Insider Legacy Secret
Author

admin

Browsing
In Latest News

Trump, Netanyahu to meet at White House in high-stakes talks on Iran, Gaza plan

No Comments

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet President Donald Trump at the White House on Wednesday in a visit expected to center on Iran, as Washington weighs diplomacy against the threat of military action and Israel pushes to shape the scope of negotiations.

Trump has signaled the Iranian file will dominate the agenda. In a phone interview with Axios, the president said Tehran ‘very much wants to reach a deal,’ but warned, ‘Either we make a deal, or we’ll have to do something very tough — like last time.’

Netanyahu, speaking before departing Israel for Washington, said he intends to present Israel’s position. ‘I will present to the president our concept regarding the principles of the negotiations — the essential principles that are important not only to Israel but to anyone who wants peace and security in the Middle East,’ he told reporters.

The meeting comes days after U.S. and Iranian officials resumed talks in Oman for the first time since last summer’s 12-day war, while the United States continues to maintain a significant military presence in the Gulf — a posture widely viewed as both deterrence and for holding leverage in negotiations with Tehran.

From the U.S. perspective, Iran is seen as a global security challenge rather than a regional one, according to Jacob Olidort, chief research officer and director of American security at the America First Policy Institute. ‘It’s an important historic time of potentially seismic proportions,’ he told Fox News Digital.

‘Iran is not so much a Middle East issue. It’s a global issue affecting U.S. interests around the world,’ he added, calling the regime ‘probably the world’s oldest global terror network… [with] thousands of Americans killed through proxies.’

Olidort said the administration’s strategy appears to combine diplomacy with visible military pressure. ‘The president has been clear… should talks not be successful, the military option cannot be off the table,’ he said. ‘Military assets in the region serve as part of the negotiation strategy with Iran.’

For Israel, the main concern is not only Iran’s nuclear program but also its ballistic missile arsenal and regional network of armed groups.

Trump indicated to Axios that the United States shares at least part of that view, saying any agreement would need to address not only nuclear issues but also Iran’s ballistic missiles. 

Israeli intelligence expert Sima Shein has warned that negotiations narrowly focused on nuclear restrictions could leave Israel exposed. ‘The visit signals a lack of confidence that American envoys, Witkoff and Kushner, alone can represent Israel’s interests in the best way. They were in Israel just a week ago — but Netanyahu wants to speak directly with Trump, so there is no ambiguity about Israel’s position,’ she added.

Shein says Iran may be stalling diplomatically to see whether Washington limits talks to nuclear issues while avoiding missile constraints. Her analysis further suggests that a sanctions-relief agreement that leaves Iran’s broader capabilities intact could stabilize the regime at a moment of internal pressure while preserving its military leverage. 

‘An agreement now would effectively save the regime at a time when it has no real solutions to its internal problems. Lifting sanctions through a deal would give it breathing room and help stabilize it,’ she said.

‘If there is an agreement, the United States must demand the release of all detainees and insist on humanitarian measures, including medical support for those who have been severely injured. Washington would need to be directly involved in enforcing those provisions.’

Netanyahu said before leaving Israel that he and Trump would discuss ‘a series of topics,’ including Gaza, where a U.S.-backed postwar framework and ceasefire implementation remain stalled. 

According to Israeli reporting, Netanyahu plans to tell Trump that phase two of the Gaza peace plan ‘is not moving,’ reflecting continued disputes over disarmament, governance and security arrangements.

The timing of Netanyahu’s visit may also allow him to avoid returning to Washington the following week for the inaugural session of the Board of Peace, Shein said, noting the initiative is controversial in Israel’s parliament. 

‘Israel is deeply concerned about the presence of Turkey and Qatar on the board of peace and their malign influence on other members as well as on the Palestinian authority’s technocratic government,’ Dan Diker, president of the Jerusalem Center for Security and Foreign Affairs, told Fox News Digital.

‘Hamas’s control of Gaza has not weakened, while international commitments to disarm Hamas have appeared to weaken,’ he added, ‘The longer the U.S. waits before taking action against the Iranian regime, the more compromised Israel is in its ability and determination to forcibly disarm Hamas, both of which require the sanction and the blessing of the new international structures on Gaza.’

‘The prime minister’s deep concern is the stalled state of affairs both against the Iranian regime and apparently in Gaza. Timing is critical on both fronts. And for Israel, the window seems to be closing,’ Diker said.  


 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Economy

To Save Social Security, Stop Subsidizing Wealthy Retirees

No Comments

Social Security is drifting toward a cliff, and Congress keeps pretending the shortfall will fix itself. It won’t.

Absent reform, benefits will be cut across the board by roughly 23 percent within six years. That outcome would harm retirees who depend on Social Security the most — while barely affecting the living standards of those who do not need financial support in old age. 

