Starbucks Shuttering About 400 Locations, 40+ In New York City Alone

Starbucks is quietly shrinking its physical footprint in some of the nation’s largest cities, signaling a major shift for a brand that spent decades in near-constant expansion, according to WSMV. The company intends to eliminate about 400 US locations, with the heaviest impact in major metro areas. Closures are already underway — New York City alone has lost 42 stores.

Company leaders say the move reflects changing consumer patterns and a tougher business environment. Urban markets are saturated with competitors, foot traffic has not fully recovered as remote work remains common, and operating costs continue to climb. Going forward, Starbucks plans to concentrate on a smaller number of higher-performing locations and introduce new store formats beginning in 2026.

A Starbucks spokesperson confirmed the strategy to WSMV in an emailed statement: “Starbucks regularly evaluates our portfolio of coffeehouses to make sure that we are meeting the needs of our customers. Opening and closing stores is a standard part of our business, and we don’t have additional news in the US or elsewhere to share.”

The company has not released a full list of affected locations.

The retrenchment follows earlier staffing reductions. Over the past two years, Starbucks has trimmed corporate and support roles as part of ongoing cost controls, while also restructuring some operations teams tied to store management. Those job cuts marked a shift away from the rapid hiring of the post-pandemic boom.

More broadly, workforce reductions have become a defining feature of the 2025 economy. Companies across technology, retail, finance and media have announced layoffs amid slowing growth, persistent inflation pressures, automation investments and evolving workplace models.

The trend underscores how many major employers are recalibrating after years of aggressive expansion.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 18:00

Judge Blocks White House's Attempt To Defund Consumer Watchdog Agency

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot lapse its funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a watchdog that has long drawn the ire of congressional Republicans.

In a ruling, U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson wrote that the CFPB should continue to receive its funding from the Federal Reserve despite the central bank operating at a loss. The Trump administration has argued that the CFPB should be dissolved because how it gets its funds is invalid.

The CFPB has largely been inoperable since President Donald Trump was sworn into office nearly a year ago. Its employees are mostly forbidden from doing any work, and most of the bureau’s operations this year have been to unwind the work it did under President Joe Biden and even under Trump’s first term.

The head of the White House’s budget office, Russell Vought, is currently the acting head of the CFPB. The White House earlier this year issued a “reduction in force” for the CFPB, which would have furloughed or laid off much of the bureau.

In November, the Trump administration’s attorneys said in a court filing that a Department of Justice (DOJ) memo had concluded there were no legally available funds at the Federal Reserve for the CFPB to request.

The memo, which was issued by the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, stated that “if the Federal Reserve has no profits, it cannot transfer money to the CFPB.”

“Because the only lawful source of funding from the Federal Reserve has dried up,” the memo added, “the proper method for obtaining additional funds is to request them from Congress pursuant to the Appropriations Clause, not to draw funds from the Federal Reserve without a congressional appropriation.”

The White House has also said that the CFPB cannot lawfully draw funds to fund its operations from the Fed if the Fed does not have “combined earnings” to allocate to the bureau. Without additional funds, the CFPB is expected to deplete its operating funds completely in January.

But in her order, Jackson wrote that the government “manufactured” arguments to allow for a lapse in funding for the CFPB.

“Neither the statute, the injunction, nor the Fed’s willingness to pay has changed; the only new circumstance is the administration’s determination to eliminate an agency created by Congress with the stroke of pen, even while the matter is before the Court of Appeals,” she wrote in her order.

Jackson wrote that “it appears that defendants’ new understanding of ‘combined earnings’ is an unsupported and transparent attempt to starve the CPFB of funding and yet another attempt to achieve the very end the Court’s injunction was put in place to prevent.”

Earlier this year, Jackson ruled the Trump administration could not dismantle the agency, which had been an early target of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force that was established under Trump to root out fraud and waste in the federal government.

This month, around two dozen Democrat-led states filed a lawsuit against the White House and Vought in a bid to prevent the administration from withholding funds to the agency. They argued that the move would reduce financial protections for ordinary Americans.

Republicans have long criticized the CPFB for what they say are the agency’s decisions to pursue politicized and radical tactics to target financial institutions.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 17:40

Putin Authorizes Military Reserve Call-Up To Protect Critical Energy Sites

One significant theme which emerged over the course of the last year of the Russia-Ukraine war is greater Ukrainian effectiveness in striking Russian territory, sometimes even distant targets many hundreds of miles away.

