Author

admin

Browsing

Here’s a quick recap of the crypto landscape for Wednesday (June 4) as of 9:00 p.m. UTC.

Get the latest insights on Bitcoin, Ethereum and altcoins, along with a round-up of key cryptocurrency market news.

Bitcoin and Ethereum price update

Bitcoin (BTC) was priced at US$105,057, as markets closed, down 1.1 percent in 24 hours. The day’s range for the cryptocurrency brought a low of US$104,648 and a high of US$105,484.

Bitcoin price performance, June 4, 2025

Bitcoin price performance, June 4, 2025

Chart via TradingView.

Despite the price dip, institutional interest remains strong. Heath care technology provider Semler Scientific (NASDAQ:SMLR) recently acquired 185 BTC for US$20 million, bringing its total holdings to 4,449 BTC (US$500 million), underscoring continued confidence in Bitcoin’s long-term value.

Market analysts are closely monitoring key resistance levels, with some anticipating a potential breakout that could influence broader cryptocurrency market dynamics in the days ahead. Crypto analyst Michaël van de Poppe suggested that a breakout above US$107,500 could pave the way for a new all-time high for Bitcoin and potentially push Ethereum’s price to US$3,000, identifying that level as a key area of concentrated derivatives market liquidity.

Ethereum (ETH) finished the trading day at US$2,629.53, a 0.3 percent increase over the past 24 hours. The cryptocurrency reached an intraday low of US$2,609 and saw a daily high of US$2,667.

Altcoin price update

  • Solana (SOL) closed at US$155.69, down 3.1 percent over 24 hours. SOL experienced a low of US$155.60 in the final minutes of trading and reached a high of US$157.54.
  • XRP is trading at US$2.22, reflecting a 2.7 percent decrease over 24 hours. The cryptocurrency reached a daily low of US$2.21 and a high of US$2.26.
  • Sui (SUI) peaked at US$3.22, showing a decreaseof 3.2 percent over the past 24 hours. Its lowest valuation on Wednesday was US$3.19, and its highest was US$3.24.
  • Cardano (ADA) is trading at US$0.6746, down 2.4 percent over the past 24 hours. Its lowest price of the day was US$0.6742, and it reached a high of US$0.6900.

Today’s crypto news to know

Vance says Bitcoin Reserve Act is on the way

At the Bitcoin 2025 conference, Frax Finance founder Sam Kazemian disclosed his private conversation with Vice President JD Vance, who revealed the administration’s sweeping crypto roadmap.

According to Kazemian, Vance confirmed that stablecoin legislation is only the starting point, with a broader market structure bill and a Bitcoin Reserve Act also in the pipeline.

This reserve act would codify Bitcoin as a long-term federal asset, mirroring how some countries hold gold. Vance emphasized bipartisan support and framed crypto as central to economic innovation.

Kazemian also noted that Frax USD, his stablecoin project, may be designated legal tender under the upcoming legislation.

GENIUS Act nears Senate vote amid sharp partisan divide

The bipartisan GENIUS Act, aimed at regulating stablecoins, could reach the Senate floor by the end of the week, according to journalist Eleanor Terrett.

Passed out of committee with a strong 66 to 32 vote in May, the bill still faces turbulence due to over 60 proposed amendments. Much of the friction stems from concerns over conflicts of interest tied to Trump’s crypto engagements, including his backing of the USD1 stablecoin.

Lawmakers are now scrambling to trim the amendment list to a “manageable” level that both parties can agree on.

If consensus is reached, the Senate could vote within days — but failure to compromise may delay the bill into next week. The bill’s progress is closely watched by the US$248 billion stablecoin industry.

Truth Social takes aim at spot Bitcoin ETF market

Interest in crypto-linked investment products continues to grow, with NYSE Arcafiling a proposal to list a spot Bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF) tied to Donald Trump’s media platform, Truth Social.

Submitted on behalf of Yorkville America Digital, the proposed ETF would enter an increasingly competitive field of spot Bitcoin ETFs. If approved, it would be custodied by Foris DAX, the same provider used by Crypto.com.

While the 19b-4 filing marks a key regulatory milestone, the ETF must still undergo US Securities and Exchange Commission review of its S-1 registration statement before it can move forward.

Trump-linked crypto firm drops mini ‘stimulus check’ to wallets

World Liberty Financial, a Trump-family-backed crypto firm, sent US$47 worth of its USD1 stablecoin to every wallet involved in its WLFI token sale, effectively issuing a small-scale “stimulus check.”

The drop is being viewed as a marketing maneuver tied to growing momentum around the token, which is pegged to the US dollar and integrated with Chainlink’s CCIP for multichain expansion.

Though the amount is modest, it helped spur conversation on social media and drew attention to USD1’s role in major deals, including a US$2 billion investment into Binance by MGX. World Liberty Financial currently boasts a US$200 million market cap for USD1 and is gearing up to release its own crypto wallet.

WEF speculates DePIN market could reach US$3.5 trillion in three years

According to a report published on Tuesday (June 3) by the World Economic Forum (WEF), the convergence of blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) could see the DePIN market exceed US$3.5 trillion by 2028.

The report cites the emergence of decentralized physical AI as a catalyst for the industry’s growth, referring to it as a “fundamental shift” in AI agent interactions with physical infrastructure and external data.

Yet the report notes that companies face challenges when it comes to determining which developments to invest in and which are too immature to drive significant business value.

It mentions that allocating limited resources across different technology maturity levels requires a disciplined approach to technology assessment that goes beyond traditional ROI calculations, recommending a balanced portfolio approach that considers future value and business model innovation potential.

Hong Kong to launch digital asset derivatives trading

According to a local report, Hong Kong’s securities regulator plans to launch digital asset derivatives trading for professional investors to broaden market offerings and strengthen Hong Kong’s position in the global digital asset space.

