Finance

Maybe ram prices will eventually come down too now?

Recall my previous post when the threat was emerging a couple years ago. Now that shit has played out. Now Discovercard customers are served by a much bigger scumbag.

It’s also a practical problem. The hand-off was apparently incompetently executed so now I have suppliers harassing me because the Discovercard they have on file quit working. And it looks like Cap One wants to stuff their app and shit down our throats. Fuck me if that’s true.

Around a decade prior the Japanese network (JCB) pulled out of the US. So no quasi-ethical refuge.

As Donald Trump and Xi Jinping wrap up their summit in Beijing with little more to show for it than a few awkward handshakes, the media is left wondering where the big breakthrough went. But as we explore in this video, the failure of the "beans and Boeings" summit wasn’t a political failure—it was a certainty.

Relying on the insights of economist Michael Pettis, we break down why trade surpluses and deficits are driven by domestic savings and investment choices, rather than trade policies or tariffs. From China’s systematic suppression of household consumption to the United States' structural trap as the global consumer of last resort, the underlying economic imbalances forcing this trade war cannot be fixed by podium announcements.

Finally! We just don't get enough mergers these days.

The US cosmetics company Estée Lauder is in talks over a potential merger with the Spanish group Puig, the owner of brands including Jean Paul Gaultier and Rabanne, to create a $40bn fashion and beauty giant.

Estée Lauder is one of the world’s biggest manufacturers of skin care, makeup and fragrances with a portfolio that includes Clinique, Bobbi Brown and Tom Ford Beauty.

Puig, which floated on the Madrid stock market two years ago, owns brands including Charlotte Tilbury, Carolina Herrera and Dries van Noten.

Both brands confirmed that they were holding discussions over a potential “business combination”, but gave no detail on the possible structure of the merger.

“No final decision has been made and no agreement has been reached,” Puig said. “Until an agreement exists, it cannot be guaranteed that any transaction will take place or what its terms would be.”

Patrick Boyle is always a good watch.

Are there any investment funds (ETFs or mutual funds) which exclusively purchase municipal bonds in “green” cities?

Most mutual funds seem to profit from unethical companies. Genocide (Lockheed, Google), Climate Catastrophe (BP, ExxonMobil), Slavery (Verizon, Walmart). Murder (UnitedHealth, Dow Chemical).

It seems like municipal bonds might be one of the more ethical ways to invest money.

Specifically, I’m looking to invest in cities that are building-out infrastructure that will lead to an elimination on their dependence on fossil fuels. For example:

1. Closing roads and building bicycle lanes.
2. Building electrified trains and dedicated bus lanes.
3. Passing laws to establish a maximum number of parking spots per person.
4. Mixed Zoning (walkable cities)
5. Banning fossil fuel power plants while building hydro/solar/wind/geothermal
6. Passing laws to heavily tax carbon emissions
7. And, of course, cities that invest in education usually get a great ROI.

Cities that come to mind include Paris and New York.

I could try to do all the research myself, and find a bunch of other cities that are on the right path -- but that seems like a full-time job, and it’s probably better to just have a fund manager do this research for us.

Are there already any funds that invest in municipal bonds exclusively in “green” cities?

“Inflation looks to be sapping some of Americans’ holiday cheer as they head out to buy gifts this Christmas season, according to the CNBC All-America Economic Survey. The survey found the high cost of goods has emerged as a major factor affecting how much shoppers spend and where they spend, suggesting inflation of the past several years and the rise in import goods prices from tariffs are being felt at the checkout counter. The survey of 1,000 people nationwide, with a margin of error of +/- 3.1%, found that the high cost of goods is the top reason Americans are spending less and, in a first for the survey, the main reason they are spending more. … Overall, 41% of Americans plan to spend less this year, with 42% saying they will spend about the same and 16% saying they will spend more.”

Want to buy a new shirt from your friendly neighborhood small business? In some cases, be prepared to pay out 2.5% more as a “financing” fee because you’re using a credit card. Enjoying that meal at the local diner? Better have cash or you could be subject to the same fee. Grabbing a bag of chips and a soda at the local convenience store? Oops … Unless you’re prepared to spend a minimum of 10 bucks you can’t use your credit card, sorry.

I’ve always been irritated by these practices. And I know I’m not alone. Who carries cash any more? Why are we, the customer, being shamed because we choose to buy something using what has become a standard form of payment over something that’s clearly a thing of the past?

Merchants have been fighting the credit card companies about these fees for years. And now they’ve won. This past week, Visa and Mastercard ended their battle, and now future fees will probably be lower for consumers that use some cards, particularly the ones that offer fewer rewards. But did these businesses really win? I’m not so sure. Be careful what you ask for.

