Authored by Brent Hamacheck via American Greatness,

In my recently published book, Dissidently Speaking: Change the Words. Change the War: I use both logic and empiricism to prove (I do mean prove) that there is absolutely no such thing as “right wing-left wing” as we use the terms in this country.  They are nothing more than non-defined terms used to characterize and label people with whom we don’t agree.  I will go so far as to say that the terms are a socially acceptable form of hate speech.

When we say that “the left hates Donald Trump,” it isn’t just mistaken; it’s fallacious. 

Since there is no such thing as “left-right,” as we use the terms, there is no possible way for the “left” to hate Trump.

But he is hated by many, and there are three reasons why.

If you are a Trump supporter, there is some good news to be found in this article.  It will give you a way to potentially break through and change the minds of people in two of the three groups, and it will also help you to focus whatever hostile energy you need to dispense upon the third group, one that you cannot change and one that poses a threat to what some ignorantly label as our democracy but is more correctly understood as our republic.

Since people like acronyms, catchy abbreviations, and words that can be turned into hashtags, I will frame my breakdown of the three reasons people hate Donald Trump as the Triple S’s: Silly, Subconscious, and Sinister.

Let’s take them in order.

First are the “sillies.”  These are people who hate Trump purely because of his demeanor.  They don’t like the way he throws insults around, the way he has been caught on tape talking about women, or any of a number of other reasons that relate to personal attributes as opposed to matters of policy or his ability to govern.  I say this is silliness because we are not voting for a person; we are voting for the president. Many of the people in this group, when you ask them about Trump’s policies, agree with much or most of what he tried to do or wants to do as president.  The idea that they are putting personality above policy or principle is simply silly.

They are not asking Trump to do magic tricks and entertain the children at their five-year-old daughter’s birthday party.  If they like, they can ask Barack Obama to do that.  He seems congenial enough.  The real question is, would you rather have Obama’s smile and his socialist approach to governance, or would you rather have a somewhat caustic and abrasive person (Winston Churchill comes to mind) who tries to do what you think is better for the nation?

A quick note to say that I am making no attempt to endorse or criticize Donald Trump.  I am simply identifying why people hate him.  I am going to spend a moment on the term “hate” shortly.

The second group of folks with what gets called “Trump derangement syndrome” are those who hate the candidate-in-chief for reasons that are subconscious or subliminal. 

There are three main drivers of this subconscious hatred.  They are guilt, shame, and altruism.

Donald Trump is unapologetic in his love of country and his claims that America is exceptional and that the needs of our nation and its citizens must be placed first in any and all considerations involving domestic policy or foreign diplomacy.  This message resonates with at least half the nation, and the fire and brimstone with which he delivers it explains the energy and enthusiasm found at his rallies.  Every Trump appearance feels like the Beatles landing in America in 1964.

For a large number of people, however, while they are experiencing the rich bounty that is daily life in the United States, they know that not everyone within our borders enjoys it to the same extent they do, and even fewer do so outside of our borders.  They carry with them a feeling of guilt that they are doing so well, that their lives are so comfortable, and that they simply can’t support a person who runs around saying that America is great and Americans come first. To see Donald Trump aggressively touting such a message makes them feel ashamed.  Nobody likes feeling ashamed.

Guilt and shame then feed into one of, if not the most, destructive of all human thought patterns, which is that of altruism.  This is the notion that self-sacrifice is the highest form of virtue.  This abhorrent concept (often associated with Christianity, which is interesting insofar as the term and the concept were created 1800 years after Christ’s death and by an atheist at that) tears at the mind of many who find it difficult to spend their daily lives struggling with the notion that in order to be good they need to be willing to harm, or even destroy, themselves in the process.

Take a person who is already in inner conflict, feeling guilty, ashamed, and needing to sacrifice, and give them Donald Trump, who effectively screams “No! Don’t do that!” into their ears, and you can get an almost involuntary, subconscious, visceral internal revolt.  While voices inside their heads are screaming to be ashamed of America, Donald Trump is screaming to be proud of America from the outside.  They hate him for the conflict he brings into their lives.

