Individual Economists

DOE Unleashes $500M To Break China's Grip On Critical Materials

Zero Hedge -

DOE Unleashes $500M To Break China's Grip On Critical Materials

The DOE’s Office of Critical Minerals and Energy Innovation (CMEI) released a Notice of Funding Opportunity for up to $500 million for advancing its strategy to develop secure domestic sources of critical minerals and battery materials. The aim is to reduce reliance on foreign suppliers that have long dominated these markets. This marks the third round of funding under the Battery Materials Processing and Battery Manufacturing & Recycling programs.

Our readers have been tracking these developments for some time. Last summer we published an overview of the emerging domestic critical minerals sector, identifying several publicly traded companies now well-positioned for further government support.

This new round of funding will support projects focused on domestic processing of raw feedstocks, recycling of battery manufacturing scrap and end-of-life batteries, and the manufacturing of battery components and materials. Key targeted minerals include lithium, graphite, nickel, copper, and aluminum, along with other materials used in commercial battery systems. The overarching objective is to build resilient supply chains for electric vehicles, grid storage, defense applications, and broader industrial needs.

Energy Secretary Wright highlighted: “For too long, the United States has relied on hostile foreign actors to supply and process the critical materials that are essential in battery manufacturing and materials processing. Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, the Department of Energy is playing a leading role in strengthening these domestic industries that will position the U.S. to win the AI race, meet rising energy demand, and achieve energy dominance.”

Assistant Secretary Audrey Robertson provided additional context from recent international engagements, including meetings in Japan on allied energy cooperation.

Our previous write-ups have included details on MP Materials, the operator of the Mountain Pass rare earth mine and downstream magnet processing facilities, which previously secured major Pentagon equity investment and price support.

USA Rare Earth has advanced its Round Top, Texas project with a substantial U.S. government funding package and integrated processing capacity. 

Non-binding letters of intent are due March 27, with full applications due April 24. As we’ve reported in multiple prior articles, the federal government continues to expand its role in the sector. This latest round represents another step in the ongoing effort to onshore critical supply chains.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 21:25

Parents - Not Schools - Must Be In Charge Of Their Children

Zero Hedge -

Parents - Not Schools - Must Be In Charge Of Their Children

Authored by Keri Ingraham via The Epoch Times,

Earlier in March, the U.S. Supreme Court had to step in and reaffirm the basic reality that parents, not schools, must be the primary decision-makers for their children. In the Mirabelli v. Bonta ruling, the Court determined that the California law, which barred schools from telling parents about their child’s claimed gender identity, violated parents’ constitutional rights—both their First Amendment free exercise rights and their Fourteenth Amendment rights to make decisions about their children’s upbringing.

For most of American history, parents were recognized as the primary authority in their children’s lives. Today, that authority is repeatedly under attack, especially in public schools.

Across the country, families are being shut out of what their children learn, denied access to critical health and personal information, and blocked from choosing schools that fit their children’s needs. This is not a minor issue. Rather, it is a fundamental threat to family authority, a child’s well-being, and the future of our society.

In too many districts, controversial lessons are introduced without parental knowledge. Parents who ask to review classroom materials are simply ignored, told the material is unavailable, or directed to file a public records request. Families who speak up at school board meetings are often treated as agitators or troublemakers—or called “domestic terrorists.”

To a growing extent, schools have begun operating as if parental involvement is optional instead of essential. But parents do not lose their rights when their children enter a classroom. Education exists to serve families, not replace them.

The problem extends beyond curriculum, as teachers and administrators are withholding critical medical or personal information from parents about their minor-aged children. Yet parents cannot fulfill their responsibility to care for their children if key information is deliberately withheld.

This conflict is not hypothetical. In recent years, a growing number of school districts have adopted policies that allow, and even encourage, students to socially transition at school—using different names or pronouns—without notifying their parents. In some cases, school staff are directed to keep this information hidden from dads and moms. Policies like these drive a wedge between parents and their own children.

Finally, parents are still denied meaningful authority over where their children are educated. Millions of families remain assigned to schools based solely on ZIP code. If a child struggles academically, faces bullying, or needs a different learning environment, parents are often left with few options. This puts children’s education and well-being at risk.

Thankfully, change is taking place. Across the country, states are expanding school choice programs that allow education funding to follow students rather than remain tied to the system. Private school scholarship programs, education savings accounts, and tax credit scholarships are giving families the freedom to choose the learning path that best meets their children’s unique needs.

Parents are desperate to exit the public education system because it has failed to fulfill its core mission of providing quality learning, has stopped listening to them, and, in many cases, has pushed them out.

Parents, not school bureaucrats, must hold the final authority over their children. Moms and dads raise them, have known them since birth, and will be part of their lives long after the school year ends. No teacher or administrator, no matter how well-intentioned, should ever replace that role.

For most of our nation’s history, that was obvious.

Parents had both the right and the responsibility to direct the upbringing and education of their children, and courts repeatedly affirmed that principle.

Yet today, that authority is under threat. Bureaucratic policies, as witnessed in California, are increasingly working to replace the role of parents in a child’s life.

Excluding parents erodes trust, strips schools of accountability, and harms children. Families are sidelined while systems dictate what kids learn, what personal information they keep private, and even which schools they can attend, leaving children without the guidance of those who know and love them best. Schools should operate with transparency, not secrecy. Parents should be treated as partners, not obstacles, and their decision-making authority must be respected.

Children belong to families, not bureaucracies. Institutions should never forget that. Restoring parental authority is not radical. Rather, it is simply a return to a long-standing American principle: families, not government institutions, are the foundation of society, and parents should be trusted to guide their children’s upbringing and education.

If we fail to protect that principle, we risk raising a generation with less parental guidance, less accountability in schools, and fewer opportunities to succeed. But when parents are respected and empowered to lead in their children’s lives, families grow stronger, and so does the future of our nation.

It’s time to put parents back in their rightful place—as the first, most trusted, and most important decision-makers in their children’s lives. This Supreme Court decision is an important step in the right direction.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 21:00

AAA National Average Gas Price Soars Most On Record

Zero Hedge -

AAA National Average Gas Price Soars Most On Record

AAA (American Automobile Association) reports that the national average price for a gallon of regular gasoline has surged nearly 25% so far this month, putting it on track for the largest monthly increase on record, even surpassing the May 2009 spike, unless the Middle East conflict is resolved quickly.

This consumer fuel-price shock is coming at about the worst possible moment: it is a midterm election year for MAGA, and as we have noted previously, an emergency SPR release would do little to contain the spike, leaving the administration with few viable options.

Brent crude is trading near $102 a barrel and WTI around $95 on Monday afternoon, levels that suggest the national average price for regular gasoline could soon push even closer to the politically sensitive $4-per-gallon threshold.

Consumers have already noticed, as Google Search trends for "Why are gas prices going up" have surged to levels seen when crude prices spiked during Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The good news is that comments from the Trump administration show an urgency to reopen the critical maritime chokepoint, the Strait of Hormuz.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told CNBC's Squawk Box this morning that the US is deliberately "allowing Iranian oil tankers to transit the Strait of Hormuz" and is "fine" with some Indian and Chinese ships moving through "for now… to supply the rest of the world."

He highlighted "more and more of the fuel ships start[ing] to go through" and a possible "natural opening" the Iranians are permitting - a tactical concession to stabilize global supply while full escorts remain "militarily" off the table for now.

Last week, we highlighted JPMorgan's head of commodity research, Natasha Kaneva, who warned that policy measures will have, at best, a limited impact on oil prices unless safe passage through the Strait of Hormuz is assured, given the potential for up to 12 mbd in losses over the next two weeks.

Some of those policy maneuvers included the 32-nation IEA's emergency release of 400 million barrels that will soon hit crude markets, along with the initial flows from the U.S. SPR release of 86 million barrels, which could begin as soon as this week. As we have noted, this is not a stockpile problem, but a flow problem.

Kaneva's other five options beyond SPR releases to contain soaring oil prices include export restrictions, lifting the Jones Act (which Trump is set to do), waiving federal fuel taxes (which could occur if gas hits $4 a gallon), relaxing E15 gasoline blending rules, and issuing a Reid Vapor Pressure waiver (read her full note here).

With the national average price of gas inching closer to the politically sensitive $4-per-gallon level, the key question is what tools the Trump administration is prepared to use to contain pump prices to mitigate any risk of political fallout. 

The immediate focus at the start of the week is clearly on reopening the Strait of Hormuz, but domestically, the policy maneuvering is far narrower, likely centering on an SPR release by mid-week and potentially a temporary waiver on federal fuel taxes.

Soaring pump prices come as spring break begins. Will Trump's Iran conflict be over before the Memorial Day driving season?

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 20:35

Obama's Presidential Center Seeking 100 Unpaid Volunteers To Staff Lavish Facility

Zero Hedge -

Obama's Presidential Center Seeking 100 Unpaid Volunteers To Staff Lavish Facility

Authored by Bryan Hyde via American Greatness,

Former president Barack Obama’s foundation has announced that it will be launching its lavish $850 million presidential center in Chicago in June and is seeking unpaid volunteers to help staff the facility.

That may seem on brand for a former president who has made volunteerism a central tenet of his civic career since his beginnings as a community organizer in Chicago.

At the same time, the staggering costs and jaw-dropping salaries being paid to Obama’s cronies who will run the presidential center are not as easy to pass off as part of his legacy of civic engagement.

Valerie Jarrett, a longtime advisor who will head up the center, is being paid $740,000 salary according to Breitbart.

In a press release from the Obama Foundation, Jarrett described the intended role of the unpaid volunteers, saying, “As Ambassadors, they will create a welcoming and inclusive experience for visitors while representing the strength, resilience, and leadership of this community. Together, we are building something that inspires service, connection, and action far beyond our walls.”

Foundation officials told Fox News Digital that the volunteers will complement the roughly 300 full- and part-time employees and that the volunteer program represents the foundation’s values both onsite and in the community.

Jarrett is one of several former Obama White House officials collecting six-figure paychecks as foundation executives.

According to Fox News Digital, tax filings show “Total salaries and benefits at the foundation climbed from $18.5 million in 2018 to $43.7 million in 2024 as staffing expanded to 337 employees and annual revenue reached nearly $210 million.”

Unpaid volunteers are commonly employed by presidential libraries, nonprofit cultural institutions, and museums.

In the case of the Obama Presidential Center, the foundation reports that “volunteer ‘Ambassadors’ will greet visitors, provide directional assistance, share information on exhibitions and events, and ensure every guest feels personally welcomed from the moment they arrive.”

The center is scheduled to open on Juneteenth, the holiday commemorating the end of slavery in Texas.

Using unpaid labor to carry out the day-to-day work of running an opulent institution run by a well-connected, wealthy elite?

If that isn’t irony, it’s certainly missing a great opportunity.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 20:10

Russia's Rumored Telegram Block Appears Underway As Outage Reports Surge

Zero Hedge -

Russia's Rumored Telegram Block Appears Underway As Outage Reports Surge

Reports are flooding in from across Russia that Telegram is suddenly going dark, fueling speculation that the Kremlin may already be testing a nationwide block ahead of a rumored planned crackdown next month.

"Over the last 24 hours, Telegram has effectively stopped working through some providers if you are using Russian IP addresses," tech sector observer Vladislav Voytenko told Kommersant FM on Monday. "As for using Telegram via mobile internet, you can basically forget about it," he added.

via Associated Presses

Russia’s Main Radio Frequency Center, an arm of media watchdog Roskomnadzor, said a surge of complaints began appearing over the weekend, with at least one-third coming from Moscow, followed by St. Petersburg and other cities spread across the country's vast 11 time zones.

Regional media has tracked user reports on outage monitors such as Downdetector and Sboi.rf, which show complaints spiking sharply over the weekend as the app began failing across multiple regions.

Some Russian users have described the platform is barely functioning "in any form". They complain the app won't open, messages won't send, and neither will photos and videos load.

Tech analysts say the disruption looks less like a technical glitch and more like the targeted throttling of Russia's most popular messaging service and social media site, with an estimated 90 million users.

Prior reported efforts of the Russian government to restrict Telegram, particularly in 2018 and 2020, failed given that users as well as the company were repeatedly successful in bypassing Kremlin measures.

However, with access suddenly collapsing across the country at the start of this week, many observers believe the Kremlin may finally be preparing to finish the job. The reality is that Telegram is notoriously difficult for governments to monitor and censor.

But Moscow believes the company itself could be using it against Russia amid the Ukraine war. As we featured earlier this month:

Authorities in Russia believe that Ukraine has quick access to Russian servicemen’s messages and exploits this for military purposes, which wouldn’t be possible without some degree of complicity on Telegram’s part, thus impugning its founder’s character after he denied working with foreign spooks.

The FSB claimed to have “reliable information that the Ukrainian armed forces and intelligence agencies are able to quickly obtain information posted on the Telegram messenger and use it for military purposes.” This coincides with the government allegedly throttling Telegram on the grounds that it’s not in compliance with local laws, which preceded reports that it’ll be banned on 1 April. The authorities denied that they have nay such plan but there’s no doubt that Telegram is now controversial in Russia.

This comes also as the West has been calling Russia's ever-tightening internet regulations on its citizenry a "digital Iron Curtain".

Russian government authorities have all the while accused the messaging giant of failing to curb fraud and safeguard user data, which ironically is similar to what the French government accused the company of when it famously detained billionaire Telegram founder and CEO Pavel Durov in 2024.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 19:45

Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks RFK Jr's Appointees To Vaccine Panel

Zero Hedge -

Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks RFK Jr's Appointees To Vaccine Panel

Authored by Stacey Robinson via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on March 16 that Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. illegally appointed 13 new members to an influential vaccine panel beginning last June.

Biden-appointed district Judge Brian Murphy also blocked that panel’s guidance memo revising the childhood immunization schedule and declared its previous votes invalid.

Murphy ruled Kennedy committed “a technical, procedural failure” by skirting around the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) to change the vaccine recommendations for children.