There is a better option: reduce distributions to the wealthiest retirees, preserving them for those most dependent on benefits. 

This should not be a radical idea. Government income transfers should be targeted to those who need financial support — not used to subsidize consumption among well-off seniors at the expense of younger working Americans. This approach is grounded in what Social Security was meant to do in the first place: “give some measure of protection to the average citizen and to his family against…poverty-ridden old age,” in the words of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 

A report by the Congressional Budget Office, titled “Trends in the Distribution of Family Wealth, 1989 to 2022,” elucidates the role that Social Security plays in total household wealth. By counting not just financial assets and home equity, but also the present value of future Social Security benefits, it becomes clear that Social Security represents a substantial share of total resources for lower-wealth families and only a marginal share for wealthy households.  

For families in the bottom quarter of the wealth distribution, accrued Social Security benefits account for about half of everything they own. For those near the top, Social Security represents only about eight percent of total assets for the top 10 percent, compared to holdings in financial assets, real estate, and business equity (see Figure 1). Yet under current law, wealthy retirees who claim at age 70 can still receive annual Social Security benefits exceeding $62,000 — roughly four times the poverty threshold for seniors. 

This is an upside-down safety net. When automatic benefit cuts kick in in 2032, the retirees who rely most on Social Security will be hurt the most, while wealthy households will scarcely notice the change.  

According to the CBO, that uniform 23-percent cut would reduce the total wealth of families in the bottom half of the distribution by more than 10 percent. For the top one percent, the hit would be barely noticeable: about two-tenths of one percent (see Figure 2). 

This outcome is not inevitable; Congress can target benefit reductions where they are most easily absorbed.  

Opponents of top-end benefit reductions argue that Social Security is an earned benefit, not welfare, and that cutting benefits for high earners violates that principle. They are right about one thing: workers pay payroll taxes with the expectation of receiving benefits. But that expectation was never a guarantee of open-ended, inflation-beating returns — especially for retirees who already enjoy substantial private wealth. 

Social Security, if it is to exist at all, should focus on preventing old-age poverty, not provide wealthy retirees with an ever-growing worker-funded annuity layered on top of substantial private savings. When benefits grow faster than inflation and flow disproportionately to those who don’t need them, the program drifts away from its stated purpose and becomes increasingly difficult to justify. 

The solution is not higher payroll taxes. Eliminating the payroll tax cap would push marginal tax rates above 60 percent in some states, reducing work and innovation, while still failing to target benefits where they matter most. Increasing payroll taxes for all workers would deprive younger working families of resources with which to grow their fortunes and build their own futures. 

Nor is the solution more borrowing. Social Security is already projected to add trillions to federal deficits over the next decade. Borrowing to preserve full benefits for wealthy retirees is fiscally reckless and economically unnecessary.

The sensible path forward is targeted benefit restraint. 

That means:

  • Slowing the growth of initial benefits for higher earners by adjusting the benefit formula and indexing those initial benefits to prices rather than wages.
  • Using a more accurate measure of inflation for cost-of-living adjustments for ongoing benefits, and phasing out adjustments entirely for high-income retirees.
  • Adjusting retirement ages to reflect longer life expectancy, with protections for workers who truly cannot work longer — which is the aim of the disability component of Social Security. 

In practice, these changes amount to a gradual shift away from an earnings-related benefit and toward a flat, anti-poverty payment. If Social Security is going to persist, its role should be limited to what market earnings and private savings cannot reliably provide. Every step that trims excessive benefits at the top moves the program closer to that defensible boundary. 

Congress should act to prevent across-the-board benefit cuts, without more deeply indebting younger generations, nor sucking up more resources from working Americans. Instead, lawmakers should focus reforms where they do the least harm and the most good — by trimming earned benefits at the top to secure endangered benefits for those at the bottom. 

It may not be “fair,” but it’s the only plausible path forward. The goal of reform should not be to preserve Social Security in its current form, but to prevent the worst outcomes. Preserving benefits for those who depend on the program, while slowing benefit growth for those who do not, is the only way to reduce Social Security’s role as a reverse transfer from younger workers to wealthy retirees who do not need the support.

by
Read More
In Economy

What Makes a Good Federal Reserve Chair? It Depends on Independence

No Comments

The nomination of Kevin Warsh to replace Jerome Powell as Federal Reserve Chair has many people wondering: What makes a good Fed chair? The answer, it turns out, depends on the environment in which the chair will operate. 

The characteristics that matter most for running an independent central bank differ from those for a central bank under pressure from political actors. Understanding this distinction is important for evaluating the president’s nominee.

The Case for Technical Competence

In an environment of genuine central bank independence, technical competence matters most. A qualified chair is a reputable monetary economist with strong academic credentials, someone who commands respect in financial markets and the economics profession.

