When A Train Wreck Is No Accident

Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

“In spite of all the rhetoric, we will go deeper in debt, the Fed will print more money, and the value of the dollar will continue to plummet.”

- Ron Paul

Never in history have the economic and political structures been so manipulated by those who are responsible for their safekeeping; never has so much been at stake, in so many countries, and facing collapse, all at the same time.

The great majority of people in the First World recognise that the world is passing through an economic crisis. However, most are under the impression that there are some pretty smart fellows running the show and all they need to do is tweak the system a bit more and we’ll return to happy days.

Not so. The “smart fellows” who are in charge of fixing the problem are in fact the very same people who created it.

Understandably, this a hard concept for most people to even consider, let alone accept, as the very idea that those in charge of the system might consciously collapse it seems preposterous. So, we might wish to back up a bit here and present a very brief history of the system itself, in order to understand that the eventual collapse of the economic system was baked in the cake from the very beginning.

Creating a Central Bank

From the very earliest days of the formation of the American republic, bankers (along with inside help from George Washington’s secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton) sought to create a banking monopoly that would create the country’s currency and become the central banking system.

The first attempt at a central bank was a failure, and strong opponents, including Thomas Jefferson, prevented a second central bank for a time. Later, further attempts were made by bankers and their political cronies, and each central bank was either short-lived or defeated in its planning stages.

Then, in 1913, the heads of the largest banks met clandestinely on Jekyll Island, Georgia, to make another try. Having recently lost yet another bid to create a central bank, due to the public’s understandable concern that the big bankers were already too powerful, a new spin was placed on the idea. This time, they decided to present the idea as a government body that would be decentralised and would have the responsibility of restricting the power of the banks.

However, the new bill was in fact the same old bill, with a new title and some minor changes in wording. But this time, it would be presented by the new president, who was a liberal.

The president, Woodrow Wilson, had in fact been handpicked by the banks. The banks then scuttled their own conservative party’s candidate, got the Democrat Wilson elected, then installed a secretary of the Treasury whose job it would be to ensure that the Federal Reserve was created.

The bill was widely supported by the public, even though, in truth, it was not a federal agency, but a privately owned conglomerate, controlled by the banks. Neither was it a reserve. It was never intended to store money; it was intended to give the biggest bankers control of the economy. They followed the central principle of uber-banker Mayer Rothschild: “Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”

From the start, the new institution peddled itself as the protector of the people’s interests, but it was quite the opposite. Its purpose from its inception was to control the economy and the government by controlling the issuance of the currency. In addition, it was to be a system of taxation.

Typically, a population accepts a certain amount of direct taxation but has its limits of tolerance. Yet, the bankers understood that a less direct method of taxation was infinitely more profitable and infinitely safer from criticism.

Inflation as a Profit System

Inflation was not always the norm. At one time, prices were relatively static from one generation to the next. But the Federal Reserve touted the idea that “controlled” inflation was in fact necessary for a prosperous economy.

Of course, the greater the debasement of the currency through inflation, the more the central bankers profited. But at some point, the currency would have lost virtually all its value and it would be time for a reset. The currency would need to collapse and a new one created.

And so, the Fed set about its hundred-year programme of continuous inflation. Although there have been periods of lower inflation (and even deflation), the programme stayed more or less on course, and now, its hundred-year life has all but ended: the dollar has been devalued almost 100%.

And so, we find ourselves at the day of reckoning. The economic crisis we are now facing (not only in the US; it will be felt, to a greater or lesser extent, worldwide) is not a mere anomaly that we need to “push past”. It’s a systemic crisis. It’s been created by design and the system must collapse.

Of course, the central banks are in the process of protecting their interests, to make sure that, whilst this will be a major economic calamity, they themselves will continue to profit. The damage will be borne by the general public.

This began in earnest in 1999, with the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, allowing banks to create a massive, reckless mortgage spree. It was backed by the government’s “too big to fail” policy that guaranteed that, when the banks predictably became insolvent as a result of the loans, government would bail them out. (And by “government” we mean “the taxpayer”; it was he who picked up the bill for the banks’ recklessness.)

The End Game

The next step in getting ready for the collapse is an all-out effort to confiscate the wealth of the public. This can be seen in the effort to push investors away from solid forms of wealth protection such as gold and silver and into stocks, bonds and bank deposits. More recently, we’ve seen the emergence of an effort to end the use of safe deposit boxes and a push to end the use of paper currency in making transactions.

The end objective is to force as much money as possible into deposits in banks, then take it. The US, EU and a few other countries have passed confiscation legislation, allowing the banks carte blanche to confiscate and/or refuse to release deposits.

Of course a reset of these proportions will not be without its fallout. The public will be horrified at the outcome, at the realisation that the very institutions they thought had been created to protect them had never been intended to serve their interests at all.

Once they realise that the world’s greatest Ponzi scheme has been foisted on them, they will be hopping mad and justifiably so. Those who had not had the foresight to internationalise themselves, to remove themselves as much as possible from the system, will most certainly want to get even in some way.

And this makes clear why governments, particularly that of the US, are working so hard to create a police state. Unless a totalitarian state can be created, those who are presently taking the wealth may not be able to fully realise their objectives.

The coming train wreck is no accident. It has long been planned. That the “smart fellows in charge” will somehow save the day is therefore a vain hope indeed.

It’s still possible to back out of the system, but it’s getting more difficult every day. The window is closing, and the time to internationalise is now.

*  *  *

As the cracks in the global financial system deepen, the window for protecting your wealth and freedom narrows by the day. Understanding how and why this collapse is unfolding—and how to position yourself before the reset—is no longer optional. Our Special Report: Guide to Surviving and Thriving During an Economic Collapse reveals practical steps to safeguard your assets, secure mobility, and stay ahead of the coming financial upheaval. Click here to access your copy and prepare while there’s still time.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 17:00

Disagreements Emerge Over US-China Rare Earth Deal, As US Adds Uranium, Silver To Critical Minerals List

Two days ago, when discussing China's surprising announcement that Trump should not cross four "red lines" (including i)Taiwan, ii) democracy and human rights, iii) China's political system, and iv) development rights) or risk a collapse of the trade truce, we said that "ever since the recent "truce" in the trade war between the US and China was signed in Korea one week ago - the latest of many such ceasefires meant to be broken - skeptics have been patiently counting down until this latest ceasefire is torn up, and tensions between the two superpowers flare up once more."

Needless to say, China telling Trump what the US president can and can not say is one of those things that the generally "sanguine and quite calm" US president tends to not be too excited about, and which leads to occasional bursts of outrage which then restart trade wars.

Then yesterday, we said that it felt like "'the cracks in this latest trade deal are already starting to show, whether it is Beijing ordering Trump what he can't talk about, or quietly ring-fencing its domestic data center by banning US Al chips" and further said that "while China granted Trump a 1 year reprieve on rare earths, it is quietly tightening the export noose on other, just as important minerals. According to the Global Times, China has introduced new export controls on silver, antimony, and tungsten."