These first two groups of Trump haters can be reached through constructive engagement, genuine questioning and listening, and the patient and persistent application of both. 

There is a third group of Trump haters who cannot be reached and with whom all must reckon. 

Those are the sinister ones—the ones who are not conflicted by Trump’s “America first” message but who are instead vehemently opposed to it.

These are the people who are rightly labeled as globalists—people who want America to recede into the middle of a heterogenous, global community, setting its strong nation-state aside and becoming no more significant in world affairs than are the nations of Chad, Azerbaijan, or Guyana.  “Lead from behind” is just one of the more coffee mug-ready ideas that they hold, all of which seek to have us become part of Orwell’s Oceania.

These people don’t want to confront China; they want to make money with it.  These people do not want to protect our borders; they want to open them so that we can water down our national identity.  These people don’t want us to be energy independent; they want to tilt at energy windmills by installing actual windmills and curry favor with the United Nations and the World Economic Forum (two decidedly anti-American and anti-Trump organizations).

This sinister group, hateful of the very thought of American supremacy, simply detests Donald Trump and knows that he has created an awakening among his followers as to their designs to rebuild an unleavened America.  They truly hate the man, and they consciously and irrationally want him off the stage.  How far will they go to give him the hook?  I will let you conjecture in the same manner as we are left to conjecture the veracity of results in the 2020 election or the assassination of JFK.

You cannot convert this third group, but you can’t ignore them either.  These folks who want world membership instead of leadership are not going away, and they are not going to recede into the shadows.  If you are a Trump supporter and if you like the whole concept of America first, then your best bet is to work with members of the first two groups of Trump-haters and strive for conversions.  Only with numbers can you control the threat from the “sinisters.”

I want to address why I am using the term “hate” (one my mother told me never to use).  I chose it not to defend it in any metaphysical sense but simply to pick a term that generally conveys intensity.  For the most part, the typical person opposed to Trump is not one with a pair of reading glasses on their nose, an opera playbill in their hand, and an affected English accent, claiming they have some subtle points of contention with the man’s positions.  The strength and intensity of his delivery create the same kind of equal and opposite reaction within those for whom it does not resonate.  It is Newtonian.

Perhaps, a bit twisted and imperfect in its logic, we can say that Donald Trump’s love of country generates feelings of hatred, love’s literary opposite, in response?

I have long been on record as predicting that Joe Biden will not be the man on the actual ballot come November.  It made perfect sense for the Democrats to run him for reelection so as to not turn his presidency into one of lame duck status two years into his first term.  That said, the current president clearly suffers from cognitive decline and cannot serve another four years.  I also believe he cannot actually beat Donald Trump in November, save for the intervention of some Herculean election tampering efforts.

If I am wrong and Biden is on the ballot in November, then Trump supporters have much less to fear from the Trump haters.  If, however, my prediction that he is replaced at the convention (my long-held fear is that Michelle Obama steps in; I see her as unbeatable) after stepping aside for “personal reasons” comes true, then reaching out to the first two categories of Trump haters becomes far more important.  You will need to flip some of them.  You will not be able to do it by going to Trump rallies and posting on your social media, where other Trump followers follow you.  You will need to meet them on their turf, on their platforms, and in their living rooms.  This will not be a home game for you.  You are going to have to go on the road and put on your away jersey.

I wish you strength, courage, and success.  While my own personal feelings about the former president are mixed, my strong opposition to the third group of his haters is clear and unwavering.  It needs to be a sort of political “Great Commission” to go out and make believers not out of all three nations of Trump haters, just the first two.

*  *  *

Brent Hamachek is the author of the recent Amazon top new release, Dissidently Speaking: Change the Words. Change the War.  The book is a commentary on the divisions all too common in today’s America. All proceeds from its sale go to support a not-for-profit dedicated to promoting constructive engagement between young people.

On one hand, the Atlanta Fed triumphantly blasted earlier today that Bidenomics is the greatest thing since sliced bread, helping push its Q2 GDP Nowcast to a whopping 4.2%, up from its latest estimate of 3.3%.