On a regular basis at this point, oil and gas infrastructure and refineries are blown up, export terminals damaged, and even military bases and government buildings come under attack. President Vladimir Putin is taking fresh action, on Tuesday having signed a decree granting the military authority to call up members of Russia's mobilization reserve next year.

via Shutterstock

The new injections in troops expected for 2026 will feature "special" training assemblies focused on securing and guarding critical infrastructure.

This as Gazprom's gas exports are falling to decades-lows, also amid far-reaching Western sanctions:

Russia’s Gazprom cut gas supplies to Europe by a further 44% in 2025, reducing flows to 18 billion cubic meters (bcm), Reuters reported Tuesday. Reuters' calculations were based on data from the TurkStream pipeline, now the only remaining route for Russian gas deliveries to Europe.

The volumes mark the lowest level of Russian gas exports to Europe since 1973, when the Soviet Union delivered 6.8 bcm under its first supply contracts with Austria and Italy. Exports then rose to 19.3 bcm by 1975 following the launch of the “gas-for-pipes” deal with Germany, climbed to 54.8 bcm by 1980 and reached around 110 bcm by the early 1990s.

As part of the new order, the Kremlin will compile a list of facilities that require protection, while the Defense Ministry will determine which military units will be responsible for carrying out the new protection of assets and training.

At times, Moscow has even come under threat, grounding commercial planes, and this week the government has alleged a major Ukrainian drone attack which targeted one of Putin's official residences - though all drones were intercepted by air defenses.

Ukraine has vehemently denied that it targeted Putin's residence, but this still hasn't stopped Putin from getting sympathetic statements from world leaders, such as President Trump and Indian leader Narendra Modi.

Russia's mobilization reserve is made up of volunteers who have signed contracts agreeing to periodic service, but the Kremlin has been slow to tap these manpower sources, also given Putin has still not declared a legal 'state of war' in Ukraine. 

Instead, it remains at the level of 'special military operation' - but in November Putin approved legislation broadening the conditions under which reservists can be used.

Now they can be called up even in peacetime, but only for 'special assemblies' and other security-related concerns, such as protecting the homeland from sabotage or drones.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 17:20

Yale No Longer Has A Single Republican Professor Across 27 Departments

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Yale has finally achieved liberal nirvana.

According to a recent report from the Buckley Institute, there is now not a single Republican found across 27 of 43 departments at Yale University. In a nation roughly evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats (with a slight advantage to the GOP), only 3 percent are Republicans across all Yale departments.

In comparison, roughly 83% of faculty are registered Democrats or primarily support Democratic candidates.

The Buckley Institute’s report looked at Yale’s undergraduate departments, as well as its School of Management and Law School.

The report is hardly surprising. In my book, “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I discuss these arguments to justify the current levels of intolerance and orthodoxy in higher education.

As we have discussed for years, universities have been effectively cleansing their ranks of Republicans and conservatives.

Many departments no longer have a single Republican faculty member in this academic echochamber.

A Georgetown study found that only nine percent of law school professors identify as conservative at the top 50 law schools — almost identical to the percentage of Trump voters found in the new poll.

There is little evidence that faculty members are interested in changing this culture or creating greater diversity at schools.  In places like North Carolina State University, a study found that Democrats outnumbered Republicans 20 to 1.

Not long ago, I had a debate at Harvard Law School with Professor Randall Kennedy on whether Harvard protects free speech and intellectual diversity.

Kennedy rejected the notion that the elite school should strive to “look more like America.”

It is not just that schools like Harvard “do not look like America,” it does not even look like liberal Massachusetts, which is almost 30 percent Republican.

The Harvard Crimson has documented how the school’s departments have virtually eliminated Republicans. In one study of multiple departments last year, they found that more than 75 percent of the faculty self-identified as “liberal” or “very liberal.”

Only 5 percent identified as “conservative,” and only 0.4% as “very conservative.”

Consider that, according to Gallup, the U.S. population is roughly equally divided among conservatives (36%), moderates (35%), and liberals (26%).

So Harvard has three times the number of liberals as the nation at large, and less than 3% identify as “conservative” rather than 35% nationally.

Among law school faculty who have donated more than $200 to a political party, a breathtaking 91 percent of the Harvard faculty gave to democrats.

The student body exhibits the same biased selection. Harvard Crimson previously found that only 7 percent of incoming students identified as conservative. For the vast majority of liberal faculty and students, Harvard amplifies rather than stifles their viewpoints.

This does not happen randomly. Indeed, if a business reduced the number of women or minorities to less than 5 percent, a court would likely find de facto discrimination.

