PPCC: Pisitófilos Creditófagos. Primavera 2025

[saturno]

A quien le importa lo que diga un chatbot.
...

El dedo no debe impedirnos ver la luna.
Asistimos a una lucha por la supremacía en la gestión de la mentira.

Si, y aprovecho para insistir:

Indicad por favor el botAI cuando traeis una contestación o resumen de artículos. Basta indicar "Créditos: NotebookLM, DeepSeek, Perplexity, etc."
Si es una contestación, indicar la pregunta (el 'prompt')
Si es una relectura, poner el crédito después del link al artículo.
Etc.

Lo mismo para la traducciones, ya lo comenté. Si habeís montado la AI en local, contad cómo lo hicisteis en cualquier post (hilo STEM o AIG), y poner de crédito vuestro link.

Bien usados son interesantes, pero sólo son eso : fuentes

Además, no se lee del mismo modo un post donde el forero se ha dedicado a pensar por sí mismo, y porque sabes que tiene leido TE.net. En ese caso estás dialogando con el autor, mientras que si ves que viene con "crédito", lo tomas como una referencia más que no intentas enjuiciar.

Saludos.

[senslev]

En estos gráficos se ve muy bien qué ocurrió cuando los bbcc implementaron sus políticas de QEs, etc. La delta de Dirac comienza sobre 2012 y acaba sobre 2023, justo durante el infame periodo de  QE & Zirp.

Si los bbcc son El Capital, muy bien no parece que lo hayan hecho. O, viendo que esas políticas estaban provocando algo que supuestamente no buscaban (siendo benévolos), ¿por qué no dieron marcha atrás?. Es decir, si la culpa es de los jugadores, y viendo que los jugadores se estaban aprovechando de la situación y renegando de El Capital, ¿por qué no tomaron otro camino?.

Esperando al -66,6%. Lo más importante, que se quede ahí, en los infiernos.

[Derby]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvg838qq7zqo

Why everyone is suddenly so interested in US bond markets



Stock markets around the world have been relatively settled this week after a period of chaos, sparked by US trade tariffs.

But investors are still closely watching a part of the market which rarely moves dramatically - the US bond market.

Governments sell bonds - essentially an IOU - to raise money for public spending and in return they pay interest.

Recently, in an extremely rare move the rate the US government had to pay on its bonds rose sharply, while the price of bonds themselves fell.

The volatility suggests investors were losing confidence in the world's biggest economy.

You may think it's too esoteric to bother you, but here's why it matters and how it may change President Trump's mind on tariffs.

What is a government bond?

When a government wants to borrow money, it usually does so by selling bonds - known as "Treasuries" in the US - to investors on financial markets.

Such payments are made over a number of pre-agreed years before a full and final payment is made when the bond "matures" - in other words, expires.

Investors who buy bonds are mainly made up of financial institutions, ranging from pension funds to central banks like the Bank of England.

What is happening with US bonds?

Investors buy government bonds because they are seen as a safe place to invest their money. There is little risk a government will not repay the money, especially an economic superpower like the US.

So when the economy is turbulent and investors want to take money out of volatile stocks and shares markets, they usually place that cash in US bonds.

But recently that hasn't happened.

Initially, following the so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs announcement on 2 April when shares fell, investors did appear to flock to US bonds.

However, when the first of these tariffs kicked in on 5 April and Trump doubled down on his policies that weekend, investors began dumping government bonds, sending the interest rate the US government would have to pay to borrow money up sharply.

The so-called yield for US government borrowing over 10 years shot up from 3.9% to 4.5%, while the 30-year yield spiked at almost 5%. Movements of 0.2% in either direction are considered a big deal.

Why the dramatic sell-off? In short, the uncertainty over the impact of tariffs on the US economy led to investors no longer seeing government bonds as such a safe bet, so demanded bigger returns to buy them.

The higher the perceived risk, the higher the yield investors want to compensate for taking it.

How does this affect ordinary Americans?

If the US government is spending more on debt interest repayments, it can affect budgets and public spending as it becomes more costly for the government to sustain itself.

But it can also have a direct impact on households and even more so on businesses.

John Canavan, lead analyst at Oxford Economics, says when investors charge higher rates to lend the government money, other rates for lending that have more risk attached, such as mortgages, credit cards and car loans, also tend to rise.

Businesses, especially small ones, are likely to be hardest hit by any immediate change in borrowing rates, as most homeowners in the US have fixed-rate deals of between 15 and 30 years. If businesses can't get access to credit, that can halt economic growth and lead to job losses over time.

Mr Canavan adds that banks can become more cautious in lending money, which could impact the US economy.

First-time buyers and those wishing to move home could also face higher costs, he says, which could impact the housing market in the longer term. It's common in the US for small business owners starting out to use the equity in their home as collateral.

Why does Trump care?

Following the introduction of tariffs, Trump urged his nation to "hang tough", but it appears the potential threat to jobs and the US economy stopped the president in his tracks.

Following the ructions in the bond markets, he introduced a 90-day pause for the higher tariffs on every country except China. The 10% blanket tariff, however, on all countries remains.

It proved a pressure point for Trump - and now the world knows it.

"Although President Donald Trump was able to resist the stock market sell-off, once the bond market began to weaken too, it was only a matter of time before he folded," says Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist at Capital Economics.

According to US media reports, it was Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, inundated with calls from business leaders, who played a key part in swaying Trump.

Is this similar to Liz Truss's mini-Budget?

The bond market reaction has led to comparisons with former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss's infamous mini-Budget of September 2022. The unfunded tax cuts announced then spooked investors, who dumped UK government bonds, resulting in the Bank of England stepping in to buy bonds to save pension funds from collapse.

