Individual Economists

Transcript: Jean Eric Salata, Chair of EQT group

The Big Picture -

 

 

The transcript from this week’s, MiB: Jean Eric Salata, Chair of EQT group, is below.

You can stream and download our full conversation, including any podcast extras, on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube (video), YouTube (audio), and Bloomberg. All of our earlier podcasts on your favorite pod hosts can be found here.

 

~~~

 

MASTERS IN BUSINESS

Jean Eric Salata, Chair, EQT Group
Host: Barry Ritholtz, Bloomberg Radio

 

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:00:07   I’m Barry Ritholtz. You are listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest today is Jean Eric Salata. He is chair of the EQT Group, the largest alternative manager outside of the US. They manage over $316 billion. Previously, he helped set up the Baring Private Equity Asia group and built it into one of Asia’s premier private equity platforms. With no further ado, Jean Eric Salata, welcome to Bloomberg.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:00:52   Thank you, Barry. It’s great to be here.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:00:54   Great to have you. I’ve been looking forward to this conversation for a while. Before we get to EQT, you have a really interesting background, and I want to dive into that a little bit. You grew up in Chile, you went to the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania to get a bachelor’s in finance and economics. Was investing always the career plan?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:01:20   Well, yes, investing was always the career plan. That’s not how I ended up in Asia, but the idea of going to Wharton and becoming an investor was something I always wanted to do since I was a young boy. I remember reading a lot of biographies when I was a kid—of business people—and being very intrigued by that. I remember having my first paper delivery route when I was like 10 or 11 years old and really enjoying the idea of making money, and then I actually started investing that money as a young kid in the stock market as well, and kind of understanding how that worked. And then when I ended up at Wharton undergraduate, studying finance and management, I got very intrigued with global business outside the US. I come from an international background. My family—we grew up in South America. My grandparents actually came from Eastern Europe and were sort of refugees that ended up in South America. Generation to generation, we’ve been moving around quite a bit, and I always felt like I had quite a different perspective on life and the world than a lot of the people I was at school with. And so I was interested in pursuing that. And, as luck would have it—or fate would have it—I ended up meeting my girlfriend at the time, who’s now my wife, who’s from Hong Kong, and I ended up moving there right after I graduated—a year after I graduated from college—and ended up really building my career in Asia as a result of that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:02:40   And that was Hong Kong before the handover. So: Chile, Hong Kong. You started at Bain as a consultant, ended up everywhere from Sydney to Boston and then back to Hong Kong. Tell us a little bit about that global experience. How has that changed how you look at the world of investing?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:03:00   Yeah, I’ve always felt a little bit like an outsider in the way I look at things. I’ve never felt like I was exactly part of the community, or the consensus view of things. I was always thinking about things a little bit differently, I guess, given the background. When I was growing up in the US, I was always comparing things in the US to the way things were in Chile and saying, oh, this is different, or that’s different. Then when I moved to Hong Kong, I had the same perspective. I was thinking, wow, there’s a lot that I see happening—all my friends working on Wall Street or in private equity firms in the late eighties, early nineties—that’s not yet happening here in Hong Kong. It felt like there was a gap there. And that always intrigued me and got me motivated and interested in thinking about starting something new that would try to take advantage of that opportunity created by that gap—of what’s already happening in the US eventually coming to Asia. And that’s sort of what led me to eventually leave consulting and get into private equity in the early nineties, which was really very early in an Asian context in the private equity industry. And from there, to start building the business.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:04:13   So you leave Bain. Was the next stop AIG Global Investment? Did you help set up their PE arm, or was that already up and running?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:04:23   No. AIG was essentially an insurance business. Some of your listeners might recall Hank Greenberg, who’s sort of a legend. He didn’t actually start that business, but he was the one who really grew it beyond the founder, C.V. Starr’s, initial starting of the business in Shanghai, of all places. And it became a large global insurance company. In those days in Asia, there really wasn’t a private equity industry, but there were insurance companies like AIG that had long-dated liabilities and they needed to find long-dated assets. So you had the stock market and fixed income and so on, but in the private markets there wasn’t really a fund to invest in per se. So they started making their own investments off their balance sheet, into companies, to match their long-dated liabilities. And so it was really working for AIG, in their internal private equity group, that got me started in the industry.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:05:17   Foundational experience at AIG—that’s really in private equity. That’s a sentence you don’t hear that often.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:05:24   It was early days. It was interesting, because the whole region was really starting to boom. It was the golden period of globalization, with the emergence of not just China, but Southeast Asia—Thailand, Indonesia, Taiwan, Korea. All these markets were starting to really develop and industrialize, and there was a lot of requirement for capital for growth. So we were really growth investors in those days, putting money to work behind companies and helping them to grow.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:05:55   And then you move from investor to operator. As executive vice president, you run finance for Shiu Wing Steel—a giant Hong Kong industrial. What was that experience like?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:06:07   Yeah, that actually happened before I left to do the private equity. So it was Bain, then Shiu Wing, and then AIG. But the Shiu Wing experience is a part of my background that’s a little bit different, because it’s really a family business, very traditionally run, an industrial company. It’s actually my wife’s family business.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:06:30   Oh, really?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:06:30   Yeah. It was a very different experience. I went from—

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:06:35   I went from Bain & Company, you know, sort of business school—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:06:41   Very buttoned-down.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:06:42   Buttoned-down. Everybody has similar backgrounds, very analytical—to the opposite end of the spectrum, which is a family business. Everybody who’s in management is related to each other, and you’re making decisions based on traditional ways of doing things. But—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:06:58   This isn’t a small little family dry cleaner. This is—

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:07:02   It’s a big business, yeah.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:07:03   —a giant conglomerate.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:07:04   A sizable business. And it was a good experience for me, because it helped shape, in the very formative years of my career, an appreciation for both sides of the spectrum. On the one hand, you have the need to be analytical, rigorous, to understand global trends—the way you look at things as a business school student. On the other hand, if you’re going to do business in Asia, you have to be a little bit more entrepreneurial. You have to listen to your instinct. You have to be able to develop relationships with people, because ultimately the decision-makers in that part of the world—a lot of them have those sorts of backgrounds. So you need to be able to understand how they think. That was a very valuable experience during my formative years. But I came to the view that I didn’t really want to spend the rest of my career in that sort of setup. So I applied to business school, and I got in—I got into Harvard Business School, actually. I was about to start at Harvard. I literally was there, registered—I’m actually in the picture book—ready to go. And that’s when I got the job offer to come back and work for this private equity division of AIG, which I ultimately decided was really what I wanted to do, rather than go back to school again, having gone to undergraduate for a business degree already. So I decided to defer my business school, go back to work in Asia in private equity. And ultimately I actually never ended up coming back to school.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:08:31   So after AIG, you helped launch a regional Asian private equity program for Baring Private Equity Partners—a UK-based bank, right? Do I have the timeline right? So, 1997. What was the investment landscape in Asia like in the nineties? Was that a very underappreciated set of opportunities, or had people started to sniff out that this area was going to be booming?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:09:00   It was a very volatile period, actually, if you recall what was going on at the time. Two things happened. In 1995—this is just around the time I was joining Baring Private Equity—Nick Leeson, who is a name some of your listeners may recognize and others may not, brought down this 300-year-old bank.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:09:22   Barings Bank. Yeah.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:09:22   He broke the bank, out of Singapore, actually trading Japanese stock futures and covering up his losses, which eventually brought the whole bank down. It was a 300-year-old bank, one of the most prominent firms. So what ended up happening is that the Dutch firm ING took over Barings—famously for one pound—and assumed all their liabilities. This was around the time that I had joined. At the time I remember thinking, oh, this is very unsettling—I don’t know what I’m going to do. I was very worried. I had just decided to leave AIG and join this new company, Baring Private Equity. In hindsight, sitting here today, I can tell you it’s probably one of the best things that ever happened to me—to be able to step into a situation that was going through a lot of change. I think it’s an important lesson in life, actually. There are these times when you go through—there’s serendipity, number one, so luck. There’s also the fact that you’re often thrust into situations you don’t expect. And it boils down to how you end up responding to them. Looking for the best possible outcomes, or the best way out of a situation, can sometimes lead to huge opportunities—which is what happened here. Because that confusion of the takeover by ING of Barings resulted in Barings essentially figuring that they didn’t need to have some of these non-core businesses. So I approached the new Dutch owners and asked them if it was okay if we spun our business out, which we did. It was a very small business—we had $25 million of assets under management, which even in those days was not a lot of money. We were really just getting started, and they agreed. So we ended up establishing an independent small private equity business called Baring Private Equity Asia.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:11:09   So you kept the name.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:11:10   We kept the name.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:11:11   BPEA. There was this tremendous transition from what was essentially a startup to what eventually became a pretty substantial institution. What was that like?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:11:26   Initially, we were starting off—and again, it was 1996, 1997. If you recall, 1997 was actually the Asian financial crisis, as it’s referred to, which was a terrible period of huge currency devaluations—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:11:45   The ruble was worse the following year, with Long-Term Capital Management, if my memory is right. So the Asian contagion was the Thai baht crisis in ’97.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:11:53   It was the Indonesian high-yield market as well that blew up. People were basically borrowing dollars because it was cheaper to do so, using that money to invest in their businesses in Asia, thinking they could make the spread and capture that—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:12:09   —as long as the currency stays stable.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:12:11   Which is okay, but then it is until it isn’t, right? And so that’s what happened. That blew out, and it caused a tremendous financial crisis across the whole region. This is in the middle of when we were getting started. I remember we were writing the first PPM—the first private placement memorandum—to go raise capital. And the whole story in ’96 was about growth in Asia, the growth story. Halfway through writing the PPM, we had to change the strategy to become more of a distressed strategy—how we were going to capitalize on the dislocation in Asia to invest in great companies that had bad balance sheets. Which is sort of what we did with that first $25 million that we started with. Because what happened was that ING gave us that seed capital to get going—the $25 million. They were supposed to give us $300 million, but it ended up not coming through. So we started with $25 million.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:13:01   Why is it that there’s such a multiple between the indications of interest and the actual cash?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:13:09   What happened in my case is that there were supposed to be three of us coming across to start the business. There were two very senior guys from AIG, actually, who were poached by Barings to start the business for them in Asia. And they asked me—the young kid who was doing all the number crunching—to join them to do the actual work. I said I’d be delighted to, because it was such an exciting entrepreneurial opportunity. Here I am, a young junior analyst, and I get a chance to be potentially a partner in this startup. So I raised my hand. As we were about to get started, the two senior guys got a counteroffer from Hank Greenberg, who called them up and said, hey, you guys are too important, we want you to stay—here’s all this money and equity to convince you to stay. But he didn’t make me a counteroffer. He just cut me loose. So those guys accepted the counteroffer. I was left there on my own, and I went back to the ING folks and said, here I am, I’m ready to do this. They said, well, you’re a little young and inexperienced, it’s not what we’re expecting—we’re going to slash the capital we commit to this from $300 million to $25 million.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:14:12   Less than 10%.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:14:13   And I said, that’s good enough for me. I’ll take that—that sounds good. So we started with $25 million, and we did five deals of $5 million each. It turned out that because of where we were in the cycle, we were lucky to be able to buy in at good prices. And we bought some interesting businesses—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:14:30   That sounds really—

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:14:31   That got us started, basically.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:14:32   That sounds really quite fascinating. So BPEA was in China, India, Southeast Asia, Japan, Korea. Here’s the thing I’m fascinated by. Maybe New York is different from Florida, which is different from Texas, which is different from California—but we all speak the same language, more or less. It’s the same laws, the same regulatory structure. When you’re working throughout Asia, there’s a different legal system, a different cultural dynamic, different political dynamics. How do you build relationships? How do you build a knowledge base and navigate? From an American perspective, are those countries more similar than we imagine, or am I teeing this up correctly—each one is its own independent, unique region?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:15:24   You’re absolutely right about that, and that actually is the key, I think, to what we’ve been able to achieve over three decades—overcoming those barriers. Because ultimately, people think of Asia, they call it Asia, but it’s really, first of all, geographic—it’s a huge, expansive region. From Tokyo to Sydney, it’s like a 12-hour flight. And even from Hong Kong all the way to India, it’s still a pretty long distance. And culturally, you’re talking about a very significant difference in the local culture, the local language, the ways of doing business. So what we did initially—and we were actually criticized for this in the early days, because in those days people just did single-country funds for that very reason. You had a China fund, a Japan fund, a Korea fund. What we set out to do was to say, okay, we’re going to create a regional investment program. People looked at me and said, what do you know about investing in Japan? Or, what do you know about India? You’re not even from Asia. And so what I appreciated early on—this has been an important lesson in my career—is that being a good investor is very important for what we do in our industry, but if you want to build a company, which was always my ambition, if you want to build a business out of it, you need to actually build a team, not just be a good investor. Being a good investor is kind of a prerequisite to be in our industry. But beyond that, it’s really about building a team. So I was lucky enough to meet and bring on board some great partners early on, with very diverse backgrounds. We have people, even to this day, from each of these markets. We had great partners from China, from Taiwan, on our team that we hired early on. We had a very good team in India, on the ground in Mumbai. We call it “local with locals,” where you have local teams in each market. In 2005, we opened up an office in Japan and we hired a great team there. As we were building the team, you needed to have people from those markets who understood those markets. But the next question is, how do you stitch it all together? How do you create that common thread? And that comes down to culture—building a culture of like-minded people. So I started to gain a huge appreciation for the importance of culture in a business. And that’s something that EQT, I think, has really excelled in globally. One of the reasons I was ultimately attracted to EQT, in combining our business with EQT four or five years ago, was that Conni Jonsson, the founder of EQT, early on—with the Wallenbergs’ backing—realized that culture ultimately drives performance in an investment organization like ours. So he built an organization with tremendous culture, and our culture was actually somewhat similar. So we were able to bring the two cultures together, and the cultural fit ended up being what made that merger so successful. But going back to building the Asia business—building the team on the ground, building the common culture—then it was, how do we institutionalize this, instead of just doing deals here and there? How do we create a unified, systematic approach? This is where my Bain days came in: let’s come up with some constructs about how we think about capital allocation, how we think about diversification, how we think about macro, how we think about sector trends, how we think about our investment committee process. How do we drive systematic due diligence in every market, so we have quality control in each market—it’s not just random deal makers doing things the way they want to on the ground? And so pulling all that together took a lot of time. I’m shortening it here, but there were a lot of ups and downs, a lot of mistakes, a lot of setbacks. But eventually we got there, and we refined our strategy over the years and created something that’s actually quite hard to replicate—this regional platform delivering consistent outcomes, with a great team of consistent people who have been with us a long time and have a similar approach to underwriting and, ultimately, great performance. So, going from $25 million, by the time we did the deal with EQT we had $25 billion under management—over the span of what was 25 years of building the business.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:19:38   Coming up, we continue our conversation with Jean Eric Salata, chairman of EQT Group, discussing the combination of BPEA and EQT. I’m Barry Ritholtz, and you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