Again, universities have shown no serious commitment to ideological diversity. Faculty members have little incentive to add dissenting voices to their ranks. Moreover, faculty are now arguing against such ideological diversity. 

Likewise, some sites, such as Above the Law, have supported the exclusion of conservative faculty.  Senior Editor Joe Patrice defended “predominantly liberal faculties” by arguing that hiring a conservative law professor is akin to allowing a believer in geocentrism to teach at a university.

Nothing is likely to change so long as donors continue to blindly fund these programs and ignore the obvious intolerance for opposing views.

For now, most Yale departments have succeeded in creating a safe space for the ideologically intolerant.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 17:00

Feds Charge Mexican-American With Trying To Arm ISIS Via Undercover FBI Agent

The FBI has arrested a 21-year-old Texas resident and charged him with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization -- namely, ISIS. Depending on their level of faith in domestic counter-terror enforcement, some observers will applaud the news unquestioningly, while others may wonder if it's another situation where the man in handcuffs wouldn't have progressed to criminal action without police encouragement and assistance.  

That man in custody and facing up to 20 years in federal prison is John Michael Garza, a 21-year-old resident of Midlothian, Texas, a town about 25 miles southwest of Dallas. As is so often the case when the feds announce the foiling of a US-based terrorist plot, Garza didn't actually get in touch with ISIS, but was instead maneuvered into engaging with undercover police and federal agents posing as terrorists. 

Garza's father tells NBC 5 that his son has been diagnosed with a neurological disorder, and never expressed pro-ISIS sentiments. He says authorities preyed on his impaired son, pushing him to take actions he'd never have taken of his own volition. 

Garza's father says his son has a diagnosed neurological disorder and wouldn't have tried to aid ISIS without undercover cops' encouragement (photo via NBC 5) 

Garza was arrested last week, but the case began in mid-October, when a "New York police employee" (as the DOJ release describes the person) came across Garza's social media account, and noticed that he followed several pro-ISIS accounts, and commented on one post by such an account. Next, that NYPD undercover contacted Garza via social media. After describing himself as a Mexican-American in Texas, Garza engaged with the undercover throughout November and December. He said he ascribed to ISIS's philosophy, and sent the undercover various official ISIS media releases. 

Garza also sent the uncover person "small amounts" of cryptocurrency -- allegedly with the understanding that he was helping ISIS buy weapons and other supplies -- and allegedly sent a video of a suicide vehicle-bombing and another giving instructions on creating explosives. He's also alleged to have explained how to mix explosive ingredients and surround them with nails. Next, the FBI says, Garza said he intended to buy bomb components, and agreed to meet with another person whom he believed to be an ISIS follower too. That meeting with an undercover FBI agent took place on Monday, Dec 22, with Garza allegedly handing over what the FBI describes as "several explosive components." The release doesn't specify if that was more than, say, nails and a PVC pipe. 

Bombs on the menu: Garza allegedly shared this bomb-making instructional video (not his own work) with undercover law enforcement (DOJ)

FBI Director Kash Patel proclaimed victory: 

“Today’s announcement underscores the FBI’s commitment to combatting terrorism and demonstrates our continuous work to disrupt and thwart terrorist plots against the American public. Let this serve as a warning to those who plan to conduct attacks against the United States on behalf of terrorist organizations – you will be brought to justice.”

More details should come out with a Dec 30 probable cause and detention hearing at the US District Court for Northern Texas. While Garza may have someday taken deadly action on his own, for now, the pivotal roles played by undercover NYPD and FBI agents can't help make us wonder if the case can be summed up with this classic meme: 

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 16:40

From Tax-Cuts To Tariff-Stability: US Economy Poised For Solid Growth In 2026

Authored by Andrew Moran via The Epoch Times,

The turbulence that defined the U.S. economy in 2025 is expected to ease next year...

Following President Donald Trump’s unveiling of his sweeping global tariffs plan, the consensus on Wall Street was that the United States would potentially face a downturn or, at the very least, a stagflation-type scenario: anemic growth, high inflation, and elevated unemployment.

Those economic forecasts had appeared to be materializing after the economy contracted by 0.6 percent in the first quarter. However, in the following months, GDP growth rebounded to 3.8 percent in the second quarter and 4.3 percent during the July–September period.

If the Atlanta Federal Reserve’s widely watched GDPNow Model fourth-quarter estimate of 3 percent is accurate, full-year growth will be 2.8 percent—higher than the 2.1 percent Blue Chip consensus.