Independent central banks with technically competent leadership achieve measurably better outcomes. They deliver lower inflation rates and more stable inflation expectations. When markets believe the Fed will respond appropriately to economic data, inflation expectations remain anchored even during temporary price shocks. This anchoring effect makes the Fed’s job easier and prevents above-target inflation from becoming entrenched in wage negotiations and pricing decisions.

When a chair’s analysis carries weight in the economics profession, its policy explanations are more persuasive to market participants. This credibility is a form of capital that takes years to accumulate and can be spent during crises when the Fed needs public trust most.

If the central bank is left to conduct monetary policy as it sees fit, a technically competent Fed chair is crucial.

The Case for Character

If the Fed lacks independence, the strength of character and a willingness to resist political pressure are more important traits. Technical competence is of little use when the central bank is not able to do what its members think it should. Indeed, it might be worth trading some technical competence for a strong spine in such a case.

History provides clear examples. Fed Chair Arthur Burns was technically competent. Prior to becoming Fed chair, he was a well-respected economics professor at Columbia University, where he taught Milton Friedman. He did pioneering work on business cycles with Wesley Clair Mitchell, which has been carried on by the National Bureau of Economic Research. Few economists possessed the technical expertise of Burns at the time. But all that expertise was of little consequence: Burns gave in to President Nixon’s pressure campaign before the 1972 election, lowering interest rates when economic conditions didn’t warrant it. His decision contributed to the high inflation of the 1970s and damaged the Fed’s credibility for years.

Paul Volcker was a sharp economist, to be sure. But he was not as technically competent as Burns. He did not hold a prestigious professorship. He had not done pioneering work in macroeconomics or monetary economics. But he had a strong spine. When President Reagan urged Volcker to commit to not raising interest rates ahead of the 1984 election, Volcker refused. In doing so, he preserved the principle that the Fed chair doesn’t make policy commitments to the White House. His unwillingness to compromise on institutional boundaries helped restore price stability and solidified the Fed’s reputation for independence.

When political pressure threatens independence, the chair’s character matters more.

The Independence Dilemma

When independence is in doubt, credibility and good policy choices may be at odds with each other. Consider a scenario where White House pressure happens to align with the economically correct policy decision. Perhaps the administration wants rate cuts, and economic data genuinely support easing. The Fed then faces a difficult choice.

If the Fed cuts rates, the public may view the decision as capitulation to political demands. If the Fed refuses to cut rates to signal its independence, it makes the wrong economic decision to preserve the appearance of autonomy. Either way, the Fed’s reputation suffers. The public will come to believe the Fed responds to political factors rather than economic data, regardless of which choice the institution makes.

The first-best solution in such a situation is clear: restore independence. An independent Fed can focus on conducting policy well, without risk to its credibility due to perceived political capitulation. But first-best solutions are not always possible.

Recent events provide much support for the view that we need a second-best solution. The president has consistently called for lower interest rates. He has attempted to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook. He nominated his CEA Chair, Stephen Miran, who is widely believed to be a Trump loyalist, to fill the balance of Adriana Kugler’s term. And, in January, his Department of Justice subpoenaed Chair Powell. The Fed, in other words, is under pressure. 

How Warsh Stacks Up 

With all of this in mind, how should one evaluate Trump’s pick to replace Powell?

Although Kevin Warsh is not a traditional academic economist, he nonetheless possesses a high degree of technical competence. He previously served on the Fed Board from 2006 to 2011. He is currently the Shepard Family Distinguished Visiting Fellow in Economics at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution and lectures at Stanford’s Graduate School of Business. Before joining the Fed, Warsh also served as Vice President and Executive Director of Morgan Stanley & Co. in New York.

Warsh also has a strong spine. While initially on board with the Fed’s large-scale asset purchases as an emergency liquidity tool, he later came to oppose using the balance sheet as a permanent tool. Fed liquidity, he warned, is a “poor substitute” for functioning private markets. This view was decidedly out-of-fashion at the Fed. And yet, Warsh stuck to his guns. Today’s Fed, under political pressure as it is, would be well served by his strong character—provided that it is used to bolster the Fed’s independence.

How will Warsh use his strong spine? That’s an open question. If he pursues the facts as he sees them, he might deliver a much-needed dose of credibility to a struggling institution. If he does the president’s bidding—or is perceived to be doing the president’s bidding—he will further erode the Fed’s credibility.

by
Read More
In Latest News

FDA refuses to review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine application

No Comments

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) refused to consider Moderna’s application for a new flu vaccine using mRNA technology, the company announced Tuesday, a decision that could delay the introduction of a shot designed to offer stronger protection for older adults.

Moderna said it received what’s known as a ‘refusal-to-file’ (RTF) letter from the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), citing the lack of an ‘adequate and well-controlled’ study with a comparator arm that ‘does not reflect the best-available standard of care.’

