65.5 F
Chicago
Thursday, July 30, 2026
type here...
Home Blog Page 191

Both Sides Agree Iran Deal ‘Close’ But Not Finalized, As Trump Promises ‘Final Determination’ Soon

survivalnomics
-
0
Both Sides Agree Iran Deal ‘Close’ But Not Finalized, As Trump Promises ‘Final Determination’ Soon

Summary

  • NYT: President Trump’s meeting in the Situation Room lasted about two hours, but the president did not reach a decision on any new deal with Iran.
  • Trump repeats conditions on Iran for lifting US naval blockade, oil pushed lower. Fars responds: “Mix of truth & lies.”
  • Trump vows to ‘unearth’ and gain control of nuclear dust in ‘cooperation’ with Iran and/or China, says no money will be exchanged with Iran, and that it ‘must agree’ to never have a nuclear weapon (Truth Social).
  • NY Times reports surprising element of the Iran peace draft deal: a proposed investment fund for Iran – reportedly $300 billion.
  • Tehran confirms MOU stalled, but is being reviewed, amid lack of trust in negotiating with Washington.
  • The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 38% · No 63%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump After 2-Hour Situation Room Meeting: No Deal Yet

By close to day’s end on Friday, both sides appear in agreement that no deal has been reached. First, fresh reporting after a two-hour White House situation room meeting from the NY Times:

President Trump’s meeting in the Situation Room lasted about two hours, but the president did not reach a decision on any new deal with Iran, according to a senior administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to speak about internal deliberations.

The administration believes it is close to an agreement but there are still certain matters being debated including the unfreezing of funds for the Iranians, the official said.

And from the Iranian side, the last afternoon official message was as follows (Reuters, state sources):

A senior Iranian source tells Reuters that a political understanding has been reached between Iran and the US, though it has not yet been finalized.

More from NYT:

Trump: Iran’s Uranium will be unearthed by the United States; Fars: Trump’s claims “mix of truth and lies”

These Truth Social messages are starting to appear uncannily similar to ones already issued weeks ago. But this seems more confirmation that there is no MOU which has been ‘finalized’ – but that some key things have been agreed to.

  • Trump is again saying the US will get the ‘nuclear dust’
  • Iran “must agree” to never have a nuclear weapon
  • No toll system for Hormuz
  • Removal of all sea mines
  • “No money will be exchanges until further notice.”

 

Oil pushed lower on the headlines via Trump’s post…

But amid the return to some ‘optimism’ in headlines, there are the usual caveats and counternarratives (likely accurate):

Iran Clarifies Deal ‘Not Finalized’ Amid Lack Of Trust

Iran’s Tasnim reports Friday that the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not yet finalized, and that Thursday’s flurry of Western media headlines about an agreement finally being reached were inaccurate.

“The text is not finalized yet and the account in Western media is not precise,” a fresh statement indicates. Official confirmation will be announced if it does get to the point of being finalized, Tasnim notes. The report cited an Iranian official to say that “the text of the possible memorandum of understanding has had changes over the past few days.”

The warring sides are attempting to lock in a 60-day extended ceasefire, during which time they will get back to the table – and that’s when finer details like how to address Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium will be dealt with. It is now day 91, and according to the latest Friday:

Iranian Parliament Speaker and top negotiator Ghalibaf says: “We have no trust in guarantees or words.”

Late Thursday, US Vice President J.D. Vance indicated that President Trump has not approved, at a moment Washington is insisting the nuclear issue be more front and center as part of the MOU.

However, the Iranians have consistently said their nuclear program is not up for negotiation toward ending the war – but that it is something that can be talked about once the conflict closes.

According to a summary of the latest on the stalled MOU from an Al Jazeera correspondent: 

Diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire between the United States and Iran have continued behind the scenes, with officials signaling progress towards a framework that could open the door to formal negotiations after weeks of conflict and disruption across the Gulf and beyond.

Despite the optimism, questions remain over the timing and scope of any agreement.

Iranian media reports suggested discussions are continuing and that key details have yet to be finalized, while both sides continue to navigate sensitive issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and security in the Gulf.

Ghalibaf: We Achieved Concessions Through Missiles, Not Dialogue

More from Iran’s chief negotiator in a Friday update:

What has become clear is that US and international media reports have consistently proven premature, too out front, thinly sourced, and ultimately inaccurate in their generally optimistic claims of a deal being ‘finalized’ or else ‘imminent’.

Iran Threatens ‘Utter Ruin’ on US-Gulf-Israel if War Resumes

In the meantime, Iran’s ongoing threats of an escalated, protracted war happen to be very clear:

The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

The warnings come after a war that saw Iran target US bases, Israeli cities and critical infrastructure in Gulf Arab states, while effectively shutting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and triggering a global energy shock.

