’s much easier to find good stock pickers that are adding alpha than it is for someone to consistently be able to make, you know, I dunno, contrarian or, or correct portfolio management systems. Well,

00:29:18 [Speaker Changed] The, the old joke is the crowd is right most of the time. So if you’re, if you’re constantly fighting the crowd, you’re on the wrong side of the trend. Yeah,

00:29:25 [Speaker Changed] There you go.

00:29:26 [Speaker Changed] Last one. And, and again, another, another brilliant one, dinosaurs go extinct. Innovation must be constant.

00:29:34 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. And this is for, you know, this is for hedge funds as well as us. And you know, and part of it relates to the managers themselves part, it relates to strategies, and again, part of part of it is business model. But when I think about, you know, I think about strategies that we used to invest in in 1995, where you can make a lot of money, like let’s say merger arbitrage, you know, like merger arbitrage. Again, you could, you could make double digit returns. It was less competitive. Plus you need mergers and you, well, yeah, that, that, that helps for sure. But now, like the strategy, I mean, there are some very successful people that do it on a standalone basis. Usually they do it with credit or other events, but like, it’s a much more difficult place to make money. It’s, it’s become largely commoditized. When it becomes interesting, there’s a swarm of money that will kind of go into it, right? Isn’t That true?

00:30:20 [Speaker Changed] For every style of is sector,

00:30:22 [Speaker Changed] Which well, eventually, which is why you need to innovate, you need to, you know, so let’s take you like machine learning quant, right? Like machine learning quant started investing 10 years ago, like that was novel. And, and you know, today it’s obviously gaining a lot momentum. People understand it more, but you have to kind of continue to reinvent, like from our perspective, need to continue to do, look after different strategies, different types of managers to find kind of high alpha. And then from a manager standpoint, again, let’s think about quant again. The managers need to re reinvent themselves and refine themselves from an alpha standpoint. So like alpha’s decay, you know, yesterday’s alpha’s, tomorrow’s beta, right? And, you know, a lot of what has made them successful from an alpha standpoint is gonna decay. So if you don’t, you know, maybe it’s 15, 20% is gonna decay and, and be irrelevant each year. So you need to constantly kind of reinvent

00:31:22 [Speaker Changed] Yourself. So, so when you start putting together the next 30, over the next 30 years, yesterday’s alpha is tomorrow’s beta. That, that’s number 31 for you. There. There you

00:31:31 [Speaker Changed] Go. That’s right.

00:31:32 [Speaker Changed] So let’s talk about what’s going on today. Hedge funds have had to adapt to a very challenging era, certainly since the financial crisis. I, I’ve heard financial repression and all sorts of reasons for why some funds have been underperforming, less volatility, increased dispersion and equity returns, what’s going on in the world of, of hedge funds today. So

00:32:02 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, the, the last five years especially have been a great time for, for hedge funds. So let, let me, let me maybe frame it and, and actually we just came out with a paper called hedge funds in the end of the Alpha winter. And I, I should do a shout out for Emmy Hodges who did a, a great job on, on, on putting the piece together. But maybe it’s just taking a step back. There, there were, we identified kind of three big picture variables that really drive excess return in hedge funds. So one of them is volatility. Everything else you could want volatile higher, that creates dislocation, sloppy trading, you know, it’s kind of opportunity. Opportunity. It’s the fuel, the fuel of what drives alpha, right? The second is dispersion. So equity dispersion for first and foremost, but wider dispersion as well. So more winners and losers.

00:32:48 You know, obviously if you’re a stock picker, that’s helpful. And the third is, is rates being higher than 2%? And higher rates help in a number of ways, but both kind of mechanically. If you, obviously if you have floating rate debt, it’s hopeful higher rates, but also, again, we’ve seen this like in a period of rising inflation where rates are going higher, that’s gonna fuel increased volatility. So it’s a little circular, right? But elevated volatility, or at least normal volatility, elevated dispersion and rates that are greater than 2% when you have those three elements. So even two of those three variables kind of as a, as a tailwind rather than a headwind. Alpha generation is really, really strong. So what we’ve done is like, we looked at three different periods. The first starting with, with 2000 ish, kind of a 10 year period, you know, I forgot exact percentage, but like a large percentage at the time, two of those three variables were, were at your back, they were helpful and you saw excess return that was very, very high. The middle period, which is the alpha winter, you had

00:33:55 [Speaker Changed] 2010s, is that what we’re talking about essentially?