He said the government committed a similar mistake by removing the previous members of that committee, and replacing them “without undertaking any of the rigorous screening that had been the hallmark of ACIP member selection for decades.”

The plaintiffs, led by the American Academy of Pediatrics, originally sued after Kennedy ordered the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to stop recommending the COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant women and healthy children.

The suit was later expanded to challenge the restructuring of the ACIP and its changes to childhood vaccine recommendations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 19:20

SEC Preparing Proposal To Eliminate Quarterly Reporting Requirement

Zero Hedge -

SEC Preparing Proposal To Eliminate Quarterly Reporting Requirement

Very soon,10-Qs may be a thing of the past.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is preparing a proposal to eliminate the requirement to report earnings quarterly and instead give companies the option to share results twice a year, the WSJ reports citing people familiar with the matter.

In preparation for the proposal - which could be published as soon as April - regulators have been talking to officials at the major exchanges to discuss how they may need to adjust their rules. Once published, the proposal will be subject to the usual public comment period. After that period, which typically lasts at least 30 days, the SEC will vote on it. There are no guarantees it will ultimately happen.

The push for semiannual reporting gained steam late last year. As the WSJ reported last September, the Long-Term Stock Exchange petitioned the SEC to eliminate the quarterly earnings report requirement. Within days, President Trump and SEC Chairman Paul Atkins both said they supported the idea.

Publicly traded US companies have reported results every three months for the past 50-plus years. Trump briefly explored the idea of moving to semiannual earnings reports during his first term, but the effort went nowhere.

Those in favor of less-frequent reporting requirements believe a switch could help boost the shrinking number of public companies in the U.S. Among the reasons companies cite as to why they remain private is the time-consuming and costly clerical work required to list and maintain publicly traded shares.

Any change is likely to face opposition from investors who rely on the transparency of regular disclosures.

While the rule is expected to make quarterly reporting optional, and not eliminate quarterly reports altogether, it is unlikely that many companies will voluntarily subject themselves to intense public scrutiny at a time when AI is making decades-old corporate moats disappear virtually overnight. Alternatively, it could also make capital raising far more challenging for companies that opt out since investors could be anxious to allocate capital in companies that do not publish up to date snapshots of their financial matters. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 18:30

US Cities Face Water Stress Amid Crumbling Infrastructure

Zero Hedge -

US Cities Face Water Stress Amid Crumbling Infrastructure

Authored by Autumn Spredemann via The Epoch Times,

Across large swaths of the United States, drought conditions and the explosion of data centers have brought renewed attention to the future of the water supply. But the biggest concern may be something local governments have known about for years: aging pipes and other decaying infrastructure that could threaten supply even when water is abundant.

More U.S. cities have been facing water stress in recent years. Drought conditions affected more than a third of the nation last year, with almost 30 million Americans living in areas with high water stress, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.

At the same time, data centers can consume upward of 5 million gallons of water per day. That’s the equivalent usage of a town with a population between 10,000 and 50,000 people. The number varies, but an estimated 4,149 data centers are currently operational in the United States, with another 2,788 announced or under construction.

But while drought and data center-related water consumption continue to make headlines, an estimated 6.75 billion gallons of treated drinking water are slipping through the cracks in America’s pipes every single day.

It’s a problem U.S. officials have seen coming for more than a decade.

A 2014 U.S. Government Accountability report found 40 out of 50 state water managers anticipated supply shortages in their states under “average conditions” within 10 years.

Fast forward to last year, when 75 percent of U.S. city officials and more than half of business executives said they expect water risks to outpace all other infrastructure threats, according to a Schneider Electric study.

“Water is not just essential for life—it’s the backbone of America’s economic strength—yet today the U.S. is facing a major water crisis, driven by dwindling supply and outdated infrastructure,” Sophie Borgne, Water and Environment Segment president at Schneider Electric, stated in a press release.

A general view of the Google Midlothian Data Center in Midlothian, Texas, on Nov. 14, 2025. Data centers can consume more than 5 million gallons of water per day, adding pressure in regions already facing water shortages that threaten residential access, industrial growth, and long-term urban resilience. Ron Jenkins/Getty Images

Most U.S. water pipes are between 45 and 100 years old, and many contain toxic elements such as lead and copper, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In its 2025 infrastructure report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. drinking water a C- score and wastewater management a D+ due to the ongoing battle to replace U.S. water pipes.

“The nation’s water infrastructure is aging and underfunded. More than 9 million existing lead service lines pose health concerns,” the engineers stated in the report.

The study authors also noted that “funding shortfalls” remain a problem in state-level funding for the necessary upgrades to drinking water pipes. They also observed that only an estimated 30 percent of these utility companies have fully implemented a water asset management plan, and less than half are even trying to implement one.

In October 2024, the EPA announced its final rule on replacing lead piping nationwide, with compliance required to begin that year. The ultimate goal was to replace all aging and leaking drinking water pipes nationwide within 10 years. The agency stated that the country’s drinking water systems would need $625 billion for pipe replacement, treatment plant upgrades, and additional assets.

“[With] the latest data from 2025, EPA estimates that there are 4 million lead service lines across the country, down from 9 million previously estimated,” an EPA spokesperson told The Epoch Times.

The spokesperson said an additional $3 billion in state funding is available to reduce exposure to lead in drinking water.

“EPA is committed to Making America Healthy Again by ensuring that all Americans can rely on clean and safe drinking water,” the spokesperson said, adding that the agency’s free water technical assistance program is available to “help drinking water systems identify, plan for, and replace lead pipes in the communities they serve.”

Workers use giant pumps to move sewage around a broken section of the Potomac Interceptor in Cabin John, Md., on Feb. 16, 2026. An estimated 6.75 billion gallons of treated drinking water are slipping through the cracks in America’s pipes every single day. Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Doing the Math

Presently, water lost to faulty pipe infrastructure is costing U.S. utilities $6.4 billion annually. So why is this decades-in-the-making problem still ongoing? Some say it’s because the math doesn’t work.

“While the $6 billion loss of 2 trillion gallons of treated drinking water—nearly 20 percent of the drinking water consumed in the U.S.—to old pipes and crumbling infrastructure sounds large, it must be put in perspective,” Jeff Stollman told The Epoch Times.

As an economist and technology futurist, Stollman prepares impact forecasts for industries, government, and the environment. He said the cost of replacing leaky water pipes ranges from $1 million to $4 million per mile, depending on pipe size, location, and installation method.

“The United States has over 2.2 million miles of underground drinking water pipes, with a significant portion reaching the end of their 75 to 100 year life. The cost of replacing half of these pipes at the lower range cost of $1 million per mile would therefore require municipalities to come up with $1.1 trillion. And this estimate is certainly low,” he said.

“Losing $6 billion a year, it would take nearly 200 years for the current losses to equal the cost of replacement.”

Compounding this, many older municipalities are “cash-strapped” as it is, he said.

A pipe diverts water into the C&O Canal in Cabin John, Md., on March 5, 2026. Most U.S. water pipes are between 45 and 100 years old, and many contain toxic elements such as lead and copper, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Heather Diehl/Getty Images

Outside of federal assistance, Stollman said, state and municipal officials will likely need to raise utility prices to cover the improvements.

“This doesn’t mean that this [pipe changing] shouldn’t be done. But utilities will likely have to raise the cost of water more than 7 cents [per] gallon,” he said.

The soaring cost of water bills is already a concern for many. Since 2022, water bills have increased across the board.

In the Midwest, bills were higher than the national average, but the Mid-Atlantic region saw the greatest year-over-year increase in 2024 at 9.5 percent, according to a Bank of America analysis.

Bluefield Research observed in 2025 that U.S. water and sewer bills had risen 24 percent over the previous five years.

“The cost of maintaining and upgrading water infrastructure continues to rise, and these costs are being passed down to ratepayers,” Megan Bondar, an analyst at Bluefield Research, said in a press release.

Workers with the East Bay Municipal Utility District install a new water pipe in Oakland, Calif., on April 22, 2021. The Environmental Protection Agency issued a final rule in 2024 requiring water systems nationwide to identify and replace lead pipes within 10 years. Justin Sullivan/Getty Images

Down The Drain

Neno Duplan, CEO of Locus Technologies, said recent federal infrastructure funding “is helpful but insufficient to fully modernize century-old networks nationwide.”

Duplan has extensive experience with surface and subsurface hydrology. He told The Epoch Times that the full elimination of U.S. pipe leakage is neither “technically feasible nor economically rational.”

He said utilities optimize around what he called an “economic level of leakage,” balancing repair costs with water value.

He believes the most pressing investment need isn’t leaky water pipes, but resilient source protection, advanced treatment, and contamination mitigation.

That said, Duplan said the trillions of gallons seeping from American water pipes come at a high price tag.

“The direct impact of leakage is economic: higher operating costs, rate pressure, and occasional localized service interruptions,” he said.

Water lost from pipes isn’t gone entirely, but generally finds its way back into the hydrologic cycle via soil infiltration, aquifer recharge, or surface flow.

“The real issue is not physical loss of water molecules. The real issue is loss of treated, pressurized, potable water service and the economic and energy waste associated with producing water that never reaches a paying customer,” he said.

Reverse osmosis pressure vessels treat wastewater at the Groundwater Replenishment System, the world’s largest wastewater recycling plant, in Fountain Valley, Calif., on July 20, 2022. In its 2025 infrastructure report card, the American Society of Civil Engineers gave U.S. wastewater management a D+ due to the ongoing battle to replace U.S. water pipes. Mario Tama/Getty Images

While Duplan doesn’t expect the water hemorrhaging from America’s pipes to create scarcity on its own, he said it creates problems with delivery reliability and pressure management.

“Infrastructure failure can prevent treated water from reaching customers even when the raw water supply is adequate,” he said.

California, Texas, Florida, New York, and Illinois account for more than one-third of all infrastructure-related water losses, according to Bluefield Research.

While states including California and Texas have taken steps to standardize reporting and validation requirements for utility companies, many “still lack accurate, validated data—hindering transparency, performance benchmarking, and corrective action,” Bondar said in a press release.

Contamination is also a growing concern, which can increase water stress by reducing available freshwater.

“A far larger systemic threat to U.S. water security is contamination, because contaminated water requires energy-intensive treatment before it can be returned to beneficial use,” Duplan said. “Treatment, remediation, and advanced purification are capital and energy-intensive processes. That is where the true risk and cost lie.”

Duplan believes U.S. water supplies face the cumulative challenges of “aging assets, energy-intensive treatment, contamination risks, and allocation management under climatic variability.”

A car passes a burst water pipe damaged by strong winds and heavy rain from Hurricane Florence in Wilmington, N.C., on Sept. 14, 2018. Replacing aging water pipes can cost between $1 million and $4 million per mile, depending on pipe size, location, and installation method, according to experts. Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty Images

In January, the United Nations said the current state of water “crisis” in many countries and cities has become the new normal.

“The patterns observed around the world are not those of a system struggling through a temporary crisis,” the agency wrote. “They indicate that many key renewable water systems have crossed thresholds where full restoration is no longer realistic, even with large investments.”

Cities Take Action

Since 2016, new federal rules and local investment programs have reshaped how cities track and upgrade water infrastructure. Revisions to the EPA’s lead and copper rule finalized in 2021 required utilities to inventory service line materials by October 2024, shifting the focus toward identifying pipe materials—especially lead—rather than documenting pipe age.

Cities have also expanded replacement efforts. In Baltimore, where pipes average roughly 75 to 80 years old, about 15 miles of mains are replaced or rehabilitated each year.

Milwaukee maintains about 2,000 miles of mains dating to 1873 and plans to replace 65,000 lead service lines by 2037.

In Philadelphia, where some pipes date back to 1824, about 20 miles are replaced annually.

Meanwhile, Phoenix reported more than 480,000 waterline services in a 2024 inventory and no lead lines, while San Antonio is shifting toward condition-based pipe replacement across its roughly 9,000-mile network.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 18:05

North Korean Operatives Infiltrating U.S. Companies Through Remote Tech Jobs

Zero Hedge -

North Korean Operatives Infiltrating U.S. Companies Through Remote Tech Jobs

North Korean operatives are quietly working inside U.S. companies through remote technology jobs, funneling millions of dollars back to Pyongyang and potentially gaining access to sensitive corporate systems, according to investigators and U.S. officials, according to NBC News.

The scheme relies on workers posing as American job applicants using stolen identities and fake credentials to secure high-paying remote roles, particularly in software development and artificial intelligence. Authorities warn the tactic allows the regime to bypass international sanctions while embedding operatives inside Western companies.

An investigation by the Virginia-based cybersecurity firm Nisos found that suspected North Korean IT workers apply to thousands of jobs using fabricated résumés and multiple online personas. Once hired, the workers often operate from overseas — frequently from China — while U.S.-based facilitators help maintain the illusion that they are located domestically.

These facilitators run so-called “laptop farms,” where company-issued computers are physically kept in the United States and remotely accessed by workers abroad. Investigators say the workers also coordinate applications, interviews, and references within tightly organized teams to increase their chances of being hired.

NBC News writes that the scheme has expanded rapidly since the rise of remote work during the COVID-19 pandemic, which made it easier for overseas workers to obtain jobs without appearing in person. Authorities say the salaries — sometimes exceeding $300,000 per worker — are largely sent back to the regime of Kim Jong Un, helping fund North Korea’s weapons and ballistic missile programs.

U.S. officials estimate the operation now affects hundreds of companies and generates hundreds of millions of dollars annually for the North Korean government.

Investigators say some operatives hold multiple jobs simultaneously, applying to dozens of roles a day and coordinating through organized networks that track applications and interviews. In some cases, the workers are accused of stealing proprietary data, cryptocurrency, or sensitive technical information while employed. Officials warn that even after the workers are discovered and fired, they may leave behind hidden system access that could later be exploited, raising broader national security concerns.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 17:40

The Greatest Risk For The Global Economy Is Stagflation Driven By Governments, Not Oil

Zero Hedge -

The Greatest Risk For The Global Economy Is Stagflation Driven By Governments, Not Oil

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

The current oil price forward curve shows that the current global energy shock may be significant but short-lived. The forward curve presents a steep disinflationary trend to $80 per barrel by the end of 2026. Markets are discounting a short war with limited impact on supply but immediate ripple effects on markets and importing economies.

