Feed aggregator

"Severely Curbed": Gold Shipments Through Dubai Stalled In Wake Of Strikes On Iran

Zero Hedge -

"Severely Curbed": Gold Shipments Through Dubai Stalled In Wake Of Strikes On Iran

Gold shipments through Dubai are set to stall for several days after airlines suspended flights amid U.S. and Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s response, according to three industry sources and Reuters.

Because gold is typically transported by air for security and insurance reasons, the cancellations are expected to sharply limit physical flows.

Reuters writes that Dubai is a key supplier to Switzerland, Hong Kong and India. Sources said the broader impact on global supply will depend on how long the disruption lasts. They spoke on condition of anonymity.

Gold futures jumped 3% on Monday morning prior to the cash open in New York. The record high stands at $5,594.82, set on January 29.

Despite the shipping disruption, traders said major financial hubs — including China, India, New York, London and Zurich — remain operational, and market activity on Monday is expected to be driven mainly by financial flows rather than physical supply.

Elsewhere in the world of precious metals, on COMEX, gold delivery volume for February matched what was seen in December.

Despite being below the big months over the last year (Feb/Apr/Oct 2025), the delivery volume was still very strong on an overall historical basis. Inventory heading into March looked sufficient, but it'll be interesting to see how that landscape has shifted now in the wake of the new geopolitical turmoil.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 16:40

VA Health Care: Recommendations and Observations to Improve Community Care and Support for Caregivers Related to the Dole Act

GAO -

What GAO Found The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) allows eligible veterans to receive health care from community providers through the Veterans Community Care Program. Since 2020, GAO has made several recommendations to improve access to the Veterans Community Care Program in areas also highlighted by the 2025 Senator Elizabeth Dole 21st Century Veterans Healthcare and Benefits Improvement Act (Dole Act). As of February 2026, VA has not fully implemented GAO’s recommendations. For example: Timely appointment scheduling. In 2020, GAO found that most Veterans Health Administration (VHA) facilities from the region included in its review did not have the recommended number of staff needed to manage community care referrals, creating potential risks to timely scheduling. GAO recommended that VHA assess community care staffing needs to identify and address any risks. VHA agreed with this recommendation and is working to enable its staffing tool to identify and report such risks, according to officials. GAO also recommended that VHA establish a wait time measure for community care appointments and align its performance metrics. VHA disagreed with this recommendation but has defined time frames for some steps. VHA has not fully implemented these recommendations. The Dole Act requires VA to take action on its staffing model and performance metrics to ensure timely care for veterans. Referral coordination and communication. In 2025, GAO reported that VHA facilities had mixed results in implementing the Referral Coordination Initiative, which aimed to improve referral coordination and streamline appointment scheduling. VHA had not documented key elements of the initiative in policy, which may contribute to inconsistences in implementation and limit staff and veterans’ understanding of community care options. GAO recommended that VHA include this initiative in its national policy. VHA concurred in principle with the recommendation, but has not yet implemented it. GAO also reported in 2025 that the Office of Integrated Veteran Care, which VHA created to improve coordination of community care, did not always clearly communicate information to its facilities. GAO recommended that VHA ensure this information is clearly communicated. VHA concurred with this recommendation but has not yet implemented it. The Dole Act also requires VA to review facilities’ processes for making such referrals. GAO also has ongoing work on VHA’s Caregiver Support Program. Preliminary results show that VHA responded to challenges caregivers reported with accessing in-person support by implementing a virtual therapy program. VHA also established goals to assess the effectiveness of its outreach efforts. These include a goal to increase program enrollment by 15 percent each fiscal year, which it met in fiscal year 2025. However, VHA has not set quantitative targets and time frames for its other goals. Doing so would better position VHA to assess its efforts and make any needed adjustments. The Dole Act also includes provisions addressing caregivers’ access to and awareness of VHA’s Caregiver Support Program. Why GAO Did This Study The Dole Act authorized significant expansions of health care programs for veterans and support for their caregivers. These programs are administered by VHA. An increasing number of veterans receive their care from providers outside of VHA facilities through the Veterans Community Care Program; in 2024, about 3.1 million veterans received such care. VHA also provides services and support to nearly 100,000 caregivers of veterans who suffered serious injuries in the line of duty through its Caregiver Support Program. Concerns have been raised about the mental health of veterans’ caregivers who often provide around the clock care that enables veterans to live at home and help with their recovery. GAO has a large body of work related to aspects of the community care and caregiver programs, both of which were addressed in the Dole Act. This statement summarizes recommendations and related work on the Community Care program. It is based on three GAO reports issued from 2020 through 2025 (GAO-20-643, GAO-25-106678, and GAO-25-107212). This statement also includes preliminary results from GAO’s ongoing work examining VA’s efforts to provide mental health support to caregivers. To do this work, GAO reviewed VHA documents on its caregiver program and interviewed VHA officials, program staff, and participating caregivers at four selected VHA facilities. For more information, contact Sharon M. Silas at silass@gao.gov.

Categories -

We Want One Solution, But One Solution Can't Solve Our Polycrisis

Zero Hedge -

We Want One Solution, But One Solution Can't Solve Our Polycrisis

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via Substack,

Whatever the problem, our minds seek one solution--preferably a simple one--to escape the trackless wilderness of complex, inter-connected problems. Problem-solving boils down to identifying the key problem and finding a fix that’s easy to understand and straightforward to apply.

Our minds rebel when confronted with polycrisis, a knotted mess of inter-connected problems, and so we apply solutions we already have in hand. As I explained in previous Musings, this leads us to modify our description of the problem so it aligns with the solution we already know.

This approach cannot actually solve the problem, but claiming we have a solution in hand is a highly attractive expediency for those tasked with solving problems, i.e. the leadership elites. It’s equally attractive to the rest of us, as we all want to banish uncertainty and anxiety with a quick painless fix.

Let’s start with the one solution many favor: fix the money, fix the world: if we reinstate sound money, that will fix the world. The proposed solution is easy to understand and straightforward to apply: gold (or bitcoin) is the only legal tender, so paper and digital money will be replaced by gold coins (or bitcoin equivalents).

The impetus for proposing this solution is self-evident: creating money out of thin air or by issuing credit-money that accrues interest is intrinsically self-liquidating, and so the status quo monetary system will run to failure (fiscal-financial-economic crisis) unless we change course.

I have often written that “if we don’t change the way money is created and distributed, we’ve changed nothing,“ because the current monetary system creates money at the top of the wealth-power pyramid and distributes it to the top.

The sum “trickling down” to the bottom 90% is losing purchasing power as prices rise, and so we’re seeking a monetary system that 1) reverses the “trickling” from “down” to “up” and 2) preserves the purchasing power of the bottom 90%’s labor, which is the “capital” they “own.”

The problem with the “gold is the only money” solution is it only fixes one problem: governments inflating away the value of their currency. In a corrupt society, it doesn’t eliminate corruption; it just means corruption will be transacted in gold or bitcoin.

It doesn’t reverse the “trickle” of money from its source from capital to labor/work, it favors capital enriching itself just as much as the current fiat system.

Like all such one-size-fits-all solutions, it also creates problems that are glossed over by its promoters, as everything is connected in ways that are not always visible at first blush.

Let’s break it down to its most basic dynamics.

In a “gold is the only money” economy, ten people each deposit one gold coin in a bank to earn interest on their money. The bank holds two coins in reserve to redeem depositors’ withdrawals, and loans the other eight coins to a new business seeking to expand.

Without the loan, the bank has no income to pay interest on the cash deposits. Without the loan, the enterprise doesn’t have the capital to expand. It’s win-win-win: depositors earn interest, the bank skims a profit for its owners and the enterprise now has the capital needed to expand.

So far so good, but...

Since economies expand and contract cyclically, a downturn occurs, and people spend less as a response to rising risk: revenues drop, workers are laid off and defaults / bankruptcies start rising.

Reducing-risk prudence leads four depositors to demand their coin back, and since the bank only has two coins in reserve, it calls the loan it made to the enterprise. The business has suffered in the downturn and can’t pay back the loan. The bank seizes the business and auctions its assets. Since valuations have fallen in the downturn, the assets only fetch two coins.

The bank now has four coins but the number of depositors demanding their coin back has risen to six. The bank fails, six depositors lose their money, and the enterprise is bankrupt.

This is precisely what happened in “sound money” 19th century America: hundreds of banks failed, depositors and borrowers were wiped out. The risk of panics triggering loans being called, assets being sold off at fire-sale prices, banks failing and depositors being wiped out are all intrinsic risks in this arrangement.

OK, so here’s the fix to panics: the government guarantees all depositors will get their gold coin back should a private bank fail. But the government doesn’t have enough gold to back up every deposit nationally; it too only has a reserve. Once the panic spreads nationally, the government’s reserves of gold coins are soon depleted.

This is the problem with “gold is the only money:” enterprises need capital to expand / launch, depositors seek a return on their capital, banks provide an institutional layer to manage these credit contracts.

After seeing other depositors lose their money, people no longer trust either banks or the government, and gold coins are withdrawn from circulation (stored at home) as a prudent measure. Credit--always limited to what banks had on deposit--becomes ever scarcer, crippling the real-world economy, as enterprises starved of capital have no way to expand.

OK, so here’s the fix: let’s let the government issue paper money “backed by gold.” So the Treasury issues $5,000 (the current global price of an ounce of gold) of currency for every ounce of gold it holds. But without a mechanism to keep currency and the market value of the gold aligned, then the Treasury can over time issue $50,000 of currency for each ounce held in the vault. The “backed by gold” claim is an artifice.

There’s another problem: gold, silver, oil, etc. are all commodities whose priced is “discovered” in global markets, so their value as measured in goods and services fluctuates beyond the control of any government.

As the global economy enters a boom cycle, gold rises to $10,000 an ounce, and the Treasury issues an additional $5,000 per ounce in currency. But when the boom turns to bust and the market value of gold returns to $5,000 per ounce, does the Treasury withdraw half the currency from circulation? No. The “backed by gold” currency has depreciated by half.

As I have often pointed out, “backed by gold” is illusory unless each unit of currency can be converted to gold coins on demand. Anything short of this is a duplicitous artifice.

Here’s another problem: the economy is expanding smartly, but the Treasury’s stash of gold isn’t expanding to match the increase of demand, as the government’s gold mines aren’t yielding much new gold. And since it’s costly to extract and refine the gold, the government spends most of the new gold paying to operate the mine.

The supply of gold coins is limited, and so money is scarce. People revert to barter or start using scrip or credit paper to transact business.

This is precisely what happened in the Medieval trade fairs: gold and silver were scarce, and as economic activity expanded, there weren’t enough coins to grease the expanding universe of transactions and productive enterprises.

The point here is using only precious metals as money comes with its own restrictions and risks. This is why economies augmented “sound money” in the first place. Using a commodity--which is subject to the same price discovery of supply and demand as any other commodity--is intrinsically problematic.

Basing a currency on a basket of commodities ends up facing the same problem: as the global price of the commodities fluctuates, so does the value of the currency, opening the door to distorting arbitrage and financial panics.

You see the other problem: the wealthy who have accumulated gold and silver are the lenders, and the commoners who only have their labor to sell / invest are the borrowers. There is risk on both sides of this equation, but over time those collecting interest will get richer and borrowers will be wiped out by a panic or downturn.

The wealth “trickles up,” and if the wealthy don’t lend their wealth to new enterprises, the economy stagnates. If banks don’t exist due to social trust being limited, then lending is restricted and the economy stagnates.

As a general rule, labor needs some working capital to turn work into a productive enterprise or other assets. So when entrepreneurial commoners sought to expand production in the “sound money” 1200s to 1400s, since they had little gold/silver or access to credit, they reverted to letters of credit and bills of exchange--forms of “paper money” that enabled transactions that would have otherwise never occurred.

As always, I recommend Braudel’s trilogy for those interested in gaining a more comprehensive understanding of money and the development of capitalism:

The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization and Capitalism, 15th-18th Century Volume 1

The Wheels of Commerce: Civilization & Capitalism 15th-18th Century, Vol. 2

The Perspective of the World: Civilization & Capitalism, 15th - 18th Century Volume 3

I covered these topics in my books Money and Work Unchained and A Radically Beneficial World, in which I explain why attempting to make one form of money do all the work we need money to do is doomed by the intrinsic limits of each form of money.

Money that excels at being a “store of value” fails in an expansive capitalist economy as a “means of exchange” for all the reasons outlined above, and all the fixes to this create additional problems, as outlined above.

This is why the Chinese introduced paper money: it wasn’t to rip off commoners via inflation, it was the necessary means of greasing local commerce in an economy without credit and scarce precious-metal coinage, much of which was in the hands of the wealthy as it was an excellent “store of value.”

Every fix that’s easy to understand and straightforward to apply has similar limits that generate inherent problems which cannot be resolved with easy fixes, as those fixes generate another set of problems.

So to end corruption, we impose more laws, more oversight, and stiffer penalties. But as recent revelations have shown, changing the rules of governance, adding transparency laws and boosting penalties did not stop corruption from seeping into every nook and cranny of America’s ruling elites.

As Lao Tzu observed,The more laws and restrictions there are, the poorer people become. The more rules and regulations, the more thieves and robbers.“ Corruption isn’t reduced by adding more laws, it’s reduced by changing the incentives and what society accepts or deems unacceptable.

Adding more laws to be skirted by elites doesn’t change anything; only the withdrawal of The Mandate of Heaven can disempower elites serving their own interests with absolute impunity.

Here are other examples of “this one solution will fix the world.”

If there’s “plenty of energy, that fixes the world.“ But if inequality has reached extremes, having lots of energy for the wealthiest few to enjoy isn’t going to solve inequality, or the social disorder it generates.

Or this solution: AI will fix the world. Since AI is owned and controlled by the ruling elites, it will do nothing but entrench the extremes of inequality that are destabilizing the social, political and economic realms.

Or this: technology will fix all our problems. Putting data centers owned by our corporate overlords into orbit fixes nothing.

The point I endeavored to make in my Revolution Trilogy--The Mythology of Progress, Ultra-Processed Life and Investing in Revolution --is that all these conventional solutions are self-serving artifice, expedient illusions that relieve our anxiety but at the cost of leaving problems unaddressed while layering on more problems.

There are no monetary or technological fixes to moral decay and the corruption of ruling elites. Stable social orders--from tribes to empires--are successful because their ruling elites have a reciprocal relationship with the commoners who sustain the entire system. Each class has its own duties and responsibilities to the other classes.

Records from the Roman Empire’s rule in Egypt show that much of the ruling elite’s time was spent responding to pleas for assistance from the subservient classes and resolving administrative / managerial issues.

When ruling elites renounce reciprocity to serve their own interests with absolute impunity, then the social order soon reaches the “let them eat brioche” phase where society fragments. If redress (i.e. rebalancing) is suppressed, then retribution comes to the fore: the Mandate of Heaven is lost and chaos ensues.

In either case, the only way to reconnect reciprocity / rebalance a fatally imbalanced system is a social revolution that is neither political or economic per se but which transforms both the political and economic realms by changing what’s acceptable and what’s no longer acceptable.

Polycrisis can’t be untangled with simple top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions or by modifying the definition of the problem so some painless fix can be touted as a solution. These illusory fixes only make the problems worse.

The more productive approach is to decentralize control and capital so more flexible, adaptive units can experiment with solutions: households, communities, cities, counties, locally based enterprises and regions.

The entire Waste Is Growth Landfill Economy mindset must be replaced with new incentives based on a new understanding that artifice is not a replacement for authenticity, and monetizing what is most valuable destroys it.

Adapt or die sounds harsh, but if real adaptation is required, then illusory fixes, self-serving elites and expedient redefinitions of the problem will only accelerate the unraveling and the reckoning.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 16:20

Hormuz Paralyzed: Another Tanker Hit, Floating Parking Lot Of Ships Swells

Zero Hedge -

Hormuz Paralyzed: Another Tanker Hit, Floating Parking Lot Of Ships Swells

Update (1555ET):

The latest Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel-tracking data, via Bloomberg, shows that tanker traffic in the Strait of Hormuz has been paralyzed, with only a few tankers still transiting the critical maritime energy chokepoint.

U.S. Central Command said in a statement on X that IRGC naval power has been severely degraded after U.S. forces and their allies eliminated eleven warships.

That may explain why Brent crude futures have not been able to sustain $80 per barrel, as traders appear to assess that the IRGC's loss of warships would make any attempt to mount a blockade short-lived, especially given U.S. naval power in the region.

Late U.S. cash session, UBS analyst Jonathan Garber told clients that "Iran's Revolutionary Guards commander said the Strait of Hormuz is closed and they will set any ship on fire that tries to pass through, Reuters reports, citing Iranian media. WTI crude oil is now up more than 7% following the headlines."

BBG Headlines:

  • IRGC ADVISER SAYS WON'T LET OIL LEAVE REGION: IRAN STATE TV

However, the loss of IRGC naval power should not lead investors to discount the regime's asymmetric capabilities, such as using missiles and drones to target tankers in the narrow waterway.

