59.1 F
Chicago
Monday, November 2, 2026
Home Blog Page 1622

New College Grads Not Working Out, Most Hiring Managers Say: Survey

New College Grads Not Working Out, Most Hiring Managers Say: Survey

Authored by Mary Prenon via The Epoch Times,

Inappropriate attire, excessive use of cell phones, poor quality of work, and foul language are just a few of the reasons 65 percent of U.S. hiring managers gave for firing college graduates who had recently started their first job.

A Pollfish survey of 1,000 managers across America, reported by Resume.com, revealed the reasons that eight in 10 managers said newly hired college graduates did not work out during their first year on the job.

Excessive use of cell phones ranked as the top pet peeve of managers, at 78 percent. Some 61 percent of managers found their new hires were entitled or easily offended, while 57 percent noted these new employees were unprepared for the workplace. Lack of a work ethic scored 54 percent, followed by poor communication skills at 48 percent and lack of technical skills at 27 percent.

Other concerns managers had about the graduates included lateness, failure to turn in assignments on time, unprofessional behavior, and inappropriate dress and language. Seventy percent of companies surveyed noted that some hires had to be placed on performance improvement plans.

“Colleges don’t teach students how to behave in the workplace, and there is a lack of transitional support from both universities and employers,” Resume.org’s career coach Irina Pichura stated in the report.

“Most students graduate with little exposure to professional environments, so when they arrive at their first job, they’re often learning basic workplace norms for the first time. Colleges should have a workplace training program to support graduates’ transition to the workplace.”

Clark Lowe, CEO of O’Connor Company, a leading national commercial construction firm, agrees.

“Colleges do a disservice to students in not preparing them for work,” he told The Epoch Times. “Parenting has also been pushed off to the schools, and building of character has been pushed off to the workplace. That’s very frustrating!”

Lowe served as an adjunct professor for Mercy University in Dobbs Ferry, New York, for many years, teaching graduate business courses.

“A lot of professors have no work experience beyond teaching,” he said.

“They grow up in academia and stay there, but all of those degrees and certificates are not going to replace work experience.”

Based in Pinehurst, North Carolina, the O’Connor Company is a remote company with about 60 employees, including skilled construction workers, project managers, and staff in accounting, marketing, and administration. It develops nonresidential structures such as public and educational buildings.

Last year, the company hired 30 new employees and plans to add 10 more this year.

“The latest generation seems to be getting more and more entitled,” Lowe said.

He and his team have also had some problems with recent college graduates, especially those who had never held any type of job.

“In our experience, those people tend to be difficult to work with since the work ethic is not there and they have never learned what it’s like to earn their own paycheck,” he said.

Previous Work Experience Is a Must

Lowe looks for individuals who show initiative and drive and are excited about coming to work. Previous work experience is a must for his firm.

“We don’t care what type of work they did, whether it was in a gas station or retail store,” he said. “What’s important is that jobs teach them responsibility, time management, and a work ethic.”

Only 58 percent of companies responding to the Pollfish survey indicated they plan to hire from the class of 2025, and one in six hiring managers admit they’re hesitant to hire recent graduates at all. Of those managers who are open to hiring new Generation Z graduates, more than 50 percent are seeking qualities such as initiative, a positive attitude, a strong work ethic, adaptability, and openness to feedback.

Pichura also shared advice for recent graduates on how to demonstrate initiative during and after the hiring process.

“During the interview, candidates should come prepared with research and ideas,” she said.

She recommends using real examples, such as stories where the individual stepped up without being asked to solve a problem. She refers to the “Situation, Task, Action, Result” method as the “STAR” method.

Once hired, Pichura noted, a new employee should look for ways to take ownership of tasks, ask for feedback, and go beyond their role.

“Even in an entry-level role, new hires can stand out by looking for small ways to own tasks, solve problems, and offer solutions before being asked,” she said.

“Being reliable, meeting deadlines, and treating every task with care and intention builds trust and credibility early on.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 14:40

UMich Survey Suggests Women, Democrats, & Low-Income Americans Are Out Of Their TDS-Addled Minds

UMich Survey Suggests Women, Democrats, & Low-Income Americans Are Out Of Their TDS-Addled Minds

Having embarrassed themselves with their TDS-driven cognitive dissonance over the past few months, Democrat-voting UMich respondents (and women, and low income Americans) in the preliminary May survey (a month after Liberation Day and also post-Pause and the massive meltup in stocks) turned the TDS-terror dial to ’11’.

Consumer Expectations are now at their lowest since – drum roll please… May 1980…

Source: Bloomberg

Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy. 