On the other hand, Biden’s own DOE – in its latest attempt to slam oil, gas and diesel prices because nothing will crush Biden’s re-election chances faster than an oil price spike in the summer – reported that demand for gasoline and diesel in the United States has plunged to its lowest seasonally since the onset of the COVID pandemic, “sparking concern that economic activity is now becoming stagnant as refining margins hit news lows not seen in months“, Reuters reported.

As shown in the chart below, monthly averages for the week ended May 3 show gasoline demand at 8.63 million barrels per day–a figure not seen since May 2020, at the start of the pandemic, based on EIA data.

Data also showed demand for distillates – the most accurate proxy for overall economic activity – plunged to 3.6 million bpd, which was also a seasonal low not hit since the pandemic. Additionally, for the first time in approximately three months, the 3-2-1 crack spread which serves as a barometer for refining markets, was trading under $26.50 per barrel on Wednesday, Reuters reports, for the lowest crack spread in three years.

Needless to say, this means someone is lying: either the US economy is shrinking, which bad for Biden,  or gasoline demand is far higher than reported, which is also bad for Biden. But since under the current fascist regime truth is a casualty to getting re-elected, we are being served a fake Potemkin village, one where growth is exploding as energy prices are tumbling, day after day and somehow people still believe this bullshit.

“The gasoline situation was going to be looked at by everybody and it definitely disappointed,” Mizuho analyst Robert Yawger told Reuters, adding that “If that’s indicative of the performance of the economy, that’s bad all around.”

The EIA inventory report showed U.S. distillates adding 600,000 barrels to inventory for the week ended May 3, with average production at 4.8 million barrels per day. Gasoline inventory also increased by 900,000 barrels for the week ended May 3, with production averaging 9.5 million barrels per day.

Crude oil prices lost more ground on Wednesday following the EIA’s weekly inventory report, which showed a draw of 1.4 million barrels for the week to May 3, but following a significant 7-million-barrel build from the previous week that put downward pressure on prices.

Back in March, when eyeing the tremendous rebound in the crypto space, we joked that creditors in Sam Bankman-Fried’s bankrupt exchange, FTX, would recover 200% of their claims.

FTX bankruptcy will be the first Chapter 11 where creditors recover 200% of their claims

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 2, 2024

Well, as so often happens in the “new abnormal”, it turns out that we were not joking, because according to the latest reorg plan filed by the bankrupt FTX on Tuesday, most – or roughly 98% of its creditors – would get back 118% of what they had on the FTX platform the day the company entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Amazingly, some creditors will recover as much as 142% of what they are owed. Claims will be repaid in cash within 60 days of court approval, although payouts are likely several months away, as FTX winds its way through the final stages of the bankruptcy case.

Under the plan, other non-governmental creditors would get back 100% of their claims plus up to 9% interest to compensate them “for the time value of their investments.” The arrangement is still subject to approval by the Delaware bankruptcy court overseeing the bankruptcy case.

As Coindesk reports, the proposed payouts are higher than earlier estimates from the FTX estate, which said in October it expected to pay back only 90% of customer funds which still was a hefty haul for a bankruptcy where most said recoveries would be virtually nil. In January, current FTX CEO John Jay Ray III revised that estimate, telling the court he expected to be able to pay customers back in full.

So how did FTX creditors – who typically receive just pennies on the dollar for their holdings – luck out so tremendously, and most of them will actually make money following the bankruptcy? Simple: as we hinted in March, FTX has benefited from a historic rally in cryptocurrencies including Solana, a token heavily backed by convicted fraudster and FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried (in fact, some have wondered if the tremendous ascent of Solana – a B-grade token which traditionally crashes every few months, and is generally the laughing stock within the crytpo community – wasn’t another market manipulation meant to generated 100%+ recoveries). 

Other sources of value, including investments made by FTX and Alameda Research – such as its 8% stake in AI startup Anthropic, which was sold piecemeal to institutional investors for $884 million in March – have been liquidated to generate cash to pay back the claims.

“In any bankruptcy, this is just an unbelievable result,” said FTX Chief Executive Officer, John Ray, who took over the firm when it collapsed.