Stéphane Bancel, chief executive officer of Moderna, said the FDA’s decision did not ‘identify any safety or efficacy concerns with our product’ and ‘does not further our shared goal of enhancing America’s leadership in developing innovative medicines.’

‘It should not be controversial to conduct a comprehensive review of a flu vaccine submission that uses an FDA-approved vaccine as a comparator in a study that was discussed and agreed on with CBER prior to starting,’ Bancel said in a statement. ‘We look forward to engaging with CBER to understand the path forward as quickly as possible so that America’s seniors, and those with underlying conditions, continue to have access to American-made innovations.’

The rare decision from the FDA comes amid increased scrutiny over vaccine approvals under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has criticized mRNA vaccines and rolled back certain COVID-19 shot recommendations over the past year.

Kennedy previously removed members of the federal government’s vaccine advisory panel and appointed new members, and moved to cancel $500 million in mRNA vaccine contracts.

The FDA authorized COVID-19 vaccines for the fall for high-risk groups only. Last May, Kennedy announced the vaccines would be removed from the CDC’s routine immunization schedule for healthy children and pregnant women.

According to Moderna, the refusal-to-file decision was based on the company’s choice of comparator in its Phase 3 trial — a licensed standard-dose seasonal flu vaccine — which the FDA said did not reflect the ‘best-available standard of care.’

Moderna said the decision contradicts prior written communications from the FDA, including 2024 guidance stating a standard-dose comparator would be acceptable, though a higher-dose vaccine was recommended for participants over 65.

Moderna said the FDA ‘did not raise any objections or clinical hold comments about the adequacy of the Phase 3 trial after the submission of the protocol in April 2024 or at any time before the initiation of the study in September 2024.’

In August 2025, following completion of the Phase 3 efficacy trial, Moderna said it held a pre-submission meeting with CBER, which requested that supportive analyses on the comparator be included in the submission and indicated the data would be a ‘significant issue during review of your BLA.’

Moderna said it provided the additional analyses requested by CBER in its submission, noting that ‘at no time in the pre-submission written feedback or meeting did CBER indicate that it would refuse to review the file.’

The company requested a Type A meeting with CBER to understand the basis for the RTF letter, adding that regulatory reviews are continuing in the European Union, Canada and Australia.

Fox News has reached out to the Department of Health and Human Services for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Alex Miller and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

Geopolitics, Power and Resources Collide as Global Order Frays

No Comments

Rising geopolitical tensions, intensifying competition for critical minerals and the accelerating breakdown of the postwar global order were some of the key themes at the Vancouver Resource Investment Conference (VRIC) in late January, as investors grappled with what a volatile world means for capital, commodities and security of supply.

In a wide-ranging panel moderated by Jesse Day, legendary mining financier Frank Giustra joined retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor and geopolitical analyst Dr. Pascal Lottaz to examine flashpoints from Iran to Greenland, and why resource investors can no longer separate geopolitics from the metals that underpin modern economies.

Giustra, president and CEO of Fiore Group and co-chair of the International Crisis Group, opened the discussion by warning that tensions with Iran are approaching a critical threshold, driven by competing US and Israeli objectives.

“Israel would like to see Iran taken out as a major regional power,” Giustra said. “The US would like to see a different Iran — one it could do business with and that has stable relations with its neighbours. Those objectives are not the same.”

He added that the presence of a US carrier strike group in the region underscores the risk of escalation, but questioned whether military action would achieve Washington’s goals. “Iran is simply too large for a strike to have the intended effect,” he said, pointing to the absence of a coherent long-term policy.

Colonel Macgregor was more blunt, warning the US is “on the precipice of war” with Iran and arguing that Washington’s strategic thinking mirrors failed efforts elsewhere.

“This is the same mindset that committed us to war in Ukraine,” Macgregor said. “Destroy the country, divide it, dominate it, and take its resources. It failed there, and it will fail in Iran.”

Dr. Lottaz, an adjunct researcher at Waseda University in Tokyo and host of the ‘Neutrality Studies’ channel, said unpredictability has become the defining feature of US foreign policy.

“What Israel does is done in conjunction with the US — they are effectively one team,” Lottaz said. “Carrier groups sitting offshore are not just deterrence. They are also sitting ducks. Ships can sink.”

Greenland, minerals and power politics

The panel then turned to Greenland, a region increasingly viewed through the lens of critical minerals and Arctic security.

Giustra dismissed claims that Greenland poses an immediate security risk from Russia or China, arguing instead that resource competition is the real driver. “Greenland has always been open for business,” he said.

“The idea that the US needs to own it to access minerals is simply false.”

Instead, Giustra described Washington’s posture as coercive. “It’s essentially putting a gun to Greenland’s head and saying, ‘We want to buy you.’”