00:33:57 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. To, to two 2000 and, and 10, right? The middle period, which is I think, you know, nine-ish or year, you know, eight, nine year period, which in middle is quite long, was one that where you saw a lot of central bank intervention where those variables were generally, you know, depressed. You could think about 2017 realized valve being really low. Obviously we had rates at zero for a chunk of that period as well. That was difficult to generate alpha, not only for hedge funds, but more broadly. And that’s kind of the alpha winter we would suggest that that period is abnormal. And you know, even if rates go down, even if all comes down, like you are not, not likely to go back to a period that’s so dominated by that period of central bank intervention. And you know, most importantly, the postscript to that is for the last five-ish years, you’ve gone back to kind of the good old days of alpha generation, right? So last five years you’ve had volatility that’s, you know, generally normal or, or or higher dispersion that’s really high and rates that are are accommodative as well. And excess return on alpha has resumed and looks very much like what it looked like 20 years ago versus that kind of middle alpha winter period.

00:35:13 [Speaker Changed] So, so the past five years have been really interesting. 2022 obviously stocks and bonds down double digits. That seems to happen once every 40 years or so. Yep. What, what about 2025, what sort of role is deglobalization and shifting trade policies playing in shaping hedge fund returns?

00:35:33 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I mean it, well obviously you have a lot of different, so, you know, it’s a lot of different strategies, a lot of different sub strategies. So it’s very difficult to talk about the whole hedge fund industry, right? As, as, as one thing. But like when I think about excess return, you know, all the things that you mentioned are generally good for hedge funds, right? So the rest of the world is getting worried. Like that is again, the fuel of what drives hedge hedge fund returns, right? So when you see, when you see, you know, rising, rising vol and that’s, that’s gonna be good from Cisco arbitrage, it’s gonna be good generally for balanced stock pickers. It’s gonna be good for discretionary macro managers. When you see deglobalization and some of the trends that come out of that, whether it’s onshoring, whether you see some of the moves in, you know, in, in, in, in gold and like that, that’s good from a trend falling standpoint. It’s good for discretionary macro managers. When you see Japan rise increasing rates, the US decreasing rates, that’s hopeful because it’s two bets that you discretionary macro mags took in place. It’s not just like everyone operating in the same way. So those things are, are good. I mean, generally because it gives people more of a, a palette to, you know, an alpha pal to which to choose from place, more bets, diversify more, and also heightened volatility and heightened uncertainty is gonna be positive for the vast majority of strategies, especially from a excess return alpha standpoint.

00:36:58 [Speaker Changed] So you mentioned Japan. I’m curious what regions around the world are attracting the most new capital. We’ve seen Europe suddenly catch a bid. Yeah. Obviously Japan has been doing well, the rest of Asia and the Middle East and even the US Yeah. What, what areas are attracting new capital and what’s driving that

00:37:16 [Speaker Changed] Trend? Yeah, I mean, the thing, one of the areas that we’re most excited about for sure, and have been leaning in for the last three years is Japanese corporate governance. Now, interestingly, if you look at dollar flows into Japan, it’s actually not, I mean, it, it is positive, but it’s kind of modest in the grand scheme of things, which kind of shocks me honestly. And like, I, I don’t, I don’t mind because we’re playing events first and foremost, but you, you really haven’t seen that many dollar flows in, which again, is unusual given like everyone in the world in, in, in every way, shape or form is probably underweight Japan, right? And it’s, and it’s obviously inexpensive, but most importantly you have a material dramatic catalyst that’s driving value through, through Japan. And yeah, we’re excited about it. I mean, corporate, corporate governance has been talked about in Japan for decades.

00:38:01 The reality is until, you know, Abe had his third arrow and you, you’ve, you know, which really set off a, a number of regulatory and policy changes and, and importantly like cra cross shareholder relationships started to unwind that really set the stage for increased corporate governance. So it, it’s, you know, we, we, again, we’ve been there for three years. I think we’re maybe halfway through what needs to be done and, and there’s still a very, very fertile opportunity set. So that’s, that, that’s one. The other thing I I would point out is just the Middle East. Now, obviously, you know, it’s not, it’s not to say that there’s a lot of money from an investment standpoint going into the Middle East, but I had just come back from a, a, you know, week long trip in the Middle East and, you know, got there maybe 18 months prior and it’s really exciting what’s going on. I mean, clearly there’s a lot of interest from an investment standpoint in hedge funds and alternatives in the Middle East. There’s no question about it.

00:38:58 [Speaker Changed] Is this because all the sovereign wealth funds located in Qatar and, and Arab Emirates and Yeah, go down the list. It, it’s coming

00:39:07 [Speaker Changed] Dubai, it’s certainly coming from, from them, but it’s broader. It’s broader as well. I mean, it’s, it’s family office money in, in addition to the, the sovereigns and, and they’re interested in alternatives. They’re interested in hedge funds, local

00:39:19 [Speaker Changed] Family office or Europe and American Family Office

00:39:22 [Speaker Changed] In the Middle East. All, all, all of the above. You know, I mean, there’s also been, which is a maybe to tie together one other part. I mean, there’s also been a lot of movement of people of, of hedge funds setting up businesses in Dubai, Abu Dhabi, and people moving there with wealth and in turn they become, you know, potential investors in alternatives. So that’s a definitely a, a prominent story as well, the number of people that are setting up in, in, in, in the region or open up offices.