In a Tuesday press release, the FTX estate said it expects to have between $14.5 and $16.3 billion in cash available for distribution by the time a plan is approved by a Delaware bankruptcy court – the result of a year-and-a-half of scraping together the company’s scattered assets around the world and liquidating them.

“As previously disclosed, FTX.com had a massive shortfall at the time of the Chapter 11 filing in November 2022 – holding only 0.1% of the Bitcon and only 1.2% of the Ethereum customers believed it held,” the press release stated. “Accordingly, Debtors have not been able to benefit from the appreciation of these missing tokens during these Chapter 11 cases.”

FTX’s new reorganization plan would also settle a host of claims from regulators and government agencies, including the IRS and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

The IRS agreed to resolve its $24 billion in claims in return for a $200 million cash payment and a $685 million subordinated claim that will only be paid out after all creditors and other governmental entities.

The CFTC and other unnamed governmental claimants agreed to subordinate their claims as long as FTX users and investors were paid in full with interest. There are also plans for a special fund created to make “supplemental restitution” to certain customers and creditors, though the details of this agreement have not been finalized, according to the press release.

A hearing to discuss the proposed plan is scheduled for June.

Former FTX CEO and convicted fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried previously attempted to use the estate’s ability to pay back customers in full as evidence that the collapse of his exchange had “zero” harm to its customers. Before his sentencing in March, Bankman-Fried’s lawyers argued that their client should receive a light sentence, in part because customers would get all their money back.

Ironically, if it hadn’t been for the Terra-Luna “stablecoin” implosion exactly two years ago which triggered a liquidation cascade across the crypto universe including a 50% plunge in bitcoin in one month in May and June 2022, not only would FTX still be viable, but SBF would be a free man and also one of the world’s richest people.

Ray, along with dozens of FTX creditors, wrote to the court arguing that the estate’s ability to claw together enough to money pay back his victims – the result of “tens of thousands of hours … spent digging through the rubble of Mr. Bankman-Fried’s sprawling criminal enterprise to unearth every possible dollar, token or other asset” – doesn’t mean his conduct wasn’t criminal.

Bankman-Fried was sentenced to 25 years in prison. He plans to appeal his sentence and conviction. In retrospect, considering that those who had money in his bankrupt exchange got as much as a 42% return, he may well end up with a reduced sentence.

By Russell Clark, author of the Capital Flows and Asset Market substack

Japan and Treasuries

My interest in Japan dates from 1991 when I was fresh faced high school exchange student in Kobe. There are no prizes for finding me in the above photo. I was the only “foreigner” in the school, and would go days without seeing anyone else that looked like me or even speaking English. I managed to combine my knowledge and experience in Japan with my other love, economics. I don’t think its too much of an exaggeration to say I owe my career and wealth through studying the Japan experience carefully and then applying those lessons to the rest of the world.

One of the most fascinating things about Japanese, economically speaking, is that almost its entire foreign reserves are made up of US treasuries, with almost no gold. As the right hand side column below shows, the share of gold as foreign exchange reserves is highest for the “old world”, while new powers such as China, Japan, Taiwan and Saudi Arabia have relatively low shares.

In absolute terms, China and Japan are by far the largest holders of foreign exchange reserves.

While China has larger foreign reserves than Japan now, Japan basically “invented” the idea of sovereign bonds as foreign exchange reserves. During the gold standard days, if a country like the US wanted to consume more than it produced, it would need to transfer gold overseas. With limited gold supply, this limited consumption. Moving to a treasury based financial system essentially removed this constraint. The only issue is whether other governments would accept treasuries or not.

Why did Japan buy treasuries? Well when the bubble economy burst in the early 1990s, the BOJ cut rates to near zero, but the Yen did not collapse as expected.

In fact in the first stages of BOJ interest rates cuts, the Yen actually rallied. The failure of monetary policy to work as it should led the Ministry of Finance to intervene to try and help weaken the Yen, and official buying of US dollar assets took off.