For mining investors, Greenland represents both opportunity and risk.

The island hosts significant deposits of rare earth elements, graphite and other strategic metals essential to clean energy technologies, defence systems and advanced manufacturing. But political uncertainty, including pressure from major powers, complicates development timelines and capital allocation.

Macgregor argued that US ambitions in Greenland and Venezuela reflect more optics than strategy. “This administration loves big gestures,” he said. “But unless you control what happens on the ground, nothing really changes.”

Europe’s energy crisis and deindustrialization

Lottaz traced Europe’s economic strain, particularly Germany’s deindustrialization, back to energy policy decisions, including the shutdown of nuclear power and the loss of Russian gas supplies.

“Political leadership in Europe is increasingly detached from national interests,” he said. “What matters more is positioning within EU and transatlantic institutions.”

That disconnect has direct consequences for resource markets, particularly energy-intensive industries such as metals refining, steel production and battery manufacturing, which depend on stable, affordable power.

Macgregor added that many global institutions, including NATO and the European Union, are approaching “block obsolescence,” forcing investors to rethink long-held assumptions about stability.

Critical minerals and the risk of conflict

As the discussion widened, Giustra pointed to critical minerals as one of the most dangerous fault lines in the emerging world order.

“The intense competition between China and the West over critical minerals is a major factor,” he said. “These are not just economic assets — they’re strategic weapons.”

China currently dominates processing of rare earth elements, lithium chemicals and battery-grade materials, giving it leverage over Western supply chains. Efforts by the US, Europe and allies to secure alternative sources — from Greenland to Africa to South America — are reshaping investment flows across the mining sector.

Giustra warned that history shows transitions between declining and rising powers are rarely peaceful. “The danger of conflict during a shift in world order is extremely high,” he said. “We may already be setting the stage for something far worse.”

Is there room for optimism?

Despite the grim outlook, Lottaz offered cautious optimism, arguing that even strained international systems retain some restraining influence.

“Everyone still claims to operate under the UN Charter, even when they violate it,” he said. “That tells us the idea of international law still matters.”

He also pointed to restraint in conflicts such as Ukraine, noting that NATO has avoided direct war with Russia. “There is still rationality at work. No one wants Armageddon.”

Macgregor closed with a stark reminder for investors and policymakers alike. “Rules only exist if someone enforces them,” he said. “As American power recedes, we’re entering a far more competitive and uncertain world.”

For the resource sector, that uncertainty translates into higher geopolitical risk, but also strategic opportunity. As governments scramble to secure supply chains for energy transition metals, defence materials and critical infrastructure, mining projects once considered peripheral are moving to the centre of global power politics.

Securities Disclosure: I, Georgia Williams, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

Questcorp Mining Announces Upsized Private Placement

No Comments

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR DISSEMINATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Questcorp Mining Inc. (CSE: QQQ,OTC:QQCMF) (OTCQB: QQCMF) (FSE: D910) (the ‘Company’ or ‘Questcorp’) is pleased to announce an upsize to its previously announced non-brokered private placement to up to 15,000,000 units (each, a ‘Unit’) at a price of $0.20 per Unit for gross proceeds of up to $3,000,000 (the ‘Offering’). Each Unit will consist of one common share of the Company (each, a ‘Share’) and one-half-of-one share purchase warrant (each whole share purchase warrant, a ‘Warrant’). Each Warrant will entitle the holder to acquire an additional common share of the Company at a price of $0.30 for a period of thirty-six months following closing of the Offering, provided that holders will not be permitted to exercise Warrants until 60 days following closing of the Offering.

The Company expects to utilize the proceeds of the Offering for exploration work at the Company’s La Union Gold and Silver Project and North Island Copper Project, and for general working capital purposes.

The Units to be issued under the Offering will be offered for sale pursuant to the listed issuer financing exemption under Part 5A of National Instrument 45-106 – Prospectus Exemptions, as amended by CSA Coordinated Blanket Order 45-935 – Exemptions from Certain Conditions of the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption (collectively, the ‘Listed Issuer Financing Exemption‘), in all provinces of Canada, except Quebec, and other qualifying jurisdictions, including the United States. The Units offered under the Listed Issuer Financing Exemption will be immediately ‘free-trading’ under applicable Canadian securities laws.

There is an offering document (the ‘Offering Document‘) related to this Offering that can be accessed under the Company’s profile at www.sedarplus.ca and at the Company’s website at https://questcorpmining.ca/. Prospective investors should read this Offering Document before making an investment decision.

In connection with completion of the Offering, the Company may pay finders’ fees to eligible third-parties who have introduced subscribers to the Offering. Completion of the Offering remains subject to receipt of regulatory approvals.

