ReportWire

Tag: stake

  • Both sides say democracy is at stake with Prop. 50 — but for very different reasons

    If the ads are any indication, Proposition 50 offers Californians a stark choice: “Stick it to Trump” or “throw away the constitution” in a Democratic power grab.

    And like so many things in 2025, Trump appears to be the galvanizing issue.

    Even by the incendiary campaigns California is used to, Proposition 50 has been notable for its sharp attacks to cut through the dense, esoteric issue of congressional redistricting. It comes down to a basic fact: this is a Democratic-led measure to reconfigure California’s congressional districts to help their party win control of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2026 and stifle President Trump’s attempts to keep Republicans in power through similar means in other states.

    Thus far, the anti-Trump message preached by Proposition 50 advocates, led by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other top Democrats, appears to be the most effective.

    Supporters of the proposal have vastly outraised their rivals and Proposition 50, one of the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in state history, leads in the polls.

    “Whenever you can take an issue and personalize it, you have the advantage. In this case, proponents of 50 can make it all about stopping Donald Trump,” said former legislative leader and state GOP Chair Jim Brulte.

    Adding to the drama is the role of two political and cultural icons who have emerged as leaders of each side: former President Obama in favor and former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger against, both arguing the very essence of democracy is at stake.

    Schwarzenegger and the two main committees opposing Proposition 50 have focused on the ethical and moral imperative of preserving the independent redistricting commission. Californians in 2010 voted to create the panel to draw the state’s congressional district boundaries after every census in an effort to provide fair representation to all state residents.

    That’s not a political ideal easily explained in a 30-section television ad, or an Instagram post.

    Redistricting is a “complex issue,” Brulte said, but he noted that “the no side has the burden of trying to explain what the initiative really does and the yes side gets to use the crib notes [that] this is about stopping Trump — a much easier path.”

    Partisans on both sides of the aisle agree.

    “The yes side quickly leveraged anti-Trump messaging and has been closing with direct base appeals to lock in the lead,” said Jamie Fisfis, a political strategist who has worked on many GOP congressional campaigns in California. “The partisanship and high awareness behind the measure meant it was unlikely to sag under the weight of negative advertising like other initiatives often do. It’s been a turnout game.”

    Obama, in ads that aired during the World Series and NFL games, warned that “Democracy is on the ballot Nov. 4” as he urged voters to support Proposition 50. Ads for the most well-funded committee opposing the proposition featured Schwarzenegger saying that opposing the ballot measure was critical to ensuring that citizens are not overrun by elected officials.

    “The Constitution does not start with ‘We, the politicians.’ It starts with ‘We, the people,’” Schwarzenegger told USC students in mid-September — a speech excerpted in an anti-Proposition 50 ad. “Democracy — we’ve got to protect it, and we’ve got to go and fight for it.”

    California’s Democratic-led Legislature voted in August to put the redistricting proposal that would likely boost their ranks in Congress on the November ballot. The measure, pushed by Newsom, was an effort to counter Trump’s efforts to increase the number of GOP members in the House from Texas and other GOP-led states.

    The GOP holds a narrow edge in the House, and next year’s election will determine which party controls the body during Trump’s final two years in office — and whether he can further his agenda or is the focus of investigations and possible impeachment.

    Noticeably absent for California’s Proposition 50 fight is the person who triggered it — Trump.

    The proposition’s opponents’ decision not to highlight Trump is unsurprising given the president’s deep unpopularity among Californians. More than two-thirds of the state’s likely voters did not approve of his handling of the presidency in late October, according to a Public Policy Institute of California poll.

    Trump did, however, urge California voter not to cast mail-in ballots or vote early, falsely arguing in a social media post that both voting methods were “dishonest.”

    Some California GOP leaders feared that Trump’s pronouncement would suppress the Republican vote.

    In recent days, the California Republican Party sent mailers to registered Republicans shaming them for not voting. “Your neighbors are watching,” the mailer says, featuring a picture of a woman peering through binoculars. “Don’t let your neighbors down. They’ll find out!”

    Tuesday’s election will cost state taxpayers nearly $300 million. And it’s unclear if the result will make a difference in control of the House because of multiple redistricting efforts in other states.

    But some Democrats are torn about the amount of money being spent on an effort that may not alter the partisan makeup of Congress.

    Johanna Moska, who worked in the Obama administration, described Proposition 50 as “frustrating.”

    “I just wish we were spending money to rectify the state’s problems, if we figured out a way the state could be affordable for people,” she said. “Gavin’s found what’s working for Gavin. And that’s resistance to Trump.”

    Newsom’s efforts opposing Trump are viewed as a foundational argument if he runs for president in 2028, which he has acknowledged pondering.

    Proposition 50 also became a platform for other politicians potentially eyeing a 2026 run for California governor, Sen. Alex Padilla and billionaires Rick Caruso and Tom Steyer.

    The field is in flux, with no clear front-runner.

    Padilla being thrown to the ground in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s immigration policies is prominently featured in television ads promoting Proposition 50. Steyer, a longtime Democratic donor who briefly ran for president in 2020, raised eyebrows by being the only speaker in his second television ad. Caruso, who unsuccessfully ran against Karen Bass in the 2022 Los Angeles mayoral race and is reportedly considering another political campaign, recently sent voters glossy mailers supporting Proposition 50.

    Steyer committed $12 million to support Proposition 50. His initial ad, which shows a Trump impersonator growing increasingly irate as news reports showing the ballot measure passing, first aired during “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” Steyer’s second ad fully focused on him, raising speculation about a potential gubernatorial run next year.

    Ads opposing the proposition aired less frequently before disappearing from television altogether in recent days.

    “The yes side had the advantage of casting the question for voters as a referendum on Trump,” said Rob Stutzman, a GOP strategist who worked for Schwarzenegger but is not involved with any of the Proposition 50 campaigns. “Asking people to rally to the polls to save a government commission — it’s not a rallying call.”

    Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • ‘It’s all at stake’: As Prop. 50 fight intensifies, Newsom, partisan influencers rally their bases

    The multimillion-dollar jousting over redrawing California’s congressional districts to boost Democrats and counter President Trump was on full display in recent days, as both sides courted voters less than a month before ballots begin arriving in mailboxes.

    Gov. Gavin Newsom, national Democratic leaders including Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and a slew of political influencers held an hours-long virtual rally Tuesday afternoon, urging Californians to support Proposition 50 in the Nov. 4 special election. Speakers framed the stakes of the ballot measure as nothing short of existential — not just for Democratic interests, but also for democracy.

    “It’s all at stake. This is a profound and consequential moment in American history. We can lose this republic if we do not assert ourselves and stand tall at this moment and stand guard to this republic and our democracy. I feel that in my bones,” Newsom said Tuesday afternoon.

    If passed, Proposition 50 would gerrymander the state’s congressional districts to favor Democrats, bolstering the fates of several Democrats in vulnerable swing districts and potentially cost Republicans up to five House seats.

    California’s congressional districts are drawn by a voter-approved independent commission once a decade after the U.S. census. But Newsom and other state Democrats proposed a rare mid-decade redrawing of the districts to increase the number of Democrats in Congress in response to similar efforts in GOP-led states, notably Texas.

    Tuesday’s virtual rally, which was emceed by progressive influencer Brian Tyler Cohen, was a cross between an old-school money-raising telethon and new media streaming session. Popular podcasters and YouTubers such as Crooked Media’s Jon Favreau and Tommy Vietor (alumni of former President Obama’s administration), Ben Meiselas of MeidasTouch and David Pakman shared the screen with political leaders, with an on-screen fundraising thermometer inching higher throughout.

    Cohen argued that people like him had been “begging” Democrats to fight Trump. And now elected officials had done their part by getting Proposition 50 on the ballot, he said, urging viewers to donate to support the effort.

    Warren argued that Trump was a “would-be king” — but if Democrats could retake control of either house of Congress, that would be stopped, she posited.

    “And if we have both houses under Democratic control,” Warren continued, “now we are truly back in the game in terms of making our Constitution work again.”

    The exhaustive list of speakers represented the spectrum of the modern left, with standard-bearers such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York, alongside rising stars including Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.). A number of California delegates, including Sen. Alex Padilla and Reps. Ted. Lieu, Robert Garcia, Pete Aguilar, Jimmy Gomez and Sydney Kamlager-Dove, also spoke.

    The event had been scheduled to take place Sept. 10 but was postponed after the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk earlier that day.

    Jessica Millan Patterson, the former leader of the California Republican Party and chair of an anti-Proposition 50 committee, accused Newsom of “scrambling for out-of-touch messengers to sell his scheme.”

    “For Gavin Newsom, it’s all distraction and deflection. Instead of addressing the $283 million price tag taxpayers are stuck with for his partisan power grab, he’s hosting a cringeworthy webinar packed with DC politicians, out-of-state influencers, and irrelevant podcasters, all lining up to applaud his gerrymandered maps,” Millan Patterson said in a statement Tuesday.

    Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who championed the creation of the independent redistricting commission while in office and has campaigned to stop gerrymandering across the nation after his term ended, forcefully denounced Proposition 50 on Monday.

    “They are trying to fight for democracy by getting rid of the democratic principles of California,” Schwarzenegger told hundreds of students at an event celebrating democracy at the University of Southern California. “It is insane to let that happen.”

    The former governor, a Trump foe who has prioritized good governance at his institute at USC, said the effort to dismantle the independent commission’s congressional districts to counter Trump are anti-democratic.

    “They want to get rid of it under the auspices of we have to fight Trump,” Schwarzenegger said. “It doesn’t make any sense to me because we have to fight Trump, [yet] we become Trump.”

    And on the morning of Sept. 10, opponents of the ballot measure rallied in Orange County, speaking about how redrawing congressional districts would dilute the voice of communities around the state.

    “We’re here because Prop. 50 poses a serious threat to Orange County’s voice, to our communities and to our taxpayers. This measure is not about fairness. It’s about power grab,” said Orange County Supervisor Janet Nguyen during a rally at the Asian Garden Mall in Little Saigon, a Vietnamese hub in Westminster. “And it comes at the expense of our taxpayers, our small businesses and our minority communities.”

    She noted that Little Saigon would be grouped with Norwalk in Los Angeles County if the ballot measure passes.

    “Ask anybody in this area if they even know where Norwalk is,” Nguyen said.

