| 0 comments ]

Uncertainty Rules!

By Elwin de Groot, head of macro strategy at Rabobank

US Treasury yields drifted higher yesterday after the Financial Times reported, citing people close to Fed Chair Kevin Warsh, that he would be prepared to raise rates as early as September if incoming inflation data surprise to the upside and markets themselves begin pricing a more hawkish path. Yet the market reaction was not confined to the front end suggesting investors were not interpreting the story in a straightforwardly hawkish manner.

That ambiguity is understandable. If markets push yields higher on expectations of tighter policy, the Fed may feel less need to deliver that tightening. Note also that Warsh himself was not speaking, and one of his recurring themes has been a dislike of explicit forward guidance. Moreover, September remains some distance away in market time, particularly in an environment where geopolitical developments can overturn macro narratives overnight.

Indeed, whilst oil prices had come down in the early part of this week on the back of renewed signs that the Strait of Hormuz could gradually reopen, those same prices rose again overnight as a convincing agreement remains elusive as it offers no permanent solutions for the key sticking points. Instead, it offers another 60-day window of free transits through Hormuz while further negotiations resume. Reports suggest Iran is looking to restrict US and Israeli ships from the Strait and it’s been ear-deafening silent on the ‘nuclear’ issue, for example. If a deal is agreed, it could be a matter of time until either party expresses frustration with the negotiations again and markets are forced to price in another few weeks of geopolitical tension.

Meanwhile, refined products are feeling the pinch of impending shortages, leading us to revise up sharply our forecasts for diesel, gasoil and marine fuels, as our senior energy analyst Joe DeLaura writes. In Europe, it is the winter-demand pressure that hangs over the market. The underpriced risk is that Europe’s own weather stress raises gas burn through the power sector just as LNG supply risks remain elevated, our senior energy analyst Florence Schmitt writes.

European macro data offered little inspiration yesterday. German factory orders surprised to the upside in June, though largely thanks to volatile big-ticket orders. This morning saw industrial production tick 0.2% m/m higher that month, but this was offset by lower growth in the previous month. Elsewhere, the picture was even less encouraging. Industrial production fell in both Spain and Italy, raising the possibility that the eurozone's preliminary 0.4% q/q GDP growth estimate may yet be revised lower. Eurozone retail sales also disappointed, falling 0.3% m/m in June and largely offsetting May's upwardly revised increase. The broader message is that growth concerns are unlikely to disappear simply because oil prices have eased from their recent highs.

In fact, what increasingly defines the global economy is not any single shock, but the relentless arrival of new ones. Businesses and households are being bombarded (in some regions rather literally) by an overlapping set of disruptions: trade disputes, geopolitical conflict, policy uncertainty, financial market volatility, technological disruption and natural disasters. The first eight months of 2026 have already provided a year's worth of such events.

The obvious example is the Middle East conflict and the disruption of shipping through Hormuz. But it is far from the only one. Investors continue to grapple with uncertainty surrounding the US tariff regime, while questions persist over the sustainability of the AI investment boom and the valuations attached to it. A rising string of hacking reports and AI models behaving unexpectedly has raised concerns over AI’s controllability.

In Europe, concerns are mounting over intensifying Chinese competition and the growing economic costs of climate change. Scorching temperatures, drying rivers and devastating wildfires have already become defining features of this summer. Looking ahead, forecasters are increasingly focused on the emergence of a potential "super El NiƱo" event, which could amplify weather-related disruptions across a wide range of emerging and developed economies.

Yet uncertainty is more than merely a transmission channel for shocks. It is an economic force in its own right.

Franklin D. Roosevelt famously captured this during the depths of the Great Depression when he declared in his first inaugural address that "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself". Nearly a century later, the insight remains remarkably relevant. Uncertainty can paralyze decision-making, delay investment, encourage precautionary saving and ultimately amplify the effects of whatever shock triggered it in the first place.

An interesting ECB study published in its latest Economic Bulletin broadly confirms the point. Looking at the eurozone, the analysis finds that uncertainty shocks tend to reduce investment, particularly spending on tangible capital, as well as consumer purchases of durable goods. The effects are most visible during the first two to four quarters following the shock. Importantly, however, the impact appears largely transitory. After an initial decline, activity tends to recover and the long-run effect on output is limited.

Part of that result may reflect modelling choices. But there is also an intuitive economic explanation: people learn. Households, businesses and investors gradually adapt to recurring shocks. The unfamiliar becomes familiar. What initially causes panic eventually becomes incorporated into decision-making. That observation brings us back to a theme from our Monthly Outlook, Groundhog Day Economics: markets seem to become more accustomed to geopolitical disruptions, yet every recurring script carries the risk of a very different ending.