This press release is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy the securities in the United States or in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to qualification or registration under the securities laws of such jurisdiction. The securities being offered have not been, nor will they be, registered under the United States Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and such securities may not be offered or sold within the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, U.S. persons absent registration or an applicable exemption from U.S. registration requirements and applicable U.S. state securities laws.

About Questcorp Mining Inc.

Questcorp Mining Inc. is engaged in the business of the acquisition and exploration of mineral properties in North America, with the objective of locating and developing economic precious and base metals properties of merit. The Company holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 1,168.09 hectares comprising the North Island Copper Property, on Vancouver Island, British Columbia, subject to a royalty obligation. The Company also holds an option to acquire an undivided 100% interest in and to mineral claims totaling 2,520.2 hectares comprising the La Union Project located in Sonora, Mexico, subject to a royalty obligation.

Contact Information

Questcorp Mining Corp.

Saf Dhillon, President & CEO

Email: saf@questcorpmining.ca
Telephone: (604) 484-3031

This news release includes certain ‘forward-looking statements’ under applicable Canadian securities legislation. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements with respect to the intended use of proceeds from the Offering; closing of the Offering; and filing of the Offering Document. Forward-looking statements are necessarily based upon a number of estimates and assumptions that, while considered reasonable, are subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties, and other factors which may cause the actual results and future events to differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such factors include, but are not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties, uncertain capital markets; and delay or failure to receive board or regulatory approvals. There can be no assurance that such forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Accordingly, readers should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements. The Company disclaims any intention or obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required by law.

Neither the Canadian Securities Exchange nor its Regulation Services Provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the Canadian Securities Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release.

Corporate Logo

To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/283532

News Provided by TMX Newsfile via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Key House committee advances nationwide voter ID bill, setting up 2026 election fight

No Comments

The House of Representatives is readying to vote on a bill that would mandate photo identification for voters across the United States in the coming 2026 midterm elections.

The House Rules Committee, the final gatekeeper before most bills see a chamber-wide vote, advanced the SAVE America Act on Tuesday as conservatives continue to pressure the Senate to take up the bill after its likely House passage.

It’s a sweeping piece of legislation aimed at keeping non-citizens from participating in U.S. elections.

Democrats have attacked the bill as tantamount to voter suppression, while Republicans argue that it’s necessary after the influx of millions of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. during the four years of the Biden administration.

Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., told reporters it would get a vote on Wednesday.

The legislation is led by Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, in the House, and Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, in the Senate.

It is an updated version of Roy’s Safeguarding American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which passed the House in April 2025 but was never taken up in the Senate.

Whereas the SAVE Act would create a new federal proof of citizenship mandate in the voter registration process and impose requirements for states to keep their rolls clear of ineligible voters, the updated bill would also require photo ID to vote in any federal elections.

It would also require information-sharing between state election officials and federal authorities in verifying citizenship on current voter rolls and enable the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to pursue immigration cases if non-citizens were found to be listed as eligible to vote.

The legislation is highly likely to pass the House, where the vast majority — if not virtually all — Republicans have supported similar pushes in the past.

But in the Senate, where current rules say 60 votes are needed to overcome a filibuster and hold a final vote on a bill, at least seven Democrats would be needed even if all Republicans stuck together.

It’s why House conservatives are pushing Senate GOP leaders to change rules in a way that would effectively do away with the 60-vote threshold, even if alternative paths mean paralyzing the upper chamber with hours of nonstop debate.

‘[Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.] will take it up. The only question is, will he take it up in an environment where it can pass?’ Roy posed to Fox News Digital on Tuesday. 

‘My view is that the majority leader can and should. I’m not afraid of amendment votes…we should table all their amendments, force them to run through all their speaking, make them take the floor and filibuster.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More
In Investing

5 Small-cap Biotech ETFs to Watch

No Comments

Thanks to exchange-traded funds (ETFs), investors don’t have to be tied to one specific stock. When it comes to biotech ETFs, they give sector participants exposure to many biotech companies via one vehicle.

ETFs are a popular choice as they allow investors to enter the market more safely compared to investing in standalone stocks. A key advantage is that even if one company in the ETF takes a hit, the impact will be less direct.

All other figures were also current as of that date. Read on to learn more about these investment vehicles.

1. ProShares Ultra NASDAQ Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ:BIB)

AUM: US$89.54 million

The ProShares Ultra NASDAQ Biotechnology ETF, launched in April 2010, is leveraged to offer twice daily long exposure to the broad-based NASDAQ Biotechnology Index, making it an ideal choice “for investors with a bullish short-term outlook for biotechnology or pharmaceutical companies.” However, analysts also advise investors with a low risk tolerance or a buy-and-hold strategy against investing in this fund due to its unique nature.

Of the 263 holdings in this ETF, the top biotech stocks are Gilead Sciences (NASDAQ:GILD) at a 6.78 percent weight, Amgen (NASDAQ:AMGN) at 6.23 percent and Vertex Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:VRTX) at 6.17 percent.

2. Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bear 3x Shares (ARCA:LABD)

AUM: US$68.18 million

The Direxion Daily S&P Biotech Bear 3X Shares is designed to provide three times the daily return of the inverse of the S&P Biotechnology Select Industry Index, meaning that the ETF rises in value when the index falls and falls in value when the index rises.

Leveraged inverse ETFs are designed for short-term trading and are not suitable for holding long-term. They also carry a high degree of risk as they can be significantly affected by market volatility.

Unlike the other ETFs on this list, LABD achieves its investment objective through holding financial contracts such as futures rather than holding individual stocks.

3. Tema Heart and Health ETF (NASDAQ:HRTS)

AUM: US$56.55 million

Launched in November 2023, the Tema Heart and Health ETF tracks biotech stocks with a focus on diabetes, obesity and cardiovascular diseases. The fund was renamed on March 25 from Tema Cardiovascular and Metabolic ETF, and again on June 27 from the GLP-1 Obesity and Cardiometabolic ETF.

There are 46 holdings in this biotechnology fund, with about 75 percent being large-cap stocks and 22 percent mid-cap. About three-quarters of its holdings are based in the US.

This Tema ETF’s top biotech holdings are Eli Lilly and Company (NYSE:LLY) at a 10.04 percent weight, Roche Holding (OTCQX:RHHBY,SWX:ROG) at a 5.42 percent weight and Johnson & Johnson (NYSE:JNJ) at a 4.8 percent weight.

4. Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF (NASDAQ:GNOM)

AUM: US$51.53 million

The Global X Genomics & Biotechnology ETF tracks the Solactive Genomics Index, focusing on companies involved in gene editing, genomic sequencing, genetic medicine, computational genomics and biotech.

The ETF holds 50 stocks, with about 90 percent in the pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and life sciences sector. Its top three holdings are Moderna (NASDAQ:MRNA) at 6.33 percent, Arrowhead Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:ARWR) at 6.14 percent and Praxis Precision Medicines (NASDAQ:PRAX) at 5.98 percent.

5. Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF (ARCA:BBP)

AUM: US$44.8 million

The Virtus LifeSci Biotech Products ETF tracks the LifeSci Biotechnology Products Index, focusing on US-listed biotech companies with at least one FDA-approved drug therapy.

Launched in December 2014 by Virtus Investment Partners, it provides targeted exposure to firms in the product stage, from startups to large players, through passive, equal-weighted holdings rebalanced semi-annually.

Its top holdings include ImmunityBio (NASDAQ:IBRX) at a weight of 3.98 percent, Mirum Pharmaceuticals (NASDAQ:MIRM) at 2.4 percent and Moderna at 2.16 percent.

Securities Disclosure: I, Meagen Seatter, hold no direct investment interest in any company mentioned in this article.

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Investing

JZR Gold Announces Extension to Previously Granted Options

No Comments

(TheNewswire)

JZR Gold Inc.

  

February 10, 2026 TheNewswire – Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada – JZR Gold Inc. (the ‘Company’ or ‘JZR’) (TSX-V: JZR) today announces that subject to applicable shareholder and TSX Venture Exchange approvals, the Board of Directors of the Company has approved the amendment of an aggregate of 725,000 incentive stock options (the ‘Amended Options’) previously granted to certain directors, officers, employees and consultants of the Company under the Company’s Equity Incentive Plan (the ‘Option Amendments’). Pursuant to the Option Amendments, the expiry date has been extended to February 12, 2031, with no change to the exercise price.

  

For further information, please contact:

 

Robert Klenk

Chief Executive Officer

E: rob@jazzresources.ca
T: 604.329.9092

 

Forward-Looking Statements

 

This news release contains forward-looking statements, which includes any information about activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future.  Forward-looking statements in this news release include statements with respect to the anticipated use of proceeds from the exercise of the Warrants.  Forward-looking information reflects the expectations or beliefs of management of the Company based on information currently available to it.  Forward-looking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements of the Company to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information.  These factors include, but are not limited to: risks associated with the business of the Company; business and economic conditions in the mineral exploration industry generally; the supply and demand for labour and other project inputs; changes in commodity prices; changes in interest and currency exchange rates; risks related to inaccurate geological and engineering assumptions; risks relating to unanticipated operational difficulties (including failure of equipment or processes to operate in accordance with the specifications or expectations, unavailability of materials and equipment, government action or delays in the receipt of government approvals, industrial disturbances or other job action and unanticipated events related to health, safety and environmental matters); risks related to adverse weather conditions; geopolitical risk and social unrest; changes in general economic conditions or conditions in the financial markets; and other risk factors as detailed from time to time in the Company’s continuous disclosure documents filed with the Canadian securities regulators.  The forward-looking information contained in this press release is expressly qualified in its entirety by this cautionary statement.  The Company does not undertake to update any forward-looking information, except as required by applicable securities laws.