That risk appeared to materialize late in the U.S. cash session, when reports emerged that two IRGC drones struck the oil tanker Athen Nova.

Rapidan Energy Group analyst Fernando Ferreira noted:

The US-Israeli offensive has shifted Tehran's calculus from deterrence to regime survival.

Iran cannot contest US control of the Gulf in a conventional fight, but it does not need to. Its strategy has always centered on denial, using drones, missiles, and mines to raise the cost of commercial transit through Hormuz.

Even if the IRGC Navy takes heavy losses, the core threat remains. Drone and missile attacks can still disrupt shipping and rattle energy markets. 

With that said, the critical maritime chokepoint responsible for 20% of global seaborne oil flows now appears likely to remain disrupted indefinitely.

*   *   * 

FGE NexantECA Chairman Emeritus Fereidun Fesharaki told Bloomberg TV on Monday morning that any attempt by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to choke off the critical Strait of Hormuz using warships, drones, and missiles would likely be short-lived, as the regime's naval capability is too weak to sustain a blockade against U.S., British, and French naval forces.

"It's just a fear factor," Fesharaki said earlier on Bloomberg TV, following his prediction one week earlier on Bloomberg TV: "I don't think the U.S. has a choice but to go to war. It is very hard for me to see a scenario in which they would simply avoid this, turn the ships around, and go home." Fesharaki has tracked the market for decades.

Fesharaki said this morning, "The Revolutionary Guard navy is a minor force compared with what the American navy, the British, and the French can bring in."

Fesharaki's comments about the duration of the war mirrored President Trump's remarks to The Daily Mail on Sunday, in which he said Operation Epic Fury would last about four weeks. He also described the IRGC as a "paper tiger."

On Sunday, Trump announced that nine Iranian naval ships had been sunk in the operation.

"I have just been informed that we have destroyed and sunk nine Iranian naval ships, some of them relatively large and important," Trump wrote in a post on X, adding that Iran's naval headquarters has been "largely destroyed" in a different attack.

"We are going after the rest — they will soon be floating at the bottom of the sea, also!" Trump wrote.

Rapidan Energy Group analyst Fernando Ferreira provided more insight on the Strait:

Iran understands that threatening traffic through Hormuz is its most credible asymmetric lever. Even limited interference can raise oil prices and impose immediate economic costs on the U.S. and its partners, increasing pressure on Washington to de-escalate.

We expect at least moderate disruptions to Gulf oil flows in the coming days, with the risk tilted toward something more severe if tensions escalate further.

As of Monday morning, Automatic Identification System (AIS) vessel-tracking data via Bloomberg shows that tanker activity in the critical maritime energy chokepoint has mostly frozen, with limited transits.

Related:

Goldman analyst Adam Crook told clients over the weekend that any prolonged disruption of the Strait could push Brent crude prices toward $100/bbl. Currently, Brent crude futures trade around $79 as of 0900 ET.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 15:55

US Vigilant Against Possible Domestic Attacks Amid Iran War: Hegseth

Zero Hedge -

US Vigilant Against Possible Domestic Attacks Amid Iran War: Hegseth

Authored by Savannah Hulsey Pointer via The Epoch Times,

Secretary of War Pete Hegseth says the Trump administration is monitoring for any sleeper cell activity in the United States.

Hegseth’s March 2 comments came after questions about a possible attack on the homeland in response to the strikes on Iran.

“We’re ready for that,” the secretary told reporters at the Pentagon.

“We’ve seen these types of folks before, and the American people can rest assured that we’re vigilant.”

Hegseth was also questioned about the March 1 shooting that took place in Austin, Texas, that resulted in multiple casualties.

According to reports from Austin Police, an armed man opened fire outside a bar, killing two and wounding 14 others.

FBI official Alex Doran told reporters that the shooter’s motivation had not been established. Evidence found on the individual and in his vehicle, however, suggests a “potential nexus to terrorism,” but “it’s still too early to make a determination,” he said.

When questioned about the attack over the weekend, Hegseth said that the event “does not change [Operation Epic Fury] at all.”

The operation in Iran is not slowing down, with Pentagon officials saying that additional U.S. forces will continue to flow into the Middle East.

The strikes on Iran have been termed “major combat operations,” and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Dan Caine says hundreds of land and sea missions have been launched in Operation Epic Fury.

Caine offered a briefing alongside Hegseth, saying the U.S. military’s mission is to “protect and defend ourselves, and together with our regional partners, prevent Iran from the ability to project power outside of its borders.”

Hegseth and Caine emphasized the preparation that went into the recent military strike, saying the operation in Iran was the result of months, even years, of planning.

However, according to the general, the mission is not yet complete.

“We expect to take additional losses, and as always, we will work to minimize U.S. losses,” Caine added.

“The effort continues to scale,” Caine said, going on to describe the equipment used and extended efforts to take out Iranian weapons systems.

“I am proud today, as I am every day, to stand as a member of America’s Joint Force. There is no mission too complex, no distance too great, and no adversary too determined for the men and women who wear our nation’s uniform.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 15:40

NYC Pakistan-Owned Hotel Took $146M For Illegals But Owes $13M In Taxes

Zero Hedge -

NYC Pakistan-Owned Hotel Took $146M For Illegals But Owes $13M In Taxes

Authored by Luis Cornelio via HeadlineUSA,

The Pakistani government owes New York City taxpayers millions in unpaid taxes despite making nearly $150 million through the Roosevelt Hotel by housing illegal aliens

The Roosevelt Hotel, owned by Pakistani International Airlines, a quasi-state entity, has $13.6 million in overdue property taxes and nearly $1 million in unpaid water bills, according to the New York Post

The hotel became a hub for illegal aliens after then-New York City Mayor Eric Adams entered contracts allowing hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens to live on the premises. 

According to the Post, the Roosevelt Hotel processed more than 173,000 of the 232,000 illegal aliens in the city.  

Taxpayers paid a total of $146.6 million, or $202 per room each night, for roughly 2,600 illegal aliens each night from May 2023 through June 2025. 

Among those staying at the formerly luxury hotel was Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan gang member serving a life sentence without parole for the murder of nursing student Laken Riley in Georgia. 

The unpaid property taxes stem from a payment agreement with the city’s Department of Finance in September 2023, which required the hotel to pay $573,361 on Jan. 2. But as noted by the Post, that half-a-million-dollar bill again went unpaid, as did the $3.9 million half-year installment. 

But New Yorkers expecting those bills to be paid could be out of luck. 

The hotel recently entered a deal with the federal government to redevelop the landmark property, which could allow the Pakistani government to avoid future taxes. 

According to the Post, the arrangement might trigger a federal tax exemption, as the U.S. Department of State often asks city governments to grant exemptions when foreign governments purchase U.S. properties. 

A spokesperson for the Department of Finance said the agency has not “received” such a request but warned that prior charges “must still be paid.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 15:00

Only The 38th Largest Oil Spike Since 1990

Zero Hedge -

Only The 38th Largest Oil Spike Since 1990

Today’s CoTD from DB's Jim Reid shows the daily price of oil back to 1990. When he published the report, oil (+8.4%) was tracking to be the 38th biggest daily gain over this 36-year period. The graph annotates the clusters where we have seen larger moves.

So even though it’s a big move, to get into the top 20, 10 and 5 it would need to be up +9.6%, +13.6% and +13.9% respectively.

There were huge moves around the GFC and Covid-19 turmoil, whilst the Gulf War in 1990-91 also saw several double-digit gains.

Incidentally, since Jim published his chart of the day, oil has sold off more, and at last check it was up just 5.7% on the day, erasing its kneejerk spike by more than half.

Going forward, Reid says that much will depend on the Strait of Hormuz.

It seems it’s not officially closed but passage through it would be hazardous at the moment with self-imposed restrictions from virtually all that normally travel through it.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 14:20

AI 'Vibe Coding' Could Put Ethereum Roadmap Ahead Of Schedule: Vitalik Buterin

Zero Hedge -

AI 'Vibe Coding' Could Put Ethereum Roadmap Ahead Of Schedule: Vitalik Buterin

Authored by Martin Young via CoinTelegraph.com,

Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin says an experiment that used artificial intelligence to prototype the blockchain’s roadmap out to 2030 in just a few weeks could have lessons for developers. 

“This is quite an impressive experiment. Vibe-coding the entire 2030 roadmap within weeks,” Buterin posted to X on Saturday after a developer made a bet with Buterin in February that one person could use AI to code a reference implementation of the blockchain’s roadmap.

Buterin added that AI is “massively accelerating coding” and that people “should be open to the possibility that the Ethereum roadmap will finish much faster than people expect, at a much higher standard of security than people expect.”

Vibe coding is where AI creates the code for an application, allowing developers to quickly create software. The practice has become more popular as AI models have improved at coding; however, some warn that AI-generated code can be insecure.

ETH2030 architecture stack. Source: YQ

Buterin says AI code would have “critical bugs”

Buterin said that there were “massive caveats” to using AI, as the speed at which the code was written means it “almost certainly has lots of critical bugs, and probably in some cases ‘stub’ versions of a thing where the AI did not even try making the full version.”

“But six months ago, even this was far outside the realm of possibility, and what matters is where the trend is going,” he added.

Buterin cautioned that, instead of focusing on speed, more emphasis should be placed on security. 

“The right way to use it is to take half the gains from AI in speed, and half the gains in security: generate more test-cases, formally verify everything, make more multi-implementations of things.”

He said that he was personally excited about the possibility that bug-free code, “long considered an idealistic delusion,” will finally become first possible and “then a basic expectation.”

Buterin has been active commenting on the recently released roadmap from the Ethereum Foundation, “Strawmap,” which outlines all upgrades planned for the next four years. 

He has previously proposed plans to make Ethereum quantum-resistant and on Sunday said that account abstraction, or smart accounts, would “happen within a year.” 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 14:00

Construction Spending On Data Centers, Factories, Powerplants, And Office Buildings: Boom, Bust, And In Between

Zero Hedge -

Construction Spending On Data Centers, Factories, Powerplants, And Office Buildings: Boom, Bust, And In Between

Authored by Wolf Richter via Wolf Street,

Construction spending on data centers in 2025 exploded by 32% from the prior year, by over 100% in two years, and by 344% from 2020, to $41 billion, according to the Census Bureau on Friday. Spending on construction costs of data centers used to be buried in office construction and was minimal compared to office construction. But more recently, the Census Bureau split out data-center construction spending going back to 2014.

Construction costs of data centers are only a relatively small portion of the immense amounts spent on AI infrastructure, most of which goes into electronic and electrical equipment, from AI servers to power generation equipment. Construction spending on data centers does not include the costs of the servers and racks but does include the cooling systems in the building and other built-in electrical equipment.

It takes years from the decision to build a data center to the data center being actually operational. And the massive amounts of capital expenditures announced by AI-related Corporate America in 2025 and the plans for 2026 haven’t yet shown up in the construction costs.

The amounts of capital expenditures being thrown around for 2026 are fantastical. Five companies alone – Amazon, Alphabet, Microsoft, Meta, and Oracle – have announced plans for $700 billion in capital expenditures for 2026, largely for AI-related projects. And how will they get this cash next year?

So this construction boom is not slowing down, unless tripped up by further the shortages of all kinds, such as power from the grid, power generators when there is no grid power, electrical equipment, electricians, specialized labor, etc.

Inflation for construction costs for nonresidential buildings jumped by 1.1% in January from December, according to the Producer Price Index (PPI) for nonresidential construction, released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Friday (it was hot all around). Year-over-year, the nonresidential construction PPI was up by 2.8%, almost all of which occurred over the past four months.

From January 2021 through December 2022, over those two years, prices had exploded by 34%. From the beginning of 2023 to mid-2025, prices flattened out. But they’re now taking off again.

Over the years 2021-2025, the PPI for nonresidential construction rose by 41%. With spending on data center construction up by 344% over the same period, the red-hot construction spending boom is not a result of inflation – but of the AI investment mania.

Construction spending on manufacturing plants has soared coming out of the pandemic. In 2025, at $220 billion, it was up by 192% from 2020.

This $220 billion in 2025 is over five times the amount spent on data centers ($41 billion).

The production equipment in the plant, such as the industrial robots, is not part of the construction costs. And they’re much more costly than the building itself.

Though still running at a red-hot pace, construction spending on factories has backed off from the spike in 2024, possibly as construction resources have been pulled away by the boom in data center construction, and amid reports of bottlenecks, shortages of skilled labor, and ICE hauling off workers from construction sites.

After decades of globalization, there is now a widespread rethink underway about production in the US.

These factories will all be highly automated to where manual labor is only a relatively small part of the product costs. Every year, year after year, decade after decade, automation improves, and companies try to cut their labor costs by expanding automation.

Within factory construction, spending on factories for computers, electronic, and electrical equipment exploded by 1,300% since 2020, from $9 billion in 2020 to $104 billion in 2025. This includes semiconductor plants and plants that build electrical equipment for the AI infrastructure boom.

Powerplant construction is a highly regulated process in terms of permitting and approvals, and it takes years from the decision to build a power plant to having a functional power plant hooked to the grid.

In 2025, a record $158 billion was spent on building power plants, up by 34% from 2020.

Electricity prices have soared by 41% over the past five years as demand for electricity has surged, after being roughly flat for 14 years. This increase in demand was largely driven by the new data centers.

But utilities and power generators are leery of spending billions of dollars on generation and distribution capacity for data centers that might never work out after the AI investment mania fizzles, which would turn these investments into stranded assets.

This leeriness is fed by the many hedge funds with ag land that want a utility to commit billions of dollars to run a high-voltage powerline to it, and possibly build a power plant to supply it with power, so that the hedge fund can then sell the ag land at a huge profit as data-center ready to some hyperscaler. If that deal doesn’t happen, the utility ends up with an expensive stranded asset.

Office building construction has taken a massive hit after it became clear that office landlords were getting into serious trouble as demand for office space collapsed during the pandemic. Countless landlords defaulted on their office mortgages, and numerous buildings were seized by lenders and sold in foreclosure sales for cents on the dollar. The going rate for office building transactions is now at discounts of 30% to 70% from pre-pandemic prices. The delinquency rate for office CMBS spiked to record 12.3% in January. And there are efforts underway in expensive markets to convert office towers into residential towers, while smaller office buildings get torn down and replaced with housing. Office CRE has been in a depression since 2022.

In a way, it seems surprising that anyone would still spend good money on office buildings, but it’s the old office towers that are in trouble, while the latest and greatest office towers see more demand from the flight to quality that high vacancy rates made possible.

So spending on office construction (not including data centers) dropped further in 2025, to $49 billion, the lowest since 2015, and down by 32% from the peak in 2020.

Some of this spending is for buildings that were planned years ago and that are being completed now. For example, JP Morgan’s $3-billion tower at 270 Park Avenue in Manhattan was announced in 2018, was formally topped off in November 2023, and had its grand opening in October 2025.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 13:20

SaaS: Is There Opportunity In The Destruction?

Zero Hedge -

SaaS: Is There Opportunity In The Destruction?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

A specter is haunting Wall Street - the specter of the “SaaSpocalypse.” Since the iShares Expanded Tech-Software Sector ETF (IGV) peaked on September 19, 2025, it has fallen roughly 30%. For context, the broad technology indexes like XLK and QQQ are essentially flat over the same period, and the semiconductor ETF (SMH) is up 30%. Between mid-January and mid-February 2026 alone, approximately one trillion dollars was wiped from the collective value of software stocks, with the S&P North American Software Index posting its worst monthly decline since the 2008 financial crisis.

The catalyst was a series of AI product launches, most notably Anthropic’s Claude Cowork tool and OpenAI’s enterprise agent, Frontier, demonstrating that AI agents can now handle complex knowledge work autonomously. The market’s interpretation was simple. If AI agents can replicate what enterprise software does, then enterprise software is finished. That is the narrative that has taken hold in recent weeks. The consequence has been brutal. Workday is down 35% year-to-date. Adobe has shed 26%. Salesforce, 25%. Atlassian plunged 35% in a single week. Even Microsoft, the ultimate blue chip, fell by more than 10%.

The thesis is straightforward enough. Generative AI can now write code, automate workflows, and rapidly and cheaply create customized applications. Therefore, if enterprises can build their own “disposable software,” micro-apps tailored to specific workflows, instead of paying bloated subscription fees, then the traditional per-seat SaaS pricing model is dead. Potentially worse is that AI lowers barriers to entry, enabling more competitors to quickly replicate existing software. Such would compress margins and weaken the moats that once protected large software firms.

It is a compelling narrative. The question investors must answer is whether it is true.

Will AI Actually Kill Software Stocks? Not So Fast

Like most market narratives, the SaaSpocalypse contains some truth, a great deal of speculation, and several outright falsehoods. The most important rebuttal is that the value of enterprise software has never resided solely in its code. Enterprise software encodes institutional architecture. That architecture is the deep domain knowledge, compliance frameworks, workflow logic, and years of organizational customization that companies depend on to function. Think about it this way. If you are a medium to large enterprise dependent on data to service customers, maintain workflows, and fulfill orders, are you going to trust something that AI created that is potentially unreliable or error-ridden? Or, are you more likely to rely on software with deep local context, reliable outputs, and that has been rigorously tested and debugged over years of application use?