Interestingly, the same logic may apply in reverse. As our colleague Stefan Koopman argues here, UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham may seek to replace "securonomics" with a form of "vibonomics": generating a series of positive confidence shocks before embarking on more politically difficult structural reforms. The idea is simple enough. If uncertainty depresses activity, improved confidence can temporarily support it.

The key word, however, is temporarily. The lesson from both the ECB's research and recent market experience is that confidence effects can move demand forward in time, but they do not permanently raise an economy's growth potential. Lower precautionary savings may provide a one-off boost to spending. Positive sentiment may temporarily lift GDP. But neither changes the underlying supply capacity of an economy.

Ultimately, uncertainty may rule the headlines, and confidence may shape the near-term cycle. But lasting prosperity still depends on a far less fashionable ingredient: stronger supply-side growth.

Tyler Durden Fri, 08/07/2026 - 14:40
https://ift.tt/tZfgzdx
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/tZfgzdx
via IFTTT

Uncertainty Rules! SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Judge Rules Trump Admin Can End Temporary Protected Status For Haitians

Authored by Jack Phillips via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge on Aug. 5 allowed the Trump administration to end temporary protected status (TPS) for an estimated 350,000 Haitian nationals following a Supreme Court ruling.

U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes ruled that a previous court order that “had stayed the effective date of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s Termination of the Designation of Haiti for Temporary Protected Status pending judicial review … is no longer in effect.”

But Reyes also denied the government’s request to halt discovery in the lawsuit that was filed over TPS in Haiti. She told the plaintiffs and the government to provide a new schedule in the order.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) last year said that around 350,000 Haitian nationals were living in the United States when Noem, who left the administration earlier this year, issued an order ending TPS for the country.

Multiple courts paused enforcement of the order before the Supreme Court in June ruled that the Trump administration could go ahead with rescinding the rule.

Before the judge’s Wednesday ruling at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin warned in an interview that Haitians under the program should leave the United States.

“We’re going after them right now … these individuals can either self-deport or we’ll arrest you and send you back. It’s that simple,” he said.

Under the Biden administration, TPS policies were expanded, allowing hundreds of thousands of people from Ukraine, Afghanistan, Venezuela, Haiti, and other countries to remain in the United States. The Trump administration has moved to revoke TPS for a number of countries, saying that the program was meant to be temporary.

Homeland Security officials said that the TPS program, which was set up under the Immigration Act of 1990, has become a magnet for illegal immigrants in recent years.

“Using TPS to grant temporary status to successive waves of new arrivals from a designated country may generate a significant pull factor for illegal immigration and act in tension with the congressional design,” the agency said in a Federal Register notice.

Meanwhile, DHS said in the Federal Register notice and in court papers that conditions in Haiti no longer justify the designation.

Illegal immigration from Haiti turned into a flashpoint during the 2024 election when vice presidential candidate JD Vance and presidential candidate Donald Trump referred to thousands of Haitian nationals who were living in Springfield, Ohio, generating complaints from residents.

During arguments before the Supreme Court, Geoffrey Pipoly, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, claimed that the TPS termination was due to President Donald Trump’s “racial animus towards non-white immigrants and bare dislike of Haitians, in particular.”

In the high court ruling, a 6–3 majority ruled that the president has the right to start deporting people from Haiti and Syria and that federal law usually bars judicial review of future TPS terminations or designations.

TPS was designated for Haiti in January 2010 following a major earthquake and was extended multiple times.

Tyler Durden Thu, 08/06/2026 - 15:45
https://ift.tt/j2WQc51
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/j2WQc51
via IFTTT

Judge Rules Trump Admin Can End Temporary Protected Status For Haitians SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

DHS Confirms Over 3 Million Total Deportations, Highlights Arrests Of Five More "Worst Of The Worst" Criminal Illegals

Authored by Debra Heine via American Greatness,

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) on Monday arrested five more “worst of the worst” criminal illegal aliens convicted for heinous crimes, including voluntary manslaughter, criminal indecent exposure, aggravated assault, and fentanyl trafficking.

According to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), more than three million illegal aliens have left the United States due to the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown: 2.2 million self-deportations, and over 985,000 deported by DHS.

Each of the five violent criminals highlighted by DHS Tuesday were arrested in deep blue sanctuary cities where anti-ICE agitators continue to harass immigration officers.

  • Fernando Ruiz-Maldonado, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for voluntary manslaughter in Los Angeles, California.

  • Sergio Loya-Lozano, a criminal illegal alien from Mexico, convicted for criminal indecent exposure, hit-and-run, and TWO counts of driving under the influence in San Jose, California.

