ReportWire

Tag: Alternative Investments

  • Bed Bath & Beyond Files for Bankruptcy

    Bed Bath & Beyond Files for Bankruptcy

    [ad_1]

    Bed Bath & Beyond Files for Bankruptcy

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Democratic presidential longshot Marianne Williamson on challenging Biden: ‘We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved’

    Democratic presidential longshot Marianne Williamson on challenging Biden: ‘We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved’

    [ad_1]

    Democrats largely have closed ranks behind President Joe Biden ahead of next year’s election, but he isn’t completely without challengers for the party’s nomination.

    Author and activist Marianne Williamson has thrown her hat in the ring, pursuing a longshot bid that comes after her 2020 presidential campaign fizzled out before the Iowa caucuses.

    Why isn’t she falling in line and supporting her party’s incumbent president? What’s her pitch to people who think she’s not a serious candidate? What are her top economic proposals?

    Williamson, 70, tackled those questions and more in a phone interview earlier this week.

    Our Q&A with the Democratic presidential hopeful has been edited for clarity and length.

    MarketWatch: In a nutshell, could you explain why you’re running for president?

    Williamson: I’m running for president because I believe that some things need to be said and some changes need to be made, in order to repair some serious damage that’s been done to our democracy, to our country, to our people and to our environment over the last 50 years.

    MarketWatch: You’ve talked about running to address “systemic economic injustices endured by millions of Americans” because of the “undue influence of corporate money on our political system.” What do you see as the top examples of that?

    Williamson: During the 1970s, the average American worker had decent benefits, could afford a home, could afford a yearly vacation, could afford a car and could afford to send their child to college. In the last 48 years, there has been a $50 trillion transfer of wealth from the bottom 90% to the top 1% of Americans. That transfer has decimated our middle class. We are now at a point where if you are among 20% of Americans, then the economy’s doing pretty well for you. But, unfortunately, that 20% is surrounded by a vast sea of economic despair. We have 60,000 people in the United States who die every year because they can’t afford healthcare
    XLV,
    -1.11%
    ,
    one in four Americans living with a medical debt, and 18 million Americans unable to fill the prescriptions that their doctors give to them.

    If you are in the club in America, if you are making it in America — and I have sold some books, so I understand the high side of the free market and have benefited, and I’m grateful for that — but no conscious persons wants to feel that they create wealth at the expense of other people having a chance. That is not American. It’s not what the American Dream is supposed to be.

    I’m not trying to whitewash and romanticize American capitalism before this era. I’m not saying we were ever perfect, but it does seem to me that when I was growing up, the social consensus is that we were supposed to try. We knew that the higher good was that there would be this balance between individual liberty, including economic liberty, and a concern for the common good. But today concern for the common good has become almost derided as some quaint notion, and that we shouldn’t really give much more than lip service to it. And that’s a lot of human suffering that occurs because of that change in the social contract.

    MarketWatch: Here’s kind of a two-part question. What would be your top economic priorities, and how in particular would you address high inflation and the recent banking
    KBE,
    -1.65%

    crisis?

    Williamson: I’d like to see universal healthcare. I want to see tuition-free college at state colleges and universities, which is what we had in this country until the 1960s. There should be free childcare. There should be paid family leave. There should be guaranteed sick pay and a livable wage. And I think Americans are waking up to the fact that those things that I just mentioned are considered moderate issues in every other advanced democracy. They should not be considered left-wing fringe issues. They are granted to the citizens of every other advanced democracy.

    That was your first question. The second has to do with high inflation. A lot of that high inflation has to do with price gouging by huge corporations, whether it has to do with food companies, transportation companies and so forth. All of those CEOs should testify before Congress and talk about the ways that they have — for the sake of their own profits — gouged the American people, particularly at such a time as this. And this is what happens when we normalize such a lack of conscience and such a lack of ethics within our system.

    In terms of what happened with the bank in Silicon Valley
    SIVBQ,
    -3.39%
    ,
    which is what your third question was, right? I think the depositors should be made whole, but the bank executives who were taking multimillion-dollar bonuses for themselves, both before and right after the crash, they certainly should not get those bonuses. And also it’s concerning that some of the tech investors that would benefit the most from those deposits were the ones who caused the run on the bank. I don’t think that they should receive the benefit of what happens when those deposits are made whole. But the average depositor absolutely should be made whole in such cases.

    MarketWatch: You mentioned free tuition and child care. Where would the funding for that come from?

    Williamson: The funding should come, first of all, from taxation. The 2017 tax cut in this country was a $2 trillion tax cut, and 83 cents of every dollar went to the highest-earning corporations and individuals. Now that tax cut also included the middle-class tax cut, and the middle-class tax cut was good.

    That tax cut for the highest earners should be repealed, but the middle-class tax cut should be put back in immediately.

    Secondly, we should stop all the corporate subsidies. Why are we giving subsidies to these companies that are already making multibillions of dollars in profit and often then price gouging the American people?

    Third, I believe there should be a wealth tax. If somebody has $50 million, I don’t have any problem with their paying an extra 2% tax. And if they have $1 billion, let them pay another 1%. Somebody with a $50 million portfolio, much less $1 billion in assets, would not even feel that change, but the changes in people’s lives that would be created by those shifts would be huge.

    MarketWatch: Your campaign often gets described as a real longshot bid. Why are you running when so many people say you have a low chance for success?

    Williamson: Well, certainly Donald Trump was considered a longshot. For that matter, when he began Barack Obama was considered a longshot. Surely we remember when Hillary Clinton was considered a shoo-in.

    MarketWatch: A recent Monmouth University poll of Democratic voters found 11% had a favorable view of you, 16% had an unfavorable view, 21% had no opinion, and 52% had not heard of you. How do you win over those voters who have an unfavorable view, and how do you reach the folks who haven’t heard of you?

    Williamson: Well, there was a poll that came out last week that put me at 10%, including 18% with independents and 21% with people under 30.

    It’s very difficult for someone like myself to get the message out when you have such institutional resistance to my even being in the conversation, and that is displayed in various ways. But there is independent media today. God knows there’s TikTok, where my information seems to be doing quite well.

    This early, no candidate should be allowing the polls to determine their path forward. I didn’t go into this expecting the approval of institutional forces. And I, as a matter of fact, expected the kind of resistance that I’ve received, but that doesn’t matter. What matters is that a certain agenda be placed before the American people, and I am providing that option — the option of that alternative agenda.

    I believe that agenda is the way for the Democrats to win in 2024. But even more importantly, I think it’s the agenda that will lead to the repair of this country.

    MarketWatch: You mentioned TikTok, and that has been a hot topic in Washington, D.C., in recent weeks. Do you have a view on the Democratic and Republican proposals to ban TikTok in the U.S.?

    Williamson: I think the United States government does need to be concerned with tech
    XLK,
    -1.00%

    surveillance, but I wish they were as concerned when it comes to American-run companies as when it comes to Chinese. It’s a serious issue, it’s a valid issue — the whole issue of surveillance. But it’s a gnarly issue as well, and rushing to shut something down, which is so obviously a platform depended on by millions and millions of Americans for information sharing, is never something that should be done lightly.