“Add deep workflow embedding to the mix and the picture becomes clearer still. When a SaaS platform is the system of record inside core banking, hospital EHRs, or government case management, replacement isn’t a technical decision, it’s an organisational trauma. Staff retraining, data migration, permission re-architecture, and regulatory re-certification make a rip-and-replace approach impractical, even when a cheaper AI-built alternative exists on paper.” – LiveWire

Furthermore, the underlying data does not support the skepticism either. Gartner’s February 2026 forecast projects worldwide software spending will grow 14.7% in 2026 to more than $1.4 trillion, accelerating from 11.5% growth in 2025. That represents roughly $180 billion in net new software spending in a single year. Global SaaS spending specifically is projected to rise from $318 billion in 2025 to $576 billion by 2029, according to Forrester. The reality is that enterprises are not abandoning software; they are spending more on it. As Mark Gardner recently noted:

However, this sell-off is analytically lazy. And it’s being driven, at least in part, by the very technology it fears hallucinating on its own researchWe believe the difference this time is that investors have the opportunity to look through the noise and identify the SaaS businesses where the structural moats are not just intact, they’re actually widening.

It was also fascinating to listen to Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff in CRM’s latest quarterly earnings report. He specifically addressed the panic, invoking the term “SaaSpocalypse” at least 6 times. His point was blunt: this is not Salesforce’s first existential scare, and AI is making their products more valuable, not less. The company introduced a new metric, agentic work units, designed to capture the output-driven value of its AI-enabled platform. More importantly, Gartner’s own analysts note that GenAI features are now ubiquitous across enterprise software and are increasingly costly. In other words, the cost of software is going up precisely because of AI, not in spite of it. There is a meaningful difference between a technology that changes how software works and one that makes software unnecessary.

Survivors and Thrivers: Which SaaS Companies Have the Strongest Moats

If the SaaSpocalypse narrative proves to be more panic than prophecy, the critical task becomes identifying which companies will emerge stronger. Forrester’s research provides a useful framework: horizontal point-solution vendors with low switching costs and weak enterprise integration face genuine existential risk. But vertical- or domain-specific SaaS vendors, those addressing complex industries like healthcare, manufacturing, or financial services, or those controlling unique proprietary data, have a substantially greater chance of survival and even growth.

Furthermore, even before the “SaaSpocalypse” began, the revaluation of these companies was already well underway, and current prices are nowhere near the 2021 froth levels.

Therefore, as investors, we need to think about “separating the wheat from the chaff.” While valuations and fundamentals are important, the key will be finding the companies best positioned in the market. Those companies share several characteristics.

  • First, platform-scale incumbents that serve as systems of record, Salesforce, Microsoft, Oracle, and ServiceNow, possess deep integration into enterprise workflows that cannot easily be replicated by a general-purpose AI agent. These companies are rapidly embedding AI agents alongside their existing deterministic processes, particularly for regulated industries.

  • Second, cybersecurity firms like Palo Alto Networks and CrowdStrike occupy a category where AI is additive rather than substitutive. As enterprises deploy more AI systems, the attack surface expands.

  • Third, data infrastructure and vertical SaaS companies that sit at the foundation of AI workloads or control proprietary domain data benefit directly from the same trend punishing commodity application vendors.

The table below highlights eight companies across four categories whose reported metrics most closely align with the characteristics that separate durable SaaS businesses from vulnerable ones.

So, where do you start your process?

Investor Playbook: Metrics That Matter and How to Position

For investors, the current dislocation presents both a challenge and an opportunity.

The biggest challenge is overcoming the “fear of loss.” Loss-avoidance is an emotional behavior that impedes our ability to “buy low,” as we fear prices will keep falling indefinitely. However, logic and fundamentals quickly refute that concern. However, it is a “barrier to entry” that keeps investors sidelined when prices decline, even as opportunities increase.

The statistical evidence of overshoot is significant. As Michael Lebowitz noted last week, the price ratio between IGV and XLK has diverged by nearly four standard deviations from historical norms over the past 100 days.

Based on the five-year relationship, either XLK is 10% overpriced, or IGV is 10% underpriced. When statistical relationships stretch this far, mean reversion eventually follows—though we caution that in environments where narratives are this powerful, divergences can persist longer than models suggest.

With this in mind, we suggest that doing your homework rather than listening to narratives is where the opportunity lies. Therefore, the right approach is to be surgical, rather than thematic. Rather than buying the entire beaten-down sector via IGV, which is okay if you only seek “average” returns, we think focusing on individual company fundamentals will yield better results. Therefore, here are a few metrics you can use to separate genuine AI beneficiaries from vulnerable incumbents. These metrics include:

  • Price-To-Earnings Growth (PEG): Measures the current price of the shares relative to their expected growth rate of earnings in the future. PEG ratios of 1 or less are considered to be cheap valuations.

  • Net Revenue Retention (NRR): Measures whether existing customers are spending more over time. Companies maintaining NRR above 120% demonstrate that AI features are expanding wallet share rather than cannibalizing it.

  • Remaining Performance Obligations (RPO): Measures whether forward demand is accelerating or decelerating, cutting through the noise of quarterly revenue.

  • Free cash flow margins: Reveals whether companies can fund their AI transformation internally or must dilute shareholders to compete.

  • AI attach rates: Measures the percentage of customers adopting AI-powered product tiers. It provides a real-time indicator of whether the AI transition is generating revenue or merely generating press releases.

A sustained SaaS recovery, as EBC Financial Group’s analysis notes, will likely require at least two of three conditions:

  • More accommodative financial conditions,

  • Enhanced earnings visibility, and/or

  • A shift in the narrative from viewing AI as a threat to recognizing its monetization potential.

We think the latter two are the most likely.

For now, investors should remain cautiously positioned. Make small bets, manage your risk exposure, and give yourself plenty of time. The recognition of value often takes longer than logic would suggest, particularly when negative momentum is strong.

The SaaSpocalypse makes for dramatic headlines, but the idea that AI agents will simply devour enterprise software whole ignores both the data and the institutional complexity of the businesses being disrupted. The real risk for investors is not that they are too slow to sell their SaaS holdings. It is that they eventually get stampeded by market panic into undervaluing companies whose competitive positions are, in many cases, strengthening.

Discipline, not panic, is the appropriate response.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 12:40

What's Igniting Today's U.S. Antimony Spike? Potential Catalysts

Zero Hedge -

What's Igniting Today's U.S. Antimony Spike? Potential Catalysts

United States Antimony Corp. shares are surging in the early U.S. cash session as geopolitical risk around U.S.-China relations is set to deteriorate, with Beijing's condemnation of the U.S.-Israeli strike on Iran raising the likelihood that President Trump's upcoming trip to Beijing could be a bust.

The deterioration in Sino-U.S. relations was evident overnight, with China's Foreign Minister Wang Yi calling for an immediate ceasefire in Trump's Operation Epic Fury against Iran, which risks wider regional conflict.

Wang told Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on a phone call that the "blatant killing of a sovereign leader" and the incitement of regime change were "unacceptable." This phone call was based on reporting from China's state-run Xinhua news agency.

The killing of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the capture of Venezuelan leader Nicolas Maduro have created growing uncertainty around President Trump's three-day trip to China later this month.

"I worry the U.S. side might use Iran, if it's going poorly, to delay the trip," a foreign business executive tracking meeting preparations told CNBC.

The executive added, "I think the risk [of the trip falling apart] is on the U.S. side more than the Chinese side."

The likely deterioration in Sino-U.S. relations increases the risk of a new round of Chinese restrictions on critical-mineral and rare-earth exports targeting the U.S.

Let's not forget that Trump has effectively shuttered cheap oil flows from Venezuela and Iran to China (read here). Beijing is infuriated.

Attention has shifted to UAMY's strategic value as North America's only operator of antimony smelting capacity. This creates a unique position for the company if imports from Asia are curbed.  

Shares are up more than 13% in the U.S. cash session.

Another potential catalyst (market-based): 

Related:

Beyond the risk of rare earth metals becoming a major focal point between Beijing and Washington (again), UAMY may also be rising, as antimony is a critical rare earth used in military production, especially in ammunition and other defense-related materials, as the sheer amount of air-delivered munitions used by U.S. and Israeli forces only suggests weapons production in the U.S. will have to ramp.

Read the report here. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 12:20

US Government Seizes Over $580 Million In Crypto Linked To Southeast Asian Scams

Zero Hedge -

US Government Seizes Over $580 Million In Crypto Linked To Southeast Asian Scams

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via Bitcoin Magazine,

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro said federal authorities have frozen and seized more than $580 million in cryptocurrency tied to Southeast Asian scam networks, marking a major escalation in the government’s campaign against cross-border crypto fraud.

The funds were restrained through the Justice Department’s Scam Center Strike Force, a task force formed in November to target cryptocurrency investment and confidence schemes linked to Chinese transnational criminal organizations. 

Officials said the groups use social media platforms and text messaging to target U.S. victims and siphon billions of dollars each year. Recent estimates place annual losses to Americans near $10 billion.

In only three months, we have made significant progress, freezing, seizing, and forfeiting cryptocurrency worth more than $578 million from these criminals,” Pirro said in a statement. She said her office will seek forfeiture through the courts and aims to return funds to victims.

Authorities describe the schemes as “pig butchering” operations, in which fraudsters build relationships with victims before steering them into fraudulent crypto investments. Victims are persuaded to purchase legitimate digital assets and then transfer them to counterfeit trading platforms controlled by the scam networks.

The operations often run out of secured compounds in parts of Southeast Asia, including Burma, Cambodia, and Laos. U.S. officials said some workers inside the compounds are trafficking victims who are forced to carry out scams under threat of violence. In certain areas, revenue generated from scam activity accounts for a large share of local economic output.

The Strike Force is focused on identifying senior figures within the criminal networks, including organizers and money launderers who move proceeds through blockchain transactions and shell accounts. Investigators are tracing funds across exchanges and wallets to disrupt cash-out points and freeze assets before they are dispersed.

The initiative brings together the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and several Justice Department divisions, along with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Secret Service, and the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigation unit. U.S. Attorney’s Offices in Rhode Island and the Western District of Washington are also participating.

The Justice Department said the Strike Force will continue targeting infrastructure, financial channels, and leadership structures tied to the fraud networks.

Crypto crime hit $154 Billion last year

Data from Chainalysis shows illicit crypto addresses received at least $154 billion in 2025, a 162% year-over-year increase, with sanctioned entities driving much of the surge. Nation-states including Russia, Iran, and North Korea played an outsized role, leveraging blockchain infrastructure for sanctions evasion, money laundering, and large-scale thefts.

Stablecoins accounted for 84% of illicit transaction volume, the report said. 

The report also highlights the expansion of Chinese money laundering networks offering “laundering-as-a-service” and other full-stack illicit infrastructure. Although illicit activity still represents less than 1% of total crypto volume, the scale and geopolitical dimension of the activity pose rising risks for regulators, law enforcement, and national security.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 12:00

Rep. Ted Lieu Spreads Bizarre Conspiracy In Congressional Hearing

Zero Hedge -

Rep. Ted Lieu Spreads Bizarre Conspiracy In Congressional Hearing

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Years ago, Rep. Ted Lieu (D., Cal.) demanded that “Facebook should do more internally to regulate fake news and point out fake news.”

This week, he finally made his case for such private censorship. Lieu went full conspiracy theorist during a congressional hearing this week, leaving many gobsmacked. Lieu’s rave about the alleged murder of a child made the National Inquirer look like the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

In an age of rage, Lieu knows that you must go louder and bigger to be heard above the mob. Facts are no passé and Lieu is known for sensational claims like claiming that “Trump is broke.”

At a House Judiciary Committee hearing on the Epstein files, Lieu won the race to the bottom with his colleagues in making outrageous, unsupported claims. It was a moment reminiscent of the recent face-planting by Rep. Ro Khanna (D., Cal.) in disclosing the names of powerful men shielded by the Administration in the scandal. (Four had no connection to Epstein).

He suggested that Trump not only abused a minor, but that she was later bumped off to keep her from speaking. What Lieu does not inform the public is that his blockbuster disclosure was based on the unverified account of an anonymous man, who worked as a limo driver in 1995.

The bizarre account claimed the driver picked up Trump and overheard him on the phone with someone called “Jeffrey” and made references to “abusing some girl.” The driver said that he wanted to pull over and “hurt him”.

Driver Dan Ferree has self-identified as the source referenced by Lieu.

Ferree reportedly has posted hundreds of politically anti-Trump and extreme memes to his Facebook account, including a recent image of Trump in what appears to be a casket. He has also reportedly claimed that he was stalked by Trump associates.

In a defamation case, Ferree would be difficult to pass off as a credible source for a publication. The use of such sources is a familiar tactic in Washington. During the Chandra Levy scandal, politicians and pundits piled on Rep. Gary Condit (D., Cal.) as the presumptive murderer of the congressional intern. The source cited by Vanity Fair’s Dominick Dunne turned out to be a “horse whisperer” in Dubai who said that he had heard Condit arranged for her murder. (Condit was later cleared in the case).

Ferree is only marginally better than a horse whisperer as a source of Lieu. Ferree told the FBI that he met a young girl who told him she had been raped by Trump and Epstein at a “fancy hotel.” He claimed that the young girl was later found with her head “blown off.” He said that, while the officers at the scene thought it was murder, the coroner later ruled it a suicide. There was no proof of such a case.

It appears that Lieu knew or suspected that the source of the allegation was unhinged or unreliable because he later re-posted only two of the three pages of the statement to the FBI. The third page included other bizarre claims about the Oklahoma City Bombing and a drunk Hillary Clinton.

Lieu decided it was best to withhold the third page and the details of a raving, drunken Hillary Clinton and an effort to frame an innocent man for the Oklahoma bombing. It seems that he was not aggrieved that the FBI did not investigate that part of Ferree’s allegations.

Nevertheless, at an earlier event, Lieu declared:

“Why are Republicans so interested in Bill and Hillary Clinton? It’s because they’re trying to distract from the fact that Donald Trump is in the Epstein files thousands and thousands of times. In those files, there’s highly disturbing allegations of Donald Trump raping children, of Donald Trump threatening to kill children.”

What is striking is how so many politicians supporting the crackdown on disinformation on the right are purveyors of such disinformation. From the Russian conspiracy hoax to the flogging of migrants by Border agents, members and the media have regularly spread false accounts with impunity. It is not considered disinformation if it appears on BlueSky or MS NOW.

The intentional omission of the third page of the allegation puts this disinformation effort in a particularly menacing light. This was not some hair-triggered posting that failed to research the underlying story. This was a knowing effort to later re-post the sensational allegation while removing a third of the document that undermined the credibility of the source.

Indeed, while questioning why the FBI (including during the Biden Administration) failed to pursue this allegation, Lieu left out the part indicating that the source was utterly unreliable.

As an impeachment manager, Lieu condemned Trump over his “exhortations [and] the President’s sustained disinformation. We’ve seen a president stoking fears amidst these crises.” He demanded that Trump be removed from office based on that allegation of disinformation and inflammatory rhetoric.

Lieu knew that in our post-truth political environment, it really does not matter if an allegation is untrue. He is feeding a rage addiction among voters who ache for a steady stream of such outrageous claims. He is part of a trend that I have called the “new Jacobins” in Rage and the Republicestablishment figures who are pandering to the mob in seeking to ride the wave of rage back into power.

It was not long ago that Democrats and the media tore into members suggesting that the Clintons were involved in the suicide of key aide Vince Foster. The difference is that there was an actual body in that base. Lieu shows little concern over spreading a conspiracy theory based on an unestablished death raised by a driver who coupled his allegations with other wild claims about Hillary Clinton and the Oklahoma bombing.

It has long been accepted that “politics ain’t beanbag,” but Lieu shows that it is now simply bonkers.

Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the author of the New York Times bestselling “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 11:20

European Gas Prices Soar 50% After Qatar Shuts World's Largest LNG Export Plant

Zero Hedge -

European Gas Prices Soar 50% After Qatar Shuts World's Largest LNG Export Plant

In its scenario analysis of how the Iran war could impact energy markets, Goldman laid out a section dedicated to nat gas, and specifically LNG, which like oil, is one of the commodities that is especially reliant on prompt passage through he Straits of Hormuz to reach its destination. 

Specifically, unlike oil which Goldman calculated had already priced in substantial war risk premium, "European gas (TTF) and spot LNG (JKM) prices have embedded little-to-no risk premium until this past Friday" and so, the bank saw "significant upside risk to prices from a potential sustained disruption of LNG supply through the Strait of Hormuz. In a scenario where flows halt for one month, we think it is likely that TTF and JKM could approach 74 EUR/MWh ($25/mmBtu) -- 130% above current levels -- a threshold that triggered large natural gas demand responses during the 2022 European energy crisis."

Below we excerpt the key sections from the must read report (especially to European energy traders as we will discuss in a bit).