  • Olman Josue Pineda-Jimenez, a criminal illegal alien from Honduras, convicted for aggravated assault and harassing communications in Charlotte, North Carolina.

  • Heriberto Hernandez-Sosa, a criminal illegal alien from the Dominican Republic, convicted for fentanyl trafficking in Worcester, Massachusetts.

  • Jose Manuel Pertuz-Pena, a criminal illegal alien from Venezuela, convicted for aggravated unlawful use of a weapon in Cook County, Illinois.

Immigration agents continue to carry out their law enforcement duties in blue sanctuary enclaves despite the left’s relentless coordinated campaigns of violence against them.

According to DHS, immigration officers have experienced a 1,300+ percent increase in assaults against them, a 3,300 percent increase in vehicular attacks, and an 8,000 percent increase in death threats.

“Every single day, we are REMOVING criminals from American communities. Just yesterday, ICE arrested murderers, sexual predators, violent assailants, drug traffickers, and other dangerous criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin.

“Under the Trump Administration, the Department of Homeland Security is enforcing the law, deporting criminal illegal aliens, and defending the homeland. It’s no wonder crime rates have reached historic lows.”

DHS has listed over 40,000 illegal alien criminals on their Worst of the Worst (WOW) website which tracks ICE arrests of murderers, rapists, pedophiles, violent gangbangers and arsonists.

A DHS spokesperson told American Greatness Tuesday that over 985,000 illegal aliens have been deported since President Trump took office. An additional 2.2 million have self-deported.

“In President Trump’s first year back in office, more than 3 million illegal aliens have left the U.S. because of the Trump administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration including an estimated 2.2 million self-deportations,” the spokesman said via email.

“As of July 12, we have now deported over 985,000 illegal aliens and arrested over 1 million illegal aliens.”

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 17:00
https://ift.tt/NxaHC7Q
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/NxaHC7Q
via IFTTT

DHS Confirms Over 3 Million Total Deportations, Highlights Arrests Of Five More "Worst Of The Worst" Criminal Illegals SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

Sandisk Tumbles After Revenue, Earnings Forecasts Miss Estimates

Sandisk was one of the largest public holdings of the hedge fund of 24-year-old former wunderkind, Leopold Aschenbrenner, and its July collapse from $2300 to $1000 was chief the main reasons why the former OpenAI employee had to liquidate his extremely overlevered hedge fund and sell all positions at a 10% discount to Citadel to meet a volley of endless margin calls.

Well, if he has some dry powder left he just may be able to repurchase some or all of his portfolio from Ken Griffen following the plunge of Sandisk after hours (we jest, of course), not because earnings were weak - they beat solidly - but because the company's revenue guidance was very disappointing... and for a stock like SNDK which is priced to perfection beyond 2030 on the assumption that nobody else can produce the biggest commodity product in electronics - memory chips - the guidance was rather dismal. 

Here is what SNDK reported for fiscal Q4:

  • EPS $39.25 vs Est. $34.37
  • Revenue $8.97BN vs Est. $8.64BN
    • Data Center Revenue $3.0B vs Est. $2.6B
  • Operating Income $7.0B vs Est. $6.4B
    • Adjusted gross margin 84.6%, estimate 81.5%
  • Free cash flow $7.08 billion

And while historical were fine, it was the company's Q1 guidance that sent its stock tumbling after hours: 

  • Sees revenue $10.30 billion to $10.80 billion, far below the median estimate of $11.16 billion 
  • Sees adjusted EPS $44.00 to $46.00, a midline also below the estimate $45.58

Commenting on the results, SNDK said that "as the cloud and other data-intensive workloads continue to expand, we remain confident in the long-term growth trajectory of our business, further margin expansion, and strong free cash flow generation."

Perhaps, although one look at prevailing NAND prices indicates that the peak is now well in the rearview mirror...

... and the market agrees with the stock, which surged about 40% in the past few days since the Citadel takeover of the Situational Awareness hedge fund, sliding and back to about half of its all time high hit in early June.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:45
https://ift.tt/niCSlBa
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/niCSlBa
via IFTTT

Sandisk Tumbles After Revenue, Earnings Forecasts Miss Estimates SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend
| 0 comments ]

They Really Don't Care

Authored by Todd Hayen via Off-Guardian.org,

This might not apply to all sheep-types, but many of the ones I have encountered simply do not care. This could be the reason we can’t seem to get through to them with the facts we are constantly shoving down their throats. Of course, the ones I’ve talked to may just be saying they don’t care to shut me up, but I really don’t think so. They seem pretty sincere.