In the worst case, a new energy shock triggered by war with Iran would bring stagflation pressures across the global economy, especially in the economies that have been unable to strengthen their energy supply chains since 2022, like the European Union, which is still in a low-growth environment subject to significant impact from energy shocks. Even if the conflict is short‑lived, the disruption to the Strait of Hormuz and Gulf infrastructure has made the oil market go from an oversupply of 4 million barrels per day, according to the IEA, to a tight balance, as shipping routes come under pressure.

The Strait of Hormuz carries almost 25% of seaborne oil exports and a large share of liquefied natural gas (LNG) flows, which makes it the most sensitive energy route. However, 80% of the traffic through the strait goes to Asia, mostly China. That is why the Chinese government has halted all refined product exports from China, trying to limit the risk of supply constraints.

We must also remember that $100 a barrel today is not equivalent to $100 per barrel in 2008. In current dollar terms, the 2008 oil crisis would only trigger at $190 per barrel. Adjusting for inflation is important.

Non-OPEC supply is also a differential factor from other crises, as it has increased significantly since 2008, contributing to a more stable market despite rising prices. The current energy shock is entirely different from 2008 for the United States.

In 2008, the United States production stood at barely 5 million barrels per day. Today, the US is the largest oil producer in the world at 13.7 million barrels per day.

In 2008, dry natural gas output was around 56 billion cubic feet per day. It is projected to reach 106 billion cubic feet daily in 2026. Natural gas energy independence exists in the US, and with the inclusion of Canada and Mexico, North America’s oil independence is nearly complete.

Even considering all these differences compared with other instances, an energy shock would immediately increase fuel prices at the pump but also raise the cost of electricity, heating, fertilizers, plastics, chemicals, and many manufactured goods that depend on petrochemical inputs.

These secondary price effects may quickly feed into consumer and producer inflation, even if other disinflationary factors mitigate the overall CPI impact.

In energy‑importing economies such as the EU, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, India, and parts of Latin America, higher fuel bills will likely hit households that are already suffering from persistent inflationary pressures due to uncontrolled government spending and money printing.

For countries like Pakistan, which relies heavily on imported LNG, and several Southeast Asian nations, the shock could trigger a relevant balance‑of‑payments stress, currency depreciation, and even the risk of rationing as fiscal buffers are exhausted.

The current level of US dollar reserves of emerging economies is elevated, but not enough to entirely offset the impact of an energy crisis on the purchasing power of their currencies.

If governments decide to “combat” the energy crisis by increasing spending and subsidies, which is the same as printing money, the macroeconomic impact would be stagflationary: higher inflation with weaker or no growth.

The biggest risk for inflation will not be the impact of energy prices only, but the response from governments if they decide to spend and print their way out of the war’s impact.

The most significant risk for the global economy would come if central banks decided to hike rates due to energy price spikes. Hiking rates would halt investment, consumption, and job creation and have no impact on prices driven by an external geopolitical factor.

If the war continues for an extended period, it could lead to a revision in global growth forecasts, which were already weak for 2026. The IMF had already estimated a slowdown to around 3% or less, and the Iran‑related shock may mean tighter financial conditions.

A long war could lead to a domino of recessions in energy-importing regions, while resource-rich exporters would see an economic boost that would not counterbalance the impact on the largest economies, primarily importers.

The greatest risk now is, as always, a domino of policy mistakes.

Developed economies’ governments may feel tempted to spend and print, ignoring the lack of fiscal space and the already persistent inflation created by the errors made during Covid-19 and the political response.

Governments might intensify their deficit spending, and central banks might repeat their mistakes from 2021-2024 by raising rates at the most inopportune time.

Stagflation is an unlikely outcome, but if it arrives, it will be entirely created by policy mistakes from governments and central banks.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 17:15

Armor-Piercing Ammo Metal Up 557% As China Chokes Supply, War Demand Surges

Zero Hedge -

Armor-Piercing Ammo Metal Up 557% As China Chokes Supply, War Demand Surges

Tungsten, used in missiles, tank rounds, armor-piercing ammunition, and some smaller-caliber munitions, has surged in price over the last year as China curbed exports and global supplies tightened.

This is a major concern, as multi-front conflicts - from the Middle East to Eastern Europe - are depleting interceptor missile supplies.

Bloomberg cites new data from commodity price reporting agency Fastmarkets showing tungsten prices have surged to $2,250 per metric ton this month, up 557% since Beijing added certain tungsten products to its export control list in February of last year.

"In my 12 years working across the commodity space and dealing with a lot of weird and wonderful metals, I have never seen a market as tight as tungsten is right now, aside from maybe lithium in 2021," George Heppel, vice president of commodity research, told Bloomberg.

He warned, "This isn't like lithium, where there was a huge pipeline of projects that could come online."

The problem with rare earth metals is that China dominates the global market. It controls roughly 79% of global tungsten mined output, which Western companies rely on heavily.

According to Project Blue, a London-based commodity research firm, manufacturers have been searching for alternative supplies since China significantly tightened export controls last year. Chinese shipments of restricted tungsten products were down about 40% last year, the firm said.

The tungsten squeeze highlights why the Trump administration has been furiously rewriting global supply chains away from China, especially with the push to build out domestic rare earth supply chains critical for the military and semiconductor industries.

"The industrial base is desperate for material," said Almonty Industries CEO Lewis Black, whose firm is set to begin commercial production at the site of an idled mine in South Korea and is seeking to develop the first U.S. tungsten mine in a decade.

"We've never been in a situation where the market is determining the price," Black said. "So we don't really know where it's going to settle."

One year ago, Black warned his customer base was in a "state of disbelief" amid China's tightening of global supplies.

"It's the warning shot, because we cannot exist without it," Black told Bloomberg's Annie Lee in an interview at the time.

He noted: "Our economy, manufacturing, defense, everything, is so dependent on it. And yet, Russia, China and North Korea have about 90% of the output."

Shares of Almonty in the U.S. are up 127% this year, as the market is waking up to the fact that this company is expected to become one of the largest tungsten producers outside China.

Almonty is also developing a U.S. tungsten project in Montana that it says could become the first U.S. tungsten mine in about a decade.

Military-related tungsten demand is set to surge this year because the metal is used in missile components and other weaponry deployed in the conflict zones of the Middle East and eastern Ukraine. Major U.S. defense companies have already signaled to the Trump administration that missile production will quadruple, putting even more pressure on critical metals.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 16:50

"...The Entire Internet Has Doomer Fatigue"

Zero Hedge -

"...The Entire Internet Has Doomer Fatigue"

Authored by James Howard Kunstler,

"I can tell the entire internet has doomer fatigue."

- Catturd on X

The mysterious financial repo markets - which practically no one outside of banking understands (and even some banking insiders don't) - started showing some signs of stress recently (forward rates spiking: 1Y1Y SOFR has risen nearly 50 bps in two weeks, signaling growing concern among dealers and investors about future funding costs); though not near the level they did in September 2019, just before You-Know-What sucker-punched the world with lockdowns, stolen elections, and fake vaccines. Half of America still hasn’t got its head straight... and here we go again.

The private equity outfits, like giant BlackRock, are wobbling so hard that they had to “gate redemptions” — meaning, investors can’t pull their money out of funds going dark with dubious collateral. It’s exactly what sparks panics. Money can only stand so much unreality. The Rube Goldberg machine of finance — a scaffold of insane complexity designed to bamboozle the rubes — is threatening to fly apart. The world only needs so many pre-owned yachts.

Plus, there’s a war on, which has disrupted the regular flow of the world’s primary resource: oil.

That’s the really-real side of the picture. The Strait of Hormuz remains closed.

You’ve got to wonder how much additional pounding the lunatic state of Iran can take.

It’s not clear who is even in charge there. Iran’s supposed foreign minister, one Aras Araghchi, is suddenly offering to give up those 440 kilos of 60-percent enriched uranium that are at the heart of this quarrel.

Sounds a little surrender-ish, though he made the offer with a certain defiant bluster. Let’s see where that goes.

Maybe the war will be over sooner than you thought.

Watch and listen starting at 13:00-minute Mark:

With all this in motion, things slip-sliding all over the place, the week ahead may be one in which nobody can think straight or get a straight answer.

Here’s something to chew on: do you think Great Britain is our dear friend because we speak the same language? Great Britain has been allowing Iran’s ruling Revolutionary Guard to park its money in London for half a century while Lloyd’s offers jacked-up insurance rates to all those tankers faring through the Strait of Hormuz.

This dynamic has made world oil up to 15-percent more expensive since the 1970s, and Britain’s banks have been creaming off the premium all the while. Trillions. Mr. Trump is putting an end to that racket while he also terminates Iran’s ability to export Jihad thuggery throughout the Middle East. That’s the meaning behind the Abraham Accords and the new Board of Peace set up to figure out Gaza — and probably to replace the broken United Nations as a mediating force in the region’s long-running conflicts.

Mr. Trump is also sending a message to China: the US will have something to say about the flow of oil going there out of the Persian Gulf, which is to say most of China’s imported oil. (The US imports relatively little oil out of the Persian Gulf, two to three percent of total US oil consumption which is 20-million barrels a day.) This is pretty serious power politics, but notice that China has not started World War Three over it. Mr. Trump and Xi are still talking, and are scheduled to meet in Beijing in April. Meanwhile, Xi is having plenty of trouble of his own with twitchy PLA generals, a staggering deflationary export economy, and a lot of angry young people thrown out of work.

One thing our country will not get a straight answer on this week is the SAVE Act. Senate Majority Leader John Thune made noises over the weekend about staging a half-assed “debate” on the floor, a demi-filibuster. . . then holding a guaranteed-to-fail cloture vote. . . making it impossible to reach a place where the bill might be subject to a simple majority vote. The procedural bullshit at issue is surely a challenge for the general voting public to understand. The bottom line is that Majority Leader Thune is entirely in-charge of the filibuster process and could make it work to advantage the SAVE Act if he wanted to. He could call for a full, “standing” filibuster that would require the bill’s opponents to explain themselves — that is, to explain why they prefer election fraud.

So, for now, the Save Act will fail to pass. The public will register the failure, if not the twisted route that got it there, and they will be mighty pissed-off. The really interesting part is what happens after all this is acted out, especially Senator Thune’s comic attempt to explain why he did this. And especially if, in the weeks just ahead, the nation watches federal indictments rain down for election fraud in Georgia, Wisconsin, and other states where so many weird things happened right before our eyes in November, 2020, 2022, and 2024. Sometime after that, the SAVE Act will come up for a vote again, and with a vengeance!

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 16:25

Guess What Ireland's President Said About St. Patrick's Day...

Zero Hedge -

Guess What Ireland's President Said About St. Patrick's Day...

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Irish President Catherine Connolly marked her first St. Patrick’s Day in office with a message that reframed Ireland’s patron saint as a symbol for open borders and ‘global citizenship’, urging the Irish to embrace migrants amid ongoing surges in arrivals that have sparked nationwide tensions.

In a video address, Connolly drew parallels between St. Patrick’s enslavement and modern migration, calling for hospitality toward those displaced by war and persecution—conveniently overlooking how mass influxes of economic migrants have overwhelmed Irish communities and resources.

The full message, delivered against a backdrop of Irish and other flags, emphasized St. Patrick’s story as “a reminder of the resilience and courage of migrants, the invaluable contributions that they have made, and continue to make, to the countries they now call home, sometimes even in the face of great adversity.”

Connolly went on: “Patrick’s story speaks not only to the Ireland of the 5th century, but to the millions still subjected to trafficking, forced labour and displacement today.”

She added, “As we recall the life of Patrick, we invoke his spirit and acknowledge our shared responsibilities as global citizens. We stand in solidarity with those who find themselves in vulnerable and dangerous circumstances.

The president wrapped up by stressing, “Patrick’s story invites us to respond with hospitality and kindness to those suffering the consequences of war and displacement, those fleeing their countries because of persecution or violence.”

This pivot comes as Ireland ramps up immigration reforms in 2026, including higher salary thresholds for work permits, digitalized processes, and faster citizenship paths for those granted international protection—moves that critics say prioritize foreigners over native Irish struggling with housing shortages and cultural erosion.

The government’s Budget 2026 poured funds into modernizing the system, aiming to streamline legal access for more migrants while protests against accommodation centers continue to simmer across the country.

The message quickly drew fire on X, where users slammed it as a betrayal of Irish identity in favor of globalist talking points.

One poster fired back: “The spirit is St Patrick? Wasn’t he the guy who ‘Chased the SNAKES out of Ireland?!?’ Don’t you see the similarity here?”

Another echoed: “St. Patrick chasing the snakes out of Ireland is not a metaphor for being friends and surrendering Ireland to foreign invaders.”

These reactions highlight growing frustration with leaders who seem more eager to virtue-signal on the world stage than protect their own country’s sovereignty and traditions.

Connolly’s address also touched on Ireland’s neutral stance and commitment to peace, claiming the nation is “uniquely placed” to address global challenges due to its history of famine and migration. But such rhetoric rings hollow as domestic unrest over immigration boils over, with recent changes easing pathways for newcomers while native concerns go unheeded.

This address reeks of complete capitulation. St. Patrick’s Day is supposed to honor Irish patriotism, not serve as a platform for diluting national pride under the guise of “hospitality.” If Ireland wants to preserve its heritage, it’s time to chase out the globalist snakes eroding it from within.

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

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 15:45

Nvidia Shares Pump & Dump After CEO Jensen Expects "At Least" $1 Trillion In Revenue By 2027

Zero Hedge -

Nvidia Shares Pump & Dump After CEO Jensen Expects "At Least" $1 Trillion In Revenue By 2027

Summary: 

  • CEO Jensen began discussing all things AI around 1520 ET.