Note that interviews for this release were conducted between April 22 and May 13, closing two days after the announcement of a pause on some tariffs on imports from China.

The percentage of UMich respondents making unsolicited negative comments about news they’ve heard on government economic policy has surged to a record high of 66%!

Source: Bloomberg

The share of consumers expecting unemployment to rise in the year ahead increased for the sixth consecutive month and is now more than double the November 2024 reading and the highest since 2009.

Source: Bloomberg

Year-ahead inflation expectations surged from 6.7% last month to 7.3% this month, the highest reading since 1981 and marking five consecutive months of unusually large increases of 0.5 percentage points or more.

Source: Bloomberg

This month’s rise was seen across all three political affiliations. Long-run inflation expectations climbed from 4.4% in April to 4.6% in May, reflecting a particularly large jump among Democrats to a ridiculous 9.6% over the next year!!

Source: Bloomberg

Republicans did forecast a rise in their view of 5Y inflation expectations (while Democrats were flat at 5.1%)…

Source: Bloomberg

Spot the odd one out – UMich Democrats, The NY Fed, or The Market…

Source: Bloomberg

One more for fun – comparing Democrats view of the inflationary outlook to the ‘hard’ inflationary data…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, given their historic track record (completely refusing to acknowledge the surge in inflation under Biden), should we simply be ignoring the manic Democrats screaming about inflation now?

Source: Bloomberg

The Republicans seemed to get it? But then again, they’re all racist ignoramuses with no PhDs… so there’s that, right!?

Sorry, one more that made us fucking laugh… one-third of women surveyed believe inflation over the next year will be 15% or higher…

Low-Income Americans are also terrified like never before…

So someone is lying: actual spending all time high while reported sentiment (based on 250 polled UMich respondents) is all time low.

Is the soft-data slump all driven by leftists imbibing mainstream media’s desperate propaganda-fueled terror of what Trump is doing?

Perhaps that explains why soft survey data has started to turn back up to hard data reality in the last week as it’s hard to hate and keep pushing out your depression-era forecasts when stocks are at record highs and jobless claims remain near record lows.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 14:30

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Illegal Immigrants Accused Of Crossing Into Military Zone

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Illegal Immigrants Accused Of Crossing Into Military Zone

Authored by Aldgra Fredly via The Epoch Times,

A federal judge in New Mexico has dismissed the charges against dozens of illegal immigrants who were accused of violating security regulations by trespassing on a military zone along the U.S.–Mexico border, according to court documents filed this week.

Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Gregory Wormuth ruled that the federal government had failed to demonstrate that the illegal immigrants knew they were entering the restricted New Mexico National Defense Area (NMNDA).

According to court filings dated May 14 and 15, the government argued that it had placed signs in both English and Spanish to declare that the area is a military zone and that any unauthorized entry is prohibited.

But Wormuth stated that this was insufficient to prove that the illegal immigrants knew they were violating security regulations when they entered the areas, as the defendants may have missed the signs.

“As the United States concedes, the NMNDA spans over 180 miles of ‘often difficult and mountainous terrain,’” the judge stated. 

“The mere fact that some ‘signs’ were posted in the NMNDA provides no basis on which to conclude that the defendant could have seen, let alone did see, the signs.”

Assistant Federal Public Defender Amanda Skinner said that Wormuth dismissed the trespassing charges against all illegal immigrants who made initial court appearances on May 15. They still face charges for crossing the border illegally.

The Epoch Times sought comment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico, which filed the charges against the illegal immigrants last month, but did not hear back by publication time.

The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico began charging illegal immigrants with violating security regulations for crossing into the restricted military zone on April 28, on top of illegal border crossing charges. At least 339 people have been charged for entering the military zone as of May 9, according to the attorney’s office.

The military zone includes the Roosevelt Reservation, a 60-foot-wide corridor owned by the federal government running along the border in California, Arizona, and New Mexico.

The Interior Department transferred control of nearly 110,000 acres of federal land along the border to the U.S. Army on April 15, granting the military control of the border zone for three years.

The U.S. Northern Command announced on May 1 a second military zone dubbed the Texas National Defense Area, a 63-mile stretch that runs east from the Texas–New Mexico state line in El Paso.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has previously warned that any unauthorized attempt to enter the national defense areas would lead to an arrest.

“Any illegal attempting to enter that zone is entering a military base—a federal, protected area,” Hegseth said in a video message on April 25. 

“You will be detained. You will be interdicted by U.S. troops and Border Patrol working together.”