    Julia Wick, Seema Mehta

    Source link

  • President Trump says Intel agreed to give US a stake in its company

    President Donald Trump on Friday announced the U.S. government has secured a 10% stake in struggling Silicon Valley pioneer Intel in a deal that was completed just a couple weeks after he was depicting the company’s CEO as a conflicted leader unfit for the job.“The United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote in a post.The U.S. government is getting the stake through the conversion of $11.1 billion in previously issued funds and pledges. All told, the government is getting 433.3 million shares of non-voting stock priced at $20.47 apiece — a discount from Friday’s closing price at $24.80. That spread means the U.S. government already has a gain of $1.9 billion, on paper.The remarkable turn of events makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders at a time that the Santa Clara, California, company is i n the process of jettisoning more than 20,000 workers as part of its latest attempt to bounce back from years of missteps taken under a variety of CEOs.Intel’s current CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has only been on the job for slightly more than five months, and earlier this month, it looked like he might be on shaky ground already after some lawmakers raised national security concerns about his past investments in Chinese companies while he was a venture capitalist. Trump latched on to those concerns in an August 7 post demanding that Tan resign.But Trump backed off after the Malaysian-born Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, leading to a deal that now has the U.S. government betting that the company is on the comeback trail after losing more than $22 billion since the end of 2023. Trump hailed Tan as “highly respected” CEO in his Friday post.In a statement, Tan applauded Trump for “driving historic investments in a vital industry” and resolved to reward his faith in Intel. “We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” Tan said.Intel’s current stock price is just slightly above where it was when Tan was hired in March and more than 60% below its peak of about $75 reached 25 years ago when its chips were still dominating the personal computer boom before being undercut by a shift to smartphones a few years later. The company’s market value currently stands at about $108 billion – a fraction of the current chip kingpin, Nvidia, which is valued at $4.3 trillion.The stake is coming primarily through U.S. government grants to Intel through the CHIPS and Science Act that was started under President Joe Biden’s administration as a way to foster more domestic manufacturing of computer chips to lessen the dependence on overseas factories.But the Trump administration, which has regularly pilloried the policies of the Biden administration, saw the CHIPs act as a needless giveaway and is now hoping to make a profit off the funding that had been pledged to Intel.”We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier this week. “It’s obvious that it’s the right move to make.”About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”Although U.S. government can’t vote with its shares and won’t have a seat on Intel’s board of directors, critics of the deal view it as a troubling cross-pollination between the public and private sectors that could hurt the tech industry in a variety of ways.For instance, more tech companies may feel pressured to buy potentially inferior chips from Intel to curry favor with Trump at a time that he is already waging a trade war that threatens to affect their products in a potential scenario cited by Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute.“Overall, it’s a horrendous move that will have real harms for U.S. companies, U.S. tech leadership, and the U.S. economy overall,” Lincicome posted Friday.The 10% stake could also intensify the pressure already facing Tan, especially if Trump starts fixating on Intel’s stock price while resorting to his penchant for celebrating his past successes in business.Nancy Tengler, CEO of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, is among the investors who abandoned Intel years ago because of all the challenges facing Intel.“I don’t see the benefit to the American taxpayer, nor do I see the benefit, necessarily to the chip industry,” Tengler said while also raising worries about Trump meddling in Intel’s business.“I don’t care how good of businessman you are, give it to the private sector and let people like me be the critic and let the government get to the business of government.,” Tengler said.Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM.The U.S. government’s stake in Intel coincides with Trump’s push to bring production to the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.Even before gaining the 10% stake in Intel, Trump had been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are powering the AI craze, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.

    President Donald Trump on Friday announced the U.S. government has secured a 10% stake in struggling Silicon Valley pioneer Intel in a deal that was completed just a couple weeks after he was depicting the company’s CEO as a conflicted leader unfit for the job.

    “The United States of America now fully owns and controls 10% of INTEL, a Great American Company that has an even more incredible future,” Trump wrote in a post.

    The U.S. government is getting the stake through the conversion of $11.1 billion in previously issued funds and pledges. All told, the government is getting 433.3 million shares of non-voting stock priced at $20.47 apiece — a discount from Friday’s closing price at $24.80. That spread means the U.S. government already has a gain of $1.9 billion, on paper.

    The remarkable turn of events makes the U.S. government one of Intel’s largest shareholders at a time that the Santa Clara, California, company is i n the process of jettisoning more than 20,000 workers as part of its latest attempt to bounce back from years of missteps taken under a variety of CEOs.

    Intel’s current CEO, Lip-Bu Tan, has only been on the job for slightly more than five months, and earlier this month, it looked like he might be on shaky ground already after some lawmakers raised national security concerns about his past investments in Chinese companies while he was a venture capitalist. Trump latched on to those concerns in an August 7 post demanding that Tan resign.

    But Trump backed off after the Malaysian-born Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, leading to a deal that now has the U.S. government betting that the company is on the comeback trail after losing more than $22 billion since the end of 2023. Trump hailed Tan as “highly respected” CEO in his Friday post.

    In a statement, Tan applauded Trump for “driving historic investments in a vital industry” and resolved to reward his faith in Intel. “We are grateful for the confidence the President and the Administration have placed in Intel, and we look forward to working to advance U.S. technology and manufacturing leadership,” Tan said.

    Intel’s current stock price is just slightly above where it was when Tan was hired in March and more than 60% below its peak of about $75 reached 25 years ago when its chips were still dominating the personal computer boom before being undercut by a shift to smartphones a few years later. The company’s market value currently stands at about $108 billion – a fraction of the current chip kingpin, Nvidia, which is valued at $4.3 trillion.

    The stake is coming primarily through U.S. government grants to Intel through the CHIPS and Science Act that was started under President Joe Biden’s administration as a way to foster more domestic manufacturing of computer chips to lessen the dependence on overseas factories.

    But the Trump administration, which has regularly pilloried the policies of the Biden administration, saw the CHIPs act as a needless giveaway and is now hoping to make a profit off the funding that had been pledged to Intel.

    “We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,” U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said earlier this week. “It’s obvious that it’s the right move to make.”

    About $7.8 billion had been been pledged to Intel under the incentives program, but only $2.2 billion had been funded so far. Another $3.2 billion of the government investment is coming through the funds from another program called “Secure Enclave.”

    Although U.S. government can’t vote with its shares and won’t have a seat on Intel’s board of directors, critics of the deal view it as a troubling cross-pollination between the public and private sectors that could hurt the tech industry in a variety of ways.

    For instance, more tech companies may feel pressured to buy potentially inferior chips from Intel to curry favor with Trump at a time that he is already waging a trade war that threatens to affect their products in a potential scenario cited by Scott Lincicome, vice president of general economics for the Cato Institute.

    “Overall, it’s a horrendous move that will have real harms for U.S. companies, U.S. tech leadership, and the U.S. economy overall,” Lincicome posted Friday.

    The 10% stake could also intensify the pressure already facing Tan, especially if Trump starts fixating on Intel’s stock price while resorting to his penchant for celebrating his past successes in business.

    Nancy Tengler, CEO of money manager Laffer Tengler Investments, is among the investors who abandoned Intel years ago because of all the challenges facing Intel.

    “I don’t see the benefit to the American taxpayer, nor do I see the benefit, necessarily to the chip industry,” Tengler said while also raising worries about Trump meddling in Intel’s business.

    “I don’t care how good of businessman you are, give it to the private sector and let people like me be the critic and let the government get to the business of government.,” Tengler said.

    Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM.