While surveys continue to highlight consumers’ frustrations with stubbornly high prices, the data show inflation has steadied, easing to 2.7 percent in November.

In the first year of the president’s second term, consumer prices have risen by approximately 2 percent, compared with an increase of about 6 percent during President Joe Biden’s first year.

Trump’s tariff pursuits have also helped the White House achieve its goal of narrowing the trade deficit.

In September, the U.S. trade gap unexpectedly shrank to $52.8 billion, the lowest level since June 2020. This was driven by a sizable increase in exports and a minuscule rise in imports.

The president has attributed these improvements to his administration’s trade pursuits.

“Tariffs are creating great wealth, and unprecedented national security for the USA,” Trump wrote in a Dec. 27 Truth Social post. “Trade deficit has been cut by 60%, actually unheard of. 4.3% GDP, and going way up. No inflation! We are respected as a country again.”

Employment conditions, meanwhile, have continued to cool off from the red-hot post-COVID-19 pandemic era levels.

The unemployment rate rose to 4.6 percent in November—the highest reading since September 2021. Although this remains historically low, market watchers fear that economic uncertainty could adversely affect payrolls, prolonging the recent trend of a “low fire, low hire” environment.

Although a multitude of headwinds gripped the U.S. economy throughout 2025—the government shutdown, “K-shaped” trends that saw stronger growth enjoyed by the wealthy, and tariffs—the nation shrugged them off.

Looking ahead, economic observers are optimistic about 2026, although with some reservations.

Boom Town

The world’s largest economy could face boom times as a series of tailwinds support the U.S. marketplace.

Goldman Sachs projects next year’s growth will be 2.6 percent.

BNP Paribas and the St. Louis Federal Reserve’s December 2025 Blue Chip Economic Indicators suggest the consensus 2026 GDP growth rate will be 1.9 percent.

“2026 is expected to be a solid year for the economy,” Mark Malek, CIO at Siebert Financial, said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times. “Fiscal stimulus is about to kick in from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, continued AI CAPEX, smaller trade deficits, and the Fed.”

White House officials are betting big that fiscal stimulus from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act will be a victory for Main Street and Wall Street, contributing to growth prospects.

President Donald Trump, joined by Republican lawmakers, signs the One Big Beautiful Bill Act into law during an Independence Day military family picnic on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington on July 4, 2025. Samuel Corum/Getty Images

“We’re going to go back to the kind of non-inflationary growth where working Americans do better than supervised workers. Lower-income households do well,” Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told Fox Business earlier this month.

“Main Street, Wall Street can both do well. And my guess is both have a very good year next year.”

The Federal Reserve’s less restrictive monetary policy stance could be another boon for the economic landscape.

Officials lowered interest rates three times in 2025, and the Fed is expected to cut rates at least once more in 2026. While the market has already priced in lower interest rates, they could begin to work their way through the economy as next year progresses.

At the same time, the central bank’s policy path in the second half remains uncertain as the president is expected to replace Chair Jerome Powell when his term expires in May.

“The focus now shifts to thresholds for January and 2026 and whether Powell can credibly signal a pause,” Christian Hoffman, head of fixed income at Thornburg Investment Management, said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

“With just one cut penciled in for 2026 and one for 2027, the Fed is threading the needle between risk management and not completely ignoring inflation.”

The continued buildout of artificial intelligence (AI), rising U.S. stock forecasts, and strong household balance sheets could be additional contributors to gross domestic product.

But while there is reason for optimism, there could still be risks ahead, says Rick Pederson, economist and chief strategy officer at Bow River Capital.

“I’m positive about the economy in 2026, with some reservations,” Pederson said in a note emailed to The Epoch Times.

“I don’t believe a recession is coming for a number of reasons, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t risks. It’s going to be an interesting year. I expect positive economic growth, but it won’t be without a few micro-level surprises.”

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 16:20

RFK Jr. Drops 2026 MAHA Agenda To Banish Toxic Food Dyes And Kill Off Processed Poison

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

In a game-changing move that’s set to shake up the corrupt food industry, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has unveiled his 2026 MAHA agenda – a no-holds-barred assault on the chemicals and loopholes poisoning the health of America.

The agenda, highlighted during a Fox News broadcast, targets eight critical areas: GRAS reform to close loopholes for untested additives, updating dietary guidelines to prioritize real nutrition over junk science, defining ultra-processed foods, front-of-pack labeling for radical transparency, a chemical review overhaul to weed out toxins, banning petroleum-based food dyes linked to hyperactivity and worse, enhancing infant formula safety, and launching a nutrition regulatory science program free from Big Pharma influence.