00:39:48 [Speaker Changed] So when, when we used to talk about New York, London, Tokyo, Hong Kong as centers, do you put Abu Dhabi or Dubai in that list? Is the,

00:39:58 [Speaker Changed] It’s it’s, you know, for the larger, for the larger hedge funds for sure. I think it’s becoming, you know, the, the vast majority of ’em are opening offices or have offices in regions. So it is definitely an area that is attracting a lot of, a lot of interest. And then from an investment standpoint, you know, again, it’s a much smaller market, but there, I think the, you know, the, the policy changes and regulatory changes which allow foreign ownership and as derivatives market starting is encouraging as well. It’s early days, and again, it’s not, you know, the breadth and depth of the market still needs to improve, but again, it’s exciting from that standpoint as well.

00:40:35 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Real, really kind of intriguing. What are hedge funds thinking about with assets like crypto or gold? How are they dealing with, what are some of the biggest winners past couple of years?

00:40:47 [Speaker Changed] So you, you’ve seen, I mean, on, on gold and precious, but I mean, discretionary macro managers have, you know, many have had that bet on, it’s been a very successful bet and theme given, you know, concerns on in inflation and debt levels. So you, you know, you can, you continue to see that, that theme in people’s portfolios. Crypto’s a little more, you know, interesting and, and specific, some managers, again, mostly discretionary, macro managers have invested in crypto mostly, you know, mostly bitcoin or e more from that inflationary, you know, debt standpoint, although others have from other standpoint as well, from a, you know, from like a trend follow standpoint on futures, people have done it a bid on statistical arbitrage side. Some people play from like a cash future standpoint, from an ARB standpoint as well, but it, it’s still small, at least let’s say the traditional hedge funds investing in crypto, it, it’s still small. That being said, obviously you have a large number of like dedicated crypto funds that are trading both directionally as well as as, as well as on the A side as well.

00:41:55 [Speaker Changed] Coming up, we continue our conversation with Paul Zumo, chief Investment Officer at JP Morgan, alternative asset management, discussing the state of hedge fund investing today. I’m Barry Riol, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

00:42:26 I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Paul Zumo, he’s chief investment officer at JP Morgan, alternative asset manager helping to oversee $35 billion in external hedge fund assets. He’s also chair of the alternative asset Management investment committee. He co-founded the group back in 1994. So what styles in hedge fund worlds are doing well in 2025? I’ve noticed over the past few years emerging managers have made some consistent gains. Quants have done well, some of the multi-strat have done well. What, what are you seeing in, in the rest of the field? Some of which even in this high volatility, high alpha market have been struggling.

00:43:14 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, I’d say so we, we look at Pivotal path as the, you know, their indices first and foremost. I think it’s, they’re the, their very, very good quality indices and I think paints a very good picture. And that’s kind of what I have in mind. So like when you, when you look at it, you’d find that most strategies and sub strategies have done pretty well this year in the grand scheme of things. You know, the one exception to that is, is CTAs, which have struggled even

00:43:38 [Speaker Changed] With gold running away. And

00:43:41 [Speaker Changed] C CTAs got hurt in, in April where they were very, very long equities. And yet, you know, liberation Day, right? And you markets correct a lot. So you, you saw, you know, a, a bit of a, a retrenchment in, in CTAs performance in April, they got hit pretty hor and they’ve been trying to like piece it together and they, and they have, the last couple months have been, have been stronger. To

00:44:04 [Speaker Changed] Be fair, it’s very challenging to follow a trend when the trend is dependent on the whims of one person.

00:44:11 [Speaker Changed] That that is true for

00:44:13 [Speaker Changed] Sure, right. Doesn’t show up what,

00:44:14 [Speaker Changed] But the good news is most other strategies are actually doing, are doing quite well, right? So if you look at across relative value as you mentioned quant, the multi-Strat pods, convertible bond arbitrage has been good with, with strong issuance, discretionary macro as we talked about some of the themes, whether it’s, you know, whether it’s gold or you know, or, or, or rates themes has, has done well as well,And you might say, okay, well the markets are up, but it’s not just beta alpha. So a couple people have come up with, you know, if, if you, if you look at the alpha generation this year, it’s about 5%, five and a half percent in Longshore, which is quite healthy. And even, you know, merger arbitrage events done well, you know, credit’s done fine. So I’d I’d say it’s been a good year overall with most strategies generating, you know, strong, kind single, mid single digit to high single digit returns or high single digit returns. And, you know, overall definitely a good year for the industry.