    MarketWatch: Some Americans may know you only for your spiritual work, and these folks may not think you’re a serious presidential candidate. The White House press secretary indicated she’s in that camp. What’s your message to win those folks over?

    Williamson: First of all, I don’t think of my campaign as quote-unquote trying to win anyone over. There’s something that I read years ago that has always guided my work: “If there’s something you genuinely need to say, there’s someone out there who genuinely needs to hear it.” I am speaking to people who I know agree with me. I wouldn’t be doing this if I weren’t aware that millions of people agree with me.

    I think it’s very sad that the president would allow a presidential press podium to be used to mock a political opponent, and I think that many people were and are offended by that. This is a democracy. We should have as many voices out there as possible. We should have as many people running in an election as feel moved. Nobody has a monopoly on good ideas. There are ideas on the left and ideas on the right. There are ideas all across the spectrum, and this is a point in American history where we as Americans should hear them all.

    MarketWatch: What do you think are some of the main things that President Biden has gotten right, and in what areas has he gone wrong?

    Williamson: Well, the first thing he did right was he defeated Donald Trump. The president has taken an incremental approach to America’s problems, and I believe that he does wish to alleviate the suffering of many people whose lives are affected by some deeply unjust systems. But I don’t think that the alleviation of stress is enough right now. We need fundamental economic reform.

    We also need a serious answer to climate change, and the president’s approval of the Willow project is not that. The president has said that he recognizes that climate change is an existential crisis, and yet he has given more oil
    CL00,
    +0.34%

    permits than even Donald Trump did, and he has approved the Willow project.

    He also said that there will be a raise in the minimum wage. He did that for federal workers, but when it came to the Senate parliamentarian saying that he couldn’t put that raise in a bill, then he conveniently stopped right there and simply acquiesced to what the parliamentarian had said.

    The Democratic House and Senate — they did cut child poverty in half with the child tax credit, but then, when that expired six months later, they didn’t bother to permanentize it.

    These are the kinds of half-measures and incremental measures which are not enough to change the fundamental economic patterns in this country that lead to so much chronic economic anxiety and despair.

    Joe Biden is shown in conversation in August 2019 with Marianne Williamson during an event for Democratic presidential candidates in Clear Lake, Iowa.


    AFP via Getty Images

    MarketWatch: One thing that comes up often with President Biden is his age, which is 80, while you’re 70. Do you think his age should be a concern, or is it ageism to bring it up?

    Williamson: I think the individual has to consider this themselves. I have a problem, of course, contributing to the conversation because of the issue of ageism. But on the other hand, everybody can see for themselves what they can see for themselves.

    I can only say if I were 80, I wouldn’t be running. But you know, I will not take potshots at the president, and I think that veers into potshots.

    MarketWatch: Let’s talk about taking on Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis or whomever the Republican nominee ends up being. Why do you think you’re the Democrat who could end up beating one of them?

    Williamson: Republicans are going to throw some big lies at the Democrats in 2024, and the only way that we’re going to defeat them, in my opinion, is to tell some big truths. Franklin Roosevelt said we would not have to worry about a fascist takeover in this country as long as democracy delivered on its promises. Democracy has not delivered on its promises. The only way to beat Donald Trump or Ron DeSantis in 2024 is to propose an agenda in which democracy once again delivers on its promises to the majority of the American people. And that would mean the issues I mentioned before: universal healthcare, tuition-free college, free child care, a guaranteed livable wage and paid family leave. Those are given to the citizens in every other advanced democracy, and there is no good reason whatsoever why they are not delivered to the average citizen in the United States.

    MarketWatch: There are Democrats who could be challenging President Biden for the party’s 2024 nomination, but they aren’t and instead they’re supporting him. Why aren’t there more efforts in the party to get people to run for president?

    Williamson: Well, you’d have to ask them why they’re not running. But there’s clearly a trope that the field should clear, and everybody should simply get in line with the opinion of the Democratic establishment that Biden is the man because they have decided so. I don’t see it that way. I believe the Democratic primary voters — and independent voters and anyone else, if it’s an open primary — they should decide who the Democratic candidate is. To me, that’s what democracy is. That’s what elections are about.

    MarketWatch: The Democratic Party is not expected to hold presidential primary debates for 2024. What can you do to change that and get some time on a debate stage?

    Williamson: Well, I hope to have a successful campaign. I hope to have high poll numbers. I hope to have a lot of people in those primary states yelling foul. It’s a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The American people should hear what their options are, and that’s what a debate would be. If enough people realize that and believe it and make laws about it, then that is what will happen.

    I think sometimes there’s a kind of learned powerlessness on the part of the American people today. We forget the radicalism of the American experiment, which is that the governance of this country is supposed to be in our hands. But the American people have been trained to expect too little and almost trained to give up the power of independent thought. I hope that my campaign and other things that occur in this campaign season will awaken people, and I think a certain kind of awakening is happening already.

    MarketWatch: We’re a financially focused publication, so here’s a question along those lines. I looked at your financial disclosure from your 2020 presidential run. It showed some investments in big public companies like Apple
    AAPL,
    -0.58%

    and Mastercard
    MA,
    +0.27%

    Williamson: Wait, what are you talking about?

    MarketWatch: That’s from your 2019 executive-branch personnel public financial disclosure report. It shows investments in various stocks and funds. The question — for our readers who are investors or people saving for retirement — is could you describe your own approach to investing and preparing for retirement? 

    Williamson: Socially responsible investing, and that’s why I said, “Whoa, what?” Because I believe in investing in socially responsible companies.

    MarketWatch: One last question: What else would you like people to know?

    Williamson: America has some serious problems, but we have infinite potential to solve those problems. We need to revisit our first principles, as John Adams said, and find that place in our hearts where, as Americans, as adults in this generation, we recognize that this profound idea of American democracy is put in our hands for safekeeping. And that doesn’t just give us rights; it gives us responsibilities. The political system in the United States speaks to us too often like we’re children, like we’re seventh-graders. Our public dialogue is too often on this kind of seventh-grade level. This is not a time to be an immature thinker, and it’s not a time to get into mean-spiritedness or cynicism either. If we allow ourselves to rise to the occasion, no matter what our politics are, we’re going to repair what has been broken, and we are going to initiate a new beginning. I think that’s possible. Other generations have done it, and we can do it, too.

    MarketWatch: Thank you for being available to chat.

    Williamson: Thank you very, very much.

    Now read: Here are the Republicans running for president — or seen as potential 2024 candidates

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Hedge funds and banks offer to buy deposits trapped at Silicon Valley Bank

    Hedge funds and banks offer to buy deposits trapped at Silicon Valley Bank

    [ad_1]

    Hedge funds are offering to buy startup deposits at Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) for as little as 60 cents on the dollar, Semafor reported on Saturday, citing people familiar with the matter.

    Bids range from 60 to 80 cents on the dollar, the report said adding that the range reflects expectations for how much of the uninsured deposits will be eventually recovered once the bank’s assets are sold or wound down.