The Hong Kong Securities and Futures Commission emphasizes prioritizing robust risk management, mandating that trades occur ‘in an orderly, transparent and secure manner.’

To further enhance preferential tax regimes for funds, single-family offices and carried interest virtual assets will be designated as qualifying transactions for tax concessions. This initiative aims to draw a greater number of significant international fintech firms to establish operations in Hong Kong, recognizing their potential contribution.

Bybit enhances security measures

Following a hack resulting in the loss of approximately US$1.4 billion worth of ETH in February, Bybit unveiled a comprehensive security enhancement today, as reported to Cointelegraph.

This upgrade involves three key pillars. First, Bybit has fortified its security auditing processes, both internally and externally, by implementing 50 new security measures.

Second, the company has strengthened its cold wallet protocols. This includes instituting a revised operational safety procedure that mandates continuous supervision by security experts, integrating multiparty computation for enhanced protection, and consolidating hardware security modules.

Lastly, Bybit has achieved ISO/IEC 27001 certification for information security risk management. In addition, all internal and customer communications, as well as data storage, are now fully encrypted.

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

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

This post appeared first on investingnews.com
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Sen. Jim Risch, R-Idaho, said a thorough review of spending from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is warranted, following the Trump administration’s efforts to overhaul the agency.  

USAID was an independent agency to provide impoverished countries aid and offer development assistance, but the agency was upended since February when President Donald Trump installed Secretary of State Marco Rubio to oversee the organization amid concerns that USAID did not advance U.S. core interests. Since then, the agency has faced layoffs and is being absorbed into the State Department. 

This increased scrutiny on USAID spending is valid, according to Risch. 

‘The amount of money that we’re spending on that has to be reviewed top to bottom,’ Risch said during an event Wednesday at the Washington-based think tank the Hudson Institute.  

Risch said that several weeks into the Trump administration, he and others, including Rubio, evaluated a list of programs that detailed $3 million in funding for ‘promotion of democracy in Lower Slobovia.’ According to Risch, the description didn’t provide enough information and items like these are totaling up to billions of dollars that must undergo review.

‘Lower Slobovia’ is a fictional place and a term used by Americans to describe an underdeveloped foreign country.

‘We can do so much better, not only in how, how much money we spend, but how we spend it,’ Risch said. ‘So, if you say, well, we’re eliminating this program, be careful you don’t say, ‘Oh, that means we’re walking away from human rights.’ Look, America is human rights. If America leads the way on human rights. We are the world standard on human rights. We have no intention of giving that position up.’

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) targeted USAID in its push to eliminate wasteful spending. The agency came under fire for many funding choices, including allocating $1.5 million for a program that sought to ‘advance diversity, equity and inclusion in Serbia’s workplaces and business communities’ and a $70,000 program for a ‘DEI musical’ in Ireland.

As a result, Rubio announced on March 11 that the State Department completed a six-week review and would cancel more than 80% of USAID programs — cutting roughly 5,200 of USAID’s 6,200 programs.

Fox News Digital was the first to report later in March that the State Department planned to absorb the remaining operations and programs USAID runs so it would no longer function as an independent agency. 

The move means eliminating thousands of staff members in an attempt to enhance the existing, ‘life-saving’ foreign assistance programs, according to a State Department memo that Fox News Digital obtained.

 

‘Foreign assistance done right can advance our national interests, protect our borders, and strengthen our partnerships with key allies,’ Rubio said in a March statement to Fox News Digital. ‘Unfortunately, USAID strayed from its original mission long ago. As a result, the gains were too few and the costs were too high.’ 

‘We are reorienting our foreign assistance programs to align directly with what is best for the United States and our citizens,’ Rubio said. ‘We are continuing essential lifesaving programs and making strategic investments that strengthen our partners and our own country.’

Meanwhile, Democrats slammed the restructuring of the agency, labeling the move ‘illegal.’ 

‘Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s destruction and dismantling of USAID is not only disastrous foreign policy and counter to our national security interests; it is plainly illegal,’ the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee Rep. Gregory Meeks, D-N.Y., said in a statement in March. ‘Congress wrote a law establishing USAID as an independent agency with its own appropriation, and only Congress can eliminate it.’ 


This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

US Capital Global Securities LLC, the SEC-registered broker-dealer division of the global private financial group US Capital Global is pleased to announce that it has acted as lead advisor and facilitator on a project finance facility of up to $50 million for Charbone Hydrogen Corporation (TSXV: CH; OTCQB: CHHYF; FSE: K47) (‘Charbone’). The financing is being provided by a private fund managed by True Green Capital Management LLC (‘TGC’).

Headquartered in Montreal, Charbone is a rare publicly traded pure-play hydrogen company focused exclusively on the production and distribution of green hydrogen in North America. The company is developing modular production facilities targeting 99.999% purity (Grade 5.0) hydrogen, with all output pre-sold through tier-one offtake agreements.

‘We’re proud to have served as lead advisor to both Charbone and TGC on this transaction,’ said Charles Towle , CEO of US Capital Global Securities. ‘Charbone is gaining strong momentum as demand grows for clean hydrogen solutions to decarbonize the energy grid. With key sites in development across North America, we look forward to supporting the company’s continued growth. The transaction was led by Lisa Terk, Senior Vice President and a top CleanTech and Renewables banker at our global headquarters.’

‘This financing marks an important milestone in executing our long-term growth strategy,’ said Benoit Veilleux , CFO of Charbone. ‘We are grateful to US Capital Global for their consistent support and expertise throughout this process—from structuring and investor engagement to the successful completion of legal documentation.’

Hervé Touati , Managing Director at TGC, added: ‘We’re pleased to be financing Charbone and look forward to working together on this joint renewable clean energy initiative. We appreciate the diligence and insight of US Capital Global in bringing this opportunity to this stage.’