The Islamic Republic has also been touting new “tools” to use against its enemies, per CNN:

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that any future retaliation would “feature many more surprises,” while Iran’s military threatened to open “new fronts” using “new tools.” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s top negotiator, said the armed forces had used the ceasefire period to rebuild their capabilities “at the highest level.”

Some pundits fear that such references to “new fronts” could mean either the closure of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, or even the possibility of missiles reaching Europe.

Umud Shokri, an energy strategist at George Mason University, has explained in a statement, “A simultaneous crisis in Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz would be far more serious, potentially affecting both Red Sea trade and Persian Gulf energy flows, which would raise oil prices, freight rates, and inflationary pressure worldwide.”

Still, the Trump administration is pressing for a deal which would make its Iran gambit look like ‘victory’ – something which finally reopens energy transit points and sees the removal of highly enriched uranium from Iran. Tehran leaders, however, don’t appear in the mood to allow Washington to have its cake and eat it too.

More Latest Headlines

More latest Iran developments via Newsquawk:

  • Many points regarding the Iranian nuclear file have been resolved; Iran has agreed to international oversight of its nuclear facilities to prevent their dismantling, Al Arabiya reported citing sources. Iran wants to transfer the enriched uranium to China with a commitment not to deliver it to America.
  • Chairman of the Iranian National Security Committee of the Iranian Parliament said there are no plans to transfer enriched uranium out of the country, Asharq reported.
  • Iran Deputy for Foreign Policy and International Security Ali Baqeri held separate meetings in Moscow with the Foreign Policy Advisor to Brazil’s President and the Secretary General of Egypt’s National Security Council.
  • IRGC Commander said Iran forces are ready to act on Supreme Leader’s order and enemies should not make mistakes as they will get themselves and others into trouble.
  • Iran military source said US drone was intercepted near Bushehr in southern Iran, according to Al Jazeera.
  • US Vice President Vance said that US President Trump is not yet ready to endorse the Iran agreement, while Vance noted that US and Iran made a lot of progress towards a ceasefire deal, according to AFP. Vance said US and Iran are at odds on uranium enrichment and stockpiles, according to SNN.
  • White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller stating in an interview with Fox News that US President Trump is directly involved in negotiations with Iran.
  • US President Trump said we completely sank the Iranian Navy and destroyed their air force, did not target all of Iran’s military leadership so that what happened in Iraq would not be repeated.
  • US military said Iran’s state TV claim that Iranian forces downed a US aircraft near Bushehr is false and no US aircraft was shot down by Iran, with all US air assets are accounted for.
  • US VP Vance said US and Iran are exchanging proposals regarding some drafting points including issue of enrichment, adds time is still early to know when an agreement with Iran will be reached and if it will happen at all.
  • US Treasury imposes fresh sanctions targeting Iran’s military oil sales, according to Reuters. IRNA reported US sanctions 25 individuals, firms and vessels over Iran oil.
  • US President Trump said that US has all the cards, Iran has been defeated militarily, according to a Fox interview.
  • Al Hadath posted Iranian television reported “the downing of an American fighter jet” in the vicinity of Bushehr, with no American confirmations.
  • US official denies what Iranian TV announced about downing any American plane near Bushehr, according to Al Hadath.
  • Israel’s Channel 12, citing military sources, said “The army recommends to the political leadership intensifying the air and ground strikes in Lebanon”.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 14:55

The Two Ugly Paths Now Facing The US Economy

survivalnomics
-
0
The Two Ugly Paths Now Facing The US Economy

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

I was watching Andrew Ross Sorkin on 60 Minutes last Sunday. Sorkin was on the show to promote his new book, 1929: Inside the Greatest Crash in Wall Street History — and How It Shattered a Nation.

When Leslie Stahl asked him during his interview whether we would have another crash, Sorkin answered: “The answer is, we will have a crash. I just can’t tell you when, and I can’t tell you how deep. But I can assure you, unfortunately, I wish I wasn’t saying this, we will have the crash.”

At one point he says “We are either living through some kind of remarkable boom, [or we’re reliving] 1929.”

I thought to myself: hell, I can do better than that, and I didn’t even write a book about 1929. Because at this point, the real question is not whether we are headed toward some sort of financial reckoning…the question is what form that reckoning takes.

And after looking at the current economic landscape, I increasingly believe there are only two realistic outcomes over the next several years: a soft default through inflation or a hard default through financial crisis. The former seems more likely than the latter, and can be confusing to people because nominal prices staying steady or rising while inflation runs out of control won’t look like a “crash” that most of 60 Minutes’ viewers will expect. It’ll be a crash upward.