  • CEO Jensen said the data center AI opportunity will grow from half a trillion dollars to $1 trillion by 2027. CEO Jensen said, "Computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last two years."

  • A graphic on screen indicated that 60% of the business is hyperscalers.

  • CEO Jensen said, "We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI."

  • CEO Jensen said, "Our cost per token is the lowest in the world."

  • Nvidia unveiled the new Vera Rubin program.

*   *   * 

Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang is speaking at the GTC 2026 in San Jose, California, about the company's AI expansion.

Huang said the data center AI opportunity is growing from about half a trillion dollars to more than $1 trillion by 2027. He said that 60% of the company's business comes from hyperscalers, adding that 40% is everything else, clouds, enterprise, robotics, gaming, supercomputing, etc.

The graphic shows that much of the demand is driven by model builders and AI companies such as Anthropic, xAI, Gemini, and OpenAI.

"We are now a computing platform that runs all of AI," the CEO said. 

The presentation initially sent Nvidia shares up as much as 4.8%, while the Nasdaq also moved higher, but most of those gains have now been erased.

A round trip for Nvidia shares.

This. 

Other highlights of Jensen's presentation include...

Jensen says, "computing demand has increased by 1 million times in the last 2 years." Hints at the current memory shortage created by the AI buildout of data entry. 

On Tokens per watt: Jensen said, "Nvidia AI GPUs that can quickly get through more tokens than the competition." He noted, "This is your revenue. Our cost per token is the lowest in the world."

Nvidia unveils the New Vera Rubin program. It's the company's latest AI platform for AI data centers that is "vertically integrated completely with software." 

Watch Jensen live here:

Developing...

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 15:32

Cuba Suffers "Total Disconnection" Of Power Grid; Trump Says Deal With Havana 'Pretty Soon'

Zero Hedge -

Cuba Suffers "Total Disconnection" Of Power Grid; Trump Says Deal With Havana 'Pretty Soon'

Summary:

  • Cuba's National Electrical System suffered a "total disconnection" on Monday afternoon.

  • Trump said on Sunday that he expects a U.S.-Cuba deal very soon.

  • Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel admitted on Friday that talks between Havana and Washington are underway.

  • Cuban fuel supplies are dangerously low amid Trump's crude import blockade.

*  *  *

Cuba's National Electrical System has suffered what the country's Energy Ministry called a "total disconnection," and the causes are being investigated. This comes as Trump's blockade of crude oil imports to the Caribbean island has reduced fuel stockpiles to dangerously low levels.

"A total disconnection of the SEN has occurred. The causes are being investigated, and protocols for restoration are being activated," the Energy Ministry said on X around 1400 ET.

Earlier, we reported that Trump is in talks with Cuba and that a deal could be reached soon.

Over the weekend, Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel publicly admitted for the first time that Havana was in talks with Washington.

*  *  * 

As Aldgra Fredly detailed earlier for The Epoch TimesU.S. President Donald Trump said on March 15 that the United States is in talks with Cuba and expects to reach a deal with the communist-ruled country soon.

Tourists ride in an old American car used as a taxi along a quiet avenue in Havana on Feb. 8, 2026.Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images

Trump told reporters aboard Air Force One that "something will happen with Cuba pretty quickly," and that Washington will decide on Cuba after dealing with the war in Iran.

Trump on Jan. 11 told Cuba to strike a deal after U.S. forces captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro in a Jan. 3 operation. Cuba has long been a close ally of Maduro's regime and has relied on Venezuela's oil supply for decades.

After Maduro's ouster, interim Venezuelan leader Delcy Rodríguez redirected oil deliveries to the United States.

"Cuba also wants to make a deal, and I think we will pretty soon either make a deal or do whatever we ​have to do," Trump told reporters on March 15. "And so, we're talking ​to Cuba, but we're going to do Iran before Cuba."

On Jan. 29, Trump signed an executive order imposing tariffs on any country that "directly or indirectly provides oil to Cuba," a move that exacerbated fuel shortages in the Caribbean island nation.

In his order, Trump accused the Cuban regime of aligning itself with "hostile countries, transnational terrorist groups, and malign actors," including Russia, China, and Iran, as well as U.S.-designated foreign terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah.

Cuban leader Miguel Díaz-Canel Bermúdez said on March 13 that his government has been negotiating with U.S. officials to identify and resolve any bilateral issues between the two nations.

"These conversations have been aimed at seeking solutions, through dialogue, to bilateral differences that exist between the two nations," Bermúdez said, according to a statement posted by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla on social media. "There are international factors that have facilitated these exchanges."

A man pushes a tricycle past a jeep sporting a wheel cover featuring an image of the US flag in Havana on Jan. 23, 2026. Yamil Lage/AFP via Getty Images

Bermúdez said his officials have expressed that negotiations must be held "on the basis of equality and respect for the political systems of both states," as well as their sovereignty.

"This is a matter that unfolds as part of a very sensitive process that is conducted with seriousness and responsibility, as it affects the bilateral relations between the two nations and requires enormous efforts to find solutions and create spaces for understanding that allow us to move away from confrontation," he said.

Cuban leader Miguel Diaz-Canel consoles relatives of some of the 32 Cuban soldiers killed during the U.S. operation that captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro, during their funeral at Colon cemetery in Havana on Jan. 16, 2026. Adalberto Roque/AFP via Getty Images

Trump said last week that Cuba currently faces severe humanitarian challenges amid disruptions in imported oil and is eager to negotiate with the United States. He also said there could be a "friendly takeover" of the nation, but also said that "it may not be a friendly takeover."

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 15:25

Silver's Endgame: Almost Too Obvious

Zero Hedge -

Silver's Endgame: Almost Too Obvious

Authored by Matthew Piepenburg via VonGreyerz.gold,

The case for silver is now almost too obvious.

Silver’s Fat Pitch

Like many Americans, I grew up playing a fair amount of baseball. Part of this involved trying to hit a little round ball with the equivalent of a modified, wooden stick.

Like asset prices and market forces, this little white ball, thrown by a pitcher 60 feet away, could sink, curve or speed by you in bewildering and often embarrassing ways.

Sometimes, however, we hitters of that ball would be blessed with what is called a “fat pitch”—that is, a ball thrown so comfortably straight, clear and trackable that it was effectively impossible to miss.

Below, I’ll show why the set-up we are currently seeing in the global silver market is precisely that: A fat pitch.

Prior Silver Curve Balls

Of course, silver markets, like baseball players, have also seen a lot of curve balls and crazy swings.

We saw recent versions of this in December of 2025, when the COMEX price-fixers, with a little help from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, or CME, raised margin prices to force a mass-selloff (i.e. price-fall) of the metal.

When that pitch failed, the COMEX threw another, far more effective margin hike (or “curve ball”) in late January of 2026 to openly engineer the single-worst silver price crash in 44 years.

The reasons for these tricky pitches at the COMEX were obvious. The big players (i.e., banks) going net-short silver were literally dying under the weight of silver’s rising price moves.

Not so coincidently, the CME/COMEX then initiated another, more effective, margin hike and thereby bailed the insider banks out of the mother of all short-squeezes.

There was no price discovery, but blatant price manipulation, as fixed/rigged as the 1919 World Series. (Ironically, both the CME and the cheating, 1919 White Sox hailed from Chicago…)

But as I argued in January, such a rigged game was nothing new. The COMEX has been playing it for decades, from defeating the Hunt Brothers’ silver bid in the 1980’s (with a sell-only trick) to crushing the “Reddit mob’s” attempt to bring honest demand (and pricing) to silver in 2021.

In short, the COMEX, and the banks who effectively self-regulate it, threw a lot of curve balls which were difficult to beat.

But as we enter the 2026 macro playing field, it is the COMEX itself which is about to strike out, and this bodes extremely well for silver.

Here’s why.

Silver: About to Hit a Homerun

The set-up for silver is now nothing short of extraordinary. In fact, it is unprecedented.

At 30,000 feet, the big picture remains the same. That is, as currencies are debased to monetize unsustainable sovereign debt levels, monetary metals like silver outshine dying paper currencies.

It’s really that simple.

But the more nuanced, and often misunderstood, tailwinds for silver are a bit more complicated, though entirely clear once you know where to look.

And the first place to look is at the COMEX itself, where silver (like gold) has been manipulated downwards for decades. We’ve covered the motives, means and symptoms of this COMEX price fix in greater detail elsewhere.

What is worth noting here, however, is critical. That is, once the physical silver leaves the COMEX, the artificial price-fixing charade ends, and silver naturally rips higher.

Paper Claims vs. Physical Demand

Traditionally, for example, paper claims on silver (and gold) never resulted in actual delivery out of the COMEX. Instead, the contracts were simply rolled over or cash-settled.

But those days are ending.

As of this writing, there are more paper claims (“open interest) on the COMEX silver exchange than there are actual ounces of “registered” silver to meet delivery. In fact, there’s only about 80 million ounces on hand to meet over 570 million ounces of delivery demand.

That’s a levered mismatch of 7:1 at the COMEX.

If we then consider the larger silver market itself, including ETF silver, derivative claims, futures contracts, etc., many analysts in the commodity space are quoting the number of paper silver claims to actual silver ounces at a ratio of 350:1.

Read that last line again.

No Chairs Left

If one were to think of the paper silver market as a game of musical chairs in which the “music” represents the actual amount of physical silver available and the “chairs” represents the number of paper claims on it, the supply & demand ratios above make it mathematically clear that once the music stops, there’ll be very chairs left standing with silver.

Or stated more simply, percolating physical silver demand is about to hit a supply shock, which means silver is poised to skyrocket.

And if you look at the COMEX silver flows, you’ll quickly discover that the music is slowing down.

January applications for silver deliveries at the COMEX, for example, came in at 40M ounces, which was 40X the normal delivery rate.

A more recent delivery took 20% off the COMEX inventory in a week. (I have no proof, but I’m guessing the buyer here was JP Morgan…)

Looming Delivery Failure

At this exit pace, it’s at least plausible that the COMEX could see a bald failure of physical delivery within 90 days.

In such an event, the COMEX silver trade would be reduced to a cash-only trade, a possibility I warned of in January.

But this, of course, would only happen if one assumed the COMEX wouldn’t declare some kind of emergency in the interim, which we can be almost sure they will…

Nevertheless, the screws are now undeniably tightening on this New York exchange in ways we’ve never seen before.

This classic mismatch of supply and demand in the silver space is unprecedented, and whether the price-fixers in New York like it or not, supply and demand forces still matter, and they can be powerful forces…

Supply Deficits Colliding with Rising Demand

For example, and as most silver investors know, this metal has seen five consecutive years of supply deficits at 200M ounces/year, now aggregating to a deficit of nearly 1 billion ounces. China’s recent export restrictions for silver, moreover, aren’t helping supply flows.

Meanwhile, in the silver future’s market, we are seeing backwardation, a fancy way of saying that current prices are higher than future prices, which is a screaming signal of high demand colliding with low supply.

These factors help explain why the current lease rate for silver is at 8% levels, whereas for the bulk of my entire investing career, the lease rate had never surpassed 1%– until now.

Combine such evidence of a supply shock with silver’s rising industrial demand (60% of silver’s demand is industrial) in everything from solar panels to the missiles now cris-crossing Middle Eastern skies, and we see all the makings of a historical price hike in the metal.

After all, the silver supply can’t be magically increased with just the touch of a button. 70% of silver production comes as a byproduct of other mining.

This means there’s no silver supply miracle on the horizon.

And Then There’s War…

What IS filling our horizon, however, is the fog of war and hence the fog of oil. Supply shocks matter to oil just as much as they do to any asset, including silver.

As crude oil rises thanks to tightening flows in the Strait of Hormuz, so does inflation, and for every $10.00 rise in oil, we see a 0.1% rise in even our otherwise openly bogus inflation scale.

And as inflation rises, as it will, the monetary profile of silver just gets another tailwind as an anti-fiat metal.

Back to Baseball

Which brings me back to my original point and metaphor.

When one combines silver’s monetary profile with its rising industrial demand in a backdrop of historical supply deficits, COMEX delivery failures, rising lease prices, futures market backwardation, and all that is inherently backward as to war and rising oil, we arrive at what comes to nothing more than an unprecedented “fat pitch” for silver.

Batter up.

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 14:40

Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells CNN That MAGA Feels '100% Betrayed' By Iran War

Zero Hedge -

Marjorie Taylor Greene Tells CNN That MAGA Feels '100% Betrayed' By Iran War

Former Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene has become a big fan of CNN since her departure from Congress since, we're guessing, FOX and Newsmax aren't excited to give her a platform of late. On Monday, she appeared on The Situation Room to once again declare doom and gloom for the MAGA movement… with a little help from the host.

During the interview, host Pamela Brown asked what she’s hearing from Trump supporters in Georgia regarding Iran, playing up the Israel angle. 

Are you hearing from them that they believe President Trump is doing this on behalf of Israel?” she asked. “Bring us there.”

Greene, who has been a thorn in Trump's side since leaving office, painted a picture of a Republican base that is fractured and angry over the ongoing military operation in Iran, and 

It’s actually very split. And it’s split along generational lines,” she said.

Many of the older Americans from the Baby Boomer generation that watch Fox News all day long very much believe the talking points on Fox News, and they have spent decades of their lives convinced that fighting these wars is the right thing to do,” she explained.

She then pointed to the next wave of voters, who see the issue through a completely different lens. 

But the younger generations - I’m Gen X - millennials and Gen Z are very much against this war,” Greene continued. “And so, when you talk to people on the ground, that’s how it comes across. It’s very generational. And the younger generations are completely against it.”

That sentiment echoes something that has been brewing in conservative politics since Trump entered the political arena. Younger voters inside the America First movement tend to view foreign wars as expensive distractions from domestic priorities. Greene leaned straight into that argument.