Hegseth said that this marked only the first phase, as the Defense Department plans to expand military zones along the U.S. border to further strengthen border security.

“If you have attempted to evade, that’s evading law enforcement, just like you would any other military base. You add up the charges of what you can be charged with misdemeanors and felonies, you can be looking at up to 10 years in prison when prosecuted,” he said.

President Donald Trump issued a memorandum on April 11 authorizing the military to take control of the land to curb illegal immigration and drug trafficking.

“Our southern border is under attack from a variety of threats,” Trump wrote in the April 11 memo. “The complexity of the current situation requires that our military take a more direct role in securing our southern border than in the recent past.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 12:40

Trump Tax Bill Fails To Advance As Conservative Holdouts Double Down On ‘No’

Trump Tax Bill Fails To Advance As Conservative Holdouts Double Down On ‘No’

Update (1210ET): The House Budget Committee has voted down the reconciliation bill by a vote of 16-21 – with GOP Reps. Clyde, Roy, Breechen, Norman and Smucker (who flipped his vote) all voting “no”.

Speaker Mike Johnson (L), President Donald Trump, Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX)

“This bill falls profoundly short. It does not do what we say it does with respect to deficits,” said Rep. Chip Roy.

Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA) said “I am unable to support this package in its current form, but I look forward to strengthening this bill to ensure that it does pass, so that we full all of our America First promises to the American people.”

Whilst Ralph Norman (R-SC) said “Sadly, I’m a hard no until we get this ironed out.”

According to Punchbowl‘s Jake Sherman, Smucker likely flipped “no” to preserve the ability to reconsider the bill at a later time.

House Budget Committee Chairman Rep. Jody Arrington (R-TX) said after the vote “I do not anticipate us coming back today.”

*  *  *

A fiery intra-party fight exploded on Capitol Hill Friday as House Republicans clashed over President Donald Trump’s mammoth “One Big Beautiful Bill,” with Trump himself jumping into the fray to torch conservative holdouts as attention-hungry “grandstanders.”

As the House Budget Committee met to advance the 1,116-plus-page megabill – packed with Trump’s signature proposals on taxes, Medicaid, and immigration – chaos broke out behind the scenes, and in front of the cameras, as hardline conservatives threatened to blow up the entire process.

“Republicans MUST UNITE behind ‘THE ONE, BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL!’” Trump posted on Truth Social. “We don’t need ‘GRANDSTANDERS’ in the Republican Party. STOP TALKING, AND GET IT DONE!”

The scorched-earth post came as the House Budget Committee met down to mark up the massive reconciliation bill, which bundles together much of Trump’s second-term policy wishlist: tax cuts, welfare reform, immigration crackdowns, and the death of Biden’s green energy subsidies.

But what was supposed to be a legislative victory lap turned into a high-stakes hostage crisis, with Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) caught between warring GOP factions, each demanding major changes and threatening to sink the bill if they don’t get their way.

Conservatives on the committee – Reps. Chip Roy, Ralph Norman, Andrew Clyde, and Josh Brecheen – signaled they were ready to vote against the bill unless major changes were made. Their demands include a faster phase-in of Medicaid work requirements, a ban on undocumented immigrants receiving federal benefits, and immediate termination of Inflation Reduction Act clean energy provisions.

“If they don’t [change it], I’m gonna vote no. We’ll kill it,” Norman warned Thursday. “I don’t want to. But I will.”

The vote is ongoing, with Roy and Norman both using their time during committee to voice their opposition, CNN‘s Sarah Farris reports.

The tension spilled into full view Friday morning when Norman, Roy, and Clyde abruptly left the committee room moments before the markup was scheduled to begin, prompting immediate speculation they were staging a walkout. All three returned shortly afterward, saying little, but still signaling deep frustration.

Norman told reporters the situation was “very disappointing,” adding “I hope they recess.”

Johnson, for his part, is trying to keep the circus moving. He has pledged to make some concessions – such as speeding up work requirement timelines and possibly harmonizing those across both Medicaid and SNAP – but every adjustment risks triggering a backlash from the other side of the GOP spectrum.

“If you push too hard on one side, the other side bulges out,” opines Punchbowl News. “That’s exactly what’s happening here.”

Very SALTy

Moderates are already howling over cuts to safety net programs and demanding changes of their own. Blue-state Republicans want the SALT deduction cap raised above the $30,000 ceiling currently in the bill. Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) wants to remove language that would block legal refugees from getting food aid. And Florida Republicans are furious over a provision that clamps down on provider taxes – a method states use to draw more federal Medicaid dollars.