    Firms like Oaktree which are known for investing in distressed debt are contacting startup businesses after SVB’s
    SIVB,
    -60.41%

    seizure by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp (FDIC), the report said.

    Traders from investment bank Jefferies are also contacting startup founders with deposits at the bank, offering to buy their deposit claims at a discount, The Information reported separately.

    Jefferies is offering at least 70 cents on the dollar for deposit claims, the report said, citing several people with direct knowledge of the matter.

    Oaktree declined to comment on the reports. Jefferies could not be immediately reached for comment.

    Silicon Valley Bank was taken over by the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation on Friday after depositors, concerned about the lender’s financial health, rushed to withdraw their their deposits. The two-day run on the bank stunned markets, wiping out more than $100 billion in market value for U.S. banks.

    See: Silicon Valley Bank branches closed by regulator in biggest bank failure since Washington Mutual

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Look for stocks to lose 30% from here, says strategist David Rosenberg. And don’t even think about turning bullish until 2024.

    Look for stocks to lose 30% from here, says strategist David Rosenberg. And don’t even think about turning bullish until 2024.

    [ad_1]

    David Rosenberg, the former chief North American economist at Merrill Lynch, has been saying for almost a year that the Fed means business and investors should take the U.S. central bank’s effort to fight inflation both seriously and literally.

    Rosenberg, now president of Toronto-based Rosenberg Research & Associates Inc., expects investors will face more pain in financial markets in the months to come.

    “The recession’s just starting,” Rosenberg said in an interview with MarketWatch. “The market bottoms typically in the sixth or seventh inning of the recession, deep into the Fed easing cycle.” Investors can expect to endure more uncertainty leading up to the time — and it will come — when the Fed first pauses its current run of interest rate hikes and then begins to cut.

    Fortunately for investors, the Fed’s pause and perhaps even cuts will come in 2023, Rosenberg predicts. Unfortunately, he added, the S&P 500
    SPX,
    -0.61%

    could drop 30% from its current level before that happens. Said Rosenberg: “You’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2,900.”

    At that point, Rosenberg added, stocks will look attractive again. But that’s a story for 2024.

    In this recent interview, which has been edited for length and clarity, Rosenberg offered a playbook for investors to follow this year and to prepare for a more bullish 2024. Meanwhile, he said, as they wait for the much-anticipated Fed pivot, investors should make their own pivot to defensive sectors of the financial markets — including bonds, gold and dividend-paying stocks.

    MarketWatch: So many people out there are expecting a recession. But stocks have performed well to start the year. Are investors and Wall Street out of touch?

    Rosenberg: Investor sentiment is out of line; the household sector is still enormously overweight equities. There is a disconnect between how investors feel about the outlook and how they’re actually positioned. They feel bearish but they’re still positioned bullishly, and that is a classic case of cognitive dissonance. We also have a situation where there is a lot of talk about recession and about how this is the most widely expected recession of all time, and yet the analyst community is still expecting corporate earnings growth to be positive in 2023.

    In a plain-vanilla recession, earnings go down 20%. We’ve never had a recession where earnings were up at all. The consensus is that we are going to see corporate earnings expand in 2023. So there’s another glaring anomaly. We are being told this is a widely expected recession, and yet it’s not reflected in earnings estimates – at least not yet.

    There’s nothing right now in my collection of metrics telling me that we’re anywhere close to a bottom. 2022 was the year where the Fed tightened policy aggressively and that showed up in the marketplace in a compression in the price-earnings multiple from roughly 22 to around 17. The story in 2022 was about what the rate hikes did to the market multiple; 2023 will be about what those rate hikes do to corporate earnings.

    You’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2,900.

    When you’re attempting to be reasonable and come up with a sensible multiple for this market, given where the risk-free interest rate is now, and we can generously assume a roughly 15 price-earnings multiple. Then you slap that on a recession earning environment, and you’re left with the S&P 500 bottoming out somewhere close to 2900.

    The closer we get to that, the more I will be recommending allocations to the stock market. If I was saying 3200 before, there is a reasonable outcome that can lead you to something below 3000. At 3200 to tell you the truth I would plan on getting a little more positive.

    This is just pure mathematics. All the stock market is at any point is earnings multiplied by the multiple you want to apply to that earnings stream. That multiple is sensitive to interest rates. All we’ve seen is Act I — multiple compression. We haven’t yet seen the market multiple dip below the long-run mean, which is closer to 16. You’ve never had a bear market bottom with the multiple above the long-run average. That just doesn’t happen.

    David Rosenberg: ‘You want to be in defensive areas with strong balance sheets, earnings visibility, solid dividend yields and dividend payout ratios.’


    Rosenberg Research

    MarketWatch: The market wants a “Powell put” to rescue stocks, but may have to settle for a “Powell pause.” When the Fed finally pauses its rate hikes, is that a signal to turn bullish?

    Rosenberg: The stock market bottoms 70% of the way into a recession and 70% of the way into the easing cycle. What’s more important is that the Fed will pause, and then will pivot. That is going to be a 2023 story.

    The Fed will shift its views as circumstances change. The S&P 500 low will be south of 3000 and then it’s a matter of time. The Fed will pause, the markets will have a knee-jerk positive reaction you can trade. Then the Fed will start to cut interest rates, and that usually takes place six months after the pause. Then there will be a lot of giddiness in the market for a short time. When the market bottoms, it’s the mirror image of when it peaks. The market peaks when it starts to see the recession coming. The next bull market will start once investors begin to see the recovery.

    But the recession’s just starting. The market bottoms typically in the sixth or seventh inning of the recession, deep into the Fed easing cycle when the central bank has cut interest rates enough to push the yield curve back to a positive slope. That is many months away. We have to wait for the pause, the pivot, and for rate cuts to steepen the yield curve. That will be a late 2023, early 2024 story.

    MarketWatch: How concerned are you about corporate and household debt? Are there echoes of the 2008-09 Great Recession?

    Rosenberg: There’s not going to be a replay of 2008-09. It doesn’t mean there won’t be a major financial spasm. That always happens after a Fed tightening cycle. The excesses are exposed, and expunged. I look at it more as it could be a replay of what happened with nonbank financials in the 1980s, early 1990s, that engulfed the savings and loan industry. I am concerned about the banks in the sense that they have a tremendous amount of commercial real estate exposure on their balance sheets. I do think the banks will be compelled to bolster their loan-loss reserves, and that will come out of their earnings performance. That’s not the same as incurring capitalization problems, so I don’t see any major banks defaulting or being at risk of default.

    But I’m concerned about other pockets of the financial sector. The banks are actually less important to the overall credit market than they’ve been in the past. This is not a repeat of 2008-09 but we do have to focus on where the extreme leverage is centered.

