Connect with us

Published

on

Inflation ticked up in the latest figures from the U.S. government’s Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), released March 12. It’s not a huge rise, but enough to keep the eroding value of the dollar in the headlines, feed Americans’ dissatisfaction with the economy, and be received as very bad news by the White House. The president and his allies work hard to claim credit for what they tout as a thriving economy, but all they’ve done is link the Biden brand to rising prices and a general distaste for the president’s management.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you. Email(Required) EmailThis field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged. Submit

Δ Rising Prices, Again

“The Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U) increased 0.4 percent in February on a seasonally adjusted basis, after rising 0.3 percent in January,” according to the BLS. “Over the last 12 months, the all items index increased 3.2 percent before seasonal adjustment.”

That’s a big improvement over the 9.1 percent that inflation hit in 2022. But it’s still a reminder to the public that the money in their wallets buys less with each passing day. It’s also an open-handed slapthough with the sting felt by consumersto free-spending politicians who long pantomimed concern about inflation while openly pursuing policies that drove prices to rise.

“For years, economic thinkers on the left pushed for more government spending and urged the Federal Reserve to be less paranoid about inflation, with the goal of driving down unemployment as low as possible,” Victoria Guida wrote last month for Politico.

President Joe Biden and company eagerly adopted the idea, pushing for not billions, but trillions of dollars in spending, deficits, and debt on the theory that Americans would like the results.

But “Americans don’t seem very enthused,” Guida added. “Because they really hate inflation.” Inflation Causes Pain

People dislike inflation because it’s death to budgeting, savings, and financial planning. Inflation creates a race between wages and prices, making it difficult to know if income will cover the same groceries, rent, and other costs that it did in the past.

“Real average hourly earnings for all employees decreased 0.4 percent from January to February,” BLS announced the same day it released CPI figures. That said, over the past year, there was “a 1.1-percent increase in real average weekly earnings” according to the same news release. But not all measures point to wages keeping up.

“Inflation-adjusted wages have shrunk by 3.7 percent since the end of 2020,” the Manhattan Institute’s Stephen Miran commented in November, based on the Employment Cost Index, a different BLS measure that shows wages still struggling to catch up with the declining value of the dollar. “Worse, the drop in real wages erased all gains made in the late 2010s.”

Either way, it’s enough to say that inflation makes life unpredictable and causes pain.

In the latest monthly survey by the Financial Times and the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, inflation ranked as the top economic issue on people’s minds as they determined their votes for president, picked by 67 percent of respondents. Almost two-thirds of respondents said they “cut back on non-essential spending, like vacations, eating out, or entertainment” in response to rising prices; half “cut back on spending for food and everyday necessities.”

Unsurprisingly, people are not happy with politicians who visit inflation upon them. In that survey, 45 percent said President Biden’s economic policies hurt the economy (31 percent said they helped) and 59 percent disapproved of his handling of economic issues (36 percent approved). Americans agree with the White House that the president’s self-labeled “Bidenomics” have had an impact, but they don’t like the results. Many economists concur, specifically when it comes to inflation. Government Irresponsibility With Money Causes Inflation

“Inflation comes when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply,” economist John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute wrote this month for the International Monetary Fund. “The source of demand is not hard to find: in response to the pandemic’s dislocations, the US government sent about $5 trillion in checks to people and businesses, $3 trillion of it newly printed money, with no plans for repayment. Other countries enacted similar fiscal expansions and reaped inflation in proportion.”

True, the spending frenzy began when Donald Trump was president, but Biden embraced the idea as his own. Now, the White House boasts of vast “generational investments” that “reverse decades of disinvestment in public goods,” but there’s a direct connection between a tidal wave of government borrowing and spending and the eroding value of people’s money.

“The mantras of the 2010s’secular stagnation,’ ‘modern monetary theory,’ ‘stimulus’which preached that prosperity needed only for the government to borrow or print a huge amount of money and hand it out, are in the dustbin. You asked for it. We tried it. We got inflation, not boom,” adds Cochrane.