We concluded that "the game of export whack-a-mole in the second World Trade War continues: today the US is getting rare earths (at least until Trump has another Truth Social meltdown), but just got stopped out on other, just as important materials. This export control rotation will continue until the day the US is self-sufficient, which however due to the abovementioned environmental limitations, will take a very long time unless somehow the US govt funnels enough money in domestic producers (and allows them to dump the toxic by products anywhere - who knows maybe Elon can blast them off into space) to short circuit the process."

Until then, we told readers, "go long stocks of domestic miners that specialize in extracting and producing anything and everything that China feels like no longer exporting to the US."

We didn't have long to wait for this to manifest itself in practice, because moments ago the Nikkei reported that not only is China making inroads with new export controls, but the question over the old ones still hasn't been accurately resolved. That's because, "discrepancies have emerged over the details of China's agreement with the U.S. to pause rare-earth export restrictions, with Washington saying past controls will also be eliminated, a condition that has not been announced by Beijing."

Here is what we know: Trump and Xi Jinping agreed to lower tariffs and ease export restrictions during talks in South Korea last week, with the Chinese Commerce Ministry saying that rare-earth restrictions that had been announced on Oct. 9 would be postponed for a year, there appeared to be some confusion over what was actually agreed upon. 

The restrictions to be paused would have expanded the types of rare-earth elements for which export licenses are required and tightened controls on the export of equipment used for exploration and refining, as well as the technologies necessary for manufacturing rare-earth magnets. They would also require foreign companies making products containing Chinese rare earths to obtain permission from Beijing when exporting to other countries and regions.

And here is where the confusion arises: while China says it will postpone the new regulations for a year, a fact sheet released by the White House on Saturday does not include a time frame, saying "China will suspend the global implementation of the expansive new export controls on rare earths and related measures that it announced on October 9, 2025."

The difference regarding earlier Chinese restrictions implemented on April 4 - which include a requirement for export licenses for seven types of rare earths, including dysprosium, used in high-performance magnets for electric vehicles and fighter jets - is even more pronounced. Following last week's U.S.-China summit, the White House asserted these export licenses would no longer be required, saying China would "effectively eliminate" its current export controls.

But this was contradicted by authorities in the rare-earth industry development zone in Baotou, Inner Mongolia. On Monday, an official social media account stated that the April regulations would remain in effect.

Authorities in Inner Mongolia said on social media that April export controls, which Washington claims will be withdrawn

The city, located in one of China's most polluted areas (because rare earth mining is one of the most toxic activities known to man) is one of China's leading rare-earth producing regions, and the authorities that made the post are reportedly involved in practical matters such as issuing export permits. 

Additionally, Chinese financial news outlet Caixin confirmed the April regulations are still in effect. "As long as the Chinese side deems them valid, the regulations will continue," a Chinese industry insider said.

Some observers say China can continue to pressure the U.S. through customs procedures regardless of whether or not restrictions are in place. Beijing has done this before. In 2010, China halted rare-earth exports to Japan during a dispute over the Tokyo-administered Senkaku Islands, which China claims as the Diaoyu. Although a legal framework for controlling exports was not fully established at that time, Beijing exerted pressure on Japan by claiming procedural delays.

China accounts for 70% of rare-earth production and over 80% of rare-earth magnet manufacturing. It has been leveraging this bargaining chip in negotiations with Washington.

Exports of rare-earth magnets to the U.S. in April were down 59% year-on-year, according to an analysis of trade statistics by Chinese research company FerroAlloyNet. Amid escalating trade friction and the imposition of tariffs over 100% by both sides, exports were drastically cut. They halted almost completely in May, falling 93% on the year.

Global supply chains were thrown into disarray, with Ford Motor temporarily suspending operations at some U.S. plants. In September, the most recent data available, exports of rare-earth magnets to the U.S. were still down 30% year-on-year. 

Some rare-earth elements, including the particularly rare dysprosium, are concentrated in China and a few other countries.

"The U.S. will likely accelerate efforts to develop supply chains independent of China, but for the time being, it will not be able to escape its dependence on China," said a source at a non-Japanese company familiar with rare earths.

Which is precisely what we said yesterday, and why the US will have no choice but to invest billions in domestic companies and supply-chains that bypass China.

Fully aware that the US has to ramp up its own supply chains, the US added copper, silver and uranium to a government list of critical minerals as the Trump administration broadens its scope of what commodities it deems vital to the American economy and national security.

The updated US Geological Survey list adds 10 minerals to bring the total to 60, including metallurgical coal, potash, rhenium, silicon and lead, according to a US government site. It includes 15 rare earth elements. The list replaces a 2022 version. 

Rare earths have become a flashpoint in trade tensions between the US and China, with Trump pushing to encourage domestic mining of the material after President Xi Jinping threatened to curb exports. 

The USGS list dictates what commodities are included in the Trump administration’s Section 232 probe into processed critical minerals and derivative products announced mid-April, which could lead to tariffs and trade restrictions. President Donald Trump has made it a priority to bolster domestic supply of these minerals, arguing that an over-reliance on foreign supplies jeopardizes national security, infrastructure development and technological innovation.

The list also informs direct investments in mining and resource recovery from mine waste, stockpiles, tax incentives for US mineral processing as well as streamlined mining permitting.

The resource industry had been pushing for certain metals and minerals, like copper and potash, to be included on the list. Much of the potash used in the US is shipped from Canada, which accounts for roughly 80% of imports of the mineral. Copper imports, meanwhile, comprise almost half of total US consumption and come from countries including Chile, Peru and Canada. The bulk of global copper refining is done in China.

Silver’s inclusion has been a concern for precious metals traders and manufacturers that rely on the material. Any tariffs on silver could wreak havoc on the metals markets because the US relies heavily on imports to meet domestic demand. Silver has wide industrial applications and is used in electronics, solar panels and medical devices.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 16:40

Does The Democrats' Chaos Strategy Work?

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

We can draw a few conclusions from an off-year election, when iconic races in blue states went, as expected, overwhelmingly Democratic.

Nevertheless, there is only a year left before the midterms. So Republicans must react to even these paltry results.

1) Democrats’ chaotic nihilism still works.

The chaos strategy causes so much turmoil, noise, and negative media coverage that the confused voting public simply cannot sort it all out. The public wishes the upheaval would just go away and often blames those with the most current authority—logically, the incumbent Trump and his administration.

2) Every day of Trump’s first year, there were either campus eruptions, Tesla firebombings, street violence against ICE, or crazy district judges’ injunctions.

The bedlam becomes force multiplied by unhinged outbursts from Democrats like AOC, Jasmine Crockett, Eric Swalwell, and the proverbial Squad.

