Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

It would seem evident that most investors would understand that consumer spending drives economic growth, ultimately creating corporate earnings growth. Yet, despite this somewhat tautological statement, Wall Street appears to ignore this simple reality when forecasting forward earnings. As discussed recently, S&P Global’s current estimates show earnings are growing far above the long-term exponential growth trend from 1936. Unfortunately, with regularity, earnings tend to repeatedly revert to the long-term trend due to economic recessions, financial crises, or other events that crimp economic activity. In the chart below, earnings haven’t stayed at the top of the long-term growth trend channel for long. The current exponential growth trend for earnings is $195/share.

The obvious question is, what would cause earnings to revert so drastically from current levels? Unfortunately, there is no exact answer as the cause of every previous reversion was somewhat unique from a historical perspective. For example, since the turn of the century, there has only been one “Dot.com crash”, one “Financial crisis,” and thankfully, just one “COVID pandemic.” While unique and unexpected, each event led to similar earnings growth reversals.

For investors, the market’s price is highly correlated to the expectation of forward earnings. As such, each of those events, as shown below, led to a rather sharp price reversal to adjust forward valuations for expected earnings.

Therefore, if forward earnings are so important to market outcomes, investors need to understand where future earnings growth will come from.

Where Do Earnings Come From?

As noted above, earnings come from consumer spending. If you look at an income statement, revenue is the top line, and “earnings” or “net income” is the bottom line. The income statement is broken down into three primary sections: revenue, operating expenses, and other expenses (interest and taxes). One term you may hear often is EBITDA. That is an acronym for “Earnings Before Income Taxes, Depreciation and Amortization,” which gives you a better understanding of the company’s operational profitability and potential for generating cash flow from its core business activities. However, once we include those items, we get to the net income or earnings for the company. The final step is to divide those earnings by the number of shares outstanding to get to “earnings per share.”

With that understanding, we must return our focus to the first line item—net sales (aka revenue, sales, gross sales, etc.). A company must sell a product or service to customers to generate revenue. The basic diagram below shows a company’s revenue cycle. Therefore, to understand what to expect in terms of future, or forward, earnings with some degree of accuracy, we must understand the direction of consumer spending.

One of the better measures for developing a framework for future earnings growth is personal consumption expenditures (PCE), since they comprise nearly 70% of the economic equation. The annual percentage change in forward earnings tracks the yearly percentage change in PCE fairly closely.

For you “data geeks,” the correlation between the two measures is slightly more than 51%, so the correlation is not insignificant. You will notice that the outliers have mostly been recent anomalies caused by the COVID lockdown and subsequent fiscal and monetary interventions.

Therefore, while unsurprising, the strength of consumer spending has much to do with the expectation for forward earnings.

Earnings Manipulation

However, I would be remiss not to address the other impact on bottom-line earnings that income statement manipulation has. We addressed this point more deeply in “Beating Estimates.” To wit:

While Wall Street hopes for an improvement in earnings, there may be more to the story. Many companies have offset earnings growth with cost-cutting measures. The problem with cost cutting, wage suppression, labor hoarding, and stock buybacks, along with a myriad of accounting gimmicks, is that there is a finite limit to their effectiveness.

More importantly, Wall Street knows this already, and it should not be surprising that companies manipulate bottom-line earnings. By utilizing “cookie-jar” reserves, heavy use of accruals, and other accounting instruments, they can either flatter or depress, earnings.

While none of this should be surprising, a previous WSJ survey of CFOs was the most revealing regarding the depth of the manipulation.

“The tricks are well-known: A difficult quarter can be made easier by releasing reserves set aside for a rainy day or recognizing revenues before sales are made, while a good quarter is often the time to hide a big “restructuring charge” that would otherwise stand out like a sore thumb.

What is more surprising though is CFOs’ belief that these practices leave a significant mark on companies’ reported profits and losses. When asked about the magnitude of the earnings misrepresentation, the study’s respondents said it was around 10% of earnings per share.“

Of course, I would be remiss in dismissing the “elephant in the room” of stock buybacks.

Today, more than ever, many corporate executives have a large percentage of their compensation tied to company stock performance. A “miss” of Wall Street expectations can lead to a significant penalty in the company’s stock price. Unsurprisingly, 93% of the respondents pointed to “influence on stock price” and “outside pressure” as reasons for manipulating figures through accounting gimmicks and buybacks.

Note: For fundamental investors this manipulation of earnings skews valuation analysis particularly with respect to P/E’s, EV/EBITDA, PEG, etc. Revenues, which are harder to adjust, may provide truer measures of valuation such as P/SALES and EV/SALES.

(Read “Why EBITDA Is BS.)

However, even with the accounting gimmicks and buybacks, understanding the impact of consumer spending on forward earnings is crucial.

Consumer Sentiment And Spending

As shown above, if personal consumption expenditures correlate with forward earnings growth, and expected earnings growth drives market pricing, understanding where PCE is likely heading can be crucial for investors. So, what drives PCE? As discussed in “Employment Data,” consumers can NOT consume without producing something first. Production must come first to generate the income needed for that consumption. The cycle is displayed below.

Therefore, if consumers become more concerned about their financial situation, whether due to potential job loss, lack of access to credit, or the increase in the cost of living, this will be reflected in consumer sentiment. Unsurprisingly, the composite consumer confidence index has declined over concerns about tariffs, rising recession risk, and slowing employment in recent months. (Notably, with recent tariff negotiations reducing that risk, confidence will likely improve in the next reading.) However, even if that is the case, it suggests that we should see some weakness in future PCE reports.

Furthermore, given the correlation between PCE and forward earnings, and PCE and consumer sentiment, it should be unsurprising that there is a decent correlation between consumer sentiment and forward earnings.

Conclusion

While forward earnings projections defy historical norms, investors must remain grounded in the fundamentals that ultimately drive those earnings—consumer spending. Despite Wall Street’s frequent detachment from economic realities, the evidence is clear: corporate revenues, and ultimately earnings, are inextricably tied to the financial health and confidence of consumers.