00:45:12 [Speaker Changed] So we’ve seen the rise of multi-strategy managers over the past few years, and there have been a number of very large multi strats and it seems to be a direction a lot of funds are heading. How has that changed competition within the industry? Are, is there more collaboration within a multi-strategy shop amongst all the different pods? How, how is that playing out?

00:45:36 [Speaker Changed] Well, I think collaboration amongst themselves. Yeah, I think like, I think there’s a pretty,

00:45:40 [Speaker Changed] I’m assuming they’re not competing, they’re not collaborating with the fund across the street. It’s all internal, right?

00:45:47 [Speaker Changed] I’m sorry, collaboration for the pods, pods within with the pod or within the pods.

00:45:52 [Speaker Changed] Collaboration within a multi-strat from, hey, here’s the macro, here’s the long short, here’s the quant group, here’s the trend group. What, yeah. Are we, are we seeing,

00:46:02 [Speaker Changed] So like cross polarization across, across teams? I think it depends on the model. You know, like if you, if you look at the pods, obviously there’s some prominent ones out there. They, they differ materially from like strategies that they pursue. They differ materially from the culture that they pursue. They, they, you know, they, they just differ in the risk management approaches is different. So it, it really depends. I I, there there are some managers where the, you know, where they are benefiting from maybe cross polarization a, you know, across teams or a center book that’s maybe drawing upon best ideas. So, but it, it’s really gonna differ kind of pod to pod based on the style and how they, how they operate

00:46:43 [Speaker Changed] F Fair enough. Let, let’s talk about risk management. There were obviously some lessons learned this year in April and plenty of lessons learned in 2022. What do you think are gonna be the most impactful lessons for managers looking forward?

00:46:59 [Speaker Changed] Looking forward? I mean, things we’re worried about today is just complacency. You know, I mean, mark, anytime you have markets going up for a, you know, for, for a while, inevitably complacency develops in some way, shape or form. So we’re certainly being, you know, front footed and, and having discussions. Where is that? And whether it’s credit or equity markets and like how do we or, or specific areas with hedge funds and how do we guard against that a little bit? But I think some of the events last year, like we’re talking about, you know, liberation day or maybe the deep seek event and, and some managers being, you know, God

00:47:32 [Speaker Changed] Was deep seek 2025 it seems like decade, years and

00:47:35 [Speaker Changed] Years ago, you know, maybe it was, you know, so no,

00:47:36 [Speaker Changed] It was, it was January this year and blew everybody’s minds.

00:47:41 [Speaker Changed] I I mean, I, I think it really underscores a a couple things. I mean, one risk management first and foremost, right? And certainly, you know, certainly on Liberation Day, I think a lot of people were, were caught off balance in, in, in their books. And then again, oftentimes kind of retrench after that. Lock and losses, it’s not a great recipe. So like sizing positions and sizing risk across areas, you know, in, in which people invest are obviously always critically important. And then on deep seek, look, a AI is extremely exciting. It, it creates tremendous opportunities. But going back to what we were saying about short selling before, it also creates tremendous risk and, you know, risk of be just being one-sided bet, but also risk of again, operating in a long, short fashion and getting, thinking about like offsetting risks and, and, and basis and sizing. So those things are cri critically important. Hmm.

00:48:36 [Speaker Changed] So speaking of ai, I just overheard Paul Tudor Jones speaking to somebody on Bloomberg saying, you know, maybe AI might be developing into a small bubble, but it’s not a giant headache. How are you looking at all this bubble chatter, high valuation, concentrated markets? This seems to be part of the wall of worry that markets are, are climbing. What’s your perspective on this?

00:49:04 [Speaker Changed] I mean, if Paul said it, it must be right, so

00:49:07 [Speaker Changed] You could do worse than following Paul Ju Jones.

00:49:10 [Speaker Changed] That’s right, that’s right. I mean, look, is is it a bubble? And I obviously it’s, it’s real, it’s gonna be impactful. It, it’s, you know, it’s gonna be enormously important. It’s gonna reshape how we do so many, so many things for sure. Is there excess in certain areas related to it that there has to be for sure. I, again, I think it comes down to risk management first. And for, you know, assuming you want to set up a balanced book, it comes down to risk management first and foremost. And if you don’t, if you just want to play it from a thematic standpoint, again, it also comes down to risk manage, just from a sizing standpoint, you need to size it to be able to handle the inherent vol volatility of it. But is it rich? Well, of course it’s rich. Is it a bubble? I, I, I don’t, you know, I I

00:49:55 [Speaker Changed] I’m not

00:49:55 [Speaker Changed] Best one to say, but it’s certainly is real. It’s certainly gonna revolutionize and change our lives.