The latest firecracker was thrown by a now Biden-like, faltering Nancy Pelosi, who recently screamed on CNN that President Trump “is just a vile creature, the worst thing on the face of the Earth.”

The public has no time to sort out all the actual causes for such mad hattery. It knows only from Democrats that the commotion is roughly correlated with “Trump.”

Note that there is never a positive Democrat “Contract with America,” since it is impossible to advance anything popular or moderate past its now firmly socialist base.

3) Democrats also use the chaos strategy to target key electoral groups.

In this week’s election, Republicans finally grasped the purpose of the pre-election shutdown.

It was designed to galvanize key constituencies to get out the vote in a low-turnout year. The lockdown was especially aimed at two groups: laid-off and unpaid government workers and entitlement recipients terrified that their checks would dry up.

Both turned out disproportionately in Virginia and New Jersey.

The Democrats are likely to resolve the shutdown soon, as the initial momentum gained by paralyzing the government is now diminishing.

The same strategy applies to the Hispanic vote that had defected in large numbers to Trump in 2024. However, this week, in many counties, the Hispanic vote shifted back toward the Democratic Party.

The truth does not get out enough that 70-80 percent of deportations are targeted at those with either criminal records or prior deportation orders.

Instead, the nonstop violent protests, the dangerous nullification threats from blue-city officials, and the slanted media coverage worked like proverbial propaganda to reduce ICE to “the Gestapo.”

Too many of the public believed that “Nazis” were hounding only law-abiding housekeepers and landscapers, who have been here for decades and only by accident forgot to make their de facto Americanness official.

Or so the successful Big Lie went—and went unchallenged.

The administration and MAGA do not talk enough about positive news of GDP growth, tolerable inflation, massive foreign investment, a calmer Middle East, or numerous miraculous ceasefires around the globe.

Instead, when there is a vacuum in self-praise, it is more easily replaced by the sensationalism of Trump’s “revenge tour” in hounding the boy scout James Comey and poor Letitia James, of taking a wrecking ball to the revered White House, or of insulting for no reason our blameless, “nice,” and gentle Canadian neighbors. The economy not culs-de-sac win elections.

4) Much of the Trump agenda, other than spectacular military recruitment and a secure border, is more long-term than instantly gratifying.

The multitrillion-dollar foreign investments may take a year or two to create jobs and spark the economy.

The deportations will take time to switch more jobs to U.S. citizens.

New gas, oil, and nuclear energy production, trimming the federal workforce, deregulating, and greenlighting AI and other new technologies will not be felt immediately.

After the summer 1984 convention, even Ronald Reagan trailed the anemic Walter Mondale in a few polls. Then the first three quarters of GDP—cumulatively over 7% growth—were digested, as the economy took off and buried Mondale by the November elections.

5) There is no longer a Democrat Party. It is now an unapologetically neo-socialist Jacobin movement.

So traditional negative advertising designed to incur scandal and shame simply does not always work. All that matters is the hard-leftist fides of a candidate—period!

Threaten a political opponent with assassination? Brag about killing his kids?

Tattoo the 3rd Panzer SS Division death’s-head insignia on your chest?

Promise to arrest a foreign head of state when he visits your city?

Boast about grabbing the “means of production.”

So what?

To the new left, this is just proof that their new candidates and voters “mean business.” They cannot be shamed—not even by mocking Charlie Kirk’s wound or hoping Trump is not so lucky a third time.

There is plenty of time for Republicans to digest these results, especially the strategy and dangerous nature of the new left, along with the mercurial moods of the swing voters—and the need to stick to the economy.

But the clock is ticking.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 16:20

Ford Mulls Scrapping F-150 Lightning After Dismal Demand, Mounting Losses

Ford is reportedly set to scrap the F-150 Lightning, once hailed by top executives as the company's "modern Model T," amid absolutely terrible demand. Production lines for the electric pickup remain paralyzed after an aluminum shortage halted operations last month.

A new Wall Street Journal report indicates that the F-150 Lightning is on the chopping block after $13 billion in EV losses since 2023. If accurate, this would make the money-losing truck America's first major EV casualty.

CEO Jim Farley previously called the F-150 Lightning "as revolutionary as the Model T," promising a truck that would democratize electric mobility just as the original Model T democratized driving. Yet how could Farley have been so wrong about the Lightning ... and did his climate-change blinders end up damaging shareholder value? It's something the board should be taking a hard look at.

Demand for the EV truck is absolutely horrendous.

Adam Kraushaar, owner of Lester Glenn Auto Group in New Jersey, told WSJ that F-150 Lightning demand is "not there." He also sells GMC, Chevy, and other brands. "We don't order a lot of them because we don't sell them."

WSJ noted, "No final decision has yet been made, according to people familiar with the discussions, but such a move by Ford could be the beginning of the end for big EV trucks." 

The big question is whether Farley and other top executives ignored red flags, such as declining orders, dealer warnings, and mounting losses on the EV truck, in their push to appease the globalist climate change cult on Wall Street. If the report is accurate, we wonder whether the board could find grounds to review his terrible EV judgment under the duty of care. 

In October, Ford sold just 1,500 Lightnings, versus 66,000 petrol-powered F-Series trucks. EV sales overall have plunged 24% year-on-year after federal tax credits expired. 

Ford shares have trended lower after the April 2022 release of the EV truck.

WSJ noted, "The company is now racing to build a compact $30,000 EV pickup."

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 15:40

US Appeals Court Resurrects Trump's Attempt To Dismiss NY Criminal Conviction

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A U.S. appeals court on Thursday revived President Donald Trump’s bid to dismiss his business records criminal conviction, ruling the president can move his case out of a New York state court.

A panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed an order from a lower court judge, saying the judge had “bypassed what we consider to be important issues bearing on the ultimate issue of good cause.”

The panel of judges on the appeals court signaled that it did not weigh in on the merits of Trump’s lawyers’ arguments to dismiss the conviction. His lawyers filed court papers earlier this year to try to move the case out of New York so he could seek a ruling from a federal judge on whether the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity allows him to toss last year’s Manhattan jury verdict convicting him of falsifying business records.

“We leave it to the able and experienced District Judge to decide whether to solicit further briefing from the parties or hold a hearing to help it resolve these issues,” the appeals court judges wrote.

The panel further said the lower court “should resolve Trump’s motion for leave to file a second removal notice in any particular way” and said it should “consider the motion anew in light of our opinion.”

In May 2024, a jury convicted Trump on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Trump pleaded not guilty, maintaining that it was part of a widespread attempt to subvert his 2024 presidential campaign.

Weeks after Trump’s election victory in 2024, the judge in the case sentenced him to unconditional discharge, meaning that he faced no further penalties such as fines or jail time. The conviction, however, will remain on his criminal record.