How could they not care? Now, that is the $64,000 question. People, in general, do not care about things they do not see directly affecting them. They should, but they don’t. People these days, at least, don’t seem very skilled at discerning things that will—if not cared about—eventually bite them in the ass. I think people used to be better at determining such things.

They used to see war in a neighbouring country, for example, and say, “Hmmm, if we don’t do something about that, those bloodthirsty marauders may be over here next.” People who thought that way—speculating about a potential ass-bite—actually disappeared a long time ago, if they ever existed at all.

Still, my point stands: if it doesn’t directly affect them in the present moment, they don’t care.

Sorry, I think that is weird.

And, of course, people seem very inconsistent about this.

Some things they do care about, and usually those things are not as important as the things they should care about.

Take immigration control and enforcement, for example. Most people leaning to the left seem to care very much about the treatment ICE gives to people suspected (or legally determined) to be in the US illegally. They worry about their rights, their families, and the way they are arrested and deported. Yes, some of these worries are legitimate.

Everyone should be treated fairly and respectfully by law enforcement officials, and if they are not, it is right to complain about it through the proper channels. But none of these people seem the least bit concerned about how millions of illegal—and often criminal—people will degrade the way of life for everyone already living here.

I often ask, “So, do you want open borders then, and as a result, never have laws about enforcing the rules regarding immigration?” They will invariably say, “Oh no, I do believe we should control our borders!” Go figure.

The same story goes for free speech. People may seem to care about hate speech and speech that does not fit their worldview, such as Charlie Kirk’s speaking about the negatives regarding transgenderism or abortion. But if you ask them, “So, you don’t believe in free speech then? You think the First Amendment of the US Constitution is idealistic hooey?” They will invariably say, “No, of course I believe in free speech!” But they don’t. Go figure.

They can’t see far enough ahead to recognize the consequences of cherry-picking speech—eliminating what they think is offensive and keeping only the “important stuff.” Unfortunately, you can’t do that, and up until recently people knew that. There is a consequence for freedom, and sometimes it isn’t pretty.

I think a lot of the time this “I don’t care” attitude stems from the fact that people don’t seem to care much about principles. Of course, that does depend on the “principle.” Using the immigration example again to illustrate this point: those against deporting illegal aliens seem to care about the principle of “kindness” and “loving your neighbour” and “no one should be hurt, for pretty much any reason.”

Yet they contradict this attitude in dozens of ways: expecting that people be put into prison for not calling someone by their chosen pronoun, or arresting someone giving a speech about the atrocities being committed in Gaza—they see these examples as hate speech. In these cases, it is fine to be arrested. But sneaking into the US illegally, or doing so and lying about your criminal record? That’s all okay.

I feel the shrew-types are (see my Substack for a definition of “shrew”) very aware of principles. The destruction of free speech and even the obliteration of privacy in the US is not necessarily affecting people directly (except during Covid, when it certainly did, with persecution toward the unvaccinated and the loss of jobs and livelihoods). It is a “principle thing” for a lot of us. It is the wanton destruction of the very fundamentals our country (the US) was founded on.

Not only our constitutional rights, but the inalienable rights our Creator granted us. The writing on the wall exclaiming a future none of us will be comfortable in is clear and present. We hear the train a-comin’, rolling ‘round the bend…And it doesn’t look good.

So maybe shrews also don’t freak out over injustices until we feel them, but maybe we also see what’s on the horizon more logically and pragmatically than the sheep-types do. But that too is arguable. The sheepies certainly have no problem losing their cookies over Trump, even though there is little he is doing that directly affects them in a bad way (until recently, at least).

They too claim to be looking at future calamity to justify their hate. Yet Canadians adore Carney, and can’t seem to see what his antics are bringing onto Canada: soaring inflation and grocery prices, ballooning deficits and national debt (now larger than the economy), higher taxes, and escalating trade tensions with the US through tariff retaliation and protectionist policies that critics argue risk recession and long-term economic decline. Or, probably the most devastating, getting into bed with China and the Chinese Communist Party (“It’s not Communism,” they love to bellow, “It’s socialism.” Ha ha.)

We see these inconsistencies in a variety of ways. Obama’s approach to drone warfare was entirely ignored, yet anything Trump did that was similar (before the Iran catastrophe) was considered criminal.

But do they really care? Or are they just oddly selective about what they care about?

Maybe it is more the latter we are seeing. Maybe they do care, but about strangely inappropriate things. And then not care about things that are very appropriate to care about. Got me. All I can say for certain is that it is weird. Very weird. And I do care about that.

Tyler Durden Wed, 08/05/2026 - 16:20
https://ift.tt/kG5TuVP
from ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/kG5TuVP
via IFTTT

They Really Don't Care SocialTwist Tell-a-Friend