To understand why, let’s start with where we are right now and summarize a lot of what I’ve written about over the past month or two. There’s four key things I’m watching:

  1. inflation

  2. market valuation

  3. the consumer

  4. the bond market

These four things have worked together to produce a combination that I believe is close to locking up the economy and taking away any response options from the Central Bank that won’t have immediate and ugly consequences.

Inflation remains structurally above the Federal Reserve’s target despite one of the most aggressive rate-hiking cycles in modern history. Even now, inflation is still running around 3.8%, nearly double the Fed’s stated objective. This is no longer a temporary post-pandemic distortion that policymakers can dismiss away with optimistic forecasts and revised models.

Inflation has become embedded across the economy, from housing and insurance to healthcare, wages, food, and government spending itself. The cost structure of modern American life has permanently shifted upward, while policymakers continue pretending that a return to stable 2% inflation is just around the corner. It’s not.

At the same time, financial markets continue to trade at historically stretched valuations. The Shiller P/E ratio sits around 42x versus its mean of 17.3x and market capitalization relative to GDP has surged above 230%, levels associated not with healthy long-term expansion but with periods of deep speculation and excess.

A better way to look at this instead of valuations are high is that the market is extraordinarily vulnerable to falling further in percentage terms. When valuations become detached from underlying economic reality, the downside risk grows larger because there is simply farther to fall once confidence breaks. Expensive markets do not automatically cause crashes, but they create the conditions where even modest disappointments can trigger violent repricing. Especially if the market’s rally has been on poor breadth and the result of speculation on options and the passive bid.

Beneath the surface, delinquency data shows that the consumer is tapped out. Student loan delinquencies have surged back toward record levels as repayments resume into an economy where borrowing costs and living expenses have both exploded higher.

Credit card delinquencies are now sitting at their highest levels since the aftermath of the financial crisis, while auto loan defaults, especially among subprime borrowers, have reached multi-decade highs. Americans are financing $50,000 vehicles with monthly payments exceeding $750 at interest rates that would have seemed absurd just a few years ago.

Consumers have largely maintained spending not because household finances are healthy, but because they have increasingly relied on debt to sustain a standard of living that inflation has steadily eroded.

And the rate at which consumers are saving is dwindling significantly now.

But the most important warning signal in the economy is not the stock market or the consumer. It is the bond market.

Under normal economic conditions, weakening growth and financial stress would push long-term Treasury yields lower as investors seek safety and begin pricing in future Federal Reserve easing. Instead, the opposite is happening. The 10-year Treasury yield remains around 4.5%, while the 30-year Treasury has pushed above 5%. Those are not comforting numbers. They reflect a growing discomfort with the long-term fiscal trajectory of the United States itself.

This is the trap the United States now finds itself in.

And because of these four factors, I believe there are only two paths we can go down. The more likely path I think puts gold eventually on a (rocky and volatile) tracjectory to eventually get to $10,000.

The first, and in my view the more likely outcome, is the soft default. This is the inflationary path where policymakers ultimately choose to save the Treasury market through monetary intervention. They will not describe it as money printing, of course. They will use softer language such as liquidity support, balance sheet management, market stabilization, or yield curve control. But the mechanism is ultimately the same. The Federal Reserve creates money in order to purchase government debt and suppress long-term yields before the Treasury market becomes unstable.

This approach would almost certainly succeed in stabilizing borrowing costs in the short term. But it would come at the expense of the currency itself. That is why I increasingly believe the next major crash could actually be an upward crash. Stocks may continue rising in nominal terms. Gold could surge. Real estate and hard assets may inflate even further. On paper, asset values appear strong and financial markets may even seem resilient. But underneath the surface, the purchasing power of the dollar continues eroding year after year.

That is what a soft default looks like. The government technically honors its obligations, but repays those obligations in increasingly devalued dollars. Savers lose purchasing power. Wage earners fall behind inflation. The middle class gets squeezed as the cost of living rises faster than incomes. Yet politically, inflation remains preferable because it spreads the pain gradually across society instead of concentrating it into one catastrophic event. I’ve even speculated that the Fed could wind up inventing new inflation numbers out of thin air for PR purposes if this happens: The Fed Will Invent New Inflation Numbers Out Of Thin Air

The second possibility is the hard default. This is the more chaotic and openly destructive scenario where policymakers lose control before they can inflate their way out of the problem. A hard default would not necessarily require the United States to formally announce that it is refusing to pay its debts. It could emerge through failed Treasury auctions, a debt ceiling accident, a severe liquidity freeze in the bond market, delayed government obligations, or a broader sovereign confidence crisis that causes investors to rapidly reassess the safety of U.S. debt.