The markup itself became a theater of dysfunction – with Rep. Blake Moore (R-UT) joking about the fact that he went viral earlier this week for falling asleep during a late-night hearing. “I also appreciate that you schedule the markup during daylight hours,” he said. Chair Jodey Arrington (R-TX) fired back: “Some of the staff decided to chip in and equip your chair with an electric shocking mechanism… I hope that is also a bipartisan proposal.”

But behind the laughs, the reality is grim. With Rep. Brandon Gill (R-TX) absent for the birth of his child, Johnson can’t afford even a single Republican defection if he wants the bill to make it out of committee.

Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-LA) tried to downplay the drama, telling reporters, “The goal is to get it out of the committee today… because failure is not an option.”

How did we get here? These speed bumps aren’t surprising. This is a gigantic legislative grab-bag with lots of disparate priorities. We get that. It reminds us a bit of Build Back Better – which failed and led to the IRA, for what it’s worth. -Punchbowl News

Indeed, Speaker Johnson has tried to do what many before him could not: push through a comprehensive, everything-at-once bill that pleases both fire-breathing conservatives and centrist pragmatists. But by skipping the usual slow walk through committee education and member negotiations, he may have created a legislative trap for himself.

And of course, after all of this – the bill still has to get through the Senate…

Stay tuned for updates…

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 12:08

RFK Jr. Defends His Comments On Vaccines: “I’m Going To Tell The Truth”

RFK Jr. Defends His Comments On Vaccines: “I’m Going To Tell The Truth”

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. defended his recent statements about vaccines during a congressional hearing on May 14.

Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testifies before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington on May 14, 2025. Madalina Vasiliu/The Epoch Times

“I’m going to tell the truth about everything we know and we don’t know about vaccines,” Kennedy told Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) while testifying before the Senate Health Committee. “I am not going to just tell people that everything is safe and effective if I know there are issues. I need to respect people’s intelligence.”

Several lawmakers expressed concern about Kennedy’s recent comments, which include saying that the protection conferred by the measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine wanes over time.

“The result is to undermine faith in the vaccine,” Murphy said.

“It’s kind of like saying, ‘Listen, I think you should swim in that lake, but you know, the lake is probably toxic, and there’s probably a ton of snakes and alligators in that lake, but I think you should swim in it.’ Nobody is going to swim that lake if that’s what you say. I want you to acknowledge that when you say you support the measles vaccine, and then you go out and repeatedly undermine the vaccine, with information that is contested by public health experts, that is not supporting the vaccine.”

Kennedy responded, “If I advise you to swim in a lake that I knew there to be alligators in, wouldn’t you want me to tell you there were alligators in it?

“The reason people have lost faith in this program is that they’ve been lied to by public officials for year after year after year.”

Several outbreaks of measles have appeared in the United States in 2025, including an outbreak in Texas that has spread to hundreds of people. Texas officials say most patients are unvaccinated or have unknown vaccination status.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says the administration of two doses of the MMR vaccine is 97 percent effective against measles.

Studies, including a paper from French researchers, have found that the protection wanes slowly over time.

“We’re always going to have measles, as the vaccine wanes very quickly,” Kennedy said recently at a town hall.

He has also said that the MMR vaccine has side effects and that many vaccines on the childhood vaccination schedule have not been tested in randomized, controlled trials against placebos.

“[That] means we don’t understand the risk profile for those products and that’s something that I intend to remedy,” Kennedy told lawmakers on May 14, referring to the Department of Health and Human Services’ announcement that all new vaccines must be tested against placebos before being licensed.

Kennedy testified before the Senate panel and the House of Representatives Appropriations Committee. It was the first time he appeared before Congress since being confirmed in February.

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) asked Kennedy, who has said his children received the typical vaccines in their childhood, if he had a child today, would he get that child vaccinated with the MMR shot?

“Probably,” Kennedy said. “I would say my opinions about vaccines are irrelevant.

“I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me. I think if I answer that question directly, that it will seem that I’m giving advice to other people, and I don’t want to be doing that,” Kennedy said, adding that health officials were going to try to outline the pros and cons, or the risks and benefits, of each vaccine.

Pocan tried to get Kennedy to answer the same question for the chickenpox and polio vaccines. The health secretary demurred.

Republicans largely steered clear of vaccines during the hearings. A number of them praised developments under Kennedy, including the banning of some artificial dyes and the focus on cutting costs at the health agency.