* * *

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:20:12   I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jean Eric Salata. He is chair of EQT Group, one of the largest alternative managers outside of the US. They manage $316 billion. So let’s talk a little bit about how this all came about. In 2022, you merged BPEA with EQT—a $7 billion deal that followed about 25 years of independence. What led to that decision to merge? What could EQT offer that BPEA couldn’t build on its own?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:20:52   Yeah, I think what I started to sense in about 2015 was that the industry was changing—our industry was changing globally. You started to see global firms moving into Asia. You started to see some firms going public. You started to see multi-product firms developing beyond just a single product, single asset class—scale. And I realized that although we were doing very well and growing successfully, if we wanted to make this a multi-generational business that’s going to continue to thrive, we wanted to be part of this industry consolidation, this trend toward scale—rather than be pushed aside by it. That’s when I started thinking, what are our options? One option was to try to expand beyond Asia and develop our business outside the region. That was going to be pretty difficult at this stage, because the business is becoming so large and entrenched globally. And then I started looking at ways of working with others. That’s when I met EQT, really through their own IPO, which they had recently done—they had gone public in 2018, 2019. I was curious about that. I went to speak to them about how they had done it. We started talking, and one thing led to another, and by the end of the conversation it became evident to all of us sitting around the table that there was something here that could be quite powerful if we were to bring the businesses together.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:22:22   You mentioned earlier how important culture is to performance in an investment world. I would imagine that a Swedish firm like EQT and essentially a regional Asian firm like BPEA—you’d imagine those are very different cultures, and there’s going to be a challenge integrating the two. What was your experience like trying to get all the horses pulling in the same direction?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:22:53   I think initially you could imagine that would be the case, but as it turns out, a few things. First of all, EQT started off as a Swedish firm, but by the time we met it had really already become a much more global business—first Swedish, then European, expanding into Europe, and then expanding into the US, with some presence in Asia, not much. Secondly, EQT is backed by the Wallenberg family. The Wallenberg family is a sixth-generation family from Sweden that has a history of doing business globally—investors in Ericsson, Electrolux, Saab, AstraZeneca, many of the big Swedish companies. So they have a very global mindset in the way they think about doing business. And then I think the other aspect here is there’s a difference between a European firm like EQT and, say, American firms. The European firms are already thinking in terms of, well, every country’s different. The Nordics are different from Germany, which is different from France, which is different from Southern Europe. So when they come to Asia, they have a heightened sense of appreciation for the cultural differences within Asia. To me that was really important—that they understand that within Asia, Japan is very different from India, and India is very different from China. So I felt almost like there was a kindred spirit there, understanding that each country, each region—the cultures really matter. Then I’d say if you look at the histories of the firms, we’re both about 30 years old at the time. We both had our ups and downs. We both kind of built the business from a founder—Conni and myself. There was a lot of common, shared history there. And ultimately it boiled down to the chemistry of the senior team, but then ultimately the culture throughout. I felt very comfortable with it. We spent some time together, meeting with the team members, meeting with each other, and we ended up feeling like this was going to be a great fit—still taking a chance in bringing the businesses together. But having done it now, having been together for nearly four years, I can tell you it’s been a huge success. It really boils down to the fact that the people, the cultural fit, was very strong. Maybe a good time to talk about the values of EQT, which are similar to the values we had at Baring Private Equity at the time. There are some key values that EQT has. Number one, it’s high-performing—which is something most people in our industry are going to focus on. But beyond that, we focus a lot on transparency. We focus on being informal. We focus on being entrepreneurial. And we have a fifth value, which is respectful. If you take all those as a package, what you start to sense is the sort of people who end up coming to EQT and staying at EQT. It’s not the typical deal maker—the Wall Street type of deal maker that you get in some parts of our industry. And I think that really appealed to the makeup of our firm at the time—having that really informal interaction with people. That’s a little bit of a Nordic trait, I would say—this lack of hierarchy. Take a look at Conni: he’s the founder of the firm, and he opened up the ownership of the firm early to all the partners. The fact that he was even open to combining with my old business and, in a sense, diluting even further on a fairly large transaction—that speaks to this expansive view of, we’re trying to build an institution here. It’s not about any one individual, it’s not about creating a legacy of any one individual. It’s about creating a business that’s going to last. That mindset really appealed to me, and felt like the kind of place that was a good home for the company that we had built as a partnership prior to that.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:26:43   Really interesting. Let’s talk a little bit about how the capital is invested. 65% of EQT’s capital is in Europe and Asia. How do you think about geographic diversification? It’s always a challenge.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:26:59   I think diversification is becoming more and more top of mind for global investors, particularly when we talk to our institutional investors. Even in the private wealth channels, you’re starting to get a sense that people feel overly concentrated, over-extended, maybe, in US assets. Not to say that US assets are not attractive, or that they don’t have great prospects—which they do. But having 85, 90% of your assets tied into a market that’s already highly concentrated is becoming a little bit uneasy for people. So what we’re sensing with our clients is a desire to get exposure to more global markets. And where we’re strong is, we have two-thirds of our business outside of the US. We’re very strong in Europe, very strong in Asia. Within those markets, we’re also exposed to some of the best sectors—we have a very thematic approach. We invest in healthcare, we invest in technology. Actually, we just announced yesterday—I don’t know when this is airing—that we’ve been awarded the Scale Up Europe Fund mandate by the European Commission, which is a huge deal. They decided to award EQT the management of what’s going to be a $5 billion fund that will invest in early-stage technology ventures across Europe to help them scale up—so series B onwards, in areas like quantum computing, AI, life sciences, AI infrastructure, industrial technology—really taking the innovation that exists in Europe and scaling it up to compete globally, at global scale, with some of the innovation you see in the United States and in China. So we have exposure to some of these really interesting parts of the global investment landscape, and that’s very additive to what investors typically would have. Their traditional portfolio would be much more heavily weighted toward the US, and this is a way to get a little bit broader global diversification.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:28:53   Really interesting. When we look at the performance of various markets, really going back to the great financial crisis, it feels like Asia and Europe very much lagged the US, up until a year or two ago. I’m curious how you look at some of the macro tailwinds that Asia is certainly enjoying, as we see a shift toward China in many ways, especially leadership. And how do you see Europe? There are some tailwinds, some headwinds—they seem to be a little more complex in trying to figure out what direction they’re heading.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:29:34   Exactly. I think what we’re starting to see globally right now is this CapEx supercycle that is playing out with AI infrastructure—but not just AI infrastructure. It also feeds into the reindustrialization focus, the CapEx for reindustrialization.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:30:00   Reindustrialization—explain what that means.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:30:07   Meaning investing back into more of the industrial base of, say, the United States or Europe, away from just outsourcing all of it. So this reindustrialization, the AI CapEx infrastructure, plus the whole power and energy transition that’s going on with electrification—this is resulting in much more capital-intensive investment than we’ve ever seen before. The numbers people are throwing around are just unprecedented within our lifetimes. It’s historical, the levels of investment that we’re seeing. And that has knock-on effects throughout the whole supply chain. A lot of the supply chain actually feeds back into Europe. It feeds back into Asia, certainly. So this global supply chain of capital expenditures is creating new investment opportunities and demand for capital that we have never seen before, in terms of the quantum of money that’s required to make this investment play out. So broadening that exposure across the regions is where we see opportunity. If I look at the world today, the AI infrastructure opportunity globally is probably the single biggest, most interesting investment opportunity for us. It means investing in a couple of key areas. One is the compute, or data center, space. We have one of the largest data center businesses in the world, called EdgeConneX. It’s active both in the US and in Europe, and now increasingly in Asia. We have a joint venture in India, for example, with the Adani Group, in EdgeConneX. That data center business has over 90 data centers. It’s increased in value—we’ve owned it now for six, seven years—I think it’s increased by 20x in terms of the total installed capacity of the business. In addition to that, we take an end-to-end solutions approach. So we have the compute, but we also have about $100 billion of investment into energy—the whole energy grid, power generation and storage. This is a really important part of the comprehensive solution that you need to drive AI compute. So we’ve got the energy, we’ve got the compute, and we’re also investing in the digital infrastructure to connect it all—the digital connectivity of all of this. If you tie that all together, our infrastructure business is really riding some of these global tailwinds—not just in the US, but really doing this globally. Then in addition to that, the other thing that’s pretty interesting, if you take a non-US lens on the world, is what’s happening in Japan. The Japanese buyout market is really on a tear. It’s being driven primarily by some corporate reforms around shareholder reforms and increasing shareholder activism—which is supported, actually, by the Japanese government, to improve corporate governance. That’s creating opportunities to really focus on shareholder value and resulting in a lot more deal flow. The number of transactions we’ve seen this year alone is up 60% year to date. The total number of activist shareholder campaigns has doubled in the last few years—from 50 to over a hundred a year—on the back of some of these reforms. So you’re seeing a whole new market developing there for Japanese buyouts, which is very uncorrelated and very complementary to the traditional buyout opportunities that exist in the United States. And then, together with the AI infrastructure opportunity, which is more global, there’s just a lot happening in our ecosystem, which we see as being very additive, very complementary to just the traditional bread and butter of US exposure to private equity or US infrastructure.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:33:40   So I have so many questions to go from that.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:33:43   Sorry, maybe just one last point on that. You started the question off with the outperformance of the market. What ended up happening last year, as you pointed out, is that the stock markets—if you look at listed markets as a proxy—the S&P 500 did pretty well. It was up sort of 18% or something—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:33:58   17, yeah. Versus 33 overseas.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:34:00   But everything else, in Asia, was up much more than that, as it turned out. Even—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:34:04   Europe, Korea—amazing. Who would’ve guessed?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:34:06   Korea’s up 60% last year. Hong Kong was up, Japan was up in the thirties, and even European stock markets did better than the US last year. So the idea that you have all your pension, all your retirement money in one market—it’s worked pretty well for the time being. But the idea of correlation and concentration—markets don’t always go up, they go down as well. I think the old diversification strategies do play a role in long-term asset allocation. And that’s where EQT, I think, has something.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:34:40   I have so many questions about Europe and Japan and Korea, but I have to come back to China for a moment. For the better part of the past two or three decades, China has been the center of Asia. It feels like the geopolitics, the regulatory environment—everything has shifted fairly dramatically. How do you look at China? Are they still the 800-pound gorilla, or are there enough offsetting economies that are really growing and seeing gains in their markets that it’s not all about China the way it once was 10, 20 years ago?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:35:25   The world geopolitically is becoming more polarized, and maybe creating more silos in certain strategic areas like technology and defense, as the winds have shifted. That’s just the reality of the world we’re living in. Having said that, I do think there’s still this underlying ecosystem of interdependence and a desire, I think, to work together—I hope—in areas like, for example, medicine. If you look at the biopharma, the biotech industry, there’s a lot going on right now between China and the US. A lot of the early-stage trials being done—many of those are getting acquired by US pharmaceutical companies and then rolled out for the benefit of humanity all over the world. These are areas where there’s scope for cooperation, and I think everyone can benefit from that. There are areas that are much more sensitive when it comes to technology and chips and semiconductors. But even there, it’s important for all investors, for all businesses, for governments, for policymakers, to at least understand what’s happening in China, because I think it’s relevant—it has an impact on the global outlook. You look at EVs, you look at the solar industry, you look at what’s happening in battery storage—having access to that sort of know-how ultimately is going to be important for everyone. How you do that in a way that protects your national interest is a topic of the day for policymakers globally, in the US and Europe. I think people are looking at that differently than they used to, in terms of how much they’re willing to outsource versus how much they want to do themselves. This Scale Up Europe Fund that I just mentioned is also a policy response to wanting to create homegrown innovation and scale it—which makes sense, the way the US wants to do that and the way China wants to do that. I think the Chinese economy—it’s truly impressive what’s happening there in terms of innovation, the way the economy is growing, and the amount of R&D. If you look at the patents being filed, the level of innovation, how the innovation is being commercialized. But at the same time, there are some very exciting things happening in Europe and in the United States. Obviously the US is also leading in many ways when it comes to AI. One of the things to keep an eye on, by the way, is the cost-of-compute differential between the US and China. There is a big difference in how compute is generated and ultimately the cost of that compute per token to users, which is going to become more of a focus going forward than it has been up until now—where it’s kind of been viewed as a must-have, almost free, available to all employees. There will be more focus on ROI, and this is where people are going to start looking at the competitive position of cost of compute in different markets versus what’s happening in the US.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:38:28   Last question on EQT, before we start talking a little more about the environment out there today. How do investors in EQT manage their exposure? Are they putting money into one fund that has a little bit of everything, or do people get very granular—or a little bit of both?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:38:49   We have 30 different strategies at EQT, across four different areas: private equity, infrastructure, real estate, and secondaries. Secondaries is our newest area—we’ve just announced that we’ve acquired Coller Capital. It hasn’t closed yet, but we’re in the process of bringing that on board. So we have 30 different strategies, and I think we have both. We have the drawdown funds, which are the main institutional vehicles for committing traditionally, as you would, to a fund that invests in buyouts, or in growth capital, or in life sciences, or in real estate. But increasingly—and this is the highest-growth part of our business, and for the industry as a whole—we have the open-ended structures. Some people call them evergreens. We don’t call them semi-liquid, because they’re not liquid; they’re not even semi-liquid; but they’re open-ended. And what open-ended means is that you can subscribe to them every month and you can redeem every quarter, subject to the underlying liquidity availability in the quarter. What we’re starting to see is a couple of advantages of the evergreen, or open-ended, structures. Number one, they do invest across everything, so you don’t have to choose which funds you want to invest in—you get broad exposure. Number two, they invest 100% of your money immediately into the asset class. So we’re starting to see institutional investors use this too, not just the private clients, because they’re able to dial up and dial down their exposure instantly. If you want to have a certain percent of your portfolio in private markets, rather than waiting for the capital to be called over the next two, three years, you can just put it to work immediately into the asset class through these evergreen structures, which are fully invested on an NAV basis immediately. So that’s one of the interesting aspects. The other interesting aspect of our evergreen, or open-ended, structures is that—unlike some of the other products out there, which have designated investment strategies or investment teams for those open-ended structures—our open-ended structure is essentially pari passu alongside everything we do. You get exactly the same exposure to exactly the same deals, the same pricing, the same everything that we provide to our sovereign wealth fund clients, that we provide to our institutional clients. It’s all allocated across equally. So there’s no cherry-picking, no different strategies for the wealth vehicle versus the institutional vehicle. It’s a single vehicle. And then the other key aspect of our investment program—which is sort of why we’ve landed where we’ve landed in terms of our fundraising last year—for example, we’ve just announced the closing of our Asia fund, which is a $15 billion fund. It’s the largest fund ever raised in Asia: $15.6 billion. The reason we’ve been able to achieve this is because of the exits and liquidity profile of our investment program. It’s been a tough environment for exits and liquidity—it’s one of the challenges you read a lot about in our industry. We actually had a record year for exits last year at EQT.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:41:45   $40 billion?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:41:47   $40 billion, something like that. We had $40 billion in distributions, and that’s huge. It’s huge. It’s a record—