We want world peace. We want good trade. We want a great economy. We want a lower inflation, lower the cost of housing,” she said. “And younger generations want to be able to afford their American lives, and they don’t want their taxpayer dollars shipped off to — and you can fill in any foreign country.”

She emphasized that the frustration extends beyond any one ally or region.

We will take Israel out of it. They don’t want their money sent overseas,” Greene said. “And you know what? They’re right for saying this.”

She even argued that the military operation in Iran is a betrayal of the movement that carried Donald Trump back into the White House.

“This is absolutely absurd,” she said. “And it’s 100 percent a betrayal to what MAGA was supposed to be when we voted in 2024, and it’s turned into some perverted, deranged version of MAGA now that nobody wants.”

“And a lot of people are just like, this doesn’t make sense,” she added.

Polling on Iran has been mixed.

A CNN poll earlier this month showed that while a majority of voters (59%) opposed military action in Iran, a whopping 77% of Republicans approved of the decision, which hardly suggests the party is divided. However, there may be some truth to what Greene said.

Within the Republican Party, there is a sharp divide between those who say they consider themselves part of the “Make America Great Again” movement and those who do not, a division that appears largely linked to trust in the president. MAGA Republicans are 30 points more likely than non-MAGA Republicans to say they strongly approve of the decision to take military action, 34 points likelier to say it will reduce the threat Iran poses to the US and nearly 50 points more likely to say they have a great deal of trust in Trump to make the right decisions about US use of force in Iran.

However, more recent surveys show that Americans have been warming up to the Iran strikes. A Washington Post poll from last week showed the country was more evenly divided on the strikes, with a plurality, 42% supporting the strikes, 40% opposing them, and 17% indicating they were unsure - a stunning change from its previous survey when 52% were opposed, 39% supported, and just 9% were unsure. Republican support for continuing the strikes even increased by 12 points. Fox News similarly reported a more even split of 50% support and 50% opposition, with 84% of Republicans supporting.

Yet, a Quinnipiac poll revealed that support changes drastically when it comes to boots on the ground - which 2,200 Marines may (or may not) provide. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 14:20

America's Nuclear Fuel Chain Gains As General Matter Earns $4.2 Billion Of Support From Ex-Im Bank

Zero Hedge -

America's Nuclear Fuel Chain Gains As General Matter Earns $4.2 Billion Of Support From Ex-Im Bank

This past weekend saw a major announcement from the Indo-Pacific Energy Security Ministerial in Tokyo, with the U.S. Export-Import Bank issuing letters of interest for $4.2 billion of capital for Japanese and South Korean reactor owners to purchase low-enriched uranium (LEU) from U.S. enrichment company General Matter

The Ex-Im Bank will support up to $2.4 billion for Japanese utilities and $1.8 billion for South Korean utilities looking to purchase enriched uranium from the U.S. as opposed to their long-term supplier, Russia. 

This is part of a larger ongoing effort on two different fronts, with the U.S. looking to secure funding to start up the domestic nuclear fuel chain within its borders by securing foreign investments, as well as the U.S. and its allies looking to diversify from eastern suppliers of critical materials, including enriched uranium. 

The U.S. finally seems to be getting serious about supporting a significant build-out of fuel chain capacity within its borders, as we have well since documented the extremely restricted bottleneck that is the supply of nuclear fuel in America.

General Matter recently was awarded $900 million from the DOE to support capacity build-out for producing high-assay LEU (HALEU) at its planned facility in Paducah, Kentucky. The company has yet to make any serious progress at their site, but has initiated initial discussions with the regulator, the NRC, and has announced additional sites that will support centrifuge construction and potentially additional enrichment facilities.

The U.S. is pursuing more self-reliance on a supply of enriched uranium with three other major companies. The first is with the existing commercial facility in New Mexico, owned and operated by Urenco, a company supported by a consortium of European nations including the U.K., Netherlands, and German utilities.

The second is the only facility in the U.S. currently producing HALEU at roughly 1,000 kilograms per year, owned by Centrus Energy in Ohio. We've long detailed their progress with awards from the DOE and ongoing build-out of their enrichment facility. For comparison to the new funding support for General Matter, the backlog for Centrus's order book currently stands at $2.3 billion

The third is Orano, backed by the French government, with their future LEU production facility planned in Tennessee under Project Ike.

General Matter has come out of nowhere to take the U.S. enrichment landscape by storm, supported by Scott Nolan from Founders Fund, along with Peter Thiel sitting on the board. Company leadership was also notably present in the Oval Office as President Trump signed last year's set of nuclear executive orders. Observers should expect to find General Matter high on the list of leaders within the American enrichment space. 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 13:45

SNAP Recipients Claim Trump Trying To "Destabilize Food Access", Sue Feds Over Junk Food Ban

Zero Hedge -

SNAP Recipients Claim Trump Trying To "Destabilize Food Access", Sue Feds Over Junk Food Ban

The Make America Healthy Again agenda just found its first serious legal challenger. This week, five food stamp recipients filed suit in Washington, D.C., federal court demanding the right to spend taxpayer-funded SNAP benefits on candy, soda, and energy drinks. 

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over its growing list of "food restriction" waivers, which Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins began approving back in May 2025. Since then, 22 states have signed on, each with their own specific list of banned items — generally soda, energy drinks, candy, and pre-packaged desserts. 

Both Rollins and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. have championed the waivers as a concrete step toward addressing chronic disease and redirecting taxpayer money toward genuinely nutritious food. 

“The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer,” Rollins said last year.

“Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.”

The lawsuit claims they had no right to do this. 

The five plaintiffs. residents of Colorado, Iowa, Nebraska, Tennessee, and West Virginia, and represented by the law firm Shinder Cantor Lerner, argue in their complaint that the restrictions "destabilize food access" for SNAP participants in the 22 affected states.

They claim the USDA exceeded its legal authority by approving the waivers without soliciting public input, establishing proper evaluation metrics, or engaging those directly impacted by the waivers first, in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act.

The lawsuit further contends that the relevant section of the Food and Nutrition Act only authorizes pilot projects designed to "enhance the efficiency" or improve the delivery of benefits — and that banning specific food items accomplishes neither.

“SNAP is a critical lifeline for millions of families and households, and Congress has established clear guardrails for how the program must operate across the country,” Jeffrey Shinder, founding partner at Shinder Cantor Lerner, claimed in a statement to Newsweek.

“The USDA is attempting to bypass those strict guardrails by empowering states to curtail access to SNAP in ways that will create significant hardship on recipients and retailers. We urge the Court to halt this attack on SNAP, which threatens millions of individuals’ access to essential food assistance nationwide.” 

The plaintiffs claim they or their family members rely on the restricted foods to manage health conditions such as diabetes and allergies, or to obtain energy boosts for daily life.

The claim that sugary drinks and candy are medically necessary for diabetics runs directly counter to established dietary guidance. One plaintiff argues that her state's waiver would restrict her daughter to only three "safe" foods and beverages — one of which is bottled water. 

The plaintiffs also argue that confusion is another problem impacting SNAP recipients.

"We are focused on litigating the case we filed yesterday and securing relief for the plaintiffs already before the Court. At the same time, we remain open to expanding the case to challenge similar waivers in additional states. SNAP serves as an essential support system for millions of families,” added Meegan Hollywood, a partner at the firm.

“The waivers create confusion at checkout and force retailers to apply standards that are vague and unworkable. A program that millions of families rely on cannot operate amid confusion and uncertainty. Our complaint details how these policies are already harming recipients in multiple states and undermining the very families SNAP is meant to support."

That framing assumes junk food is a non-negotiable line item. Recipients who want soda and candy remain free to purchase them — with their own money.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 03/16/2026 - 13:05

Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital

The Big Picture -

 

 

The transcript from this week’s MiB: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital, is below.