“You’ve done more to shine the light on things that average Americans can do to make themselves healthier than almost any secretary that I can recall,” Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) said, “so thank you for that service.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 12:00

Boeing Set To Avoid Prosecution In Twin Fatal 737 Max Crashes

Boeing Set To Avoid Prosecution In Twin Fatal 737 Max Crashes

Boeing has tentatively reached a nonprosecution agreement with the U.S. Justice Department to avoid a June 23 trial over allegations it misled federal regulators about a flight control system tied to two fatal 737 MAX crashes that killed 346 people in 2018 and 2019, according to Reuters, citing people familiar with the matter. 

Sources said the deal requires a judge’s approval and would allow the Seattle-based planemaker to avoid entering a guilty plea in the case.

Here are more details from the report: 

Boeing has no longer agreed to plead guilty in the case, prosecutors told family members of crash victims during a Friday meeting, the sources said. The company’s posture changed after a judge rejected a previous plea agreement in December, prosecutors told the family members.

DOJ officials are still weighing whether to proceed with a nonprosecution agreement or take Boeing to trial, a DOJ official said during the meeting. No final decision has been made, and Boeing and DOJ officials have not yet exchanged papers to negotiate final details of any nonprosecution agreement, the official told family members.

In April, Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg said the planemaker was negotiating with the DoJ to reach a revised plea deal in the criminal fraud case.

“I want this resolved as quickly as anyone,” Ortberg said at a U.S. Senate hearing, referring to the timeline for settling the case. He added, “Hopefully, we’ll have a new agreement here soon.”

Last month, Boeing reached settlements with the families of two victims killed in the March 2019 crash of an Ethiopian Airlines 737 MAX.

In 2021, Boeing accepted responsibility for compensatory damages to the families of the 157 victims of the Ethiopian Airlines crash.

Boeing apologized for both crashes last month, saying it “made an upfront commitment to fully and fairly compensate the families and accepted legal responsibility for the accidents. We will continue to work to fairly resolve the claims of the family members.”

Reuters notes that the planemaker has “settled more than 90% of claims from the two 737 MAX accidents and paid billions of dollars in compensation to the families through lawsuits, a deferred prosecution agreement, and other payments.”

Of course, the nonprosecution agreement still requires a judge’s approval and could force Boeing to pay additional fines, implement further internal reforms, or strengthen compliance measures, among other conditions. Those conditions have not yet been released. 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 11:40

Rickards To Bannon: Petrodollar 2.0 Is Coming

Rickards To Bannon: Petrodollar 2.0 Is Coming

Authored by Adam Sharp via DailyReckoning.com,

Our friend and colleague Jim Rickards was on Steve Bannon’s War Room show Tuesday, and it may be the most important interview Jim has done this year.

In this fascinating discussion, Jim starts with the history of the original petrodollar system. And he knows the subject well, having helped create it.

The premise of the 1974 petrodollar agreement was that Saudi Arabia would only sell oil in dollars, which would stimulate demand for greenbacks as a reserve currency. 

Here’s Jim explaining the basics to Steve Bannon’s audience:

“We had a carrot and stick approach. Bill Simon, who was Secretary of the Treasury, went to the Saudis and said ‘everybody in the world needs oil, and if you price oil in dollars, then everybody needs dollars.’

And that basically underpins the role of the dollar today as the world’s reserve currency.

The stick was, if you don’t do it we’re going to invade Saudi Arabia and take over oil production.

The carrot was, if you price oil in dollars, we’ll give you a security umbrella.

It’s rare to hear such candor coming from someone who was directly involved in the formation of the petrodollar system.

Needless to say, the petrodollar system was successful and led to a resurgence in the American dollar as the world’s key reserve currency (despite Nixon ditching the gold standard just 3 years earlier).

At this point, Steve Bannon interrupted with an insightful question (paraphrased):

“Wait, you say the petrodollar system is still in place, but the Saudis are now selling oil to China for yuan. Aren’t cracks showing in the petrodollar system?”

Jim responded that yes, cracks are starting to show in the system, and that’s why Trump was in Saudi Arabia, to seal a “Petrodollar 2.0” agreement. Jim also points out that, at least for now, the amount of oil Saudi Arabia is selling for yuan and other currencies is miniscule compared to dollar-based sales.

Jim proceeds to lay out the purpose of Petrodollar 2.0:

“The U.S., by strengthening its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and creating Petrodollar 2.0, puts the pressure on China to reduce their tariffs and meet Trump’s requirements. Otherwise they don’t have a source of dollars.”

This time around, Trump is using a strictly carrot-based approach. He’s on a charm offensive and looking to build strong, lasting ties with Saudi Arabia and the broader Middle East. This is a smart approach and we expect it will bear fruit in the near future.

