Discussion Board (Corporates)
 Board
Write new posting
Read old postings (archive)
Read your postings
Last 50 Postings | Last 100 Postings
06-07-26 victor
carib, do you agree with dt?
//
Netanyahu will have ‘no choice’ but to accept deal: Trump
Trump has told The Financial Times that he calls “all the shots… he doesn’t call the shots”, referring to Netanyahu.
He added that Netanyahu will have “no choice” but to accept a deal.
The US president also said that Iran’s attacks on Israel had not changed his desire to reach an agreement.
|
|
06-07-26 carib
|
06-07-26 savo
Mike Levin
@MikeLevin
Follow the money on this one. It is rotten to the core.
The Pentagon just lent $620,000,000 to a tiny North Carolina startup called Vulcan Elements. The company is two years old.
It had fewer than 50 employees.
And three months before the deal was announced, Donald Trump Jr.’s venture firm quietly took a stake in it.
Here is the part the administration tried to bury.
Of the dozens of companies the Pentagon was weighing, Vulcan was the only deal initiated by a top White House aide. That aide was Peter Navarro, a close friend of Trump Jr. The order came down to move fast.
One official put it plainly: The call came from the White House. We have to get this done.
Staff worked late nights to push it through in weeks. Deals like this normally take many months of vetting. And when it closed, Vulcan’s valuation jumped from about 200 million dollars to roughly 2 billion.
A windfall for the investors, including the president’s son.
This is public money. Your money.
Routed through the Pentagon to enrich the president’s family and their friends. The Bush administration’s own chief ethics lawyer called it corruption we pay for.
And there is more coming.
A drone parts company Trump Jr. holds a stake in is also under Pentagon review.
This is not a one-off. It is a pattern. The president’s family is treating the federal Treasury like a private bank, and the bill lands on every taxpayer. |
|
06-07-26 savo
Thierry from arvy 🇨🇭
@ThierryBorgeat
🚨 We may be looking at the rarest market setup in 50 years.
The S&P 500's four historic drawdowns since 1972:
– 1973 Inflation: -43%
– 1987 Liquidity: -30%
– 2000 Tech: -47%
– 2008 Credit: -55%
Each one was driven by ONE dominant risk.
Right now, all four are present at the same time.
1. INFLATION
A commodity supercycle. Energy, metals, agriculture all in multi-year base breakouts. The Fed's preferred inflation gauge has been above 2% for 18 of the last 24 months.
2. LIQUIDITY
The largest equity supply shock since 2000. SpaceX, OpenAI, Anthropic raising ~$275B combined. Google flipping from $60B/year buybacks to $80B net issuance. Over $1 trillion of IPO and lockup supply hitting the Russell 3000 in 2026.
3. TECH
Semiconductors trading 73% above their 200-day moving average – the largest stretch since March 2000. Climax run signals across the AI complex. Micron, Palantir, SMCI, the SOX index, all showing the textbook O'Neil sell pattern.
4. CREDIT
Apollo, KKR, BlackRock, Blue Owl, Cliffwater, Partners Group – all gating redemptions on their evergreen funds in the last 90 days. The private credit machine is freezing in real time.
Never in 50 years have all four risks been simultaneously present.
But here's the part nobody talks about
While the AI Big 10 has gone vertical, quality stocks have been left for dead.
– Berkshire Hathaway: trailing the S&P 500 by hundreds of basis points
– Coca-Cola, Procter & Gamble, Pepsi: trading at multi-year relative lows
– HEICO, Union Pacific, MSCI: making boring new highs while everyone watches Nvidia
– Healthcare vs. S&P 500: 25-year relative low
The last time this happened?
December 1999. Barron's ran a cover titled "What's Wrong, Warren?" – mocking Buffett for being a dinosaur, for missing the internet, for refusing to pay for growth at any price.
Berkshire was down 19% in 1999 while the Nasdaq was up 85%.