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:41:53   That’s more than 10% of total invested dollars. That’s tremendous.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:41:57   It’s actually about 30% of the NAV of the strategies that that covers. And if you look at active funds, and the liquidity profile there, it even included a significant amount of tapping into the equity capital markets—the public markets. We were actually the number one ECM firm last year. We had $15 billion of equity capital markets activity, ranked number one—by far, actually—relative to all the other private equity firms out there, on the back of just having some really interesting assets that the market was open for.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:42:31   Meaning, when you have a liquidity event, that money doesn’t just sit in bonds—you put it actively into equity markets?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:42:39   No—meaning that we’re able to take our companies public, or sell down through the public markets, as an avenue of getting liquidity, versus just trying to sell to other buyout funds or to strategic buyers. Those deals have been a bit slower, and even the IPO markets have been challenging. But within a challenging IPO market, we had the highest level of activity of all market participants.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:43:01   It’s amazing. My bias is to not think IPO, because of what we’ve seen the past five years—but thinking some exit, and then just park the cash there. I have it exactly backwards: you exit through the IPO market, and then you distribute the cash to LPs.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:43:18   Exactly. Our biggest exit last year globally was a company called Galderma, which is a European medical aesthetics business, providing medical aesthetic products including things like Botox, that have been on the rise—and completely uncorrelated to AI dislocation. An investment that did extremely well for us. In total, over the last two or three years since we took it public, we’ve realized something like $24 billion of distributions from that single investment. Last year alone, we sold over $8 billion in one single tranche, which was the largest transaction ever completed in the public markets by a private equity firm. So the point of all this is really to say that in a tough market, where people are looking for distributions, it’s nice to be diversified globally—where you’re not tying all your liquidity proceeds to a single strategy or a single market, but you have exposure to multiple markets, and you’re getting cash back from different strategies to give you the cash you need at a time when you’re lacking distributions from other parts of your portfolio.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:44:25   Really fascinating. Coming up, we continue our conversation with Jean Eric Salata, chairman of EQT Group, discussing the combination of BPEA and EQT. I’m Barry Ritholtz, you’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

* * *

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:45:16   I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’re listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio. My extra special guest this week is Jean Eric Salata. He is chair of EQT Group, one of the largest alternative managers outside of the US. They manage $316 billion. So let’s talk a little bit about the state of alternatives and markets in the current environment. You mentioned artificial intelligence, energy transition, healthcare, digitalization. What has you most excited in Asia over the coming decade?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:45:34   I think in Asia, as we were touching on a little earlier, there are a couple of big themes we’re excited about. One is this CapEx supercycle, which is feeding through the Asian supply chain. When you’re talking about building data centers or semiconductor memory chips and so on, there’s a whole supply chain that feeds into that—whether it’s the cooling, the grid, the capital equipment used to manufacture, the testing equipment, the services around that. So there’s a whole supply chain that’s seeing elevated activity and growth. I think the number is something like an incremental $5 trillion of CapEx being spent in Asia within the industrial supply chain between now and over the next five years. It’s growing at about 15% a year. So you’ve got healthy growth, tremendous CapEx spend. It’s a little bit of the picks-and-shovels approach: you have this tremendous boom in AI, and there are knock-on effects into the supply chain, and Asia’s pretty well positioned to participate in that. You look at markets like Korea, like Japan—those are probably two of the biggest beneficiaries—and certain parts of Southeast Asia as well. So we’re excited about that. I think the second big opportunity, which we touched on earlier as well, is just the Japanese buyout market, and the level of reform you’re seeing there, driving increased deal flow—driving really what I call the excess-returns opportunities that private equity is good at and should be focusing on. The days of buying undermanaged assets—either changing the management or enhancing the strategy of the business in order to close the gap between the operating performance of the business and the full potential of the business—that’s the traditional playbook of private equity. It’s gotten harder to do in parts of the market that have become more efficient globally. You have a lot of shareholder activism already, so most public companies are already doing what they should be doing. But in Japan, they’re a little bit still further behind. And now you see a big push by the Japanese authorities and political leadership to drive efficiency in their economy and to drive corporate governance reforms, which is trying to close this gap between full potential and performance. As a result, there are a lot more assets being sold—either corporate divestitures, take-privates, or generational change happening with founder-led businesses—where you’re buying a business and you really see the opportunity to simplify and improve execution. It’s really about that: focusing the business in fewer areas, and then improving execution on management.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:48:22   Let’s talk about energy transition. It feels like here in the United States we’re sort of backing away from a lot of alternatives. Asia seems to be full speed ahead. What are you seeing as opportunities in that space?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:48:38   We see a lot of opportunities across both Europe and Asia in the energy transition. With what’s going on now in the Middle East as well, it’s kind of driving home the point that energy security is going to be even more critical in the future. There’s a tremendous technological push of innovation coming out of China in terms of supply chain—for batteries, for solar, even areas like hydrogen. You’re starting to see a lot of very interesting scaled-up innovation there. We have a big infrastructure business in Asia that invests in the energy transition. We invest in battery storage, for example. We have a big business in Australia now—Australia is big in this area. We expect to see more opportunities there. Singapore’s been a leader, actually, in funding the energy transition throughout Southeast Asia—very forward-thinking in that regard. It’s just a large investment opportunity that ultimately, with energy transition and climate-related concerns, the real catalyst here is ultimately going to have to be the market forces that drive this forward. It has to be that it’s more cost-competitive, more cost-effective, to do things using electricity and the grid than using fossil fuels. Otherwise, if it’s not more cost-effective, the market forces aren’t really at play, and you’re relying on policy or relying on philanthropy—and it’s just harder to see these things scale. But we’re getting to this tipping point where the cost curves are coming down, the security concerns are becoming real. And when that happens, then, with scale, with volumes—whether it’s EV batteries or solar panels—you’re starting to see the big uptake in the movement in that direction.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:50:27   We’re getting a sense in the United States that the war in Iran and the shutting of the Strait of Hormuz is, paradoxically, accelerating the move away from gas, oil, crude, coal—even toward alternatives. What’s the perspective like from Asia?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:50:46   I would agree with that. I think energy security is top of mind. Certainly China has moved very much in this direction—they have the largest installed base of renewable energy, and they’re the largest investor in renewable energy globally. They’re moving in that direction probably mainly for energy security reasons, as well as global competitiveness reasons. And then eventually it’s also going to come—I mean, there’s still a multi-decade run in fossil fuels, for sure, that’s going to play out—but ultimately there’s going to be a cost issue related to fossil fuels. If you want to be competitive as an economy, what’s your cost of energy? If energy is a scarce resource and the cost of energy is going higher and higher versus the other alternatives out there, and you haven’t invested in that, you’re playing catch-up. It will feed through to the rest of the industrial base. And I think this is where it’s important to take a longer-term perspective, and where private equity can play a role—thinking through the next five, ten years. How do you make companies more competitive? How do you drive innovation? How do you drive investment in energy competitiveness and the energy transition to help this happen?

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:51:55   We haven’t really talked about India, which has always felt like it was, oh, two years away—this is really going to be the next powerhouse economy. It always feels like it’s on the verge. What are you seeing there? It kind of feels like one of the more compelling growth stories.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:52:14   I like India a lot. We’re very, very bullish on India. It’s been the biggest market for us over the last five years in terms of where we’ve invested. Historically, the story’s been a lot about technology investments, in the tech services industry primarily, which has been a beneficiary of global investment in technology and the tech stack and the migration to the cloud. That has hit a little bit of a disruption now with what’s going on with AI. But they’re quickly adapting to it and using AI tools to actually make enterprises more competitive, and to help diffuse AI into the enterprise—using the skills and the millions of computer technology programmers and labor available to help drive AI adoption, which is one of the things India is very competitive in. But the bigger story in India, I think, for the next five years is more about the consumer and the growth in the middle class. One of the big beneficiaries of the growing middle class—as you’re now seeing a huge increase—it’s the largest population in the world, 1.4 billion people. It’s also the youngest population in the world, so the demographics are very favorable. One of the big early beneficiaries that we’re starting to see on the ground in India is the healthcare sector. Housing and healthcare. The first thing people do when they start to save and generate a good income is buy a home, and then they want to make sure their family is well looked after—their parents and their children well looked after from a healthcare standpoint. So we’re seeing strong demand for housing, housing finance, and for healthcare, which are some of the areas we’re investing in in India.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:53:48   So I’m going to paraphrase a quote of yours: “Talent is the key to unlocking outsized returns in private equity.” You’re looking at India, China, Japan, Korea, Europe, and the United States. How do you find and develop management teams in such a broad, diverse selection of regions? That sounds like its own specific challenge.

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:54:14   It is. One of the things we’ve learned over the years is the importance of being able to be what we call an active owner in the businesses we buy. That has really meant that we’ve migrated primarily to a controlled buyout strategy—other than in our early-stage tech strategies. But in our main strategies, we’re a buyout investor, which means we have control. Having control enables you to really effect change in the business, and it collapses this agency problem that you see between ownership and management in many other markets around the world—and Asia is no exception. We’re starting to collapse that, and see that collapse, in Asia, through the ownership model—the governance model, really, that private equity brings when we invest, as an industry. As a result, as we’ve scaled our business over time, you’re starting to be able to really develop pools of talent. For example, we have seven, eight hundred what we call industrial advisors globally across EQT, from different industrial sectors that we invest in. We tap into those to come and become what we call our non-executive chairs, or independent non-executive chairmen. So we have a chairman we bring in from industry. We usually have a CEO—either the existing CEO or a new CEO. And then we have our deal partner. That combination of those three people is the governance structure for our investments that drives the active ownership model for our business. We’re also seeing a bigger pool of domestic talent now that we’re able to develop within, say, Japan, within India, through multiple private equity-backed investments that we’ve made—where the same CEO, for example, that we work with before, we can work with that same individual again, because the model has now been tried and tested and been around for a couple of decades. So you’re developing a much deeper bench of talent in private equity in Asia than you’ve had in the past. And that’s been a key driver of returns—the combination of governance through the buyout strategy, plus the talent pool that’s available now.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:56:12   I have one last question before we get to our favorites that we ask all our guests. What do you think investors are not talking about or thinking about, but should be, when it comes to private equity—different geographies, different regulatory policy changes? What is getting under-noticed or overlooked but shouldn’t be?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:56:34   I think one of the really interesting developments is what’s happening in the convergence between public and private markets—companies staying private longer, and the blurring of the lines there. How do you get exposure, if you’re an investor, to the best businesses in the world? Do you wait until they become public, or do you do it before they become public? Historically, it was a very small minority of institutional investors that really got exposure to private markets. Individual investors had almost zero. That’s changed a lot in the last few years, but it’s going to change, I think, even more as we move into the coming years and people start to participate more—the democratization of our asset class that people talk about. I think a big trend related to that is the blurring of the lines, or convergence, between the secondary market and the primary market of private equity. Those two used to be viewed as completely different things. You invest in a private equity fund, and if you can’t get your money back after seven or eight years, you find someone to buy those interests from you—that’s a secondary market. That has changed. Think about the public markets: when you invest in a stock, you’re buying a secondary position. When you buy Apple stock today, you’re buying it from someone who’s selling it to you. You’re buying a secondary; you’re not buying the IPO of Apple—that was a primary that happened 25 years ago. The same thing’s happened in private equity. All the companies that are private—in order to buy them, you had to buy them as a primary, through a fund that bought the company as a private deal. Well, now we have $3.8 trillion of private companies out there that are unrealized, that everybody’s complaining about. That actually is the foundation of a secondary market now in private companies—private assets that you and I and others can start to participate in through the secondary market. You don’t need to find a new deal to buy; you can buy an existing business that’s privately owned, if you like it, if it’s got great return potential, if it’s the right price. It’s another way to get exposure to the asset class—through these evergreen structures, for example, and particularly through the secondary market structures, which is the way a lot of institutional investors are starting to think about it. If I want to dial up or dial down my exposure to private markets, I can use secondary structures. I don’t need to invest in a private equity fund per se; I can do that through the secondary markets.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:58:52   So let’s jump to our speed round, starting with: who were your early mentors who helped shape your career?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:58:58   I was very lucky. I had a third-grade teacher who took an interest in me and kept me after school to help me work on independent projects. It was like an outlet for my creativity, which I felt was frustrated in class. Really amazing teacher.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:59:13   Let’s talk about books. What are some of your favorites? What are you reading currently?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:59:17   I read a great book called Why the West Rules—for Now, which is a sweeping history of why the industrial revolution happened in the West and not in Asia and the East. But it talks about how, going forward, that could change. If anybody’s interested in history, I highly recommend that book.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  00:59:33   Really, really good. Final two questions. What sort of advice would you give a recent college grad interested in a career in either investing or private equity?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  00:59:44   Two things I would say. One, you need to be AI-native these days—which was obviously not the case when I was starting out. And secondly, perseverance. Don’t give up. Stay in the game, because things come and go. You get knocked down, you get back up, you stay in the game, and new opportunities arise.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  01:00:00   Final question. What do you know about the world of private equity, private real estate, credit, infrastructure—alternatives—today that might have been useful back in the nineties, when you were really getting your legs under you?

JEAN ERIC SALATA  01:00:13   The so-called eighth wonder of the world, which is the power of compounding. I wish I’d appreciated that a bit more. After 30 years of investing—if you let something ride for 30 years, generally, if it’s a decent business, it’ll be worth a lot of money.

BARRY RITHOLTZ  01:00:27   Jean Eric, this has been absolutely fascinating. Thank you for being so generous with your time. We’ve been speaking with Jean Eric Salata, chair of the EQT Group. If you enjoy this conversation, well, check out any of the 640 we’ve done over the previous 14 years. You can find those at iTunes, Spotify, Bloomberg, YouTube—wherever you get your favorite podcasts. I would be remiss if I didn’t thank the crack team that helps put these conversations together each week. Alexis Noriega is my video producer. Sean Russo is my researcher. Anna Luke is our producer. I’m Barry Ritholtz. You’ve been listening to Masters in Business on Bloomberg Radio.

 