    Read: The stock market is wishing and hoping the Fed will pivot — but the pain won’t end until investors panic

    It’s not necessarily in the banks this time; it is in other sources such as private equity, private debt, and they have yet to fully mark-to-market their assets. That’s an area of concern. The parts of the market that cater directly to the consumer, like credit cards, we’re already starting to see signs of stress in terms of the rise in 30-day late-payment rates. Early stage arrears are surfacing in credit cards, auto loans and even some elements of the mortgage market. The big risk to me is not so much the banks, but the nonbank financials that cater to credit cards, auto loans, and private equity and private debt.

    MarketWatch: Why should individuals care about trouble in private equity and private debt? That’s for the wealthy and the big institutions.

    Rosenberg: Unless private investment firms gate their assets, you’re going to end up getting a flood of redemptions and asset sales, and that affects all markets. Markets are intertwined. Redemptions and forced asset sales will affect market valuations in general. We’re seeing deflation in the equity market and now in a much more important market for individuals, which is residential real estate. One of the reasons why so many people have delayed their return to the labor market is they looked at their wealth, principally equities and real estate, and thought they could retire early based on this massive wealth creation that took place through 2020 and 2021.

    Now people are having to recalculate their ability to retire early and fund a comfortable retirement lifestyle. They will be forced back into the labor market. And the problem with a recession of course is that there are going to be fewer job openings, which means the unemployment rate is going to rise. The Fed is already telling us we’re going to 4.6%, which itself is a recession call; we’re going to blow through that number. All this plays out in the labor market not necessarily through job loss, but it’s going to force people to go back and look for a job. The unemployment rate goes up — that has a lag impact on nominal wages and that is going to be another factor that will curtail consumer spending, which is 70% of the economy.

    My strongest conviction is the 30-year Treasury bond.

    At some point, we’re going to have to have some sort of positive shock that will arrest the decline. The cycle is the cycle and what dominates the cycle are interest rates. At some point we get the recessionary pressures, inflation melts, the Fed will have successfully reset asset values to more normal levels, and we will be in a different monetary policy cycle by the second half of 2024 that will breathe life into the economy and we’ll be off to a recovery phase, which the market will start to discount later in 2023. Nothing here is permanent. It’s about interest rates, liquidity and the yield curve that has played out before.

    MarketWatch: Where do you advise investors to put their money now, and why?

    Rosenberg: My strongest conviction is the 30-year Treasury bond
    TMUBMUSD30Y,
    3.674%
    .
    The Fed will cut rates and you’ll get the biggest decline in yields at the short end. But in terms of bond prices and the total return potential, it’s at the long end of the curve. Bond yields always go down in a recession. Inflation is going to fall more quickly than is generally anticipated. Recession and disinflation are powerful forces for the long end of the Treasury curve.

    As the Fed pauses and then pivots — and this Volcker-like tightening is not permanent — other central banks around the world are going to play catch up, and that is going to undercut the U.S. dollar
    DXY,
    +0.70%
    .
    There are few better hedges against a U.S. dollar reversal than gold. On top of that, cryptocurrency has been exposed as being far too volatile to be part of any asset mix. It’s fun to trade, but crypto is not an investment. The crypto craze — fund flows directed to bitcoin
    BTCUSD,
    +0.35%

    and the like — drained the gold price by more than $200 an ounce.

    Buy companies that provide the goods and services that people need – not what they want.

    I’m bullish on gold
    GC00,
    +0.22%

    – physical gold — bullish on bonds, and within the stock market, under the proviso that we have a recession, you want to ensure you are invested in sectors with the lowest possible correlation to GDP growth.

    Invest in 2023 the same way you’re going to be living life — in a period of frugality. Buy companies that provide the goods and services that people need – not what they want. Consumer staples, not consumer cyclicals. Utilities. Health care. I look at Apple as a cyclical consumer products company, but Microsoft is a defensive growth technology company.

    You want to be buying essentials, staples, things you need. When I look at Microsoft
    MSFT,
    -0.61%
    ,
    Alphabet
    GOOGL,
    -1.79%
    ,
    Amazon
    AMZN,
    -1.17%
    ,
    they are what I would consider to be defensive growth stocks and at some point this year, they will deserve to be garnering a very strong look for the next cycle.

    You also want to invest in areas with a secular growth tailwind. For example, military budgets are rising in every part of the world and that plays right into defense/aerospace stocks. Food security, whether it’s food producers, anything related to agriculture, is an area you ought to be invested in.

    You want to be in defensive areas with strong balance sheets, earnings visibility, solid dividend yields and dividend payout ratios. If you follow that you’ll do just fine. I just think you’ll do far better if you have a healthy allocation to long-term bonds and gold. Gold finished 2022 unchanged, in a year when flat was the new up.

    In terms of the relative weighting, that’s a personal choice but I would say to focus on defensive sectors with zero or low correlation to GDP, a laddered bond portfolio if you want to play it safe, or just the long bond, and physical gold. Also, the Dogs of the Dow fits the screening for strong balance sheets, strong dividend payout ratios and a nice starting yield. The Dogs outperformed in 2022, and 2023 will be much the same. That’s the strategy for 2023.

    More: ‘It’s payback time.’ U.S. stocks have been a no-brainer moneymaker for years — but those days are over.

    Plus: ‘The Nasdaq is our favorite short.’ This market strategist sees recession and a credit crunch slamming stocks in 2023.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Cash is no longer trash, says Dalio, who calls it more attractive than stocks and bonds

    Cash is no longer trash, says Dalio, who calls it more attractive than stocks and bonds

    [ad_1]

    ‘Cash used to be trashy. Cash is pretty attractive now. It’s attractive in relation to bonds. It’s actually attractive in relation to stocks.’

    Bridgewater Associates founder Ray Dalio no longer thinks “cash is trash.” In fact, just the opposite.

    Over the past year, cash has become “pretty attractive” relative to both stocks and bonds, the famed hedge-fund manager said during a Thursday interview with CNBC.

    While bonds might offer investors a higher yield, swollen public-sector debts in the U.S., Europe and Japan and negative real yields have made debt securities less appealing, Dalio said.

    That’s a notable shift from last May, when Dalio said that cash was still “trash” but that stocks were “trashier” as the 2022 market meltdown got underway. Dalio offered an update in October, when he tweeted that he had changed his mind about cash and now viewed it as “about neutral.”

    Dalio has become closely associated with the “cash is trash” line after using it in several interviews dating back to at least 2019. Back then, rock-bottom interest rates were bolstering valuations of both stocks and bonds.

    During the cable-news interview, Dalio offered some criticisms of bitcoin
    BTCUSD,
    +0.56%
    ,
    which, like stocks, has rebounded since the start of the year.

    “I think you’re going to see the development of coins that you haven’t seen that will be attractive, viable coins … [but] I don’t think bitcoin is it,” he said.

    The billionaire recently stepped back from day-to-day management at Bridgewater Associates, the pioneering hedge fund that he built into the world’s largest in terms of assets under management.