Q10. How much risk premium has been embedded in European gas prices?

Differently from oil, we believe that until this past Friday, European natural gas prices had embedded little-to-no risk premium associated with Iran-related geopolitical risks. Specifically, TTF has been pricing in the bottom half of our estimated hard-coal-to-gas (C2G) switching range for the past month, modestly below our 36 EUR/MWh March 2026 TTF forecast (Exhibit 11). Once accounting for the recent sell off in carbon emission prices to below the 80 EUR/t embedded in our TTF price forecast, worth 2.0-2.5 EUR/MWh in gas-equivalent terms, prompt gas prices are still largely in line with our view that TTF needs to be in this C2G switching range to help manage NW European gas storage to above 80% full by end-Oct26, given that current inventory levels remain well below average. That remains our view, and we maintain our 34 EUR/MWh balance-of-the-year TTF price forecast.

Q11. What are the risks to global gas prices from this weekend’s developments in the Middle East?

We see significant upside risk to European gas and global LNG prices. The most significant impact to global gas markets would come from a potential disruption of the approximately 80 mtpa (302 mcm/d or 11 Bcf/d, 19% of global LNG supply) of LNG that typically flow through the Strait of Hormuz (Exhibit 2), which could potentially arise from an escalation of the ongoing conflict. 

Specifically, in a scenario where LNG flows through the Strait are fully halted for one month, we estimate a resulting tightening of NW European gas storage equivalent to 8% of capacity. Our fuel switching models suggest that European gas prices would need to maximize both switching into hard coal and into oil products by pricing at or above distillate fuel price levels for over three and a half months to offset it. At current oil prices this would imply TTF essentially doubling to 62 EUR/MWh[10] ($21/mmBtu). Given that oil prices would also likely rally in this scenario, it is likely that TTF could approach the 74 EUR/MWh ($25/mmBtu) threshold that triggered large natural gas demand responses during the 2022 European energy crisis.

A hypothetical longer disruption of natural gas supply transit through the Strait of Hormuz lasting more than two months would likely lift European natural gas prices above 100 EUR/MWh ($35/mmBtu) to trigger more significant global gas demand destruction given the increased difficulty for the market to fully offset such a tightening shock ahead of the next winter.

See "Goldman's Commodity Desk Lays Out The Oil Price Scenarios From Iran War" for more details).

Well, for once Goldman's commodity research desk was spot on... and very quickly at that, because just one day later, TTF shot up as much as 50%, sparking chaos across Europe's energy markets in a deja vu moment of the start of the Ukraine war 4 years ago. Dutch front-month futures, Europe’s gas benchmark, traded 46% higher at €46.77 a megawatt-hour by 2:31 p.m. in Amsterdam. That’s the highest level since February 2025.

Qatar’s Defense Ministry said said earlier that two drones launched from Iran had struck facilities in the country, although there were no casualties.

The catalyst behind today's sharp move is not the full closure of Hormuz, which Iran still claims is passable despite occasional ships in its vicinity randomly catching fire, but because early on Monday, Qatar Energy shut down liquefied natural gas production at the world’s largest export facility after it was targeted in an Iranian drone attack.

QatarEnergy’s Ras Laffan plant covers about a fifth of global LNG supply and the unprecedented halt now threatens energy security worldwide. 

In kneejerk response, European benchmark gas futures jumped the most since the energy crisis in 2022, while tankers had already largely stopped transiting the Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery for global fuel shipments. Needless to say, one direct hit on an LNG ship and the fireworks would be historic. 

“The threat to security of supply is here and now,” said Simone Tagliapietra, an analyst at Bruegel. “The extent of it will depend on the duration of the shutdown, but we are now into a new scenario.”

The good news, if only for the US, is that as Goldman notes, there is "limited upside risk to US natural gas prices."

Bloomberg notes that while Asian countries buy most of the LNG shipped from the Middle East, a disruption will increase competition for alternative supplies pushing up prices worldwide, including in Europe.

European gas prices are also rallying as storage inventories are unusually low, and the region needs to import large volumes of LNG this summer to refill them ahead of next winter. While the intraday surge is the biggest since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine four years ago, benchmark prices are only at a one-year high because regional supplies haven’t been directly disrupted and traders are still assessing how long the conflict will last.

As we discussed yesterday, the key question for traders is how long the disruption will last: the longer, the higher prices will rise.  Even if the US boosts LNG production, it’s unlikely to be enough to offset supply from Qatar in the near-term. QatarEnergy is scheduled to start its Golden Pass expansion project in the US in the coming weeks but the facility won’t be at full capacity until next year. 

Gas trade disruptions in the Middle East could also eventually raise spot LNG demand from Turkey, according to BloombergNEF, as it imports pipeline fuel from Iran. 

Late on Sunday, Trump said the bombing campaign against Iran could last for weeks; The conflict continues to deepen, with blasts heard across Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, as states intercepted Iranian missiles launched in response to US-Israeli strikes.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 11:02

Target Cuts Synthetic Colors From Beloved Breakfast Food

Zero Hedge -

Target Cuts Synthetic Colors From Beloved Breakfast Food

Authored by Elizabeth Troutman Mitchell via The Daily Signal,

The Make America Healthy Again movement has made its mark on one of America’s largest retailers.

Dr. Marty Makary, FDA commissioner. (Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)

Target announced Friday that every cereal it sells, including national brands, must exclude synthetic colors by the end of May.

Health and Human Services spokesman Andrew Nixon told The Daily Signal the move will “support healthier options for American families.”

“We’re encouraged to see companies listening to parents and taking voluntary steps to clean up ingredients in the foods they sell,” Nixon said. “Secretary Kennedy has been clear that families deserve transparency and the ability to make informed choices about what they’re feeding their children.”

Target is one of the first national retailers to remove synthetic colors across an entire grocery category. Food companies General Mills and Kraft Heinz have agreed to remove artificial colors from products in the United States by 2027, but Target has instituted a faster timeline.

It’s great to see Target take the lead on the MAHA front with food dyes,” said Jay Richards, at the Heritage Foundation.

“This is a clear response to market signals from not only federal action but to consumers, who are waking up to the weird stuff in so much of our food. Let’s hope Target’s competitors get the message as well.”

This comes after the Food and Drug Administration came under fire for reportedly retreating from plans to ban artificial food dyes, a key goal of the MAHA movement.

The FDA announced in early February that food companies would be able to label their products as containing “no artificial colors” as long as they don’t use petroleum-based dyes.

FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary pushed back on the report as “amusing fake news.”

The FDA is moving full steam ahead,” he said.(se

In an interview with The Daily Signal on Dec. 9, Makary said he has seen a “tremendous amount of support in the food industry for our action to call for the removal of all nine petroleum-based food dyes from the U.S. food supply.”

He said he’s saying an awareness about the dangers of food dyes that America has not seen before.

“We again have to listen to parents; we have to listen to the American people,” he said.

“And when they say that they have seen their kids engage in aggressive behavior or attention deficit disorder behavior, they remove all petroleum-based food dyes completely from that food supply and the kids’ behavior improves or changes, and then a year down the road they’re reintroduced to the petroleum-based food dyes and the behavior regresses—those are data points.”

We’ve got a randomized controlled trial of artificial petroleum-based dyes, and it did not—it was not favorable,” Makary continued.

“It suggested that it’s involved in behavioral disorders in children, specifically ADHD. So we want to create awareness.”

The Daily Signal depends on the support of readers like you. Donate now

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 10:30

10Y Yield Extends Rise After Surge In ISM Manufacturing Prices

Zero Hedge -

10Y Yield Extends Rise After Surge In ISM Manufacturing Prices

After ISM's almost unprecedented bounce higher in January, US Manufacturing dipped in February:

  • S&P Global Manufacturing PMI fell from 52.4 to 51.6 - weakest in seven months

  • ISM Manufacturing PMI fell from 52.6 to 52.4 (better than expected)

And this is occurring as 'hard' data ebbs lower...

February saw US manufacturers report the weakest expansion since last July, in a further sign that the overall pace of economic growth has moderated in recent months," according to Chris Williamson, Chief Business Economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Under the hood we see the usual mixed bag of malarkey in surveys with S&P Global seeing input and output prices declining...

...but ISM seeing Prices explode higher...

ISM saw new orders decline, in line with S&P Global's view:

Production growth slowed in response to a near-stalling of orders from customers, with exports falling especially sharply. Factory payroll growth was also barely changed, as concern over order book health caused a growing reticence to add to workforce numbers."

Rising oil prices - on the back of the military actions over the weekend - had already lifted UST yields early on but the surge in ISM prices (despite decline in S&P Global's) prompted further pain in bonds...

Businesses were reportedly disrupted by extreme weather, "which has clouded insights into the underlying strength of economic growth and suggests we may see some rebound once the weather clears, and it is encouraging to see manufacturers reporting improved optimism about the outlook."

However, Williamson notes that uncertainty over the political environment, and the tariff picture in particular, remains a drag on confidence, hiring and investment, which looks likely to persist in the coming months.

 

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 10:07

Key Events This Week: Payrolls, Retail Sales, ISM, Beige Book... And War In Iran

Zero Hedge -

Key Events This Week: Payrolls, Retail Sales, ISM, Beige Book... And War In Iran

Outside the obvious and huge attention on the Middle East, the key focus this week will be on the US jobs report on Friday, retail sales on the same day, the ISM indices (today and Wednesday), and the Fed’s Beige Book, also due on Wednesday. European releases will include inflation data tomorrow and the ECB’s accounts of their February meeting on Thursday. Various global PMIs are also out this week.
In politics, highlights include the Two Sessions in China as well as the Spring Statement in the UK. Earnings reports will be due from Costco and Broadcom.

Delving deeper into the US data, the most important release in the week ahead is Friday’s February employment report. DB economists forecast headline payroll growth of 30k, down from 130k previously, with private payrolls rising by 50k after January’s unusually strong 172k gain. The moderation largely reflects payback from outsized hiring last month in private education and health services and construction, where job gains more than doubled their six month averages. Elsewhere in the establishment survey, economists expect average hourly earnings to rise 0.4% month over month, unchanged from January, while the average workweek remains steady at 34.3 hours.

The household survey adds an additional layer of uncertainty this month, as the BLS implements its delayed annual population controls. DB's economists forecast the unemployment rate at 4.3%, though risks around this estimate are elevated in both directions. January data will also be revised using the new controls, and attention will be focused on whether these adjustments meaningfully alter unemployment rates across demographic groups, particularly among younger cohorts, where concerns around entry level hiring remain heightened.

Friday also brings January retail sales, where weather related weakness in auto sales is likely to weigh on the headline figure. DB economists expect headline sales to decline 0.6%, with sales excluding autos down 0.1%, partly reflecting lower gasoline prices. That said, retail control sales are forecast to rebound by 0.3%, pointing to a firmer underlying pace of goods consumption. Tax refunds should provide additional support to spending in coming months, with the average refund running meaningfully higher than a year ago.

Ahead of Friday, several other releases will help set the tone. Today’s manufacturing ISM is expected to edge up to 53.3 from 52.6. Wednesday brings the ADP employment report, forecast at 50k (though seasonals might push it higher), alongside the non manufacturing ISM, seen at 54.0.

Other notable data include February unit motor vehicle sales tomorrow, which is expected at 15.1 million, potentially restrained again by adverse weather. Thursday’s preliminary Q4 productivity and unit labor cost figures are forecast at 1.3% and 2.2%, respectively.

Moving to Europe, the focus will continue to be on inflation, with February prints due for the Eurozone and Italy tomorrow, Switzerland on Wednesday, and Sweden on Thursday. ECB speakers will include President Lagarde today, and the central bank will release the accounts of its February meeting on Thursday. 

In the UK, attention will be on the Spring Statement delivered by the Chancellor tomorrow, and our UK economist previews it here. There will also be the February DMP survey from the BoE on Thursday.

Over in Asia, the spotlight will be on China’s annual Two Sessions starting Wednesday (running through March 11), followed by the National People’s Congress session opening on Thursday, with the 15th Five Year Plan expected. Elsewhere, data highlights will include the February PMIs, both the official and private gauges, in China on Wednesday.

In Japan, the Shunto wage demands due on Thursday are the most anticipated event next week and expects wage demands this year to come in at 6.0%. There will also be the Financial Statements Statistics of Corporations (MoF survey) for Q4 on Tuesday, as well as the February consumer sentiment index on Wednesday.  

Earnings will include tech firms Broadcom, CrowdStrike and Marvell. US consumer firms will continue to be in focus, with reports from Costco and Target.

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

Monday March 2

  • Data: US February ISM manufacturing, UK January net consumer credit, M4, Germany January retail sales, Italy February manufacturing PMI, new car registrations, Canada February manufacturing PMI
  • Central banks: ECB's Lagarde, Nagel and Stournaras speak, BoJ's Himino speaks, BoE's Taylor speaks, BoC’s Kozicki speaks
  • Earnings: AST SpaceMobile, EchoStar, Venture Global, Norwegian Cruise Line

Tuesday March 3

  • Data: US February total vehicle sales, Japan January jobless rate, job-to-applicant ratio, February monetary base, Q4 Ministry of Finance survey, France January budget balance, Eurozone February CPI, Italy February CPI
  • Central banks: Fed's Williams and Kashkari speak, ECB's Kocher and Sleijpen speak
  • Earnings: Crowdstrike, Thales, AutoZone, Target, ASM, Kuehne + Nagel, On Holding, Gitlab
  • Other: UK Spring Statement

Wednesday March 4

  • Data: US February ISM services, ADP report, UK February official reserves changes, China February PMIs, Japan February consumer confidence index, Italy February services PMI, January unemployment rate, Eurozone January PPI, unemployment rate, Canada Q4 labor productivity, February services PMI, Switzerland February CPI, Australia Q4 GDP
  • Central banks: Fed’s Beige Book, ECB's Muller, Cipollone, Villeroy and Guindos speak, BoC’s Macklem speaks
  • Earnings: Broadcom, Bayer, adidas, Veeva, Okta, Davide Campari-Milano
  • Other: China’s Two Sessions start

Thursday March 5

  • Data: US January import price index, export price index, Q4 nonfarm productivity, Q4 unit labor costs, initial jobless claims, UK February new car registrations, construction PMI, Germany February construction PMI, France January industrial production, Italy January retail sales, Eurozone January retail sales, Sweden February CPI
  • Central banks: ECB’s accounts of the February meeting, ECB's Lagarde, Guindos, Rehn and Nagel speak, BoE’s February DMP survey 
  • Earnings: Costco, Petroleo Brasileiro, Marvell, Deutsche Post, Reckitt Benckiser, Ciena, Galderma, Kroger, Universal Music Group
  • Other: China’s NPC’s session starts

Friday March 6

  • Data: US February jobs report, US Retail Sales, January consumer credit, Germany January factory orders
  • Central banks: Fed's Hammack speaks, ECB's Cipollone and Schnabel speak

* * * * *

Finally, looking at just the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data releases this week are the retail sales report and the employment report on Friday. There are several speaking engagements by Fed officials this week, including an event with New York Fed President Williams on Tuesday.

Monday, March 2 

  • 09:45 AM S&P Global US manufacturing PMI, February final (consensus 51.4, last 51.2) 
  • 10:00 AM ISM manufacturing index, February (GS 51.0, consensus 51.5, last 52.6): We estimate that the ISM manufacturing index declined by 1.6pt to 51.0 in February, reflecting reversion after an outsized increase in the prior month. Our manufacturing survey tracker edged up by 0.1pt to 52.4.

Tuesday, March 3 

  • 09:55 AM New York Fed President Williams (FOMC voter) speaks: New York Fed President John Williams will give keynote remarks at America’s Credit Union Government Affairs conference in Washington DC. Speech text and Q&A are expected.
  • 11:55 AM Minneapolis Fed President Kashkari (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Minneapolis Fed President, Neel Kashkari, will participate in a conversation with Mike McKee at the Bloomberg Invest conference in New York City. Q&A is expected. On January 5, Kashkari said, “My guess is we are pretty close to neutral right now.” He added that “we just need to get more data to see [whether inflation or the labor market] is the bigger force, [and] then we can move from a neutral stance to whatever direction is necessary.”
  • 05:00 PM Lightweight motor vehicle sales, February (GS 15.6mn, consensus 15.4mn, last 14.9mn)

Wednesday, March 4 

  • 08:15 AM ADP employment change, February (GS +50k, consensus +50k, last +22k)
  • 09:45 AM S&P Global US services PMI, February final (consensus 52.3, last 52.3) 
  • 10:00 AM ISM services index, February (GS 53.5, consensus 53.5, last 53.8): We estimate that the ISM services index edged down by 0.3pt to 53.5 in February, reflecting a decline in our non-manufacturing survey tracker (-1.3pt to 52.0) but a tailwind from potential residual seasonality.
  • 02:00 PM Fed Releases Beige Book, March meeting period: The Fed’s Beige Book is a summary of regional economic anecdotes from the 12 Federal Reserve districts. The Beige Book for the January FOMC meeting period noted that overall economic activity increased at a slight to modest pace in eight of the twelve Federal Reserve Districts, with three Districts reporting no change and one reporting a modest decline, marking an improvement over the last three reports. In this month’s Beige Book, we will look for anecdotes related to the evolution of labor demand and firms’ expectations of activity growth for the remainder of the year.