00:50:00 [Speaker Changed] Every time someone asks me about it, I, I like to remind them, Greenspan’s irrational exuberance speech was 96. You still had a long way to go right before that really became a bubble. But also

00:50:12 [Speaker Changed] Look, look at, you know, we were talking about, you know, dot com, right? So I mean, as a little bit of your, you know, your model and your playbook, right? So I mean, obviously Amazon came out of that, but there’s a lot, you know, pets.com, you know, know dating myself, but, you know, and I have

00:50:29 [Speaker Changed] Metromedia fiber, Juniper Networks, I

00:50:31 [Speaker Changed] Stock puppet on, on my desk, you know, like really it is gonna be win, it is gonna be winners and losers, right? And, and it, it is extremely important, extremely powerful, but it’s not gonna lift all boats at all, all times. So you need to be selective and you need to size it. Right. Huh.

00:50:46 [Speaker Changed] Make makes great sense. Last question before we get to our favorite questions. What do you think hedge fund managers and investors are not talking about, but really should be? What, what topics, assets, policies are getting overlooked but shouldn’t.

00:51:04 [Speaker Changed] Well, I mentioned complacency a little bit just ’cause where we are in the cycle, but maybe I, if it’s okay, I’ll take in a different direction to say like, it’s more of a misnomer about the hedge fund industry, which is, if that’s okay. Sure. It’s a little, a little different. So I like, one thing I would say that’s, that’s frustrating I think a lot of people get wrong is they look at the hedge fund industry as an asset class. And what I mean by that is if you have an asset class, then the, you know, everything in an asset class should be more or less, you know, highly correlated to each other, right? It’s the same, it’s the same thing. And if you take the 10,000 or so hedge funds that are out there, the correlation across correlation, pairwise correlation is, is something like point 0.2 or 0.25, nowhere

00:51:46 [Speaker Changed] Near one.

00:51:46 [Speaker Changed] It’s nowhere near one, right? So what you really have is a collection of strategies, a collection of sub strategies. Importantly, the characteristics of those strategies are just vastly different from each other in many cases. And the way you use them in a portfolio is vastly different. So when people think about the hedge fund industry and they’re then, and they’re looking at like a hedge fund benchmark, which is, or you know, like 10,000 funds cobbled together, oftentimes they look at it and they’re like, well, I don’t, I dunno what to make of this. It has an okay return and an okay volatility with okay characteristics, maybe I don’t need it, and it’s the right conclusion to the wrong answer. Right? And, and, and, oh, I’m sorry, the right conclusion from the wrong question. Right? And, and like, again, the observation’s correct, but really the question is, can I look at subsets of this industry that are deeply valuable rather than just looking at the whole thing as a whole? And we would strongly suggest that if people are just looking at the aggregate industry, that missing a point that beneath that there are strategies and substrates and certainly managers that are adding enormous, enormous value that’s being overlooked by, you know, someone who’s plugging the average into an optimizer.

00:53:08 [Speaker Changed] I, I’m, I’m so glad you said that because over the course of 25, 30 years, I’ve watched the hedge fund industry change so dramatically and my own views on it have evolved. It’s very easy to look at a broad index and say, gee, this is expensive and doesn’t generate great returns. But again, depending on where you wanna draw the line, top quartile, top decile, when you look at the top performing funds, there is genuine alpha generation. Yeah,

00:53:38 [Speaker Changed] For sure. And interesting, like if, if we would’ve met, you know, 25 years ago, 15 years ago, like I would’ve said the same thing. Is that like, I, I’m not here to say the hedge fund industry as a whole is such a tremendous value proposition. Like that was never the thesis, you know, the thesis is more, are there a hundred or 200 managers out there that are adding enormous value? Yes. And, you know, can, through great due diligence, like, can myself and other people find them if they, if they spend their time and do a great job? Yes. And is that tremendously value in portfolios? Yes. You know, but it’s not about the hedge fund industry as a whole, and the averages are gonna knock the lights out.

00:54:23 [Speaker Changed] Jim, Jim Chanos has this quote I love. He says, you know, when he started out in the late eighties, early nineties, there were a couple hundred hedge funds and they all generated Alpha. Today there’s 11,000 hedge funds and it’s the same 200 hedge funds generating Alpha. Which do you know, there’s a lot of truth to sturgeon’s law. There’s a lot of truth to 90% of everything is not great.

00:54:46 [Speaker Changed] Yeah. Yeah. I don’t know if it’s the same 200, but Yeah. No, no, you

00:54:49 [Speaker Changed] Said the same number. Not necessarily the same number. Right. Funds they come and go. Yeah.