~~~

 

 

 

The post Transcript: Jean Eric Salata, Chair of EQT group appeared first on The Big Picture.

10 Tuesday AM Reads

The Big Picture -

My Two-for-Tuesday morning train WFH reads:

How to Earn a Billion Dollars. Someone replied that having a few million and growing at 93% a month was radically different from being a billionaire. I suspect many people would agree with this statement. But it turns out not merely to be false, but false in a very illuminating way. So I would like you all to do me a favor please. I would like you to take out your phones and calculate a number: compound 93% monthly on 2 million for a year… (Paul Graham)

Want to Delay RMDs From Your 401(k)? Don’t Retire: Barron’s on the still-working exception that delays RMDs from a current employer’s 401(k). Niche, but useful for the right reader. (Barron’s)

Triple-Digit Club: A Wave of Stocks Have Seen Huge Gains in 2026: Morningstar on the surprisingly broad set of 100%+ YTD names in 2026. The market isn’t quite as narrow as the index would suggest. (Morningstar)

The Tiny Solar Panel That Could Change America: A technology — known as plug-in, balcony or garden solar — is already enormously popular in Germany, in part because you can buy a kit for less than $600 at IKEA. It’s a small solar panel system, often producing up to 1,200 watts of electricity, or a little more than a refrigerator consumes, that you can affix to a wall, hang on a railing or prop up in a garden — and then plug directly into a wall socket. With the help of a small device called a micro inverter, it pumps electricity into your household circuits to offset your power demand. (New York Times)

Brutally honest guide to not losing money in the market: A straightforward read-the-room piece on capital preservation in markets that look priced for perfection. The boring rules still work. (Yahoo News)

The Untold Story of the Google Buses That Took Over San Francisco: A decade ago, commuter buses attracted big protests in San Francisco. Years later, the city is still feeling the repercussions. A book excerpt revisiting how the Google bus became a symbol of everything San Francisco loves and hates about tech. Better history than you’d expect.A decade ago, commuter buses attracted big protests in San Francisco. Years later, the city is still feeling the repercussions. (Wired)

They’re calling it the end of the war. It’s a tactical pause, nobody’s signed a damn thing, and the terms hand Iran the win. Don’t call this the end of the war. This is a tactical pause and a dangerous part of the political game. Others are calling it that, and they are wrong, or at least early. Read the terms and tell me who truly won. Iran keeps the Strait, keeps the enrichment, gets twenty-four billion dollars back, and the disarmament gets shoved into sixty days of talks Iran swears it will not lose. Israel is calling it a surrender. It swallowed the loss on Iran and bombed Beirut instead, and Iran says a response is coming. Nothing is signed, and Friday is a long way off. (The Omission) see also Trump Winds Down the War He Started With Goals Unmet: NYT on the gap between the original Iran-war objectives and what the deal actually delivers. The exit ramp is less a strategy than a relief. While the president says the agreement with Iran would open the Strait of Hormuz and provide economic relief, the country’s nuclear program is still a subject for negotiation. (New York Times) see also The peace deal with Tehran is an Iranian victory.The Atlantic’s take on the Iran deal as a face-saving retreat dressed up as victory. The talking points and the terms don’t line up. The peace deal with Tehran is an Iranian victory. (The Atlantic)

Pickiness tastes like trauma How American children became the fussiest eaters in history (and why they need to check their not-dying privilege). But it turns out that Picky is not about what modern parents are doing wrong. Helen is a historian and she traces a wide variety of factors across hundreds of years—things like industrialization of the food supply chain, advertising and its consequences, and the weaponization of parental anxiety for nefarious purposes—to explain how we got here as a culture. (Oakland Review of Books)

Where Did Earth Get Its Oceans? Maybe It Made Them Itself.: Quanta on new evidence that Earth synthesized much of its water internally rather than importing it via comets. A small but profound rewrite of the origin story. At first, scientists thought Earth’s water came from comets. Then, asteroids. Now, they wonder if Earth’s water is homegrown. (Quanta Magazine)

The Mastermind Who Built the Knicks—One Outrageous Gamble at a Time: When Leon Rose came to New York in 2020, the Knicks had gone decades without a chance at a title. But the team’s president turned them into the ultimate winners by building a roster of underdogs. WSJ on Leon Rose and the front-office gambits that built this Knicks roster. The contrarian moves are easier to admire after the fact. (Wall Street Journal) see also How Can You Not be Romantic About NYC? God Bless Jalen Brunson:.Jack Raines on what it’s like to live in New York right now — the Knicks, the noise, the grind, the moments that justify the rent. A perfect Sunday read. (Young Money)

Video of the day: The Powell years at the Fed: A retrospective

Our Masters in Business interview this week was with Jean Eric Salata, Chair of EQT Group and Chair of EQT Asia. EQT is a purpose-driven global investment organization with over $310 billion in total assets under management, making it the largest private markets firm headquartered outside the United States.

Building capacity to produce exposed products would require a shift in capital investment

Source: McKinsey

 

Sign up for our reads-only mailing list here.

 

The post 10 Tuesday AM Reads appeared first on The Big Picture.

SpaceX Erupts In After Hours Trading, Hits $3 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Microsoft

Zero Hedge -

SpaceX Erupts In After Hours Trading, Hits $3 Trillion Market Cap, Surpassing Microsoft

Update (9:00pm): just a few minutes after the initial post, the squeeze is accelerating and SPCX hit just shy of $230, or $3 trillion in market cap, surpassing MSFT in value.

And what is even crazier, tomorrow SPCX options start trading, which means one good, solid gamma squeeze could send this stock to $400, surpassing NVDA as the world's biggest company in the process.

Earlier:

After a relatively calm first day of trading, the gamma squeeze crew has finally sniffed out that SpaceX's float makes it a perfect candidate for an OTM-call option driven meltup, and the stock soared ~20% today, adding over $400 billion in market in the regular session.

Commenting on the move, Vanda Track earlier noted that SpaceX topped the leaderboard as the most bought stock by retail investors for a second consecutive session, with net buying potentially set to clear $100mn for the second day in a row.

On a net basis, retail investors have now bought almost as much SPCX over the last two sessions as they bought across the entire US stock market last week. In fact, today's $93.8mn of net buying in SpaceX accounts for roughly 73% of all retail net buying across single stocks so far today.


 
The one notable development today according to Vanda, is that we're seeing some appetite return to semiconductor stocks. Names such as MRVL, MU, SNDK and AVGO have all seen some modest buying today amid the rebound. However, retail flows remain selective rather than broad-based, with leveraged bearish ETFs such as SQQQ and SOXS also among today's most bought securities by retail investors.

Vanda's conclusion is that "the broader message remains unchanged: SpaceX has not sparked a retail buying frenzy across the market. Instead, retail investors continue to direct capital into this one name, while maintaining a relatively cautious stance elsewhere."

And since momentum elsewhere is fading, retail has decided to double down on the very illiquid SPCX after hours, where its low float has made it a great squeeze candidate by the retail crew, and the stock is now exploding higher, and at last check was trading just over $210, meaning the stock has added $250 billion in market cap after the close - or a total of $650 billion today alone...

...  which translates into a market cap of $2.75 trillion or more than Apple's $2.65 trillion, and just behind MSFT's $2.97 trillion

 

 

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 06:15

Eating Meat Is The Norm Almost Everywhere

Zero Hedge -

Eating Meat Is The Norm Almost Everywhere

On average, 91 percent of people surveyed for Statista's Consumer Insights in 32 countries said that their diet contained meat – highlighting that despite the trend around meat substitutes and plant-based products, eating meat remains the norm almost everywhere in the world.

To satisfy the world's hunger for meat, 373 million tons of it were produced globally in 2024.

Because meat consumption typically increases as countries grow wealthier, that number has been rising.

As Statista's Katharina Buchholz shows in the chart below, in only three out of 32 countries – the Philippines, the United Arab Emirates and India – fewer than 90 percent of respondents said that they ate meat.

The latter country had the lowest score at 56 percent meat eaters. The Philippines still counted 88 percent of respondents saying they ate meat, while that number was 86 percent in the United Arab Emirates, likely influenced by the large South Asian diaspora there. India’s penchant for vegetarian fare is connected to Brahmanism or Vedic religion, a belief system connected to the caste of Brahmans, which are highly regarded in the Indian caste system, making vegetarianism equally desirable.

 Eating Meat Is the Norm Almost Everywhere | Statista

You will find more infographics at Statista

In Western countries, vegetarianism is more often tied to concerns about environmental impact or unethical practices in meat production. Despite higher meat consumption in these countries, meat substitutes are relatively more popular there. For example, 19 percent in the Netherlands and 15 percent in Switzerland said they bought them regularly. In Vietnam, 22 percent purchase meat substitutes regularly - the highest in the survey. Asian economies produce many traditional meat substitutes like tofu and seitan, whose long-standing popularity is intertwined with the history of Buddhism in the region.

The conceptualization of foregoing meat not only as a moral but as an environmental act has led to meat-eaters also purchasing meat substitutes, as the overlapping of figures from the survey suggest. Regular purchase of meat substitutes was among the lowest in the meat-loving nation of South Korea, where only 6 percent of people said they purchased them on the regular.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 05:45

China's Return To The Oil Market Could Boost Inflation

Zero Hedge -

China's Return To The Oil Market Could Boost Inflation

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

The U.S.-Iran agreement to reopen the Strait of Hormuz could prompt China to return to buying more crude after months of multi-year-low purchases, which could reignite inflationary pressures despite the expected ease of oil flows from the Middle East.   

Late on Sunday, the U.S. and Iran announced a deal to reopen the Strait of Hormuz more than 100 days after its closure. This re-opening could happen as soon as an agreement is signed on Friday. News of the deal sent oil prices tumbling early on Monday, with Brent Crude prices down to $83 per barrel, and WTI Crude at the $80 a barrel handle.

If the agreement holds and flows through the Strait of Hormuz, begin to tick up relatively quickly, China could resume buying more crude, and this additional demand, which had vanished in the past three months, could tighten the oil market and drive up inflation, analysts at Bloomberg Economics said in a note on Monday.

“Any recovery in Chinese oil demand — particularly if energy flows remain constrained — could tighten global energy markets, reignite inflation pressures and complicate the task facing central banks,” Bloomberg Economics’ analysts wrote.

Energy flows are likely to take months to recover to pre-war levels, assuming the deal holds and traffic through the Strait of Hormuz sustainably increases, analysts say.

China’s severely reduced crude oil imports have been a key anchor keeping oil prices below $100 per barrel during the past few weeks, alongside record U.S. crude and fuel exports and global releases from strategic oil stockpiles coordinated by the International Energy Agency.  

Crude oil imports to China in May fell to their lowest since October 2017 due to the price spike.

The world’s top crude importer started tapping its huge oil reserves last month, in a sign that Beijing is still refraining from paying top-dollar for prompt crude deliveries.

So far into this unprecedented crisis, China has slashed refinery run rates, limited exports, and cut demand for road transportation fuels as consumers prefer driving EVs over paying high gasoline prices.