Had President Trump taken a threatening approach to Saudi Arabia, it almost certainly would have driven the country into China’s waiting arms. And America can’t afford to let that happen.

It’s an excellent interview, and you can watch the entire thing here (free) on Rumble. Jim also gets into Russia vs. Ukraine with Steve, and brings an insightful and unique perspective as always.

Also, be sure to follow Jim’s new account on X (formerly Twitter)!

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 11:00

UMich Sentiment Collapses Near 45-Year (Record) Lows As Democrats’ Inflation Dissonance Hits ’11’

UMich Sentiment Collapses Near 45-Year (Record) Lows As Democrats’ Inflation Dissonance Hits ’11’

Having embarrassed themselves with their TDS-driven cognitive dissonance over the past few months, Democrat-voting UMich respondents in the preliminary May survey (a month after Liberation Day and also post-Pause and the massive meltup in stocks)

Consumer Expectations are now at their lowest since – drum roll please… May 1980…

Source: Bloomberg

Tariffs were spontaneously mentioned by nearly three-quarters of consumers, up from almost 60% in April; uncertainty over trade policy continues to dominate consumers’ thinking about the economy. 

Note that interviews for this release were conducted between April 22 and May 13, closing two days after the announcement of a pause on some tariffs on imports from China.

The percentage of UMich respondents making unsolicited negative comments about news they’ve heard on government economic policy has surged to a record high of 66%!

Source: Bloomberg

The share of consumers expecting unemployment to rise in the year ahead increased for the sixth consecutive month and is now more than double the November 2024 reading and the highest since 2009.

Source: Bloomberg

Year-ahead inflation expectations surged from 6.7% last month to 7.3% this month, the highest reading since 1981 and marking five consecutive months of unusually large increases of 0.5 percentage points or more.

Source: Bloomberg

This month’s rise was seen across all three political affiliations. Long-run inflation expectations climbed from 4.4% in April to 4.6% in May, reflecting a particularly large jump among Democrats to a ridiculous 9.6% over the next year!!

Source: Bloomberg

Republicans did forecast a rise in their view of 5Y inflation expectations (while Democrats were flat at 5.1%)…

Source: Bloomberg

Spot the odd one out – UMich Democrats, The NY Fed, or The Market…

Source: Bloomberg

One more for fun – comparing Democrats view of the inflationary outlook to the ‘hard’ inflationary data…

Source: Bloomberg

Finally, given their historic track record (completely refusing to acknowledge the surge in inflation under Biden), should we simply be ignoring the manic Democrats screaming about inflation now?

Source: Bloomberg

The Republicans seemed to get it? But then again, they’re all racist ignoramuses with no PhDs… so there’s that, right!?

So someone is lying: actual spending all time high while reported sentiment (based on 250 polled UMich respondents) is all time low.

Is the soft-data slump all driven by leftists imbibing mainstream media’s desperate propaganda-fueled terror of what Trump is doing?

Perhaps that explains why soft survey data has started to turn back up to hard data reality in the last week as it’s hard to hate and keep pushing out your depression-era forecasts when stocks are at record highs and jobless claims remain near record lows.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 10:14

Corporate Stock Buybacks – Do They Affect Markets?

Corporate Stock Buybacks – Do They Affect Markets?

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

Fisher Investments recently wrote an interesting article asking whether corporate stock buybacks affect markets. Here is their conclusion:

“Yes and no? Stocks move on supply and demand. Stock buybacks, where a company buys and takes shares off the market, theoretically reduce supply. They can also raise earnings per share, thus rewarding shareholders. So, all else equal and on paper, stock buybacks are bullish. But reality, as always, is more complicated. Buybacks are just one factor affecting supply. There are others, and demand matters, too. They may not reduce supply if they merely offset secondary issuances, like employee stock awards. Often, buybacks merely ‘sterilize’ new issuance. Other negative (or less bullish) fundamental factors might matter more in pricing, lowering demand even as supply shrinks. So buybacks are a factor, but not the factor.“

While the statement is mostly correct, I am unsure they looked at the actual impact that corporate stock buybacks have on the market. We have discussed this topic and the past misstatements of corporate stock buybacks. Here is a listing for more background.

  1. They are not a return of capital to shareholders; dividends are.
  2. Corporate stock buybacks are the worst use of cash.
  3. It is a benefit that almost entirely benefits corporate insiders.

But, without rehashing the many problems of corporate stock buybacks, let’s focus on these transactions’ impact on the overall market.