Just days before Trump was inaugurated in January, Judge Juan Merchan noted in his order that the sentence was made with considerations of Trump being elected president.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Alvin Hellerstein denied a bid from Trump’s attorneys to remove the case, prompting Trump’s appeal. The judge maintained that Trump had “not satisfied the burden of proof required to show the basis of removal.”

The petition to the U.S. appeals court is one of many appeals that Trump has filed to dismiss the criminal conviction.

Separately, Trump had filed court papers with the New York Supreme Court’s Appellate Division of the First District, appealing the criminal conviction.

“Targeting alleged conduct that has never been found to violate any New York law, the DA [district attorney] concocted a purported felony by stacking time-barred misdemeanors under a convoluted legal theory, which the DA then improperly obscured until the charge conference. This case should never have seen the inside of a courtroom, let alone resulted in a conviction,” his lawyers wrote in a filing in October.

Aside from the Manhattan case, criminal charges were also brought against Trump in Washington, Florida, and Georgia. The Washington and Florida cases, which were brought by former special counsel Jack Smith, were later dropped. The Georgia case, brought by the Fulton County District Attorney’s office, was dismissed by a state appeals court on Jan. 17, three days before Trump’s inauguration.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 15:20

China Sees Massive Demand For USD Bond Issuance, Priced In Line With USTs For First Time

As the ceasefire in the US-China trade war starts to fray at the edges (most notably in commodity export controls and tit-for-tat responses), it appears that China is having no issues whatsoever competing with the US for the world's capital.

China’s return to the dollar bond market generated enough demand to cover the deal almost 30 times over, with a $118.1 billion order book.

“It was so popular,” said Serena Zhou, senior China economist at Mizuho Securities, adding that some investors complained they weren’t allocated enough bonds.

“Although it priced on par, it will still be free money.”

China last issued dollar bonds in 2024, when it sold $2bn of debt in Saudi Arabia.

“Markets are flush with liquidity and geopolitical tensions have eased,” said David Yim, head of capital markets, Greater China and North Asia, at Standard Chartered, which was one of the bookrunners for the deal.

Most notably, The FT reports that bankers on the deal said was the first time Beijing’s borrowing costs had matched Washington’s at issuance (while we do note that Chinese dollar-denominated bonds have previously traded at a negative spread to US equivalents in the secondary market).

China’s finance ministry issued $4bn of dollar bonds in Hong Kong, with the $2bn 3-year bond paying a coupon of 3.625 per cent, on par with US Treasury equivalents, and priced to yield 3.646 per cent, compared with 3.628 per cent for 3-year Treasuries.

The $2bn 5-year bond has a coupon 0.02 percentage points above equivalent Treasuries, with a yield of 3.787 per cent, compared with 3.745 per cent for US equivalents.

Issuance was split evenly between the two bonds.

The negligible spreads over Treasuries on the new bonds were an improvement even over China’s tight prints last year, when its three- and five-year notes were priced to yield just one and three basis points over similar-maturity Treasuries.

Bloomberg reports that more than half of the bonds were placed with investors in Asia, while European accounts got a quarter.

Investors in the Middle East and North Africa were allocated 16%.

The sale comes amid a steady rebound in dollar-note sales by Chinese firms, after the country’s unprecedented property crisis and the Federal Reserve’s interest-rate hikes triggered an issuance slump.

There’s been about $90 billion of publicly-announced sales in 2025, heading toward a three-year high, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 15:00

From Cotality (formerly CoreLogic): US home price insights — November 2025

• Year-over-year price growth continues its downward trend, only rising 1.2% in September 2025.

• Connecticut, New Jersey, Alaska, West Virginia, and Wyoming saw the highest year-over-year price growth this month. Washington D.C. and Florida saw home prices dip the most.
...
The U.S. housing market is continuing to cool off as summer fades into fall. Home prices across the country are starting to sag as inventory reaches its highest level since 2019. While the Northeast is still showing strong market signals, other regional differences are becoming apparent.
...
“Much like the K-shaped trend seen in overall consumer spending—driven largely by higher income groups—lower-income potential homebuyers are facing challenges due to an uncertain job market, sluggish wage growth, and worsening financial conditions. This is leading to weaker demand for homes and downward pressure on prices,” said Cotality’s Chief Economist Dr. Selma Hepp.

Amid falling prices, there has been a rise in serious mortgage delinquencies in some states like Florida, a state where a large proportion of markets are experiencing ebbing prices.
emphasis added

This graph from Cotality shows the Top 10 coolest markets.
The list is dominated by Florida.  According to Cotality, the highest risk markets are all in Florida.
House prices are under pressure with more inventory and sluggish sales.

UBS Liquidates Funds, Faces $500 Million Exposure To First Brands Fracas

Having already followed Deutsche Bank into the risk-transfer business, hedging its exposure to its own deals (UBS Group's asset management unit is working on a new fund that will invest in significant risk transfers, which could include deals issued by itself), the big Swiss bank, The Financial Times reports that UBS has told clients that it will wind down an investment vehicle with significant debt exposure to First Brands Group, in the first major fund liquidation following the US auto parts maker’s shock bankruptcy.

As we detailed previously, UBS O'Connor: the once iconic hedge fund associated with the only major Swiss bank left standing after the Credit Suisse collapse, has 30% of its portfolio tied to First Brands, leaving Switzerland’s largest bank grappling with a bankruptcy that has convulsed global finance.

• Overall, UBS has more than $500mn of exposure to First Brands’ debt and invoice-linked financing, across various parts of its investment arm. 

  • As the FT reported, "clients are braced for big losses after UBS O’Connor, a private credit and commodities specialist owned by the Swiss bank, revealed that 30 per cent of the exposure in one of its funds is tied to the auto parts group."

  • O’Connor recently told investors in its “Opportunistic” working capital finance strategy that the fund had 9.1% of “direct” exposure, financing facilities based on invoices First Brands’ was due to pay, and 21.4% of “indirect” exposure, based on invoices its customers were due to pay (source FT).

And now, The FT reports that, according to unidentified people familiar with the matter, UBS has told clients of its Chicago-based O’Connor subsidiary that it is liquidating several invoice finance funds, including a strategy that did not have exposure to First Brands.

“We informed investors last month that O’Connor’s Working Capital Opportunistic funds are being wound down and the majority of the funds’ assets will be monetized by the end of the year,” UBS told the Financial Times.

“As a priority, we’re taking steps to protect clients’ interests and maximize recovery of the remaining First Brands Group-related positions through the complex bankruptcy process”

UBS is reportedly aiming to monetize 70% of the O’Connor fund with First Brands exposure by the end of the year.

The FT adds that the level of exposure has sparked anger among some investors who were previously assured that the fund would not hold more than 20 per cent of assets in a single “position”.