The key question for the oil market is how much demand China would generate when it returns to more active crude purchases.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 05:00

Lebanon Hosts The World's Highest Concentration Of Refugees, US Ranks 82nd

Zero Hedge -

Lebanon Hosts The World's Highest Concentration Of Refugees, US Ranks 82nd

The countries carrying the world’s largest refugee burden are often not the ones most people expect.

Using data from the UNHCR via Our World in Data, this graphic, via Visual Capitalist's Dorothy Neufeld, ranks countries by the number of refugees hosted per 1,000 residents in 2024.

The results reveal how proximity to conflict frequently matters more than economic size. Many of the countries at the top of the ranking border active war zones and have absorbed large refugee populations relative to their own populations.

Which Countries Carry the Largest Refugee Burden?

Roughly two-thirds of the world’s refugees remain in neighboring countries, helping explain why several relatively small nations rank ahead of much larger economies.

Rather than being distributed across the world’s wealthiest countries, refugee populations are often concentrated in states that share borders with major conflicts. The ranking below shows which countries carry the largest refugee burden relative to their population.

Why Does Lebanon Rank So High?

Lebanon tops the ranking by a wide margin, hosting 130.7 refugees per 1,000 residents. Put differently, about one out of every eight people living in the country is a refugee, the highest ratio in the world.

Its position reflects the country’s proximity to Syria, which has produced one of the world’s largest refugee crises since civil war broke out in 2011. Over the past decade, millions of Syrians have sought refuge in neighboring countries, with Lebanon absorbing one of the largest shares relative to its population.

The country has also faced mounting economic and political challenges of its own. More recently, fighting between Israel and Hezbollah displaced more than one million people within Lebanon, adding further strain to public services and infrastructure.

Taken together, these pressures help explain why Lebanon remains one of the countries most affected by displacement anywhere in the world.

Geography Matters More Than Wealth

Many of the countries hosting the largest refugee populations are located near active conflicts or regions experiencing prolonged instability.

Jordan and Lebanon border Syria. Moldova shares a border with Ukraine. Chad hosts refugees from neighboring Sudan, while Uganda has long received people fleeing violence in South Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The pattern helps explain why many smaller countries appear near the top of the ranking despite having far fewer economic resources than larger developed nations.

For refugees, crossing a nearby border is often the fastest and safest option. As a result, neighboring countries frequently absorb the largest influxes long before refugees are resettled elsewhere.

Why the U.S. Ranks 82nd

At first glance, America’s ranking may seem surprisingly low.

The United States hosts hundreds of thousands of refugees and remains the world’s 18th-largest refugee destination in absolute terms.

However, its population of more than 340 million significantly changes the picture.

When refugee numbers are adjusted for population size, the U.S. hosts roughly 1.3 refugees per 1,000 residents, placing it 82nd globally.

The gap highlights why per-capita measures can reveal a different reality than headline totals. While large countries often host more refugees overall, smaller nations can experience a much greater impact relative to their population size.

Refugee Pressures Are Reaching Record Levels

The number of forcibly displaced people worldwide has surpassed 120 million, nearly double the level seen a decade ago. Conflicts in Ukraine, Sudan, Syria, and other regions continue to drive displacement across borders.

For host countries, the impact extends beyond humanitarian assistance. Large refugee populations can increase demand for housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and public services, particularly in smaller countries with limited resources.

The ranking highlights a reality often overlooked in global migration debates: the countries carrying the largest refugee burden are frequently those located closest to conflict, not necessarily those with the largest economies.

To learn more about this topic, check out this graphic on the world’s largest migration corridors.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 04:15

Ebola Cases, Deaths Jump In Congo As Outbreak Spreads

Zero Hedge -

Ebola Cases, Deaths Jump In Congo As Outbreak Spreads

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times,

The number of Ebola cases and deaths has risen in Congo, the epicenter of an ongoing outbreak, officials said on June 14.

Response personnel carry the body of a person who died from Ebola in Bunia, Congo, on June 13, 2026. Jospin Mwisha/AFP via Getty Images

Thirty-two new deaths and 72 new cases have been confirmed in the central African country, Congo's Ministry of Communications said in a statement.

The cumulative number of cases is up to 782, and the cumulative number of deaths is 181.

The case fatality rate, or the percentage of sick people who have died, is 23.1 percent.

The outbreak, which was first detected in May but believed to have started earlier, has also spread to two additional health zones in Congo, officials said. One of the new zones is in Ituri province, where most of the cases are; the second is in North Kivu province.

The three provinces with reported cases are all in eastern Congo.

Health officials have been working to identify suspected cases and encourage people with symptoms to travel to health facilities.

"Vigilance remains essential. Anyone presenting with fever, vomiting, diarrhea, or any other suspicious symptoms must go immediately to the nearest health facility for prompt care," the ministry stated. "Adherence to preventive measures - particularly regular handwashing, acceptance of contact tracing, and avoidance of any contact with sick or deceased individuals from suspected causes - remains crucial to curb the spread of the epidemic."

The largest Ebola outbreak in history was in West Africa and ran from 2014 through 2016. There were 28,610 reported cases, and 11,308 reported deaths.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a June 11 paper that, if crucial public health measures are not implemented, the new outbreak could become as large as the 2014 outbreak.

"Although the worst outcomes (higher numbers of cases and associated deaths) in these projections were less likely when a larger proportion of patients were identified, isolated, and treated, this outbreak could, within 3 months and under low-isolation scenarios, become the second largest Ebola outbreak in history," the CDC said.

Ebola is a disease caused by orthoebolaviruses. The current outbreak is caused by the rarely seen Bundibugyo virus.

Transmission primarily happens through direct contact with bodily fluids from infected individuals.

While Ebola can in many cases be deadly, 56 people have recovered in the outbreak in Congo, according to the latest figures.

Another 359 patients are in isolation or being treated in a hospital.

Uganda, which shares a border with Congo, has reported 19 Ebola cases and two deaths. Ugandan officials said Monday that there have been no cases for 10 days.

"Ebola is under control in Uganda," Uganda's Ministry of Health said in a Jun 13 post on X. Ugandan officials said people should visit the country.

Sanitation workers from Bunia city government spray disinfectant in the central market area near a rubbish truck in Ituri province, as they continue efforts to combat the Ebola outbreak in Bunia, Congo, on May 23, 2026. Moses Sawasawa/AP Photo Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 03:30

Norwegian Royal Family Rocked: Crown Princess's Son Convicted of Rape, Sentenced To Four Years

Zero Hedge -

Norwegian Royal Family Rocked: Crown Princess's Son Convicted of Rape, Sentenced To Four Years

In a verdict that has rocked Norway's monarchy, Marius Borg Høiby, the 29-year-old son of Crown Princess Mette-Marit, was found guilty of two counts of rape and sentenced to four years in prison.

Marius Borg Høiby, son of Norwegian Crown Princess Mette-Marit, pictured in Oslo, Norway on June 16, 2022. Hakon Mosvold Larsen/NTB/AFP/Getty Images

The Oslo District Court convicted him on 34 of 40 charges, spanning rape, assault, abuse in close relationships, drug offenses, and restraining order violations. He was acquitted on the other two rape counts. Prosecutors had demanded over seven years; the defense sought 18 months. He must also pay victims around $61,000 in compensation.

Key Facts from the Verdict
  • Guilty on two counts of rape
  • Sentenced to four years in prison
  • Acquitted on two other rape charges
  • Convicted on 34 out of 40 total charges
  • Ordered to pay approximately $61,000 to victims
  • Defense plans to appeal rape and domestic violence convictions

The seven-week trial detailed Høiby's struggles with drug addiction and a lifestyle of excess. Evidence included self-made videos of sexual encounters and more than 800 electronic messages. In court, he described an "extreme need for recognition" from his unique position in the royal family.

"I’m mostly known as my mother’s son, not anything else. So I’ve had an extreme need for recognition my whole life," he told the court. "And that manifested itself in a lot of sex, a lot of drugs, and a lot of alcohol."

The incidents took place between 2018 and 2024 after nights of partying. Prosecutors argued that what began as consensual sex became non-consensual when the women were asleep or incapacitated. Høiby insisted he was "not in the habit of having sex with women who are asleep."

His lawyers have said he will appeal and have pushed for his release so he can support his ailing mother.

Princess Mette-Marit's Health and Royal Family Pressure

Crown Princess Mette-Marit, 52, is battling pulmonary fibrosis and is on a lung-transplant waiting list. Doctors have indicated she may have only about a year left without a successful transplant.

Marius Borg Høiby with his mother Crown Princess Mette-Marit, pictured in 2022 Credit: PDKOB/The Mega Agency

The scandal comes amid other challenges for the royals, including criticism over the princess's past contact with Jeffrey Epstein after his 2008 conviction. Polls showed support for the monarchy falling to a record low of 60% during the trial, with a slight recovery later.

The Royal House has stated it has no comment on the court outcome.

This case underscores the contrast between the public image of the Norwegian royal family and the private difficulties faced by its members.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 02:45

Remigration & The Save Europe Act

Zero Hedge -

Remigration & The Save Europe Act

Authored by 'eugyppius' via American Greatmess,

In 2024, the Austrian Identitarian activist Martin Sellner began serious efforts to push his concept of remigration into the political mainstream, and since then the German state and its civil society collaborators have extended him every assistance.

Gregory Bovino, ex-Customs and Border Patrol Chief, appears with (from left) Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Martin Sellner, and Alfonso Gonçalves at the second Remigration Summit in Portugal last week.

Domestic intelligence agents and activist journalists at Correctiv collaborated to convict Sellner and Alternative für Deutschland of planning the mass deportation of naturalized Germans in a late 2023 meeting in Potsdam. They called this small private meeting a “Secret Plan against Germany” and drew not-so-subtle comparisons to the notorious Wannsee Conference. Ensuing anti-AfD protests lasted months, even as litigation succeeded in deconstructing much of the slander Correctiv had propagated. The hysteria cost AfD some support ahead of the European elections, but it also succeeded in making “remigration” a household word throughout the Federal Republic—something that Sellner and his Identitarians could never have achieved on their own. Unbelievably, the Correctiv reporting was turned into a theater piece, and the actual Wannsee Villa where Nazi government officials and SS leaders met to plan the Final Solution in 1942 received a sign advising visitors of Sellner’s Potsdam meeting and “the . . . obvious . . . link between today’s ethno-nationalist fantasies of deportation and the historic Wannsee Conference.”

For their next act, authorities toyed with legally doubtful schemes to ban Sellner from Germany, while police devised pretenses to disrupt the speaking events Sellner had scheduled in the Federal Republic to present his book on Remigration. All this meant more press and more eyeballs for Sellner’s cause. When Sellner co-organized the inaugural “Remigration Summit” last spring in Italy, authorities tried to prevent the attendance of several German Identitarian activists by temporarily banning them from leaving the country, and they did the same again when the second “Remigration Summit” convened in Portugal last week. In each case, their restrictions ensured that small conferences held in other countries and attended by no more than a few hundred people could remain the subject of reporting and controversy here at home.

I don’t know to what degree the German approach to Sellner’s remigration program reflects a calculated strategy, and to what degree it’s just all the pinched head girls in the state bureaucratic apparatus having a collective aneurysm over the latest politically naughty thing to come across their desks. Either way, the unique German system of “defensive democracy” requires an enemy against which to array its defenses, and in the decades since the Berlin Wall fell this enemy has become “the extreme Right”—concentrated like the old Communist foe in the eastern states of the former DDR, embodied by Alternative für Deutschland rather than the SED, and constructed as an equal if not greater threat to Our Democracy. Because, unlike the Communists, this enemy does not really exist, it requires regime propagandists to engage in heavy revisionism—for example, by casting as an NSDAP successor a populist-Right party with politics broadly equivalent to the 1980s-era CDU, and by building up and deploring particular villains like Sellner.

Now, political dissidents and activists of all stripes have a curious relationship with establishment discourse. The one is like oil and the other is like water; they cannot occupy the same space. In the past years, the myth that Diversity Is Our Strength and that mass migration might fix our pension plans, alleviate our cultural ennui, and improve our culinary offerings has collapsed. Anti-migrationism has gone mainstream in many circles, driving right-populists to seize upon remigration as the new cause. I would imagine that a similar process unfolded from the establishment perspective; as major politicians and journalists decided the time had come to put the brakes on the steady stream of younger males streaming into our country from the Global South, they needed to draw a new line in the sand to differentiate themselves from the populist rabble-rousers.

Thus, with the help of literally everybody from Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s benighted traffic light government to the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution to Alternative für Deutschland to Martin Sellner and his Identitarians, remigration became the new anti-migration. Which is fine, as far as it goes; people should support the causes they want, and nobody would dispute that, particularly in the last ten years, a great many people have forced their way into Europe, where they have proceeded to abuse our social welfare systems, violate the law at disproportionate rates, and substantially degrade the quality of life. If I could push a button and make these people leave, I would.

Unfortunately, this problem does not come packaged with any easy solutions, and I am less and less certain (1) how remigration is supposed to work and (2) whether the newly ascendant and highly dogmatic remigrationists on the Right have any path toward realizing their vision. While remigrationists preach the manifold benefits of putting migrants on airplanes back to the Global South, the migrants’ native countries in many cases refuse to accept them, mass migration continues, if at a somewhat slower pace, the AfD remains firewalled out of German politics, our elaborate NGO machinery continues to push migrationist humanitarianism, a broad elite consensus resists even efforts to deport many of those who are here illegally, and primary EU law confounds remigrationist proposals at numerous points. Remigration would prove a tall order if 85 percent of Germans reversed their stance on the idea tomorrow. Sellner’s full, heavily technocratic vision, meanwhile, would require broad institutional buy-in and support from all major parties, including large parts of the Left, over a period of decades. We are talking about a new social consensus to compel or encourage the mass resettlement of entire populations, as deep and broad as the consensus that until recently existed behind climatism. That probably can’t happen without serious generational turnover or some kind of serious political upheaval.