About Charbone Hydrogen Corporation

Charbone Hydrogen Corporation is an integrated green hydrogen company developing a North American network of modular production facilities while also leveraging commercial partnerships to distribute hydrogen, helium, and other industrial gases. This dual approach enhances revenue potential, reduces capital intensity, and increases flexibility. Charbone’s shares trade on the TSX Venture Exchange (TSXV: CH), OTC Markets (OTCQB: CHHYF), and Frankfurt Stock Exchange (FSE: K47). Learn more at www.charbone.com .

About True Green Capital Management

True Green Capital Management LLC (‘TGC’)  is a specialized renewable energy infrastructure fund manager with a focus in distributed power generation in the US and Europe. Since 2011, TGC has financed and managed clean energy assets that generate stable, low-correlated returns. Headquartered in Westport, Connecticut, TGC also maintains an office in London. Learn more at www.truegreencapital.com .

About US Capital Global

Founded in 1998, US Capital Global offers a range of advanced financial solutions, including debt, equity, and investment products customized for middle-market enterprises and investors. The firm oversees direct investment funds while delivering comprehensive wealth management and investment banking services, encompassing M&A strategies and capital raising expertise. Among the notable entities within the consortium are US Capital Global Investment Management LLC, US Capital Global Wealth Management LLC, and US Capital Global Securities LLC, an SEC-registered broker-dealer and member of FINRA. To learn more, visit www.uscapital.com .

For more information about this transaction, please contact Lisa Terk, Senior Vice President, at lterk@uscapital.com or call +1 415-889-1026.

Attachment

    Vanessa Guajardo US Capital Global +1 415 889 1010 media@uscapglobal.com 

    News Provided by GlobeNewswire via QuoteMedia

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 119) in dramatic fashion (215-214) last month. Most of the drama was on the Republican side. The House Freedom Caucus favored preserving the 2017 tax cuts but only if there were sufficient budget cuts to pay for it. 

    A central sticking point was Medicaid, both in terms of rules and in terms of funding. In the end, the cuts were larger than almost anyone expected, $880 billion over the next 10 years, and all but three House Freedom Caucus members voted yes. Every Democrat voted no.

    The Obamacare “expansion” changed the original mission of Medicaid, which was to ensure the working poor and disabled didn’t end up without healthcare insurance. Medicaid had been, up until the Affordable Care Act of 2010, the default form of insurance for anyone who was poor or unable to work. Since then, even the young and perfectly able-bodied can qualify for Medicaid. Adding millions of newly eligible enrollees burned through money that could have been put toward elements of Medicaid’s original mission, things like investing in prenatal care for poor women.

    Medicaid’s budget woes worsened with the onset of COVID-19. Spending increased even more rapidly, in part from the absence of normal coverage interruptions that were eliminated during COVID’s continuous enrollment provisions. At the same time, an aging population has led to rapidly rising long-term care costs among the poor elderly. Finally, a Byzantine system of below-market mandated reimbursement rates at the state level has become increasingly onerous to save money, especially in states with ballooning rolls like California, where Medicaid has been opened up to illegal aliens. Below-market mandated rates have caused price-shifting distortions to accumulate, and make the entire healthcare system less efficient.

    Medicare monthly enrollment data.cms.gov

    Medicaid is an outstanding example of how not to structure a government program. Its daunting complexity results in people frequently migrating into and out of the program (this is especially problematic for programs that provide some kind of insurance because of adverse selection problems). Because it is fundamentally a government bureaucracy, problem-solving is mostly through top-down edicts or acts of Congress. In contrast, in many parts of American society entrepreneurs continuously adapt, adjust, and innovate to deal with new problems and to take advantage of new opportunities to improve service, reduce costs, or both.

    The bill now faces an uncertain future in the Senate. Changes to Medicaid are going to produce a political backlash, even in some red states, since there will be political pressure for state governments to pick up the slack. But most importantly, a very large and dysfunctional system will remain intact and dysfunctional.

    The problem with Medicaid goes far beyond Medicaid. In a rich society like ours, everyone is going to get a fair amount of healthcare one way or another. We are empathetic, sympathetic, interconnected, and rich, so most of us feel compelled to do something to help the uninsured and those without access to care. If a person is writhing in pain because he can’t get healthcare, most likely neither you nor anyone you know personally would just step over him without concern.

    This is the real problem: healthcare in America has effectively become a non-excludable good. A non-excludable good is one we cannot keep others from consuming (e.g., national defense). Long ago, economists worked out why such goods are inevitably underprovided by the private market because of free riding. Since virtually everyone is going to get at least some healthcare when they need it, some take advantage of that by not buying their own health insurance.

    Among the many economic challenges specific to healthcare markets, economists of all political stripes agree that this is the deepest problem. Recall that perhaps the biggest bone of contention with Obamacare was the individual mandate, put into the bill specifically to address the free rider problem. Many opposed the individual mandate for a variety of reasons, but did not challenge its premise, which was that there was a deep free rider problem to be dealt with in American healthcare.

    The bold — but probably politically impossible — course of action would have been for House Republicans to eliminate the federal role in Medicaid. But if they are not going to return this issue, and its financing, to the states, then rather than further tweaking Medicaid and creating new problems, a better approach would be to find an alternative path to get government out of the business of healthcare for the poor. In short: provide basic healthcare insurance through vouchers. 

    To put it simply, eliminate Obamacare, Medicare, and Medicaid and replace them with a national healthcare voucher system. This transformative change for American healthcare could be limited to the level paid for with a national sales tax, and our unfunded liability problems would simply disappear. While, for practical reasons, this would likely have to start at the national level, the goal could be to then spin it off to the states. 

    Milton Friedman introduced the idea of using vouchers with respect to education 70 years ago. His ideas were summarily rejected as too naïve, too impractical, and even as irresponsible. Now we are in the midst of an explosion of school choice across the nation. How much better off would we be if we had listened to him long ago?