    The U.S. government’s stake in Intel coincides with Trump’s push to bring production to the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.

    Even before gaining the 10% stake in Intel, Trump had been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are powering the AI craze, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.

    Source link

  • Trump Says Intel Agreed To Give US A Stake In Its Company – KXL

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said that Intel has agreed to give the U.S. government a 10% stake in its business.

    Speaking with reporters on Friday, Trump said the deal came out of a meeting last week with Intel CEO Lip Bu Tan — which came days after the president called for Tan to resign over his past ties to China.

    “I said, I think it would be good having the United States as your partner,” Trump said. “He agreed, and they’ve agreed to do it.”

    Intel did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the agreement.

    The struggling Silicon Valley chipmaker has a market cap of just over $100 billion. The agreement comes just after Japanese technology giant SoftBank Group disclosed Monday that it is accumulating its 2% stake in Intel.

    The official announcement is expected to come later Friday, according to a White House official who was not authorized to speak publicly ahead of an announcement and spoke on condition of anonymity.

    What’s happening?
    The Trump administration has been in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel’s largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world’s largest economy.

    Why would Trump do this?
    In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses.

    Trump’s interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country’s dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence.

    Didn’t Trump want Intel’s CEO to quit?
    That’s what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan’s past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an “amazing story.”

    Why would Intel do a deal?
    The company isn’t commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone’s 2007 debut.

    Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year.

    Would this deal be unusual?
    Although rare, it’s not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM.

    Would the government run Intel?
    U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel’s business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration’s financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company’s chips.

    What government grants does Intel receive?
    Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration’s CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn’t been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program.

    The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a “giveaway” that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it’s turned into Intel stock. “We think America should get the benefit of the bar

    More about:

    Jordan Vawter

    Source link

  • Celestia Network: How To Stake TIA And Position For 5-Figure Airdrops

    Celestia Network: How To Stake TIA And Position For 5-Figure Airdrops

    Celestia is the star of the modular network in late 2023 after its airdrop and staking TIA has become a good way to receive airdrops. Celestia is a chain that a lot of people overlooked because, before the launch, there was not a lot of information about Celestia and the airdrop. However, in the fast-paced world of cryptocurrency, overlooked gems can often surprise the market, and Celestia Network is no exception. 

    Celestia (TIA) Airdrop And What People Missed

    Celestia network had stayed out of the limelight until it announced an airdrop eligibility site. Lots of people didn’t bother checking if they were eligible for an airdrop, because they felt it was irrelevant, people didn’t claim their airdrop at the deadline as requested by the team, which made the team extend the date to give more people the chance to claim. 

    At the end of the claim period, there were a lot of unclaimed airdrops to the extent the team had to distribute all the unclaimed airdrops to the wallets that claimed their airdrops, meaning that eligible wallets got double their initial allocations. 

    After the airdrop, the team focused on developing and creating utility for their chain, making the price of TIA skyrocket, as the demand for the chain and its token started to grow. 

    TIA Utility: Data Availability and Scalability

    Celestia gives great utility towards Data Availability and Scalability giving other chains or upcoming chains a foundation to learn and work on. The Celestia team’s innovative approach, combined with partnerships and a focus on utility, set it apart in a crowded space. 

    In this guide, we will delve into the dynamics of Celestia, explore its transformative airdrop strategy, and discuss how staking TIA can position you for not only handsome rewards but also exclusive airdrops. 

    Unlike many projects that fizzle out post-airdrop, Celestia took a different path. The team continued developing the platform, adding significant utility to the Celestia chain. This utility, focused on data availability and scalability, spurred demand for the native token, TIA, ultimately driving its price higher.

    Celestia (TIA) Network Collaborations

    Celestia has partnered with most roll-ups of other chains like the Manta network which is another rollup that has been able to combine utility from the calamari network, and the EVM network. Collaborating with Celestia for better scalability and data availability increased the demand for Celestia(TIA). 

    Celestia (TIA) Network Airdrop Distribution

    Celestia changed the way they distributed their TIA airdrop, which was different from what the market was used to. The Celestia pre-launch had incentivized node running events, rewarding node runners, but that was not enough to bring more people into exploring its ecosystem, it had to distribute its airdrop by rewarding all EVM users. If you had interacted on the EVM chain, you were eligible for the TIA airdrop. 

    Now, let’s delve deeper into the details surrounding TIA staking, Celestia’s impact on the crypto space, and the broader implications for investors seeking to navigate this dynamic landscape.

    Reasons To Stake TIA

    Staking TIA offers a multifaceted investment strategy, combining an attractive Annual Percentage Rate (APR), potential airdrop eligibility, and the broader positive trajectory of the Celestia platform. Taking a closer look at TIA staking, investors are drawn by the appealing APR, often exceeding 10%. 

    However, it’s essential to note that the choice of validator plays a crucial role in determining the staking rewards. As the Celestia platform continues to innovate and gain prominence, the allure of TIA staking is further heightened.

    Celestia’s commitment to enhancing scalability and data availability. This, in turn, has led to increased demand for TIA, solidifying its position as a valuable asset within the crypto market.

    Celestia’s unique utility and game-changing capabilities have positioned it as a frontrunner in the blockchain space. As a result, any new chain looking to launch and conduct a successful airdrop finds integrating TIA stakers as an effective strategy to garner attention. This is particularly true for projects building on the Celestia platform, where TIA’s association adds a layer of credibility and visibility

    The association of TIA with projects like Dymension, where TIA stakers met airdrop eligibility criteria, underscores the growing trend of projects leveraging TIA stakers for increased visibility and credibility. As more projects within the Celestia chain ecosystem emerge, the potential for additional airdrops targeted at TIA stakers becomes increasingly promising.

    While this analysis sheds light on the potential benefits of staking TIA, it’s crucial to acknowledge the ever-changing nature of the crypto market. Therefore, individuals considering TIA staking should conduct thorough research and stay updated on market trends to make informed decisions. 