In pro-labor terms, when a government is pro-capital it wants to devalue to reduce the wages of its workers. This creates a trade surplus, which should cause the currency to appreciate, but if the government wants to keep the exchange rate competitive (i.e. keep real wages low), then it needs to buy more and more treasuries. A pro-labor government is happy to see its currency appreciate, and hence does not build foreign currency reserves. What is odd recently is that even as the BOJ remains extremely tardy in its monetary policy response, the Ministry of Finance in Japan has started using foreign reserves to “strengthen” the Yen. As the Economist points out, Japan is currently intervening in the currency market to try and strengthen the Yen.

We don’t know the cost of the foreign exchange intervention at the moment [ZHwe do, it was $59BN], but as can be seen above, Japanese foreign exchange reserves have not been rebuilt since the last intervention in 2022. Japan also does not run the structural trade surplus that it did from 1980 to 2010.

With falling foreign exchange reserves, trade deficit, and the likely increase in defence spending that the Russian-Ukrainian war implies, BOJ policy looks increasingly wrong. Markets seem to agree, with 10 year JGB yields at 13 year highs.

With either a Biden or Trump presidency in 2025, the chances of an austerity driven fiscal policy or a change in trade policy looks unlikely to me. The Japanese may well be caught in a doom loop, where they need to sell more foreign reserves to prop up the currency, which cause US yields to rise, which causes the Yen to weaken further and so on.

Until and unless the BOJ becomes more aggressive, Treasuries look like to have a systematic buyer turn into a systematic seller. China is likely a seller of treasuries and buyer of gold for political and strategic reasons, and Japan is a seller of treasuries for economic reasons. I am still baffled to why retail investors prefer treasuries to gold.

Japan was the key to understanding why treasuries did so well form 1980 to 2020. I think it is now the key to understanding why treasuries are going to do poorly from 2020 onwards.

The House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic has revealed that classified documents from the State Department “credibly suggest” that COVID-19 originated from a “lab-related accident in Wuhan, China,” and that the CCP “attempted to cover up the lab leak.”

In a Tuesday letter to Secretary of Stater Antony Blinken, Committee Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-OH) asks that the State Department declassify the records to “share the truth” about the origins of COVID-19 with the American people.

Wenstrup noted that the documents were previously unclassified and released in a ‘highly redacted’ form to satisfy a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, but the unredacted version which remains classified suggests:

COVID-19 originated from a lab-related accident in Wuhan, China;
The CCP acted to prevent, and in fact obstructed, a fulsome investigation into these matters; and
A seamless relationship between the WIV and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

Wenstrup has requested a ‘staff level briefing’ by May 14, and notes that the briefing was previously requested on April 24 of this year, “with the goal of it occurring prior to the Select Subcommittee’s hearing with the President of EcoHealth Alliance, Inc. – and known WIV collaborator–Dr. Peter Daszak,” but that “the Department responded that it could not support a briefing on that timeline.

The highly redacted version of the letter can be seen below:

Authored by Michael Lebowitz via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

On the heels of Apple’s latest earnings report, the Wall Street Journal shared an article discussing how Apple became such an oversized investment of Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway. Given their success with Apple shares we think it is worth understanding the logic that drove Buffett to accumulate such a large position in Apple.

Unbeknownst to most, Todd Combs, a member of the Berkshire portfolio management team, is responsible for bringing Apple to Buffett’s attention. However, not all credit goes to Combs. Buffett presented Combs with a challenge that ultimately highlighted Apple’s value proposition. With this same challenge, we will take a stab at finding the next Apple.

The inspiration for our challenge and a few quotes in this article come from a Wall Street Journal article entitled Apple is Buffett’s Best Investment.

Berkshires Massive Stake Of Apple

Before finding the next Apple stock, it’s worth visualizing how Berkshire’s investment in Apple has grown over time as a percentage of Berkshire Hathaway and of Apple’s total shares outstanding.

The bar graph below compares Berkshire’s percentage ownership of Apple to that of the four largest mutual fund and ETF complexes. Berkshire had no position in Apple in 2015 and now holds over 5% of the company. Only Vanguard has a more significant position.