Thursday, March 5 

  • 08:30 AM Import price index, January (consensus +0.3%, last +0.1%) 
  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm productivity, Q4 preliminary (GS +2.2%, consensus +1.8%, last +4.9%): Unit labor costs, Q4 preliminary (GS +2.4%, consensus +2.0%, last -1.9%)
  • 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended February 28 (GS 215k, consensus 215k, last 212k): Continuing jobless claims, week ended February 21 (consensus 1,845k, last 1,833k)

Friday, March 6 

  • 08:30 AM Nonfarm payroll employment, February (GS +45k, consensus +60k, last +130k); Private payroll employment, February (GS +45k, consensus +70k, last +172k); Average hourly earnings (MoM), February (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.4%); Unemployment rate, February (GS 4.4%, consensus 4.3%, last 4.3%): We estimate nonfarm payrolls increased 45k in February. On the negative side, we expect a 31k drag from newly striking workers and a modest headwind from poor winter weather after it likely boosted January payroll growth. Additionally, we expect unchanged government payrolls—reflecting a 5k decline in federal government payrolls that is offset by a 5k increase in state and local government payrolls. The big data indicators of job growth we track were mixed in February. On the positive side, the pace of layoffs remained subdued and online measures of job openings stabilized. We estimate that the unemployment rate edged up to 4.4% in February. While other measures of labor market tightness improved slightly on net, the February unemployment rate appears to suffer from positive residual seasonality (the unrounded unemployment rate has increased in each of the last three Februarys by an average of 0.15pp). The report will be accompanied by updated population controls, which are likely to lead to downward revisions to the level of the population, labor force, and household employment. The impact on ratios in the survey (e.g., the unemployment rate and labor force participation rate) is likely to be negligible. We estimate average hourly earnings rose 0.3% month-over-month in February, reflecting neutral calendar effects.
  • 08:30 AM Retail sales, January (GS -0.1%, consensus -0.3%, last flat); Retail sales ex-auto, January (GS +0.1%, consensus flat, last flat); Retail sales ex-auto & gas, January (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.2%, last flat); Core retail sales, January (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.3%, last -0.1%): We estimate core retail sales increased 0.5% in January (ex-autos, gasoline, and building materials; month-over-month SA), reflecting solid alternative data and a tailwind from potential residual seasonality. We estimate headline retail sales declined 0.1%, reflecting a decline in auto sales and lower gasoline prices.
  • 10:15 AM San Francisco Fed President Daly (FOMC non-voter) and Philadelphia Fed President Paulson (FOMC voter) speak: San Francisco Fed President Mary Daly and Philadelphia Fed President Anna Paulson will discuss private sector data at the US Monetary Policy Forum held by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business in New York City. Text and Q&A are expected. On February 17, Daly said, “The Fed has roughly 75bps to go until getting to neutral…the policy stance now is modestly or slightly restrictive.”
  • 01:30 PM Cleveland Fed President Hammack (FOMC voter) speaks: Cleveland Fed President Beth Hammack will participate in a panel discussion on the dollar’s safe-haven status at the US Monetary Policy Forum in New York City. Text and Q&A are expected. On February 10, Hammack said, “Rather than trying to fine-tune the fed funds rate, I’d prefer to err on the side of patience as we assess the impact of recent rate reductions and monitor how the economy performs.” She also noted, “Based on my forecast, we could be on hold for quite some time.”

Soruce: DB, Goldman

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 09:53

Migrants Filmed Catching And Butchering Swans, Ducks In UK And Ireland

Zero Hedge -

Migrants Filmed Catching And Butchering Swans, Ducks In UK And Ireland

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Shocking videos reveal migrants setting traps and snatching protected birds from public waterways, fueling outrage over unchecked immigration destroying local wildlife.

Video evidence from Ireland shows a local resident dismantling crude wire cages placed along Dublin’s Grand Canal by tent-dwelling migrants, believed to be targeting swans and ducks for consumption. 

The footage captures the man, accompanied by his dog, uprooting the traps hidden in the grass near the water’s edge.

In the clip, no direct dialogue is heard, but the intent is clear as the resident methodically removes the snares, preventing what could have been a slaughter of iconic birds.

This incident echoes similar scenes across the UK. One video documents an RSPCA officer confronting a migrant family suspected of poaching and cooking a large white bird, possibly a swan.

“I’m going to get someone to check what bird this is. I think it might be a swan, but do you know the big white birds that you see on the park?” the officer questions.

She inspects the pot: “You can see bones in this bird because he isn’t chicken so I am concerned. There are laws against people taking animals… It’s very serious. It’s very serious if that happens.”

Examining the bin, she notes: “You see problem is there are lot of big white feathers here.”

The family claims the birds were bought and released during a children’s chase game, but the officer warns: “What I need to make sure is everybody here knows that they’re not allowed to take anything from the park. I’m not saying you did.”

Another clip shows a family carrying a wild bird they have clearly taken and are intending to eat.

Another clip shows a migrant grabbing a swan in a park.

Another post asks “What is this migrant doing?” as a man hauls a struggling swan over a railing.

Similar footage captures a man on a bridge snatching a swan from the water below, swinging it by the neck before walking away.

These videos and many more like them have sparked furious reactions online.

The cases parallel the chaos in Springfield, Ohio, where Haitian migrants have been accused of decapitating and eating ducks in parks. 

A resident testified at a city commission meeting: “They’re in the park grabbing up ducks by their neck and cutting their head off and walking off with ’em and eating them.”

He questioned officials: “Who is getting paid? Like how much money is y’all really getting paid? Like to bring them over here, like I know it’s deeper than them.”

As we previously reported, Springfield’s city manager admitted hearing such reports, despite later denials amid media “fact checks” dismissing the issue as misinformation.

This pattern exposes the failures of open-border policies, importing incompatible cultural practices that harm protected wildlife and erode community safety. From Ohio’s overwhelmed streets to Britain’s depleted parks, the toll of mass migration mounts.

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/02/2026 - 09:15

Transcript: MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest

The Big Picture -

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest, is below.