    Exchanges to Buy Celestia (TIA)

    To embark on the journey of acquiring TIA, one can explore various prominent exchanges where TIA is listed. Platforms such as Binance, Kucoin, OKX, and Bybit offer a convenient gateway for purchasing TIA. 

    A critical component of the staking process is securing a Keplr wallet. The Keplr wallet is an essential tool for managing and staking TIA securely. Users can download the wallet, create a new wallet by saving the seed phrase, and take precautions to safeguard their keys. The importance of protecting access to one’s crypto assets cannot be overstated, as the security of the Keplr wallet directly correlates with the safety of the stored TIA holdings.

    How to Get Your TIA Wallet Address

    Go to your Keplr wallet and get your TIA address. You can get it by typing TIA in the search bar, but if it’s not available, you have to make it available.

    Click on the hamburger sign at the top left corner:

    TIA

    Click on Manage Chain Visibility next, type TIA, enable it, and Save it:

    Celestia 2

    Go to your wallet dashboard and copy your TIA address, remember, the address is supposed to start with “Celestia”. Go to your crypto exchange and send TIA to that address. 

    The process of obtaining TIA is straightforward, with the cryptocurrency available across major exchanges. Additionally, users can explore the option of bridging from other Cosmos chains, such as converting ATOM on the Cosmos chain or INJ on the Injective chain to TIA.TIA 2

    Once TIA is secured in the Keplr wallet, staking becomes the next logical step. Users can access the Celestia Staking dashboard on Keplr, choose a validator based on their preferences, and stake their TIA accordingly. Choosing a validator that offers a high percentage of rewards is best.

    It’s important to note that unstaking TIA involves a 21-day processing period, requiring users to plan their actions accordingly. 

    Protect Your Staked TIA

    Securing a Keplr wallet is paramount for those looking to engage in TIA staking. The wallet serves as a secure tool for managing and staking TIA, requiring users to download it, create a new wallet with a saved seed phrase, and take necessary precautions to safeguard their private keys. 

    Never store your seed phrase in a place where it can be accessed on the internet. Do not copy your seed phrase on your device. It is best to write down your seed phrase on a piece of paper and keep it in a place only you can access.

    CONCLUSION

    It’s crucial to emphasize that the information provided here is not financial advice, but rather an analysis of the current trends in the crypto market. However, the logic behind acquiring TIA and staking is compelling. 

    The demand for TIA has been on a consistent uptrend, driving its value from an initial $2.2 to well over $10. The combination of robust staking rewards and the prospect of participating in airdrops makes TIA an enticing asset for investors looking to maximize their returns.

    TIA price chart from Tradingview.com (Celestia Network how to stake)

    TIA price crosses $13 | Source: TIAUSD on Tradingview.com

    Featured image from BSC News, chart from Tradingview.com

    Disclaimer: The article is provided for educational purposes only. It does not represent the opinions of NewsBTC on whether to buy, sell or hold any investments and naturally investing carries risks. You are advised to conduct your own research before making any investment decisions. Use information provided on this website entirely at your own risk.

    Scott Matherson

    Source link

  • A Guide to Planting Hollyhocks

    A Guide to Planting Hollyhocks

    There are lots of signs that summer has arrived—children get out of school, otherwise normal men get out of regular clothes and into lime green golf pants, and, in many gardens, the weeds get out of hand.

    To me summer means hollyhocks. Flower fads come and go like UFO sitings, but hollyhocks, those tall, lanky members of the mallow family, remain popular.

    In Old English “hock” is synonymous with “mallow”. The mallow plants that returned from the Middle East with the Crusaders were called “holy” or “holly” hocks.Whatever the name, the plants and their bright flowers were a hit in the color-starved Middle Ages.

    In America, the common hollyhock (Alcea rosea) could easily claim membership in the D.A.R., having arrived with the colonists. As almost everyone knows, Thomas Jefferson grew them at Monticello. As a few people know, Celia Thaxter, late 19th century gardener and poet, grew them in her famed beds on Appledore Island, off the New Hampshire coast, where they were immortalized by American Impressionist painter Childe Hassam.

    Seeds and plants have been available from catalog vendors since the advent of mail order. As I recall, a couple of years ago, both White Flower Farm, Wayside Gardens, and the venerable English firm Thompson & Morgan all featured hollyhock cultivars on catalog covers.

    Hollyhocks were the first plants that I grew as a child, mostly because there was a small stand of them established in our backyard, and the seeds were easy to collect and sow. I did not know at the time that common hollyhocks are biennial, producing vegetative growth the first year after they are planted and flowers in the second year.

    Fortunately, the plants in our backyard did what hollyhocks do best—self-seeding—and we had flowers every year. Our hollyhocks were the single variety, with white blossoms marked by dark red “eyes”. I watered them religiously, but otherwise, the hollyhocks grew unattended in a rather exposed spot just behind the sandbox. One year a rabbit made her nest between the roots of the biggest plant, undoubtedly amending the soil regularly with organic material.

    My current garden is home to two different species, fig-leaf hollyhock (Alcea ficifolia) and the common variety. I hasten to add that I inherited my plants from the previous owner, who did not live here long enough to see them bloom. The common hollyhocks, leaning artistically against the unpainted back fence, are pink doubles. The blossoms remind me of the tissue flowers that we used to make on rainy days when I was a child.

    The less common fig-leaf variety stands on the opposite side of my upper garden, in front of one of the lattice-work panels that camouflages the understructure supporting my back porch. It is just now producing medium size blossoms in a wonderful shade of pale yellow. Every time I look at my Alcea ficifolia I renew my belief in serendipity. I have wanted one for years, and somehow never got around to ordering it from the catalogs. Now I feel as if I have gotten the proverbial free lunch.

    The problem with all the hollyhocks is that their stems and foliage are, to put it frankly, rather ugly. The leaves, whether they are rounded or incised, are large and coarse. The stems are tall and hairy. To add bad to worse, the plants are susceptible to hollyhock rust, which makes rusty brown splotches on the leaves. To my knowledge, no hybridizer has been able to come up with a more elegant looking plant.