As of May 2025, corporate stock buyback authorizations are on track to eclipse $1.35 trillion this year, with more than $1 trillion executed. This will exceed any other year in the market since the turn of the century. Such should be unsurprising with Apple (AAPL) announcing an additional $100 billion and Google adding another $70 billion to their programs (those two programs will account for 12% of the total alone).

The data should lead one to question why corporate stock buybacks have grown steadily since the turn of the century. Such is particularly the case when the overreliance on buybacks at non-accretive valuations to boost stock prices has become commonplace. Such a statement undermines the fallacy that corporate stock buybacks are solely a return of capital to shareholders. For example, Apple’s $110 billion buyback plan in 2024 raised questions among some investors about whether the company focused too much on immediate stock price increases rather than on investments that could drive long-term value. That statement should not be overlooked, given that 5-year annualized revenue growth has been flat since 2018. (Chart courtesy of SimpleVisor.com)

If corporate stock buybacks are not a significant factor in increasing stock prices, why do companies engage in them so heavily? Why not just let market dynamics carry the load? The reason is simplistic to understand.

“Corporate executives give several reasons for stock buybacks but none of them has close to the explanatory power of this simple truth: Stock-based instruments make up the majority of their pay and in the short-term buybacks drive up stock prices.” – Financial Times.

So, how much of a factor are buybacks?

Are Buybacks An Important Factor

It is a pretty easy task to see whether or not corporate stock buybacks influence stock prices. As we penned last year, the impact of buybacks extends beyond individual companies. Since 2000, net corporate buybacks have accounted for 100% of the equity market’s net asset purchases—a reflection of the diminished participation from pensions, mutual funds, and individual investors:

  • Net Flow: +$5.2 trillion
  • Pensions & Mutual Funds: –$2.7 trillion
  • Households & Foreign Investors: +$2.4 trillion
  • Corporations (Buybacks): +$5.5 trillion

In other words, without corporate stock buybacks, the stock market would be roughly 30% lower today.

“The chart below via Pavilion Global Markets shows the impact stock buybacks have had on the market over the last decade. The decomposition of returns for the S&P 500 breaks down as follows:“

  • 6.1% from multiple expansions (21% at Peak),
  • 57.3% from earnings (31.4% at Peak),
  • 9.1% from dividends (7.1% at Peak), and
  • 27% from share buybacks (40.5% at Peak)

Yes, buybacks are that important.

However, to Fisher’s question directly, there is more than just a minor correlation between corporate stock buybacks and the market. The chart below overlays the 4-week change in stock buybacks versus the 4-week change in the S&P 500 index. It is worth noting that before 1982, the SEC considered share buybacks an illegal form of market manipulation. (In 1982, the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18, which provided “safe harbor” from “liability of market manipulation. In other words, the SEC recognizes that buybacks manipulate the financial markets but provided a “shield” to corporations.)

The chart above is complex due to the large amount of data. The chart below is from 2021 to present, where changes to buybacks (increase or decrease) significantly impact changes to stock prices. It is worth noting that the nearly 20% decline in April was exacerbated by the sharp reversal in buyback activity and vice versa.

While Fisher suggests that buybacks have little to do with market movements, a high correlation exists between the 4-week percentage change in buybacks and the stock market. More importantly, since the act of share repurchases provides a buyer for those shares, the .85 correlation between the two suggests this is more than just a casual relationship.

But yes, Fisher is correct, other factors support higher asset prices.

Buybacks Affect More Than Just Prices

In 2023, Jason Zweig penned an article for the WSJ stating:

“Over the past five years, according to S&P Dow Jones Indices, big U.S. companies have spent $3.9 trillion repurchasing their own stock. Buybacks are neither bad nor good. They are simply a tool. Just as you can use a hammer either to build a house or knock one down, buybacks are useful in the right corporate hands and dangerous in the wrong ones.“ – Jason Zweig, WSJ

That is a fair statement. The impact of share buybacks is vital to manufacturing earnings growth since we measure earnings on a per-share basis. In other words, if you reduce the number of shares outstanding, corporate earnings “per share” improve, as shown below.

As discussed previously, the annual rate of change in earnings growth is one of the best predictors of forward stock market returns.