00:54:54 [Speaker Changed] Look, it, it’s a, it’s an industry and an asset class and a, a, a fee structure that attracts a lot of people. But, and, and, you know, and, and, and many of ’em deserve that fee structure and many of ’em are, are, are great, but yeah, they, you know, obviously you need to be selective

00:55:12 [Speaker Changed] A Absolutely. All right, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests starting with. Tell us about your mentors who helped shape your career.

00:55:23 [Speaker Changed] Sure. I think, so two, two come to mind. I mean, if I go back really, you know, back to high school, and I’m forgetting, I’m forgetting his name, it’s my wrestling coach. I swear

00:55:34 [Speaker Changed] To God, I knew you were gonna

00:55:35 [Speaker Changed] Say that, you know, as my, yes, my wrestling coach, he was my economics professor. And, and this is when I first started getting interested in, in investments and started reading, you know, I dunno, some of like the classic books from, from way back, way back when, one

00:55:53 [Speaker Changed] Reminiscences of stock,

00:55:54 [Speaker Changed] Reminisce of a stock, you know, and he was the one that kind of encouraged, and we actually played this game at the end of the year, which was like a stock market game. And I actually found an arbitrage and we made, made more money than anyone had ever made, you know, and he is like, you know, that’s kind of like real life finance. You should, you know, if you is that interesting, you should explore. So I, I, I credit him for kind of pushing, helping push me in, in that direction. And then from a career standpoint, I, I mentioned Joel Katzman, you know, you know, hired me to, you know, start the visit with him. And yeah, he was really instrumental. I mean, one of the things I, I don’t think we spend as much time, but like skepticism is really important. I’m a deeply skeptical person. I think it helps you navigate things. It’s one of the pearls of wisdom, Joel,

00:56:40 [Speaker Changed] Be a skeptic approach. Due diligence from the perspective, where does this break?

00:56:44 [Speaker Changed] Where, where does it break? Yeah. And I mean, it’s like approaching due diligence. I, I give an analogy of like thinking about a balance sheet where people, again, behavioral biases. You, you, you, you know, too many people say, approach it from the asset side. How much can I make? What’s the story? Da da, da. You need to approach it from the liability side. Like, what can go wrong with this manager? What can go wrong with the strategy? Where does it break? And then turn to the asset side and effectively say, am I getting compensated for, for that? Right? And you could teach people some of that, but part of it has to be innate as well. Like you need to be innate skeptic maybe. So any case, Joel, you know, Joel I think shared my skepticism for sure. He certainly taught me a lot about the business and, and, you know, running a business. So Yeah. You know, props to Joel.

00:57:31 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. Let’s talk about books. Since you mentioned some books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

00:57:37 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, so books. So I have a, I, so we invest around 120 hedge funds. And that’s what you’re reading. The vast majority of what I’m reading is their letters, their research, you know, my, my analyst research. And that’s the very, you know, that’s the vast majority. And then like Michael sandblast does great work. Yep.

00:57:55 [Speaker Changed] Love his work, you

00:57:56 [Speaker Changed] Know, really, really good work. So I have to say, that’s consuming the vast majority of my time. The la the only thing that stands out, there’s a book, what is it? Speak like Churchill and Stan, like Lincoln that my old boss Jamie Ra gave to me, which is about public speaking, which is actually really, really good insightful, like easy, easy read book that speak

00:58:17 [Speaker Changed] Like Churchill, stand like Lincoln. Yeah.

00:58:19 [Speaker Changed] Huh. And it’s a real, real easy read to, you know, just some like reinforcing some good lessons of, of public speaking. You,

00:58:29 [Speaker Changed] You mentioned Michael Sist, so I consume his regular output. And then the JP Morgan quarterly Guide to the Markets is just a spectacular, spectacular resource. Agreed. Really, really find it. Amazing. Let’s, let’s talk about what’s keeping you entertained these days? Are you watching or listening to anything? Well, interesting. Well,

00:58:54 [Speaker Changed] Like Netflix and, you know, so Yeah, well I, so I have a five and a half year old, and so she’s, she’s dominating my, the Netflix account. Usually it, it’s a K-pop, demon hunters. That’s

00:59:08 [Speaker Changed] The number one thing on Netflix

00:59:09 [Speaker Changed] Now, I guess I was gonna say, I don’t know if you know what that is. Oh.

00:59:12 [Speaker Changed] Every time I’m searching for anything. There you go. I put, put it on for 30 seconds and my wife is, what are we watching? Can you take this off

00:59:19 [Speaker Changed] Please? Yeah. So unfortunately it’s, it’s a little, it’s, it’s a little too much of K-pop demon haunts, but you know, away from, away from work. I like wine. So it’s probably some podcasts or, or related to wine, just to, when I’m not reading the, you know, or the, the all notes. So, but there’s a, there’s a great one called Wine with Jimmy, which is

00:59:44 [Speaker Changed] Wine with Jimmy,

00:59:45 [Speaker Changed] If you wanna do a deep dive on wine.