    Perhaps that is just as well. After all, hollyhocks in the country don’t have to worry about elegance. There is a patch of common hollyhock growing by an old garage near our summer cottage. These plants have been self-seeding for generations and are the main adornment to a ramshackle property that has been for sale for at least 25 years. The blossoms provide so much relief to the eye, that nobody even notices the ugly leaves.

    In city gardens, you can plant things in front of hollyhocks, such as coreopsis or lady’s mantle or even big pots of red geraniums to cover up those less-than-perfect legs. After the plants have bloomed, wait until the seed pods dry out, then collect the seeds, or if you are lazy, let them self-sow. Afterwards, cut down the stalks. With hollyhocks as with life, you can emphasize the beauty and minimize the ugliness if you just make a little effort.

    Contact
    Elisabeth Ginsburg

    Free Garden CatalogFree Garden Catalog

    Frederick Leeth

    Source link

  • Major crypto hacks of 2023

    Major crypto hacks of 2023

    Explore the biggest crypto hacks of 2023 in our comprehensive review, including the roles of notorious hacking groups and their impact on the crypto industry.

    Cryptocurrency hacks in 2023 have seen the industry lose over $1 billion, with the largest hacks occurring in the final quarters of the year. The recent bull market has marked the end of a prolonged crypto winter that started in 2022, driven by the Terra LUNA crash and the FTX collapse. However, this has also renewed hackers’ interest in the market, with more malicious threats targeting major defi protocols and crypto exchanges. 

    From the multi-million dollar heist at Mixin to the sophisticated phishing scams affecting individual investors, each hack provided a stark reminder of the ongoing battle between cybersecurity and cybercriminals in the digital age. So, what were the largest crypto hacks of 2023? Let’s find out. 

    Mixin breach ($200m): biggest crypto hack of 2023

    September 2023 saw arguably the largest recent crypto hack, as the Mixin platform suffered a staggering loss of $200 million. This incident unfolded through a data breach of Mixin’s cloud service provider. The platform could not track down the attacker or recover the stolen funds. However, Mixin committed to compensating users for half of their lost holdings.

    Euler Finance hack ($197m)

    In March 2023, Euler Finance experienced a significant hack, losing nearly $200 million. The breach was initially identified by PeckShield, a blockchain security firm, which noticed unusual transaction activity on the platform. These transactions were later confirmed as the method through which $197 million in cryptocurrency was stolen.

    However, in a rare occurrence, the stolen funds were unexpectedly returned to Euler Finance a few weeks after the hack. An apology note was included in one of the return transactions, as observed on Etherscan.

    Poloniex hack (over $120m)

    Popular crypto exchange Poloniex faced a security breach in November, leading to a loss exceeding $33 million, later revised to over $120 million. The unauthorized outflow of funds from its hot wallet affected multiple networks, including Ethereum (ETH) and Bitcoin (BTC). Justin Sun, the majority shareholder of Poloniex, reassured the community of the exchange’s financial stability and pledged full reimbursement for the lost assets.

    To resolve the situation, Sun initially offered a $10 million bounty to the cryptocurrency hackers for returning a significant portion of the funds within a week and provided wallet addresses for potential reimbursement. However, as per the latest reports, the hackers did not respond. Poloniex continues its internal investigation and remains committed to compensating affected users.

    HTX hack ($110 m)

    Yet another exchange linked to Justin Sun experienced a major breach this year. HTX, formerly known as Huobi, experienced a significant security breach, leading to a net outflow of $250 million after resuming operations.

    This outflow followed the November attack in which HTX lost around $110 million, according to Sun. The incident prompted a temporary suspension of withdrawals and deposits. Despite the substantial outflow, an HTX emphasized that user funds were safe.

    MultiChain rug pull ($130m)

    In July, MultiChain, a cross-chain protocol, reported suspicious withdrawals totaling $130 million, sparking concerns of a hack or rug pull. The series of transactions led to the Chinese authorities’ arrest of MultiChain’s CEO, Zhaojun, fueling speculation of insider involvement.

    Zhaojun’s devices, including phones and hardware wallets, were confiscated. The incident led to MultiChain ceasing operations, as detailed in a post on social media. The closure of MultiChain followed these events, leaving many questions about the true nature of the incident.

    Atomic Wallet hack ($100m)

    In June, Atomic Wallet, a widely-used software crypto wallet, was hacked, leading to the loss of $100 million. The breach impacted over 5,000 user accounts, with some users experiencing partial thefts and others having their wallets completely emptied.

    The initial suspicion pointed toward the Lazarus hacking group. The incident led to a class-action lawsuit from Russian investors against Atomic Wallet in August 2023. The latter claimed that the trace led to the Ukrainian group of hackers. However, there has been no proof of this statement since then.

    The company’s response to the crypto hack and the legal repercussions are yet to be fully resolved.

    CoinEx hack ($70m)

    Crypto exchange CoinEx suffered a major security breach in September, resulting in the theft of $70 million. Crypto hackers accessed numerous private keys for user hot wallets, transferring substantial amounts of various cryptocurrencies, including nearly 5,000 ETH and 231 BTC.

    Despite the significant loss, CoinEx’s cold wallets remained unaffected. The North Korean Lazarus group is suspected to be behind this attack.

    KyberSwap hack ($47m)

    The KyberSwap hack in November 2023 stands out for its complexity and the significant loss incurred. The multi-chain decentralized exchange aggregator fell victim to a smart contract reentrancy attack, leading to the theft of $47 million across various networks, including Ethereum, Polygon (MATIC), Arbitrum (ARB), and Optimism (OP).

    This breach resulted in a drastic 90% drop in KyberSwap’s total value locked, falling from $84.9 million to just $8.28 million, showcasing the severe impact of smart contract vulnerabilities.

    KyberSwap hacker demands | Source: Etherscan

    The hacker behind this attack made unusual demands, seeking total control over KyberSwap’s protocol, which included its governance mechanism and company assets. These demands, attached to a transaction on Etherscan, were unprecedented and highlighted a new level of boldness in crypto hacking.