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

 

~~~

 

Masters in Business — Matt Cherwin Interview

[00:00:02] Narrator: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio News. This is Masters in business with Barry Ritholtzl on Bloomberg Radio

[00:00:21] Barry Ritholtz: This week on the podcast, another extra special guest, Matt Sherwin, is co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital. He previously spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase and then a bunch of years at Citigroup beforehand running all sorts of spread markets, head of securitized product, lots of CIO and risk management titles. I came to know Merrick through a live event we did at Bloomberg last year. I found that his approach to credit and trading is absolutely fascinating and what Merrick is doing is really quite interesting. I thought the conversation was brilliant and I think you will also, with no further ado, my conversation with Merrick Capital’s. Matt Sherwin. Matt Gerwin, welcome to Bloomberg.

[00:01:20] Matt Cherwin: Thanks for having me. This is exciting. That was kind of, that was, that was a bigger windup than I was. I,

[00:01:24] Barry Ritholtz: I like a expecting, I like a big windup. Okay. ’cause it gives us an opportunity to roll back to the beginning and say, alright, bachelor’s in economics from the University of Pennsylvania. What was the original career plan? I, I don’t imagine people going to college and saying, I wanna be the head of global spread markets.

[00:01:43] Matt Cherwin: No, but that’s super interesting because our oldest is a sophomore in college now and he’s in the Business School of American. And I was just talking to him yesterday and he said, I’m now in, I think they call it like finance for business. I really like this new class. And I said to him, that reminds me so well of when I was in undergrad business school and I did the first couple semesters at econ and I hated it.

[00:02:08] Barry Ritholtz: And it was, I had a similar experience for that

[00:02:10] Matt Cherwin: Economics and it was like, you know, I, I shouldn’t have hated it as much as I did, but at the time it was ISLM curves, it was supply, it was demand, et cetera. And it just, it felt, it didn’t feel very practical to me and I didn’t do very well then. I didn’t go to class very often. I didn’t do very well. But then we got to kind of the next semester, right, which I think they called Finance 1 0 1, right. And was like, bond math, discounted cash flows. And I was like, oh this, I like right, okay, I am in the right place.

[00:02:39] Barry Ritholtz: Well, it’s much more realistic and you’re not dealing with homo economy ’cause that is this theoretical, although version of humans, you

[00:02:46] Matt Cherwin: Know, looking back on, I wish I had listened a bit more at some of those others, but you know, something I say maybe we’ll we’ll get to is like it just and recommendation I would give to other people. It took me a little while to realize what I was interested in, what I was interested in being interested in. And when I got into some of those classes, kind of the more financey kind of stuff, I was like this, I like this makes sense. I wanna learn more. And I think that’s kind of where it starts. I always wanted to get, I just like when there’s, you know, numbers on the page, it adds up to something you’re trying to make money. It’s hopefully positive at the end. It might be negative. It’s pretty clear cut. At least the goal is. And I always like that. I always gravitated

[00:03:26] Barry Ritholtz: Towards that. So, so economics way too abstract and academic, but business and finance, practical, applicable, real life usage. Yeah.

[00:03:36] Matt Cherwin: Which is interesting too. ’cause I also, I’m a little bit like a, this a little exaggerated, but I’m a little bit of like a history buff. So like it was interesting that, that what didn’t, didn’t appeal to me. ’cause I do like kind of the history of it. How did we get here? And I think that’s always something that I’m like in this form as well, going back to learn more about financial systems, how money works, how they thought it used to work, different schools of thoughts. And I think really helps you understand where you’ve been, where you are, where you’re going.

[00:04:08] Barry Ritholtz: So when you look back when you were group treasurer or chief investment officer at, at the JP Morgan division, you were, you were involved in, what sort of lessons did you take away from that? You’re, you’re in the real world managing real risk, real portfolios. How, how did that experience change how you perceive risk? Yeah, it’s

[00:04:28] Matt Cherwin: A great question and I’ll tell you. So like obviously I had a career with a background in trading, running, trading teams both on the buy side and the sell side. And it was really that experience that this next piece that was transformative for me and you know, really brought us to the point where my partner Derek Goodman and I decided let’s form Merrick. And you know, I’m sure we’ll get into that a bit. But what happened was I spent 20 odd years trading mortgages, rates, corporate credit, high yield products like that, working with specialty finance companies, some that I worked with, some I had a hand in running this kind of universe. And then in late 2019, the opportunity to move over. And this was a different building, different, you know, Waldorf key card, different team and be the CIO and the treasurer. So this is now buy side, running the capital of the firm, the investment of the firm, hedging and managing structuralists.

[00:05:27] Matt Cherwin: Lots of things wrapped up in there. But the real thing was, the point in time where this happened was late 2019, a few days later, was the repo crisis. If we remember that when all of a sudden if you wanted to borrow overnight against treasuries, it cost you 10%. Right? Okay. Six months after that pandemic breaks out. And why I bring that up is so much changed in dramatic size at rapid speed that I saw something I’d never seen before. And it was, how does the financial system really work and what does it mean and how does it apply to everything that I’ve done? And it was one of these moments where I felt like I just went from being the captain of the ship, you know, my own little thing, right? We’ll be a little expansive with it. I went from being a captain of ship to going to work in the engine room and seeing the actual gearing and how it works and how it doesn’t and what could stop it from working.

[00:06:26] Matt Cherwin: And you spend years, you know, you pull a lever, you think the boat goes faster, but you don’t know why and you don’t know what could stop it from doing that. And you don’t know what could make it work more efficiently. But now you go work in the engine room and you see it and you understand it. It was just this aha moment. Like, we’re two guys with glasses, right? So, you know, when you go to the the, you get a new prescription, you get your new glasses, you put ’em on, you’re like, oh my God, I can see, right? And by the way, how was I walking around the streets of Manhattan with that old prescription? But now I could see clearly and honestly 20 odd years into my career, that’s how I felt at that, that moment

[00:07:03] Barry Ritholtz: In 2019. Yeah,

[00:07:05] Matt Cherwin: I would say like in early 2020, about six months in, it was kind of like, oh my goodness, it’s coming together now. I wish, I wish I had known this for the 20 years that proceeded this, but I felt like now I know nothing and I’m starting to learn.

[00:07:20] Barry Ritholtz: So I have to ask. So my experience with 2019 was that wobble seemed to go by so quickly compared to oh 8, 0 9, where, you know, to me you saw a lot of warning signs first in housing and then in securitized product and then in construction. And then, you know, the market didn’t peak till October oh seven and the next 18 months were kind of fun if you were on the right side of it. But if you weren’t, I’m, it must have been a, a bloodbath. It sounds like you derived more out of the 2019 experience than you are on a desk in oh 8, 0 9. What sort of scar tissue did that leave? How, how, yeah. Informative was that Mom,

[00:08:05] Matt Cherwin: That’s really interesting the way you kind of put those together. And so to set the table a bit, oh 7 0 8 when I, I got to JP Morgan late oh 6, 0 7, 0 8, 0 9, I was in charge of head of team. We traded asset backed security, say credit cards, auto student loans, subprime mortgages, remember those? Yeah, CLOs. So really kind of like the center of what ended up happening after that. And I would say it was so overwhelming at the time. I mean we were there two in the morning hand marking bonds. Okay. Walking across the street between the two buildings. Like is there more information this company might buy that company before the market opens? What else can we do? The numbers were huge. It was almost like a bit more than you could process at the time. But I think each one of these became every step there was like, I understand what I’m doing better now because the first thing I ever did was I started, I was a cashflow structure.

[00:09:11] Matt Cherwin: And actually at that point in time, the guy who ran the department was a friend of mine named Bruce Richards, who went on to start marathon and has had a fantastic career. And we keep in touch and he said, I said, I wanna be a trader. And he said, well, I want you to be a structure because if you learn how the cash flow works, how the structure works, then you’ll be a better trader later on. I think each piece helped me understand the risk better and then the system it sits in and that helps you understand the risk better. And then when you understand the risk better, you understand the system, it sits in better and it builds and it builds on top of each other. So I would say in oh eight I learned more in oh eight we saw, we felt like we were the tip of the spear in like a bad way.

[00:09:55] Matt Cherwin: And we could see it was getting worse and it was accelerating and we could see that people were maybe even underestimating. And I remember some conversations around at the time that we were basically saying like, think bigger, think broader, think worse. That’s the context we’re talking about. But all of that helped me understand how does my product that I’m trading fit into an investment bank? How does an investment bank impact the system? I think when I went into 2019, obviously a lot time had passed, I’d had more experiences, et cetera. I remember sitting in a meeting, we’re in 7:30 AM traders meeting, this is with the CIO group. And we go around the table, my, you know, rates lead, my credit lead, et cetera. And the repo guys walk in and they say, Hey, we can lend against treasuries at 10%, should we do more? And I said, guys, I, this is my third day with this team. Okay, I’m the person in the room who knows the least about what you’re talking about. But if you need my authorization, you have it. ’cause that sounds pretty great.

[00:11:04] Barry Ritholtz: 10% yield begins with

[00:11:05] Matt Cherwin: Treasuries. That’s fantastic. My response to you is how much can we not, can we do more? Like how much can we do? Meaning more and more. And that just became the beginning of like, why did that happen? How did we get here? What’s the, where did it come from? Where does it go? And I found that certain people knew certain pieces, but not the picture. And then you’re like, it it, it was just starting to pull at

[00:11:30] Barry Ritholtz: And that was your job to know the whole picture.

[00:11:32] Matt Cherwin: It be, it became, it became the only, it became the focus of what I wanted to know. Because unpacking that would help me understand how do we get here, why does this happen? And by the way, what are the pieces that put this all together and how do we, how do we take advantage of that? How do we protect ourselves, but also how do we take advantage of that? So it it was this, the whole thing was this, one of those types of things you say, I opened up a door, three doors behind it and I wanna keep going that direction. And it felt to me like a pure and pure version of everything I’d done in my career getting closer and closer to the source and pricing really,

[00:12:11] Barry Ritholtz: Really fascinating. One of the things I think a lot of people don’t realize about JP Morgan Chase during the financial crisis, and I never doing the research for Bailout Nation, I never got this really sourced the way I would’ve liked to. But JP Morgan Chase had their own derivative scare a couple of years earlier. And the word was, Jamie just said, clear all this junk off of our balance sheet. We don’t, we can’t handle this. Risk doesn’t seem to be worth the potential upside. So heading into oh 8, 0 9, they weren’t dealing with the same sort of existential danger that Merrill Lynch and Wells Fargo and go down the list all had, all had to go through. They, they were ended up being an acquirer of distressed assets, not a, a seller of distressed assets.

[00:13:09] Matt Cherwin: Well I think, I mean it was a tremendous place to work. I worked with incredible people, I learned a lot and I worked with great, great people that you’re just part of a terrific team. It’s fan, it’s fantastic place. I learned something that became transformative to everything I’d spent my career doing. So that’s why we set out to, and I said I want to do this. And that’s why we set out to build Merrick. When we said, you know, I recall Derek and I sat down one day and I said, let me just, here’s how I think about markets. I think about it in terms of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation. That’s my thought. Money capital credit, liquidity regulation, M-C-C-L-R. How

[00:13:53] Barry Ritholtz: Do you separate money from capital?

[00:13:55] Matt Cherwin: So I think money to me is how do you make it, how do you destroy it? How does it move through the system? To me, capital is a little bit more of how much do you have, how do you measure it, how much do you have? Are you making more, you destroying it. Credit is really, how is it being formed? How is it moving through the system? The financial system is changing now. It’s very different than it was a few years ago. We actually, when we were, you know, really trying to get our ideas on paper, we wrote a paper that we outlined saying, we described what we thought was the new version of the financial system. We said the financial system is changing your defacto recreating glass stegel. You have gcis. If you come from some of this framework, you know, are the globally systema, systematically important banks, systemically important banks think JP Morgan, Wells, bank of America, et cetera.

[00:14:50] Matt Cherwin: We said they’re the new g sibs people like Apollo, Blackstone, KKR, BlackRock, these are Aries, these are the folks that are actually making credit extension decisions in this economy. Okay? You have the traders like Citadel Securities, jump, Jane, some of these other names everybody’s familiar with. This is disaggregating the financial system and putting it into different buckets. So basically we think about where’s it coming from, where does it go? Who wins? Who loses? What are the flywheels here? This is a process that we apply to everything we do. Some of the guys on the team call it mcle, M-C-C-L-R. It’s the lens that we look at because we believe money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation drives, economies, markets, and prices. And then you can really start to understand monetary policy, real estate, housing, the types of specialty finance companies we’ve talked about consumer. So this to me actually explains how it all works.

[00:15:57] Matt Cherwin: And we apply that. It’s a huge addressable universe. We trade rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit related equities. It’s an enormous addressable universe with investors that have very narrow mandates that transact at different points in time and sometimes non economically and bound by potentially non-economic rules. Which means there are a lot of overlaps that people don’t take the advantage of and there’s a lot of gaps that they quite simply don’t bridge. And the setup for all of this, I think, and I’ve seen some stuff, a lot of your, your, your listeners have seen quite a bunch of stuff. We’ve seen things go right, we’ve seen things go wrong. This is one of the best setups we’ve seen in a long time. And so that’s why we went out to say I saw some interesting stuff, I learned some interesting stuff. There’s an opportunity set that we want to prosecute right now and it is an incredible time to do so. So we built a team. Sorry, go ahead. I was

[00:17:01] Barry Ritholtz: Fantastic team. I was just, no, I’m fascinated. Yeah, I, I I wanna roll back to something you said earlier, which was glass stegel is sort of being backdoor reapplied. Is that a function of people being risk averse or is that a function of people just specializing in their own silo? So you don’t have, you know, glass Eagle for people who aren’t economic and policy wonks separated the FDIC safe banks from the riskier investment banks. And once that was repealed in the late nineties, didn’t cause a financial crisis, but allowed all these banks to merge and get bigger. And maybe it made the crisis a little worse, but it, I don’t, I don’t think of it as the underlying cause, but the idea that the market is working its way back towards that is kind of fascinating. Right? So let’s address that

[00:17:59] Matt Cherwin: Right as you laid out, like Glass Sal to say, to oversimplify basically said like, you can hold deposits, you can underwrite securities, you can trade securities, things like that. And there were rules right? Now there are like some rules that say what you can and can’t do. But really there’s a lot more that has morphed into what people like to call private credit or we’re going to extend credit through these fashions, or some of the rules don’t apply to this group so we can trade the markets differently or we can make markets in a way that maybe the big banks can’t. And then the big banks say, well we’re viewed as super safe because I would argue we are. And that has its advantages also. So it’s like we recreated these artificial boundaries. What is great for us and the way we look at the world is we saw that, we see that, we understand that we also see and understand and think about all day long and put it into our portfolio construction and the, the, the risk that we build, it’s all up for grabs again, right?

[00:19:03] Matt Cherwin: So we’ve got Kevin Walsh nominated to be the Fed chair and Mickey Bowman is the vice chair for supervision. And they are, I dunno what, what the right adjective for it is, but they’re changing the rules and they’re pulling some of them down. And in my opinion, people just don’t understand which of them matter and which of them don’t. And the market moves to place on some that simply don’t matter. Like it’s lack of understanding of what SLR was and how that worked. And we don’t need to dive into that. But to simplify, they said we’re gonna remove this rule and it’s a big deal. And we at Marck said, you can take it off. It doesn’t matter. So everything the market’s doing in reaction to that is a potential opportunity for us vice.

[00:19:48] Barry Ritholtz: In other words, vice versa. People are overreacting to a regulatory change that is insignificant long term in

[00:19:54] Matt Cherwin: That example. Yeah.