00:59:47 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, yeah. That’s, that’s, I literally just bought the, I forgot the name of it, but during Amazon Prime, it was on my wishlist and it was like 98 bucks and it showed up for 30 books, the 30 bucks the Atlas guy. Oh, yeah. To wine around the world.

01:00:05 [Speaker Changed] That’s a, that’s a fat book

01:00:07 [Speaker Changed] Fat. And I’m like, all right, that’s absolutely worth having on the, on the dry bar. So now,

01:00:11 [Speaker Changed] Now you have to read it. You look, you look, look good, look it, look smart with it

01:00:15 [Speaker Changed] At least. Yeah, absolutely. It’s more of a re a reference guy, but give us some of your favorite wines. If you’re not gonna give us more books, give us some wines. What do you, what do you drink? What do you like?

01:00:24 [Speaker Changed] Well, this is, I mean, I, I like, I like red more than white. I like, you know, a, I dunno, a a a a tan, like a Barolo. So a a a tan nice tannic red, red wine. So I, yeah, I drink Barolo Tempranillo.

01:00:40 [Speaker Changed] So we’re always looking for a house wine, just like something reasonable that you could pop open any time. This, this Intre Natali Virga is about a $20 bottle and it drinks like a $50 bottle.

01:00:56 [Speaker Changed] Nice. Finding those values. What, where is it from?

01:00:58 [Speaker Changed] Italy. Okay. But you, they, they only like, it’s a small winery they make Yeah. You know, a few thousand cases you can’t get, like I’ll get a case and that’s it. It’s, you’re done until next year. We’ll,

01:01:09 [Speaker Changed] We’ll swap great value wines after ab

01:01:11 [Speaker Changed] Excellence. There, there was another one called Santos that was a Meritage X-A-N-T-H-O-S. Okay. And the 2017 was spectacular. You can’t find anything. Yeah. It was like a $15 bottle of wine, drank like a $50 bottle of wine. I love it. I don’t feel like I have a palate to go much beyond that. Like, all right. I appreciate,

01:01:32 [Speaker Changed] Listen, if you could find $20 bottles of wine and drink like $60 wine, but you know, my, my, I have a, I’m forgetting the name, but I have a sangiovese like that. Yeah. Which I found at one of the wine. You know, you, you, you go to these like wine tasting events where you, you go around and you could taste

01:01:47 [Speaker Changed] Stuff, wine tasting, tasting things, right.

01:01:48 [Speaker Changed] You could blind, but this is like a James Suckling one where you taste all different types of wines and, and then you, you know, you, you, you, I dunno, for me, I take pictures of the ones I like, and then you go back and then you look it up and some of ’em are like $150 and you’re like, oh, I didn’t find anything. And then you, you know, you see one that’s like 20 bucks and you’re like, all right, maybe I, maybe I found the, the, the, the jewel.

01:02:09 [Speaker Changed] Right. You, it’s easy to get disappointed in $150 bottle wine, a $20, it’s, there’s

01:02:15 [Speaker Changed] A lot of great wine out there.

01:02:16 [Speaker Changed] And, and then you go to Italy and you sit at a cafe and you get an $8 carafe and it’s the best thing you’ve had and it’s spectacular. Exactly. Right. It’s, it’s just so crazy trying to figure, figure that out. So our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in either in investing or hedge funds or alternatives?

01:02:39 [Speaker Changed] Yeah, so I mean, first, you know, and I guess it’s, it’s cliche, but like the, like, do what you love thing is so real and valuable, but I think you have to like find what you love first. Like when you’re, when you’re 20 years old, I don’t know that anyone, it’s a big world.

01:02:53 [Speaker Changed] Yeah.

01:02:54 [Speaker Changed] Like, has a great vision on it. I, I would say like, trust your instinct, you know? So like, it’s obvious to me today why I am doing what I’m doing. It’s like I, this is, I don’t know, I’m, I’m, I’m skeptical, I’m structured, I’m creative, I’m like curious, like it makes sense today. It didn’t make sense completely at the time, but like, you follow your instinct. You’re like, oh, I, I love to do this. So I’m working on the weekend every week because like, this really intrigues me and it’s interesting and like, you know, the, the, I don’t know, like, like not pay me and I’m still doing this, right? So like, I think being true to yourself and really exploring, like what makes you happy, what makes you in, you know, in, in intrigued what really makes you di dive deep on things. And then continuing to lean in and continue to pursue it and learn, learn more and more.