    Bridgewater announced on Thursday that the firm had promoted Karen Karniol-Tambour to the position of co–chief investment officer alongside Bob Prince and Greg Jensen.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Southwest Airlines cancels two-thirds of its flights, with more cancellations planned

    Southwest Airlines cancels two-thirds of its flights, with more cancellations planned

    [ad_1]

    Southwest Airlines Co. canceled more than two-thirds of its flights Monday and plans to slash its schedules Tuesday and Wednesday, in a meltdown that stranded thousands of customers and that worsened while other airlines began to recover from the holiday winter storm.

    “We had a tough day today. In all likelihood we’ll have another tough day tomorrow as we work our way out of this,” Chief Executive Bob Jordan said in an interview Monday evening. “This is the largest scale event that I’ve ever seen.” 

    Southwest
    LUV,
    +1.78%

    plans to operate just over one-third of its typical schedule in the coming days to give itself leeway for crews to get into the right positions, he said, adding that the reduced schedule could be extended.

    Southwest’s more than 2,800 scrapped flights Monday, the highest of any major U.S. airline, came as the Dallas-based airline proved unable to stabilize its operations amid the past week’s storm. Between Thursday and Monday, the airline canceled about 8,000 flights, according to FlightAware.

    On Monday, the Department of Transportation called Southwest’s rate of cancellations “disproportionate and unacceptable” and said it would examine whether the cancellations were controllable and whether the airline is complying with its customer service plan.

    Ryan Green, Southwest’s chief commercial officer, said in an interview the airline is taking steps such as covering customers’ reasonable travel costs—including hotels, rental cars and tickets on other airlines, and will be communicating the process for customers to have expenses reimbursed. He also said customers whose flights are being canceled as the airline recovers are entitled to refunds if they opt not to travel. 

    The troubles at Southwest intensified Monday despite generally improving weather conditions and warming temperatures throughout much of the eastern half of the country, which had been pummeled by snow, wind and subfreezing temperatures in recent days.

    An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

    Trending at WSJ.com:

    SPAC boom ends in frenzy of liquidation

    Wall Street nailed earnings but missed the bear market

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  •  Individual Investors Hang On in Wild Year for Stocks While Pros Sell 

     Individual Investors Hang On in Wild Year for Stocks While Pros Sell 

    [ad_1]

    During the wildest year for global markets since 2008, individual investors have been doubling down on stocks. Many professionals, on the other hand, appear to have bailed out.  

    U.S. equity mutual and exchange-traded funds, which are popular among individual investors, have attracted more than $100 billion in net inflows this year, one of the highest amounts on record in EPFR data going back to 2000. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Investors Grow More Confident Fed Will Pull Off a Soft Landing

    Investors Grow More Confident Fed Will Pull Off a Soft Landing

    [ad_1]

    Investors Grow More Confident Fed Will Pull Off a Soft Landing

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Saudi crown prince set to invest in Credit Suisse’s new investment bank

    Saudi crown prince set to invest in Credit Suisse’s new investment bank

    [ad_1]

    Saudi Arabia’s crown prince and a U.S. private-equity firm run by Barclays PLC’s former chief executive are among investors preparing to invest $1 billion or more into Credit Suisse’s
    CSGN,
    +6.61%

    CS,
    +9.39%

    new investment bank, people familiar with the matter said. 

    Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is considering an investment of around $500 million to back the new unit, CS First Boston, and its CEO-designate, Michael Klein, some of the people said. Additional financial backing could come from U.S. investors including veteran banker Bob Diamond‘s Atlas Merchant Capital, people familiar with that potential investment said. Credit Suisse previously said it had $500 million committed from an additional investor it hasn’t named.  

    Credit Suisse has received a number of proposals from investors interested in CS First Boston. Credit Suisse Chairman Axel Lehmann at a conference on Thursday said it has other firm commitments in addition to the $500 million from the unnamed investor. The bank hasn’t received a formal proposal from any Saudi entity, some of the people familiar with the matter said. 

    Credit Suisse is spinning off the New York-based investment bank as part of a fresh start after being buffeted by scandals, regulatory scrutiny and steep losses. It is raising $4.2 billion in new stock that separately will make Saudi National Bank its largest shareholder. It isn’t clear if Prince Mohammed would make the investment through that bank, or another investment vehicle. He is chairman of the country’s sovereign-wealth fund, Public Investment Fund, which along with another government fund is Saudi National Bank’s main owner. 

    An expanded version of this report appears on WSJ.com.

    Also popular on WSJ.com:

    Apple makes plans to move production out of China.

    FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried says he can’t account for billions sent to Alameda.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bill Ackman says he sees why FTX victims want Sam Bankman-Fried to ‘suffer’ severe consequences ‘including jail time’

    Bill Ackman says he sees why FTX victims want Sam Bankman-Fried to ‘suffer’ severe consequences ‘including jail time’

    [ad_1]

    Hedge-fund titan Bill Ackman appears to be walking back comments he made via Twitter last week about Sam Bankman-Fried that some interpreted as implicit support for the 30-something who presided over one of the most epic bankruptcies in financial markets in recent memory.

    Last week, Ackman tweeted that Bankman-Fried’s statements made during a widely watched interview, streamed to New York from the crypto founder’s location in the Bahamas, was “believable.”

    “Many have interpreted my tweet to mean that I am defending SBF or somehow supporting him. Nothing could be further from the truth,” Ackman wrote Saturday, referring to Bankman-Fried by his initials SBF.

    Ackman went on to describe the implosion of Bankman-Fried’s crypto exchange FTX, and some of its associated businesses, as “at a minimum, the most egregious, large-scale case of business gross negligence that I have observed in my career.”

    Check out: The Sam Bankman-Fried roadshow rolls on: 10 crazy things the FTX founder has just said

    Ackman, who is the chief executive of Pershing Square Capital, a prominent investor in traditional markets, and an advocate of crypto, last week, tweeted this message following the widely watched interview of Bankman-Fried at the New York Times Dealbook Summit:

    “Call me crazy, but I think SBF is telling the truth.”

    Ackman has been chastised by some for seemingly offering verbal succor to a person who some have accused of, at the least, an epic mismanagement of client assets.

    Speaking against the wishes of his lawyers, Bankman-Fried on Wednesday, during the Dealbook interview, admitted to making mistakes but said that he never intended to mingle client funds with those of the firm to make leveraged bets on crypto via hedge fund Alameda Research, which he founded before he started FTX.

    “I didn’t know exactly what was going on,” Bankman said at the time.

    At least one response to Ackman’s Saturday tweet, questioned whether the hedge funder might be responding to blowback from his own clients.

    It isn’t the first time that Ackman has cast Bankman-Fried’s actions in a positive light. As the implosion of FTX was unfolding, Ackman said, in a now-deleted tweet, that he’d never before seen a CEO take responsibility as the crypto exchange operator did and that he wanted to give him “credit” for his actions. “It reflects well on him and the possibility of a more favorable outcome” for FTX, he wrote.

    On Saturday, one Twitter user asked Ackman if had any ties to Bankman-Fried, which the investor bluntly said he doesn’t.

    Bankman-Fried had been viewed as a financial darling inside and outside the crypto industry until his empire collapsed on Nov. 11 and it was revealed that affiliated hedge fund Alameda lost billions in FTX client money in leveraged crypto bets.