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

 

~~~

 

 

[00:00:16] Barry Ritholtz: On the latest Masters in Business podcast. I sit down with Jeff Chang. He’s co-founder and president of vest. They are a firm that specializes in defined outcome investing, buffered ETFs. They try and remove the uncertainty of outcomes of your investing by using options and derivatives to come up with very, very specific products. I thought our conversation was fascinating, and I think you will also, with no further ado, my podcast with Jeff Chang. Jeff Chang, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:00:52] Jeff Chang: Great to be here, and thanks for having me. Oh, well

[00:00:54] Barry Ritholtz: Thank you so much for coming. I’m kind of always fascinated by people who have unusual or diverse backgrounds. You in particular US Naval Academy and then an MBA from Georgetown. Is that right? What, what was the original career plan?

[00:01:11] Jeff Chang: So, I grew up in Annapolis. The original career plan was to be, you know, be part of the Navy. And unfortunately, I got medically discharged for, for asthma and then, then decided to pursue more of a business path. And that’s what kind of led me to, to Georgetown. And then after Georgetown, I actually, right after, I actually always wanted to start my own company. Right. In fact, this is kind of a funny thing. Most people don’t know this. I’ve never actually said this. When I first started, I actually started a flat screen TV company in 2012, OEMing them from China. And do you remember back in the day, like flat screen TVs used to be like 25, 30,000.

[00:01:54] Barry Ritholtz: Oh yeah. When they first came out, they were crazy.

[00:01:55] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. So I was in DC selling those. In fact, I remember selling TVs to Reagan National Airport. So when you like, look at what terminal you are, back in the early two thousands. Wow. Those were Jeff Chang TVs that were there. No kidding. I think another client was Six Flags. Like when you, you

[00:02:13] Barry Ritholtz: The wait, how long the wait is.

[00:02:14] Jeff Chang: Yeah, yeah, exactly. Exactly. But then, you know, as TVs became further and further down, like I was like, Hey, that’s not the business I want to be in.

[00:02:21] Barry Ritholtz: So all commoditized, why do you want to be

[00:02:23] Jeff Chang: There? Yeah. It all commoditized. So I, it taught me a lot about starting a business on, you know, that and about life, is that I realized that I needed actual hard skills that that created a, a, you know, value add. And also the other component was I, I also realized that doing like accounting books, I didn’t pay too much attention in accounting. So I actually for six months went and studied for the CPA exam and took the CPA exam to be accounting, which was actually a twofold kind of reason. I think one of my mentors once told me is that like, hey, there, there is, for the better word, there’s fu money and FU skills. Right? Right. You don’t have that money. So make sure you’ve built skills in which you’re not always beholden to other people. And if you thought about it that, you know, the two guaranteed things in life is death and taxes. Right. And so in my head was I didn’t wanna be an undertaker, but I could take the CPA exam and assure that

[00:03:27] Barry Ritholtz: Participate in taxes wasn’t

[00:03:29] Jeff Chang: Exactly, exactly. So

[00:03:30] Barry Ritholtz: A growth industry.

[00:03:31] Jeff Chang: So that was the reason why I took the CPA exam was that like, Hey, I know I would never starve because, you know, after the failure of my first firm, I was like, Hey, there’s, you always have to have at least a safety net. And that also informed me that when I started a new company, accounting is actually extremely important when you’re starting a, a, a firm or even a startup for that matter. And it actually came to pass that, that has been a very, very important part of, of my career path as well.

[00:03:59] Barry Ritholtz: So, so it’s certainly a useful set of skills. Yeah. But I’m gonna assume the first business didn’t fail because of bad accounting. Yeah. It’s just a hyper competitive market That’s right. With razor thin margins and as stuff as economies of scale came out. That’s right. The market just dies for that.

[00:04:19] Jeff Chang: Yeah. And that really informed me is that you have to have an edge. I I, I think over the 13 years of founding this company, I noticed that there were actually key features that I noticed even going through Y Combinator, my classmates and people that built very successful companies, they had very common characteristics for their success. Right. In fact, I, I had Asian parents, they optimized for intelligence. Right. Which was very, you know, you get straight A’s you play the violin or the piano and you kind of go through that

[00:04:50] Barry Ritholtz: Process. They’re optimizing for Ivy League admission Exactly. Is what you’re, you’re implying.

[00:04:54] Jeff Chang: Exactly. Exactly. And or be a doctor for

[00:04:58] Barry Ritholtz: That matter. Right. This is so different from Jewish parents. Yeah,

[00:05:01] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So it was, and then as kind of over the years, I realized that the optimization, like if, you know, when I have kids, ’cause you know, I, I don’t have kids, at least none that I know of. But if I did, I would optimize for, actually number one is grit like that. And that grit is the not giving up. Like, like, you know, your company fails, what’s the next thing? Like, you, you know, you pick up yourself from your bootstraps and you, you, you get up and go. It’s almost like the thing is, like, as an example, my parents didn’t let me play video games. Right. But I realized video games actually, if, if you introduce grit, like, you know, if you play Call of Duty, like I was the guy that when I play Call of Duty in my twenties, I would buy the, the headphones that would let me hear whether or not someone’s behind me. ’cause whatever it takes to win, like that type of, you, you ever see that kid that does not wanna lose that like fails, but then gets up and figures out a way to win that is grit. And I feel

[00:05:57] Barry Ritholtz: Like that resilience is more important Exactly right. Than anything

[00:06:00] Jeff Chang: Else. And then the second is, I realize that nothing in this world can be done alone. That success requires you to have partnerships, friendships, and know people that can help build great things. Great things don’t come by yourself. And that’s what I think second is influence your ability to let people see your dream and believe in your dream. Think about this, like, if you’re starting a company, not just selling your product requires influence. Like convincing your first investors, your first employees to quit their jobs, their high paying jobs to make almost nothing and take equity. That’s talk about like selling a dream that’s influence. Like think about, you know, some of the greatest entrepreneurs out there. They, you know, you probably heard like Steve Jobs as a reality distortion field. You know what that is? That’s influence. Right? That is one of the key things.

I think when, when you’re looking at business influence is such a, a, a key thing of, of something that required to have success. ’cause like I said, nothing in the world is done alone. This third, which comes back to my point is creativity. The ability to spot things that other people don’t see. Right. To basically be, to see opportunity, to see things, to combine things together and have that opportunity. Then the last, if you combine it is intelligence. If you do all four, and I can give you examples of people who are immensely successful just with grit. Hmm. And by the way, it’s in that order. Influence, grit, influence, creativity. And last is intelligence.

[00:07:32] Barry Ritholtz: So, so I wanna, I wanna stop you there for a sec. Yeah. Because I wanna spend time going over Y Combinator. Yeah. I wanna talk about this. But before we get there, I mentioned the Naval Academy of such an unusual background. Talk a little bit about what your experiences were like at places like Freddie Mac, the World Bank, FBR and ProShares. That’s such a diverse Yeah. Set of experiences. What did you take away from that life experience and and how did that ultimately lead you to launching your own firm?

[00:08:06] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So I could tell you one of the best things about what the military teaches you is not just teamwork and looking after the people next to you and really making a commitment. But there’s also another thing is work ethic. Like, I, I could tell you that I’m a morning person. I, I didn’t grow up a morning person, but it’s like 5:00 AM I’m up. And, and the funny thing is, my girlfriend’s a night person. She’s like, how are you? Like, sprightly at five 30. And I was like, that is actually learned behavior. Right? So that was like kind of the first thing of, of learning grit and, and you know, tackling the day early on, making your bed things. Those small things in life, I think have been really, I’d say important and, and you know, kind of keystone in in that process. The second is actually when I first started my first job at the World Bank, after trying to start my company, I had to translate fi energy companies in China.

And I had two problems. Number one was I didn’t, my Chinese wasn’t good enough. And secondly, my accounting wasn’t good enough, hence the CPA Right. Came in. I was like, at least I gotta learn one. And then I cut over to Freddie Mac. And if you remember during the 2002, 2003 timeframe is when Freddie Mac went into Restatement. So as a certified public accountant, I was extremely sought after at that time. So I worked at Freddie Mac and I realized that I really wanted to, I read Liar’s Poker by Michael Lewis, and I realized that I, hey, I really wanted to trade mortgages. So I started to

[00:09:42] Barry Ritholtz: Take, which by the way, he said he’s horrified. ’cause he thought this was a cautionary tale. Yeah. And all it did was encourage more people to do that Wall

[00:09:51] Jeff Chang: Street. Yeah, totally. Totally. Reading that book really made me want to be, you know, what he said in the book, big Swinging. Right? Like everybody, it was just a such a, a fun story. It it, it almost painted Wall Street in a specific way, but it was just the interesting part. And, and by the way, it also got me into reading f Bozi about fixed income, about the mortgage market. And, and then I wanted to be a trader. So, you know, I studied for the CFA exam, I got my CFA charter. I didn’t know that would lead me to over a decade of teaching CFA. Right. But that was really fun to do that and, and kind of give back. But, so trading mortgages, Freddie, and then FPRI got to trade during 2008, I got to have a front row seat to seeing the, you know, bear Stearns Lehman, you know, I remember trading repo during the oh eight, September oh eight.

It’s the, the month I lost all my chest hair in, in, in one month. But it was fascinating. I mean, that’s what I thought finance was like. So then, you know, later on I cut over to convertible bonds and options. Then the flash crash hit in, in 2010, which was, by the way, I, I’d never seen an entire trading desk stand up within one minute of everybody’s like, what’s going on? So yeah, I got to see a lot of, of Wall Street in, in my twenties and thirties. It was, it was a definitely a formative time of understanding, you know, kind of what, what made capital markets tick and, and, and understanding and also understanding the pitfalls, the, the hubris of finance that, you know,

[00:11:32] Barry Ritholtz: Well that has to be the big takeaway from oh 8, 0 9 Yeah. Is that markets go up and down. Yeah. And if you’re leveraged Exactly. It’s a problem. And if you’re highly leveraged Yeah. It’s usually pretty fatal. Yeah,

[00:11:47] Jeff Chang: Exactly. And you know, and disasters are always clear in hindsight. Right. And you, you look back and you’re looking at 20, 30% default rates. You’re like, why That would’ve, that would’ve been so clear in your mind when you started to look at some of the data. And so that was really formative. And the other component is, is kind of like what Warren Buffet says. You always know who’s not wearing pants when the water goes out. Yeah. When

[00:12:11] Barry Ritholtz: The tide goes out.

[00:12:12] Jeff Chang: For sure. Yeah. Exactly. And so I always, I I’d say think about, hey, if the tide goes out, make sure the, the money we manage for our clients that we’re, we got pants on. Right.

[00:12:24] Barry Ritholtz: Ri risk management turns out to be more than just a exactly. Phrase. It’s really important if you’re running other people’s

[00:12:30] Jeff Chang: Minds. Exactly. And it’s something that you live and breathe. And what I actually, you know, a lot of our investment products is to try to get our clients to, to understand that. And you utilize kind of, a lot of the tools that we build are basically pants. Like, you know, when the water goes out, make sure that, that you have something there because of uncertainty.

[00:12:51] Barry Ritholtz: That’s to say the very least. So, so let’s talk a little bit about that. You come out of this experience on a desk through the financial crisis. You launch Vest in 2012. What was the motivator? What led you to say, Hey, I think we could do this better?

[00:13:07] Jeff Chang: Yeah, so I had a very short stint at ProShares where I met my co-founder, Koran, he worked on the structuring desk at, at Barclays. And we talked about, you know, like, Hey, let’s start our own firm. And then our first idea was going to be, you know, buffers like, like, like downside protection that we saw in the structure note market. And by the way, this actually segued into the mortgage crisis because in 2008, the largest issuer structure notes was Lehman Brothers. Right. Like, you have a hundred percent protected note and then now you’re standing in bankruptcy court. So that was a big change in the industry. I think the structure note industry went from 120 billion to 30 billion in, in that timeframe from after the 2008 crisis. So I,

[00:13:56] Barry Ritholtz: I’ll tell you a funny story. Yeah. I was a market strategist at a brokerage firm in oh 2, 0 3, and we got pitched a downside protected SMA and I was just sitting in, in a conference room hearing this pitch, what are the, any questions? And I didn’t ask the obvious question that I thought, which was, well, great, the NASDAQ’s down 81%. Yeah. Where were you five years ago? Who needs this now? But the question I asked and got got called into the corporate council’s office for was, Hey, what about counterparty risk? How do we know Yeah. That you guys are gonna be there to, to make the trade good. Sir Lehman Brothers has been here for 189 years. It’ll be here long after you’re gone. I’m like, okay. No, it’s an actual risk that no one was even discussing. Yeah. It was just assumed. So it turned out that, you know, counterparty risk is a real, is a real thing. Oh, it

[00:14:57] Jeff Chang: It, yeah. It’s a very real thing.

[00:14:59] Barry Ritholtz: So we’re gonna talk a little more about Vest and Buffer funds in a moment, but I just wanna get the timing right and talk a little bit about your experiences at Y Combinator. You launched Vest with your co-founder in 2012. You joined Y Combinator in 2015. What, what led you to saying, Hey, let’s, let’s see if we can hook up with the guys over at Y Combinator?

[00:15:23] Jeff Chang: Yeah, so that’s the thing. In finances, there’s not too much innovation, right? Because it’s a lot of regulation and so on and so forth. And so even at our company, we, we always, even our identity today is still, you know, Silicon Valley meets Wall Street. Right. I always think that, like in my mind, if, you know, someone in Silicon Valley were to come into our business, they could end up in jail. Right. Or if Wall Street ends up in, in Silicon Valley, you know, you, you, you might be, you know, just end up in a ditch. ’cause you know, you’ll

[00:15:57] Barry Ritholtz: Be run over for sure.

[00:15:58] Jeff Chang: Yeah, exactly. Because the end of the day is, you know, we went four years with no income. Wow. Right? Like lived off our Wall Street bonuses, me and my co-founder Kran Sue, like, we didn’t get paid for, you know, four plus years to found this company. Like that’s how much you have to the grit and the belief in something. And, and that culture really, really, I think comes out of kind of startup, kind of the Silicon Valley area. Y Combinator at the time

[00:16:26] Barry Ritholtz: Run run by Paul Graham, is it

[00:16:29] Jeff Chang: Paul Graham at, that was the first year Paul Graham stepped down and Sam Altman when I showed

[00:16:35] Barry Ritholtz: Up Ah, gotcha.

[00:16:36] Jeff Chang: Was president of Y Combinator. So 2015,

[00:16:38] Barry Ritholtz: I didn’t realize

[00:16:39] Jeff Chang: 2015. Yeah. Sam was president of Y Combinator. For the folks out there that don’t know. So yc, you know, similar to like a college application, you, you fill out an online college application, you actually don’t need a company. They, they help you form the firm. And you know, the companies that have come out of that program, you know, Airbnb, Reddit, Coinbase, DoorDash, OpenAI was funded by YC Research. So all of that, all of those firms came out of yc. So in fact, I think I read a book called The launchpad, which talks about yc, the companies that they’re, I mean, the first class of YC included Sam Altman, Justin Kahn, who founded Twitch, and Alexis Hanon who founded Reddit. And I think there was like, correct mem May, maybe nine companies. I mean, that’s a all star cast if you ask me for Yeah,

[00:17:33] Barry Ritholtz: Absolutely.

[00:17:34] Jeff Chang: For a class. And so it was definitely someplace that we wanted to be around. There weren’t a lot of finance firms. In fact, vest is the largest asset manager to merge outta yc. So it was definitely something to try something different and really in, get into the Silicon Valley and really push the innovation within, within finance.

[00:17:58] Barry Ritholtz: I don’t know if this is still the case, but a couple of years ago, the standard deal was something like half a million dollars for 7% of the company, plus a three month program of building, iterating, pitching, et cetera. That’s right. Does that more or less sound right? That’s

[00:18:13] Jeff Chang: Right. That’s the deal Today Our deal was probably close to one fifth of that.

[00:18:17] Barry Ritholtz: Oh really? Yeah. Well, 10 years ago. Yeah, exactly.

[00:18:20] Jeff Chang: A lot of changed over the last

[00:18:21] Barry Ritholtz: Decade.

[00:18:22] Jeff Chang: And, and, and they have done a great job. I I, I think they have maintained their, I I, I think the stat was since 2012, 20% of the super unicorns were funded by Y Combinator. Wow. That’s amazing. And then like second place is like 3% and plus or something like that. And

[00:18:43] Barry Ritholtz: This is like a full on bootcamp where it’s three months and they are really taking you through the process. Here’s how you build a startup. Here’s how you iterate. When you first joined yc, did you have any idea what the final product of Vest was gonna be? Or did that experience clarify where you wanted to go? There

[00:19:04] Jeff Chang: Were certain, we went in with the idea of buffers and downside protection. There were certain pivots as far as like, Hey, what’s the best delivery vehicle to start with?

[00:19:15] Barry Ritholtz: Meaning an ETF as opposed to an SA

[00:19:18] Jeff Chang: Versus, exactly. Exactly. But that was the foundational, if you even look at our application, our pitch, it was exactly talking about the need for downside protection, the need to, you know, fix liquidity and credit risk and other types of instruments. Those were kind of the foundational problems because YC always says that like, make something that people want. And then don’t just come up with the ideas. Start with the problem

[00:19:42] Barry Ritholtz: You’re solving for, solving a

[00:19:44] Jeff Chang: Specific problem you’re solving. And the problem needs to be painful enough. And so anybody out there that’s ever thinking about starting a startup, always start with the problem first and make sure the problem is painful enough for your customer. That that becomes, you know, how you solve it can change a little bit. But the problem always existed and, and we thought that that was a, a, a noble problem to, and, and a painful enough problem to, to seek.

[00:20:10] Barry Ritholtz: That’s a very customer focused approach to building a business. I don’t, I don’t know if Wall Street necessarily thinks in those terms. There tends to be an attitude of this is how it’s been, it’s been successful. Why do you think you’re smarter than everybody else? Smarter than the market? Like, that’s the sort of pushback you’ve gotten and that you tend to get when you roll out a different approach. That’s right. How has the experience been marrying the Wall Street ethos where failure is abhorrent? Yeah. And the Silicon Valley mindset, which is, hey, failure just gets you to the solution. It’s just one more step. Yeah.

[00:20:53] Jeff Chang: And, and that’s where kind of the ethos of our Silicon Valley meets Wall Street is that we live in both worlds. Like our background, me and Qurans are Wall Street backgrounds. That, that there is no move fast and break things mentality on our Wall Street ethos. Right. Right. It is measure four times cut once. This is people’s livelihoods, their, their wealth. So that part we did not adopt, not like break things type mentality. That is not, it’s

[00:21:25] Barry Ritholtz: Hard to do that when you’re a highly regulated industry.

[00:21:27] Jeff Chang: Exactly. Exactly. Second is that we also realized you can’t do this alone. It’s not like we’re starting an Airbnb where we can just kind of do X, Y, and Z. We needed partnerships. We needed, like coming back to the point of influence. Like we needed people that really could help us with innovation. Hence we actually only have two investors. One is Siebel Global Markets, Chicago Board Option Exchange, the largest option exchange in the world. And First Trust one of the largest ETF providers here in the United States that has been intricate in the ability to shape and mold the industry. Just like even with the exchange, like, wait,

[00:22:03] Barry Ritholtz: Let me roll you back. Yeah. You said you only had two investors

[00:22:07] Jeff Chang: Now today.

[00:22:07] Barry Ritholtz: Now, today all So let, before we get there, let’s, let’s talk about the, the Post Y Combinator experience. So they give you barely six figures Yeah. For a small chunk of the company. They, they take you through a, a bootcamp Yeah. That teaches you all these different things from focus on problem solving to iteration to pitching investors. Yeah. Who were the early investors? Invest.

[00:22:34] Jeff Chang: So we had our lead coming outta y Combinator was First Round Capital. People aren’t familiar. That’s the company

[00:22:41] Barry Ritholtz: That It’s a great name. Yeah. If you’re doing venture investing.

[00:22:43] Jeff Chang: Exactly. They were one of the first investors in a small company called Uber. And they had, so that worked out okay. Yeah. They got a lot of big wins there. And after that, you know, we had kind of a party round of a lot of different like angels and other, other smaller VCs. But after that, that’s when SIBO came in and, and wanted a, a bigger stake in the firm. But the whole YC experience was very much like the show Silicon Valley. Right.

[00:23:13] Barry Ritholtz: Which I, which I just loved. Yeah. So great.