Though earnings can be flattered in the short term through accounting gimmicks and buybacks, such tactics are unsustainable and often obscure underlying weaknesses. With personal consumption expenditures comprising the majority of economic activity and showing a strong correlation to forward earnings, monitoring shifts in consumer sentiment becomes crucial.

To offset the potential risk of downward earnings revisions, investors should consider several strategic actions:

• Manage investment risk by regularly rebalancing, controlling over-concentration, and reducing laggards.

• Focus on companies with strong, transparent revenue growth rather than those reliant on financial engineering or aggressive cost-cutting.

• Incorporate valuation metrics based on revenue (P/S, EV/Sales) rather than easily manipulated earnings figures like P/E or EBITDA.

• Maintain a flexible portfolio allocation that can adjust to economic shifts, emphasizing defensive sectors when consumer confidence wanes.

• Use hedging strategies or increase cash levels to protect capital during earnings-driven market downturns.

Ultimately, long-term investment success will depend not on hopeful forecasts but on a clear-eyed understanding of what fuels corporate profitability, and that fuel remains the consumer.

At the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the State of Israel is arming an ISIS-aligned Jihadist gang in Gaza, unnamed Israeli defense officials confirmed to the Times of Israel on Thursday. While refraining from validating that particular characterization of the weapon recipients, Netanyahu confirmed that Israel is “activating clans in Gaza that oppose Hamas.” Significantly, the prime minister is accused of green-lighting the weapon handovers without securing his cabinet’s permission.  

News of Netanyahu’s latest provision of aid to Sunni extremists in the Middle East first came via remarks made by opposition Knesset member and former defense minister Avigdor Lieberman in a Thursday morning interview with Kan Bet public radio. “The Israeli government is giving weapons to a group of criminals and felons, identified with Islamic State, at the direction of the prime minister…Ultimately, these weapons will be turned against us.” 

It wouldn’t be the first time Netanyahu has opportunistically bolstered Gaza extremists only to have them murderously lash out at Israelis. Indeed, following in the steps of his predecessors, Netanyahu boosted Hamas itself in a calculated effort to ensure Israel had no united, moderate counterparties available to negotiate a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. “Anyone who wants to thwart the establishment of a Palestinian state has to support bolstering Hamas and transferring money to Hamas,” Netanyahu told a meeting of Likud Party members of parliament in 2019. “This is part of our strategy — to isolate the Palestinians in Gaza from the Palestinians in the West Bank.”

In 2016, an earlier Netanyahu government provided medical treatment to a Syrian affiliate of Al Qaeda. At the time, former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy brushed aside an interviewer’s astonishment that Israel would aid an enemy of the United States: “We have a different account with Hezbollah. A totally different account. Al Qaeda, to the best of my recollection, has not attacked Israel.”

Netanyahu’s latest favorite band of rogues is the Abu Shabab clan, led by Yasser Abu Shabab, who has reportedly been twice-imprisoned in Hamas-run jails for criminal offenses. “[They] are in essence lawless criminals who in recent years wanted to give themselves an ideological angle or spin, so they became Salafi [jihadists] and began identifying with ISIS,” Lieberman said. 

Varying described as a militia or a criminal gang, the Abu Shabab clan has been widely accused of looting humanitarian aid to the devastated Gaza population. In 2024, Abu Shabab didn’t deny the allegations, instead lamely claiming his group tried not to steal supplies meant for children. That entry on Shabab’s rap sheet makes Netanyahu’s support for the clan rather hypocritical, as he’s often condemned Hamas for allegedly stealing aid. “Hamas is coming at gunpoint and stealing the food,” he said. “Humanitarian deaths and starvation is, for us, it’s a tragedy. For them, it’s a strategy.” On the other hand, the Shabab clan meets the only qualification that seems to matter to Netanyahu: An interest in seeing Hamas dislodged from power in Gaza. 

In late May, Hamas posted a video showing an operation in which its militant blew up a group of armed men that observers concluded to be members of the Shabab clan. Hamas said the targeted group was collaborating directly with the IDF by inspecting buildings in Gaza before Israeli soldiers took them over: 

Following Lieberman’s comments, the prime minister’s office issued a statement saying “Israel is working to defeat Hamas in various ways, on the recommendation of all heads of the security establishment.” On Thursday afternoon, defense officials confirmed to the Times of Israel that Netanyahu’s government is shipping Kalashnikov rifles to the jihadists. Compounding the controversy, the sources say Netanyahu initiated the weapon transfers without receiving approval from his cabinet. 

Shabab’s gang has been documented in recent days operating in an area near the Kerem Shalom border crossing under Israeli military control. In the footage, which was published online by Abu Shabab, members of the group can be seen wearing military-style uniforms with the Palestinian flag and the words “Counter-Terrorism Mechanism” emblazoned on them. — Times of Israel

Yair Golan, who leads the opposition Democrats party, condemned Netanyahu’s decision to arm yet another dangerous set of militants: “Netanyahu, who transferred billions to Hamas in suitcases of cash out of the mistaken concept that Hamas is an ‘asset,’ is now promoting a new dangerous concept: arming a Gazan militia with ties to ISIS.” 

According to the ancient proverb, “The friend of your enemy is your enemy.” If you’re an American citizen, what does that make Netanyahu? 

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

A Connecticut lawmaker was admonished for reading aloud from a pornographic book that is available to children in school libraries in the state.

During a hearing, Republican Rep. Anne Dauphinais of Danielson read graphic sexual references from the book, titled Me and Earl and the Dying Girl.

“Are you going to eat her pussy?,” Dauphinais read from the book. “Yeah, Earl, I am going to eat her pussy,” she continued before being interrupted by Rep. Juan Candelaria, a New Haven Democrat and deputy House Speaker who started manically banging his gavel.

🚨WATCH: Connecticut GOP lawmaker quotes book found in public schools: “Are you gonna eat her p*ssy?”

She is then SCOLDED for her use of the phrase.