As highlighted in the segment by FDA Deputy Commissioner for Human Foods Kyle Diamantas, “2026 will be a fundamental transformational year for the Trump administration,” with Secretary Kennedy’s team at the FDA leading the charge on food reform.

? JUST IN: Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s 2026 MAHA agenda has been RELEASED ?

– Petroleum-based food dyes
– Dietary guidelines
– Define ultra processed foods
– Infant formula safety
– "Generally Recognized As Safe" reform for food ingredients
– Front-of-pack labeling
-… pic.twitter.com/u9MpK0Si8Z

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) December 30, 2025

Diamantas further urged, “This is an issue that has gone on for far too long in our country when you talk about our national nutrition crisis – 70% of Americans are overweight or obese, we have over half of young adolescents who can’t qualify for military service, and 15,000 new cases of diabetes each week. So we have deep problems in this country – we want to tackle those head on.”

This push comes amid broader MAHA victories, but not without resistance from entrenched interests. Just days ago, a federal judge blocked enforcement of H.B. 2354, calling it “unconstitutionally vague” and halting a state-level crackdown on seven harmful additives like FD&C Red No. 40 and Yellow No. 5.

West Virginia Gov. Patrick Morrissey had championed the bill, stating, “West Virginia ranks at the bottom of many public health metrics, which is why there’s no better place to lead the Make America Healthy Again mission. By eliminating harmful chemicals from our food, we’re taking steps toward improving the health of our residents and protecting our children from significant long-term health and learning challenges.”

Yet Kennedy’s federal agenda powers ahead, building on 2025 milestones like phasing out Red Dye No. 3 and reconstituting vaccine advisory committees with conflict-free experts.

The 2026 plan directly addresses the childhood chronic disease explosion – one in 31 kids now diagnosed with autism, allergies afflicting one in four children, and obesity rates that disqualify young people from defending the nation.

GRAS reform stands out as a major win against the “generally recognized as safe” scam that’s allowed over 1,000 untested ingredients into food since 1997 without proper FDA scrutiny. Kennedy’s team aims to slam that door shut, forcing real safety reviews instead of industry self-certification.

On dietary guidelines, due for a radical update in January 2026, expect a shift away from outdated saturated fat limits that have propped up processed garbage. As nutrition expert Jerold Mande noted in recent coverage, “They don’t see a strong future for animal products. They just keep getting more and more expensive,” pointing to a potential emphasis on whole foods over ultra-processed alternatives. School lunches and military meals could see massive improvements, with resources funneled toward fresh, untainted options.

Defining ultra-processed foods is another cornerstone, with Marlene Schwartz emphasizing, “If the dietary guidelines said something about ultra-processed foods that just got people paying attention, I think that would be great.” This could spark a nationwide awakening to the hidden dangers in everyday snacks, cutting into Big Food’s profits while slashing obesity and diabetes rates.

Front-of-pack labeling promises to empower consumers with clear warnings, bypassing the fine-print tricks that hide toxins. Coupled with the chemical review overhaul, this will expose and eliminate contaminants that have evaded oversight for decades.

The petroleum-based food dyes ban builds on Kennedy’s April 2025 pledge to eliminate six synthetic colors by year’s end, now extended into a full purge. Despite judicial roadblocks like the West Virginia ruling, federal action could override such hurdles, protecting kids from behavioral issues tied to these petroleum-derived poisons.

Infant formula safety gets a spotlight through Operation Stork Speed, reviewing options to ensure the youngest aren’t exposed to harmful additives. And the nutrition regulatory science program will rebuild trust by grounding policies in unbiased research, free from lobbyist corruption.

Kennedy’s 2026 blueprint is a declaration of independence from the forces eroding American vitality. By prioritizing clean food, transparent science, and family health, MAHA delivers on the promise of a stronger, freer nation.

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 Tue, 12/30/2025 - 15:40

Zelensky Claims Trump Is Considering US Boots On The Ground In Ukraine

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has newly claimed that US President Donald Trump is considering the possibility of deploying American troops to Ukraine as negotiations toward peace with Moscow stall. This is presumably connected with promises of future 'security guarantees'.

This is somewhat of a surprise, as the White House has made no indication of this in any statement whether public or based on anonymous officials. Throughout the nearly four-long war the question of Western 'boots on the ground' has been raised at various times. 

But the US - whether under Biden or Trump - has always denied that sending American troops into Ukraine is a solution. Instead, it's well understood that this could escalate things between Washington and Russia toward full-scale war.

