With Its War On Prediction Markets, The Gaming Lobby Plays A Bad Hand

Authored by Dean Heller via RealClearMarkets,

There's a saying in Vegas, the house always wins. I represented Nevada in Congress for more than a decade and I can attest to the truth behind that phrase. But what I learned is that it's rarely a fair fight. The gaming industry works to stack the odds against competition, whether it's at the tables, in courtrooms, or in the halls of Congress.

It was never a fair fight, which is why the gaming industry is so worried about prediction markets. Prediction markets are far from perfect, but they're fair. There is no house. It's no wonder the gambling industry is working overtime to stop them. Recently, the American Gaming Association tried to join a lawsuit in Wisconsin against the CFTC, and its lobbyists went to Congress this week asking for an outright ban on sports event contracts.

While representing Nevada, I sat on the Senate Finance and Banking committees, and whipped votes to protect our gaming industry from anything that smelled like competition. When Sheldon Adelson wanted a federal ban on online gambling, I backed the Restoration of America's Wire Act and warned that internet gaming would be "a final nail" for brick-and-mortar casinos. Looking back, I was probably being a little dramatic. The bill failed anyway, in large part because opponents argued it would cost states an economic boost and push bettors toward unregulated offshore sites.

So when I watch the gaming lobby go to war against prediction markets today, I recognize the play. I ran it.

The industry has launched a multi-state litigation campaign, fired off cease-and-desist letters to stop sports event contracts, and cheered as 41 state attorneys general urged the CFTC to cede jurisdiction over these markets to the states. In certain states, lottery and gaming agencies are colluding with the American Gaming Association. When your state gaming agency and the casino lobby are copying each other's homework, it's fair to ask who's actually regulating whom.

Here's what makes the crusade hard to take seriously. While the casinos lecture Washington about consumer protection, a lawsuit in Philadelphia is showing the country how the sportsbook business actually works. A gambler named Terry Thompson wagered roughly $18.5 million on FanDuel and lost more than $1.5 million. He was a "VIP." His reward for all that losing? His FanDuel host arranged a personalized Cameo video from Phillies star Bryce Harper, who says he never consented and thought he was recording a holiday greeting. Thompson is now suing FanDuel for feeding his addiction, and the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board is reviewing sportsbooks' use of celebrity messages to keep high rollers betting.

Think about the business model that produces that story. Sportsbooks make money when customers lose. So the customers losing the most get the white-glove treatment, and the ones who win too much get shown the door.

There's a reason prediction markets can be straight with their customers in a way sportsbooks can't. An exchange collects a small fee on every trade, win or lose, so no revenue rides on anyone's losing streak. When a platform's paycheck doesn't depend on a customer going broke, it can step in at the signs of trouble, the repeat losses and the chasing, without touching its own bottom line. And instead of fighting oversight, this industry keeps asking for more of it.

Some of these markets, like Kalshi and NADEX, are federally regulated, based in the United States, and volunteering to pay state taxes. North Carolina just passed a law recognizing federal oversight and taxing prediction market revenue, which was smarter than burning taxpayer money in court and inconvenient for the claim that these platforms cost states money. New Jersey came close to taxing prediction markets this year, and the loudest opposition came from the union representing Atlantic City's own casino workers, who argued that taxing prediction markets would "legitimize" a competitor to their industry. They'd rather forgo the tax revenue than admit prediction markets are here to stay.

My advice to my old friends in gaming is the advice I wish someone had given me during the Wire Act fight: innovate, don't litigate. The knee-jerk lawsuits didn't stop sports betting, tribal gaming, or the internet, and they won't stop this. I love Las Vegas. It's one of my favorite places on earth, and there's plenty of room for everyone. Let consumers decide.

After all, this is the town that will take a bet on anything. Funny that the one wager it won't touch is a fair fight.

Tyler Durden Sat, 09/05/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/pmtC0qF
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/pmtC0qF
via IFTTT

With Its War On Prediction Markets, The Gaming Lobby Plays A Bad Hand

Insurrection For Real

Authored by James Howard Kunstler via Clusterfuck Nation,

"The Democrat agenda is to legalize crime and criminalize the middle class."