    Friedman did not advocate using a voucher system for healthcare insurance. While his diagnosis of the problems confronting the American healthcare system was unimpeachable, he did not explicitly consider the problem of de facto non-excludability. Since this induces some citizens to save money by not buying healthcare insurance, it guarantees there will always be uninsured citizens. That, in turn, ultimately guarantees some level of government provision of either healthcare or healthcare insurance.

    I believe that if he were alive today, Friedman would support vouchers for healthcare insurance. Vouchers provide the government with a means of funding a solution without having the government be the mechanism that provides the solution. As such, it mostly avoids the ever-growing creeping bureaucracies that suppress competition and introduce innumerable distortions and never-ending political opportunism.

    We can eliminate Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare by implementing a national voucher program for healthcare insurance for all citizens. By structuring the budget process to be self-balancing, we can ensure future generations are no longer saddled with a combination of increasing debt they never agreed to and lower quality of service than those who were responsible for that debt were able to enjoy. 

    Ever notice that when the topic is unfunded liabilities, Medicaid is rarely mentioned? Is that because Medicaid is on a healthy budget path? Hardly. Medicaid is not included in such conversations because Medicaid is not a self-funding program in the sense that it does not have its own dedicated payroll tax funding. At the federal level, it is funded out of the general budget.

    If the federal budget were experiencing year-over-year surpluses, one could argue that it is not burdening future Americans because it is being cross-subsidized. But we are, in fact, experiencing year-over-year deficits, so any dollar the federal government spends on Medicaid is effectively a dollar of additional federal debt at the margin. Rising federal spending on Medicaid equals rising federal debt. 

    Historical Debt Outstanding Dataset fiscaldata.treasury.gov

    Far from a principled stand or a change in national direction, the latest Republican budget does little more than kick the can down the road — to avoid the political cost of actually doing what is best for the country.

    How much more dysfunction and irresponsibility are we going to tolerate so we can pretend that our healthcare system is only for the deserving? We should be honest about the fact that we do, and will continue to, treat everyone. This is nothing to apologize for but it’s something we need to come to grips with.

    A voucher program would redirect government power to unleash market competition among healthcare insurers and among healthcare providers. They will hate it. The NEA’s response to school vouchers should tell you everything you need to know.

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk may speak to White House aides Friday in an effort to calm his ongoing feud with President Donald Trump, Fox News has learned.

    Musk and Trump have been arguing over social media in recent days. The blowup came after Musk started ‘wearing thin’ on Trump for about a month, Fox News senior White House correspondent Peter Doocy reported Friday.

    White House aides told Doocy they are not expecting Trump and Musk to speak to each other today, but that Trump administration staffers might try to talk to Musk. 

    ‘No call scheduled or had. Musk wants a call. POTUS hasn’t made a decision,’ a source familiar with the matter also told Fox News regarding a possible conversation between Trump and Musk.

    Doocy also reported that a red Tesla vehicle that Trump bought during a Tesla demonstration on the South Lawn of the White House grounds earlier this year is now expected to be given away or sold off. 

    The vehicle with Florida tags, as of Friday, remains parked near the White House on West Executive Drive.

    Musk made allegations Thursday that Trump was in the Jeffrey Epstein file.

    ‘@RealDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files,’ Musk wrote on X. ‘That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!’

    Musk followed the post with another, saying, ‘Mark this post for the future. The truth will come out.’

    ‘This is an unfortunate episode from Elon, who is unhappy with the One Big Beautiful BIll because it does not include the policies he wanted,’ White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said. ‘The President is focused on passing this historic piece of legislation and making our country great again.’

    On Truth Social, Trump wrote Thursday that ‘Elon was ‘wearing thin,’ I asked him to leave, I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!’

    ‘The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon’s Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn’t do it!’ Trump also said.

    The feud between Musk and Trump rapidly escalated this week when Musk called the Trump-endorsed ‘big, beautiful bill’ a ‘disgusting abomination.’

    Musk, who has been openly critical of the proposed reconciliation bill, said Tuesday afternoon that he ‘just can’t stand it anymore.’

    ‘This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,’ Musk added in a Tuesday afternoon post on X. ‘Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.’

    Fox News’ Peter Doocy, Lucas Tomlinson, Greg Wehner and Alec Schemmel contributed to this report.


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    Most religions of the world have the fundamental beliefs that are strikingly similar to the Ten Commandments. History has taught humanity that life does not seem to work well without such guiding principles. As responsible parents, we should have a parallel foundation of ten life skills that we impart part to our children. Your list will vary from mine, of course, but these are the ten essential precepts which I imparted to my son.

    1. Learn the basic life skills such as hygiene, cooking, cleaning, etc.
    2. Develop and maintain positive relations with friends and family.
    3. Keep a positive ‘can-do’ attitude exuding confidence and good self-esteem.
    4. Have strong ethics and values centered around honesty, morality and empathy for others.
    5. Develop strong communication skills, both verbal and written.
    6. Develop strong problem solving skills, curiosity, education, and rational thinking.
    7. Set goals and maintain the motivation to overcome life’s inevitable challenges.
    8. Appreciate the spiritual side of life.
    9. Keep healthy habits pertaining to diet, exercise, and lifestyle.
    10. Understand the tenets of financial literacy relating to money, saving, budgeting, and spending.

    Many parenting books have been written on each of these ten topics, but I’d like to highlight the last one – #10. I propose that financial literacy alone has 10 essential skills that we should cultivate in our children. Giving them the gift of a money-wise toolkit along with your time will go along way to ensure their long-term success. It will be the proud legacy you leave and how you’ll be remembered.

    These are my Ten Financial Commandments to teach your offspring.