[00:23:16] Jeff Chang: And to the point where, like, when we got to yc, we rented a hacker house. By the way, the house that we rented was called Hacker House. And it was a one story building with like three bedrooms, not enough bedrooms for all of us that were working there. I think Koran had to sleep on the floor on a mattress for three months. And by the way, this is coming from being over a decade on Wall Street. Like, we’re now sleeping on the floor.

[00:23:44] Barry Ritholtz: Hey, there’s nothing to do, but get this done.

[00:23:46] Jeff Chang: EE exactly. And this is why I I say like, sometimes like if a former trader on Wall Street ends up in Silicon Valley, they may end up in a dish. ’cause like you have to go four years, no pay sleep on the floor. It’s not fun. Where you’re used to like wearing, you know, suits and loafers on Park Avenue. It’s a big shock to the system. But that’s the thing is like, you know, at the same time, it’s, it’s to okay, sleeping on the floor, it’s better than sleeping on the ground when, when you’re in the military, but that, that’s the grit that you kind of go through. Right.

[00:24:14] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up, we continue our conversation with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest, talking about his experiences at Y Combinator. I’m Barry Riol. You are listening to Masters of Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jeff Chang. He is the co-founder and president of Vest. The firm manages $50 billion in ETFs that are described as outcome oriented investing. Some people call them buffer funds. So you have this experience with Y Combinator, any of that graduating class with you, you’re still in touch with who else were Oh,

[00:25:11] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So I’m not sure if folks out there know GitLab. Oh, of course. Sid. Sid was our, our group. My group,

[00:25:18] Barry Ritholtz: No relationship to GitHub, which predates that by

[00:25:22] Jeff Chang: A long time. But yeah. But GitLab was our, I think they IPO’ed on the Nasdaq, I think over 5 billion or something like that. They’re doing really well. There was, the equipment share was also our, our batch. A lot, lot of lot of big winners in in our, and by the way, you’ve probably been to college where you go into a lecture hall Right. And you have your first day of class. The first day of yc. You know what they tell you? They’re like, you know, 4% of you guys in this room will be billionaires. Right. You know,

[00:25:54] Barry Ritholtz: No intimidation factor at all,

[00:25:55] Jeff Chang: By the way, that’s the math. Right? Right. Sure. Like on average it’s a 4%. I I think right now it’s like five to 6% unicorn rate. But how many classes can you go through that? Like, you’re like, Hey, 4% of four to 5% of you guys are gonna have extremely successful companies coming outta this class. And by the way, you look around and you’re like, oh man, is that really possible? And then you, you, you blink 13 years later, you’re like, wow, it really did happen. Like, there, there’s incredibly successful firms and incredibly successful people. And you look back and like, even now, I look at my group partners. I, I look back, my group partners were incredible. I had Gary Tan who found an initial eyes and also is now the president, COY Combinator, Alexis o’ Handon, founder Reddit. Justin Conn founded Twitch Cap Meac, who was like an allstar in, in in marketing and pr like I had an Allstar group.

[00:26:47] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah, no, it definitely, definitely sounds like it. We’re talking about winners, but Silicon Valley wears losers like a badge of pride. Yeah. Like it’s, hey, this is what’s expected, which is very different than the way the East Coast tends to approach things. Tell us about that. Not being afraid to fail, not being afraid to try things, iterate and take this doesn’t work. Let’s go with that. How, how different is that experience on the West coast than what you experienced on Wall Street?

[00:27:22] Jeff Chang: Yeah, I, I mean definitely in Silicon Valley, failure is, is okay. They, they have a saying if you’re gonna fail, fail fast. Right. Whereas I feel like on Wall Street is like, you don’t want to fail fast. Like that’s called a blow up. Right. Right. So there, there’s some parts. Given the industry that we’re in, we had to ignore some of the, the, the aspects of it. I think everything that we did, I wouldn’t say was ultimate failure. Maybe not the success that we wanted because we wanted to make sure everything we built were strong in foundation. Right. It would like last stand the test of time no matter what happened. Hmm. Maybe not wildly successful, but then that, that’s how you pivot. So it’s not necessarily failure per se, but not the success you’re looking for. Then pivot and try to find other ways to deliver and how to solve the problem better. But I, I still think that the idea of, of not being afraid of failure and that grit and the ability to, you know, pick yourself up. It, it’s that attitude that like, you know, this is not the end. Failure is just the, the mother of success. And you just have to keep learning from those mistakes. Is everything is a learning process. I can’t tell you one person that I know that’s successful. That has not failed.

[00:28:40] Barry Ritholtz: No, that makes perfect sense. You know, you, you don’t know what’s gonna work and you don’t know what’s not gonna work until you try. Yeah. And if you know there, the, there’s a story about, hey, if you’re not failing occasionally, then you’re just not taking enough risk. Yeah. Say to say the very least. All right. So, so let’s talk a little bit about how this developed. You come out of Y Combinator sometime in 2015. When did you first start taking client assets, client money?

[00:29:12] Jeff Chang: Well, NYC we were taking client assets. I think we launched our first mutual fund in 2016. It was the first buffer fund of, of its kind. And then,

[00:29:24] Barry Ritholtz: So wait, let’s stay with mutual funds, which have their own complications with capital gains tax. Sure. Given what you do primarily with derivatives and options in order to create that buffer, how, how does that play out in a mutual fund wrapper?

[00:29:41] Jeff Chang: Yeah. There are obviously challenges that may not be as, let’s say, the same as like an ETF, that, you know, in 2019 they introduced the in kind. This is also another example of the partnership with sibo. It’s, it’s been

[00:29:57] Barry Ritholtz: Around for real estate for forever it seems. Yeah, that’s right. And it just took Wall Street a while to catch up to that. Explain what in con in kind creation and redemption looks like. Yes. And what it means to you.

[00:30:09] Jeff Chang: So in mutual funds, there’s a challenge in, in some cases that in, if there’s a redemption, you would sell your securities, which could have the potential to realize gains. And ETFs not just unique to these ETFs are all ETFs. They have the ability to, let’s say in kind securities. So when someone wants their money back, instead of giving them market maker selling securities and giving them cash, in some cases you can give them securities thereby not potentially realizing the gain for, for the shareholders. So it per has the potential for tax efficiency by having in kind. Now, prior to 2019 October of 2019, that was not, we weren’t able to do that with options that was introduced in October of 2019. So we launched our first Buffer ETFs in November of 2019 in partnership with our partners at First Trust. And so that has been one of the fastest growing areas, not just for our firm, but as the ETF industry as a whole.

[00:31:15] Barry Ritholtz: So, so let’s talk a little bit about what a Buffer fund does. What are the advantages? What are you giving up in order to obtain those vantages? What, what’s the largest fund? What’s the largest ETF now at Vest?

[00:31:30] Jeff Chang: So the largest buffer fund and the one at Vest is BUFR. And it’s built good ticker. Yeah. It’s built on the foundation that, you know, the, the kind of fundamentals of the strategy is the buffer strategy, which is, you know, let’s say you get s and p exposure for one year, the first 10% is protected. So as an example of strategy, if s and P is down 10, you’re flat for the year and then you get upside up to, let’s say a predetermined cap. So let’s say s and P is up 15, you’re up 15. But the most you can make is 15. So if s and P is up 16, you’re up 15. Right. So you’re capped out at that 15%

[00:32:09] Barry Ritholtz: Percent so’s like 23 and 24 kind of unusual. Sure. You don’t usually see 25% two years in a row. Yeah. But if you were in the fund in 22, down 22% Yeah. Means you’re only down 12%. Is that That’s right.

[00:32:26] Jeff Chang: That’s right. So

[00:32:27] Barry Ritholtz: That’s the trade

[00:32:27] Jeff Chang: Off. Yeah. And the, and here’s the thing is that most people don’t realize these strategies have the potential to outperform the market. Even if you’re talking about, you know, high double digit equity returns. ’cause think about this, in 2022 because of inflation, when interest rates went up, stocks and bonds both went down at the same time. Right? Right. You could have mixed your stocks and bonds any way you wanted in 2022 you were

[00:32:48] Barry Ritholtz: Down 60 40 was negative. Exactly. In 2022.

[00:32:51] Jeff Chang: And unless you were managing money 40 years ago, you had not experienced inflation. Right. And you couldn’t hide anywhere. I mean, you were like Tom Brady choosing between alimony and child support while taking your kids to juujitsu practice. Right. Like the thing is there was nowhere to hide. Right. Right. Whereas if you were hedging, and the great thing about hedging is if you buy s and p and you buy an s and p put that put is perfectly negatively correlated to estimate. It’s like buying

[00:33:17] Barry Ritholtz: Insurance. It’s an inverse. Exactly. Its the

[00:33:19] Jeff Chang: Opposite. Right. And so imagine if you had a strategy that did not participate in the majority of the drawdowns in 2022, that means you had more to invest to take advantage of the gains in 20 23, 20 24, and 2025. This is the compounding effect of winning without losing. Right. It’s the compounding effect of playing offense and defense at the same time. Because the end of the day is, a lot of times, you know, these types of strategies are not the get rich game. If you’re 20 years old, probably not the strategy for you. But, you know, in in, in our industry, a lot of the people that have wealth, they’re in the stay rich game. Right. These types of strategies are in the stay rich game. ’cause if, if you have wealth, you just don’t want to be poor. Right. So that’s why that’s the kind of crux of protecting your, your equity exposure.

And the, the idea is, the issue with hedging has always been that to hedge with options and so on and so forth. One of the biggest, and they had surveys on why, you know, investors and financial advisors don’t hedge with options. And they all, everybody said the same. Two things, compliance and scalability. You know, the compliance burden associated with trading options and the scalability. ’cause when you buy a fund, you buy a stock, you, you could put in your portfolio, fall asleep for 30 years, maybe you boun, rebalance once a quarter. You buy an option every 30 days, 60 days from now, you have to trade it by having it inside a fund, we can trade that for you. And so now you can asset, allocate, rebalance once a quarter. It solves a lot of those issues. And, and this is the, the thing that I find very interesting is two things.

Number one is these strategies have been around for over 30 years. The buffer structure note has been around for years. Buffer annuities I think were introduced in 2010. All we did was cut the bank insurance company out. Like instead of having the banker insurance company hedge themselves with options and then issue you a policy or issue you a No, we just said, why not just put the hedge in a fund and now you own it? We cut the middleman out of the middle. The other component is to think about in business that I, I always look back, so Richard Thaer, the professor at University of Chicago won the Nobel Prize for behavioral finance. Right. The

[00:35:31] Barry Ritholtz: Nudge essentially created the field.

[00:35:32] Jeff Chang: Yeah. The nudge. And I believe one of the studies by, by Cornell University had this study of, I think they had kids in the lunch line. They gave them free apples. Like you get the end of the, you get a free apple. Right. By the way, the consumption was like less than like, I don’t know, 20%. Like it was a very low consumption rate. No one took the apple, then they cut the apples up and they put them in little bags. By the way, the consumption went through the roof. Why? This was the nudge, this was the idea that you make it simple, people will use it. Think about options as apples. And then that we had bagged those apples to make it easier for the user to consume them without the compliance and scalability burden to them. Because theoretically, any broker or any financial advisor out there can actually trade those themselves. But that’s like the same thing. Like every child could sit there and cut their own slice their own apples, but they don’t wanna do that.

[00:36:27] Barry Ritholtz: So let me ask you, ’cause ’cause you’ve brought this up a few times, and I wanna hone in on this. Is your target consumer mom and pop main street investors? Or are you focused more on the advisor channel or brokerage channel? Who, or, or all three, some combination.

[00:36:46] Jeff Chang: We are not that focused in the retail space mostly. And, and by the way, I would say a hundred percent of our focus is in financial professionals. Really. Because that, those are our partners. Those are our, the, the people that we stand side by side with. We build products that, those are the people we’re solving problems for them, which they’re solving problems for their clients. We stand side by side with the financial professionals that manage, you know, the,

[00:37:19] Barry Ritholtz: And once you bring them up to speed, it’s, it’s incumbent on them to find the clients that think are the right fit for this. And they get to explain that rather,

[00:37:28] Jeff Chang: Rather than Exactly, because every single client is different and unique. We make products across and every client is different. And how that, that gets utilized. We, we help the financial advisor even, you know, how to best build and achieve their client’s investment objectives. But as far as like the end client, that, that’s typically not, not our customer.

[00:37:49] Barry Ritholtz: So, so I mentioned 60 40 earlier, does a buffered fund act as a substitute for 60 40? In other words, if you own, whether it’s 60 40, 70 30, you own bonds for income, of which there hasn’t been a lot over the past 15, 20 years, but also as a non-correlated asset with equity other than 81 and and 2022 does this and it offsets the volatility in drawdowns inequities. Do buffered funds behave similarly to a 60 40? Is that the thinking? I

[00:38:25] Jeff Chang: Wouldn’t say similarly. Let let me give you a, a kind of a how, how we think about it. So if you look at, let’s say, a strategy of a 10% buffer on s and p, in fact, you know, there are indexes out there that track these. Even if you compare that to let’s say like a BlackRock 60 40 portfolio, you actually notice that the standard deviation is almost identical. The volatility is very similar Right. Over the long term. But the source of the risk management is different. Right. You’re actually hedging, you’re not hoping that the correlation between stocks and bonds, the negative correlation is there that, you know, when my stocks go down, I hope my bonds go up kind of situation. Right? Well

[00:39:06] Barry Ritholtz: Historically they do most of the time. Yeah. They didn’t in 2022. They didn’t in 1981. Exactly. You know, so it, it’s every 40 years or so we seem to get this headache

[00:39:16] Jeff Chang: Or with inflation at, you know, 3%. What happens if inflation rears its head again in 20 year,

[00:39:23] Barry Ritholtz: The next rising. Exactly. You’ll end up with the same issue the next time we see a serious set. Exactly.

[00:39:29] Jeff Chang: And this is why we say why not diversify your risk management and hedge. So if I have a hundred dollars portfolio, and let’s say I have $60 in equity, $40 in fixed income, and let’s just say I take 10 bucks out, I put six, take six from equity, four from fixed income. I put it into let’s say a 10% buffer strategy. In s and p, perhaps the standard deviation of the portfolio could be very, very similar. But notice the source of your risk management has changed. You’ve introduced hedging as the source of your risk management without the compliance, without the trading. Scalability, issues of options. You’ve introduced hedging as the source of risk management if inflation were to rear its head. ’cause the thing is, this is what everybody needs to ask themselves if inflation were to come back. Right. Which is a very, is not a, is a very, there’s a high

[00:40:20] Barry Ritholtz: So non-zero

[00:40:21] Jeff Chang: Possibility. It’s

[00:40:22] Barry Ritholtz: No possibility way above that. Yeah, exactly.

[00:40:24] Jeff Chang: What in your portfolio is going to save you if 2022 repeats itself? That’s the question everybody needs to ask. I always get the, I answer commodities, great commodities. It’s a timing trade, right? That’s right. You can get in, it’ll work. But when it’s not inflationary, what happens to that trade? I, I mean I’m not, well

[00:40:44] Barry Ritholtz: Lemme point out that gold didn’t do great in 21 or 22. Yeah. It’s only in the past few years where it’s really exploded higher.

[00:40:53] Jeff Chang: That’s right. That’s right. So I’m not smart enough to time that trade. And that’s the great thing about these types of solutions is you don’t have to time the trade, right? Like you’re diversifying your risk management through just hedging. And like I said, repeat it again. This is the stay rich game, right? How do we protect wealth? Not, not like make exorbitant amounts of it, but protect wealth and, and, and get a, a decent return from, from people’s wealth.

[00:41:22] Barry Ritholtz: So buffer is 10% hedged on the s and p 500. Tell us about some of the other ETFs you guys run.

[00:41:29] Jeff Chang: So one of the kind of overall themes that we’ve seen in the market is, you know, two things that really people are looking for is downside protection. But the other one is income generation. As the boomers are in retirement, the need for yield has really shown how high it is. I mean, if you look at the derivative income space, I think in 2018, and Morningstar ranked 58th last year is ranked ninth in flows. Right? People are looking for income. And as volatility goes up, just like strategies, like writing cover calls are extremely, it’s a another way to derive yield by monetizing volatility in different asset classes. You could do it in gold, you can do it in Bitcoin, you can do it in equities, you can do it in fixed income. And that’s the thing is people were always thinking one dimensionally that like the innovation is always about thinking three dimensionally when everybody else is thinking in two dimension. Right? This is why we have, you know, build strategies to derive income from, you know, not just equities, but fixed income. But for from gold, from bitcoin, from any asset class you can. So

[00:42:37] Barry Ritholtz: Give us a few ETFs that are primarily income focused. Yeah.

[00:42:41] Jeff Chang: So one of our biggest ones is K and G, which tracks the dividend aristocrats our DVI, which tracks the dividend achievers. These all provide, you know, attractive level of yield I think. So

[00:42:57] Barry Ritholtz: Dividend aristocrats tend to be high dividend, low price. They tend not to be high PE companies. Yeah. So they’re fairly stable. Is that, is that, yeah.

[00:43:08] Jeff Chang: So the companies that have grown their dividend, this was created by s and p back in 2005, companies that grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. Wow. And these are dividend growers. They’re not dividend payers. So they typically, I believe, you know, yield less than 2%, but they’ve grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. So for a company to grow their dividend for 25 consecutive years,

[00:43:29] Barry Ritholtz: That’s a stable business. Yes.

[00:43:31] Jeff Chang: And it has to cash flow. It’s not a pe play. Right, right. For, for all intents and purposes, it, it is companies that have to have strong moats. And the other thing that people miss is good corporate governance. ’cause who makes dividend policy? The board for a board to never cut a dividend for 25 years. It, it actually was a filter for good corporate governance. Now

[00:43:52] Barry Ritholtz: And that stock symbol is that ETF symbol is

[00:43:55] Jeff Chang: K-N-G-K-N-G.

[00:43:57] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. And, and you guys generate additional income on that with cover cover

[00:44:03] Jeff Chang: Call writing. That’s right. That’s

[00:44:04] Barry Ritholtz: Right. So if it’s a 2% yield, what do you actually

[00:44:07] Jeff Chang: Ballpark generating? So we’re, our distribution yield’s probably in the past year over 8%.

[00:44:13] Barry Ritholtz: Really? That’s a big number. And we’re on

[00:44:15] Jeff Chang: Average, I believe covering around 20% of every single name. So, you know, if I have a hundred shares of Walmart, I’m writing an at the money call and let’s say 20 of those shares as an example to achieve that target income. So one of the things that core beliefs that we have when writing cover calls is like one of the biggest drivers is stock selection. You pick good stocks, you get good results. Right. While you know the aristocrats, they don’t have the high flying mag seven names. Right. But definitely as you look forward into the windshield, these are really gonna be the names as the market bronze out. Right? Like I really do think in the next year you’re really looking at kind of a barbell approach where you, you, you have the NVIDIAs and the, and the high hyperscalers in your portfolio, but you really need to have the strong staples that cash flow, especially.

[00:45:05] Barry Ritholtz: What are, what are some of the names in KNG?

[00:45:08] Jeff Chang: Well, you got like Chevron, Walmart, like your really blue chip names that are there. I mean, look at Chevron. They, they, they have the potential to be, you know, one of the beneficiaries of oil in Venezuela, right? Like they were, they were there before. They, these are the cash flowing like crime like companies that like, like I said, grown their dividend for 25 consecutive years. These are strong, strong names that are out there.

[00:45:34] Barry Ritholtz: Do you, do you do anything with fixed income on the yield side? Yeah. As well.

[00:45:37] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So we have cover calls on high yield tracking. HYG gives you also, I believe a double digit distribution yield only covering about, you know, 20 to 25% of the portfolio. So you’re still getting over, you know, on a weekly basis. 70.

[00:45:55] Barry Ritholtz: And and what’s that? ETF symbol

[00:45:57] Jeff Chang: HYTI Heidi. Yeah. And,

[00:46:01] Barry Ritholtz: And what about Commod? Do you do anything on the commodity side? So

[00:46:04] Jeff Chang: We have gold, I-I-G-L-D. So you know, biggest knock on gold has been the hunk of metal. Since your portfolio doesn’t do anything now you can monetize the volatility and have, you know, potentially

[00:46:16] Barry Ritholtz: Same process covered coal writing. Exactly. So it, this is why CBO is a partner with you guys. How does that relationship help you manage all of this option writing all this? That’s a great call