I do not write this as a condemnatory political ninny or an incurable contrarian. I consider Sellner a friend, and I am even his translator. Yet personal considerations like these aren’t enough to blunt my skepticism.

The most recent initiative in remigration land is something called the Save Europe Act, rolled out by Sellner and Dutch political activist Eva Vlaardingerbroek at the Remigration Summit 2026 in Portugal. Basically, there’s an EU procedural mechanism known as the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), whereby ordinary people can bring a legal proposal for consideration directly before the European Commission. To do this, they need only gather a million signatures in support and meet a few other requirements. Among other things, the Save Europe Act demands “legislative and policy measures” to impose a “moratorium” on non-European migration, to deport “illegally staying migrants, rejected asylum seekers,” and criminals, to “establish a harmonized EU-wide framework for broader remigration” and to “remove social welfare incentives and benefits that function as pull factors for migration.”

All of that sounds great, as does the fact that Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek claim to have gathered well over 200,000 “signatures” so far. Unfortunately, reality tends generally to be less great. To begin with, Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek have yet to register the Save Europe Act with the European Commission at all. The signatures they are collecting—really, just email addresses—are part of an internet publicity campaign and have no wider significance. According to me, chances that the Commission agrees to register the Save Europe Act as a formal ECI are quite low, for the Commission may reject any proposal that “is . . . manifestly contrary to the values of the Union.” If Sellner and Vlaardingerbroek do manage to squeeze their initiative through registration and the Save Europe Act becomes more than a buggy website, then they’ll still need to collect a million signatures—not from random internet people, but from verified citizens of EU member states. And if they meet that hurdle, they’ll compel a response from the Commission and a hearing in the European Parliament. Even in this best-case scenario, there is no chance that the Save Europe Act becomes law, inspires any laws, or changes anything at the EU level at all.

Defenders of the Save Europe Act who have bothered to read the fine print accept that they are not on the path to making Remigration official EU policy. They argue instead that publicity surrounding the Save Europe Act will “move the Overton Window” and normalize remigration as a concept. These arguments neglect the fact that remigration has already been normalized; as I wrote above, since 2024, it has become almost a household word in Germany, if one denoting a very bad and fascistic concept approximately on par with outright genocidal fascism. Otherwise, I have learned to be wary of intangible, immeasurable ends in the world of political activism. Western politics abounds with activists who are changing perceptions, challenging conventions, deconstructing myths, complicating assumptions, correcting prejudices, deepening understandings, and now moving Overton Windows, and the only thing these projects and their goals have in common is that nobody can work out what any of them mean in concrete terms.

Mass migration has been an absolute curse. People want the migrants to stop coming, and they want the ones who are already here to go back home. They feel impotent to change the situation, and it’s natural that they should support social media campaigns promising at the very least to give them a voice. That’s fine, and most of this is probably harmless, but the truth is that we’re not going to petition the migrants away. I’ve read so many appeals to the Overton Window at this point that the concept has become quite threadbare for me, but if anything has shifted mass media discourse these past years, it is not activist campaigns but the manifold and quite serious problems caused by mass migration itself. As in so many other areas—from COVID to climatism—retarded elite policies are failing and unwinding themselves, but we’re not yet winning.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden Tue, 06/16/2026 - 02:00

Who Won The Third Gulf War?

Zero Hedge -

Who Won The Third Gulf War?

Authored by Andrew Korybko,

Iran is poised to gradually return to the US-led Western order within certain limits exactly as Iran’s moderate faction has long wanted, its hardline faction has successfully preserved the armed forces and their missile stockpile, while Israel achieved none of its goals in its most epic defeat ever.

Iran and the US plan to sign a Zarif-inspired memorandum of understanding (MoU) on ending the Third Gulf War this Friday in Switzerland. The exact details aren’t yet known, and Fortune reported that there were at least three competing texts, but all of them “include similar elements around reopening the vital Strait of Hormuz waterway, giving Iran sanctions relief and opening the door to longer-term negotiations around its nuclear program.” That’s already enough to arrive at several very important conclusions.

For starters, reopening the strait without Iran’s wartime petroyuan toll booth in place would represent a significant concession by the Islamic Republic, whose media surrogates celebrated this model as an historic multipolar milestone. The same goes for resuming negotiations on its politically sensitive nuclear program. The sanctions relief in exchange might arguably be worth it, however, judging by this estimate here of the profound economic-financial damage caused by the US’ (imperfect) blockade.

On that topic, it was explained here in late March that “The US will have lost the Third Gulf War if China can still rely on Iran as a reliable low-cost energy supplier while turning the yuan into a global reserve currency that challenges the petrodollar”, so preventing both is imperative from the US’ perspective.

With the petroyuan reportedly out of the picture, that leaves Iran’s oil export dependence on China, but sanctions relief could help gradually redirect its sales (such as to India) without disrupting the market.

Likewise, if reports about a $300 billion reconstruction fund for Iran are true (even if the final sum is much lower but still tens of billions of dollars), then US and Gulf investments in Iran’s energy industry could lead to them controlling its exports.

It was assessed in January that “The US Wants To Replicate The Venezuelan Model In Iran”, which would be on the path to implementation in that scenario.

The resultant interdependence could advance collective security and facilitate the US’ regional withdrawal.

Iran’s moderate (“reformist”) and hardline (“principalist”) factions would therefore achieve some of their goals, the first with respect to sanctions relief and the second with regards to preserving the country’s (arguably battered) armed forces as well as their missile stockpile, not to mention their political system.

Nevertheless, the factional balance would have shifted in the moderate’s favor since the US wouldn’t sign a MoU if the moderates couldn’t control “rogue” hardliners, who could potentially rekindle the war.

It can therefore be concluded that the moderates beat the hardliners in Iran’s deep state power struggle, but this was due to the US and Israel killing dozens of top hardline figures, after which their respective institutions (especially the IRGC) were weakened and ultimately tamed by the moderates.

To be sure, “rogue” hardliners – regardless of their relationship to the IRGC – could still sabotage the MoU, but Trump 2.0 feels comfortable enough that they won’t otherwise it wouldn’t go through with the signing.

A new regional era is emerging whereby the Third Gulf War might very well lead to Iran’s gradual reincorporation into the US-led Western order, albeit within limits, which lays the groundwork for better ties with its Gulf neighbors.

In that scenario, Israel would stand to lose since it could no longer divide-and-rule Iran and the Gulf, nor would the US have its back if Israel resumes hostilities with Iran due to the recent revival of the possibly irreconcilable Trump-Bibi rift. Israel is therefore the war’s biggest loser.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 23:25

Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops As More Americans Pack Heat

Zero Hedge -

Gun Safety: Violent Crime Drops As More Americans Pack Heat

Authored by John R. Lott jr via RealClearInvestigations,

Alessandra Coote was walking on a trail with her 2-year-old daughter and dog two-and-a-half years ago when a man began yelling at her and threatened to kill her dog. When the petite single mom made it back to her Utah home, she decided she needed a firearm for protection.

A few months later, while living in what she described as a “shady part of town,” a homeless man threatened her. After that encounter, she began regularly carrying a firearm under Utah’s Constitutional Carry law.

Coote, who just graduated this spring from the University of Utah, says carrying the gun has given her the confidence to feel safe in public. “It’s been life-changing,” she told RealClearInvestigations (RCI). Although she has never had to draw or fire the weapon, she has faced a threatening individual when she was armed, but stopped the attack by merely letting the man know she was carrying.

Coote is part of a growing trend of strapped Americans. A new survey of 1,000 general election voters conducted last month by McLaughlin & Associates found that almost 30 percent of respondents said they carry a firearm. More specifically, the survey found that 13.2 percent respondents said they carry a firearm all or most of the time, while an additional 16.6 percent said they carry one sometimes or rarely. These results show a 5.5 percent increase in the number of respondents who said they carry firearms since a similar poll was conducted in December 2024.

Both polls were commissioned by the group I lead, the Crime Prevention Research Center, and have a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percent.

Since 2021, 13 states, covering 34 percent of the U.S. population, have adopted constitutional carry laws. As a result, 29 states do not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a permit to carry a concealed handgun. A little less than two-thirds of those who are carrying a concealed handgun in these states have a permit.

The survey is the latest evidence challenging claims linking firearms and violent crime. As data show both the number of firearms and the percentage of people carrying them is increasing, preliminary estimates show the U.S. murder rate is likely to hit a record low in 2025—at least 10 percent below the previous record low.

“It doesn’t surprise me that while the country is experiencing record-low murder and violent crime rates, we are also experiencing a record high number of people legally carrying concealed handguns for self-protection,” Alan Gottlieb, the executive vice president and founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told RCI.

Bradford County, Fla., Sheriff Gordon Smith said lowering crime rates “isn’t rocket science.” He told RCI, “You reduce crime by putting more cops on the street, increasing arrest and conviction rates, and imposing meaningful prison sentences. But you also cut crime by empowering law-abiding citizens to defend themselves and their families through constitutional carry.”

Gun control groups—Everytown, Brady United, and Giffords Law Center—declined repeated requests to respond to the survey data and crime statistics.

Blacks, Hispanics & Women

The CPRC survey also found that politically engaged citizens are more likely to carry firearms. Respondents who identified as general election voters were twice as likely to have concealed handgun permits as other adults.

Blacks and Hispanics also carry at disproportionately high rates. Black people make up 11.0 percent of likely voters but account for 15.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. Hispanics are even higher, accounting for 18.8 percent of frequent carriers despite comprising only 11.0 percent of likely voters. By contrast, whites and Asians carry at rates below their shares of likely voters. Whites constitute 72 percent of likely voters but only 62.6 percent of those who carry all or most of the time, while Asians account for 4.0 percent of likely voters but just 2.0 percent of frequent carriers.

Audrey Bodiford, a 5’2” black woman living in Lansing, Michigan, told RCI she owes her life to her handgun and having a concealed handgun permit. On Valentine’s Day in 2022, she said, the over 6-foot-tall man she had been dating “kind of went crazy,” threatened to kill her, and pulled a knife on her. Fearing for her life, she shot him in self-defense.

Because she lives in what she describes as a “not good” neighborhood, this was not the only time she relied on her firearm for protection. In another incident, she said she accidentally let a door slip from her hand while trying to hold it open for a man leaving a store. The man became verbally abusive, followed her, and aggressively closed in on her. She turned slightly so he could see that she was armed. He immediately backed off, ending the confrontation. Asked if carrying has given her more confidence: “I feel more safe, definitely,” she said.

The survey found relatively small differences between men and women. While women make up 52 percent of general election voters, they comprise 45.1 percent of Americans carrying concealed weapons; men are 48 percent of the electorate and 54.9 percent of those who carry all or most of the time. The breakdown for Constitutional Carry states is relatively higher for women, with 47.5 percent of those carrying all/most of the time being women and 52.5 percent men. Constitutional Carry may benefit women who suddenly face threats from a stalker or former partner and often do not feel they can wait the months it takes for officials to approve a permit application.

Research shows that two groups benefit the most from carrying firearms: physically weaker individuals, such as women and the elderly, and those most likely to become crime victims, such as poor blacks living in high-crime urban areas. These groups have also experienced the largest percentage increases in concealed handgun permits over the last decade (2015–2024). During that period, permits for women increased 112 percent faster than permits for men, while permits for blacks increased 284 percent faster than permits for whites.

“A firearm dramatically increases a woman’s ability to defend herself,” Professor Carl Moody, a crime researcher at the College of William & Mary, told RCI. “Without a firearm, a woman is almost always at a significant disadvantage if attacked by a man. With a firearm, she can avoid an unfair fight with an opponent who usually has a size and strength advantage. Almost always, it is only necessary to announce or display the weapon to dissuade the attacker.”

More Guns, Fewer Violent Crimes

After the Supreme Court struck down a New York state law in 2022 which had sharply limited the number of people who could carry concealed weapons, six states, including California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, were forced to make it easier to get a concealed handgun permit by eliminating arbitrary discretion and establishing objective rules on training and other qualifications. “This dangerous decision will make America a less safe country,” Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy warned. Those states did, indeed, see an enormous increase in the number of permits issued. In New Jersey, the number of concealed carry permit holders increased from 1,212 in 2022 to 57,245 in 2025. In Hawaii, the total has now gone from zero to 4,000.

Violent crime, however, has fallen in all six states. The murder rate in New Jersey fell from 3.9 per 100,000 people in 2022 to 2.4 in 2024, and the preliminary numbers show it falling to as low as two per 100,000 in 2025. A press release from New Jersey’s attorney general announced a “Historic Low in Gun Violence for 2025.” Some attribute the drop to the increase in permits. “Today, more than 58,000 law-abiding New Jerseyans can exercise their right to carry a firearm. And while some warned this would turn our streets into the Wild West, the reality has been far different,” Republican New Jersey Assemblyman Greg Myhre claimed.

An easier thing to measure is that permit holders are exceptionally law-abiding. States revoke their licenses for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths or even tens of thousandths of a percentage point. Police officers rarely commit crimes, yet concealed handgun permit holders prove even more law-abiding than cops. Permit holders are convicted for firearms offenses at just one-twelfth the rate at which police are convicted of comparable firearm-related crimes.

“The data clearly show that concealed carry permit holders are among the safest and most responsible users of firearms,” David Mustard, a distinguished professor at the University of Georgia who researches extensively on crime, told RCI. Bradford County Sheriff Gordon Smith confirmed that this is his experience with Constitutional Carry: “The data is clear: The vast majority of concealed carriers are among our most responsible residents, not the problem.”

Despite the fears raised by gun-control advocates, over 91 percent of street police officers support concealed handgun laws. Law enforcement professionals understand that self-defense is a key element of public safety, in part because they know they usually arrive only after criminals commit crimes. An overwhelming body of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

This is especially true for women, who often struggle to defend themselves against much larger and stronger men, who also tend to run faster. While both men and women benefit from carrying a concealed handgun, research shows that each additional woman who carries a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by roughly three to four times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.