    1. Start early and encourage your kids to embrace investing as a hobby. It’s intellectually stimulating and they’ll meet great people.
    2. Invest consistently and regularly. Don’t try to time the market. As of yet, no one has successfully created that algorithm.
    3. Warren Buffet famously described the magic of compounding as “the eighth wonder of the world.” He likened it to a snowball rolling down a long hill, accumulating more snow as it rolls. Do the math; it’s true.
    4. Avoid debt and leverage. Buying a house or college loan aside, credit card debt and onerous fees can ruin you.
    5. Ignore fads and hot tips. You’ll be inevitably late, pay too much and experience the bursting of the bubble eventually.
    6. Day trading is not investing, and it’s important to understand the difference. If you are an adrenaline addict and absolutely must day trade, then allocate a small percentage of your portfolio to this activity and consider it your “funny money” that’s expendable. Trading is indeed part of successful investing, but overtrading is not.
    7. Pay attention to fees. One percent a year may not sound like much, but when you do the calculations and look at a 10-15 year timeframe, you’ll lose out big-time. Fees represent your money that doesn’t get reinvested or compounded for you over the span of those 15 years.
    8. Be careful which assets you marry. Some have long-term handcuffs, high fees, unattractive risk-to-reward ratios and low probabilities of making you wealthier. I’ve never forgotten this famous quote from John Bogle, who founded Vanguard: “Don’t look for the needle in the haystack; buy the haystack.” In other words, buying the S&P 500 Index (SPY) is a reasonable strategy.
    9. Investing is a marathon, not a sprint. Young people often think that if they lose big, they’ll have many years to recover. My point is, why lose at all? Asset protection should always be a paramount objective throughout one’s life. Start young.
    10. Be action-oriented. Start today. Don’t procrastinate. Don’t make excuses. Buy a good investment book. (I humbly suggest the one I wrote with my son.) Start a free trial at StockCharts.com. Do some paper trading. You might discover you are the second coming of Warren Buffett!

    In a spirit of full disclosure, it’s important that I acknowledge the other half of the equation in writing about the ten basic life skills and financial commandments instilled in my son. He was also raised by a devoted and well-educated mother who has an MBA and understands the markets as well.

    The bottom line: teach your children about money management. If you don’t, you are intentionally placing them instead into the hands of that merciless professor called “Experience”. The tutorial will be ruthless, and the lessons learned will be costly and late.

    Trade well; trade with discipline!

    Gatis Roze, MBA, CMT

    StockMarketMastery.com

    • Author, “Tensile Trading: The 10 Essential Stages of Stock Market Mastery” (Wiley, 2016)
    • Developer of the “Stock Market Mastery” ChartPack for StockCharts members
    • Presenter of the best-selling “Tensile Trading” DVD seminar
    • Presenter of the “How to Master Your Asset Allocation Profile DVD” seminar

    P.S. If you would like to be notified when I post a new Traders Journal blog, please submit your preference via the tile in the right column titled FOLLOW THIS BLOG.

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    There are two truths about presidential candidates.  

    One: There is no such thing as a perfect candidate. 

    Two: It is very difficult to convince party elites that there are no perfect candidates. 

    President Donald Trump’s second first 100 days are now behind him, and the Democrats are still struggling to recover after the trauma of the 2024 election. As former President Joe Biden focuses on treatment for his cancer diagnosis, fresh questions about the chronology of Biden’s decline in mental and physical health have further wafted Kamala Harris’ hopes of a second presidential or California gubernatorial bid off the political radar and out to sea. 

    The Democrats have made it no secret they are in a desperate quest for the proper frontrunner/savior who can patch the torn fabric of their political and policy agenda, show enough leadership chops to unite both the Democratic Party and the country, and then go on to win back the White House in 2028.  

    Former President Bill Clinton used to say of his own complicated story, ‘If you want a perfect candidate, vote for somebody else.’ Yet back in 1992, despite myriad personal dramas, Clinton possessed many elements of the classic successful contender of that era: young but seasoned, a governor from a Southern state, folksy in style but gilded academically (Georgetown and Yale), respected for his brilliance within the party but able to relate to a broad swath of the voting public.  

    As always, at this stage of the cycle, the names of dozens of potential contenders from the out-party are being tossed about with the typical fervid combo of optimism, conviction, delusion and brio. But no potential candidate has yet broken out as an obvious frontrunner, let alone a great political athlete or generational talent such as Clinton or President Barack Obama. 

    That is not to say that the Democratic field does not include highly intelligent, highly accomplished and highly skilled women and men. The potential contenders are an extraordinary bunch of American leaders. But none has all the necessary elements to take on the current White House or make a clear bid to win it all. 

    Democrats

    Clinton, always good for a pithy remark, also has noted, ‘you can put wings on a pig, but you don’t make it an eagle.’ 

    In 2028, if one could take a page from Dr. Frankenstein and turn that pig into an eagle, which attributes would the Democrats choose for their perfect model?  

    Let’s start with Pete Buttigieg, the former Transportation Secretary under Biden and before that, the wunderkind ‘Mayor Pete’ of South Bend, Indiana. Buttigieg, like Trump, has what one might call a ‘go-on-anything confidence.’ Pete can appear on any television network, any podcast, any stage (from vast stadiums to slatted apple crates), in any state in America, and feel comfortable and poised with his audience. That trait is an essential component for 2028.  

    Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, whose good looks and stylish mien often are cited more as a disadvantage than an attribute, has a profound understanding of what is modern and urgent for today’s electorate. Newsom thinks tirelessly about America’s future, and what is important to the young and the old, growing families and hard-working tradespeople, and everyone in between. 

    Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan, the popular governor of a swing state, understands how to connect with voters in a battleground arena by focusing on economic concerns and remaining on the right side of cultural issues despite party pressure. 

    Rahm Emanuel, former congressman, White House chief of staff, mayor of Chicago, and former ambassador to Japan, brings not just his famous rough-and-tumble uncompromising bravado, but an ability to raise massive amounts of cash. His fundraising power comes from the business community, where he made millions; from Hollywood, where his brother, Ari Emanuel remains an uber mover and shaker; and from decades of fundraising amidst America’s wealthiest Democratic communities. 