01:03:43 Maybe the second part of it is just be a student of history. So whether you, so I, I like baseball and, you know, I think like I was young, like how much I learned about the, you know, Ty Cobbs and Diaggio and Ruth and everybody. Like, I think if you are a baseball player, like you should know the history. If you’re going into the hedge fund industry, like, you should know the history. When I say David Asin, you know, you should know that it, you know, so like, take the time to understand the history ’cause of it, it, it, I mean, a number of reasons. One, it gives you context, but two, like the mistakes and the opportunities often, you know, often rhyme with each other. Right? So like, how do you like investing in 2020, in March of 2020? Turns out it looked a lot like 2018, 2008, 1998. Like, there were elements that are very, very similar. And being a student of history helps you navigate much better in the future.

01:04:35 [Speaker Changed] Hmm. To, to say the, say the very least. Final question, what do you know about the world of investing in hedge funds today that would’ve been useful back in 1994 when you were first launching JP Morgan? Yeah. Alternative asset. Well,

01:04:49 [Speaker Changed] Wait a minute. I mean, there was no internet, right? Right. So, I mean, so back in 1995, I mean, I, I don’t know, you, like you, we knew a fraction, we knew 5% of what we knew today, but it was 50% more than next person knew, right? So, I mean, it’s all about, it’s all about getting, you know, it’s all about getting an edge and continue to reinvent yourself. I think the biggest, the biggest lessons learned for, you know, for us, but for the industry is, and what I would have taken back if I could, is just the, the depth of understanding on financing. So, you know, in, in financing agreements, right? Like prime broker agreements and term and triggers and all, all sorts of things that have caused problems over the years. If you could take that one, you know, and, and it’s caused a lot of, you know, pain historically from time to time. I mean, if you had that knowledge and you pull that back to 1995, wow. You would be able to, you know, navigate near seamlessly across the industry in a way that, you know, was much bumpier for everybody along the way.

01:05:57 [Speaker Changed] Paul, thank you. This has been absolutely fascinating and thank you for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Paul Zumo, he’s Chief Investment Officer at JP Morgan Alternative Asset Management. 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 Spotify, iTunes, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you find your favorite podcasts. And be sure to check out my new book, how Not to Invest the ideas, numbers, and behaviors that destroy wealth and how to avoid them wherever you buy your favorite books. I would be remiss if I did not thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer, Anna Luke is my regular producer. Sage Bauman is the head of podcasts here at Bloomberg. Sean Russo is my researcher. I’m Barry Riol. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Paul Zummo, CIO, JPMAAM appeared first on The Big Picture.

Judge Temporarily Blocks DOJ From Using Evidence Proving James Comey's Guilt

Zero Hedge -

Judge Temporarily Blocks DOJ From Using Evidence Proving James Comey's Guilt

Via Headline USA,

A federal judge has dealt a setback to Justice Department efforts to seek a new indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, temporarily barring prosecutors from using evidence they had relied on when they initially secured criminal charges.

The ruling Saturday night from U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly does not preclude the department from trying again soon to indict Comey, but it does suggest prosecutors may have to do so without citing communications between Comey and a close friend, Columbia University law professor Daniel Richman.

Comey was charged in September with lying to Congress when he denied having authorized an associate to serve as an anonymous source for media coverage about the FBI.

In pursuing the case, prosecutors cited messages between Comey and Richman that they said showed Comey encouraging Richman to engage with the media for certain FBI-related coverage.

The case was dismissed last month after a different federal judge ruled that the prosecutor who filed the charges, Lindsey Halligan, was unlawfully appointed by the Trump administration.

But that ruling left open the possibility that the government could try again to seek charges against Comey, a longtime foe of President Donald Trump.

After the case was thrown out, lawyers for Richman sought a court order that would bar prosecutors from continued access to his computer files, which the Justice Department obtained through search warrants in 2019 and 2020 as part of a media leak investigation that was later closed without charges.

But Richman and his lawyers say that in preparing the criminal case against Comey, prosecutors relied on data that exceeded the scope of the warrants, illegally held onto communications they should have destroyed or returned and conducted new, warrantless searches of the files.

Kollar-Kotelly on Saturday night granted Richman’s request for a temporary restraining, instructing the department “not to access the covered materials once they are identified, segregated, and secured, or to share, disseminate, or disclose the covered materials to any person, without first seeking and obtaining leave of this Court.”

“Given that the custody and control of this material is the central issue in this matter, uncertainty about its whereabouts weighs in favor of acting promptly to preserve the status quo,” the judge stated.

Kollar-Kotelly ordered the government to “identify, segregate, and secure” the image of Richman’s personal computer, along with his email accounts and other materials taken from his electronic devices, and barred prosecutors from accessing those files without the court’s permission.

She gave the Justice Department until Monday afternoon to certify that it is compliance with the order.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment Sunday on the ruling and what it meant for revived charges against Comey.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/08/2025 - 12:00

Pages