She replies: “You’re telling me that this language is inappropriate in this chamber, this is in elementary school libraries.” pic.twitter.com/xYJErag0pe

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) June 3, 2025

“Madam, I would ask that we not try to use that type of language in the chamber and try to keep some decorum,” said Candelaria, not recognising the irony.

“I know you were talking of specific books, but if we could refrain from those type of words because there are also people and children watching this debate.”

That’s the whole point, dude.

Dauphinais had already warned parents to remove any children present from the room before she began reading.

“I would ask kindly if we could just use either a different word or something different just out of respect for others that might get offended. Thank you,” Candelaria added.

Dauphinais responded, “Mr. Speaker, I stand here to share with the chamber the books that are available in our public school libraries to the very children you’re telling me that this language isn’t appropriate in this chamber.”

“This is in elementary school libraries, approved by the very individuals that are supposed to be the experts,” she further urged.

Another Democrat, House Speaker Matt Ritter, then argued that the Republicans just want to make this a “cultural issue,” that “they want the response, like children,” and that “it really hurts their brand.”

Or maybe they have actual concerns about the porn in kids’ libraries?

‘Don’t say that word, children might be listening!’

Yeah, that’s kinda her entire point, nimrod. https://t.co/RqwV2Isg5G

— Conor Coutts (@_CCoutts_) June 3, 2025

Hypocrisy at its finest! Schools allow it, but lawmakers can’t say it? What’s wrong with this picture?

— rowdyamerican (@rowdyamerican45) June 4, 2025

If it’s good enough to be in a school library, it’s good enough to spoken in the chamber. Now, if you have an issue with that, maybe you should take a look at the books in the library.

— Michael Butler 🇺🇸 (@MDButler81) June 3, 2025

“Keep decorum” in the chamber, but not in your kids school. https://t.co/WcsEEseJZG

— Sam Romain (@Sam_Romain) June 3, 2025

Grown adults demanding her to stop with the “inappropriate” language in the chamber, and yet they are ok with it in the schools and being read to children? These people are insane. https://t.co/Q3LaFZl5QG

— Faith1nHim (@CHRISTDSOKC) June 4, 2025

This issue has been ongoing for years at this point.

As we highlighted earlier this week, leftists are now suggesting that if overt sexualised  and pornographic LGBTQ material is being ‘banished’ in school libraries then they should just make classic kids book “queer friendly,” and encourage queer readings of them.

Why are they so obsessed with pushing this on children?

*  *  *

Your support is crucial in helping us defeat mass censorship. Please consider donating via Locals or check out our unique merch. Follow us on X @ModernityNews.

With the jobs whisper number of 110K flirting dangerously close with a sub 100K print, one which both JPM and Goldman said could spark a waterfall selloff in stocks, moments ago the BLS reported that in May the worst case scenario was averted, with the US adding a modest 139K, which while below last month’s print, was above the median consensus of 126K, and well inside the estimated range of 75K to 190K.

That was the good news; the bad news is virtually all historical data points during the Trump admin were revised lower, with April revised 30K lower from 177K to 147K, and March revised 65K lower from 185K to 120K. Worse, every single month under the Trump admin has been revised lower. 

Turning to the unemployment rate, there were no surprises here: consensus expected an unchanged 4.2% print from April, and got just that. The unemployment rate has so far held at 4.2 percent in May and has remained in a narrow range of 4.0% to 4.2% since May 2024. The number of unemployed people, at 7.2 million, changed little over the month.

Among the major worker groups, the unemployment rates for adult men (3.9 percent), adult women (3.9 percent), teenagers (13.4 percent), Whites (3.8 percent), Blacks (6.0 percent), Asians (3.6 percent), and Hispanics (5.1 percent) showed little or no change over the month. 

The unemployment rate was the result of a modest increase in the number of unemployed people (from 7.166 million to 7.237 million) while the labor force declined by ~600K, from 171.135 million to 170.510 million. More importantly, the disconnect between the Household survey and Establishment survey is back, as the number of employed workers plunged tumbled by 696K, even as payrolls reportedly rose.

Some more qualitative details from the report:

• The number of people jobless less than 5 weeks increased by 264,000 to 2.5 million in May. The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) decreased over the month by 218,000 to 1.5 million. Both measures were little changed over the year. The long-term unemployed accounted for 20.4 percent of all unemployed people in May. 
• In May, the employment-population ratio declined by 0.3 percentage point to 59.7 percent. The labor force participation rate decreased by 0.2 percentage point to 62.4 percent. 
• The number of people employed part time for economic reasons, at 4.6 million, changed little in May. These individuals would have preferred full-time employment but were working part time because their hours had been reduced or they were unable to find full-time jobs. 
• In May, the number of people not in the labor force who currently want a job was little changed at 6.0 million. These individuals were not counted as unemployed because they were not actively looking for work during the 4 weeks preceding the survey or were unavailable to take a job. 
• Among those not in the labor force who wanted a job, the number of people marginally attached to the labor force, at 1.6 million, changed little in May. These individuals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in the prior 12 months but had not looked for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. The number of discouraged workers, a subset of the marginally attached who believed that no jobs were

Next, turning to earnings, we find that May average hourly earnings actually printed stronger than expected, rising 0.4% MoM, double the 0.2% expected, and up from the 0.2% in April. On an annual basis, earnings rose 3.9%, also above the 3.7% consensus, and unchanged from the upward revised April print of 3.9%. 

Average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 15 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $36.24 in May. Over the past 12 months, average hourly earnings have increased by 3.9 percent. In May, average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees rose by 12 cents, or 0.4 percent, to $31.18. 

There were also no surprises in the number of hours worked: In May, the average workweek for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls was 34.3 hours for the third month in a row. In manufacturing, the average workweek was little changed at 40.1 hours, and overtime was unchanged at 2.9 hours. The average workweek for production and nonsupervisory employees on private nonfarm payrolls remained at 33.7 hours in May. 