- Stephen Miller

Not to put too fine a point on it: but whenever a lawfare ninja of the Democratic Party utters the phrase "our democracy," you must know that they are completely full of shit. For sure, they do not mean anything remotely related to an American commonweal, as understood by people of sound mind and good faith.

What they mean by "our democracy" is the state as a racketeering operation run for the sole benefit of their party members, along with the ruthless power to annihilate their opponents and critics.

Norm Eisen, Democratic Party Lawfare Ninja Supreme

The war-cry "our democracy" only signifies how degenerate they have become. Though they yearn to win control of Congress in these midterm elections by any means necessary, the party's actual prospects are not so great, having nominated a pack of obvious morons and reprobates such as Abdul el-Sayed (MI), James Talarico (TX), Angie Nixon (FL), Troy Jackson (ME), and Peggy Flanagan (MN) for the US Senate.

Now, it appears that President Donald Trump is determined to clean up our fraud-ridden election process this year, one way or another. Hopes are nearly dead for Congress passing a comprehensive election reform law, the SAVE Act, so he has looked to other measures. One is a procedure for the US Postal Service to match and track mail-in ballots to real persons with actual addresses listed on state voter rolls. The matter is still working through courts. The DOJ's Civil Rights Division has pledged to send about 1000 election monitors to polling places around the country as "observers," which could obviate arrant shenanigans like the broken toilet ploy in Fulton County, GA, 2020.

Mr. Trump could go further, as discussed here recently, and declare a National Security Executive Order with more exacting rules such as requiring proof of citizenship and photo ID at the polls, and reporting election results no later than the day following the election. The Democratic Party is fighting desperately to prevent any changes to current procedure with so much room for fraud.

The effort is led by chief lawfare ninja Norm Eisen, who is associated with several activist NGOs: the States United Democracy Center (founder); State Democracy Defenders PAC; Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW); the Brookings Institution; plus his own pro bono litigation practice, Norma Eisen PLLC.

Eisen enjoys many millions of dollars in backing that have enabled him to file hundreds of court cases against Trump administration actions, including the recent suits against the US Postal Service mail-in ballot plan. His own NGOs are backed by hundreds of other NGOs both here and globally, many of which have been involved in color revolutions in foreign countries. Eisen himself has played a part in many episodes of the long-running color revolution here in the USA, including RussiaGate, the 2020 fake impeachment, and the Jan-6 House Committee. All that could be described in totality as a seditious coup attempt - and it's all currently under investigation by several federal grand juries.

Likewise, lawfare ninja Marc Elias, who operates his election activities through Democracy Docket (founder); the Free election Fund; the Democracy Forward Foundation (board chair); We the Action; plus his own firm, the Elias Law Group. He was formerly a lawyer with the DC law firm Perkins Coie, through which he served as general counsel to the Hillary Clinton campaign in 2016. He shepherded the Steele Dossier into the Intel apparatus and around the news media.

All that is a prelude to a disturbing roll-out of events that anyone paying attention can see coming this fall.

The Democratic Party has massive resources not just to stall and obstruct pre-election reform, but to mount a vicious resistance after the fact if it doesn't produce their desired result. They could go as far as to repudiate the election, refuse to accept its results. If the president does issue that NatSec EO prior to the election, blue state officials could refuse to hold elections under new rules. Thirty states have already refused to comply with DOJ demands to submit their official voter rolls for evaluation. Some of the aforementioned activist NGOs have promised post-election street actions (demonstrations that could easily turn into riots).

In the face of that, you can foresee the necessity of the president having to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1878 (10 U.S.C. §§ 251-255). The act provides an exception to the Posse Commitatus Act, also 1878, which forbids the use of the US military to act as police inside the USA. Under the Insurrection Act, the president can federalize states' national guard units to enforce federal law or protect constitutional rights when ordinary civilian means are not enough.

The Act has been used before in our history about thirty times by fifteen presidents, including the Great Railway Strike of 1877 (Pres. Hayes); the Pullman Strike of 1894 (Pres. Cleveland); the Little Rock School Desegregation resistance of 1957 (Pres. Eisenhower sent in the 82nd Airborne). Pres. Lyndon Johnson invoked it three times: the Selma to Montgomery March of 1965; the Detroit riots of 1967; and the riots that followed the Assassination of Martin Luther King, 1968. Pres. George H. W. Bush used it in 1994 to quell the Rodney King Riots in Los Angeles.