    John Ray, the new chief executive of FTX, in a filing to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, described the state of the crypto platform “as a complete failure of corporate controls and such a complete absence of trustworthy financial information.” 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • COP27 wins and losses: U.S. on the hook to pay for its pollution; natural gas gets nod as transition fuel

    COP27 wins and losses: U.S. on the hook to pay for its pollution; natural gas gets nod as transition fuel

    [ad_1]

    For the first time ever, rich nations, including a top-polluting U.S., will pay for the climate-change damage inflicted upon poorer nations.

    These smaller economies are often the source of the fossil fuels
    CL00,
    +0.19%
    ,
    minerals
    PICK,
    -0.20%

    and other raw materials behind the developed world’s modern conveniences and technologicial advancement, including many practices responsible for the Earth-warming emisisons. And yet the developing world shoulders the worst of the droughts, deadly heat, ruined crops and eroding coastlines that take lives and eat into economic growth.

    The deal, called “loss and damage” in summit shorthand, was struck as the U.N.’s Conference of Parties, or COP27, gaveled to a close near dawn Sunday in Egypt. Official talks ended Friday, but negotiations extended into the weekend.

    Read: Historic compensation fund approved at U.N. climate talks

    It was a big win for poorer nations which have long sought money — sometimes viewed as reparations — because they are often the victims of climate-worsened floods, famines and storms despite contributing little directly to the pollution that heats up the globe. It took last-minute, pre-summit negotiations to even get the topic on the official agenda.

    “Three long decades and we have finally delivered climate justice,” said Seve Paeniu, the finance minister of island nation Tuvalu, according to the Associated Press. “We have finally responded to the call of hundreds of millions of people across the world to help them address loss and damage.”

    ‘Three long decades and we have finally delivered climate justice.’


    — Seve Paeniu, finance minister for Tuvalu

    Pakistan’s environment minister, Sherry Rehman, said the establishment of the fund “is not about dispensing charity.” Pakistan, hit by devastating drought and more, dominated climate-change headlines this year.

    “It is clearly a down payment on the longer investment in our joint futures,” she said, speaking for a coalition of the world’s poorest nations.

    According to many conference participants, the U.S. was a late-stage roadblock to establishing this official payout language, though it signed off in the end. U.S. participation was also impacted once chief climate negotiator John Kerry tested positive for COVID-19, although he continued to work from his hotel.

    How does COP27 ‘loss and damage’ work? And where’s China?

    According to the agreement, the fund would initially draw on contributions from developed countries and other private and public sources such as international financial institutions, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund.

    While major emerging economies such as China wouldn’t automatically have to contribute, that option remains on the table. This is a key demand by the European Union and the U.S., who argue that China and other large polluters currently classified as “developing” countries have the financial clout and responsibility to pay their way.

    The fund would be largely aimed at the most vulnerable nations, though there would be room for middle-income countries that are severely battered by climate disasters to get aid.

    Getting serious about methane

    Attention on methane, a more-potent but shorter-lasting greenhouse gas than carbon, was considered a major win at the summit. Some 150 countries have now signed on to the voluntary Global Methane Pledge, an official effort to cap the release of the GHG whose reduction presents perhaps the easiest way to reduce the global warming.

    Read more: Natural gas-focused methane pact expands at climate summit, minus China

    With the pledge, countries representing 45% of global methane emissions have vowed to reduce their emissions by 30% by 2030. If methane-reduction pledges are met, the result would be equivalent to eliminating the GHG emissions from all of the world’s cars, trucks, buses and all two- and three-wheeled vehicles, according to the International Energy Agency.

    China, the world’s largest polluter by some measures, has not signed the deadline-based pledge, but has agreed to reduce methane emissions.

    Still largely voluntary

    COP27 talks wrapped without concrete progress on the contentious issue of shifting an overall 1.5 degrees Celsius temperature limit from a voluntary marker to an established requirement of nations. Most voluntary pacts among nations and private entities, including a vow by Amazon.com
    AMZN,
    -0.75%
    ,
    Ford Motor
    F,
    +0.58%
    ,
    Apple
    AAPL,
    +0.38%

    and others signing on to a “First Movers” pledge, loosly use the 1.5-degree limit set in 2015 when talks took place in Paris.

    Private banks, insurers and institutional investors representing $130 trillion said they would align their investments with the goal of keeping global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, toward a pledge to net-zero emissions economy-wide by 2050. Advocacy groups cheer the pledge and its expanding roster but are also keeping up pressure on the signatories to speed up progress toward this goal and to stop undermining the pledge with fossil-fuel investment.

    Read: Here’s where the big U.S. banks stand up and fall down on climate change

    The Egypt pact was also void of firmer language on emissions cutting and the desire by some officials to target all fossil fuels
    NG00,
    +1.16%

    for a phase-down.

    Natural gas, which is relatively cheaper to produce than other fossil fuels, has been the major alternative to more-polluting coal in electricity generation. Still, it has its own emissions risk.

    In the U.S., for example, electricity is the most common energy source used for cooking — electricity often powered by gas. Still, about 38% of U.S. households use natural gas directly for cooking, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

    Natural gas providers also own an established pipeline infrastructure that may serve alternative energy, and is pushed by the industry as a viable alternative alongside solar, wind
    ICLN,
    -0.15%

      and other means. The industry also promotes its efforts to cap methane leaks.

    Related: World’s richest nations stick to 1.5-degree climate pledge despite energy crunch

    ‘It is more than frustrating to see overdue steps on mitigation and the phase-out of fossil energies being stonewalled by a number of large emitters and oil producers.’


    — Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock

    With fossil fuels in their sight, the European Union and other nations fought back at what they considered backsliding in the Egyptian presidency’s overarching cover agreement and threatened to scuttle the rest of the process, while advancing their own draft. The package was revised again, removing most of the elements Europeans had objected to but adding none of the heightened ambition they were hoping for, the AP said.

    Egypt has played a unique role as host, representative of Africa, which sits at the front lines of those hurt by climate change and yet, remaining loyal to its own fossil-fuel ambitions and those of OPEC nations.

    Germany’s Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock voiced frustration.

    “It is more than frustrating to see overdue steps on mitigation and the phase-out of fossil energies being stonewalled by a number of large emitters and oil producers
    XOM,
    -0.87%

    BP,
    -0.90%
    ,
    ” she said.

    The agreement includes a veiled reference to the benefits of natural gas as low- emission energy, despite many nations calling for a phase down of natural gas, which does contribute to climate change.

    Fossil-fuel industry’s presence

    At least 636 representatives of the fossil fuel industry registered to attend the summit, a 25% increase over the industry’s presence last year, according to an analysis released by three advocacy groups.

    More fossil fuel lobbyists are on the roster than any single national delegation, besides the UAE who has registered 1,070 delegates compared to 176 last yearaccording to a report from Corporate Accountability, Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) and Global Witness (GW).

     Frances Colón, senior director for International Climate Policy at the Center for American Progress, found plenty of fault with this round of talks.