Some analysts suggested that America's central bank, the US Federal Reserve, might have been forced to step in if the sell-off had worsened.

While bond yields have settled, some might argue the damage has already been done as they remain higher than before the blanket tariffs kicked in.

"Arguably the most worrying aspect of the [recent] turmoil... is an emerging risk premium in US Treasury bonds and the dollar, akin to what the UK experienced in 2022," according to Jonas Goltermann, deputy chief markets economist at Capital Economics.

But unless you're a first-time buyer or selling your home, Americans are unlikely to be immediately hit by higher mortgage costs, unlike Brits who were securing new shorter-term fixed deals.

How is China being linked to US bonds?

Since 2010, foreign ownership of US bonds has almost doubled, rising by $3 trillion, according to Deutsche Bank.

Japan holds the most US Treasuries, but China, the US's arch enemy in this global trade war, is the second biggest holder of US government debt globally.

Questions were raised about whether it sparked the debt sell-off in response to being hit with huge tariffs.

However, this is unlikely as any fire sale "would impoverish China more than it would hurt the US", according to Capital Economics.

[senslev]

Esta es la posible distribución masiva de 2025 que comenté hace un tiempo.

https://x.com/onechancefreedm/status/1913986195756814387

We’re watching a coordinated exit at the top of a hyper-financialized cycle. These charts aren’t random they connect. Powell’s easing on June 12, 2024 sparked a retail-led melt-up, but institutions knew the clock was ticking. NVDA peaking four days later wasn’t coincidence it was signal. The Buffett Indicator flashing 211% of GDP, record real estate equity, extreme S&P concentration, and bottom-50% households holding just 2.4% of wealth? That’s not capitalism it’s extraction.

So while retail chases momentum, insiders are using Fed liquidity to rotate out of overvalued megacaps. “Unleashing home equity” sounds populist but in this context, it’s just a liquidity bridge for the top 0.1% to offload into strength. The danger? If capital doesn’t flow into productive assets post-rotation, this ends with margin calls, not a middle-class recovery.

Where could this view collapse?

If policymakers manage to redirect liquidity into real economy capex, small caps, and housing while avoiding another bubble, maybe the transition sticks. But history says: once the exit begins at the top, the bottom doesn’t get a memo it gets the bill.

https://x.com/levenson_david/status/1913954111784992778

Pretty crazy that someone could think that the most overvalued market in history(relative to the size of the economy) and the most concentrated market since the September 3, 1929 peak of the roaring 20s is "crashing" because of some administration policy.

Pretty crazy that someone who pretends to care about working class Americans wants
7 giant tech companies and
7 giant banks(JPM BAC C WFC GS MS SCHW) to rise through record overvaluation to allow oligarchs to exit their holdings at insanity prices instead of allowing investors lower prices to invest in when they buy shares in public companies.

Pretty crazy that some people want oligarchs to stay super rich and suck up the available global capital and crowd out the 50% of Americans that own no direct equity and want lower rent from lower interest rates that occur during weaker equities and some of those 50% of Americans and the next 40% who want lower equities so that equities stop sucking in all global capital that his kept the US housing markets in hibernation since the Powell started raising rates in the Biden administration.

Unleash home equity.

Unleash housing activity.

Stop favoring 14 companies;

 That are more than half the enterprise value SP500

That are more than 100% of GDP

That only hires fewer than 3% of Americans.

Unleash the capital, you oligarchophile.

Current administration policies will accelerate the capital outflows from #T7Q3 Mag 7 and #B7C3 Bank 7 and the cloud cartel contagion.

Residential mortgage backed securities (UMBS), low volatility equities, and eventually low capitalization companies have been starved of capital for years due to Powell then Powell and Biden.

Powell started easing on June 12, 2024 by QT reduction of $420 billion ~ 42bp equivalent of easing.

NVDA peaked 4 trading days later.

The prompt equity rally will be used widely by institutions to exit tech + big banks.




67% = 66,6 redondeando

[Derby]

https://www.fxleaders.com/news/2025/04/19/ditching-powell-1-trillion-meltdown/

Ditching Powell = $1 Trillion Meltdown?

Crypto investor and entrepreneur Anthony Pompliano is sounding the alarm on what he sees as a dangerous idea gaining traction—firing Federal



Quick overview

*Crypto investor Anthony Pompliano warns against firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, citing potential negative impacts on market stability.

*Former President Donald Trump has called for Powell's removal, claiming the Fed has failed to cut interest rates quickly enough.

*Pompliano argues that politicizing the Fed could undermine trust in its independence and scare global markets, risking significant financial fallout.

*He emphasizes the importance of protecting the institution of the Fed to maintain confidence in the U.S. economy and prevent potential losses in the market.

Crypto investor and entrepreneur Anthony Pompliano is sounding the alarm on what he sees as a dangerous idea gaining traction—firing Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell

In a video posted on X (formerly Twitter) on April 18, Pompliano pushed back against calls from former President Donald Trump, who recently demanded Powell’s removal over what he called a failure to cut interest rates fast enough.

“Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough,” Trump wrote on Truth Social, accusing the Fed of hurting the economy.

Pompliano didn’t mince words:

“The idea of firing the Fed chairman over a policy disagreement? That’s a really bad precedent.”

His point? If the President starts ousting central bank leaders based on political preferences, markets could lose faith in one of the world’s most important financial institutions.

Why This Could Crash the Market

Firing Powell, or any Fed Chair, is about more than one person—it’s about the perception of U.S. financial stability. And when that perception cracks, money moves—fast.