If Mr. Trump invokes the Insurrection Act around any violence or organized election rebellion this year, he will invite the Democrats to label him an autocrat, a tyrant, a wannabe king, as they have been taunting him and goading him with for years. Let's suppose that will be enough to inflame the party's activists. I think you can see how this lays the groundwork for something that looks like a new civil war. The repudiation of election results by blue states would be enough.

Know this: it won't work. It will result in charges of sedition and many Democratic officials will be arrested and charged, probably some governors. It will be a really ugly episode in our history, but we'll get through it. Of course, it will be the end of the Democratic Party.

Tyler Durden Fri, 09/04/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/zA1fZWq
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/zA1fZWq
via IFTTT

Insurrection For Real

The Elephant In The Canadian Room

Authored by Victor Davis Hanson via American Greatness,

At first glance, the current American-Canadian trade "war" is absurd. We are neighbors with a long history of close friendship, speak the same language (for the most part), and spring from the same British civilization.

Nearly one million Canadians reside in the United States.

Given the two countries' natural affinities, Canadians are nearly indistinguishable from Americans.

Both sides have reasonable grievances over trade policy.

Americans don't like Canada's perennial trade surpluses of more than $50 billion in a supposedly free-trade zone.

They resent the fact that non-free-market China exports subsidized cheap steel and aluminum through Canada, giving Canadian auto and truck exports a price advantage.

The United States also objects to Canada imposing a surcharge on American digital media companies to subsidize Canadian Indigenous and French-language content.

Americans further resent Prime Minister Mark Carney's backing out of an apparent deal at the eleventh hour. He apparently hoped to gin up Canadian nationalism on the eve of two key elections in Alberta and Quebec by attacking Trump, who is unpopular in Canada.

Ascendant separatist movements in both provinces threaten to unravel the Canadian nation.

Moreover, Carney expects the dispute to damage Trump on the eve of the U.S. midterm elections, which might reduce his leverage over Canada.

Canada, in turn, resents American demands concerning its importation of Chinese goods as an infringement upon its sovereignty.

It increasingly believes that the sheer size of the United States next door - 13 times larger in nominal GDP and nine times larger in population - threatens to overwhelm Canada's unique culture.

Canada maintains that its trade surplus results largely from U.S. imports of Canadian oil sands petroleum - a mutually beneficial arrangement. It is also tired of Trump's trolling and mockery.

But even these differences could easily be resolved, given our centuries of friendship.

So what is the unspoken source of the acrimony?

The United States is leaping ahead of other Western countries in ways few anticipated several decades ago, while Canada is stagnating.

America is the world's largest producer of oil and natural gas.

Its technology, software, biotechnology, digital media, satellite, and numerous other companies dominate global rankings.

American GDP is roughly $10 trillion larger than either China's or the European Union's. Yet China has four times the population of the United States, while the European Union has 100 million more people.

The U.S. military is the world's most lethal and is now being rebuilt with even greater defense spending.

Moreover, the United States has not been shy about warning its Western friends that their socialist paradigms and leftist policies threaten their very existence.

The EU suffers from unsustainably low fertility.

Massive and often illegal immigration threatens the very culture and values of Europe.

Green hysteria has nearly wrecked the German and British economies.

Until Russia invaded Ukraine and Trump began his harangues, European NATO members were de facto disarming.

Yet Canada - especially under the globalist prime ministers Justin Trudeau and Mark Carney - has adopted much of this ossified European model.

The result is a sluggish economy. Also left unspoken is Canada's growing reliance on the U.S. market, American continental defenses, and the general goodwill of the United States.

Until last year, Canada had refused to honor its NATO commitment to spend 2 percent of GDP on defense.

It has thrown open its border even as the United States is closing its own.

Some 45 percent of Canadian residents are either foreign-born or the children of immigrants.

The majority come from impoverished, non-Western countries and immediately depend upon a vast social welfare system that the present anemic economy cannot sustain.

Utopian think tanks speak grandly of a Canadian "Century Initiative" that would bring in enough immigrants to increase the population to 100 million. But sheer numbers will hardly remedy the country's underlying demographic and economic stagnation.