    Amy Klobuchar, senator from Minnesota, has a fierce determination and inner energy that will allow her to set goals and follow through with conviction. This is an essential combo required to win a modern political contest. 

    Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania, has shown he can twist the old adage of former New York pol Mario Cuomo, who spoke of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose. Shapiro, on the other hand, is able to merge poetry and prose in his governance, achieving solid substantive goals while creating an atmosphere of aspiration and inspiration for his constituents. 

    JD Vance attacks Harvard University

    Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the congresswoman from New York, has the ‘It Factor.’ Bright, charismatic, and always interesting, she commands attention whenever she speaks. (Or tweets, or comments, or posts, or poses). 

    Gina Raimondo, Biden’s Commerce secretary and former governor of Rhode Island, is well-known, well-liked, and well-respected in the business community, which offsets a huge imbalance on the Republican side. A pro-business Democrat, Raimondo can speak the language of the business world, get its political support and earn its trust. 

    Ro Khanna, congressman from California, understands policy and how to connect it to the real lives of real people. Khanna is a stand-out in the Democratic Party who can envision viable policy ideas and can explain his plans plainly to the American people. 

    Wes Moore, the governor of Maryland, has a powerful origin story and biography. After overcoming some early challenges, Moore thrived academically, served in the military, worked on Wall Street, authored several books, ran a leading nonprofit, and dedicated his life to service. He has shown a capacity to link lessons learned from his life experience to his policy goals.  

    Meanwhile, over on the Republican side, the GOP already has their frontrunner. And with JD Vance, there currently is no assembly required.  

    With just a few months as vice president under his (Rust) belt, Vance already has proven to be perhaps the most powerful and effectual vice president in history — yes, even including Dick Cheney, Al Gore and LBJ. Not only has Vance brilliantly managed to remain this close to the mercurial Trump without once stepping on his presidential toes, but he has forged solid bonds with fellow politicos (even those who initially looked askance when Vance was tapped for the ticket). 

    He has built up an impressive, appropriate and exceedingly visible administrative portfolio and networked productively with the most powerful GOP grassroots activists and fundraising leaders around the country. 

    Simultaneously, he trotted out and shielded his attractive young family; and offered a friendly hand and flash of coattails to those peers with presidential aspirations of their own, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin.   

    Clinton, always good for a pithy remark, also has noted, ‘you can put wings on a pig, but you don’t make it an eagle.’ 

    Vance has an additional, and unique, advantage. Most vice presidents who are champing to step into the top spot only get the chance after slogging through eight long years as a second banana, and must fight for the job just as the country has grown weary of the current administration and are longing for a new dynamic. Some, such as George H. W. Bush, can slide into office riding the departing fumes of their popular boss, while others, such as Al Gore, fumble to seal the deal. 

    Vance will be able to run as a sitting vice president after serving just one term, still relevant, still modern, but with a souped-up resume and sleek gravitas. 

    That is a feature Doctor Victor Frankenstein couldn’t envision in his wildest dreams. 

     Democrats called out over Biden

    And of all the current asymmetrical advantages on the Republican side, this is, by far, the most imposing. 

    As a famous scientist once said, ‘It’s alive!’ 


    This post appeared first on FOX NEWS

    On May 12, President Trump signed an Executive Order aimed at lowering US prescription drug prices. In keeping with his tariff policy, the president was motivated by the price differences — often vast — between identical prescription drugs sold in the US and in the rest of the world. The EO ordered the US Trade Representative and the Secretary of Commerce to take action against countries that were “free-riding on American pharmaceutical innovation.” It further directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a mechanism for American consumers to bypass middlemen and purchase prescription drugs directly from manufacturers at favored prices for Americans.

    International Prescription Drug Price Comparisons (RAND RR2956, 2022). Chart by AIER, assisted by Grok.

    Simple fallacies and misunderstandings of economic reasoning underlie the EO. Fundamentally, it claims a perceived problem will be solved through central planning — alas, President Trump is continuing the bipartisan conceit of presidents, from FDR to Nixon, and more recently Bidenomics, that the executive pen will allocate scarce resources more efficiently than the free market. More generally, the EO displays a fundamental misunderstanding of the factors determining prescription drug prices.

    The American healthcare system is broken — not because of market failures, but because of government involvement, direct and indirect. Yet another layer of command-and-control price-fixing won’t solve that.

    The EO does, however, provide an opportunity to examine just why prescription drugs are so much more expensive in the US than in Europe (and, by extension, the rest of the world). It turns out it’s a simple question of microeconomics — supply and demand, with a twist of elasticity, and a heavy dash of government intervention.

    Back to the Basics

    Prescription drugs do indeed cost more, overall, in the US, than in the rest of the world. As for every other price, the difference comes from the interacting market forces of supply and demand — supplemented by the complications of state intervention.

    It would be simplistic to ascribe the price differences to one single factor. Indeed, as the Austrian school of economics has convincingly demonstrated, markets are an ecosystem, rather than a machine. Prices emerge from the actions of entrepreneurs reading market opportunities as they attempt to serve consumers, in their quest for profit. In the case of prescription drugs, there are many factors at play.

    1. The Supply Side (1): Patents and the Cost of Development

    The first step in understanding the landscape of prescription drug prices is the cost of R&D. Development costs account for up to 70 percent of the cost of production of a prescription drug. Drugs are not playthings that can be cheaply rolled off an assembly line and tweaked if they don’t work. The cost of producing a new drug — from R&D to the arduous FDA compliance process — can reach $1 billion and take up to 20 years. On top of that, the success rate for new medications is less than 7 percent. When producing (or attempting to produce) a new drug, pharmaceutical companies must balance the expected income over a lifetime — or at least the 20 years of patent protection — with the enormous cost of production.