    The hacker sought to overhaul KyberSwap’s operational structure, including employee salaries and executive buyouts. This incident reflects the technical vulnerabilities of defi platforms and underscores the evolving challenges in securing defi ecosystems against increasingly sophisticated attacks.

    Stake hack ($41m)

    September was undoubtedly one of the costliest months this year, with the number of hacks exceeding all other months in 2023. Popular crypto gambling platform Stake also suffered a breach that month, leading to a theft of $41 million.

    This hack specifically targeted users’ crypto hot wallets, and the assets stolen included Ethereum and Dai, among others. All funds were initially transferred to a single wallet, believed to belong to the hacker, and then dispersed to various other wallets. This dispersion tactic made tracking the stolen assets more challenging. The FBI’s investigation later confirmed the involvement of the North Korean Lazarus hacking group in this theft, although the stolen funds remain unrecovered.

    North Korea’s Lazarus group: state-affiliated threat in crypto hacks

    In 2023, the Lazarus Group, a North Korea-linked hacker organization, has been a prominent actor in the crypto hacking landscape. They have been responsible for over $300 million in crypto hacking incidents, accounting for approximately 17.6% of the total losses incurred in the crypto industry during the year. This contribution to the total losses highlights the group’s significant impact on the crypto space.

    Historically, the Lazarus Group has been involved in some of the largest cyberattacks, dating back to their activities against Sony Pictures in 2014. Over the years, they have shifted their focus to crypto protocols, acquiring billions of dollars from these attacks. From 2021 to 2023, approximately $1.9 billion has been stolen from various crypto projects, showcasing the group’s persistence and evolving tactics.

    In 2023, the Lazarus Group executed at least five attacks, including a notable $70 million theft from the Hong Kong-based crypto exchange CoinEx. Their strategy moved towards targeting centralized finance platforms and noncustodial crypto wallets, demonstrating keen adaptability to the changing landscape of the crypto industry.

    Despite a global decline in the overall amount of money stolen in digital asset hacks, the threat posed by groups like Lazarus remains significant. Law enforcement agencies have been actively combating these activities by tracing stolen funds and disrupting crypto mixers, which obscure illicit funds’ origins. The U.S. Treasury Department has addressed these challenges by sanctioning popular mixing services like Tornado Cash and proposing stricter regulations for decentralized platforms.

    Crypto hacks in 2024: prospects

    The surge of crypto hacks in the latter half of 2023 reflects a concerning narrative for the industry heading into 2024. The upcoming year is poised to be a crucial time for crypto, with the expectations around the Bitcoin spot ETF launch in January and the Bitcoin halving event in April.

    So, the industry is preparing for a busy 2024, and so will the hackers. Building industry-wide resilience would be the key to curbing these large-scale threats; otherwise, we might be in for a costlier new year. 

    FAQs

    Can blockchain be hacked?

    While blockchain technology is generally secure due to its decentralized and encrypted nature, it is not completely immune to hacking, especially through vulnerabilities in smart contracts or centralized points like exchanges.

    Is Bitcoin hackable?

    Bitcoin’s core blockchain protocol is highly secure, but Bitcoin exchanges and wallets can be vulnerable to hacking.

    What is the world’s largest crypto exchange hack?

    The world’s largest crypto exchange hack occurred at Coincheck in 2018. The company lost $534 million worth of NEM tokens.

    What is the biggest hack in Bitcoin history?

    The most significant Bitcoin hack was the Mt. Gox incident in 2014, where approximately 850,000 bitcoins were stolen, greatly impacting the Bitcoin community and market.

    What are the latest crypto hacks?

    Recent notable crypto hacks include the attacks on Ledger, HTX, KyberSwap, and Poloniex, with losses mounting over hundreds of millions. 


    Follow Us on Google News

    Mohammad Shahidullah

    Source link

  • Charles Munger, who helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, has died

    Charles Munger, who helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, has died

    Charles Munger helped build one of the greatest fortunes in U.S. history, but he often explained his success in terms that sounded deceptively uncomplicated.

    “Take a simple idea and take it seriously.”

    “Load up on the very few insights you have instead of pretending to know everything about everything at all times.”

    And above all, he stressed the need for patience and a long-term investment view — an approach that has vanished from much of Wall Street in recent decades.

    In his trademark curmudgeonly style, Munger advised investors to take stakes in a relative handful of great companies and then “just sit on your ass.”

    Munger, the longtime investment partner of billionaire Warren E. Buffett, died Tuesday at a California hospital, according to Berkshire Hathaway, where he was vice chairman.

    “Berkshire Hathaway could not have been built to its present status without Charlie’s inspiration, wisdom and participation,” Buffett said in a press release.

    Though born in Omaha, like Buffett, Munger lived in Los Angeles most of his life. And for the most part, he shunned the media spotlight that Buffett often relished.

    Munger sometimes was described as Buffett’s “sidekick,” but that grossly understated his influence on Buffett, who is six years his junior.

    Buffett said he never made a major investing decision without consulting Munger as the two presided over the explosive growth of their company, Berkshire Hathaway, into an American business icon.

    Berkshire, with over $1 trillion in assets, owns such well-known brands as insurance company Geico, the BNSF railroad, See’s Candies, Fruit of the Loom and Dairy Queen.

    After meeting Munger at a dinner party in Omaha in 1959, Buffett — then an ambitious but novice investor — said he quickly realized that there was “only one partner who fit my bill of particulars in every way: Charlie.”

    Buffett’s wife, the late Susie Buffett, once wrote of the two men that “both thought the other was the smartest guy they ever met.”

    In the last decade Munger’s name has become better known, at least among serious investors, as he shared the spotlight with Buffett at Berkshire’s annual shareholder meeting. The two became a nightclub act of sorts, peppering sage investment advice with one-liners that kept the crowd of thousands enraptured.