UBS has argued that it complied with these rules, however, as 21.4 per cent of the exposure was “indirect” and split across First Brands’ various customers.

The bank is also liquidating a “High Grade” fund that invested in invoices linked to less risky companies, even though it did not have exposure to First Brands. The whole of that fund’s assets are expected to be sold by year-end, the person added. The invoice finance funds have a total of around $600mn in assets.

We suspect UBS will not be the last to liquidate funds to cover these private credit losses.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 14:20

SEC Is Probing Egan-Jones Over Its Private Credit Rating Practices

For once the SEC, perhaps having finally learned its lesson from the Global Financial Crisis, or simply because it read one too many critical pieces in the press in recent weeks, is not waiting until the credit bubble bursts to warn the raters not to engage in rating shopping. 

Bloomberg, which was the first to highlight Egan-Jones' role in rating thousands of credit ratings in the multi-trillion private credit market, reports that the Securities and Exchange Commission has been scrutinizing Egan-Jones Ratings, delving into the business practices of a leader in the fast-growing market for private-credit ratings.

Egan-Jones Ratings Co. has for years operated from a four-bedroom colonial in Haverford.​Photographer: Sarah Silbiger, Bloomberg

According to the report, SEC enforcement attorneys are "looking into whether the firm and some of its senior executives have exerted improper commercial influence on its ratings procedures, said the people, who asked not to be identified discussing the ongoing probe."

Officials in the agency’s complex financial instruments unit are involved in the investigation, the people said. The probe began during the Biden administration and has continued this year.  The regulator hasn’t accused Egan-Jones or its officials of wrongdoing as part of this probe, and it wasn’t clear how advanced the review was.

An Egan-Jones representative said the firm takes compliance “very seriously and remains in good standing with our regulator.” He added that the business “remains dedicated to serving our clients and the global capital markets.”

The SEC declined to comment, citing the ongoing US government shutdown. “During the shutdown, the SEC’s public affairs office is not able to respond to many inquiries from the press,” the agency said in a statement.

Egan-Jones is a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization, an accreditation which allows its grades to be used by US insurers to calculate their regulatory capital charges. A higher rating means an insurer has to set aside less against an asset. 

Egan Jones built a dominant position early in the rapidly expanding private credit market as bigger ratings agencies focused on serving the larger public sectors. Roughly a a third of the $6 trillion of cash and invested assets held by US life insurers was allocated to various types of private credit investments, Moody’s Ratings estimates based on a survey of insurers it rates.

Insurers will be this generation's "widows and orphans": private credit represents 35% of total US insurers' investments pic.twitter.com/ifV8CB2nrj

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) October 29, 2025

According to Bloomberg, Egan-Jones bills itself as the most prolific grader in that market and last year rated more than 3,000 private credit investments, all with about 20 analysts, prompting questions not only about rating shopping but quality control. The role that such ratings play in the industry’s boom has been in the spotlight this year, as more insurers seek to gain exposure to the private credit markets.

In a report published last month, the Bank for International Settlements said that private credit grades used by insurance companies tend to be concentrated among smaller ratings firms, raising the risk of “inflated assessments of creditworthiness.” 

Separately, Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey recently told lawmakers he’d had conversations with industry figures who assured him that “everything was fine in their world, apart from the role of the rating agencies.” UBS Group AG Chairman Colm Kelleher said on Tuesday he’s beginning to “see huge rating agency arbitrage in the insurance business.”

Egan-Jones had attracted scrutiny from large players in the industry over its upbeat ratings of various private credit loans, Bloomberg reported in June. 

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 13:45

Were We Lied To About World War II?

LIVE NOW:

https://t.co/6zrlPu4u8D

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) November 6, 2025

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

The clip that started it all….

For the people saying Darryl Cooper didn’t say “Churchill was the chief villain” in WW2 on Tucker Carlson’s podcast, watch this.

If what he said isn’t morally and intellectually wrong, then you don’t have to lie for him. pic.twitter.com/5JgjWTZhhr

— Samuel Sey (@SlowToWrite) September 4, 2024

For those who remember, the above remarks by historian Daryl Cooper speaking to Tucker Carlson launched a debate that has transpired for over a year since: Were Churchill and FDR the good guys? Did the U.S. and UK need to get involved in a war on behalf of Poland? How might things have been different?

Tonight at 7pm ET, we will take on those questions.

The Debaters

Renowned World War II historian Jim Holland defends the mainstream view — that U.S. and British intervention was a moral necessity against fascist aggression.

Facing him is Keith Knight, Executive Editor of the Libertarian Institute, who argues the war was not inevitable nor necessary — and that the “Greatest Generation” story conceals darker motives, from FDR’s provocations to the post-war rise of the western military-industrial complex and the Soviet Union.

Moderated by Mario Nawfal, the discussion promises to challenge deeply held assumptions about Pearl Harbor, Churchill’s legacy, and whether victory came at the cost of truth itself.

Tune in live tonight at 7PM ET on X, YouTube, or right here on the ZH homepage.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 12:40

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology on April 29, 2025

SPECIAL NOTE on Government Shutdown and Air Travel from CoStar:

U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said the government would cut 10% of air traffic at 40 of the country’s busiest airports if the shutdown continues, the New York Times reports. The airports will be named later today.
...
The announcement comes just weeks before Americans will celebrate Thanksgiving. AAA’s latest forecast predicts 2.4 million planned to travel by air for the holiday. Last year, TSA screened more than 3 million passengers, a new record, during last year’s Thanksgiving week.

If the cuts happen, this will likely negatively impact hotel occupancy rates.

Hotel occupancy was weak over the summer months, due to less international tourism.  The fall months are mostly domestic travel and occupancy is still under pressure! 

From STR: U.S. hotel results for week ending 1 November

The U.S. hotel industry reported mixed year-over-year comparisons, according to CoStar’s latest data through 1 November. ...

26 October through 1 November 2025 (percentage change from comparable week in 2024):

• Occupancy: 59.3% (-2.6%)
• Average daily rate (ADR): US$156.09 (+0.4%)
• Revenue per available room (RevPAR): US$92.54 (-2.3%)
emphasis added

The following graph shows the seasonal pattern for the hotel occupancy rate using the four-week average.
Click on graph for larger image.

The red line is for 2025, blue is the median, and dashed light blue is for 2024.  Dashed black is for 2018, the record year for hotel occupancy. 
The 4-week average of the occupancy rate is tracking behind both last year and the median rate for the period 2000 through 2024 (Blue).
Note: Y-axis doesn't start at zero to better show the seasonal change.
The 4-week average will decrease seasonally until early next year.
On a year-to-date basis, the only worse years for occupancy over the last 25 years were pandemic or recession years.