Senator Elizabeth Warren echoed this on CNBC, warning that such a move could shake global investor confidence and even crash:

“A big part of keeping our economy strong is that key institutions stay independent of politics.”

Pompliano agreed. Here’s what he says is at risk:

*Undermining trust in the Fed’s independence

*Scaring global markets, particularly those tied to the dollar

*Setting a “slippery slope” precedent for future political interference

Imagine the fallout if investors suddenly believe U.S. monetary policy is being controlled by political pressure rather than economic data. We’ve seen what panic can do—and this could wipe trillions off global markets.

What It Means for Crypto and the Economy

Interestingly, this debate comes at a time when the Fed is more entangled with crypto policy than ever.

Earlier this week, Powell called for clear legal frameworks for stablecoins, saying digital assets are now on the Fed’s radar. “The climate is changing,” he said, referencing crypto’s role in the financial system during a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago.

Pompliano has criticized the Fed’s monetary strategy before, but even he draws the line at retaliatory politics:

“Just because someone else does something wrong doesn’t mean you should too.”He’s saying it could backfire—big time—not just for the dollar, but for Bitcoin, stocks, and global confidence in the U.S. economy.

Bottom Line: Trust Is the Real Currency

Whether you like Powell or not, Pompliano’s point is simple: protect the institution, not the individual. In a world already on edge over inflation, tariffs and geopolitics, the U.S. can’t afford to blow one of its few remaining stable things up.

Fire Powell and you may not just lose a Fed Chair—you could lose a trillion.

[Derby]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/the-stock-market-may-not-have-fully-priced-in-a-recession-chart-of-the-week-123019659.html

The stock market may not have fully priced in a recession: Chart of the Week

President Trump's wide-ranging tariffs have sent the stock market tumbling and recession fears soaring.

As the dust settles and markets wait for more information on the result of the administration's 90-day tariff pause, the pressing question for investors is how much of an economic slowdown the recent stock market sell-off has priced in.

Market history suggests that if the economy is indeed headed for recession, stocks might have further to fall.

"I'm not sure the stock market has quite processed the probability of a recession," Ritholtz Wealth Management chief market strategist Callie Cox told Yahoo Finance.

"Usually when you get a recession, you get a bear market, or you get you get the [S&P 500] falling a lot more than it has."

As our chart of the week shows, the S&P 500 (^GSPC) has seen a larger drawdown than the 18.9% peak-to-trough drop in the index this year during each recession since 1973.

In other words, should a recession result from Trump's tariff plans and the index not make new lows, this year's drop would be the mildest stock market reaction to an economic downturn in at least 50 years.



"The market correction is well advanced, but probably not complete IF we end up in a recession or the fear of one gets more fully priced," Morgan Stanley chief investment officer Mike Wilson wrote in a note to clients on April 13.

As economists have dissected the impact of Trump's tariffs, many have argued recession odds are rising as the new hefty duties are expected to boost inflation and weigh on economic growth.

Goldman Sachs economists most recently placed the odds of a recession in the next 12 months at 45%, well above the historical average of 15% over any 12-month period. JPMorgan has already issued a forecast for a recession later this year. Same with Renaissance Macro's head of economics Neil Dutta.

Moody's Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi believes a recession is more likely than not, placing 60% odds on the economy rolling over in the next 12 months. Zandi told Yahoo Finance that if the Trump administration takes an "off ramp" and lowers some threatened tariffs, the economy could skirt recession.

"That doesn't feel like what's going to happen, at least not right now," Zandi said.

Wall Street strategists have responded to rising recession fears in kind, with many lowering their price targets for the S&P 500 this year.

Citi, for instance, recently lowered its year-end S&P 500 price target to 5,800 from a prior target of 6,500. At least nine other Wall Street banks tracked by Yahoo Finance have cut their S&P 500 forecasts amid the fallout from Trump's tariffs. Teams at Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Evercore ISI, RBC Capital Markets, and JPMorgan each see the S&P 500 now ending 2025 at 5,700 or lower.

The index closed on Thursday at 5,282.

This makes Citi's forecast relatively optimistic, reflecting 9% upside from current levels and a world in which trade negotiations are successful over the next 90 days and the effective US tariff moves lower.

If negotiations don't materialize and tariffs weigh more heavily on the economy Citi's bear case sees the S&P 500 end the year at 4,700.

"That is more of an aggressive slowdown," Citi equity strategist Drew Pettit told Yahoo Finance. "That's actual recession. That's an actual hit to long-term earnings growth for companies ... Right now, the market is not pricing in the added risk."

[asustadísimos]

[Esta crisis (coyuntura+estructura+sistema) no es como las que ha habido desde principios de s. XIX. Son dos cosas las que la hacen diferente:
• la vivienda, un bien de 1.ª necesidad y consumo obligatorio, estratégico para la Nación, y que se financia con rentas salariales, al que le ha salido una inmensa tumoración maligna: un horrendo activo ficticio; y
• China, casi una quinta parte de la humanidad trabajando para que acumule Capital una sola persona jurídico-pública.

Es un error confrontar con China. Pero el anglo tiene voceros que la menosprecian.

En España, la derecha lo tiene claro: estrategia del pangolín: hacerse una bola de escamas rígidas:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ez3aoyvOSC2fMCFg8TYcs6V_n5362wZy/view





Ya que, en la arena política internacional, el «Sááánchez» es chuletón al punto, «imbatible», ¡cierre de filas en el patio de luces!