Patrick Boyle always gets into the weeds, but I find his videos helpful because of that.

The reversal risks declawing a century of consumer financial protections and replacing the backbone of bank accounts.

cross-posted from !humanrights@crazypeople.online -- https://crazypeople.online/post/5464740

FATCA specifically oppresses Americans who live outside the US. It strong-arms banks into treating Americans adversely different based on their national origin (ranging from denial of service to extra data collection and disclosure). I thought Americans were the only people who broadly face discrimination in banking due to their nationality. But I recently heard of other nationalities (not Americans) who are refused bank access due to their nationality (in Europe, where we might have a high expectation of human rights).

I could never get the details. People that report this to me have been vague. But I’ve heard it twice now. Does anyone know the specifics? Which nationalities and why?

I tried looking this up but didn't find a satisfying answer. When a home is assessed for its taxable value, why isn't the market value just used?

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.11-114715/https://www.ft.com/content/4c78e822-3bb7-4e86-88eb-f5bfd1ee624f

Morgan Stanley reported a 26 per cent rise in first-quarter profits, powered by its equities trading business, which benefited from volatile financial markets during the early months of the Trump administration. 

Morgan Stanley on Friday said it had made net income of $4.3bn in the three months to the end of March, more than a quarter higher than the same period last year and beating analyst estimates of $3.7bn. 

“These results demonstrate the consistent execution of our clear strategy to drive durable growth across our global footprint,” chief executive Ted Pick said. 

The robust performance was powered by the bank’s equities trading business, which posted a 46 per cent surge in revenues to $4.1bn during the period. The fixed income trading arm reported a 4 per cent rise in revenues to $2.6bn. 

Net new assets in its wealth management business came in at $94bn for the quarter, slightly lower than the same period last year, but comfortably beating analyst expectations. 

This is a developing story

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.11-041804/https://www.ft.com/content/a3fb6b82-4a51-4a5c-b831-f755518f5863

(…) The dominance of the dollar in global trade and finance has long been assumed to be a net benefit for the American economy, but this assumption is increasingly being challenged. While it benefits Wall Street and global owners of moveable capital, these benefits come at a cost to American manufacturers and farmers.

In a world where some countries actively manage their external imbalances and others do not, the US dollar’s role as the primary safe currency has made America the chief enabler of global economic distortions. Addressing these imbalances requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the rules governing global trade and capital flows.

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.09-121115/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-04-09/citadel-securities-pitches-banks-on-handling-their-bond-trades

More than 30 banks are engaged in talks — some more advanced than others — with billionaire Ken Griffin’s market-maker, hashing out an arrangement that would let them submit orders to the firm without revealing their clients’ identities. Citadel Securities is marketing the concept as a way for small- and mid-tier banks to provide better pricing on fixed-income trades. But it also would give it more insight and clout in markets.

“We’re creating an ecosystem,” Citadel Securities President Jim Esposito said in an interview, describing the project’s development in recent months. “If and when successful, you can envision a broader suite of products fitting into this ecosystem.”

The nascent concept to partner with banks — first reported by Bloomberg in July — has vast implications for Wall Street’s underlying mechanics and staffing. For banks struggling to keep up with industry leaders such as JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Goldman Sachs Group Inc., which plow billions of dollars into recruiting talent and honing systems to compete on pricing, Citadel Securities is offering a way to continue serving clients and stay in the game.

Under the current proposal, banks could still process trades themselves or choose Citadel Securities, which expects pricing to continue improving as it scores a better view of market data and trends. That may help banks go toe-to-toe with larger competitors when vying for business. Firms could also mark up the price to make a profit.

Archive: https://archive.is/2025.04.09-073405/https://www.ft.com/content/0005e091-930d-46ff-9e81-8591704a9282

Treasuries sold off on Wednesday as President Donald Trump’s tariffs took effect, deepening investor concern about the “safe haven” status of US sovereign debt.

The 10-year US Treasury yield jumped to 4.51 per cent before falling back to 4.37 per cent — up 0.11 percentage points on the day — while the 30-year yield briefly rose above 5 per cent. The 10-year yield has risen from less than 3.9 per cent earlier this week.

The moves offer a new challenge to the Trump administration, which had previously cited lowering Treasury yields as a key policy aim, and could mark a loss of investor confidence in the world’s largest sovereign debt market.

“The sell-off may be signalling a regime shift whereby US Treasuries are no longer the global fixed-income safe haven,” said Ben Wiltshire, a rates strategist at Citi.