As passed by the House of Representatives on June 23, 2025

As reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on October 29, 2025

 

 

At The Money: Automate Your Investing with Jeffrey Ptak, Morningstar (November 6, 2025)

Have you taken full advantage of automating your investments? You can improve your returns, reduce emotional decision making, and generally end up with better results simply by putting your investing on autopilot.

Full transcript below.

~~~

About this week’s guest:

Jeffrey Patak is the managing director at Morningstar. Previously, he was the chief ratings officer. He oversees the firm’s “Mind The Gap” research.

For more info, see:

Personal Bio

Professional site

LinkedIn

~~~

 

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

 

 

 

TRANSCRIPT:

 

Musical Intro: Ah baby, Do it baby, Dancing, dancing, dancing, She’s a dancing machine Ah baby, Move it baby, Automatic, systematic, Full of color, self-contained, Tune that channel to your box

 

To help us figure out how, let’s bring in Jeffrey Patak. He’s managing director at Morningstar. Previously, he was the chief rating officer there. He’s been with Morningstar since 2002, and his research has shown features like auto enrollment or contribution increases, default investments and target date funds enable investors to bypass. Common pitfalls of market timing and emotional trading, so.

So Jeffrey, let’s define the automation features you’re discussing in your research.

Things like steady paycheck, deductions, and regular rebalancing. How can an investor set that up?

Jeffrey Ptak: It’s relatively straightforward if, if you’re working with a brokerage platform to enable those types of features in some other contexts, like a retirement plan, it might be standard plan features.

In fact, you might be defaulted into them and so away you go. And so it, it’s well within our reach as investors either to, to switch these features on at our own election or to be opted into them, uh, as we would be in a retirement plan.

Barry Ritholtz: Explain the difference between auto enrollment and auto escalation.

Jeffrey Ptak: For sure. Yeah. So auto enrollment, the, the notion is. You’re auto-enrolled, you’re, you become a participant in the retirement plan. Auto escalation is you’re in the plan, and then your contribution rate is steadily increased at a predetermined level. And so you know, one is about being in participating. The second is about the extent to which you are participating, both valuable.

Barry Ritholtz: Your research has found automatic investing reduces bad investor outcomes, reduces behavioral errors, promotes consistency. Sounds a little too good to be true. What sort of data have you found that supports automation leading to improved investor returns?

Jeffrey Ptak: It’s a bit inferential because we’re not a brokerage platform, and so we don’t have sort of a tick data. Nevertheless, we can look at the types of funds and where they tend to be used and whether automation is common in those settings, and draw some conclusions.

One of the more striking findings from our research, this is the Mind the Gap study that we conduct, is that investors and allocation funds the most popular version of which are target date funds. They do the best job of capturing their funds, total returns. That is, they experience the fewest frictions related to the timing and magnitude of their transactions over time.

And what do we know about target date funds? We know that people are commonly defaulted into them, that they regularly invest in them just as part of their regular, payroll deduction that takes place.  They’re kind of the signal example of automation.

Then take some other examples of fund types that you wouldn’t find in a retirement plan, like maybe the quintessential example as a sector fund or a thematic fund. You’re typically not going to find those in a planned lineup. We found those have some of the widest gaps. And why is that? They’re not used within that gilded cage of a retirement plan. Furthermore, they might be more subject to discretionary, ad hoc off-cycle trading decisions where there might be a greater propensity to trade on emotion than would be the case with something like a target date fund.

Barry Ritholtz: And, and it sounds like the key advantage of automation is it tends to reduce unnecessary trading and it also reduces the emotional responses to just ordinary market volatility.

Jeffrey Ptak: It does. It’s the best kind of inertia I would say.

We know that, you know, market bobbles can be unnerving to investors and left to their own devices. They might make a change to their allocation. They could elect to remove capital from the markets, and we know how harmful that can be to their long-term compounding power.

Whereas in these settings, because they just continue to mechanically add to their investments. Those investments in turn, you know, take care of some of the mundane tasks like rebalancing and adjusting the asset mix. They just get on with it, and I think that works to their benefit over the long term and certainly our research seems to bear that out.

Barry Ritholtz: We talked about the investor gap, uh, between their actual performance and their funds performance. When we’re looking at automated target date funds or automated allocation funds, how measurable is the gap between those and people who kind of self-manage that allocation?

Jeffrey Ptak: With allocation funds, the largest subset of which are target date funds, we found almost no gap. It was basically 0.1 percentage points per year. Then when you focus on every other type of fund, we found that the gap was around 1.2 percentage points per year. Now, yes, among those other types of funds, it is quite possible that some are using them in an automated fashion. Maybe they have some sort of investment plan that they’ve set up or they’ve otherwise mechanized the process.

But I think it stands to reason that for a fairly large subset of that capital, it’s being invested in a more discretionary fashion. And so you can see the difference between the two of those. It amounts to around 1.1 percentage points annually of return that’s being foregone effectively.

Barry Ritholtz: What are the automation features that have consistently good benefits for investors?

Jeffrey Ptak: Probably the biggie is auto enrollment. We don’t have as much data that we collect, but there are others like Vanguard – they put out a terrific annual study called “How America Saves.” In the most recent edition, they reported 61% of the plans they service as clients at auto enrollment and two thirds of those plans that offered auto enrollment also offered auto escalation. And those that that auto enroll, 98% of them are defaulted into a target date and, and strikingly the average participant holds only two funds, so that gives a sense of the reach of automation in our retirement system.

If I had to choose between the two of those, auto enrollment versus auto escalation, it’s a bit of a false binary, but all the same. I would say auto-enrollment is far, far more important. Why is that? It’s because we want people participating so that they can compound their wealth.

Even if they were to experience a return gap, we would rather that they get some, if not all of their funds, returns and auto enrollment and sees to that.

Before the default settings, there were stories were rife about people working in places for years and the money just piled up in cash and did nothing. It’s kind of, it’s kind of crazy.  That leads to an obvious question. How widespread has the adoption of automation been in the various retirement ecosystems that are out there?

Jeffrey Ptak: It’s become very widespread. You’re talking about two thirds of plans that offer auto enrollment and, and then also a very significant number, auto escalation as well.

One other thing from the Vanguard study that I mentioned before that I found quite telling, they found that 1% of target date fund investors transacted. Last year, that’d be 2024. Compared to 11% of investors in other types of funds. And so it just gives a sense not only, the breadth of automation that’s taking place here, but also some of the benefits it confers in tamping down transacting that we see within these plans.

Barry Ritholtz: Any particular demographic groups stand to benefit more or less from automating these strategies?

Jeffrey Ptak: That is a great question. It was, it was one of the most eye-opening findings from that study. They found that auto-enrollment disproportionately benefited younger and lower-earning participants. You were really talking about a quantum among those cohorts.