¿Cómo un informe sobre estrategia política local (con vocación de guía política general, pero en un país inscrito en una estructura supraestatal paneuropea —moneda, aduanas, defensa— gobernada por la derecha) se olvida de una cosa que se llama 'proceso estructural de la economía capitalista'? No puede razonablemente hacerse un informe de este tipo quitando de en medio a las dos fuentes objetivas del pseudofrentepopulismo actual, el antiladrillo y el antidólar —las dos cosas proeuro—. No cuela pedir ahora más 'mercao' y más genuflexión ante EE. UU. por Marruecos. Ahora, si quieres ganar las elecciones, tienes que pedir más Plan & UE. El electorado sabe que España 'agoniza' por culpa del ladrillo y del anglo.

Las dos debilidades de esta derecha son la negación de la situación crítica del ladrillo y del dólar.

El telón de fondo es muy muy serio desde el punto de vista histórico: el abandono del liberalismo clásico, el bienestarismo y la tradición, dejándose penetrar por individualistas sin escrúpulos que van a lo suyo, incluso delinquiendo gravísimamente (facturación falsa, criptoestafas...).

La derecha es mayoritariamente derecha conservadora-de-modelo, contestataria y críptica. Y está plagada de gafes,  trufados de segundones pobretones, algunos muertos, como Julián Marías y César Alonso de los Ríos. A este segundo fui presentado de joven, en una triste noche madrileña de joda alcohólica, que dirían en Argentina.

En la derecha española está habiendo una guerra civil entre proanglo y españolistas. La están ganando los proanglo vergonzantemente. En el informe del que hablamos sale la palabra España 227 veces, pero es proanglo.

Si no, en este Madrid, donde el electorado por el Ladrillo quiere que mande la derecha, que se cambie el nombre a la callecilla de 'Méjico' con jota y se le dé a ese gran país hispano una plaza o una avenida como Dios manda, y con x, México, como es. Encima, siendo los mexicanos los extraterrestres que se supone que le están sacando las castañas del fuego a los 'himbersores' locales.]

[senslev]

Me queda por resolver el problema de los dólares que posee el resto del mundo.

https://x.com/KobeissiLetter/status/1913599765608010231

Saludos.

Gracias cadavre.

Ayuda a cuantificar.
En todo caso, mi problema no es tanto cuantificar como comprender qué estrategias de desecho del dolar se van a llevar a cabo, y si son acordadas entre los jugadores o no.
Además, entiendo que la deuda pública es sólo una parte del mar de dólares, y hay otra mucho mayor proveniente de deuda corporativa y de comercio internacional.

Alguien se anima?

Sds.

La respuesta es de NotebookLM teniendo como fuente el libro "Broken Money" de Lyn Alden. No me lo he leído aún, pero quería ver bajo su marco conceptual (análisis del dinero como una tecnología en evolución) cómo respondía.

Según las fuentes, la interpretación y respuesta a su comentario serían las siguientes:

En cuanto a las estrategias de desecho del dólar ("de-dolarización"), las fuentes sugieren que este es un **proceso complejo influenciado por diversos factores y no necesariamente resultado de acuerdos coordinados entre todos los actores**.

*   La **supremacía del dólar** en el sistema financiero global se ha construido sobre su rol como moneda de reserva, unidad de cuenta para el comercio internacional (especialmente el petróleo gracias a acuerdos históricos), y la fortaleza económica y militar de los Estados Unidos. Esta demanda global del dólar existe en parte de forma natural y en parte debido a relaciones con Estados Unidos.

*   Sin embargo, las fuentes también implican que hay **tensiones y potenciales cambios** en esta dinámica. La existencia de un sistema "neocolonial" monetario centrado en el dólar genera incentivos para que otras naciones, especialmente las que se encuentran en la periferia, sufran las consecuencias de la volatilidad e inflación impulsadas por las naciones centrales.

*   Se mencionan **alternativas** o factores que podrían llevar a una disminución del predominio del dólar, como el concepto de monedas supranacionales (como el "bancor" propuesto por Keynes), el uso de activos como el oro o Bitcoin para liquidaciones internacionales, y la posibilidad de que países busquen proteger su "soberanía monetaria".

*   Las acciones de países como Argentina, al prohibir activos digitales para proteger su moneda local, aunque no es una de-dolarización directa, reflejan una **lucha por mantener el control sobre su sistema monetario** en un contexto de alternativas crecientes. (esto no se si era ya con Zoolander 3 o no).

*   La fuente también señala que **intentar desafiar la hegemonía del dólar puede tener consecuencias**, mencionando la "guerra de propaganda" contra países que han intentado, por ejemplo, fijar el precio del petróleo en euros. Esto sugiere que el mantenimiento del estatus del dólar no es pasivo y puede encontrar resistencia a esfuerzos coordinados de de-dolarización.

En cuanto a la deuda pública como solo una parte del "mar de dólares", las fuentes **confirman que la magnitud de las obligaciones en dólares va mucho más allá de la deuda pública**.

*   Se describe un sistema financiero moderno donde el dinero se crea principalmente a través de la **creación de deuda**. Esto incluye no solo la deuda gubernamental, sino también la **deuda corporativa** y otras formas de crédito.

*   La **actividad del comercio internacional** denominada en dólares también representa una demanda y un volumen significativo de esta moneda fuera de las fronteras de Estados Unidos. El sistema Eurodollar/Petrodollar es un ejemplo de cómo los dólares circulan y se utilizan en transacciones internacionales, creando una capa de obligaciones en dólares fuera del sistema bancario estadounidense tradicional.

*   El sistema bancario de **reserva fraccionaria a nivel internacional** también contribuye a esta vasta cantidad de dólares. Los bancos extranjeros pueden mantener depósitos en dólares en bancos estadounidenses y, a su vez, ofrecer depósitos denominados en dólares, creando una cadena de pasivos en dólares a nivel global.