The following graphs plot the surge in the number of shares owned by Berkshire and the value of its shares.

The pie chart below shows that Apple comprises almost half of Berkshire’s portfolio. The next largest holding is Bank of America at 10%.

Buffett Doesn’t Like Tech

Ironically, when Berkshire started buying Apple shares, Warren Buffett had an aversion to technology stocks. When asked why, he said he didn’t invest in companies he didn’t understand. He now admits that was a mistake.

While it may have been a mistake not to buy more technology companies in the mid twenty-teens, Buffett was able to appreciate what Apple truly was. While it is classified as and widely considered a technology company, Buffett got his head around Apple by likening it to a consumer goods company. Per the aforementioned Wall Street Journal article:

Considering the stock, though, Buffett began to see it as a consumer-goods company with enviable, latent pricing power, rather than as a tech or an electronic-device maker, according to people who have spoken to him. The loyalty consumers had for Apple products, especially the iPhone, suggested to Buffett that they would be willing to pay much more for upgraded versions of the phone in the years ahead, a sure way to boost profits.

Todd Combs- The Unknown Mastermind

The Wall Street Journal article introduces Todd Combs, one of Berkshire Hathaway’s lesser-known portfolio managers. According to the article, around 2016, Buffett challenged Combs to find a stock that met specific criteria.

Among the stocks Combs found meeting the fundamental criteria and large enough for Berkshire to purchase was Apple. The rest is history. Since they started accumulating Apple in 2015, it has gained 650%, more than four times the S&P 500 over the same period.

Given Combs’ success, we thought it would be interesting to use the logic Buffett challenged Combs with and produce a similar scan. Let’s see if we can find the next Apple.  

Buffett’s Logic

The following paragraph from the WSJ article is the logic Buffett imparted to Combs, leading to their ownership of Apple.

This time, Buffett asked Combs to identify a stock in the S&P 500 that met three criteria.

The first: a reasonably cheap price/earnings multiple of no more than 15, based on the next 12 months’ projected earnings.

The stock also had to be one the managers were at least 90% sure would enjoy higher earnings over the next five years.

And they had to be at least 50% confident that the company’s earnings would grow by at least 7% annually for five years or longer.

What made the search a little more difficult was that the companies that met the criteria also had to have a market cap large enough so Berkshire could buy enough of to move the needle of its portfolio but not overly impact the demand for the stock.

The Combs Scan

In addition to the criteria in Buffett’s challenge, we added sales growth of at least 5% over the last five years. This helps us thin the list of companies to those already exhibiting strong top-line growth. We also removed financial, limited partnerships, REITs, and real estate stocks as their valuations and growth rates are not as easily comparable using traditional valuation metrics. Lastly, we disqualified Chinese companies due to the potential for political implications.

The following are the factors we used to screen for the next Apple.

Market cap > $50 billion

Price to Forward Earnings <15

Five-year expected earnings growth >5%

Sales growth in last five years > 5%

No financial, limited partnerships, REITs, real estate, or Chinese companies.

Many stocks meet the size, earnings, and sales growth criteria. But only two companies have cheap enough valuations to make the cut as shown below. 

Currently, Berkshire has 5.242 million shares of T-Mobile, which is .20% of the portfolio. T-Mobile met our criteria, but its 5-year expected earnings growth is slightly below Buffett’s 7% bogey.

Berkshire does not hold EOG but has other oil and gas exploration companies, including Occidental Petroleum and Chevron.

Summary

Warren Buffett is an investing legend and one of the wealthiest people in the world. He takes a value orientation with a long-term investment horizon.

The Berkshire Hathaway portfolio, which also owns private companies, has done exceptionally well versus the market, as shown below. However, he goes through prolonged periods of poor relative performance versus the market.

The graph shows that over the last 30 years, Berkshire’s price return has tripled that of the S&P 500.

However, there are four notable extended periods where he grossly underperformed the market.

Also of note is that Berkshire handily beat the market in the recession and drawdowns of the dot com bubble and financial crisis. Such attests to his value orientation.