What followed:
– Berkshire +29% over the next 24 months
– Nasdaq -78% over the next 30 months
The setup today
Four historic risks stacked simultaneously, while the boring, durable, cash-flowing businesses that always survive these regimes have been treated like dead money for years.
The math doesn't get more asymmetric than this.
Quality stocks aren't out of style.
They're being orphaned.
That's when generational positions are built.
The boring stuff hasn't worked for a long time.
History suggests that's exactly the moment it starts to. |
|
06-07-26 savo
Ricardo
@Ric_RTP
Big Tech just ran out of money building AI and what they're doing to cover it up should be illegal.
Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta are spending a combined $700 BILLION this year on AI infrastructure.
This eats up 94% of their total operating cash flow.
The richest companies in human history are almost broke. And instead of slowing down, they're covering it up with the biggest financial engineering operation since 2008:
Google just sold $80 billion in stock to fund AI infrastructure. That was their first equity raise in 20 YEARS.
The last time Google needed to sell stock, YouTube didn't even exist. Sundar Pichai admitted the thing keeping him up at night is "compute capacity."
The company that prints $100 billion a year in ad revenue just told Wall Street it isn't enough anymore.
Amazon's free cash flow is projected to go NEGATIVE this year for the first time ever. Morgan Stanley estimates a $17 billion deficit and Bank of America says $28 billion.
The most profitable logistics machine on Earth is about to burn more cash than it generates, and they quietly filed with the SEC saying they may need to raise even more debt and equity to keep building.
All four hyperscalers are now borrowing hundreds of billions in bonds to keep the AI buildout alive. These were the most cash-rich companies in human history, and they're leveraging themselves to the teeth to build infrastructure that nobody has proven will generate enough revenue to pay for itself.
And the cracks are already starting to show:
Broadcom makes the custom AI chips that power Google, Meta, OpenAI, and Anthropic. This week their AI revenue TRIPLED year over year, sales grew 48%, and profits smashed every Wall Street estimate.
The reward for all of that was $320 billion in value erased in a single trading session.
Their CEO Hock Tan went on the earnings call and exposed three things about the AI industry:
Google is already shopping for cheaper AI chip alternatives, broadcom abandoned its strategy of selling complete AI systems and is now retreating to selling bare chips at lower margins.
And despite supposedly "unprecedented demand," Tan refused to raise his full-year forecast, which tells you everything about what he's actually seeing behind the curtain.
Wall Street heard all three and hit the sell button so hard it dragged AMD, Intel, and the entire chip sector down with it.
When a company triples its AI revenue and gets punished because tripling isn't fast enough, the expectations have left the atmosphere entirely.
And here's the really scary part...
These companies ARE your retirement account. Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia make up roughly 30% of the S&P 500. If you have a 401k or an index fund, you are already exposed to this bet whether you chose to be or not.
Every single one of these companies is telling you AI will generate trillions in revenue. But right now the math says they're spending trillions FIRST and hoping the revenue shows up later.
If the revenue catches up, this becomes the greatest infrastructure buildout in human history. Bigger than railroads and bigger than the internet.
If it doesn't, the companies that make up a third of the American stock market just leveraged their balance sheets into the largest write-down cycle since 2000.
And unlike the dot-com crash, this time the bubble companies aren't random startups with no revenue. They're the backbone of the entire global economy. |
|
06-07-26 savo
spa... i understand your point... but i miss our old imperfect human debates full of spelling errors and misconceptions... going around them we usually come up with very interesting ideas.
I have the feeling AI is becoming a sort of intruder in our debates... |
|
06-07-26 spal
Savo - assume my stuff is 100% AI that would be the best approach. You see in my case I assume most of what I read (particularly from "randos" on the internet to be inchoate droolings, largely emotive that people have essentially "pulled out of their asses" ... but I digress.
My own mind is very small and weak, but I do think my logic and reasoning capabilities to be largely intact.