How mostly non-Western immigrants are to be integrated, assimilated, and acculturated in a country that has forsaken anything remotely resembling the idea of a melting pot is never explained.

The tragic irony is that Canada once punched well above its demographic weight, with a formidable military and a dynamic economy.

Not anymore. Its per capita GDP is now among the lowest in the industrialized West.

Yet Canada has the fifth-largest oil and natural-gas reserves in the world, even as green restrictions and provincial infighting nullify those natural advantages.

In timber, metals, and mineral resources, Canada ranks among the world's top five nations.

Apparently, Canada believes that opening its economy, insisting upon legal, meritocratic, diverse, and measured immigration, and fully developing its natural wealth would be a bitter medicine worse than even its present maladies.

For all America's unsolicited advice and tough-love attitude, the United States would prefer a strong Canadian partner to a dependent one.

That growing asymmetry explains much of this otherwise inexplicable melodrama.

Tyler Durden Thu, 09/03/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/5kyQ4w6
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/5kyQ4w6
via IFTTT

The Elephant In The Canadian Room

Market Valuation: Expensive CAPE Or Cheap PEG?

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The S&P 500’s Shiller CAPE ratio just hit 41. Since 1881, the market valuation has been more expensive under CAPE only once. That was during the final months of the dot-com bubble. At the same time the CAPE is ringing warning bells, the PEG ratio, which measures price relative to expected earnings growth, is at its lowest level in at least three decades, possibly its cheapest reading ever.

One market valuation says run for cover while another says bargain. Both market valuation tools use data from the same 500 S&P companies but interpret the market completely differently.

Confusing, yes, but the disagreement between the two charts comes down to one question: Is the past a better predictor of the future than the wisdom of Wall Street?

To answer our question, we’ll first summarize what each ratio measures, then dig into expected growth versus historical growth, the culprit behind the big difference in the two graphs.  

CAPE Isn’t Perfect

The P/E ratio is one of the most quoted market valuation gauges for stocks and stock indexes. While valuable, it rests on one bold and often wrong assumption: future earnings will match past earnings. In other words, it doesn’t capture how earnings may change.

For the CAPE valuation, the assumption is similar, but instead of using the most recent one year of earnings to assess value, it uses ten years of earnings. This better smooths earnings, reducing the impact of short periods of economic volatility.  But it has the same vulnerability, assuming the future will be just like the past.

P/E tends to be most useful for comparing companies with similar earnings growth, but it is less useful when analyzing high-growth companies or those with the potential to change their growth trajectory.

Despite its flaws, the CAPE valuation strongly correlates with future market returns, as shown in the graph below comparing CAPE valuations and forward ten-year S&P 500 returns. While the CAPE provides a good indicator of expected returns over the full next ten years, it doesn’t provide a roadmap for the monthly and annual returns that make up the period.

The PEG Ratio

The PEG ratio builds on the P/E ratio framework but uses future earnings growth estimates instead of prior realized earnings. Because it uses estimates, it can change rapidly.  

The PEG ratio calculation is the forward P/E divided by the expected 3–5-year earnings growth.

To better appreciate today’s PEG ratio, we break down the numerator, forward P/E, and the denominator, G (3-5-year growth estimates).

Forward P/E

The numerator in the PEG ratio is the forward P/E. Instead of using the trailing twelve months of earnings as in the traditional P/E ratio, the forward P/E uses earnings estimates for the coming twelve months. Thus, its value depends heavily on how well Wall Street can predict earnings for the coming 12 months.  

We can analyze the effectiveness of one-year earnings forecasts in a couple of different ways.

First, we can compare the trailing 12-month P/E to the forward P/E and imply expected earnings for the next year. We can then compare the implied earnings with actual earnings. Using this method, the top two charts below show that Wall Street almost always overestimates earnings and by a wide margin at times.

The second way to grade Wall Street’s forecasting ability is to compare final one-year forecasts with those made at the start of the period. The graph below reinforces the graphs above: Wall Street tends to overestimate earnings.  EPS estimates were reduced in nine of the ten years spanning 2016 through 2025.  However, the trend has changed with 2026 and 2027 estimates trending higher than original forecasts.