“Too often, women who are being stalked or threatened are told to limit their movements, alter their routines, or rely on a piece of paper to stop someone determined to harm them,” Robyn Sandoval, the president of A Girl & A Gun, told RCI. “Women deserve better than living in fear. By learning to responsibly carry a firearm, they can gain the confidence and means to protect themselves and live their lives without fear.”

“Every day, more law-abiding citizens choose to legally carry firearms because they refuse to be victimized by criminals and thugs,” Brevard County, FL, Sheriff Wayne Ivey told RCI. “Responsible gun owners know that even the best police response times takes minutes, while violent criminals can take a life in seconds!”

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 22:35

New Study Exposes How The Left Turned Mental Illness Into A Political Identity

Zero Hedge -

New Study Exposes How The Left Turned Mental Illness Into A Political Identity

Something researchers have observed for decades is finally crystallizing into a measurable cultural phenomenon. Political conservatives consistently report higher levels of happiness, better mental health, and stronger psychological well-being than their liberal counterparts. A new study published in Political Behavior takes that finding several steps further, arguing that mental illness has begun functioning as its own political identity, and that identity clusters most tightly on the left.

Columbia University's magazine originally flagged the underlying trend back in 2023, reporting that "American adults who identify as politically liberal have long reported lower levels of happiness and psychological well-being than conservatives," Based on the data of four different studies, researchers from the Universities of Florida and Toronto, found an explanation: conservatives tend to exhibit greater personal agency, religiosity, moral clarity, self-worth, and a more optimistic general disposition.

The Political Behavior study was conducted by Prof. Lauren Van De Hey of Utah State University, and the implications of her findings were significant. "I further find that there is an emerging mental health political identity that is most pronounced among younger (Gen Z) and more liberal Americans," she said.

She also noted that "the political predictors and political consequences for the emerging mental health identity differ from those for physical disability and serious physical illness categorization and identification," suggesting that mental health, unlike physical illness, has acquired a distinctly ideological character in American life.

Approximately half of the study participants with mental illness reported that their identity as a person with a mental health condition is "very important or somewhat important" to them. Meanwhile, conservatives are less likely than liberals to categorize anxiety and depression as mental health conditions and seek clinical treatment at lower rates. Van De Hey speculates this may reflect a "personal responsibility ethos: they do not seek help when they think they can resolve the issues on their own." That framing, notably, does not treat the conservative approach as a pathology.

The study concludes that "these findings have far-reaching consequences for mental health advocacy, and the role mental health identity will play in the political sphere - especially as Gen Z matures as a cohort," with conservative and specifically Christian beliefs credited as having a stronger track record for producing happiness and well-being than leftist counterparts.

"It is becoming increasingly clear which ideas do what! Conservative, and specifically Christian, ideas have a much better track record than their leftist counterparts," writes Glenn T. Stanton of Daily Citizen. "This has deep personal and political implications."

The gender dimension of this divide deserves its own examination. Academic literature going back to the 1970s establishes that women generally report worse mental health than men. A separate body of research establishes that conservatives report greater happiness than liberals. Among young liberal women, both trends converge. Last year, the Institute for Family Studies report found that 37% of conservative women report being "completely satisfied" with life, compared to 28% of moderates and just 12% of liberal women. Young conservative women are more than three times as likely as liberal women to report feeling very happy, and IFS found that "liberal women are two to three times more likely to report they are 'not satisfied' with their lives, compared to conservative women."

The loneliness numbers were just as striking. Among women ages 18 to 40, 29% of liberals reported feeling lonely many times a week. Among conservative women, that figure dropped to 11%. The explanatory variables IFS identified were that young conservative women are far more likely to be married, far less likely to be cohabiting, and nearly five times more likely to attend weekly church services.

IFS concluded that closing the happiness gap "will seemingly require not only a change in thinking but also a renewal of young liberal women's connection to America's core institutions - family and faith." That's a direct challenge to a progressive framework that has spent years telling young women that traditional institutions are the source of their suffering rather than the solution.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 22:10

Federal Agents Dismantle Human Smuggling Stash House In Texas

Zero Hedge -

Federal Agents Dismantle Human Smuggling Stash House In Texas

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times,

U.S. Border Patrol and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) agents busted a stash house used for human smuggling in El Paso, Texas, Customs and Border Protection (CBP) exclusively told The Epoch Times on Monday.

U.S. Border Patrol agents monitor the southern border outside of San Diego, Calif. on May 27, 2026. John Fredricks/The Epoch Times

The joint investigation, which resulted in the arrests of 11 illegal immigrant adults and one unaccompanied child found in the house on May 27, highlights the need for strict enforcement efforts at the border to dissuade individuals from entering the country unlawfully through human smugglers, CBP officials said.

"This operation, in partnership with U.S. Border Patrol, reflects our mission to safeguard the homeland and uphold the integrity of our immigration system," HSI El Paso Special Agent in Charge Ryan McRae said. "We remain committed to ensuring the safety and security of El Paso and beyond."

Of the 12 illegal aliens arrested, 10 were from Mexico and two from Guatemala.

The 11 adults were processed and charged with violations of Title 8 of the U.S. Code, CBP said, which encompasses immigration offenses including unlawful entry, unlawful reentry, alien harboring or smuggling, and more.

The unaccompanied minor was "administratively processed," CBP told The Epoch Times.

Following apprehension, an unaccompanied child is transferred into the care and custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement, which sits under Department of Health and Human Services.

Chief Patrol Agent Jessie Munoz for the El Paso Sector said his agents and agency partners at HSI are making progress in dismantling criminal smuggling organizations in the region.

The Epoch Times exclusively spoke with other top leadership at the U.S.-Mexico border who echoed the same message.

They described the border as more secure than at any other point in American history, yet some vulnerabilities remain that criminal organizations will attempt to exploit, Chief Patrol Agent Justin De La Torre of the San Diego Sector said.

"Our primary focus is to prevent people from illegally entering in the first place, and it is my strong belief that the only way we can do that is if people know if they choose to use the cartels to come to the United States, they will not be successful," De La Torre said.

Every individual who illegally crosses the border, the San Diego Sector chief said, equates to money going into the hands of the cartels, which charge roughly $10,000 per person to be smuggled into the country.

More often than not, an illegal immigrant doesn't have enough money up front to make this payment, De La Torre said. Instead, they have an agreement with the cartels that if they are successfully smuggled in, they will illegally work in the United States and send money back each paycheck.

"It could take them a year, it could take them six years, but they're paying the smuggling organization until that debt is paid off, and that's usually through fear [from the cartels saying] ... 'If you don't, we know where your family lives,'" De La Torre said.

CBP officials told The Epoch Times that they hear countless stories of illegal immigrants alleging they were sexually assaulted, robbed, or beaten by their smugglers.

"If they can't get a group through, they will kidnap people, call their family members for ransom, just to gain some type of profit," De La Torre said about the smuggling organizations.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 21:45

New Radar System Can Detect High-Speed Drones Nearby Ports, Vessels In Extreme Environment

Zero Hedge -

New Radar System Can Detect High-Speed Drones Nearby Ports, Vessels In Extreme Environment

Authored by Prabhat Ranjan Mishra via Interesting Engineering,

A new type of radar to detect drones nearby ports, vessels, harbours, and critical maritime infrastructure has been introduced. Developed by Robin Radar Systems, IRIS OTM at Sea is designed for seamless land-to-sea deployments.

The system can operate effectively in extreme environments thanks to its salt- and corrosion-resistant engineering.ROBIN

The new system is a major expansion of its IRIS On-The-Move (OTM) capability.

The comprehensive update is aimed at strengthening counter-UAS protection for shipping lanes, naval operations, and coastal assets.

Offshore Assets Are Exposed To Low-Cost Aerial Threats

"What we are seeing globally is that the drone threat is no longer confined to the battlefield or to land-based infrastructure. Shipping lanes, ports, harbours and offshore assets are now all exposed to low-cost aerial threats that can disrupt trade, damage infrastructure and threaten civilian safety," said Siete Hamminga, CEO, Robin Radar Systems.

"The Strait of Hormuz has once again demonstrated how vulnerable critical maritime corridors can become during periods of instability. IRIS OTM at Sea is being designed to answer that challenge with a rapidly deployable, software-defined capability that can move seamlessly between land and sea."

IRIS OTM At Sea Will Detect, Track, And Classify Drones

Originally developed to operate from moving land vehicles traveling at speeds exceeding 62 mph (100km/h), IRIS On-The-Move will now be adapted for maritime environments through advanced software enhancements that compensate for sea clutter, vessel movement, and challenging coastal conditions, according to a press release.

Designed to be mounted on vessels, IRIS OTM at Sea will detect, track, and classify drones while travelling at speeds of up to 54 knots, operating effectively in extreme environments thanks to its salt- and corrosion-resistant engineering, resonance tolerance, and EMC-compliant architecture.

Unlike traditional static radars, IRIS is designed to move with the threat itself, providing persistent situational awareness across highly dynamic environments, as per the release.

The company revealed that the radar's software architecture will be updated to filter out heavy sea reflections and environmental clutter to isolate small airborne threats operating close to the waterline, an increasingly important capability as drone incursions continue to evolve across maritime theatres.

Robin Radar Systems highlighted that the maritime update has been shaped directly by operational lessons from ongoing live-fire environments, where the need for flexible, mobile counter-UAS systems capable of protecting dynamic environments has accelerated dramatically. The company's engineering teams reportedly adapted the system specifically to address the increasing use of fixed-wing drones and low-altitude aerial threats around strategic shipping corridors and maritime infrastructure.

"Modern security demands speed and flexibility. Operators need systems that can deploy quickly, integrate easily, and adapt as threats evolve," said Vivien Croes, Chief Technical Officer, Robin Radar Systems.

"What makes this update important is that we are taking a combat-proven radar and extending its capabilities into one of the most operationally complex environments in the world. The future of counter-UAS is not static infrastructure, it is agile, mobile sensing systems capable of protecting people, critical infrastructure and global commerce wherever threats emerge."

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:55

Which US States Have The Highest GDP Per Capita?

Zero Hedge -

Which US States Have The Highest GDP Per Capita?

Where you live in the U.S. can make a huge difference in economic output per person.

GDP per capita varies widely across states, from under $60,000 in Mississippi to nearly $280,000 in Washington, D.C.

This chart, produced by Visual Capitalist's Jenna Ross, in partnership with Terzo, breaks down GDP per capita in 2025. 

GDP per Capita by State

Washington, D.C. has the highest GDP per capita. The capital’s economy is concentrated in high-value professional services like consulting, IT, and legal, as well as government spending. 

Its large commuter workforce from outside states also boosts the figure, as many workers contribute to economic output without being counted in the local population.

State 2025 GDP per Capita Washington, D.C. $278k New York $123k Massachusetts $115k Washington $112k Delaware $111k California $108k North Dakota $102k Connecticut $102k Alaska $102k Nebraska $98k Colorado $97k Illinois $95k New Jersey $93k Texas $92k Minnesota $91k Maryland $91k Virginia $90k Wyoming $89k Utah $89k New Hampshire $89k Hawaii $87k South Dakota $86k Nevada $86k Iowa $86k Georgia $82k Ohio $81k Kansas $81k Pennsylvania $81k Tennessee $81k Oregon $80k North Carolina $80k Wisconsin $79k Arizona $78k Florida $78k Indiana $78k Rhode Island $75k Vermont $75k Missouri $75k Louisiana $74k Maine $73k Michigan $72k Montana $72k New Mexico $72k South Carolina $68k Idaho $67k Kentucky $67k Oklahoma $67k Alabama $66k Arkansas $64k West Virginia $62k Mississippi $56k

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic AnalysisU.S. Census Bureau. Figures rounded.

New York takes the second spot as a global financial hub with strong output in other high-value industries, including real estate and professional services. 

Massachusetts and Washington also top the ranks. While Massachusetts drives value through professional services like biotechnology, Washington is home to big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft.

Resource Economies

Outside of more service-based economies, both North Dakota and Alaska pump out over $100,000 in GDP per capita. 

Both states are driven by natural resources and mining, ranking as the third (North Dakota) and fifth-highest (Alaska) producers of crude oil in America. These states also have some of the lowest populations in the country, driving up output per person.

More recently in 2026, both states have seen monetary benefits from oil transport disruptions and rising prices. North Dakota typically sells crude oil at a discount to benchmark pricing, but has been earning $7 more per barrel above the benchmark. In Alaska, the state recently increased its projected revenue by $0.5 billion as a result of higher oil prices.

Maximizing Value

As economies push to create more value per person, businesses are also focused on getting more from what they have.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:30

India's Solar Demand Set For 22% Annual Growth Through 2035

Zero Hedge -

India's Solar Demand Set For 22% Annual Growth Through 2035

Submitted by Tsvetana Paraskova of OilPrice.com

India’s solar capacity is set to surge by 22% each year by 2035 as the data center boom will drive increased power consumption, a new report by Nuvama showed on Monday.   

The consultancy estimates that India’s total power demand will rise by 6% every year over the next decade, “driven by economic growth, rising urbanisation, manufacturing expansion and increasing electrification across sectors,” according to the report cited by Indian news outlet ANI.

Solar growth will vastly outpace overall power demand as power-intensive data centers will drive 22% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) in solar energy capacity from 2026 to 2035, the report found.

Our base case suggests green hydrogen and data centre capacity shall add another 251GW solar capacity, while it is 406GW capacity in the bull case scenario,” Nuvama analysts said in the report.

“Given solar capacity expansion in our base case, the share of solar shall rise from 28% in FY26 to 61% by FY35 and to 65% in the bull case,” they added.