    “The final text reflects the outsized and corrupting presence of fossil fuel and big agricultural lobbyists at COP27, compounded by a lack of ambition from key, high-emitting countries,” she said, in a statement. “The agreement makes only a passing reference to the 1.5-degree Celsius warming goal and does not include any new language on phasing down or phasing out all fossil fuels
    RB00,
    -0.09%

    — the only way to reach emissions reduction goals and secure a livable future.”

    Colón also worried that the official statement did not adequately advance efforts. World leaders failed to reference the twin, interlocking crises of nature loss and climate change, and declined to link COP27 to next month’s U.N. biodiversity summit in Montreal.

    ‘The agreement makes only a passing reference to the 1.5-degree Celsius warming goal and does not include any new language on phasing down or phasing out all fossil fuels — the only way to reach emissions reduction goals and secure a livable future.’


    — Frances Colón of the Center for American Progress

    While the new agreement doesn’t ratchet up calls for reducing emissions, it does retain language to keep alive the voluntary global goal of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). The Egyptian presidency kept offering proposals that harkened back to 2015 Paris language which also mentioned a looser goal of 2 degrees.

    This year’s pact also neglected to toughen the main sticking point from the previous COP, in Glasgow last year. At that time, China and India united to dig in unless coal language was softened. Nations this year did not expand on last year’s call to phase down global use of “unabated coal” even though India and other countries pushed to include oil and natural gas in language from Glasgow.

    “We joined with many parties to propose a number of measures that would have contributed to this emissions peaking before 2025, as the science tells us is necessary. Not in this text,” the United Kingdom’s Alok Sharma said.

    Climate campaigners are concerned that pushing for strong action to end fossil fuel use will be even harder at next year’s meeting, which will be hosted in Dubai, located in the oil-rich United Arab Emirates.

    The Associated Press contributed.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    Meet the 10 biggest megadonors for the 2022 midterm elections

    [ad_1]

    With four weeks until Election Day, congressional candidates are on track to break midterm fundraising records, having raised nearly $2.5 billion so far this cycle. That’s already 70% more than what was raised during the 2014 cycle and just $200 million shy of the total raised during the full 2018 cycle.

    This cycle has also seen record-shattering outside spending, topping $1 billion through the beginning of October, according to an OpenSecrets estimate.

    The increase in spending and fundraising is due in large part to the involvement of millionaire and billionaire megadonors who have sought to influence the outcome of an election in which both chambers of Congress are in play.

    “When megadonors pump millions of dollars into super PACs, they get to help call the shots,” said Michael Beckel, research director at Issue One, a nonpartisan political reform organization. “Massive spending from a megadonor can influence what issues are talked about on the campaign trail and in Congress.”

    Super PACs are independent political action committees that can raise unlimited sums of money but are not allowed to coordinate with a candidate or campaign. Due to contribution limits, such as those restricting individuals’ candidate contributions to $2,900 per election per candidate, most megadonor spending goes to super PACs.

    More context: These are the basics of campaign finance in 2020 — in two handy charts

    A MarketWatch analysis of Federal Election Commission data through the end of September shows that these 10 business moguls and philanthropists are the biggest federal-level donors this cycle.

    Read: These 3 races could determine whether Democrats or Republicans control the Senate in 2023

    And see: If this seat flips red, Republicans will have ‘probably won a relatively comfortable House majority’

    Top federal-level megadonors this cycle
    Rank

    Contributor

    Total Contributions

    For Republicans

    For Democrats

    Nonpartisan/Bipartisan

    1

    George Soros

    $128,782,000

    $0

    $128,782,000

    $0

    2

    Ken Griffin

    $50,955,800

    $50,955,800

    $0

    $0

    3

    Richard Uihlein

    $49,117,000

    $49,117,000

    $0

    $0

    4

    Sam Bankman-Fried

    $39,931,000

    $201,000

    $37,725,000

    $2,005,000

    5

    Jeff Yass

    $32,754,000

    $32,754,000

    $0

    $0

    6

    Peter Thiel

    $30,189,000

    $30,189,000

    $0

    $0

    7

    Fred Eychaner

    $22,343,000

    $0

    $22,343,000

    $0

    8

    Stephen Schwarzman

    $21,870,000

    $21,865,000

    $0

    $5,000

    9

    Larry Ellison

    $21,003,000

    $21,003,000

    $0

    $0

    10

    Ryan Salame

    $18,932,000

    $17,432,000

    $0

    $1,500,000

    Totals:

    $415,877,000

    $223,517,000

    $188,850,000

    $3,510,000

    Source: MarketWatch analysis of FEC data as of Sept. 30, 2022
    Note: Partisan breakdown includes non-party affiliated PACs with over 95% of their spending benefitting one party, data has been rounded to the nearest thousand

    Big spending by itself doesn’t automatically mean winning. There have been notable instances of the financially strongest candidates losing (such as crypto-backed House candidate Carrick Flynn earlier this year and billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s self-financed presidential bid) — but money can certainly help put a candidate on the right track.

    “Money alone doesn’t guarantee electoral success, but every candidate prefers to be the one with more money to spend,” Beckel said. He added: “Outside spending on behalf of a candidate isn’t a silver bullet that’s going to guarantee electoral success. But it goes a long way to boosting somebody’s name recognition, and to presenting them as a viable candidate — somebody who has the resources to run a competitive campaign.”

    Information about the spending by the top 10 donors this cycle has been compiled from MarketWatch’s analysis of FEC data and filings, super PAC websites and previously reported comments. Read on to find out who are the top 10 biggest donors this cycle.

    10. Ryan Salame — $19 million

    Ryan Salame, the co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, a subsidiary of cryptocurrency exchange FTX, founded a hybrid PAC earlier this year called American Dream Federal Action. The vast majority ($15 million) of the $19 million Salame has spent this cycle has gone into bankrolling the PAC, which has spent $2.4 million in independent expenditures supporting Illinois Republican Rep. Rodney Davis, $2 million supporting Republican Senate candidate Katie Britt from Alabama, and $1.2 million each supporting Arkansas GOP Sen. John Boozman and Brad Finstad, a GOP congressional candidate in Minnesota.