En resumen, si bien existe un reconocimiento de que la dependencia del dólar puede generar problemas y que hay incentivos y algunas tentativas para explorar alternativas, las fuentes sugieren que una de-dolarización coordinada a gran escala enfrenta desafíos significativos debido a la inercia del sistema actual, los intereses de las potencias dominantes y la complejidad de encontrar alternativas igualmente líquidas y aceptadas globalmente. Además, la masa de dólares en circulación y en forma de deuda es vasta y abarca mucho más que la deuda pública estadounidense.

Según esto, diría que el proceso de de-dolarización, si se va dando, va a provocar lo que está provocando. Hostias proxy y hostias virtuales.

[Derby]

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/19/business/trump-law-firms.html

Why Big Law Firms Aren’t Standing Together Against Trump’s Assault

The arms race for talent seems to have made collective action, within and between firms, nearly impossible.

Years before the law firm Paul Weiss struck a deal with President Trump over an executive order that threatened its business, the storied New York partnership made another fateful decision. It raided a competitor for a group of lawyers with an exceptionally profitable client, the private equity and credit firm Apollo Global Management.

Though Paul Weiss had done some work for Apollo, seizing so much of the client’s business all at once, in 2011, was seen as a coup. Over the next decade, Paul Weiss reportedly brought in hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue as it helped the acquisitive Apollo gobble up everything from the University of Phoenix to Chuck E. Cheese.

Poaching those lawyers identified the firm as a major player in an escalating arms race for legal talent. That race, however, began to weaken the bonds among lawyers that had long held firms like Paul Weiss together. And, over time, that weakening may have made them more vulnerable to pressure from President Trump.

Large law firms have traditionally cultivated talent from within, hiring young lawyers out of law school or clerkships and promoting the very best to partner after several years. While that convention still exists, it has been eroding over time, as firms increasingly view their peer firms as a recruiting pool.

In the past decade, the competition has become especially fierce for so-called transactional lawyers, who advise clients on deals like mergers and acquisitions. Firms court the partners who handle this lucrative work with promises of guaranteed paydays that can exceed $10 million or even $20 million a year with the expectation that they will bring in new business.

This free-agent model is great for individual lawyers and firm profits. The downside is fragility. When prominent law firms largely promoted from within, most partners stayed put for much of their career. But when a firm’s biggest moneymakers feel empowered to come and go, they have little incentive to ride out adversity. Over the past two decades, the prospect of bumpy times ahead has occasionally become self-fulfilling, leading to an exodus of lawyers who take clients with them and prompting a firm’s collapse. A Yale Law professor, John Morley, has compared this process to a bank run.

It was the risk of such a run that appeared to weigh on Brad Karp, the chairman of Paul Weiss, as he negotiated with the White House. “We learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys,” he wrote to colleagues after announcing the deal.

A similar anxiety may have motivated Paul Weiss’s peers. In the days after its White House deal, the large law firms Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, Milbank and Willkie Farr & Gallagher all reached deals that appeared intended to avoid executive orders targeting their own business. The firms did not respond to requests for comment.

When prominent law firms first ramped up their efforts to pry moneymakers away from rivals, they could not have anticipated landing in a president’s cross hairs someday. Mr. Trump’s actions fall outside longstanding norms. He has berated firms for their diversity policies and their connections to lawyers he perceives as enemies, and he has signed executive orders impeding them from doing business with the federal government or federal contractors.

Legal scholars have called the orders unconstitutional, as have some of the targeted firms. But others have stayed silent. At a time when many prominent lawyers say it is essential for firms to stick together and fight back, the shift toward free agency has made collective action increasingly difficult, said Nate Eimer of the litigation boutique Eimer Stahl.

Mr. Eimer is a co-author of a legal brief supporting law firms targeted by Mr. Trump’s executive orders that hundreds of firms have signed. But so far almost none of the country’s largest or most profitable firms — generally the most active players in the market for high-priced legal talent — have joined them.

“The idea of a profession that is sort of dedicated to a certain ethic is maybe less prevalent,” Mr. Eimer said. “Instead, it’s more of a culture of profit-making that drives almost all the big law firms.”

The Talent War Begins

Courting legal talent at rival firms has happened for generations. But it seemed to accelerate in the 1980s, after The American Lawyer, a legal trade publication, began publishing annual rankings of firms by profits per partner, the amount of money each partner netted the firm on average. Almost overnight, it became much easier for lawyers to recognize if they were paid less than their peers, and for competing firms to identify them and offer a pay increase.

Longtime recruiters and lawyers say the war for talent escalated again in the wake of the dot-com meltdown in 2000, led in part by the Chicago-founded firm Kirkland & Ellis. As investors sought higher returns, tens of billions of dollars flowed into private equity funds, which have traditionally acquired companies with an eye toward boosting their profits and then selling them or taking them public.

At the time, Kirkland was known primarily for doing litigation, but its leaders saw that they could make large fees advising this growing industry. While litigation clients are likely to scrutinize their legal bills closely, the ones doing multibillion-dollar deals don’t tend to get uptight about a few million dollars here or there, said Bruce MacEwen, the president of Adam Smith Esq., which advises law firms on business strategy.

Though the biggest private equity firms already had top law firms, Kirkland sought out more obscure funds that were becoming flush during the boom. Then, with its profits surging from the new business, Kirkland turned around and did something almost unheard-of: It began luring deal-making lawyers away from the most prestigious firms by offering to raise their pay, sometimes even doubling or tripling it.