Amid continuous and what seems like weekly turmoil at Boeing, which includes another whistleblower’s death, new probes by the Federal Aviation Administration, and a series of mid-air mishaps with various Boeing planes, a 787 cargo plane in Turkey suffered a landing gear malfunction, resulting in the plane landing on its nose. 

Daily Mail reports the Boeing 767 cargo plane took off from Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport earlier this morning and was headed to Istanbul when the pilot realized a malfunction. 

Dramatic footage has been posted on X, showing the pilot landing on the main landing gear and keeping the nose of the plane up as long as possible because of the malfunctioning front landing gear.

A Boeing 767 cargo plane crash-landed at Istanbul airport with a loose landing gear

The plane belonging to the American postal company Fedex was on a flight from Paris. It landed only at the second attempt and “pecked” its nose into the runway. There were no casualties. pic.twitter.com/d1OsgUrxVq

— NEXTA (@nexta_tv) May 8, 2024

The plane’s nose then slammed onto the runway at Istanbul, eventually sliding to a stop. 

$BA

❖ A Boeing 767 cargo plane has crashed upon landing in Turkey this morning after its landing gear failed when it came in to land.

The flight, operated by American postal service FedEx, took off from Paris’ Charles de Gaulle airport early this morning and was headed for… pic.twitter.com/8jTUMF51jp

— *Walter Bloomberg (@DeItaone) May 8, 2024

Local authorities reported no casualties. However, this incident adds to the ongoing issues with Boeing planes.

After yesterday’s stellar 3Y auction kickstarted refunding week, moments ago the Treasury sold a 10Y paper in an auction that left a bit to be desired.

Starting at the top, the 10Y auction size rose from $39BN in April to a record-matching $42BN in May, and surpassing the record auction sizes sold during the peak of the covid crisis.

The high yield was 4.483%, down modestly from last month’s 4.56% but tailing the 4.473% When Issued by 1basis point, the third consecutive tail in a row.

The bid to cover rose from 2.336 to 2.486%, right on top of the 2.49% six-auction average.

The internals were also ok, with Indirects awarded 65.5%, up from 61.8%, if below the 66.1% recent average. And with Directs taking down 18.7%, modestly above the 17.0% recent average, Dealers were left with 15.7% of the auction, the lowest since February.

Overall, this was a solid if slightly soggy auction, where the biggest negative was the modest tail, although in retrospect, there have been 13 tails in the past 15 10Y auctions, so the top-line disappointment is now pretty much standard, and the fact that internals were an improvement from last month is probably why yields did not spike after the auction.

By John Gallagher of FreightWaves

Deaths resulting from large-truck crashes where newly licensed drivers are involved continue to rise, according to recent government data, but a proposed safety requirement that could help reduce those deaths will likely be delayed again.

The percentage of fatal large-truck and bus crashes involving new-entrant carriers climbed from 4.6% to 7.4% from 2017 to 2022, according to a snapshot of Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration data taken at the end of 2023.

In 2022, those crashes resulted in 494 deaths and over $5.5 billion in costs.

“Unfortunately this trend continues among recent new-entrant program graduates,” said Kelly Stowe, an engineer with FMCSA, referring to the agency’s New Entrant Safety Assurance Program.

During FMCSA’s safety research forum on Thursday, Stowe presented a new internal agency analysis comparing crash rates for carriers that made it through the agency’s 18-month new-entrant program to crash rates of a control group of randomly selected established carriers of similar fleet size.

The data showed that motor carriers operating within 24 months of graduating from the new-entrant program had twice as many total crashes and nearly twice as many fatal crashes per 100 power units as established carriers.

“So even after completing [FMCSA’s] new-entrant program — which includes having to pass a safety audit — newer carriers are still getting in crashes at a higher frequency than more established carriers,” Stowe said. “If we can educate these carriers early on and make sure they understand the requirements and expectations before they begin operations, we can prevent some of these crashes from occurring.”

But Stowe acknowledged that despite the concerning trend, FMCSA has yet to establish a written proficiency exam, mandated by Congress in 2012, that must be passed before a motor carrier can be registered with the U.S. Department of Transportation. “The deadline for meeting this requirement was April 2014 — we’re 10 years late,” she said.