That leaves the Biden administration wearing the consequences of the “Bidenomics” spending it touted as an albatross around its own neck. There is no escape from policies which politicians deliberately and publicly embraced when the public turns against them.

“There’s a healthy amount of fear and introspection happening among the architects of these efforts that folks aren’t necessarily buying what we’re selling,” a prominent progressive told Politico’s Guida. Brace for More of the Same

Unfortunately for anybody who fears irresponsible government largesse leading to ever-more economic chaos, the Biden administration seems determined to double down on high spending and massive borrowing in its economic policies going forward.

“For fiscal year 2025, which begins on October 1 of this year, Biden is asking Congress to spend $7.3 trillion while the federal government will collect just $5.5 trillion in taxes,” Reason’s Eric Boehm reported this week. “That will necessitate borrowing $1.8 trillion to make ends meet. Over the 10-year window covered by the president’s budget plan, federal revenues would exceed $70 trillion, but Biden is proposing to spend $86.6 trillion.”

With floods of money from the government linked to eroding purchasing power, it’s interestingfor a certain value of the wordto contemplate what BLS news releases about prices and wages might look like in the years to come. And to anticipate the corresponding pain from pinched budgets.

Continue Reading

Business

Ofwat could be scrapped in water reforms

Published

on

By

Ofwat could be scrapped in water reforms

An independent review of the water industry is to recommend sweeping changes to the way the sector is managed, including the potential replacement of Ofwat with a strengthened body combining economic and environmental regulation.

Former Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe will publish the findings of the Independent Water Commission on Monday, with stakeholders across the industry expecting significant changes to regulation to be at its heart.

The existing regulator Ofwat has been under fire from all sides in recent years amid rising public anger at levels of pollution and the financial management of water companies.

Read more:
Serious water pollution incidents in England up 60% last year

Why has there been a surge in water pollution?

Campaigners and politicians have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain that its focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate investment in infrastructure.

In an interim report, published in June, Sir Jon identified the presence of multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities as a key issue facing the industry.

While Ofwat is the economic regulator, the Environment Agency has responsibility for setting pollution standards, alongside the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

More on Environment

Sir Jon’s final report is expected to include a recommendation that the government consider a new regulator that combines Ofwat’s economic regulatory powers with the water-facing responsibilities currently managed by the EA.

In his interim report, Sir Jon said options for reform ranged from “rationalising” existing regulation to “fundamental, structural options for integrating regulatory remits and functions”.

He is understood to have discussed the implications of fundamental reform with senior figures in industry and government in the last week as he finalised his report.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed is expected to launch a consultation on the proposals following publication of the commission report.

The commission is also expected to recommend a “major shift” in the model of economic regulation, which currently relies on econometric modelling, to a supervisory approach that takes more account of individual company circumstances.

Read more from Sky News:
Police taking no further action over Kneecap’s Glastonbury show
New fee for Britons travelling to EU will cost more than expected

How water can teach Labour a much-needed lesson


Liz Bates

Liz Bates

Political correspondent

@wizbates

On Monday, the government’s long-awaited review into the UK’s water industry will finally report.

The expectation is that it will recommend sweeping changes – including the abolition of the regulator, Ofwat.

But frustrated customers of the water companies could rightly complain that the process of taking on this failing sector and its regulator has been slow and ineffective.

They may be forgiven for going further and suggesting that how Labour has dealt with water is symbolic of their inability to make an impact across many areas of public life, leaving many of their voters disappointed.

This is an industry that has been visibly and rapidly declining for decades, with the illegal sewage dumping and rotting pipes in stark contrast with the vast salaries and bonuses paid out to their executives.

It doesn’t take a review to see what’s gone wrong. Most informed members of the public could explain what has happened in a matter of minutes.

And yet, despite 14 years in opposition with plenty of time to put together a radical plan, a review is exactly what the government decided on before taking on Ofwat.

Month after month, they were asked if they believed the water industry regulator was fit for purpose despite the obvious disintegration on their watch. Every time the answer was ‘yes’.

As in so many areas of government, Labour, instead of acting, needed someone else to make the decision for them, meaning that it has taken over a year to come to the simple conclusion that the regulator is in fact, not fit for purpose.