Kirkland exploited the fact that some prominent firms were still using lock-step compensation — meaning similarly tenured lawyers made similar amounts, regardless of their value to the partnership. By contrast, Kirkland paid highly productive lawyers what they were actually worth.

“Kirkland was willing to take big swings knowing that not all of them would work out, but most of them did,” said Jon Truster, a longtime recruiter at Macrae, a legal recruiting firm.

Over the next decade, Kirkland hired lawyers away from venerable New York firms like Cravath, Swaine & Moore and Skadden Arps. It poached so many lawyers from Simpson Thacher & Bartlett that the firm, one of the country’s most pedigreed, was called “Kirkland’s AAA farm club” by a Kirkland partner. (A Kirkland official said that it was a mindless comment made by a former partner many years ago and that the firm had nothing but respect for Simpson Thacher.)

Rivals sometimes complained that the strategy trampled on the genteel norms of the industry. But the strategy was a commercial success: Since 2007, Kirkland’s profits per equity partner have more than doubled after accounting for inflation. That figure topped $9 million last year, according to ALM, the parent company of The American Lawyer.

Among the firms that did not stand by while the pirates from Kirkland raided the industry was Paul Weiss. Though it did transactional work, Paul Weiss was best known for its litigation practice. Under Mr. Karp, whom former colleagues describe as a relentless litigator with a competitive streak, the firm recognized deal-making as a growth area.

Mr. Karp had done some litigation work for Apollo in 2008, the same year he became Paul Weiss’s chairman, and saw an opportunity to vault his firm into another stratum. In 2011, he pried loose roughly half a dozen lawyers from a rival firm, many of whom worked with Apollo on acquisitions.

Then, five years later, Mr. Karp followed up the success by luring Scott Barshay, one of the most prominent deal makers in the industry, from Cravath. Mr. Barshay had made a name for himself working on blockbuster transactions like the merger of United Airlines and Continental.

By 2023, Mr. Karp and Paul Weiss were raiding the raiders, grabbing a dozen transactional lawyers from Kirkland. Today, the two firms regularly rank in the top 10 in work on mergers and acquisitions.

As the deal makers proliferated at Paul Weiss, they began to gain influence. Mr. Barshay heads the firm’s corporate department and is one of a small number of partners on the firm’s so-called Deciding Group, which oversees compensation decisions.

As at Kirkland, the tilt toward deal-making was a financial success. Between 2007, the year before Mr. Karp took over as chairman, and 2024, profits per equity partner at Paul Weiss nearly doubled after an adjustment for inflation. They reached more than $7.5 million last year, according to ALM.

But the growing dependence on transactional lawyers created a certain instability. The poached partners might leave as abruptly as they arrived and could take clients with them. A law firm’s customers, unlike those of a software company or an auto manufacturer, often care more about their relationship with individual lawyers than with the firm.

And while any partner can jump to another firm in principle, deal-making business tends to be more coveted by rivals. “There is definitely more of a premium for partners from a transactional background,” said Katherine Loanzon of Kinney Recruiting.

Data from Macrae, the recruiting firm, shows that among the country’s 100 highest-grossing law firms, more than twice as many deal-making partners as litigators have switched firms since 2018 — about 5,700 versus about 2,600.

When President Trump returned to office and started attacking law firms, all big firms felt the chill.

But some have argued that deal makers are professionally and perhaps instinctively more susceptible to government pressure. Young litigators are often trained on pro bono cases in which they fight the government in court. “It brings home that that’s what lawyers are there for, to make sure that what the government’s doing is in line with the law,” said Erin Elmouji, a former Paul Weiss associate who worked on a case challenging stop-and-frisk policing in New York City.

Litigators often take on the government when they represent a paying client, too, like a large bank facing a federal investigation. While many of these cases settle, the relationship is frequently adversarial.

Deal makers, instead of confronting government, often work on matters that require its blessing. “If you’re doing a large M&A deal, you need approval for that deal from an alphabet soup of federal agencies,” said David Lat, author of the Substack newsletter “Original Jurisdiction,” who previously worked as a legal recruiter and an associate at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Some firms said transactional clients had been much quicker to grumble when they feared the firm might lose favor with the president, though one said its litigation clients were just as concerned.

The upshot is that deal makers may be more interested in seeking a truce with the White House. They may also be more likely to jump ship if they don’t get their way, and to open up a bigger hole in a law firm’s finances if they leave.

That may help explain why a handful of firms that lean heavily on litigation have chosen to fight White House executive orders — firms like Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. (WilmerHale said in a statement that it had long represented “a wide range of clients, including matters against administrations of both parties”; Jenner said in response to a query that it did “a lot” of transactional work as well.)

On the other hand, firms that rely more heavily on transactional work than Jenner and Wilmer have generally followed Paul Weiss’s lead. Mr. Trump announced this month that the White House had reached deals with Kirkland, Latham & Watkins and Simpson Thacher, among other firms. All three firms received an extensive request for information about their diversity practices from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Like Paul Weiss, they may have worried that a confrontation with the Trump administration could set off a sudden out-migration of partners and clients.

(In a joint statement issued on April 11, the firms noted that the agreement resolved any matters with the president and the E.E.O.C.Mr. Trump has indicated that he wants to deploy their lawyers for specific roles.)

None other than Mr. Karp, the Paul Weiss chairman, identified this flight risk long before his own showdown with the White House. “There has been a gradual but steady erosion of both client and partner loyalty,” he told The New York Times in 2018. “A generation ago, clients were reflexively loyal to their law firms. The relationship today is more transactional and clients tend to be more loyal to particular partners. This new paradigm creates more opportunity, but also creates more flux.”