AI is actually a great tool as instantly you can pool all considerations that largely would be forgotten or incorrectly recalled. thus refreshing and refrying is always my base line ... I prefer that to instant droolings and blurtings. |
|
06-07-26 spal
| Savo it is mixed - some is not. Don't read (ignore) the bits you don't want. |
|
06-07-26 carib
| Likewise.. the US can lower rates in front of inflation.. but there are consequences.. |
|
06-07-26 carib
SPAL: I concur. Ultimately, Veny restructuring.. will be what Trump & c will decide it to be.
But the credibility of the US jurisdiction for issuing debt will be impacted by abuses, if any. |
|
06-07-26 victor
dt: to keep it simple, i don't care about inflation!! :-))
//
Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump said Federal Reserve policymakers would be wrong to raise interest rates after a blowout US jobs report, while insisting he doesn’t want to influence Kevin Warsh before he chairs his first Fed meeting.
“Nowadays when you have good reports, the market goes down because they think they’re going to raise interest rates,” Trump said in an interview with NBC’s Meet the Press airing Sunday. “There’s no reason to raise interest rates.”
Job growth in May topped all forecasts in Friday’s US employment report, prompting a selloff in Treasuries and leading traders to fully price in a quarter-point increase in the Fed’s benchmark rate by the end of the year.
Trump’s comment adds to the economic and political forces tugging at Warsh as he prepares to chair his first Federal Open Market Committee meeting on June 16–17. Raising the benchmark rate “is the wrong thing to do,” Trump said. “We should actually lower interest rates,” he said.
Trump nominated Warsh to head the Fed after a relentless public campaign for the central bank to cut borrowing costs, though he has since said he wants Warsh to “do your own thing.”
Yet the selloff in the bond market and recalibration of Fed wagers reflects growing confidence that the Fed under Warsh will need to raise borrowing costs to contain inflation that’s running above target.
“I’m living with Kevin,” Trump told NBC. “I have a lot of respect for him, but my feeling is that when a country is doing well, they shouldn’t be penalized by immediately raising interest rates.”
“You know, we have debt, we have other things,” he added, “We have things we want to take care of. I want to go bigger on the military.”
Rate-hike expectations were reinforced by the US labor-market readings on Friday as nonfarm payrolls increased 172,000 last month after upward revisions to the prior two months, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data. The US unemployment rate held steady at 4.3%.
|
|
06-07-26 savo
It is impossible to calculate what the Republic can pay without explicitly dictating what PDVSA will spend on capital expenditure to restore production.
Precisely... that is why pdvsa has to be restructured first...
in any case spal.. you are quoting too much AI... most of which is refried knowledge...would be good if you could introduce those posts that are AI by saying they are AI |
|
06-07-26 spal
| Quod princeps vult, ius concedit |
|
06-07-26 spal
No ... but if the U.S. government decides that a comprehensive settlement is in the foreign policy interest of the US, it can maintain these asset shields indefinitely for non-participating creditors.
Consequently, while an obligor change cannot retroactively erase a summary judgment, geopolitics can render that judgment permanently un-enforceable, functionally forcing holdouts to the negotiating table anyway. |
|
06-07-26 carib
Spal: would future changes of corporate obligor have retro-active effects on creditors already holding summary judgements?
I doubt... |
|
06-07-26 spal
| Emerging legal strategies propose utilizing the specific phrasing in PDVSA's pari passu clauses to explicitly subordinate non-exchanged debt. By passing domestic or structural regulations that mandate paying the newly restructured bonds ahead of defaulted legacy claims, holdouts face the prospect of never seeing cash flow, rendering holdout litigation economically unviable. |
|
06-07-26 spal
Some PDVSA indentures contain an unusual clause explicitly permitting a change of the primary corporate obligor with a simple majority vote.
Advisors have noted that a restructured PDVSA could legally transfer the legacy debt to a hollow shell company while moving the operational oil assets to a "New-New PDVSA," leaving holdouts suing an empty entity. |
|
06-07-26 spal
No satanists only only legal logic validating economic reality.
Of course PDVSA holders will talk their book ... some even scream it.