As they enter their second year in office, maybe this can provide a lesson they desperately need to learn if they want to turn around their fortunes.

That bold decisions do not require months of review, endless consultations, or outside experts to endlessly analyse the problem.

They just need to get on with it. Voters will thank them.

Sir Jon has said the water industry requires long-term strategic planning and stability in order to make it attractive to “low-risk, low-return investors”.

The water industry has long complained that the current model, in which companies are benchmarked against a notional model operator, and penalised for failing to hit financial and environmental standards, risks a “doom loop”.

Thames Water, currently battling to complete an equity process to avoid falling into special administration, has said the imposition of huge fines for failing to meet pollution standards is one of the reasons it is in financial distress.

Publication of the Independent Commission report comes after the Environment Agency published figures showing that serious pollution incidents increased by 60% in 2024, and as Thames Water imposes a hosepipe ban on 15m customers.

Ofwat, Water UK and the Department for the Environment all declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Politics

Bitcoin becomes 5th global asset ahead of “Crypto Week,” flips Amazon: Finance Redefined

Published

on

By

Bitcoin becomes 5th global asset ahead of “Crypto Week,” flips Amazon: Finance Redefined

Bitcoin becomes 5th global asset ahead of “Crypto Week,” flips Amazon: Finance Redefined

Bitcoin adoption has been soaring, leading up to the optimistic regulatory expectations related to “Crypto Week” in Washington.

Continue Reading

Technology

The investor behind Opendoor’s 190% run nearly shut down his fund

Published

on

By

The investor behind Opendoor's 190% run nearly shut down his fund

Courtesy: Opendoor

On June 6, online real estate service Opendoor was so desperate to get its beaten-down stock price back over $1 and stay listed on the Nasdaq that management proposed a reverse split, potentially lifting the price of each share by as much as 50 times.

The stock inched its way up over the next five weeks.

Then Eric Jackson started cheerleading.

Jackson, a hedge fund manager who was bullish on Opendoor years earlier when the company appeared to be thriving and was worth roughly $20 billion, wrote on X on Monday that his firm, EMJ Capital, was back in the stock.

“@EMJCapital has taken a position in $OPEN — and we believe it could be a 100-bagger over the next few years,” Jackson wrote. He added later in the thread that the stock could get to $82.

It’s a long, long way from that mark.

Opendoor shares soared 189% this week, by far their best weekly performance since the company’s public market debut in late 2020. The stock closed on Friday at $2.25. The stock’s highest-volume trading days on record were Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of this week.

Jackson said in an interview on Thursday that the bulk of his firm’s Opendoor purchases came when the stock was in the 70s and 80s, meaning cents, and he’s bought options as well for his portfolio.

Nothing has fundamentally improved for the company since Jackson’s purchases. Opendoor remains a cash-burning, low-margin business with meager near-term growth prospects.

What has changed dramatically is Jackson’s online influence and the size of his following. The more he posts, the higher the stock goes.

“There’s a real hunger for buying the next big thing,” Jackson told CNBC, adding that investors like to find the “downtrodden.”

It’s something Jackson’s firm, based in Toronto, has in common with Opendoor.

Watch CNBC's full interview with Social Capital's Chamath Palihapitiya

When Opendoor went public through a special purpose acquisition company in 2020, it was riding a SPAC wave and broader gains driven by low interest rates and Covid-era market euphoria. Investors pumped money into the riskiest assets, lifting money-losing tech upstarts to astronomical valuations.

Opendoor’s business involved using technology to buy and sell homes, pocketing the gains. Zillow tried and failed to compete.

Opendoor shares peaked at over $39 in Feb. 2021 for a market cap just above $22.5 billion. But by the end of that year, the shares were trading below $15, before collapsing 92% in 2022 to end the year at $1.16.

Rising interest rates hammered the whole tech sector, hitting Opendoor particularly hard as increased borrowing costs reduced demand for homes.

Jackson, similarly, had a miserable 2022, coinciding with the worst year for the Nasdaq since 2008. Jackson said his key client withdrew its money at the end of the year, and “I’ve been small ever since.”