That “flux” may have been an acceptable risk when only law firms were on the playing field. Once the president of the United States entered the match, it became a different proposition altogether.

[sudden and sharp]

[...] Si no, en este Madrid, donde el electorado por el Ladrillo quiere que mande la derecha, que se cambie el nombre a la callecilla de 'Méjico' con jota y se le dé a ese gran país hispano una plaza o una avenida como Dios manda, y con x, México, como es. Encima, siendo los mexicanos los extraterrestres que se supone que le están sacando las castañas del fuego a los 'himbersores' locales.]

Bueno... Madrid hará lo que le venga en gana.

Madrid, Madrid, Madrid
Pedazo de la España en que nací,
Por algo te hizo Dios la cuna del requiebro y el chotis.
Madrid, Madrid, Madrid
En México se piensa mucho en ti
Por el sabor que tienen tus verbenas,
Por tantas buenas que soñamos desde aquí
Y vas a ver lo que es canela fina
Y armar la tremolina llegues a Madrid.
 

----------
Somos así de chulos.

[Derby]

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/dhl-suspend-global-shipments-over-160901961.html

DHL to suspend global shipments over $800 to US consumers, starting April 21

DHL Express, a division of Germany's Deutsche Post, said it would suspend global business-to-consumer shipments worth over $800 to individuals in the United States from April 21, as U.S. customs regulatory changes have lengthened clearance.

The notice on the company website was not dated, but its metadata showed it was compiled on April 19.

DHL blamed the halt on new U.S. customs rules, which require formal entry processing on all shipments worth over $800. The minimum had been $2,500 until a change on April 5.


A worker enters a vehicle of Deutsche Post DHL Group in Berlin, Germany on March 6, 2025.

DHL said business-to-business shipments would not be suspended but could face delays. Shipments under $800 to either businesses or consumers were not affected by the changes.

The move is a temporary measure, the company said in its statement.

DHL said last week in response to Reuters' questions that it would continue to process shipments from Hong Kong to the United States "in accordance with the applicable customs rules and regulations" and would "work with our customers to help them understand and adapt to the changes that are planned for May 2."

That came after Hongkong Post said last week it had suspended mail services for goods sent by sea to the United States, accusing the U.S. of "bullying" after Washington cancelled tariff-free trade provisions for packages from China and Hong Kong.

[Derby]

https://www.thestreet.com/retail/amazon-makes-urgent-move-to-avoid-us-china-trade-war-impact

Amazon makes urgent move to avoid US-China trade war impact

The online retail giant is raising eyebrows with its latest move.

Amazon (AMZN) is making swift moves to combat a growing threat to sales.

Since taking office in January, President Donald Trump has doubled down on his plan to boost manufacturing in the U.S. and free the nation from its reliance on imported goods by enforcing tariffs on multiple countries.

​​Tariffs are taxes companies pay to import goods from overseas, and the extra cost is often passed down to consumers through price hikes.

On April 2, President Trump announced a 10% "baseline" tariff on all countries importing goods to the U.S., with roughly 60 countries seeing higher tariff rates.

However, on April 9, he switched gears and enforced a 90-day pause on reciprocal tariffs on all countries (except China), dropping them to a universal rate of 10%. He also raised tariffs on China to a jaw-dropping 145%.

Shortly after these announcements, Amazon reportedly began canceling orders for products made in China and other Asian countries, which frustrated vendors.

Amazon takes unexpected action

However, a recent report from Business Insider revealed that Amazon is now actively working with some of its vendors to prevent losing their business, an outcome that would reduce product availability for customers.


Amazon is working with some vendors to minimize tariff impacts for consumers.Image source: Fassbender/AFP via Getty Images

In an internal document, Amazon stated that it will pay higher prices to its vendors for their products on a "case-by-case basis" to "share the tariff impact." This would help vendors offset the higher costs they may face to source their products from countries that are impacted by tariffs.

This offer isn’t available to all vendors, however. In most cases, it is offered to vendors who agree to guaranteed profit margins. This means if a vendor’s products don’t reach a fixed profit margin, they must pay Amazon extra.

This is risky, because Amazon can sell a vendor’s products at a discounted price, which would then make the vendor responsible for covering the lost profits.

More than 60% of Amazon’s sales come from third-party sellers. Amazon paying more to its vendors to help soften the blow of tariffs means that Amazon shoppers will likely encounter higher prices for products.

Amazon CEO recently sent a stern warning to shoppers

The move from Amazon comes after Amazon CEO Andy Jassy said in a recent interview with CNBC that the company’s top priority is keeping prices low for customers.

“Whenever you have any threat of any kind of discontinuity, as a team, you have to think about what are the things you can do to help customers,” said Jassy. “So we're doing everything we can to try and keep prices the way they've been for customers – as low as possible. We've done some strategic forward inventory buys to get as many items as makes sense for customers at lower prices.”

However, Jassy warned that third-party sellers on Amazon may pass the extra costs that tariffs may bring onto customers.

“I'm guessing that sellers will pass that cost on; I think they'll try, and I understand why,” said Jassy. “I mean, depending on which country you're in, you don't have 50% extra margin that you can play with. So I think they'll try and pass the cost on.”

Trump’s tariffs are already making some consumers anxious about potential price increases, which is prompting them to consider cutting back on their spending.

According to a recent survey from market research company Numerator, 83% of Americans said that they are adjusting their shopping habits to prepare for the higher prices Trump’s tariffs could bring. Some of these changes include searching for sales and coupons, delaying purchases, and buying less imported goods.