[00:46:30] Jeff Chang: Activity. That’s a great question. So let’s take I Gold as an example, right? Prior to that fund, GLD options stopped trading at four o’clock. By the way, this is one of the reasons why SIBO partnered with us, is how do we solve certain issues in the option market for the construction of of funds, right? If options stop trading at four o’clock and I need to know the close, I can’t create an ETF on that. That’s right. Right. SS and p options. SPI options, they trade, they close at four 15 today. GLD options stop trading at four 15. By the way, that’s a really cool statement to say that the entire street trades GLD options, that extra 15 minutes because we wanted that,

[00:47:15] Barry Ritholtz: That’s great.

[00:47:16] Jeff Chang: But that’s because you

[00:47:17] Barry Ritholtz: Have, you have to take the closing price at four and then use it for an in day

[00:47:21] Jeff Chang: Hedge or Yeah. We that we need that, we need that option market to be open that extra 15 minutes. And by the way, that, that those products by First Trust, invest, are, are the reason why we have an extra 15 minutes to trade GLD options. So if you’re, you’re late and you’re trading at 4 0 5, that, that’s us.

[00:47:38] Barry Ritholtz: And, and option trading is so much more complicated. So much more difficult. Yeah. Like you, I started on an equity desk, but have always been a little bit of a, an option junkie. Yeah. ’cause it’s so fascinating and most people use, don’t use options correctly, they’re just making like a lottery ticket bet. Yeah. Which tends not to be smart. You guys are using options for a very specific purpose to achieve what you describe as a defined outcome. Yeah. Solving

[00:48:09] Jeff Chang: Result, a problem,

[00:48:10] Barry Ritholtz: Solving a problem started with a problem. Really interesting. Yeah. Coming up we continue our conversation with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jeff Chang. He’s president and co-founder of Vest. The firm specializes in outcome oriented investing via primarily ETFs. They run over $50 billion in assets. Yeah. Before I get to my favorite questions, I want to ask any, so we’ve covered stocks, bonds, commodities, you mentioned crypto. What are you doing in terms of crypto and generating additional defined outcome results? Yeah. Using derivatives.

[00:49:15] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So we have a strategy also target income almost, I believe about a 18, 19% yield. And you’re still only covering about 20%. So that strategy tracks Bitcoin. So you can get on a weekly basis, let’s say, you know, 70, 80% of the upside in Bitcoin. And then a, you know, really high, high, almost 20% yield by monetizing the volatility. It’s the same thing because like, just like gold, some of the knock is, is that it just sits in my portfolio doesn’t do anything. And the value,

[00:49:47] Barry Ritholtz: Well no one could say that about Bitcoin. Yeah. It’s always doing something going up or going

[00:49:51] Jeff Chang: Down. Yeah, yeah, exactly. And

[00:49:52] Barry Ritholtz: What’s the ETF symbol for that?

[00:49:54] Jeff Chang: I bit, I’m sorry. I’m sorry. I’m, I’m sorry. Not I That’s black eye. Yeah, yeah. Defi. D-F-D-F-I-I. That’s right.

[00:50:02] Barry Ritholtz: DFII. Yeah. And so that’s options. How much of the upside, how much of the downside do you get and give up? Or is it just geared,

[00:50:13] Jeff Chang: We’re just writing cover calls on to Target, you know, a specific yield. I, like I said, I think anywhere from recovering every week about 20 to 25%. And at the money, how

[00:50:23] Barry Ritholtz: Often do those roll? Every week. Every week. Wow.

[00:50:25] Jeff Chang: Every Friday. Yeah. The reason why we like Weaks is that when you sell a call, you want the premium to go to zero, right? That’s right. And that decay accelerates in that last week if you’re selling a monthly option. So if you like do it four times a a month, you, you, you have the potential to generate more yield because you’re always capturing that extra decay. It’s like, it’s like football tickets, right? Like you ever go on StubHub like game times at one o’clock and you, you, you go on StubHub at 12, the ticket starts to drop like a rock. Right? Imagine if you kept tracking that and you, you made money off that, that that drop Right. And everything kind of follows that, that in fact, there’s actually only one thing that doesn’t follow that, you know what that is?

[00:51:09] Barry Ritholtz: Go on

[00:51:10] Jeff Chang: Giants tickets, they decay before the season starts.

[00:51:14] Barry Ritholtz: Well, as a guy who used to be in New Jersey for sure. Or

[00:51:18] Jeff Chang: Jets tickets, actually both of those are anomaly. They

[00:51:21] Barry Ritholtz: So really, so in other words, bad assets Yeah. Don’t generate good option returns. Yeah. That, that’s pretty reasonable. Yeah. How often do things get called away? That’s obviously the risk when you’re writing calls. Sure. How, how do you manage around that? How frequently is that built into your models? I mean,

[00:51:39] Jeff Chang: That can happen Oh, pretty frequently. But here’s the deal. Like, like think about this. And this is just a concept of of of of, let’s say I collect a $2 premium and the stock goes up $1.

[00:51:53] Barry Ritholtz: You’re good. Yeah.

[00:51:55] Jeff Chang: I made a a dollar, but it still got called away, but I still made a dollar. I just buy the stock back or however, however way I deal with the assignment, depending on the, the strategy. So the idea is as long as the stock doesn’t go above the premium, if I’m writing out the money or what, what I’ve actually gotten. Exactly. It

[00:52:10] Barry Ritholtz: Gives you a buffer to repurchase the stock not at a loss.

[00:52:14] Jeff Chang: Exactly. And, and this comes into what we call about the implied versus realized premium meaning options. If I look historically of a particular asset, whether it be a stock or a commodity or whatever, and it, it historically moves X I’m not gonna sell the premium at that number. Right. It’s gotta be X plus, right? Right. Just like when you sell car insurance, like if my expected loss is a thousand dollars, I’m not gonna sell the premium F for a thousand. I’m gonna sell it for $1,200 to make 200. Right. That extra little bit. Right? So in options, they have what’s called the implied versus realized premium. And so that’s really kind of where you’re trying to capture is, is the implied volatility versus what the realized volatility. And you’re hoping that the implied will be greater than the realized. I mean that’s the hope and option, especially when you’re selling them. Right. I think there’s a stat that like, you know, 60% or 70% of the time the person selling the option wins the trade. Right? Right.

[00:53:12] Barry Ritholtz: Most, you know, old option traders don’t die, they just expire worthless. Yeah, exactly. Is the old, old desk joke, but Exactly. You know, if you are a writer of options, you’re making a very specific bet. Yeah. And if you’re a purchase of options, you’re making a very different bedside.

[00:53:25] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you see this, you know, in some cases the buying options is like you said, it, it, it, it, it can, you know, even Warren Buffet said there could be weapons of mass destruction. I mean, you could see these zero day options that people are buying.

[00:53:38] Barry Ritholtz: Yeah. That’s become crazy.

[00:53:39] Jeff Chang: I mean, those are like scratch off lottery tickets. Right, right, right. Who’s buying them? I don’t know. The kid in his mom basement popping his pimples eating manna sandwiches. I don’t know. At,

[00:53:47] Barry Ritholtz: At one point in time I imagine that there were market makers that had a hedge that for reasons Yeah. That were complicated. They were stuck with overnight positions. Yeah. Like I almost understand that, but the day traders playing with these Yeah, this is fanduels and draftking. Yeah. Pure speculative nonsense. Yeah,

[00:54:08] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So that’s why we don’t have anything in that space, but it is something to look at from afar.

[00:54:16] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really fascinating stuff. Last question before I jump to my favorite questions. So you are constantly thinking about how do we hedge this position? How do we create a buffer? How do we define a specific outcome for clients? What do you think the average investor isn’t thinking about relative to that approach? But, but perhaps should be. What, what do you think most people are kind of missing or not paying enough attention to? And, and it could be a geography, it could be a policy, whatever. But you, you’re obviously thinking about a lot of things differently than the typical index purchaser. What are we missing?

[00:54:59] Jeff Chang: Yeah, I think, you know, while we’ve had a tremendous amount of growth in, in kind of the option space of downside protection and, and the income generation part, I think a lot of the market is still, I think thinking two dimensionally in the stocks and bonds. Right? Like instead of just diversifying across, think about you could still diversify, but think about other ways to shape your return. Right? Or thinking about income generation out of the equity portfolio think about income generation or boosting yield in your fixed income part of it. And then also thinking about risk management beyond diversification there, while there is a lot of good part of the financial professional space that is picking up on this, I still don’t think like we are just tip of the iceberg at this point. Right. Hmm. That’s on one, one standpoint. I think people are, are still missing. The second I think is the, I think one of the biggest drivers in the market today, and no one would disagree is ai. Right? For sure. However, that’s not the part that people are, are, are missing that, you know, having been through the two thousands, I really feel like this is like 1999, 2000. Like think about the stocks that were big then, right? Like you had

[00:56:15] Barry Ritholtz: Juniper Networks. Yeah. Metromedia fiber. Wow. Right.

[00:56:18] Jeff Chang: Like I remember you guys remember price line

[00:56:21] Barry Ritholtz: Global crossing. Yeah. Well pri you know, a lot of these companies have been either absorbed into other companies. Yeah. And still price line Expedia, there’s a through line there. Totally. How is pets.com not Chewy today? Yeah. So some of ’em were just a little early.

[00:56:37] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So now let me ask you, who won that trade? Facebook, Google, Netflix, Amazon. Amazon,

[00:56:42] Barry Ritholtz: Apple, Microsoft. A

[00:56:44] Jeff Chang: Lot of those companies were private or startups then Google,

[00:56:48] Barry Ritholtz: Right?

[00:56:48] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Like, think about that. And I think that’s the same, like history doesn’t repeat itself. It rhymes. I actually think a lot of the, kind of the hugely successful companies from AI are in startup mode. So they’re at y combin error. 90% of the, almost 80 90% of the companies at YC are AI driven. They have, I’ve seen an article recently. Their month over month average for the batch is double digits, meaning their revenue is growing over 10% month, month to month, month over month. Wow. Or, or in some cases week over week,

[00:57:23] Barry Ritholtz: The week that, that’s unbelievable. And I, I said to someone the other day, someone said, who’s gonna de Deron Nvidia? And I said, the founder of that company hasn’t graduated high school yet, but he’s coming or she’s coming. He’s not, it’s not impossible. All right. Let’s, let’s jump to our favorite questions that we ask all of our guests. Starting with, who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:57:49] Jeff Chang: Oh, that’s a great question. I would actually have to say my brother. Really? Yes. And

[00:58:00] Barry Ritholtz: In

[00:58:00] Jeff Chang: What way? My, I have an older brother. He’s four years older than me. He’s the overachiever, I’m the underachiever of the family. Okay. So my brother, I remember growing up, he was like the, he was good at math and science. I would literally show up to class and they’d be like, oh, you’re Bill Chang’s brother. You must be smart by the way, you know what that does to you as like a, a lot of pressure. Yeah. A lot of pressure. So he went on, he worked at Apple and then was at Tesla. I think he was chief architect of the Dojo Dojo project. If, if PE folks that aren’t familiar with Dojo, it’s the AI system at Tesla that coded the self-driving. Hmm. Right. He recently, and in fact, Bloomberg wrote an article about his firm density AI that I think they are one of the, the first companies to really kind of take on. ’cause the Dojo, I think system is one of the, one of the more efficient ways that can take on Nvidia for the chip. So that’s why it’s funny that you said like, Hey, the person that’s gonna deth throw Nvidia, may, may not, may still be in high school. I was like, yeah, he might just be four years older. Older than me. Or Right.

[00:59:13] Barry Ritholtz: Or he could be deep into the process already.

[00:59:16] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Yeah. So they recently, like I said, like Bloomberg just wrote an article about them on density ai. And he, he has been extremely, like, a lot of times people ask like, Hey, did you work that hard? ’cause your parents were, you know, like tiger parents? No, actually I was just chasing my brother the whole time. It was definitely a different dynamic and yeah. I couldn’t be more proud of him. And a lot of times people are like, Hey, what, what tea are the Changs drinking? Because we’re, but we get along great. While we’re competitive, we, we support each other. But he’s been, you’re in

[00:59:54] Barry Ritholtz: Different fields, so the competition. Exactly. Yes,

[00:59:56] Jeff Chang: Exactly. He’s an engineering. I I’m in finance

[00:59:59] Barry Ritholtz: Financial engine. Yeah. Yeah, exactly. So similar, similar background. Exactly. Let, let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading right now?

[01:00:05] Jeff Chang: Yeah. Well, I said Liar’s Poker was Right. Classic was a very influential one. Classic. Yeah.

[01:00:10] Barry Ritholtz: Just had its 30th anniversary, I think last year. Yeah.

[01:00:12] Jeff Chang: I like, I thought was really good for me it was the book Influenced by Robert Chelani.

[01:00:19] Barry Ritholtz: Fantastic.

[01:00:19] Jeff Chang: It was a great book. The kind of along with that, how to Win Friends and Influence People. I think those are great. I actually in finance, one of my first ones was The Intelligent Investor by Ben Graham. Yeah. Ben Graham. Those are kind of cornerstones. Yeah.

[01:00:34] Barry Ritholtz: That, that’s a great list. Yeah. I know you are on planes a lot. Yeah. When you’re not reading, what, what are you streaming? What’s keeping you entertained on these long cross country flights? Either podcasts or Netflix or whatever.

[01:00:48] Jeff Chang: I do listen to podcasts. A master’s in business. Yeah. However, there’s a new thing that I I I’ve been doing, actually, it’s not a book. Right. And it, it, it’ll probably be hit everybody differently on, on what I’m doing here. Okay. And I could tell you, I got this from a good friend of mine and he’s gonna kill me for saying this. So I’m good. A friend of mine, his name Matt Bellamy, he’s the lead singer in the Muse. Okay. And he, he actually taught me this, so I can’t take credit for this. We go into chat GBT and he actually sent me the prompt and we prompt chat, GBT tell me in the last two weeks what you have learned that is beyond human comprehension. Something along those lines. Really.

[01:01:37] Barry Ritholtz: How

[01:01:38] Jeff Chang: Fascinating. And by the way, it spits out all this stuff because if you think about it, humans, like we as a human, you could get a PhD in biology, you get a PhD in astrophysicists, you get PhD in chemistry. But like, you’re the expert in their field. But think about this, that like chat GBT passed the bar exam in like, I don’t know, like a couple weeks. Right, right. So it’s becoming experts in everything and then it’s combining all of those things together. So how many like PhDs and chemistry astrophysicists do you have that like have like the expert in everything and then what comes out? Like you tend to learn so many things that like, by the way, it turns into this rabbit hole. And I noticed that my prompt actually, ’cause I always tell it to me, like, explain it to me, me like I’m 16. So I’ve been driving into this other thing of, it’s been teach me about quantum entanglement. Are you familiar with this? Of course. Well, like

[01:02:29] Barry Ritholtz: Who isn’t familiar with spooky action at a distance? I mean, they teach that in middle school. Yeah,

[01:02:35] Jeff Chang: Exactly. So the, the quantum entanglement of that, you have two protons that, you know, if you do want to XY we’ll do the same. It’s just like having two dice if dice on Earth, by the way, they’ve proven this, like if you roll the, the, the dice on earth, it rolls a six. It’ll definitely roll a six. And it’s not bound by space and time. So basically it could be light years away, you roll that dice, it rolls an eight, this one in earth is gonna roll an eight. And so then they sort of combine that with is that part of human consciousness that is your consciousness. Quantum entangled is what makes

[01:03:10] Barry Ritholtz: You, you

[01:03:11] Jeff Chang: By the way this type of like thinking, there’s,

[01:03:13] Barry Ritholtz: There’s a related topic, and I haven’t run this through chat GBT, but I should, which is the concept of emergence. Yeah. Intelligence emergence as the natural outcome of the universe. Why does the universe exist if not to create a conscience Yeah. Intelligence or, although the flip side of that is life is fairly common throughout the universe. Hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, nitrogen. But advanced technological life so far at least appears to be exceedingly rare. Yeah. So that’s the counterbalance of totally. Of emergence. Totally. But,

[01:03:52] Jeff Chang: And then the other thing that I found recently that people can dig into, I think this is fascinating, is that your head experiences time different than your feet from the proximity of gravity’s.

[01:04:05] Barry Ritholtz: Well certainly we have to adjust GPS Yeah, yeah. Because the, for the relative relative relativity Yeah.

[01:04:11] Jeff Chang: The GPS versus

[01:04:12] Barry Ritholtz: Which, which Einstein turned out to be Right. About that. Exactly. So, but the difference between your head and feet Oh yes. Is so tiny. Unless yes, you’re falling into a black hole and then spaghettification So is is the problem.

[01:04:24] Jeff Chang: Yeah. So then you take quantum entanglement and you then say, okay, if I have a proton here and a proton elsewhere, and the light and the how that proton experience is time through entanglement versus how time bends with gravity. By the way, all of this just keeps going deeper and deeper and deeper on the rabbit. And then, and then the thing is, is that I keep telling it to explain it to me like I’m 16 now. My entire prompt explains everything. I will explain it to you as if you’re 16 years old.

[01:04:57] Barry Ritholtz: So the, the issue I occasionally run into Yeah. With perplexity or, or Chachi pt, is it tends to conform its output to you. Yes. And sometimes I’ll ask a question and it’s like, no, I don’t want a list of 10 podcast questions. Yes. I just tell me about Jeff Chang and what led to vest. Don’t gimme a podcast. That’s right. I I have my own

[01:05:20] Jeff Chang: Questions. That’s why I use multiple gr everything else. Right. That, that way I get a, a whole plethora. And then what ends up happening is you get all this new stuff and then you dig deep into whatever topic. And I found that so fascinating because I just, it’s curiosity. It’s like it’s

[01:05:37] Barry Ritholtz: Continue if you’re interested in these sorts of things. Exactly.

[01:05:39] Jeff Chang: Absolutely. And, and

[01:05:41] Barry Ritholtz: By the way, but you have to be on guard for the occasional hallucination. Oh, a hundred percent. And every now and then I find myself leaving AI to go to just traditional search. Yeah. And say, Hey, show me a source for this. Is is this? Yeah. I, I don’t think before ai I don’t think people were skeptical enough about the sources of what they consumed with ai. Yeah. You really have to know what is real and what is fake. That’s right. People, people missed that. All right. Our final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a recent college grad interested in a career in asset management? Or, or, or gen or ETFs specifically?

[01:06:22] Jeff Chang: Yeah. I think a recent college grad. I think similar to kind of bringing it full circle, same thing. Like develop the skills that, you know, you’re not beholden to anybody. Right. Whatever that is. Whether you’re in college or outta college. Like, develop those skills that you can actually, that they’re portable, one to the other. And then not be afraid of failure. Take chances. Now, this is not for everybody. I would say, you know, meaning not everybody is going to be a founder. Not everybody’s gonna be an entrepreneur, which I, by the way, I find as two different people. Founder has the creativity. An entrepreneur has the grit and influence. A founder has to have the creativity. ’cause you’re, you’re actually introducing a whole new industry or a whole new thing that somebody else has not seen yet. Right. But that’s the thing. And then also keep your eye out for painful problems that you have the skillset to solve. So obtain those skill sets and then have your eyes out, eyes peeled throughout life. Write them down.

[01:07:29] Barry Ritholtz: Look for pain points,

[01:07:31] Jeff Chang: Look for pain points, look for problems. And then the second, the last thing is just a personal thing is don’t take yourself too seriously. Right. Have fun with life. And, and I think that, that, that is, ’cause otherwise all this stuff can create massive amounts of burnout.

[01:07:46] Barry Ritholtz: And our, our final question, what do you know about the world of buffered funds investing ETFs today might have been healthful 15, 20 years ago when you were first getting started,

[01:07:59] Jeff Chang: How hard it would’ve been, right. Like literally,

[01:08:03] Barry Ritholtz: Would that have discouraged you from launching or, yes.

[01:08:06] Jeff Chang: I think that was actually the superpower, right? Like when you climb a mountain and you don’t know how high it is and there’s a cloud base, if you saw and a clear view, it, it probably wouldn’t be, if you told me to quit my job and I wouldn’t get paid for four plus years, I probably wouldn’t have done that. But then it’s like always success is always around the corner. At least you dream of it, right? Everybody sees what you are now. They don’t see the pain where you’re constantly just waiting for that cloud to clear on the next part of the mountain. Because I, I could tell you this, that like, if, if, if you saw the how big the mountain is, it would be nobody would do it. Huh.

[01:08:43] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really interesting. Yeah. Thank you Jeff for being so generous with your time. We have been speaking with Jeff Chang, co-founder and president of Vest. If you enjoy this conversation, well check out any of the 600 we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, YouTube, Bloomberg, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the Croc staff that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

The post Transcript: MiB: Jeff Chang, President and Co-Founder of Vest appeared first on The Big Picture.

Pages