G: 3- 5 Year Expected Earnings Growth

Forecasting earnings for just 12 months forward is extremely difficult for Wall Street professionals. Accordingly, forecasting three- to five-years of earnings growth (G in the PEG ratio) is much trickier and more error-prone.

(Note: for this article, we use four-year expected earnings growth to balance out the three-to-five-year range of estimates.)

To assess the effectiveness of longer term forecasts, we can use historical PEG and forward P/E ratios to back out an implied four-year growth rate. As we did with one-year estimates, we then compare that to the actual four-year growth that ensued.

The graph below shows there is very little correlation between four-year earnings growth estimates and actual growth. As we saw with one-year estimates, the market overestimated earnings far more often than it underestimated them.

Deciphering Today’s PEG Ratio

The graph below shows the market PEG valuation and its two components- forward P/E and 3-5 year earnings estimates.

The middle graph shows the forward P/E (the numerator) is stretched, indicating a relatively expensive valuation. Despite the forward P/E, the PEG ratio in the top graph is cheap because the longer-term earnings growth estimate shown in the bottom graph is at its highest level since at least 1995. The takeaway is that the PEG ratio is cheap entirely because of strong earnings-growth forecasts.

The G Is Concentrated

The hardest part of analyzing the “G” in the PEG ratio is the abnormal divergence in recent earnings trends and earnings expectations between a few large tech companies and the large majority of other S&P 500 companies.

Second-quarter earnings results exemplify this problem. In a mid-July summary of the quarter, with roughly a third of the stocks in the index still to report, FactSet reported the Magnificent 7 was growing earnings 31.1% year over year versus a blended rate near 25% for the index. Only a few weeks later, on August 7, the quarter’s growth rate more than doubled to 50.4%.

Most of that acceleration traced back to two companies. Alphabet and Amazon, both large earnings contributors, reported significant non-operating gains. Alphabet reported a $98 billion mark-up in its equity portfolio primarily due to SpaceX, and Amazon added a $53 billion gain largely from Anthropic. Strip out those gains, and FactSet’s blended growth rate for the S&P 500 falls from 50.4% to 32.0%. Two companies, out of five hundred, are worth eighteen full percentage points of index earnings growth.

This leads to a big question. Can ten or so large-cap technology companies carry earnings growth for a 500-company index? Hyperscalers are on pace to spend roughly $700 billion on AI infrastructure in 2026 and are projected to top $1 trillion in 2027. That spending shows up today as reported capex and, eventually, as revenue for a small number of companies selling the chips, the cloud capacity, and the construction and power systems supporting it. It does not contribute much to the earnings growth for the other companies in the index.

Is The Market Rich Or Cheap?

Think of this market valuation conundrum between PEG and CAPE like your favorite sports team that’s been mediocre for a decade. Ten years of results argue that your expectations for next season should be minimal.  But during the offseason, the team signed a few all-stars, and a reasonable fan would bump up their expectations regardless of the last ten years.

The historical losing record is real, and so is the upgraded roster. The substantial growth estimates are making a big bet that the new players will significantly help the team. The question investors need to ask is whether they will help generate more wins than the market expects.

So, how should investors think about today’s stock market valuations? The answer likely sits between rich and cheap. If earnings keep growing rapidly alongside AI spending, the market, in aggregate, may be fairly priced despite CAPE’s warning. But a recession, or a slowdown in planned AI spending, is a real risk to that outcome.

That said, while the optimism embedded in the PEG ratio carries downside risks, we must also consider that AI’s productivity gains will eventually spread to other S&P 500 companies. The open questions are when, how much, and most importantly for pricing today’s market, how that eventual payoff compares to what’s already priced in.

Summary

CAPE uses historical realized data to value stocks.  You can debate whether the past decade is a fair guide for valuing stocks, but you can’t debate whether the earnings in CAPE’s denominator are real; they are.

PEG asks you to rely on one-year and three-to-five-year earnings estimates.  This leaves the obvious question of how much current forecasts deserve to be trusted. The historical answer, as we showed, is not very much.

Nine of the last ten annual EPS estimates were revised lower before they were finished. Thirty years’ worth of four-year growth estimates show no statistical relationship to the growth that followed.