    2. The Demand Side…

    Enter European governments, and a shift from the supply side to the demand side. European governments “negotiate” prescription drug prices lower than the market price. They are able to do so for two reasons. First, government-run national health insurance agencies have quasi-monopsony power (mandatory or government schemes account for 90 percent of prescription drug payments in Cyprus, and 82 percent in Ireland, France, and Germany, down to about 40 percent in Iceland, Latvia, and Denmark, and the low 20s in some former communist countries). Second, governments augment their “big buyer” power with the threat of suspended patents, should pharmaceutical companies not cooperate. 

    3.  The Supply Side (2): Why Do Pharmaceutical Companies Accept Lower Prices?

    Given the cost of developing and licensing a new prescription drug, why do pharmaceutical companies accept European prices that don’t cover their costs? Pharmaceutical companies would, of course, prefer to sell their products in Europe at market prices. But the market won’t bear it (in light of the quasi-monopsony negotiation power, augmented by regulatory threats). So they do the best they can. Pharmaceutical companies accept lower European prices that maximize their profits in light of the higher prices in the US market

    If European states have such market and regulatory power, why don’t we see zero-price or very cheap prescription drugs in Europe (rather than a price lower than the US)? Simply, because pharmaceutical companies may indeed have reduced market power, but they still have some. If, in the negotiation process, they can’t obtain a price high enough to cover their costs and profits (given revenue from the US market), they can simply exit the European market. And they do. Of all the new prescription drugs launched since 2012, 85 percent are available in the US compared to less than 40 percent in Europe, and European patients wait an average of two years longer than their American counterparts for access to new cancer drugs.

     4. The IRP Fallacy

    So, in a sense, yes, US consumers are “subsidizing” European consumers by paying the higher prices necessary for pharmaceutical companies to recover their R&D costs. But, at the same time, American consumers are paying for what they get, because so many more prescription drugs are available to them, and so much sooner, than their European brethren. What about equalizing prices, as the May 12 EO intends to do? This kind of IRP (international reference pricing) is nothing new. Both political parties have attempted to introduce it (if only as part of Medicare reforms) in the past decade. The idea, basically, is to mandate a US price that is indexed to the price of a basket of foreign prices. The problem is that IRP ignores so many economic factors: structure and size of markets, elasticity of demand in different countries (how much more consumers are willing to pay before they seek substitutes), government bargaining and regulatory powers, the number of countries in the reference, and more. 

    Without flying too far up Aristotle’s nose, a Coke is not always a Coke. The price of 12 ounces of Coca-Cola varies widely based on circumstances. It will cost far less as part of a 24-pack purchased at Costco than it will at a Disney stand with a captive audience; it will cost more as part of a restaurant experience than as a standalone bottle; it will cost more in Alaska or Puerto Rico than in Massachusetts or Idaho because of shipping costs imposed by the Jones Act. And, naturally, it will respond to market forces: around the world, a 12-ounce Coke sells for a high of $5.29 in wealthy Switzerland, all the way down to a low of 30 cents in poor Bangladesh. Turning from goods to labor markets, the average wage for a factory worker is 21,000 Euros ($23,520) in Spain, 24,889 Euros ($27,876) in France, and $43,000 per year in the US. The average income of doctors in Spain is $114,000 per year, compared to $143,000 in France and $261,000 in the US. We can thus expect disparities among countries in prescription drug prices.

    Within Europe, there are variations on the annual price that patients pay for prescription drugs based on many factors: the market power of the national health system, the government’s regulatory bite, policy priorities (for example, cost-effectiveness in the UK and Sweden versus patient benefit in Germany), and, of course, a country’s overall wealth. Thus, Germans spend about 627 Euros ($702) per year on prescription drugs, the French about 475 Euros ($532), the British 184 Pounds ($246), and Bosnians 110 Euros ($123), while Americans spend an average of $1,564.

    The great Frédéric Bastiat reminded us that the “entire difference between a bad and a good Economist is apparent…. A bad one relies on the visible effect while the good one takes account both of the effect one can see and of those one must foresee.” 

    In that spirit, it is tempting (as many medical and public health studies have done) to conclude that enforcing IRP would simply lower prescription drug prices for Americans, and we would all go home happy (and healthy). However, the reality is likely to be far more complex. As with many of President Trump’s actions, the intentions and details are always a bit fuzzy. The motivation seems to be general frustration over high prices in the US, but the proposed remedy is a mixture of “mechanisms” to negotiate lower domestic prices and protectionist policy against countries with lower prices. The EO doesn’t quite call for a price ceiling or IRP, but the effects would be similar.

    A US price ceiling (or actions that would put downward regulatory pressure on US prices) would dramatically alter the calculus of profitability for drugs, as pharmaceutical companies seek to recover their R&D and regulatory costs. Lower US prices would make pharmaceutical companies much more reluctant to accept lower foreign prices, as they currently count on the US market to cover R&D costs. They would thus either demand higher foreign prices (to keep US prices from dropping too much) or simply exit foreign markets. The net effect would likely be higher foreign prices, but only slightly lower US prices. And if profits were to fall substantially, pharmaceutical companies would simply exit the market, as they could not recover the cost of R&D…. and all of this doesn’t account for all the unintended consequences of price controls.

     5. The US Mixed Market

    All this should certainly not be read as an apologia for the US health insurance model. One of my first letters to the editor (published in The Economist in 2007), corrected the misperception that the US enjoys a free market in healthcare. Today, about half of all health expenditures in the US are paid by the federal government and state programs. That places the US about two thirds of the way down the ranking of European countries by government share (and not, as the popular canard goes, at the bottom of the list). The 33 percent of health expenditures paid by US private insurance companies is distorted by regulation, lack of competition, and lack of portability (due to tax privileges for employers). In sum, the US certainly does not have a private or market healthcare system. It is, at best, a mixed market, with heavy doses of crony capitalism.