Here is the breakdown of jobs by industry: 

• Health care added 62,000 jobs in May, higher than the average monthly gain of 44,000 over the prior 12 months. In May, job gains occurred in hospitals (+30,000), ambulatory health care services (+29,000), and skilled nursing care facilities (+6,000).
• Employment in leisure and hospitality continued to trend up in May (+48,000), largely in food services and drinking places (+30,000). Over the prior 12 months, leisure and hospitality had added an average of 20,000 jobs per month.
• In May, social assistance employment continued to trend up (+16,000), reflecting continued growth in individual and family services (+16,000).
• Federal government employment continued to decline in May (-22,000) and is down by 59,000 since January. (Employees on paid leave or receiving ongoing severance pay are counted as employed in the establishment survey.)

Employment showed little change over the month in other major industries, including mining, quarrying, and oil and gas extraction; construction; manufacturing; wholesale trade; retail trade; transportation and warehousing; information; financial activities; professional and business services; and other services.

Last but not least, there was acute softness in both the breakdown between full and part-time workers, where the former tumbled by 623K and the latter increased by 33K

Finally, the number of native-born workers tumbled by 444K, while foreign-born workers also dropped by 224K, and easing back from the record set two months ago.

Overall, this was a poor jobs report if one ignores the headline which will surely be revised to a sub-100K print in the next month or two.

After Thursday’s grand meltdown between Elon Musk and President Donald Trump over the Big Beautiful Bill, it looked like things were set to simmer down – with Musk posting several things on X that suggested he was open to a path forward, while the Trump White House had scheduled a call with Musk, Politico reported. 

On Friday morning, however, it was clear that Trump isn’t ready to mend fences – he doesn’t want to talk to Musk, and is looking to sell his Tesla – while Musk spent the morning (so far) making clear that Congress needs to fix government spending or America is going to be in a world of hurt. 

To recap:

• Earlier in the week, Musk came out against the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ – which raises the debt ceiling by $5 trillion, and either raises the deficit by $2.4 trillion, or lowers it by $1.4 trillion – depending on who you believe, and fails to address any of the waste, fraud and abuse found by DOGE. 

• Thursday morning, Trump was asked about Musk’s opposition to the bill, telling reporters on Thursday that he’s ‘very disappointed in Elon,’ and that Musk only opposes the bill because they eliminated electric vehicle tax credits from it.

• Trump then suggested he might pull government funding from Musk’s companies such as SpaceX, which owns the only operational US spacecraft capable of transporting astronauts to and from the International Space Station. 

“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!” -President Donald Trump via Truth Social

• Musk went ballistic – announcing he would ‘immediately‘ decommission the Dragon program (which he later walked back Thursday night), proposed a new political party (that’s still his pinned post on X), endorsed another Trump impeachment, and said Trump is ‘in the Epstein files,’ which is why they haven’t been released. 

Peacemakers emerged – such as former State Department official Mike Benz, who defended Musk and called for the two to patch things up…

Elon Was Always The Secret Weapon Behind Trump 2.0 pic.twitter.com/ii1HBqTKza

— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) June 6, 2025

While two attorneys associated with the Epstein case(s) flatly denied Trump had anything to do with Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation.  

Just confirming what we already knew. pic.twitter.com/ooZNVwHsjn

— C3 (@C_3C_3) June 6, 2025

“The only thing that I can say about President Trump is that he is the only person who, in 2009… is the only person who picked up the phone and said, let’s just talk.”

“[Trump] was very helpful… and gave no indication whatsoever that he was involved in anything untoward… pic.twitter.com/u0FKJrWKej

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 6, 2025

On Friday, Musk re-posted the following posts and clips making his case; 

“The Federal Government today pays more in interest on the debt than we do in budget for the Department of Defense. We pay $1.2B a year in JUST interest on debt. Total government spending is about $7T. Interest payments are $1.2T. DOD is $800B a year. Total debt is $35T and it… pic.twitter.com/fPg3Xo5dkZ

— Tesla Owners Silicon Valley (@teslaownersSV) June 6, 2025

Jesse Watters: “The media said that Musk was the co-president… The media said Trump was doing favors for Elon Musk. Well, if you look at this big, beautiful bill, there’s no favors for Elon Musk in it at all”

pic.twitter.com/9Py3TM5Zkl

— Defiant L’s (@DefiantLs) June 5, 2025

It’s a borrowing limit. It’s not a function / it’s a rule violated by a weak Congress regularly… https://t.co/4KEkl8aIKz

— Chip Roy (@chiproytx) June 5, 2025

This is why Republicans will likely lose the House in 2026 and then Democrats will spend two years investigating and impeaching President Trump.

Trump and the Republicans in Congress need to deliver. We want budget cuts. We want agencies shut down. We don’t want big govt. https://t.co/3T3uheQEyf

— Wall Street Mav (@WallStreetMav) June 5, 2025

While Trump (as noted above) isn’t ready to have a phone call with Musk to hash things out.

Meanwhile, DOGE chief architect Joel Fishback slammed Musk and said he’s stepping away from the effort following Musk’s comments, Politico reports.

“The truth is that Elon set expectations that he relayed to the president, me, and the country that he did not come close to fulfilling. That’s disappointing, but okay,” said Fishback. “What’s not okay is his baseless personal attacks against President Trump.”

To be continued…

Authored by Paul Sperry via RealClearPolitics,

A nonprofit founded by Georgia Democratic politician Stacey Abrams to protect voting rights paid more than $20 million to a lawyer who is a close friend and helped set up two of her private businesses, according to tax and state incorporation filings and other records obtained by RealClearInvestigations.

Abrams’ Fair Fight Action redirected the tax-exempt donations and government grants to Allegra Lawrence-Hardy, her former campaign chair between 2019 and 2023. Most of the funds covered legal expenses charged by the boutique law firm Lawrence-Hardy co-founded, for a failed race-bias lawsuit filed against Abram’s Republican opponent, Gov. Brian Kemp, after she lost to him in Georgia’s 2018 gubernatorial election.