And I think that’s critical because we wanna get those folks into plans, in some senses you are talking about socioeconomic demographics that may be more vulnerable, that otherwise wouldn’t have the opportunity to compound wealth in the way we’d like to see. Auto-enrollment has helped to ensure that those gaps get closed.

I think that’s a really, really telling and encouraging finding from their study.

Barry Ritholtz: What, what about non-qualified plans, portfolios outside of 401Ks or IRAs? What can we do to automate those sort of holdings?

Jeffrey Ptak: One thing that you can do is you can set up sort of an auto investment plan, um, very similar to the kind of setup that you would find in a retirement plan. Put that on autopilot. And then I would say to the extent that you can automate your investments

It’s important to have a plan, first of all, but then once you’ve got that plan, you know, maybe it’s an allocation fund, a target date fund, or a target risk fund where you’re fixing the percentage of equity, fixed income and other asset classes, and that obviates the need for you to go in and make adjustments on your own.

Automate, automate, automate. I think those are the key things to ensure that we capture as much of our funds total returns and compound as we can.

Barry Ritholtz: There are a lot of new digital investing tools and AI is starting to have an impact on various strategies. What do you think is going to have a powerful impact on both automation and future investor outcomes?

Jeffrey Ptak: I think, you know, I’m an avid user of AI. I know how beneficial it’s been in my own work, making me more productive. It confers the same sorts of benefits to investors. Maybe helping them to formulate a plan, maybe figuring out the optimal way. For them to allocate their assets, you know, and otherwise sort of keeping them to, you know, sort of the goals that they’ve set consistent with their risk parameters.

The other side of it is it can engender overconfidence. Maybe we feel like we’ve got the capacity to make trading decisions that maybe really are outside of our circle of competence. We just wanna make sure like so many of these other tools and resources we have available to us, we use it in a way that advances our goals. And we don’t get carried away in an overconfident way, in an impulse that we’re likely to succumb to from time to time.

Barry Ritholtz: For either an individual investor or perhaps a financial advisor. If they’re seeking to automate investments, what are the most important factors they should be thinking about when they’re either selecting a platform or a tool to use to help automate?

Jeffrey Ptak: That’s a great question. So, you know, one of the corollaries to automating, at least in a retirement plan context, is it is a little bit of an all in one decision so typically the target date fund is gonna be offered by a single provider.

What, what, what, what that means is that we wanna make sure that, you know, we’re fair, feeling very confident about that organization’s culture, about its staying power, about its overall investor centricity. Those aren’t necessarily easy things to tease out, but I think a little bit of research can tell you whether or not this is a firm that has a certain kind of pedigree, a certain kind of reputation.

Look at the fees that it levies, fees speak volumes about organizational fiber, so to speak. And I think if you can go through and satisfy yourself that this is an organization that has my best interests at heart, that it’s levying a fair fee and is likely to be around for the years to come over which I’m looking to compound. Those are all good facts and I think that they portend well for you to succeed in capturing your fund’s return and compound some real wealth over time.

Barry Ritholtz: To wrap up, there are lots of automated tools that you could use, platforms specific allocation funds, other things you can do to improve your returns, reduce emotional decision making, and generally end up with better performance simply by putting your investments on autopilot.

I’m Barry Ritholtz; You are listening to Bloomberg’s at the Money.