[00:19:55] Barry Ritholtz: Coming up we can continue our conversation with Matt Sherwin, co-founder and chief investment officer at Merrick Capital, discussing why he launched the firm in 2024. I’m Barry Ritholtz, your listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:20:22] Barry Ritholtz: I am Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Matt Sherwin. He is co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital’s specializing in a variety of alternative credit and related private products. Previously he spent 16 years at JP Morgan Chase where he had a number of very important titles before that Citi Group. Are we, in all that unique a period of time, is the opportunity set that much greater than what we typically see in the normal? You know, this is a little more geopolitically volatile administration than, than even the previous Trump administration. Is that a driver or is it the deregulation and misapprehension of, of what these rule changes mean? I

[00:21:12] Matt Cherwin: Think it’s a combination of what’s going on. So we have, we just kind of use some little catchphrases among the team that help us sort of like, you know, gravitate around concepts or communicate quickly. We say this is an administration that’s in the business of being in business and that’s just a, there’s no opinion or or judgment one way or the other. It’s just a, it’s just a statement. What this environment is Also, we also came up with something that we thought was just made us chuckle. One, like it’s important to have a little bit of sense of humor. We found our investors actually do read the materials very closely and they tend to have a sense of humor, which is good. But we created this thing, we called the one big beautiful chart and we just said, you know what they really need, they need rates to get down and they needed to come down a lot more than what the market and the curve has already priced in because of how much debt the country has, what it costs, what they want to accomplish.

[00:22:08] Matt Cherwin: So here’s what they need to accomplish and they’re gonna do everything they can to, so, you know, we construct portfolio, we have a, we have an investment thesis, we have a narrative. Everything we put in the book has to fit that narrative has to contribute to what we’re trying to achieve. Has to be the best version of that or has to protect us from what could go wrong. So getting back to your question a little bit, we think it’s a very business forward environment, business forward administration. We think that it is one that needs rates to come down. We are going to have a new fed chair in the middle of June and there he’ll say all sorts of things in the confirmation hearing, but really it will be a catalyst potentially for change in the middle of the year. And then we have a bias within markets to strip back some of the layers of, of regulation and away from whether you support that or not, I can tell you ’cause I’ve been on the other side of it, the layers of process and bureaucracy and spending your time back solving instead of what could we do better.

[00:23:14] Matt Cherwin: When you change what your goal is and how you’re pointed, you’re gonna get different results. We think that combination is spinning flywheels in the market now that in our opinion people are just, they’re underestimating the power of some of these flywheels.

[00:23:31] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really, really interesting. Last question before we talk a little bit about Merrick. In the old days, and I was never a big believer in this, but everybody else was, there was some constraints on deficits and ongoing government debt. ’cause the bond vigilantes would punish you. The bond vigilantes seem to have disappeared in part replaced by the stock vigilantes who, any policy they don’t like, they just sell off until they have their hissy fit, until they get their way. And then, okay, thank you very much and we’re off to the races again. What do you think of the, you know, eighties, nineties era bond vigilantes? Is that just ancient history? There’s no discipline on deficit spending anymore or, and by the way, I think deficits are not all that relevant. Look at Japan, look at the US history. We’ve been warned about deficits and they haven’t caused much of a problem, most of this history. Yeah,

[00:24:31] Matt Cherwin: I mean look, I love the term and I think we’ve seen some of those episodes last year we saw around the whatever we call liberation day in April, like there were a couple days where treasuries and mortgages said like, enough, okay, that’s it. And we’re either going to have one of those days where they are giving stuff away or you gotta pull back. And I think what we saw was the administration did pull back. So I think in some level it’s still there. But part of what we do at Merrick and what influences our thought process is big parts of this have been really broken down. The markets are so big now that it’s been broken into specific functions, like people have a thing to do and they do that in a narrow mandate. We have a more flexible mandate to us, the products, their widgets, their tools in the toolbox for us to achieve our goals and our investment thesis and the portfolio risk and construction and diversification that we’d like to have.

[00:25:33] Matt Cherwin: But the markets are hyper specialized in very, very large markets. So you get some of those episodes where it’s like, oh, crowded trade, we gotta get out. I think the question of does the administration react to the markets, does the markets react to the administration? It’s something that we’ve actually focused on quite a bit. We actually, you know, we wrote another piece in June of 2025 that we called the War Fed and it was just about what could happen. And we sort of went through to your point like the concept of risk-free rate and credit spread are completely intertwined and commingled now and they don’t exist separately. So I think that’s some of the concepts you’re getting at. Like, is this a problem for credit? Is it a problem for rates? Are those the same thing? Now one of the most interesting things, and I I would just say before we get back to your, your question is, what was really interesting observation to us was during the last government shutdown, whatever mini version of that we’re going through right now, it was almost in the data was not forthcoming and then vol went down.

[00:26:45] Matt Cherwin: So it was this sort of like a little bit like if we don’t know, maybe nothing’s happening, but what it also was, was a little bit to the, to what you were saying is when things were a little less hyper-focused, they actually were a little less jumpy around small moves. And that was a big takeaway, big takeaway for us. Hmm. It’s a big thing you’re gonna hear from Kevin Walsh. If he ends up in the chair seat, you’re gonna hear a long narrative from him for his time in that seat of we need to step back from the day to day and the minute by minute information and think about the big bigger picture and the trend and where we’re headed and be a little, be a little more forward looking. I think that’s the kind of guidance that you will get from that chair.

[00:27:34] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. So, so let’s just start out with why you left the comfort of a big shop to have the headache of your own firm. What, what’s the El elevator pitch? What problem does merit capital solve that couldn’t be solved at a large Wall Street bank?

[00:27:54] Matt Cherwin: Look, I think quite simply, there are some things that banks can do and some things that banks can’t do. There are some things that they can do and that they don’t want to do. In my career, I’ve always been involved in these types of markets being rates, mortgages, securitized products, corporate credit, the equities related to that around it, these types of specialty finance operating companies. And always felt that when you have, when you can apply the various lenses to these products being the trader lens, the structure lens, the operator lens, you understand it better and you get the gearing and the pieces. And when you learn about the financial system that it sits within, then you actually can understand, but take advantage of the risk and return in a more elevated and efficient way.

[00:28:47] Barry Ritholtz: I wanna address that. Is it that the big firms, the bigger banks were risk averse and didn’t want to take advantage of it where they were prohibited on a regulatory basis or when they’re just doing their macro risk assessment, Hey, we’ll go this far but no further.

[00:29:04] Matt Cherwin: I, I think it’s even simpler than that. We look at the world through our lens. We look at the world through the Merrick lens of money, capital, credit, liquidity and regulation, which drives economies, markets and prices. That helps us understand the drivers of the capital markets that we sit within. Helps us understand monetary policy, housing, finance, commercial real estate, finance. Understand both the gearing of it, then you can look at something and you can say, okay, I’m looking at Citigroup, I could buy it, I could sell it, I could understand what they’re doing in the markets. They have a footprint in what that means for the markets. Do I wanna buy that? So like where are the flywheels? What does it spin to next? So everything we were doing was very much about what do we want to do because we see a very large addressable opportunity where we have a unique perspective, a defined lens, and a way of applying that to these big liquid markets that we think very strongly we can take advantage of in a way that people simply haven’t had the opportunity to learn about and to understand and apply to these products with the type of flexible mandate that we have.

[00:30:18] Matt Cherwin: Which boiled down means we look at the world a little differently. These are big addressable markets which have dislocations, volatility, and opportunity all the time. And we can use that combination to achieve what’s a very, very simple goal, improve the return a little bit while reducing the risk a little bit.

[00:30:38] Barry Ritholtz: That’s all anyone can ask for better returns at lower risk. I’m, I’m kind of fascinated by the overall Merrick investment philosophy we’ll get to, but let’s, let’s start with a little bit with structure. I think of you guys as an alt credit shop, but you also look a little bit like a multi-strat shop, like a, is it, so we’re kind of a hybrid, like tell us about the structure.

[00:31:05] Matt Cherwin: We just define what we do. Okay. We are who we are. We do it the way that we do. We run, we’re, right now we’re running a hedge fund which trades these products as like I said, tools in the toolbox as as widgets. We do it in one collaborative portfolio. So our setup, our structure, we’ve got an amazing team. We have specialists in rates, in mortgages, in non-agency mortgages and a BS in credit in CLOs. I am on the phone every day with traders and salespeople myself. We trade it as one book,

[00:31:42] Barry Ritholtz: One portfolio. So it’s really a multi-strat within a single expression.

[00:31:50] Matt Cherwin: It is what we think is the best expression of the trade.

[00:31:54] Barry Ritholtz: Well I shouldn’t call it multi-strat, it’s really multi-asset. It’s a variety of different credit assets all under one umbrella

[00:32:01] Matt Cherwin: Within our lane. Okay. Sticking to our knitting, what we believe we know very well, what we know we have a differentiated insight into and extracting from that. Okay. The team is phenomenal. They have a ton of buy-side and sell side experience. They work very well together. It’s very exciting to be, I mean, and additionally doing this together, like Derek and I doing this together, putting our name on the door like Merrick is Matt and Derek, right? Because we spent way too much time trying to think of what’s a clever name means

[00:32:40] Barry Ritholtz: They’ve all been taken. Good luck in New York,

[00:32:42] Matt Cherwin: You know, means, you know, alpha extraction in Sanskrit or some something, you know. And Derek’s wife one day was like, enough, it’s Merrick, Matt and Derek now go do some real work. And I think she said in a little bit more of a spicy way, but we were like, yeah, that could work. Alright, let’s do that.

[00:33:01] Barry Ritholtz: I, I think just a little footnote, if you’ve ever incorporated an LLC or any other entity in New York state, every Greek and Roman, god, every Babylonian god, every sebus na name, the creature from mythology, it’s either a fund or an LLC. Yeah. They’re all, they’re all taken. It’s astonishing.

[00:33:21] Matt Cherwin: But the real point I I, I wanted to make also that I don’t wanna lose is this was putting our name on the door. Okay, it’s our name, it’s our reputation ’cause and that really cemented it for us. That was something we really wanted. I took some time off and which was fantastic and I met some of the most amazing and interesting people in the world. When you’re unaffiliated, people speak to you in a different way. Huh. That’s interesting. Because they had no one to talk to. Okay. I sat down with the CEO of one of the world’s largest pension fund sovereign wealth funds. And we had, and I’d never met the person before, we had an hour long conversation because he just needed to talk to someone. And I learned a lot in that. And I met some of the most interesting people in venture cap, in alt, in private equity, et cetera.

[00:34:07] Matt Cherwin: And it was just more way of learning parts of the system. But it got to the point where after my, you know, academic wander through the wilderness, I was like, okay, you know what? ’cause at the time we had three teenagers living at home and it was an amazing time. I used to always say, you should be able to retire in your forties and go back to work in your fifties. Like that’s the way business should work. Obviously that’s a luxury that very few have, but I was getting to the point where I was like, okay, I feel great. I want to do this. I miss markets, I love this. I want to get back to it and I want to do it in the way that I want to do it. How

[00:34:41] Barry Ritholtz: Long of a gap was that between Jason

[00:34:42] Matt Cherwin: And that? Well, I took like about a year off. You know, it’s a, you know, it’s a riot. So in our deck we put a little timeline of my experience and Derek’s experience and just to help people understand who hadn’t met us, who we are. And at the very end I put, you know, this is my background, simple. I was here for 10 years, I was there for 16 years. And then we put like a level one year nugget on the end of the timeline that just said chilling. But no G, no G, just C-H-I-L-L-I-N. Right? I don’t remember,

[00:35:11] Barry Ritholtz: Which is a very un wall street sort of thing.

[00:35:15] Matt Cherwin: Well it was like our 900th version of the deck, right? And we were just getting a little punchy and we’re like, it made us laugh. Okay. Right. You gotta have a sense of humor. It made us laugh. So we were like, this is going in. Every investor brings it up, they bring it up and they love it. And you know what, to us it’s like, wow, you are reading every part of the deck. Right? And also, it’s nice to know you have a sense of humor, but getting back, getting back to it was like PE people,

[00:35:40] Barry Ritholtz: This is always shocking. People read the footnotes.

[00:35:43] Matt Cherwin: Oh yeah. That’s been a big learning for us. Yeah, they read it. So when we were doing all this, you know, my wife was like, yeah, why would you wanna do something for anybody else? And I thought to myself, exactly what are we gonna work hard at? What are we gonna make sure succeeds the thing that we put our name on the door, our reputation that we believe other people don’t get it, that we believe is the right way to approach these markets that we believe can extract from a setup is, which is one of the best that we’ve ever seen. So if you tick all those boxes, why would you do it for anybody else?

[00:36:24] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really intriguing. So it’s 2026. I’m legally obligated to ask how do you use artificial intelligence in research portfolio construction or operations at Merit Capital?

[00:36:37] Matt Cherwin: Sure. I would, I would sort of make two, two points. I’m an AI optimist, that’s not one of my two points. So that doesn’t count. We use it every day. We build stuff more quickly. We build our own tools and we build ’em more quickly than we ever could before. You know, the guys on the team, they’re building stuff at their desk in a week that would’ve taken a year Wow. To do somewhere else, literally. And I know because I’ve been in that, and then once you built it, it would’ve taken like six months to get approval to release it into your sys, et cetera. This is like Lightspeed versus what we used to do. Now, changing a little bit of how you frame that question, AI is a really, really interesting thing in financial markets as well. Okay? So I don’t think we’re there yet, but we’re gonna get to a place where people are using it for risk management, they’re using it for compliance, they’re using it for KYC. But put all that aside, the most interesting to me right now is we look at the AI CapEx boom and we say, here’s a product that is commercial real estate with securitization technology around it. You’re talking about where is it? Is it built? If not, how long is it gonna take to build it? Who are the tenants? How long are the leases? What are they paying? What’s it worth when it’s all done? Is there residual risk like you have in an auto lease?

[00:37:56] Matt Cherwin: Only some of it comes to the securitized market because it’s just not that, that market’s not big enough for it, right? So it comes to the corporate bond market. So that to us is like, that’s the type of opportunity that piques our interest where we say, this is something that looks like A, B, C, and it’s being wrapped up and put into a different market that is asking 1, 2, 3. And those are good questions, but it’s really like, put it all together, look at all the factors. What are the additional, are you getting more structure, are you getting less, are you charging for the risk? Are you paying away for it? So the AI CapEx boom to us is actually like a source of very cheap risk for us to look at. And each one has a little bit of different flavor and we’re very opinionated about which ones we like.

[00:38:45] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. It sounds, it sounds really fascinating. It also sounds like anytime there’s a novel area, the opportunity for mispricing seems to really,

[00:38:56] Matt Cherwin: There’s that, there’s that, we look at some of those first time issuers we have, like, we have some things in the book. We have something called the North Star Playbook, which is what are companies and bonds that have clear missions and objectives that they can execute on that are aligned with us with the instrument that we have or misaligned or that they’re not able to execute. But some of it, it’s actually not just about the novel structures. Let’s look at agency mortgage-backed securities. Those have been around for a long time, right? Okay. Couple weeks ago, tweet from the pre or whatever we call a, a post on truth social, right? 4:26 PM I’ve instructed my representatives to buy 200 billion of agency MBS boom bomb in the agency mortgage back market. This is a, there are, was it 12 billion, 12 trillion of these things outstanding in the agency. Mortgage market is 9 trillion, hundreds of billions of a trade every day. And that was a aftermarket post tweet that

[00:40:00] Barry Ritholtz: Set off. And

[00:40:01] Matt Cherwin: Do you do, when that happens, event, so then

[00:40:03] Barry Ritholtz: Are you out buying into that, that rise to take advantage? Are you, are you a price taker, a price maker? What are you doing when that that’s happening? It’s

[00:40:12] Matt Cherwin: Both. We look instantly at like, what does this mean? What was our expectation? Now in that instance, we expected the GSEs who will be the one to actually buy it. We expected the GSEs to be buyer. I think our view was a little bit at the high sider outta consensus even. We thought this is gonna be a support mechanism for this market over the course of the year. Fannie and Freddie are gonna buy a lot of this

[00:40:32] Barry Ritholtz: Stuff, assuming they haven’t already started two 10 million.