In its articles of incorporation, Fair Fight Action Inc. states that “The Corporation will not be operated for the pecuniary gain or profit of any individual.” They also said no revenues will be “distributed” to any individual except when “authorized to pay reasonable compensation for services rendered.”

The nonprofit’s payout to her friend’s law firm, which averaged more than $4 million each year over those five years, raised eyebrows and conflict-of-interest concerns among ethics watchdogs briefed by RCI.

“Twenty million in fees is outrageous,” said Paul Kamenar, counsel for the National Legal and Policy Center. “It may be an IRS violation for waste of nonprofit assets, as well as self-dealing and other ethical and legal breaches.”

“At a minimum hiring her friend as lead attorney presents a glaring conflict of interest, because Abrams’ close association with both the Fair Fight case and her friend provided an opportunity to enrich her friend through the nonprofit’s litigation.”

He and other legal experts say the costs to litigate the case were extravagant compared with other voting-rights cases fought in federal court. The state of Georgia paid less than $6 million total to its law firms defending the state in the case.

The unusually high legal bills helped drive Fair Fight Action more than $2.5 million into debt last year, forcing the group to lay off the majority of its staff.

College Friends 

Abrams’ and Lawrence-Hardy’s friendship dates back to their days as students at Spelman College. They have also set up businesses together, state records reveal.

Although there is no evidence that Abrams benefited directly from the fees paid to Lawrence-Hardy’s law firm, Abrams holds an ownership interest in at least two Atlanta-based companies that were incorporated by Lawrence-Hardy. Lawrence-Hardy and Abrams have also shared the same office suite in Atlanta for several years. 

Neither Lawrence-Hardy nor Abrams responded to requests for comment.

In her 2022 book, “Level Up: Rise Above The Hidden Forces Holding Your Business Back,” Abrams acknowledged Lawrence-Hardy as someone who has supported her business ventures. “Sustaining the pursuit of a business ambition demands all manner of investment – definitely financial capital, but less often lauded, copious amounts of patience, forbearance and forgiveness,” Abrams wrote. “I appreciate these coming in abundance from those named and unnamed, including … Allegra Lawrence-Hardy.”

The IRS declined to comment on whether it is investigating Fair Fight Action. It has received multiple complaints in the past which outline the blurry lines between Abrams’ connection to nonprofits that appeared to advance her political career. In 2019, the agency received a complaint about the nonprofit from the Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) over allegations that Fair Fight was using money raised to advance voting rights to support Abrams’ political ambitions, including paying some of her travel expenses, running $100,000 in Facebook ads featuring Abrams, and supporting a “Stacey Abrams Fundraiser.” The IRS did not say if or how this case was resolved.

Along with the Georgia Senate, the IRS is actively investigating another nonprofit started by Abrams, the New Georgia Project, which failed to report millions of dollars in contributions and spending tied to Abrams’ first gubernatorial bid in 2018. Abrams also lost to Kemp in a 2022 rematch.

The lucrative Fair Fight deal for her friend adds to ethical concerns over Abrams, who has a checkered financial background and yet has amassed millions of dollars in wealth working mostly in the public and nonprofit sectors, as RCI has reported previously. Abrams has presidential ambitions and aims to become the first black female U.S. president by 2040.

Political Allies

Lawrence-Hardy chaired her campaign in both the 2018 and 2022 gubernatorial elections, which means she was litigating the voting-rights case while running her second campaign. Kristen Wilder, Lawrence-Hardy’s longtime chief of staff,  previously worked as the senior political manager at Fair Fight Action. Wilder also worked on Abrams’ gubernatorial campaign.

Abrams headed Fair Fight in 2018 when it hired Lawrence-Hardy’s firm as lead counsel in the case, Fair Fight Action v. Raffensperger. The suit claimed that the Georgia secretary of state’s office denied minorities the right to vote. The litigation promoted Abrams’ allegations that she was “robbed” of victory by Kemp, whom she claimed had “disenfranchised” blacks through discriminatory voting rules. During the trial, Lawrence-Hardy argued, “This is a modern-day Jim Crow.” The lawsuit would help turn Abrams into a national political figure and celebrity, a symbol of resistance to President Trump and a leader of the emerging Black Lives Matter movement.

But in September 2022, a federal court disagreed, dismissing the case and ordering Fair Fight to pay more than $231,000 in court costs and legal fees.

The lawsuit was always a long shot. To succeed, Fair Fight had to prove intentional discrimination in the state’s election laws and practices. In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Steve C. Jones – an Obama appointee – ruled that Fair Fight failed to provide “direct evidence of a voter who was unable to vote” because of the state’s allegedly racist election laws.

Nevertheless, tax records show that Lawrence-Hardy’s firm earned a steady stream of fees. In 2019, her Atlanta-based firm, Lawrence & Bundy LLC, billed Fair Fight $3.1 million, according to IRS filings. In 2020, when the nonprofit’s revenues peaked at $51 million, the firm billed the nonprofit its largest fee amount – $6.4 million – for “legal services.” In 2022, her firm was paid an additional $5 million, after receiving $4.4 million in fees from Fair Fight in 2021, despite the case shrinking as Judge Jones dismissed large sections of the lawsuit. According to a 2023 IRS return filed by Fair Fight Action, the latest available document, Lawrence & Bundy LLC received more than $1.3 million in legal fees that year, despite the election lawsuit being dismissed the previous year. Lawrence-Hardy is a founding partner of Lawrence & Bundy LLC.

All told over those five years, Lawrence-Hardy and her firm received $20.2 million largely for their work on a single, losing election-integrity lawsuit against the state of Georgia, which critics called “frivolous” and designed to try to explain away Abrams’ back-to-back gubernatorial election losses in 2018 and 2022.

Abrams was not only involved in retaining Lawrence-Hardy but also helped fundraise for the case until December 2021, when she stepped down from Fair Fight’s board to announce her second bid for governor. As Fair Fight’s CEO, Abrams was paid an annual salary of $80,000.