Under Crystallex litigation U.S. federal courts ruled that PDVSA is effectively the "alter ego" of the Venezuelan state.
In credit rating architecture, an SOE almost never commands a rating higher than its sovereign parent. This is because the state holds the ultimate intervention power—it can alter royalty rates, divert export revenues, or expropriate corporate cash at will. PDVSA cannot be creditworthy if the Republic is insolvent.
Venezuela's entire macroeconomic framework and debt sustainability analysis (DSA) depend on oil.
It is impossible to calculate what the Republic can pay without explicitly dictating what PDVSA will spend on capital expenditure to restore production.
This is the reality ... blurtings and protests aside.
|
|
06-07-26 savo
| and the looters continue looting... |
|
06-07-26 savo
i do not think that is a problem.... governments can do many things that they do not do... but in order for people to believe that the company has to be run as an autonomous entity...
pbr was 100% state owned and now it isn't |
|
06-07-26 carib
“Treasury will utilise all tools available to allow Iranian assets to be made available to our Gulf allies to support rebuilding and repairs for any future damage caused by Iran,” a senior Trump administration official told the FT on Saturday.
The official added that Bessent had “directed his team to assess conditions among our Gulf allies and request comprehensive estimates of the costs associated with repairing damage Iran has inflicted since the start of the conflict”.
“Treasury will further consider whether Iranian assets could be used to support repairs for past damages,” said the official.
|
|
06-07-26 carib
Savo: I think PDVsa shares and dividends are a "commercial asset".
Problem is if Sov creditors can attach it.. |
|
06-07-26 savo
carib.. i thought you were saying it is saudi american today...
reinforces the point.. if veni is a protectorate its oil company should not require a haircut of debt... just a re-profiling given that most bonds have already matured or are close to mature.
Something very odd is happening here.. Veni should never put the rep and pdvsa in the same sentence...it gives ammunition to alter ego.
I still feel that this will be corrected.
Delcy could perfectly well restructure pdvsa debt. Nobody in the opposition will complain if that helps increase oil production. But the rep should be a matter left for the next elected government.
|
|
06-07-26 Merlino
In 1944, CASOC was renamed the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). To manage massive capital investments
...............................
1944, that is before the end of WWII in 1945. Of course by 1944 that region was secured for USA/UK/French interests....I sense some analogies with current Veni situation and her pre transition/pro USA gov |
|
06-07-26 carib
History of ArAmco:
The U.S. Consortium Era (1944–1980):
In 1944, CASOC was renamed the Arabian American Oil Company (Aramco). To manage massive capital investments, SOCAL brought in Texaco, the Standard Oil Company of New Jersey (Exxon), and Socony-Vacuum (Mobil) as co-owners. For decades, this American consortium operated and expanded Aramco’s footprint across Saudi Arabia.
Nationalization (1973–1980):
In the 1970s, the Saudi Arabian government began gradually acquiring ownership of the company. A 25% interest was acquired in 1973, which expanded to 60% in 1974, and finally 100% control by 1980.
Renaming (1988): Eight years after full Saudi ownership, the company was officially renamed the Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco), reflecting its binational history and its role as the national oil company.
Given Veny is now an american protectorate, as Saudi de facto was after WW2... |
|
06-07-26 savo
irresective of the ownership of aramco... the big question is who recommended veni to bundle together pdvsa and the rep?
it is pure nonsense... the corp has to be restructured so that the sov can then run a sustainability analysis to know what they can and can not pay depending on the dividends and taxes it can obtain from pdvsa.
I can only think of the satanist who spread the fantasy of Pdvsa II and paid lawyers to write about it. |
|
06-07-26 savo
carib.. i do not know if this is up to date
The primary ownership stakes are split as follows:
~82%: Owned directly by the Government of Saudi Arabia
~16%: Held by the Public Investment Fund (PIF), which is Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund
~2%: Publicly traded on the Saudi Exchange (Tadawul)
|
|
|