    One of Munger’s most famous zingers encapsulated his frequently acerbic wit: “I’m right, and you’re smart, and sooner or later you’ll see I’m right.”

    Charles Thomas Munger was born on Jan. 1, 1924, in Omaha to Al and Florence Munger. His father was a lawyer, and his grandfather had been a federal judge.

    As described by Michael Broggie in the 2005 book “Poor Charlie’s Almanack: The Wit and Wisdom of Charles T. Munger,” Munger’s family fared comparatively well during the Great Depression.

    Still, young Charlie was expected to work. One of his first jobs was clerking — for $2 per 12-hour shift — at Buffett & Son, an upscale Omaha grocery run by Warren Buffett’s grandfather. But Munger never met the younger Buffett during their youth.

    A voracious reader whose hero was Benjamin Franklin, Munger showed an aptitude for business early on when he began to raise hamsters to trade with other kids.

    “Even at an early age, Charlie showed sagacious negotiating ability, and usually gained a bigger specimen or one with unusual coloring,” Broggie wrote.

    After high school, Munger enrolled at the University of Michigan as a math major, but he left in 1943 to join the war effort. He enlisted in the Army Air Forces and was trained in meteorology at Caltech in Pasadena.

    Though he lacked a bachelor’s degree, Munger in 1946 decided to apply to Harvard Law School. He was accepted after a family friend intervened.

    Munger excelled at Harvard, graduating magna cum laude. His first law job was at Wright & Garrett in Los Angeles.

    But in his personal life, Munger struggled. At age 21 he had married Nancy Huggins, a family friend. They divorced in 1953, when Munger was 29.

    Shortly afterward the oldest of their three children, Teddy, was diagnosed with leukemia. He died at age 9.

    In 1956 Munger married Nancy Barry Borthwick, a Stanford University economics graduate. They had met through Munger’s friend Roy Tolles. Borthwick had two sons from her first marriage. She and Munger had four more children together.

    The size of the family was key to Munger’s fateful decision to shift career tracks from law to investing.

    “Nancy and I supported eight children,” Munger said in 1996. “And I didn’t realize that the law was going to get as prosperous as it suddenly got.”

    He put it another way to Janet Lowe, who wrote the biography “Damn Right! Behind the Scenes with Berkshire Hathaway Billionaire Charlie Munger” in 2000.

    “Like Warren, I had a considerable passion to get rich,” Munger told Lowe. “Not because I wanted Ferraris — I wanted the independence. I desperately wanted it.”

    In 1962 Munger co-founded the L.A. law firm Munger Tolles & Hills (today known as Munger Tolles & Olson). But by then his investing pursuits were already taking up much of his time.

    Though he began trading investment ideas with Buffett in 1959, from 1962 to 1975 Munger was mostly focused on building his own stock investment fund, Wheeler, Munger & Co., according to biographer Broggie.

    Munger racked up strong returns in the fund, but, like most investors, he was hit hard in the deep bear market of 1973-74, amid the first Arab oil embargo.

    After the market rebounded in 1975, Munger decided to stop directly managing money for others. Instead, he joined with Buffett in investing via the “holding company” concept: The two would buy businesses and make stock investments through a publicly traded company. They would control the firm by virtue of their large stake in it, but other investors could buy the company’s shares if they wanted to join in as essentially silent partners.

    Their primary vehicle was Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway. Munger became vice chairman of the firm in 1978.

    Munger also ran a smaller holding company, Pasadena-based Wesco Financial, which was majority-owned by Berkshire. It was merged into Berkshire in 2011. Separately, Munger headed Daily Journal Corp., an L.A.-based publisher of legal newspapers, including the L.A. Daily Journal.

    But Berkshire’s success is what made Munger’s name synonymous with brilliant investing.

    Buffett credited Munger with refining the former’s basic “value” approach to investing. Buffett was a devotee of Ben Graham, the father of the value school, which preached the discipline of buying shares only in companies that met rigid financial criteria.

    Munger, however, convinced Buffett that a long-term investor could prosper by focusing on the very best companies — even if they didn’t meet all of Graham’s value requirements.

    Munger’s approach was crystallized in his most famous investing maxim: “A great business at a fair price is superior to a fair business at a great price.”

    Munger “expanded my horizons,” Buffett has said.

    That, in turn, led to Berkshire’s purchases of huge stakes over the years in such blue-chip companies as Coca-Cola, American Express, IBM and Wells Fargo, in addition to the dozens of companies Berkshire owns outright.

    Munger, who owned a small fraction of of Berkshire stock, was listed on the Forbes roster with a net worth of $1.7 billion.

    Later in life, Munger at times became almost apologetic for his financial success. In a 1998 speech he bemoaned the allure of Wall Street for talented young people, “as distinguished from work providing much more value to others.”

    “Early Charlie Munger is a horrible career model for the young, because not enough was delivered to civilization for what was wrested from capitalism,” he said.

    He was an outspoken critic of excessive executive pay. He and Buffett drew annual salaries of $100,000 at Berkshire, a pittance compared with what most top Fortune 500 executives are paid.

    Still, his Berkshire stock wealth enabled Munger to make some large charitable gifts in his life.

    He was a longtime benefactor and board chairman of Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles. He also funded a science center at Harvard-Westlake School in L.A. and a research center at the Huntington Library.

    In higher education, Munger said he wanted to foster more dialogue and mixing of ideas on campus. In 2004 he gave $43.5 million for a graduate residence adjacent to Stanford Law School. In April 2013 Munger donated $110 million in stock for a graduate residence at the University of Michigan.

    Though a self-described conservative Republican (in contrast to Buffett, a Democrat), on some issues Munger defied the conservative stereotype. He was a longtime supporter of Planned Parenthood, for example, and fought in the 1960s to legalize abortion.

    “I’m more conservative, but I’m not a typical Colonel Blimp,” Munger said in 1996, referring to the jingoistic, reactionary British cartoon character.

    Munger’s wife, Nancy Barry Munger, died in 2010.

    Petruno is a former Times staff writer.

    Tom Petruno

    Source link