Cozy Office Space

Lawrence & Bundy LLC, whose website lists 15 attorneys, was founded by Lawrence-Hardy in 2016. Its Atlanta offices are located at 1180 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 1650. This is the location where Fair Fight sent the $20.2 million, according to IRS documents. It is the same address for two businesses that are at least partially owned by Abrams.

According to Georgia state incorporation records, one of the entities, Davis Hall LLC, was registered in February 2011 by Lawrence & Bundy LLC; while the other, Hall Davis LLC, was registered in January 2021 by the same agent – Lawrence & Bundy LLC. Both entities are listed by Abrams in her 2022 Georgia state financial disclosure statement as business entities in which she holds an ownership interest of 5% or more. It is not clear what the businesses do. Abrams and Lawrence & Bundy declined to say.

A third enterprise owned by Abrams, Sage Works LLC, lists the same business address as the other companies – 1180 W. Peachtree St. NW, Suite 1650, which is the address for Lawrence & Bundy LLC.

Abrams founded Sage Works LLC as a consulting firm “providing advice to governmental and nonprofit clients on operations,” according to her disclosures. Records show she was paid $62,000 in taxpayer money as a consultant on an Atlanta urban redevelopment project, which raised red flags because she was a state lawmaker at the time.

“These businesses raise more suspicion that Abrams used her nonprofit [Fair Fight] to enrich her friends and herself,” Kamenar said, “which is a clear conflict of interest.”

Lawrence-Hardy is an active member of the Georgia bar in “good standing” with no disciplinary history. She is currently listed as co-managing partner at a larger Atlanta-based firm, Krevolin Horst LLC, where she specializes in “high-profile/high stakes litigation.” She is still featured throughout the Lawrence & Bundy website. 

Fair Fight said it hired Lawrence-Hardy because of her expertise in election law, both at the state and federal levels, along with her experience litigating prior Democratic candidate recounts.

Lawrence-Hardy maintained that the lawsuit was always about the voters, not the money. Voting rights is a cause dear to her, according to her website bio, though she did not choose to take the case pro bono as she has other cases.

It remains unclear why the lawsuit incurred such a high cost.

At the time, Lawrence-Hardy said the case required large resources. She led a team of almost three dozen lawyers, including some from outside her firm. During the trial, she said she deposed a “staggering number” of witnesses in the case: “We had more than 3,000 voters or would-be voters submit declarations, 50 witnesses and hundreds who gave depositions.” 

Yet despite several years of billing Fair Fight, Lawrence-Hardy found no evidence of voter discrimination, according to the court. Nonetheless, Lawrence-Hardy on her website lists the case among her biggest professional accomplishments, arguing she initially “defeated defendants’ motion for summary judgment.”

The IRS filings do not break down the legal expenses charged in the case. Neither Lawrence-Hardy nor Fair Fight would share billing records to understand the exact nature of the work conducted during the drawn-out legal battle. They also would not reveal the hourly rate charged by Lawrence-Hardy’s firm. Legal fees are normally billed on an hourly basis and appear in a line-by-line accounting on statements to clients.

Now operating in the red, Fair Fight is not happy that the Trump administration is cutting federal spending for left-leaning non-governmental organizations. Earlier this year, the embattled organization protested Trump’s freezing of tens of millions of dollars in federal election-security grants.

Paul Sperry is an investigative reporter for RealClearInvestigations. He is also a longtime media fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution. Sperry was previously the Washington bureau chief for Investor’s Business Daily, and his work has appeared in the New York Post, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Houston Chronicle, among other major publications.

A better than expected headline payrolls print has sparked a surge in stocks and bond yields this morning as the long-await (and hoped for by some) recessionary collapse in the labor market remains elusive.

Even if below the surface things are not so healthy, rate-cut expectations for 2025 have plunged to less than two total cuts (2026 expectations up marginally)…

Never one to miss an opportunity – even on a day when he should probably take a break from social media – President Trump dropped some more advice for Fed Chair Powell:

Strong unemployment, falling inflation, and no signs (except in partisan survey responses) of economic weakness from Trump’s tariff-nado. One has to wonder what it is that Powell is waiting for… unlike in September of last year?

Finally, one thought – is this Trump pivoting his rage from Musk to Powell – a far easier, and less wealthy, opposition.

Winnebago Industries issued a profit warning ahead of its presentation at the Baird 2025 Global Consumer, Technology & Services Conference on Thursday, citing weakening demand across the RV market and increased macroeconomic headwinds.

For the third quarter, Winnebago forecasted net revenue of $775 million, falling short of the Bloomberg consensus estimate of $810.4 million. The company also guided adjusted earnings per share in the range of $0.75 to $0.85. Analysts expect the company to report a profit per share of $1.37. All in all, this marked a significant downward revision, highlighting the depth of demand weakness in the RV market.

Preliminary Third Quarter Earnings Results:

• Prelim net revenue about $775 million, estimate $810.4 million (Bloomberg Consensus)

• Prelim adjusted EPS 75c to 85c, estimate $1.37

“What began as an encouraging selling season in March was hampered by growing macroeconomic uncertainty, resulting in worsening consumer sentiment and an increasingly cautious dealer network in the final two months of our fiscal third quarter,” stated Winnebago CEO Michael Happe. 

Raymond James analyst Joseph Altobello told clients, “Winnebago Industries announced disappointing preliminary F3Q results this morning that reflect both weaker consumer sentiment and an increasingly cautious dealer base.” 

Truist analyst Michael Swartz noted that the challenges facing Winnebago are neither new nor unique to the company, but rather indicative of broader, ongoing headwinds across the entire RV industry.

“While the Winnebago Motorized unit is now a much smaller piece of business, today’s announcement will likely amplify questions/concerns around the motorized market, in general, and whether larger strategic actions need to be undertaken amid a depressed retail environment,” Swartz said. 