However, investors must be cautious about understanding the impact of buybacks on earnings when investing in companies. As Warren Buffett noted:

Finally, an important warning: Even the operating earnings figure we favor can easily be manipulated by managers who wish to do so. Such tampering is often considered sophisticated by CEOs, directors and their advisors. Reporters and analysts embrace its existence as well. Beating ‘expectations’ is heralded as a managerial triumph. That activity is disgusting. It requires no talent to manipulate numbers: Only a deep desire to deceive is required. ‘Bold, imaginative accounting,’ as a CEO once described his deception to me, has become one of the shames of capitalism.“

Why would CEO’s want to manipulate earnings? Unsurprisingly, a WSJ survey of CFOs found that 93% pointed to “influence on stock price” and “outside pressure” as the reasons for manipulating earnings figures.

Of course, one misnomer is that corporate CEOs execute buybacks when they believe the stock is undervalued. However, the reality is quite the opposite, and they tend to execute share repurchases when their current optimism is elevated. When share prices decline, and buybacks could be done at accretive prices, there is little incentive to do so.

Conclusion

The evidence is clear: corporate stock buybacks are not a marginal force in markets—they are central to the mechanics of price inflation. When buybacks account for the entire net demand for equities over the last two decades, it’s hard to argue they’re simply “a” factor. They aren’t just reducing supply on paper—they are the demand. Without them, equity valuations would look very different.

But what’s more concerning is the why. Despite the popular narrative that buybacks return capital to shareholders, the data and behavior of corporate management tell a different story. Buybacks overwhelmingly inflate earnings per share and boost short-term stock prices, which are tied directly to executive compensation. That incentive skews the timing and intent of buyback programs away from long-term value creation and toward short-term financial engineering.

To Fisher’s credit, markets are complex. Demand, sentiment, interest rates, and macroeconomic factors all matter. However, dismissing buybacks as one variable among many overlooks just how much they dominate equity flows. Their influence is measurable, intentional, and reinforced by corporate leadership’s financial incentives.

The question for investors is not whether buybacks matter—they do. The question is whether they’re being used to create real value or mask its absence.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 09:50

Russia-Ukraine Talks Wrap Up In Under 2-Hours: ‘Nothing Meaningful To End War’

Russia-Ukraine Talks Wrap Up In Under 2-Hours: ‘Nothing Meaningful To End War’

The Friday meeting between Ukrainian and Russian officials, the first direct engagement of its kind in some three years, has ended, according to Turkey’s foreign ministry, and lasted a little under two hours.

Each side will in the aftermath convey to the press its version of things, and Ukraine has been right out the gate telling CNN that there was nothing meaningful to come out of these first talks.

A Ukrainian source said the Russia delegation “did not have a mandate to make important decisions” and that “they are not ready to decide anything meaningful to end the war.”

Turkish Foreign Minister’s Press Office/EPA/Shutterstock

Many international headlines Thursday described the team of junior officials sent by the Kremlin as an ‘insult’ to the peace process; however, it’s also the case that no matter who President Putin sends, he is the one who will ultimately make the decisions.

Wall Street Journal has described that “The talks, in the Dolmabahçe Palace in Istanbul, came about as the result of President Trump’s pressure, so far mostly applied on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, to find an end to the war.”

But, “Just as the negotiations started, Russia struck near the Ukrainian city of Dnipro with a salvo of ballistic missiles, according to local officials.”

And Reuters agrees in its assessment that there are “no apparent sign of progress so far in narrowing the gap between the sides, and a Ukrainian source called Moscow’s demands ‘non-starters’.

Ukrainian Foreign Ministry via AFP

Neither side has so far offered no major concessions, and issues like permanent control over Crimea and the four eastern territories remain sticking points for Moscow. 

During the Istanbul meeting, according to WSJ’s foreign correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov:

Russia demanded in Istanbul that Ukraine withdraw its troops from four regions — areas that Moscow has been trying to conquer but failed since 2022 — as a precondition for ceasefire. That’s an area twice the size of the country of Lebanon and home to more than a million Ukrainians. Not going to happen.

Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson were annexed in 2022, declared part of the Russian Federation, but Moscow forces still don’t have 100% control over them.

And it doesn’t look like there was any progress on achieving a Trump and Zelensky-backed 30-day ceasefire. Moscow sees this as a tactic for Ukraine forces to simply rearm and regroup, at a moment they are in dire need of more manpower and artillery. 

President Zelensky has meanwhile been making clear that Ukraine will not surrender its territory as “this is Ukraine’s land” – and he isn’t so much as ready to even offer Crimea. Zelensky and European leaders are reportedly holding a phone call with US President Trump in the wake of the Istanbul meeting.

They will likely try to convince the US leader that attempts to negotiate an end to the war with Putin are futile. This seems to have been Zelensky’s aim all along: getting Washington and Trump back on his side, and securing the unending flow of weapons, cash, and intelligence.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/16/2025 – 09:30