 

Neither the TSX Venture Exchange nor its regulation services provider (as that term is defined in the policies of the TSX Venture Exchange) accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this press release.

 

None of the securities of JZR have been registered under the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the ‘U.S. Securities Act’), or any state securities law, and may not be offered or sold in the United States or to, or for the account or benefit of, persons in the United States or ‘U.S. persons’ (as such term is defined in Regulation S under the U.S. Securities Act) absent registration or an exemption from such registration requirements. This news release shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy in the United States nor shall there be any sale of the securities in any State in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful.

NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION TO U.S. NEWSWIRE SERVICES OR FOR RELEASE, PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION OR DISSEMINATION, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN OR INTO THE UNITED STATES.

Copyright (c) 2026 TheNewswire – All rights reserved.

News Provided by TheNewsWire via QuoteMedia

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
by
Read More
In Latest News

Trump DOJ appointee Thomas Albus tapped to lead Fulton County search warrant fight

No Comments

The Justice Department has installed a Missouri-based U.S. prosecutor to head the Trump administration’s election probe in Fulton County, Georgia, according to recent court records, marking the latest instance in which an out-of-state prosecutor has been tasked with a leading role in a politically charged case.

The involvement of Thomas Albus, U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, was revealed last month when he signed off on a Fulton County search warrant that authorized the FBI’s raid of a key Georgia election hub. The warrant authorized federal agents to seize a broad range of election records, voting rolls, and other data tied to the 2020 election, according to a copy reviewed by Fox News Digital.

The news, and the timing of Albus’ appointment, have sparked questions over the scope of the effort, including whether it is a one-off designed to shore up election-related vulnerabilities ahead of the midterms or part of a broader test case for expanded federal authority.

It also prompted Fulton County officials to sue the FBI earlier this month, demanding the return of the seized ballots.

The FBI’s decision to order the raid remains unclear, adding further uncertainty as to why Trump may have tapped Albus.

But the scope of the case is significant. Fulton County officials told reporters this month that FBI agents were seen carrying some 700 boxes of ballots from a warehouse near the election hub and loading them into a truck.

More answers could be revealed soon. The judge assigned to rule on Fulton County’s motion ordered the Justice Department to file by 5 p.m. Tuesday the arguments it made in its effort to obtain the search warrant. 

But it’s unclear how much information will be revealed as many of the documents are widely expected to remain under seal. 

Still, the installation comes as Fulton County emerged as ‘ground zero’ for complaints about voter fraud in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections, including from Trump, who lost the state to former President Joe Biden by a razor-thin margin.

And while it’s not the first time Trump’s Justice Department has sought to assign prosecutors to issues outside their district lines, unlike other efforts, the legality of Albus’s role in the district is likely to be upheld. 

Attorney General Pam Bondi reportedly tapped Albus last month to oversee election integrity cases nationwide, according to multiple news outlets. 

The DOJ did not immediately return Fox News Digital’s request for comment on the nature of his role in Georgia or elsewhere.

Under federal law — 28 U.S. Code § 515 — Bondi has the legal authority to appoint an individual to coordinate civil and criminal cases, including grand jury proceedings, across all federal districts nationwide. 

Albus also spent years as an assistant U.S. attorney for the Justice Department, where he helped prosecute hundreds of federal cases and jury trials, including on charges of white-collar crime, tax offenses, public corruption, and more.

Still, his installment is not completely without criticism. 

Some have played up his role as a former deputy attorney for then-Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt in 2020. 

Schmitt, now a U.S. senator, was one of 17 Republican attorneys general who filed a brief supporting Trump’s push to invalidate the election results of four battleground states after the election. 

There are key differences between his installment and the installment of former Trump lawyer Lindsey Halligan, tapped last year to serve as interim U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. She was also the sole prosecutor who secured the indictments against former FBI director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.

A judge ruled in November she was illegally appointed to her role, prompting the dismissals of both cases.

Legal experts have cited differences between Halligan’s role and Albus’s role, which appears to enjoy wide protection under federal law.

‘Unlike Halligan, Albus’ appointment appears to be lawful under a federal statute that permits the attorney general to direct ‘any other officer of the Department of Justice’ to ‘conduct any kind of legal proceeding, civil or criminal … whether or not he is a resident of the district in which the proceeding is brought,’’ Barbara McQuade, a former U.S. attorney and University of Michigan Law School professor, said in a Bloomberg op-ed.

‘But sidelining Atlanta U.S. Attorney Theodore Hertzberg in favor of Albus is concerning nonetheless — especially given his ties to Trump allies.’


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
by
Read More