The RV industry experienced a boom during the early pandemic years, fueled by a zero-interest-rate environment ushered in by Fed Chair Jerome Powell that unleashed a flurry of retail demand. However, that demand quickly unraveled once Powell began aggressively hiking rates in early 2022, triggering a sharp pullback in camper sales in the quarters that followed. 

Additionally, camper stocks and retail shops that cater to the industry have been in a slump since rates increased.

The RV downturn ends when rates go back down. 

Via Remix News,

The Ukrainian Drug Control Service recently issued the first license to import medical cannabis into Ukraine, after the law on the legalization of medical cannabis officially came into force in Ukraine last August. Several organizations have lobbied for at least partial legalization of marijuana in Ukraine in recent years – most of them supported by George Soros. This is no coincidence.

The Ukrainian Drug Control Service recently issued the first license for the import of medical cannabis into Ukraine, the document was issued on June 2, 2025, the Ukrainian news portal RBC reported. 

In Ukraine, the law on the legalization of medical cannabis officially entered into force in August 2024. This allows the distribution of hemp-based medicines for medical, scientific and industrial purposes. As Remix News has documented in the past, medical and legal marijuana is not as benign as promoted and has only helped fuel the drug and mental crisis in the countries where it has already been legalized.

As V4NA reported, several organizations have been lobbying for the legalization of marijuana, at least partially, in Ukraine for years. In the summer of 2022, a bill was submitted to legalize medical marijuana products in Ukraine, when Ukrainian Health Minister Viktor Liashko announced that the Ukrainian cabinet had approved a bill on regulating the distribution of cannabis plants for medical, industrial, scientific and research and development purposes, in order to create conditions for patients to access cannabis-based products for the treatment of cancer and post-traumatic stress disorder caused by war.

🇭🇺🇪🇺PM Viktor Orbán: “Soros has a plan to change the traditional image of the European continent, which is Christian and European, and to turn Europe into a mixed continent, a continent with a mixed population.

It’s okay if the White man and the European man are dwindling, and… pic.twitter.com/2xC5yflV2H

— Remix News & Views (@RMXnews) June 15, 2024

“We understand the negative consequences of war on mental health. We can see how many people will need medical treatment as a result of this impact. And we understand that there is no time to wait,” the minister wrote about the draft law on his social media page.

The country has been holding “hemp marches,” marches calling for legalization, since the 2000s, but the issue only developed into serious lobbying efforts a few years ago. President Poroshenko became the driving force behind this process, along with then-Minister of Health Ulana Suprun, who spent several years trying to convince Ukrainians that legalization was “a normal practice in civilized countries.”

Several organizations have been lobbying heavily in Ukraine for the legalization of marijuana, apparently serving the interests of global financial players.

Ukrainian Deputy Prime Minister Olha Stefanishyna, one of the initiators of the bill, was a direct associate of former Minister of Health Ulana Suprun. Previously, she was the head of the charitable foundation Patients of Ukraine, with a monthly salary of 70,000 hryvnias (about €1,800). The Ukrainian news portal Klymenko Time points out that this is considered a fairly good salary in Ukraine. As they write, the organization Patients of Ukraine actively lobbied for the legalization of marijuana.

Just like the organization 100% Life, whose leader, Dmytro Sherembey, previously worked with Olha Stefanishyna at the Patients of Ukraine organization, and also led several joint projects and events with Ulana Supron.

Janina Sokolova actively campaigned for the legalization of medical marijuana

Journalist-reporter Yanina Sokolova, known for her unpleasant, tough questions and for embarrassing public figures, also played an important role in the campaign for legalization. Klymenko Time called Sokolova the main propagandist of former President Petro Poroshenko.

What the Patients of Ukraine, 100% Life organizations, and Yanina Sokolova’s campaign have in common is that they are all supported by the Ukrainian International Renaissance Foundation of American financial oligarch George Soros, a convicted insider trader.

The fund founded by George Soros, which operates in Ukraine, also oversees a special public health program. It is within this framework that all these activists and their campaigns in support of cannabis receive funding. According to the 2019 report of the Soros Foundation, 23.85 percent of the 335 million hryvnias allocated to Ukraine were spent on the public health program. This is almost 80 million hryvnias (more than €2 million), writes Klymenko Time.

The Ukrainian curators of the program are Victoria Timosevska and Olena Kucheruk from the Soros Foundation. Timosevska lobbied for the legalization of marijuana and the corresponding bill back in 2016. Kucheruk began working in the East-West Partnership Without Borders program, one of Soros’ first projects in Ukraine. In the early 2000s, the office’s staff applied for the European call for proposals for the Program for Reducing Harm from Drug Use.

Soros is known to be one of the world’s biggest backers of legalizing marijuana and relaxing laws against hard drugs. He reportedly spent at least $80 million in the United States on efforts to legalize marijuana.

At the time, when he supported countless NGOs worldwide that fought for the legalization of marijuana, George Soros also became one of the most important shareholders of the American multinational chemical, agricultural and biotechnology company Monsanto (Monsanto merged with the German Bayer AG in 2018).

Monsanto already grew corn and soybeans in Uruguay for years, but the company also actively did research on THC, the active compound in marijuana. Incidentally, Soros is also credited with helping spread genetically modified food in Uruguay and also pushing for the legalization of marijuana in the South American country.

An organization he funded lavishly, the Drug Policy Alliance, also played a pivotal role in getting marijuana legalized. In its 2013 annual report, the chairman of the Drug Policy Alliance boasted: “In Uruguay we played a crucial role, as we helped a public education campaign to coordinate. There was a close collaboration with government officials, activists, journalists and others, including President José Mujica whom I met with personally.”

In fact, the president of the country had met with Soros privately in New York shortly before he returned to his country and convinced the senate to legalize the drug, making it the first South American country to do so. Soros-backed organizations reportedly poured millions into an ad campaign that ran across the country in order to influence the public into backing pro-cannabis legislation.

This was all done in opposition to public opinion, with 58 to 66 percent of Uruguayans being opposed to legalizing the sale of marijuana, while only 24 to 29 percent backed the legalization.