However, today’s outlook is trickier than in the past, as the expected growth making today’s PEG ratio look so cheap is disproportionately concentrated in a small handful of companies. That earnings growth concentration hinges on AI, a powerful innovation that could be an economic game changer.

PEG says market valuations are cheap while CAPE says they are expensive. CAPE is a report card on what already happened. PEG is a bet on what happens next. Keep that distinction in mind, and the two market valuation charts stop contradicting each other.

Tyler Durden Wed, 09/02/2026 - 15:05
https://ift.tt/EDAh0fk
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/EDAh0fk
via IFTTT

Market Valuation: Expensive CAPE Or Cheap PEG?

Pentagon Launches Grok And ChatGPT For Military Use

Authored by Timothy Frudd via The Epoch Times,

The Department of War announced the launch of two new artificial intelligence (AI) platforms for military use on Aug. 31, expanding the department's platform of AI assistants for military personnel.

Starshield AI's Grok for Government and OpenAI's ChatGPT Mil were both added to the War Department's GenAI.mil generative AI platform on Monday. The Aug. 31 launch came months after the Pentagon announced a partnership with OpenAI to deploy AI models on the Pentagon's classified networks and a partnership with Elon Musk's xAI service to assist personnel with controlled unclassified information.

Announcing the launch of Starshield AI's Grok for Government, the War Department said the AI tool would enable the military to execute missions faster and with more precision in multiple operational contexts. Examples of such contexts include supply chain management for logisticians and market research analysis for acquisition professionals.

The Pentagon said Starshield AI's Grok for Government would provide military personnel with "immediate productivity gains, stronger knowledge continuity, and more secure and efficient collaboration." Capabilities department personnel will have access to include adaptive reasoning modes, customizable workspaces, deep-thinking inference, persistent projects, and reusable "playbooks."

Starshield AI's Grok for Government was accredited for controlled unclassified information at impact level five, a designation given to unclassified information that still requires security safeguards. It was also engineered for "secure, consistent enterprise use," according to the War Department.

With the addition of Starshield AI's Grok for Government to the department's GenAI.mil platform, the Pentagon said military members would have access to another "top-tier generative AI tool." The Pentagon also said the addition of another AI tool would promote a "vibrant" AI ecosystem for the United States and would eliminate its dependence on a single AI provider.

The War Department also announced Monday that it had launched OpenAI's ChatGPT Mil as part of its GenAI.mil platform. Like Starshield AI's Grok for Government, OpenAI's ChatGPT was accredited for controlled unclassified information at impact level five.

"ChatGPT Mil brings a familiar commercial experience into the Department's secure environment, tailored to warfighter needs," the Pentagon said. "The core experience centers on chat, files, projects, and custom GPTs, with additional features sequenced over time."

The department said ChatGPT Mil will support document-heavy unclassified work, including planning, logistics, administration, and policy. Built to support more than 3 million personnel, the AI platform will increase the speed of routine tasks and allow personnel to concentrate on "more critical projects across the Joint Force," the Pentagon said.

"Integrating ChatGPT Mil into GenAI.mil alongside existing frontier AI capabilities establishes a robust, multi-model ecosystem for the warfighter," it added.

The Epoch Times reached out to Starshield AI and OpenAI for comment but did not receive a response before publication time.

The War Department confirmed Monday that more than 1.7 million of its more than 3 million personnel have been onboarded for the department's generative AI platform since GenAI.mil was launched nine months ago.

The launch of the two AI tools for use by War Department personnel comes after the Defense Counterintelligence and Security Agency warned in June that unauthorized "shadow AI" tools could cause data leaks and lead to other security risks.

"Shadow AI encompasses two distinct threat vectors: the intentional use of external commercial or private [large language models], and the activation of embedded AI features within existing government and sensitive networks that have not yet been fully evaluated for security risks," the agency wrote in an assessment.

"When bypassing traditional security controls, both vectors create a massive, unmonitored attack surface where new risks outpace current technical safeguards and governance."

Tyler Durden Tue, 09/01/2026 - 14:20
https://ift.tt/u4lNYBw
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/u4lNYBw
via IFTTT

Pentagon Launches Grok And ChatGPT For Military Use