    The US system is inefficient. It could be more efficient, more effective, and cheaper — and less exclusionary of the poor, the underemployed, and the unemployed — if both healthcare and health insurance were deregulated, so market forces could invite efficiency and lower prices. For policy details, see the Cato Handbook for Policymakers.

    For all its statist weaknesses, the US system does have more market forces and less regulation than its European counterparts. Rationing of scarce resources in the US is mostly handled by prices (which are largely, if incompletely, offset by insurance) rather than by waiting, lack of innovation, and taxpayer-funding deficits in national healthcare programs.

    In addition to better allocation of scarce resources, the US also enjoys more resources overall, because the system encourages innovation. American pharmaceutical companies account for more than 60 percent of new drug approvals globally, and US companies continue to be a world driver of medical innovation. 

    More Markets, Less Socialism

    Prices emerge in a complex ecosystem, moved by various microeconomic forces. Those forces are compounded, complicated, and distorted by regulatory considerations. Pharmaceutical prices are no exception. US patients are indeed subsidizing new prescription drugs for Europeans — but the alternative would be even worse. 

    The US healthcare system does not need more socialism. It needs less regulation and the bounty of innovation, quality, and lower prices that would be unleashed by market forces.

    Justin Huhn, editor and founder of Uranium Insider, talks uranium supply, demand and prices.

    He emphasized that it’s still ‘very early’ in the cycle and that at this point no further catalysts are needed.

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com

    Investing in silver bullion has pros and cons, and what’s right for one investor may not work for another.

    Interest in the silver market tends to flourish whenever the silver price increases, with investors beginning to wonder if silver is a good investment and it is the right time to add physical silver to their investment portfolios.

    While silver can be volatile, the precious metal is also seen as a safe-haven asset, similar to its sister metal gold. Safe-haven investments can offer protection in times of uncertainty, and with tensions running high, they could be a good choice for those looking to preserve their wealth in difficult times.

    With those factors in mind, let’s look at the pros and cons of buying silver bullion.

    What are the pros of investing in silver bullion?

    Silver can offer protection

    Silver bullion is often considered a good safe-haven asset. As mentioned, investors often flock to precious metals in times of turmoil, politically and economically. For example, physical silver and gold have both performed strongly in recent years against a background of geopolitical instability and high inflation.

    Silver bullion is a tangible asset

    While cash, mining stocks, bonds and other financial products are accepted forms of wealth, they are essentially still digital promissory notes. For that reason, they are all vulnerable to depreciation due to actions like printing money. A troy ounce of silver bullion, on the other hand, is a finite tangible asset. That means that, although it is vulnerable to market fluctuations like other commodities, physical silver isn’t likely to completely crash because of its inherent and real value. Market participants can buy bullion in different forms, such as silver coins or silver jewelry, or they can buy silver bullion bars.

    Silver’s cheaper and more flexible than gold

    Compared to gold bullion, silver is significantly cheaper, which makes it more accessible for investors looking for an affordable entrance to the precious metals market. This can make it easier for investors to build up a portfolio over time.

    Another benefit is that investors who need to convert their precious metals to currency will have an easier time selling a portion of their silver portfolio than those looking to sell part of their gold. Just as a US$100 bill can be a challenge to break at the store, divvying up an ounce of gold bullion can be a challenge. As a result, silver bullion is more practical and versatile, particularly for everyday investors who need flexibility in their investments.

    Silver offers higher returns than gold

    Silver tends to move in tandem with gold: when the price of gold rises, so too does the price of silver. Because the white metal is currently worth around 1/100th the price of gold, buying silver bullion is affordable and stands to see a much bigger percentage gain if the silver price goes up. In fact, silver has outperformed the gold price in bull markets. It’s possible for an investor to hedge their bets with silver bullion in their investment portfolio.

    History is on silver’s side

    Silver and gold have been used as legal tender for thousands of years, and that lineage lends them a sense of stability. Many buyers find comfort in knowing that silver has been recognized for its value throughout a great deal of mankind’s history, and so there’s an expectation that it will endure while a fiat currency may fall to the wayside. When individuals invest in physical silver, there is a reassurance that the metal has value that will continue to persist. Additionally, its increasing use as an industrial metal in the energy transition has improved the metals fundamentals even further.

    What are the cons of investing in silver bullion?

    Danger of theft

    Unlike most other investments, such as stocks, holding silver bullion can leave investors vulnerable to theft. And of course, the more physical assets, including silver jewelry, that reside within your home, the more at risk you are for losing significantly if a burglary takes place. It’s possible to secure your assets from looting by using a safety deposit box in a bank or a safe box in your home, but this will incur additional costs.

    Weaker return on investment

    Silver may not perform as well as other investments, such as real estate or even other metals. Mining stocks, especially silver stocks that pay dividends, may also be a better option than silver bullion for some investors. Royalty and streaming companies are another option for those interested in investing in silver, as are exchange-traded funds and silver futures.

    High silver demand leads to higher premiums

    When investors try to buy any bullion product, such as an American silver ounce coin known as a silver eagle, they quickly find out that the physical silver price is generally higher than the silver spot price due to premiums used by sellers. What’s more, if demand is high, premiums can go up fast, making the purchase of physical silver bullion more expensive and a less attractive investment.

    Bullion lacks quick liquidity

    Silver bullion coins are not legal tender, meaning they can’t be used for every day purchases. Since the metal is usually used as an investment, this isn’t often an issue. However, it does mean that if silver needs to be sold in a hurry to cover expenses, investors will need to find a buyer. If you can’t access a bullion dealer and are in a jam, pawn shops and jewelers are an option, but they won’t necessarily pay well.

    How to add physical silver to your portfolio?

    How to buy silver digitally?

    Larisa Sprott: Gold, Silver Early in Cycle, Smart Money Buying Now

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

    This post appeared first on investingnews.com