[00:40:34] Matt Cherwin: Well, they have been, and that’s a great point. They had been, but buying 200 billion with like an aftermarket tweet and nobody knew like, is it gonna be 200 and then another 200? Are you gonna start buying? You gonna buy 40 tomorrow? How’s this all gonna work? This exceeded even our expectations. And you saw right away, I think we were positioned for that type of event. We were positioned to take advantage of some of the policy risk as opposed to get hit by some of the policy risk. You could see that there was a massive short covering rally right after that. And you could see that that wasn’t necessarily people’s expectations in how they were, how they were set up for it.

[00:41:14] Barry Ritholtz: I, I have, I have a mortgage related question to this. Okay. But I’m gonna save it to the next segment. Coming up, we’ve continue our conversation with Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital, discussing credit and risk in today’s markets. I’m Barry Riol, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

[00:41:48] Barry Ritholtz: I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Matt Gerwin, co-founder and chief investment officer of Merrick Capital. Previously he spent 25 or so years running credit and various types of risks at JP Morgan Chase and Citigroup. So we were talking earlier about the Trump tweet directing the GSEs to buy $200 billion worth of agency paper. You would’ve thought that should have sent yields plummeting and mortgage rates down, which would stimulate the housing market. I assume part of the motivation for that tweet and for that purchase. What, what’s going on in that market and why does it seem so difficult to drive rates lower?

[00:42:36] Matt Cherwin: Right. That’s a great question. And as silly as it sounds like 200 billion, it’s just not enough

[00:42:41] Barry Ritholtz: Pocket cash, right? Walking around money,

[00:42:45] Matt Cherwin: That’s one way. I

[00:42:46] Barry Ritholtz: Mean in a $12 trillion market, sure. 12 trillion, it’s not even 1%.

[00:42:50] Matt Cherwin: Yeah. If you’re, if you are, if you’ve got 35 trillion in treasuries, outstanding and yeah, yeah, it’s a big number and it moves the needle. But what they, they really want to move it. They keep it there. Like that’s a little bit of the hard part because don’t forget that the Fed owns 2.2 trillion, so they’re gonna buy 200 billion. Didn’t give a lot of information. And that sort of helped them in that moment. The lack of information after probably led some of it to kind of like bleed out and unwind a bit. But the Fed owns 2.2 trillion and those are paying off and that’s approximately 180 billion a year. So then you start to think about like, well if the rate moves and mortgage prices go up, or some of the money managers going to sell a a hundred billion over time and do you kind of neutralize it?

[00:43:43] Matt Cherwin: So I think it’s helpful. It’s indicative, here’s the real takeaway for us. Okay, so at that moment it’s how do we trade this? What’s the price? What’s the next step? But then we’re really thinking from there, like what does this mean? What’s going to happen next? And sort of coming full circle, what it really does is show you how hard they’re gonna try to drive the mortgage rate down to drive rates down overall to sign up for an agenda and a plan to get rates down. Okay. So some of it is what do we do in that specific market? And some of it is, how’s it informing our view of the bigger picture.

[00:44:23] Barry Ritholtz: So you guys have two i i, I don’t wanna say conflicting, but somewhat different risk factors you’re juggling with, obviously when you buy paper you’re thinking long term and we wanna watch this play out to our broader thesis, but at the same time you’re actively trading on the short term. How much do these complement each other? Or do you ever find yourself long in one duration of the portfolio and short in another? How do you, how do you balance this out?

[00:44:55] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I mean we have longs and shorts across the book within mortgages within credit we, there’s we’re, you know, long what we like and short what we don’t to keep it super simple or long, what helps contribute to our thesis or prote and vice versa. And you know, protect the convexity profile that we’re looking to achieve. We are, we trade every day. We are active in these markets. It’s part of more of a sort of a medium term thought process, how they’re gonna play out. But every day is iterating on that. Is this still what we think? Are we positioned with the best version of it? Do we have the bonds that are going to contribute to what we are trying to achieve? Like right now we’re very focused on the flywheels that exist within financing markets. And if you think about what does that mean?

[00:45:46] Matt Cherwin: Okay, so rates come lower, we talk, we rates go lower. We talked about that a little bit, but credit spreads are also really tightening. And when rates are lower and credit spreads are tightener tighter, your cost of borrowing has gone down. Means you can refinance all sorts of assets. It means some assets are even at that point in time worth more valued highly. Now that it’s worth more, you’ve got a lower LTV loan that you could take out an even tighter credit spread on. And how did these spin and what is it? So this is very much what we’re thinking about now. I think the market completely underestimates the power of those flywheels and what it can be achieved. So we, that is one of, we look at our portfolio and say we want to have about 20 trades in it. And the trade is not one line item.

[00:46:33] Matt Cherwin: A trade could be 30 line items, but the flywheel is a trade. It’s a little bit of a, maybe even a bigger higher order one. But we look at what is happening at that moment. Is there something to take advantage of? But also what are the ripple effects of what’s happening in that moment? And what does the market need to do? What is it going to do? Does it understand this? And then we unpack it and say like, where, where’s the opportunity? So coming back to what we talked about, we believe, when you look at the world through this lens, we look at markets through the Merrick lens that the lack of connections made through these markets and the lack of extracting from some pretty obvious pockets are an opportunity. And I would like we talked about to improve your return and reduce your risk.

[00:47:26] Matt Cherwin: And it’s a process. So it’s just as much a process in a machine through which you’re extracting alpha from from the market. We have our views, we hope to be right. It’s also, it’s a process through which you work through these markets that you extract all the time. And the mandate is pretty clear. Like, as I think of it, the mandate’s very clear. You need to make money when markets go up and you need to make money when markets go down every day, every month, every quarter, every year. And you probably won’t. But that’s the mandate. That’s what, and that’s you’re going for. And it’s, it’s quite simple when you frame it out that way. You

[00:48:04] Barry Ritholtz: Mention in 2019 there was a sea change in how you perceived what was happening in the market and how different that had become. How does that affect how you look at and define risk? It, it risk definitions have obviously changed over your career, but 2019 was such a sea change. What’s different about managing risk today?

[00:48:27] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, I think, I believe managing risk at scale is a skill. Okay. You have your numbers and you want to know what those are and those are indicators and those are starting places. VAR is a number and a starting place and an indicator stress is un numbered DV oh one CS oh one, these are we, I like to look at the world in a stress-based framework and we create a bunch of different stresses. Some are quite simple. Rates go up, rates go down, credit crunch, a flight to quality. Some we had our little like, you know, we’re getting a little punch drunk. We have one we call QE forever and ever. And looking at these, it’s really about, like, it’s a starting place for a conversation. Okay. Because you do need to know where it’s coming from and what’s the attribution, what’s the return attribution, where’s it, where are you hoping it comes from and what’s the risk attribution and very importantly what could go wrong. Understanding that what you’re trying to achieve, but knowing where the exits are, like, I think it’s really like a philosophy to, to risk and to managing risk to make sure you’re pointed to achieve your goals while managing your risk properly and knowing what you would do if things changed. Right? You have a plan and then things change.

[00:49:49] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really interesting. What, when you’re looking out at a variety of different opportunities, what do you think today presents the best risk opportunity looking at structured credit corporates relative value? What, what, what is really drawing your attention? Yeah,

[00:50:06] Matt Cherwin: We really thought that one of the places to extract from the flywheel is in securitized markets. Actually as an example, like we’ve been very focused on trophy quality office in gateway cities. And this goes back a little ways,

[00:50:20] Barry Ritholtz: These are the super A residential, yeah, commercial real co office

[00:50:24] Matt Cherwin: Commercial, right? So that all came to be from us pulling it, the thread of how the financial system works. We talked a little bit about the new Gs Cs and what you had was everybody was going back to work back to the office, but took longer than we kind looking back on it, that took a long time. The part of the financial system that was changing were those new Gs, CS, Apollo, Aries, KKR, Blackstone, BlackRock. And they were coming back to the office and they were growing and they were finding that two things. One, they needed nice offices to kind of, you know, get everybody where they want ’em to be. But also they were growing and they outgrew what they had and then they went looking for more. And what they found was there’s actually not that much trophy real estate out there. And so like our view on the evolving financial system led us to have very strong conviction about a supply demand imbalance in commercial real estate when applied correctly. And then we just looked for what’s the best place. And it’s tightened a lot, but actually it think it continues to and has been because it’s like the, it’s continued to be one to two steps behind the fundamentals. So what that really means, the way we think about, to wrap it up in a nutshell, this is a triple B bond that we think is a double a

[00:51:35] Barry Ritholtz: Hmm. Really, really in, because everybody’s painting with a broad brush of, hey, forget bs, even a buildings are 60% occupied in terms of staff, but

[00:51:45] Matt Cherwin: They’re not, they’re a hundred percent occupied with the waiting list.

[00:51:47] Barry Ritholtz: I mean in terms of staff returning to office. Yeah, so it’s fully leased, but the, what is it? Castle key cards are running 60% of pre pandemic levels in a lot of cities. But the a plus the bigger shops, the JP Morgans, they want everybody back in the office, as does Goldman Sachs, as does a lot of these places. And they’re all in trophy properties.

[00:52:08] Matt Cherwin: And it’s not just New York, it’s Miami, it’s actually San Fran has come a long way. There’s certain buildings there that we like. We actually, I would say a little bit outta consensus, we like DC certain po not the government buildings, but nice offices, like we said, this is administration that’s in the business of being in business, which means you gotta go see ’em and make your case. You want to get some business done, which means you need lawyers with a nice conference room that need a decent office and et cetera, et cetera. I mean, like, it sounds a little glib, but it’s

[00:52:37] Barry Ritholtz: True. It’s the cost of doing business. It’s

[00:52:39] Matt Cherwin: True. Yeah, absolutely. And so you can see there are certain companies that are buying buildings, knocking them down in DC and building brand new ones. And there are buildings that are being taken offline to convert to resi. By the way, everything we wrapped up in what we said, the conversion from office resi is actually spinning faster now in dc some buildings are being con and just outside DC some buildings are being converted to data centers. Interesting. So actually like interesting stocks being removed all the time anyways, it’s just an example of how, like we’re pulling on threads and we’re finding where we can best take advantage of it and like what are the next couple steps? And ultimately we’re looking for what’s something that’s already gotten better except the price hasn’t changed yet.

[00:53:22] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? That, that’s really, that’s really interesting. You, you’ve mentioned stress scenarios a couple of times. We know that correlations have a tendency to go to one and liquidity disappears.

[00:53:35] Matt Cherwin: Well, I think I’ve seen that personally, right? Liquidity enough times over your career liquidity disappears. Yeah, I think I would just wrap that up. We, I make two comments to people. I say like, one, you don’t go outta business ’cause of your assets, you go outta business because your liabilities.

[00:53:49] Matt Cherwin: And when you start looking at that side of the balance sheet first, then you understand things a little bit better. And then also, you know, with, with my traders and all the people I work for, and it’s really great. ’cause some of the people I hired a long time ago, they’re MDs at places now. They’re all, it’s, I actually take a lot of pride in the people I’ve worked with who have gone on and done fantastic things. I really, really hate the phrase money. Good. Okay. I don’t think anybody should be allowed to say it. It is this like false crutch. I also, in many, many conversations have said to people, I think you’re right. In fact, you’ve convinced me, I believe you are right. I’m just saying, you know, you’re gonna get fired long before we know the answer to this question. Okay, let’s take everything we thought, everything we’ve known, and let’s put it into the context of how do we apply this in markets? What’s gonna happen, what’s everybody else doing? And how do we take advantage of that?

[00:54:40] Barry Ritholtz: Huh? Really, really fascinating. Last question before I get to my favorite questions, what do you think investors? I

[00:54:47] Matt Cherwin: Thought those were your favorite

[00:54:48] Barry Ritholtz: Questions. Oh no, though you’ll, you’ll, oh, okay. You’ll see the favorite questions. All right. What do you think investors in the credit and alt space are not talking about, but perhaps should be? What topics, assets, geographies, data points are getting overlooked, but really shouldn’t.

[00:55:05] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, so it’s a great question. We touched on a little bit. They’re underestimating the power of this flywheel. Like with, with the background I’ve had, and we’ve talked about and I’ve seen a lot of things blow up. Like we could come up with a lot of examples of things that could go wrong. I think they’re underestimating the things that could go right or what the power of financing and the mechanics around financing and the provision of liquidity and credit, credit spreads when they’re good and when they’re tight and when the machine is flowing. What that financial engineering can really do to both un recover value and create value. I think they’re underestimating. Huh? Really, really. The other quick thing is in the middle of the year, if Kevin Wars ends up sitting in that seat, and if we get a little bit of the, the setup that he’s looking for. He’s gonna change everything, right? So he believes we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from ai, and we’re gonna have a big productivity dividend from deregulation. And then that would allow you to have lower rates and a smaller Fed Balance sheet at the same time. And if he gets a little bit of what he needs to craft that argument, we’re gonna have a very different second half of 26th than the first.

[00:56:21] Barry Ritholtz: Huh. Really, really interesting. All right. Right. Let’s jump to our favorite questions, our speed round. We’ll get you guys outta here at a reasonable time. Starting with, who are your mentors who helped shape your career?

[00:56:33] Matt Cherwin: Oh, I’ve worked for some pretty amazing people, and I tried to learn from everyone. I’ve just had the, the bosses that I’ve had are, you know, legends in this industry, whether it’s Bruce Richards, T and Perlow. Oh, Jimmy DeMar, Ziems, Daniel Pinto. I mean, these are guy, these are people who defined these markets. And they all had a huge impact on my career.

[00:56:56] Barry Ritholtz: Huh, really interesting. Let’s talk about books. What are you reading now? What are some of your favorites?

[00:57:02] Matt Cherwin: Oh, you know, but like I am in front of a computer screen and reading so much, and I read so much analytics, research, et cetera. When I get home, it’s a little bit more like, hang out with my wife and kids. And it’s a little tv.

[00:57:14] Barry Ritholtz: Well, that’s my next question. What are you listening to or streaming? Oh, give us your favorite next. Netflix, Amazon Prime, whatever.

[00:57:22] Matt Cherwin: I will watch pretty much anything. Taylor Sheridan. You know, like

[00:57:26] Barry Ritholtz: We spent season two of Landman. It’s so good. Like

[00:57:29] Matt Cherwin: Landman, all the Yellowstones, everyone. 19 80, 18, 23, 19. All of those lion, any of those, I’m suckers.

[00:57:36] Barry Ritholtz: Linus was also great. This should be a new season of that coming out one of these days.

[00:57:41] Matt Cherwin: Yeah, there is. I mean, I think I’ve watched both seasons like a hundred times.

[00:57:45] Barry Ritholtz: Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give to a college grad interest in a career in investing, credit trading, what have you?

[00:57:54] Matt Cherwin: I just think it’s not, you know, it doesn’t have to be a commitment for life. Just look at it as what’s something I’m interested in being interested in. I think you can pick the kind of people you work with and you want to be around good people who will teach you, who will support what you’re doing. And just say, I’m gonna give this a spin for three to five years, and if I like it, I love it, maybe I’ll sign up for another five. But you know, you have an opportunity to try something out and see if it’s for you.

[00:58:22] Barry Ritholtz: And our final question, what do you know about the world of trading credit, investing in alternative sources of, of liquidity and other products that would’ve been helpful 25 or so years ago when you were just getting your legs on? Do you

[00:58:38] Matt Cherwin: I wish I knew a fraction of what we are applying at Merrick. Any point before we did this, if I knew a drop of what we’re doing when I sat in other seats. Yeah, I’ll put that all in the I wish I knew bucket.

[00:58:55] Barry Ritholtz: Really, really absolutely fascinating. Matt, thank you for being so generous. Thanks for having me with your time. We have been speaking with Matt Sherwin. He’s co-founder and chief investment officer of Merri Capital. If you enjoy this conversation, well be sure and check out any of the previous 600 or so we’ve done over the past 12 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube, wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the correct team that helps us put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is my podcast producer. I’m Barry Ol. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Matt Cherwin, Co-Founder and Chief Investment Officer of Marek Capital appeared first on The Big Picture.

Pages