India expects to nearly quadruple its solar power capacity and triple wind power-generating assets within ten years, according to the new Generation Adequacy Plan published by the country’s Central Electricity Authority earlier this year.

India projects to have a total of 509 gigawatts (GW) of solar power capacity installed by the end of the 2035-2036 fiscal year, up from 140 GW installed solar PV capacity as of January 2026.   

“The installed generation capacity projection in 2035-36 shows that the country is moving toward a strong transition to non-fossil energy. Renewable sources, especially solar PV, hydro, and wind, will dominate future capacity, supported by Energy Storage Systems,” according to the policy.

In 2025, India boasted that it was five years ahead of schedule when it achieved its target of having 50% of its installed electricity capacity coming from non-fossil fuel sources.

However, India's electricity grid is expanding at a slower pace than the boom in renewable energy installations, leading to an increased share of clean energy curtailments and threatening to slow the solar and wind boom in the world’s most populous country.   

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 20:05

How The World Added Decades To Life Expectancy

Zero Hedge -

How The World Added Decades To Life Expectancy

The average person today can expect to live far longer than someone born in 1960, regardless of where they live.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist's Bruno Venditti, tracks life expectancy at birth across four World Bank income groups. While high-income countries still have the longest lifespans, the biggest gains have come elsewhere. Upper-middle income countries have added more than three decades to life expectancy, while low-income countries have made substantial progress as well.

The data for this visualization comes from World Bank via FRED. It tracks life expectancy at birth by income group from 1960 to the latest available data (2024).

High-Income Countries Still Lead

High-income countries still have the highest life expectancy, reaching 80.3 years in 2024.

That is up from 68.3 years in 1960, a gain of 12 years. These countries started from a much higher baseline, meaning their gains have been slower but still substantial.

Examples include the U.S., Germany, and Japan.

 

Upper-Middle Income Countries Saw the Fastest Gains

 

Upper-middle income countries posted the largest increase, rising from 41.9 years in 1960 to 76.3 years.

That is a gain of 34.4 years, the fastest improvement of any group in the dataset. This category includes countries such as China, Brazil, Mexico, and South Africa.

Much of this improvement coincided with rising incomes, better sanitation, expanded vaccination programs, lower child mortality, and broader access to healthcare. Together, these changes helped push life expectancy in many middle-income countries toward levels once seen only in the world’s wealthiest economies.

The Global Life Expectancy Gap Has Narrowed

In 1960, people in high-income countries lived about 27 years longer than those in low-income countries.

Today, the gap stands at roughly 16 years. While a significant difference remains, low-income countries have added more than 23 years to average life expectancy since 1960. In other words, much of the world’s longevity progress has come from countries that started furthest behind.

However, the remaining gap shows that income, healthcare access, and living conditions continue to shape longevity worldwide.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Countries With the Most Ultra-Rich Residents in 2026 on Voronoi.

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 19:40

Domesticating AI - It's Not Coming, It's Already Here

Zero Hedge -

Domesticating AI - It's Not Coming, It's Already Here

Authored by Howard Armitage via New Atlas,

When my neighbor wanted a vision of what his fence could look like, I didn't hesitate to ask ChatGPT to create a mock-up. I took a photo of the fence and asked it to overlay a potted Jasmin espaliered to it, after a couple of tweaks, and all of about one minute later, it gave me this:

AI-generated mock-up created from the author’s original fence photograph
Howard Armitage

During a recent conversation with a diving buddy, he pulled out his phone mid conversation and said "Hey Grok, show me that dive computer we were talking about this morning." And yes, it's $580 worth of gorgeous.

Its translation abilities are spectacular, and occasionally hilarious. It really is the Babel fish. Not that long ago I moved to a bank simply because it supported Apple Pay years before the big players. At that time, paying with just the tap of a wrist always garnered astonishment and commentary. Around the same time, voice assistants started crossing the line from novelty to genuinely useful. Set a timer, make an appointment, play some music. Super!

"Alexa, turn the kitchen light on." Light comes on. "No, turn it off." "There is no device called 'it' to turn off." Oof!

No memory, no context.

Enter Nabu (yes I know, I haven't got round to changing the wakeword name yet). Naby knows it turned the kitchen light on, and knows I was referring to the kitchen light when I said "turn it off." It remembers, it has context, because it's not just a dumb voice assistant anymore, it is plumbed into my local AI.

The big commercial AI platforms can be connected to these systems, but running it locally means the data stays within the boundaries of my house. It won't process that mountain of documents or win that tricky legal case yet, but it can keep track of the state of my home and understand what I mean when I speak naturally.

That's a big deal - because now I don't have to write and memorize tiresome automations for rigid pre-programmed commands, I can converse with Nabu in human and it understands "all the lights" or "just the downstairs aircons."

Only five years ago, running an AI model at home was a ridiculous proposition - you'd need datacenter hardware and a tech-bro budget. Now, it's dramatically cheaper and easier - with consumer GPUs, mini PCs, Ollama and Hugging Face, technically curious people are quietly building surprisingly capable AI systems at home. The GPU that I can hold in my hands doesn't compete with a datacenter the size of several football fields - but for my homelab tinkerings, it's surprisingly capable, and is only becoming more so.

I should probably backtrack a little here - I'm enthusing about Home Assistant, which I've been running for about 12 years - originally on a Raspberry Pi, now in a VM on ProxmoxVE. Sensors and controllers are scattered all over the house, with a dashboard in a browser acting as mission control. Lights automated with timers and presence detectors. Sun elevation adjusts blinds, curtains react to sunrise and sunset, and moisture sensors trigger irrigation on demand. Solar and battery systems respond to dynamic electricity pricing, buying and selling power depending on what the grid is doing.

Home Assistant proclaimed 2023 to be the Year of the Voice and duly launched a prototype Voice Assistant. At launch, its capabilities were limited. Today, it is genuinely good at a variety of tasks, and it's all open source so you can build your own device from very inexpensive hardware, and the software is on GitHub.

Local models - Llama, Gemma, Mistral, Qwen - very much lag behind the giant commercial systems, but for experimentation, home automation, and general day-to-day interaction, they're becoming more and more usable. I personally care about data sovereignty (a huge topic in its own right), so running a local AI grants me a more privacy-conscious workflow, and it still works when the internet doesn't.

Quite how many months of commercial AI subscriptions I could have got for the price of my GPU is a question I'm deliberately avoiding, predominantly for marital reasons. I rather think of myself as a data nerd. All those sensors collecting all that data in a "If this, then that" environment makes for endless tinkering possibilities. And with an AI-powered Nabu gradually replacing Alexa, my office edges ever closer to Tony Stark's lair. We're no longer at "deploying Kubernetes clusters" level of difficulty, but it's still very much a tinkerer’s space rather than a mainstream consumer appliance. Even so, it feels like a taste of where we're heading.

The strange thing is how quickly this all stops feeling strange. Talking naturally to an AI that understands context, remembers previous conversations and controls my house may have garnered astonishment and commentary. Now, it's just another thing sitting quietly in my server rack.

Home Assistant acting as “mission control” for lighting, climate and automation around the author’s home Howard Armitage Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 19:15

Final Ivy Folds As Columbia University Abandons Test-Optional Admissions Policy

Zero Hedge -

Final Ivy Folds As Columbia University Abandons Test-Optional Admissions Policy

More than three years after adopting test-optional admissions, Columbia University is reversing course and will once again require standardized test scores from prospective students.

Columbia announced on June 13 that, beginning in fall 2027, first-year and transfer applicants will have to submit either SAT or ACT scores to be considered for admission. The university will remain test-optional for the upcoming 2026–27 admissions cycle.

University officials said the decision follows a “multiyear faculty review” that found “test scores, among other factors, were a useful indicator of potential student success.”

“Standardized testing is one of many elements that can demonstrate a foundation of academic excellence; others include your performance in your secondary school coursework and the rigor of your curriculum,” the university stated on a webpage outlining its new policy.

As Bill Pan reports for The Epoch Times, Columbia was among the first elite universities to suspend testing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, when widespread school closures and testing disruptions limited students’ access to the SAT and ACT. In 2023, the university extended its test-optional policy indefinitely, becoming the first Ivy League institution to make the change permanent.

It was also the last of the eight Ivy League schools to maintain a test-optional admissions policy.

Princeton University reinstated standardized testing requirements in October 2025, leaving Columbia as the sole Ivy League holdout.

The debate over standardized testing has intensified in recent years as some of the nation’s most selective institutions have restored testing requirements. Like Columbia and Princeton, many of those schools have cited internal data showing that test scores are a strong predictor of academic performance and graduation outcomes.

When Princeton announced its decision, university officials said data collected during five years of test-optional admissions showed that “academic performance at Princeton was stronger for students who chose to submit test scores than for students who did not.”

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which reinstated its testing requirement in 2022, also said that considering SAT and ACT scores—particularly math scores—“significantly improves” its ability to predict whether applicants will succeed in the institute’s highly demanding mathematics and math-based science courses.

Critics of standardized testing, however, argue that emphasizing those scores may disadvantage students from low-income and historically underrepresented backgrounds who lack access to expensive tutoring, test-preparation courses, and other educational resources.

Columbia’s move also comes amid renewed interest in standardized testing from the Trump administration.

Administration officials have argued that test-optional admissions policies allow colleges to rely more heavily on subjective criteria, such as personal statements, potentially serving as illegal proxies for race in admissions decisions, a practice the U.S. Supreme Court has declared unconstitutional.

“The persistent lack of available data—paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies—continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in admissions decisions in practice,” President Donald Trump wrote in an August 2025 memorandum to the secretary of education.

In a proposed compact offered to nine institutions in exchange for preferential access to certain federal funding opportunities, the Trump administration also demanded that they require standardized test scores as part of the admissions process.

The proposal further urged schools to publicly release anonymized admissions data, including applicants’ GPAs, standardized test scores, and other academic measures, broken down by race, national origin, and sex.

Despite the revival of testing requirements at some elite institutions, test-optional admissions remain widespread nationwide.

According to FairTest, an advocacy group opposing the use of standardized testing in college admissions, more than 90 percent of ranked four-year colleges and universities in the United States will not require applicants to submit SAT or ACT scores for fall 2026 admissions. The organization’s survey covered approximately 2,000 four-year institutions.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 18:50

Anthropic Accused In Lawsuit Of Lying About $200 Per Month '20x' Plan

Zero Hedge -

Anthropic Accused In Lawsuit Of Lying About $200 Per Month '20x' Plan

A federal class-action lawsuit filed Monday accuses Anthropic of misleading customers about the real usage limits on its high-end Claude AI subscriptions. The suit, brought on behalf of Washington D.C. subscriber Karl Kahn and others who bought the Max 5x and Max 20x plans since April 2025, claims the company oversold how much computing power buyers would actually receive.

The lawsuit - filed Monday in the Northern District of California on behalf of Washington DC resident Karl Kahn and others who subscribed to the plans since April 2025 - targets Anthropic's Max 5x and Max 20x tiers priced at $100 and $200 per month respectively. It accuses the company of misleading customers by advertising these plans as providing five and twenty times the usage capacity of the standard Pro subscription, when in reality the actual limits fall well short of those claims. The allegations draw heavily from emails Anthropic sent to subscribers in July 2025 that outlined the expected weekly usage allowances for each tier at the time.

According to the complaint, Kahn upgraded to the Max 20x plan in April of this year after increasing his reliance on Claude for coding work. He soon discovered he was exhausting his weekly limits rapidly, including burning through 15 percent of his allowance during a single five-hour session. The suit seeks refunds for affected customers and a judicial finding that Anthropic's marketing of the high-tier plans was fraudulent.

Allegations

Kahn initially used Claude for personal tasks but later relied on it heavily for coding. After upgrading, he repeatedly hit usage walls and had to stop work, ration prompts, or buy extra credits to finish projects, according to the complaint. The lawsuit says the actual limits are difficult to predict and consistently lower than what was promised when the plans were marketed as giving five or twenty times the capacity of the standard Pro subscription.

"The actual usage provided by the Max 5x and Max 20x plans is far below the advertised amount of usage," reads the lawsuit, that claims Kahn "found himself needing either to halt his work, ration his usage, or purchase additional usage to ensure that he could complete his work." 

Anthropic has not commented on the suit, according to the Wall Street Journal. The company offers free access plus paid tiers, with the Pro plan running $17 to $20 a month. The higher Max plans were positioned for power users needing substantially more compute.

This lawsuit arrives amid mounting frustration with AI subscriptions and tokenomics. Power users and even large enterprises have complained for months about unpredictable rate limits, especially on coding workflows - with several documented cases of extreme overspending, including one unnamed Anthropic client (Amazon?) that racked up roughly $500 million in Claude charges in a single month after failing to cap employee usage.

Compute scarcity remains a core issue across the sector. A surge in demand earlier this year strained systems at Anthropic and rivals, producing outages and tighter limits even for paying customers. At the same time, companies are racing to launch new models ahead of expected IPOs while navigating new government restrictions. Days before this suit, the Trump administration banned foreign governments, companies, and individuals from accessing Anthropic's most powerful models after Amazon discovered a way to jailbreak the company's Fable AI into its unrestricted form - Mythos, forcing the company to shut off certain access to comply.

On Sunday, Anthropic execs scrambled to DC to triage the situation

Fable 5 launched on June 9 as the first broadly available "Mythos-class" model, the public-facing version of a system Anthropic had previously kept behind a vetted-access wall because of its cyber and biological capabilities. Mythos 5, the same underlying model with some safeguards removed, stayed reserved for cleared cybersecurity partners. Fable 5 was the middle path: Mythos-grade capability, Anthropic said, with guardrails strong enough for general release. The company put it on the API, made it generally available on Amazon Bedrock and GitHub Copilot, and folded it into Pro, Max, Team, and Enterprise plans at no extra charge through June 22.

Tyler Durden Mon, 06/15/2026 - 17:20

Pages