[Benzino Napaloni]

No cuela pedir ahora más 'mercao' y más genuflexión ante EE. UU. por Marruecos. Ahora, si quieres ganar las elecciones, tienes que pedir más Plan & UE. El electorado sabe que España 'agoniza' por culpa del ladrillo y del anglo.

¿Qué va a saber el electorado?

El electorado que sabe que el Ladrillo es un cáncer en España es una minoría, bien representada aquí, pero aún es minoría al fin y al cabo.

¿Qué gobernante tiene agallas para decirle al rentista que con su jugada de "comprar para alquilar" y vivir de otro se puede haber arruinado para los restos? Zapatero no tuvo agallas para decirle al Pepito que se metió en el hipotecón del "adobao" y el Cayenne que se le iba a caer el mundo encima.

No se tocará nada hasta que tengamos la pistola en la sien. Lo único que puedo creerme -hasta cierto punto- es que esta vez sí hay conciencia de lo que hay en los "cuarteles generales". Con lo cabrón que es Sánchez, no me extrañaría que ya tenga preparada la botella de ricino para su oportuno uso. Mis dudas son con Feijóo, Tomasjos dice que a Frijolito ya le llamaron Lagarde, Von der Leyen, y hasta De Guindos que es de los "suyos" avisándole de lo que hay. Puede ser, pero en este país decirle al tarugo común que se le acaba el sueño de vivir de otros es peor que una patada en el hígado.

[Derby]

https://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2025/04/the-family-home-from-shelter-to-asset.html

The Family Home: From Shelter to Asset to Liability

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable.

With the rise of financialized asset bubbles as the source of our "growth," family home went from shelter to speculative asset. This transition accelerated as financialization (turning everything into a financial commodity to be leveraged and sold globally for a quick profit) spread into the once-staid housing sector in the early 2000s. (See chart of housing bubbles #1 and #2 below).

Where buying a home once meant putting down roots and insuring a stable cost of shelter, housing became a speculative asset to be snapped up and sold as prices soared.

The short-term vacation rental (STVR) boom added fuel to the speculative fire over the past decade as huge profits could be generated by assembling an STVR mini-empire of single-family homes that were now rented to tourists.

Now that housing has become unaffordable to the majority and the costs of ownership are stair-stepping higher, housing has become a liability. I covered the increases in costs of ownership in The Cost of Owning a Home Is Soaring 11/11/24)*. Articles like this one are increasingly common:

'I feel trapped':¨** how home ownership has become a nightmare for many Americans: Scores in the US say they're grappling with raised mortgage and loan interest rates and exploding insurance premiums.

The sums of money now required to own, insure and maintain a house are eye-watering. Annual home insurance for many is now a five-figure sum; property taxes in many states is also a five-figure sum. As for maintenance, as I discussed in This Nails It: The Doom Loop of Housing Construction Quality, the decline in quality of housing and the rising costs of repair make buying a house a potentially unaffordable venture should repairs costing tens of thousands of dollars become necessary.

Major repairs can now cost what previous generations paid for an entire house, and no, this isn't just inflation; it's the result of the decline of quality across the board and the gutting of labor skills to cut costs.

Here's the Case-Shiller Index of national housing prices. Housing Bubble #2 far exceeds the extremes of unaffordability reached in Housing Bubble #1:



Here's a snapshot of housing affordability: buying a house is now an unattainable luxury for those without top 20% incomes and help from parents.



The monthly payments as a percentage of income are at historic highs:



Property taxes are rising in many locales as valuations bubble higher and local governments seek sources of stable revenues:



Home insurance costs vary widely, but all are skewing to the upside.



As I often note, the insurance industry is not a charity, and to maintain profits as payouts for losses explode higher, rates have to climb for everyone--and more for those in regions that are now viewed as high-risk due to massive losses in fires, hurricanes, wind storms, flooding, etc.



All credit-asset bubbles pop, and that inevitable deflation of home valuations will take away the speculative punchbowl. What's left are the costs of ownership. As these rise, they offset the rich capital gains that home owners have been counting on for decades to make ownership a worthwhile, low-risk investment.

The deflation of asset bubbles and higher costs are foreseeable, but the magnitude of each is unpredictable. The ideas that have taken hold in the 21st century--that owning a house is a wellspring of future wealth, and everything is now a throwaway destined for the landfill--are based on faulty assumptions, assumptions that have set a banquet of consequences few will find palatable.

*https://www.oftwominds.com/blognov24/cost-of-ownership11-24.html
**https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/feb/24/us-home-ownership-mortgage-interest-rates-insurance-premiums

[Derby]

https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/china-begins-returning-boeing-aircrafts-us

China begins returning Boeing aircraft to US

A Boeing 737 Max intended for a Chinese airline was returned to Seattle Saturday amid the ongoing trade war between China, US

Chinese airlines have begun returning Boeing aircraft to the U.S., with one 737 Max recently landing back at a Boeing production hub in Seattle over the weekend, according to Reuters.

Saturday’s return occurred shortly after China ordered its airlines not to take further deliveries of Boeing aircraft in response to the U.S. imposing 145% tariffs on Chinese goods, Bloomberg News reported last week.

A trio of 737 Max 8 jets that were originally being readied at Boeing’s Zhoushan delivery center for two Chinese airlines were recalled to the U.S. last week, according to aviation news service The Air Current, citing two people familiar with Boeing’s plans.

Reuters confirmed over the weekend that a witness saw a Boeing jet intended for China’s Xiamen Airlines landing back at the planemaker’s production hub in Seattle. The aircraft, which was painted with Xiamen livery, was one of the several 737 Max jets waiting at the Zhoushan completion center for final work and delivery to the Chinese carrier.(...)