Stowe also noted that the timeline for a proposed rulemaking to establish the proficiency exam, which was scheduled to begin in July with publication in the Federal Register, “will likely slip. It’s a high-level work plan and it’s subject to change.”

While based on dated studies, there is evidence that such a requirement could significantly reduce injuries and fatalities involving new-entrant motor carrier crashes.

Stowe summarized findings from studies completed in 2006 and 2012 comparing companies undergoing training prior to receiving operating authority with control groups that did not.

Not only did trained-carrier drivers have much lower crash rates, but they also tended to “remain in business substantially longer,” Stowe said.

“We have an opportunity with this program to improve new-entrant motor carrier safety and hopefully carry those safety improvements over to the more established carrier population over time.”

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

New York City Mayor Eric Adams has contributed $5,000 of his own money to a reward offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of those responsible for vandalizing a World War I memorial.

The 107th United States Infantry monument, situated in Central Park on the Upper East Side, was vandalized during a protest on Monday. Social media footage shows anti-Israel protesters spray-painting the word “Gaza” on the base of the statue and burning an American flag.

#NOW 107th infantry War Soldier Memorial draped in Palestinian flag while American flag burns on the ground on 5th Ave in NYC during ‘DAY OF RAGE’ protest. pic.twitter.com/GAOyQoD130

— Oliya Scootercaster 🛴 (@ScooterCasterNY) May 7, 2024

Mr. Adams said on Tuesday that the state will offer a $15,000 reward, with $5,000 contributed by the mayor himself and another $10,000 by the New York Police Department (NYPD), for information leading to the arrest of the “cowards” who vandalized the memorial.

“We cannot remain silent when our symbols of freedom are desecrated by individuals who clearly hate our country and hate our way of life,” the mayor said during a press conference.

“We should not remain silent, because our silence gives the belief that everything is okay and it is not okay. Not only was this statue desecrated, but down the block, another statue was desecrated,” he added.

Mr. Adams, whose uncle died while serving in Vietnam at the age of 19, called the memorial vandalism a “painful” act and vowed to “treat this crime with the seriousness that it deserves.”

“I want to assure New Yorkers that our city will not tolerate chaos and disorder, even if those who are creating it claim to be doing so in the name of peace. We want [you] to bring your anger and passion to the protests, but don’t bring your hate, don’t bring your violence and don’t bring your disorder,” Mr. Adams said.

“We’re going to be swift with our response. We’re going to be swift with our actions, and we’re going to be swift to ensure those who attempt to bring disorder to the city would not accomplish their task,” he added.

Protestors also vandalized the monument honoring Union Army General William Tecumseh Sherman at Grand Army Plaza in Manhattan. The mayor’s office stated that NYC Parks is working with the Central Park Conservancy to finish cleaning the memorials.

The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), the nation’s largest war veterans organization, affirmed in a May 1 statement that it supports “the rule of law in our country and those working to uphold it.”

“While those staging protests on college campuses across the country have the right to free speech and to peaceful assembly, they do not have the right to violently act out against others,” VFW National Commander Duane Sarmiento stated.

Hundreds of protesters marched from Hunter College on Monday and made their way to the Metropolitan Museum of Art where the Met Gala was taking place.

Crowd control police with anti-riot gear sent out warnings that protesters would be arrested if they kept blocking the middle of the street and didn’t move to the sidewalks.

By 8 p.m. there were still about 800 protesters present. They dispersed into smaller groups, the biggest group having about 200 people, and at about 9 p.m. the protest faded.

Police block entrances to the Met Gala in New York on May 6, 2024. (Enrico Trigoso/The Epoch Times)

Protesters said they were upset with Israel’s bombing of Gaza and civilian casualties there.

NYPD Deputy Commissioner Kaz Daughtry told The Epoch Times that at least 25 individuals were arrested following the protest, including one person “who was throwing eggs out the window at the officers.”

The deputy commissioner said the pro-Palestinian group tried to force its way into the Met Gala but police had fortified the area and did not let anyone in who did not have permission.