    On its website, the PAC describes itself as “organization dedicated to electing forward-looking candidates — those who want to protect America’s long term economic and national security by advancing smart policy decisions now.” A representative for Salame didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    9. Lawrence Ellison — $21 million

    The co-founder of Oracle
    ORCL,
    +0.26%

    has similarly bankrolled a PAC this election cycle — giving a total $20 million to Opportunity Matters Fund Inc. The super PAC has largely held onto its funds so far, recent FEC records show, having $17 million cash on hand as of the end of August. Of the independent expenditures it has made this cycle, it spent the most on Georgia Republican Senate candidate Herschel Walker ($1.3 million), Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson ($1.3 million) and North Carolina Senate candidate and current Republican Rep. Ted Budd ($1.1 million). A representative for Ellison didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    8. Stephen Schwarzman — $22 million

    Billionaire Stephen Schwarzman, the CEO of private-equity giant Blackstone
    BX,
    -2.41%
    ,
    is the eighth biggest donor at the federal level this cycle. In March, Schwarzman gave $10 million to both the Senate Leadership Fund and Congressional Leadership Fund, super PACs aimed at obtaining a Republican majority in the Senate and House, respectively. A representative for Schwarzman didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    7. Fred Eychaner — $22 million

    Fred Eychaner has also contributed $22 million so far this cycle, but unlike most of the spending on this list, his has been directed toward Democratic causes. The chairman of Chicago-based Newsweb Corporation has given $9 million to the House Majority PAC and $8 million to the Senate Majority PAC, as well as just under $1.5 million to the Democratic National Committee and several hundred thousands to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. A representative for Eychaner didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    6. Peter Thiel — $30 million

    Venture capitalist Peter Thiel was heavily involved in backing Ohio Republican J.D. Vance’s primary bid, giving $15 million in the spring to the Vance-aligned Protect Ohio Values PAC.

    The massive primary investment was “historic” and record-setting, according to Beckel, who added that Thiel’s involvement in the Ohio Senate primary could mark “a new chapter of how mega donors are choosing to play in politics.”

    “I think it’s become clear for a lot of megadonors that there are high stakes to a lot of primaries, and by spending in the primary, where there is typically lower turnout than in say, a statewide general election, they can get a lot of bang for their buck by investing in a primary election,” Beckel added.

    Thiel has indicated that he doesn’t intend to put any more money toward Vance’s bid as he reportedly believes the Ohio candidate is on track to win, and instead will focus his funding on Arizona Republican Blake Masters’ bid to oust Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly in the final weeks leading up to the midterm election.

    Thiel, known for his roles in PayPal
    PYPL,
    -1.69%
    ,
    Palantir
    PLTR,
    -0.25%

    and Facebook
    META,
    -3.92%
    ,
    has also given a total $15 million to the Masters-aligned PAC, Saving Arizona, with his most recent contribution in July. Both Vance and Masters are venture capitalists, but Masters has worked with Thiel. He served as chief operating officer of Thiel Capital and president of the Thiel Foundation, and he co-authored a book on startups with Thiel in 2014. A representative for Thiel didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    5. Jeff Yass — $33 million

    Options trader Jeff Yass, who founded trading firm Susquehanna International Group, has contributed about $33 million on a federal level this cycle. Yass has given $15 million to the School Freedom Fund, or the equivalent of 97% of the PAC’s total fundraising. The group focuses on the issue of school choice, and its website states that some bureaucrats “hindered the development and education of our youth through school closures, mask mandates, critical race theory, and more.”

    Aside from the School Freedom Fund, Yass’ other biggest contributions are to the conservative Club for Action ($6.5 million), Kentucky Freedom ($5 million), Protect Freedom ($2 million) and Crypto Freedom ($1.9 million). A representative for Yass didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    4. Sam Bankman-Fried — $40 million

    Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder and CEO of FTX, is the main funder behind Protect Our Future PAC, giving it $27 million of the $28 million it raised this cycle. 

    The organization says on its website that it focuses on promoting Democratic candidates championing pandemic preparedness and prevention “so this is the last time in our lifetime, and our children’s lifetimes, that we will face the devastation that has gripped communities across the U.S. since 2020.”

    The group spent more than $10 million supporting Democrat Carrick Flynn’s House bid in Oregon. Flynn lost his primary in May by 18 points despite his massive outside spending advantage. In addition to Flynn, the group has made over $1 million in independent expenditures each supporting Democratic congressional candidates Lucy McBath, a current representative from Georgia; Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Adam Hollier of Michigan, Valerie Foushee of North Carolina and Shontel Brown, a current representative from Ohio.

    Most of the other $10 million Bankman-Fried spent this cycle has gone to the House Majority PAC ($6 million) and the crypto PAC GMI ($2 million).

    While the vast majority of his spending has supported Democratic candidates and causes, Bankman-Fried does not classify himself as an exclusively Democratic donor — for instance he gave $105,000 to the Alabama Conservatives Fund in June and $45,000 to the NRCC in July. 

    He told Politico in August that he is “legitimately worried about doing things that will make people view me as partisan when it’s not how I feel … because I think it both misses what I’m trying to do and makes it harder for me to act constructively.” A representative for the FTX boss didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    3. Richard Uihlein — $49 million

    Richard Uihlein is the founder of the shipping and business supply company Uline, and is a longtime conservative donor. This cycle has seen nearly $50 million in political spending by him, with just over half of it going to Club for Growth Action. Uihlein has also given about $14 million to Restoration PAC, an organization that says it is “dedicated to strengthening the foundations that made America the greatest nation in the world: God, family, education, and community.”

    Uihlein’s next largest contributions are to the conservative Team PAC ($2.5 million) and the Arkansas Patriots Fund ($2.2 million), which earlier this year made ad buys favoring Republican Sen. John Boozman’s primary opponent. A representative for Uihlein didn’t respond to a request for comment.

    2. Ken Griffin — $51 million

    With $51 million in federal-level political spending, Ken Griffin, CEO of hedge fund Citadel, is the second most prolific donor this cycle.

    The biggest beneficiaries are the Republican-aligned Congressional Leadership Fund with $18.5 million in contributions, the Senate Leadership Fund with $10 million and Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that backed Republican Dave McCormick’s Senate bid. McCormick lost in the primary to Mehmet Oz by less than a thousand votes. 

    While Griffin spent about $64 million during the last cycle, his $51 million figure this year marks by far the most he has spent during a midterm cycle. During the 2018 cycle, his contributions totaled less than $8 million.

    A spokesperson for Griffin told MarketWatch that Griffin “supports leaders who are committed to protecting the American Dream and pursuing policies that will create a better future for the United States.”

    “The right policies will focus on creating rewarding jobs, prioritizing public safety, and investing in a strong national defense,” his spokesperson said. “Preserving the American Dream will require that every child is well educated, can access great healthcare, and has the opportunity to succeed.”

    1. George Soros — $129 million

    Not one donor comes close to matching the sum that billionaire philanthropist George Soros has contributed this cycle: $129 million. However, much of that money hasn’t actually been put to work this cycle.

    The majority of those on this list have focused their funding on Republican causes, but Soros’ money has gone to Democratic groups — specifically Democracy PAC II, whose $125 million in contributions comprises 99% of its fundraising. The super PAC spent more than $80 million on Democratic groups and candidates during the 2020 election.

    A representative for Soros pointed MarketWatch to a Politico article from January, in which Soros said the $125 million is aimed at supporting pro-democracy “causes and candidates, regardless of political party” who are invested in “strengthening the infrastructure of American democracy: voting rights and civic participation, civil rights and liberties, and the rule of law” and called his contribution a “long-term investment” that will  support political work beyond this year.

    So far this cycle, Democracy PAC has spent very little and holds $113 million in available cash. Contributions the PAC has made this cycle include $5 million to the Senate Majority PAC, $2.5 million to One Georgia and $1 million to both Care in Action and House Majority PAC.

    [ad_2]

    Source link