‘Epic comeback’

While his assets under management remain minimal, Jackson’s reputation for getting in early to a rebound story was burnished by the performance of Carvana.

The automotive e-commerce platform lost 98% of its value in 2022 as investors weighed the likelihood of bankruptcy. In the middle of that year, with Carvana still far from bottoming out, Jackson expressed his bullishness. He told CNBC that April that he liked the stock, and then promoted its recovery on a podcast in June. He also said he liked Opendoor at the time.

Investors willing to stomach further losses in 2022 were rewarded with a 1,000% gain in 2023, and a lot more upside from there. The stock closed on Friday at $347.52, up from a low of $3.72 in Dec. 2022, and almost triple its price at the time of Jackson’s appearance on CNBC in April of that year.

After Carvana’s 2022 slide, “then obviously began an epic comeback,” Jackson said. Opendoor, meanwhile, “continued to roll down the mountain,” he said.

Jackson said that the fallout of 2022 led him to pursue a different method of stockpicking. He started hiring a small team of developers, which is now four people, to build out artificial intelligence models. The firm has experimented with several models —some have worked and some haven’t — but he said the focus now is using what he’s learned from Carvana to find “100x” opportunities.

In addition to Opendoor, Jackson has been promoting IREN, a provider of power for bitcoin mining and AI workloads, and Cipher Mining, which is in a similar space. He’s seen his following on Elon Musk‘s social media site X, which he said was stuck for years between 32,000 and 34,000, swell to almost 50,000. And after a lengthy lull, investors are reaching out to him to try and put money into his fund, he said.

Jackson has a lot riding on Opendoor, a company that saw revenue and number of homes sold slip in the first quarter from a year earlier, and racked up almost $370 million in losses over the past four quarters.

In early June, Opendoor announced plans for a reverse split — ranging from 1 for 10 to 1 for 50 — to “give us optionality in preserving our listing on Nasdaq.” With the stock now well over $1, such a move appears less necessary, as shareholders prepare to vote on the proposal on July 28.

“I think it’s a terrible idea,” said Jackson. “Those things usually further cement a company’s move into oblivion rather than hail some big revival.”

Opendoor didn’t respond to a request for comment.

Banking on growth

Analysts are projecting a more than 5% drop in revenue this year, followed by 20% growth in 2026 and 12% expansion in 2017, according to LSEG. Losses are expected to narrow over that stretch.

Jackson said his analysis factors in projections of $11.5 billion in revenue for 2029, which would be well over double the company’s expected sales for this year. He looked at the multiples of companies like Zillow and Carvana, which he said trade for 4 to 7 times forward revenue. Opendoor’s forward price-to-sales ratio is currently well below 1.

With Zillow and Redfin having exited the instant-buying home market, Opendoor faces little competition in allowing homeowners to sell their property online for cash, rather than going through an extended bidding, sales and closing process.

Jackson is banking on revenue growth and increased market share to lead to a profitable business that will push investors to value the company with a multiple somewhere between Zillow and Carvana. At $82, Opendoor would be worth about $60 billion, which is roughly 5 times projected 2029 revenue.

Jackson said his model assumes that “like Carvana, Opendoor can prove that it can permanently turn the tide and get to sustained profitability” so that the “market multiple would get reassessed.”

In the meantime, he’ll keep posting on X.

On Friday, Jackson wrote a thread consisting of 11 posts, recounting the challenge of having “99.5% of my AUM” disappear overnight after his primary investor pulled out in 2022.

“Translation: he fired me for losing him too much money,” Jackson wrote. He said he almost shut down the fund, and was even encouraged to do so by his wife and accountant.

Now, Jackson is using his recent momentum on social media to try and attract investor money, while still reminding prospects that he could lose it.

“All I have is my reputation,” he wrote, “and, unless I keep picking good stocks, it will be gone.”

WATCH: Don’t yet know if IPO market is back to full health

Don't yet know if IPO market is back to full health, says Raymond James' Sunaina Sinha Haldea

Continue Reading

Trending