 

~~~

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

 

The post At the Money: Automate Your Investing appeared first on The Big Picture.

Elon Musk's Trillion-Dollar Pay-Package Faces Shareholder Vote Today; Here's What To Know

Elon Musk’s staggering $1 trillion pay package will dominate Tesla’s annual shareholder meeting today, setting up one of the most high-stakes corporate votes in years over the future of the world’s most visible CEO.

The board has made the choice explicit. Tesla Chair Robyn Denholm warned that the decision is about whether shareholders still want to “retain Elon as Tesla’s CEO and motivate him” to make the company “the leading provider of autonomous solutions and the most valuable company” on Earth.

After a Delaware judge struck down his previous $56 billion award twice, Musk has gone without any official compensation — and Tesla is now asking investors to restore a deal even larger than before.

The plan ties Musk’s payout to wildly ambitious milestones.

The package is structured in 12 tranches, each worth 35.3 million shares, tied to both market capitalization milestones and operational objectives.

The first market cap target is $2 trillion, and the final milestone is $8.5 trillion.

Operational targets include:

• Delivering 20 million vehicles over 10 years, more than double Tesla’s production over the past dozen years.

• Securing 10 million full self-driving subscriptions.

• Producing 1 million humanoid robots through Tesla’s Optimus division.

• Operating 1 million robotaxis in commercial service.

• Meeting earnings milestones in eight consecutive quarters, each measured over four quarters.

While these goals are technically achievable, Tesla has struggled to meet some recent operational benchmarks.

As BI noted Musk himself framed the stakes differently on the latest earnings call: “I just don’t feel comfortable building a robot army here and then being ousted because of some asinine recommendations.”

Proxy advisers ISS and Glass Lewis are urging a no vote, citing “excessive power” and weak oversight. Musk fired back in recent days, calling them “corporate terrorists.” But with his own roughly 13% stake and a large base of loyal retail shareholders who usually back him, supporters say the numbers are in his favor. As billionaire investor Ron Baron told CNBC, “Elon is the ultimate ‘key man’ of key man risk. Without his relentless drive and uncompromising standards, there would be no Tesla.”

Photo: Baron, CNBC

Norway’s $2 trillion sovereign wealth fund said it would vote no because of “the total size of the award, dilution, and lack of mitigation of key person risk.” Corporate governance expert Nell Minow said she’d only consider the package if Musk “shut up about politics” and focused fully on Tesla instead of juggling xAI, SpaceX, Neuralink, The Boring Company and his political campaigns.

Shareholders will also weigh Musk’s push for Tesla to invest in his AI startup xAI, which he says Tesla “would have invested in… long ago” if it were up to him. 

Meanwhile, broader concerns over governance are on the ballot — though Tesla’s board has recommended against all shareholder accountability measures, including annual director elections and reversing a Texas rule that limits which investors can sue the board. “These actions violate basic tenets of good corporate governance and must be reversed,” said New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli.

All of this comes during a volatile year for Tesla. The company appears at a jumping off point into AI and robotics, while research suggests the company could have sold dramatically more cars without Musk’s actions outside the company. Yet shares have rebounded — up 14% this year — boosted in part by Musk’s own $1 billion stock purchase.

The outcome of the vote is expected to be announced after today’s meeting in Austin. You can watch the full meeting below, beginning at 4PM EST:

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 11:20

Nancy Pelosi Finally Retiring From Congress At 85

After days of speculation, former House Speaker and legendary insider trader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has formally announced that she out.

In a Thursday morning video, Pelosi announced that she won't seek reelection after completing her current term.

"There has been no greater honor for me than to stand on the House floor and say, ‘I speak for the people of San Francisco.’ I have truly loved serving as your voice in Congress, and I've always honored the soul of Saint Francisco — ‘Lord, make me an instrument of thy peace.' The anthem of our city," Pelosi said in a voiceover. Which 'Lord' she was referring to is unclear. 

"That is why I want you, my fellow San Franciscans to be the first to know I will not be seeking re-election to Congress. With a grateful heart, I look forward to my final year of service as your proud representative as we go forward."

Pelosi, who has been in congress since 1987 after winning a special election to replace the late Rep. Sala Burton (D-CA), served as House speaker from 2007-2011, and then again from 2019 to 2023. 

Pelosi become one of President Trump's largest enemies over the past decade - dramatically tearing up his State of the Union speech in 2020, and refusing to allow the National Guard to deploy on Jan. 6. 

Trump cheered Pelosi's retirement announcement - telling Fox News: "The retirement of Nancy Pelosi is a great thing for America," adding that she's "evil," "corrupt," and "only focused on bad things for our country."

"She was rapidly losing control of her party and it was never coming back. I’m very honored she impeached me twice and failed miserably twice," Trump added. 

Of course, she hasn't been right for a while... this was five years ago:

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 11:00

CarMax Shares Crater As Board Ousts CEO Amid Deepening Used-Car Market Cracks

CarMax shares plunged in the early cash session after the struggling used-car retailer delivered weak preliminary third-quarter results that missed Wall Street expectations, and compounded the blow by announcing the abrupt termination of its chief executive officer.

"We make car buying and selling simple, transparent, and personalized," Chair of the Board Tom Folliard stated in a press release, adding, "However, our recent results do not reflect that potential and change is needed."

Folliard was referring to preliminary third-quarter results: earnings per share forecasted between .18 cents and .36 cents, missed the Bloomberg Consensus of .69 cents

• Prelim EPS 18c to 36c, estimate 69c (Bloomberg Consensus)

• Prelim used unit sales in comparable stores -8% to -12%, estimate -3.7%

In addition to the weak preliminary earnings report, the company's board ousted CEO William D. Nash amid declining revenue...

... and stock collapse. 

The combination of today's news sent shares tumbling as much as 15%, pushing year-to-date losses to over 57%. Meanwhile, online used-car retailer Carvana has gained more than 50% so far this year.

Are CarMax's troubles a broader sign that used-car prices could tumble amid worsening consumer sentiment, with lower- and middle-income households increasingly cutting back on restaurant spending?

Let's not forget that the implosion of subprime auto lender Tricolor Holdings may have been an inflection point... 

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 10:45

France's Plans To Deploy Troops To Ukraine Risk Sparking A Major Crisis

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) reported that France is plotting to deploy up to 2,000 soldiers, the core of which will be Latino assault troops from the Foreign Legion who are presently undergoing intensive training in Poland, to Central Ukraine in the near future.

This follows Chief of Staff of the French Army Pierre Schill declaring that his country will be ready to deploy troops to Ukraine next year as part of “security guarantees”.

Putin earlier warned that any foreign troops there would be legitimate targets.

Nevertheless, SVR reported in late September that “the first group of career military personnel from France and the United Kingdom has already arrived in Odessa”, yet no crisis followed. The reason might be that neither of them confirmed their forces’ presence there, perhaps for escalation-management purposes, so they and Russia aren’t (yet?) making a big deal about any potential casualties. Up to 2,000 conventional troops, however, would be impossible to hide and thus represent a major escalation.

French President Emmanuel Macron first flirted with deploying troops to Ukraine in February 2024, but nothing came of it likely due to reluctance among his NATO allies to risk World War III with Russia. One year later, new Secretary of Defense (now War) Pete Hegseth informed the bloc that the US won’t extend Article 5 security guarantees to allies’ troops in Ukraine. Since then, reports circulated that Trump might authorize US intelligence and logistics support for precisely such a post-war deployment.

These rumors followed his Anchorage Summit with Putin and preceded the US’ latest escalation against Russia by two months, the latter of which was assessed here as being driven in part by Trump believing that he can coerce Putin into the most realistic maximum concessions possible. About that, Russia is unlikely to ever cede the disputed territories under its control since the constitution prohibits that, but it’s hypothetically possible that it could accept the deployment of Western troops to Ukraine one day.

It’s unimportant if some consider this to be a political fantasy since that doesn’t detract from the argument that Trump is formulating US policy towards the Ukrainian Conflict with this scenario in mind. Whether this potentially French-led force would deploy during hostilities or only afterwards is a subject of debate, not to mention whether any such force would ever deploy there at all, but France remembers what Hegseth said in February and therefore probably wouldn’t do so unilaterally without US approval.

Accordingly, it should be assumed that Trump is aware of Schill’s declaration of intent about next year’s possible deployment to Ukraine and Macron’s potential plans to deploy assault troops even sooner but at the very least didn’t object, perhaps even encouraging this as leverage over Putin (as he might see it).

If so, then Putin must decide whether to reach a deal with Trump over this for escalation-management purposes or climb the escalation ladder by authorizing strikes against those troops if they deploy there.

It was predicted here in late September after SVR’s report about French and UK troops in Odessa that “Direct Western intervention in the conflict is now arguably turning into a fait accompli, it’s just a question of how Russia will respond and whether the US will then be pulled into mission creep.”

The two latest news items confirm the accuracy of that analysis, which lends credence to the overall assessment that Trump is “escalating to de-escalate” on better terms for the West and worse ones for Russia.

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 10:25

Yields Plunge After Private Tracker Shows US Lost 9K Jobs In October, Driven By Government Collapse

One month ago, when the market was freaking out by the lack of official government data (it has since realized again, that whether the government is open or closed, or what the jobs number is - certainly not until it is revised 3 or 4 times, does not matter), everyone scrambled to find private sources of economic data. That's when the jobs data compiled by Revelio Labs quickly emerging as one of the favorites. It also showed that contrary to fears prompted by ADP that the US was now in a labor recession, in September the US actually added 60K jobs, the biggest monthly increase of 2025.

Fast forward one month when the news was far uglier: according to the latest Revelio Labs data, not only was Sept revised almost 50% lower from 60K to 33%, but October was ugly, plunging to -9,100, the second worst print of 2025, and the second worst on record (Revelio only goes back to 2021).

Looking below the surface revealed that the actual number is not quite as bad as the entire drop and then some was the result of 22,210 government job losses, but there also losses in manufacturing and trade. 

Coupled with the surge in government layoffs noted earlier as tracked by Challenger...

... and suddenly rate cut odds are spiking, with 0.69 rate cuts priced in for December, up from 0.62 yesterday.

The data has resulted in a broad-based risk off move, with stocks sliding to session lows, and 10Y yields tumbling 5bps to session lows below 4.10%

Tyler Durden Thu, 11/06/2025 - 10:10