Zelensky made the remarks during a WhatsApp conversation with journalists, according to Reuters national security correspondent Idress Ali, who then revealed his words on social media.

But the outlet has still stressed that Zelensky understands that the final decision rests with Trump.

"To be honest, this can only be confirmed by the President of the United States of America. These are US troops, and therefore it is America that makes such decisions. Of course, we are discussing this both with President Trump and with representatives of the Coalition [of the Willing]," Zelensky was quoted as saying.

And just like that, boots on the ground as a talking point is being echoed among EU leaders...

Polish Prime Minister Tusk:

The United States has declared its readiness to participate in security guarantees for Ukraine after concluding peace.

This includes, for example, the presence of American troops on the border or on the line of contact between Ukraine and Russia. pic.twitter.com/bIJUhyjQam

— Clash Report (@clashreport) December 30, 2025

Russian media has also picked up on the remarks...

Zelensky says US BOOTS ON THE GROUND in Ukraine being discussed

But troop deployment is ‘UP TO THE UNITED STATES’ pic.twitter.com/VCXa10ttDw

— RT (@RT_com) December 30, 2025

President Trump has regularly emphasized that he won't contemplate boots on the ground in Ukraine, for example last August:

President Donald Trump on Tuesday pledged that American troops would not be on the ground in Ukraine — but provided little other insight into the scale of U.S. security guarantees as he pushes to end Russia’s war on its neighbor.

"You have my assurance, and I’m president," Trump said on “Fox & Friends,” when asked what assurances he has that there won’t be American boots in the country to defend against another Russian incursion.

Needless to say such a moved, if he were to reverse his own policy, would be hugely unpopular among Trump's base. And broadly the American public would likely see such a risky move as recipe for another US troop quagmire abroad, and in a very complex battlespace.

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 15:20

Everyone's A Lender Now: Shadow Banking USA

Authored by Charles Hugh Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

How much private credit has been put in place but isn't in the official credit total is unknown and very likely unknowable. That means total systemic risk is also unknowable.

Everyone wants to lend us money now, even though they're not banks: the insurance company Progressive offered us a loan, PayPal offers us a business loan every time we log in, and the payment processor Stripe includes a pitch to borrow money on its dashboard page.

Then there's the ubiquitous payment plans offered by seemingly every vendor / retailer.

These are parts of the shadow banking system (SBS) that we see, but most of the system is hidden in the global economy's complex financial plumbing. The shadow banking system differs from nation to nation, as it developed to avoid whatever is tightly regulated or restricted within each banking system.

Here is a general definition:

 "Shadow banking in the U.S. refers to non-bank financial institutions and activities that provide services similar to traditional commercial banks but operate largely outside of conventional banking regulations. The sector has grown significantly in recent years and plays a major role in the financial system, though it also poses systemic risks due to its lack of transparency and regulatory oversight."

In a global economy dependent on credit, leverage, artifice and speculation, the expansion of shadow banking is highly incentivized. How much of this activity and debt ends up in official statistics of credit is hard to know, even for experts, given that the goal of shadow banking is to avoid the regulations and restrictions that increase transaction costs and limit risk.

Risk brings us to the treacherous territory between known unknowns and unknown unknowns, as risk is a funny thing: it cannot be extinguished, but it can be cloaked, transferred to others, sold to the unsuspecting as "safe," or buried beneath complexity. It can also lay dormant, slowly dissolving whatever holds the system together, a process that remains hidden until the avalanche surprises everyone who thought the snowmass was stable because it appeared stable.

These links shed some light on the scale, asymmetries and risks built into a sprawling, highly interconnected, highly leveraged shadow banking system with few institutional safeguards or backstops.

Shadow banking system

Nonbank Financial Intermediation (NBFI or "Shadow Banking") and Capital Markets Policy

Shadow Banks: Out of the Eyes of Regulators

Bank Turmoil Is Paving the Way for Even Bigger 'Shadow Banks'

Total known credit is already a systemic risk. 

How much private credit has been put in place but isn't in the official credit total is unknown and very likely unknowable. That means total systemic risk is also unknowable.

*  *  *

My new book Investing In Revolution is available at a 10% discount ($18 for the paperback, $24 for the hardcover and $8.95 for the ebook edition). Introduction (free)

Check out my updated Books and Films. Become a $3/month patron of my work via patreon.com. Subscribe to my Substack for free

Tyler Durden Tue, 12/30/2025 - 15:00