The marijuana industry has grown at a rapid pace in recent years, creating a billion-dollar industry. Two research firms, Arcview Market Research and BDS Analytics, estimated that global cannabis industry revenue could grow from $6.9 billion in 2017 to $16.9 billion in 2019 and more than $31 billion in 2022. Other analysts, such as Cowen Inc., estimate that with legalization, the global industry could reach sales of more than $50 billion by 2026.

At the same time, the Ukrainian news portal Klymenko Time drew attention to the fact that cannabis companies need new markets for further development, for which Ukraine would provide a good opportunity.

Canadian and American companies have also long been eyeing Ukraine. However, as they wrote: “A lot of hemp could be grown in our chernozems, which could be easily exported as a raw product. And the added value would be obtained from processing in other countries.”

Soros saw Ukrainians as cannon fodder already in the 1990s

Soros has a long and deep history in Ukraine that goes far beyond cannabis legalization. The billionaire financier, often portrayed as a humanist, promoted a hard-nosed geopolitical strategy in his 1993 piece entitled “Toward a New World Order: The Future of NATO.” In the piece, he outlines how Eastern Europeans could be used as the “manpower” in coming conflicts in an effort to reduce the number of deaths in Western countries, which Soros argues the West would not politically tolerate, unlike the East of Europe.

“The United States would not be called upon to act as the policeman of the world. When it acts, it would act in conjunction with others. Incidentally, the combination of manpower from Eastern Europe with the technical capabilities of NATO would greatly enhance the military potential of the Partnership because it would reduce the risk of body bags for NATO countries, which is the main constraint on their willingness to act. This is a viable alternative to the looming world disorder,” wrote Soros in the article.

Soros acknowledges that the NATO countries have no appetite for “body bags,” but his statement implicitly indicates that Eastern Europeans can fill this role.

What Soros described appears to be unfolding exactly as he predicted regarding the war in Ukraine. Armed with high-end NATO weapons, Ukrainian soldiers are ones tasked with actively countering Russia, which Soros had already feared would become a nationalist nation opposed to the global order he was promoting in 1993. That Soros already saw the potential of what this symbiotic match could produce on the battlefield decades in advance will likely bolster his reputation as a calculating — and perhaps ruthless — strategic thinker.

As Soros predicted, Ukrainian society appears to be tolerating the high death toll in its current conflict with Russia. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. lost 58,220 over the course of approximately 10 years, and yet, the war saw strong opposition from the American public. Despite a far higher death toll in a far shorter period of time, Ukrainian society has seen little in terms of protests.

The lack of protest in Ukraine may also be helped by the fact that Ukraine has suspended most of civil society, banned opposition parties and media, canceled all elections, and even outlawed the Russian Orthodox Church. Another key factor in society’s perspective on the conflict is that the war is taking place on Ukrainian soil, which is a highly motivating factor for Ukrainian soldiers.

Ukraine’s drug market is growing at an extraordinary rate

Modern war breeds drug addicts, and in Ukraine, drug use on the front lines is widespread and increasing.

Ukrainian recruiters usually take active or former drug users into the military, who are drafted without proper medical examination, and in many cases, they have no problem maintaining their addiction at the frontline, where the narcotics trade is a big business.

Many soldiers serving on the front line use drugs as a means of escape, while others use them to relax after sleepless nights spent under constant artillery fire.

Others are simply bored. Some use drugs to stay alert, as they are almost constantly on edge and in life-threatening situations. The front line has become a lucrative market for people involved in the drug trade. 

In many ways, Ukraine is becoming an open-air drug market, with drugs being pushed at home and on the front. As always, few profit from this development, while many continue to suffer.

Read more here…

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

Goldman Sachs analysts cut Tesla’s delivery forecasts, slashed earnings estimates, and scaled back expectations for brand momentum across key markets. The message is clear: demand is weakening, competition is accelerating, and consumer enthusiasm is fading. This sentiment is also shared with UBS. 

“We’re lowering our Tesla vehicle delivery assumptions and EPS estimates to better reflect weaker monthly datapoints in key regions (e.g. China, the US, and Europe), and also consumer survey data on Tesla (per HundredX and Morning Consult),” analysts Mark Delaney, Dan Duggan, and others wrote in a note to clients on Thursday. 

The analysts revised their outlook and now expect 2Q25 deliveries to come in at just 365,000 units, a sharp downgrade from the prior 410,000 estimate—and well below Visible Alpha Consensus data of 417,000.

Industry and registration data through May show continued year-over-year declines across key global markets, including the US, China, and Europe. 

Full-year delivery estimates were also slashed:

• 2025: cut from 1.70 million to 1.575 million

• 2026: cut from 1.95 million to 1.865 million

• 2027: cut from 2.20 million to 2.15 million

The analysts also cut their earnings estimates, citing softer sales volumes as a key drag on profitability:

• 2025: $1.10 (was $1.25)

• 2026: $2.05 (was $2.15)

• 2027: $3.00 (was $3.10)

Translation so far from the analysts: “We remain Neutral rated on TSLA shares. We lower our 12-month price target to $285 from $295 prior.” 

To gauge consumer sentiment, analysts cited data from HundredX and Morning Consult, which showed declines in Tesla’s brand buzz and purchase intent across North America and Europe. Sentiment remains particularly weak in Canada, France, Germany, and the UK, while China stands out as the lone bright spot.

Goldman’s outlook echoes UBS’ take from last week, which warned that global enthusiasm for the Tesla brand is waning. Both firms maintained a cautious stance on the stock.

“Overall, we remain cautious on Tesla stock,” UBS analyst Joseph Spak said in the note. UBS maintains a Sell rating with a 12-month price target of $190. 

Meanwhile, Daniel Ives of Wedbush Securities recently raised his 12-month price target on Tesla to a Street-high $500 from $350, citing the near-term launch of Tesla’s autonomous ride-hailing Cybercabs as a major catalyst to spark the “golden age of autonomy.”