In that environment, Treasury yields could spike violently higher while banks and financial institutions holding large amounts of long-duration government debt come under enormous pressure. Credit markets could freeze. Equity markets would likely experience a rapid downward repricing before policymakers responded with emergency interventions. Government spending cuts and forced austerity measures could suddenly become unavoidable not because Washington chose discipline voluntarily, but because markets imposed discipline externally.

🔥 90% Off If You Subscribe Today. This coupon allows for 90% off of annual subscriptions and results in a 90%+ savings over paying the monthly rate for a subscription to the blog. You keep the discounted rate for as long as you wish to remain a subscriber. I will not be offering 90% off anytime again soon after the long weekend: Get 90% off forever

This is the scenario policymakers fear most because once sovereign confidence begins breaking apart, events move very quickly. Financial history repeatedly shows that debt crises tend to unfold slowly for years and then suddenly all at once. I see this as the less likely scenario, but between the two paths, I’d venture to guess we have 99% of what could possibly take place nailed down and out in the open.

I believe the soft default remains far more likely than the hard default for one simple reason: policymakers will do almost anything to avoid immediate collapse. They will print before they default. They will monetize debt before they accept a disorderly Treasury market. They will sacrifice the purchasing power of the currency before they willingly allow the government’s financing structure to implode.

Sorkin says he knows a crash is coming but does not know what form it will take. I think we can narrow it down much further than that. The next crisis will probably not look like 1929, and it may not even resemble 2008. The more likely scenario is an inflationary sovereign debt crisis disguised for a period of time as economic resilience. It will look like rising nominal asset prices, stubborn inflation, endless liquidity support, and growing pressure on the dollar itself as policymakers attempt to suppress yields and keep the Treasury market functioning.

Because ultimately, once long-term interest rates become politically intolerable, the Federal Reserve will face an impossible choice. It can defend the dollar by allowing yields to rise and risk detonating the debt structure, or it can defend the Treasury market through intervention and risk significantly higher inflation. Under a new Fed chair like Kevin Warsh, the options are still fundamentally the same. Policymakers can change the language, revise inflation metrics, redefine targets, and introduce new programs, but they cannot escape the underlying arithmetic.

History strongly suggests they will choose inflation. Not because it solves the problem, but because it delays the reckoning.

And that is ultimately where I disagree with Sorkin. I do not think the future crash is unknowable. I think the pressure points are already obvious. To me, the only real question is whether the United States defaults honestly through crisis or dishonestly through inflation. I’d bet on the latter, and as an investor it would make me keen to watch gold if it gets smacked lower an an initial shock to markets before the Fed intervenes. Because I could easily see a situation where gold keeps retreating, perhaps to $4,000 or lower, sharply moving lower during the initial shock, maybe to $3500 or lower, before doubling or tripling in the years after a Fed response that I believe could be very inflationary and push gold closer to $10,000 over time.

—

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand selected by me, have not been fact checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and are watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are just in case. If I’m long I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions.

As of May 20, 2026 I no longer actively trade (read my story here) and my accounts are managed by recurring contributions to trusted third parties and advisors and/or recurring contributions mostly to sector ETFs. Such advisors, through individual equities, options, index funds, mutual funds, ETFs, or other securities, may have positions in names that I know nothing about. Basically, I could own or not own anything at any point, and not have any idea about it.

And all positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double check them. I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided in this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures but can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 14:20

Dollar Dominance Remains Alive And Well

survivalnomics
-
0
Dollar Dominance Remains Alive And Well

Authored by Lance Roberts via RealInvestmentAdvice.com,

The dollar is supposed to be dying. We’ve heard that argument for the better part of a decade, and it’s getting louder, not quieter. The narrative goes that BRICS countries are building an alternative, that China is dumping Treasuries, that gold is replacing the dollar as the world’s reserve asset, and that Washington is so desperate to find buyers for the next debt issuance that it’s now offering dollar swap lines to Gulf states as a backdoor liquidity rescue. Make no mistake, the “Persistent Purveyors of Doom” have a story. However, the data doesn’t support any of it.

Dollar dominance isn’t fading. In fact, the events of late April 2026 just delivered the loudest counter-signal in years.

Thesis Vs. Reality

I’ve been arguing for years that the “dollar collapse” thesis confuses inflation with debasement. You can’t be debasing a currency that the rest of the world is fighting harder than ever to acquire. We covered the rebasement argument in our previous piece on the dollar’s plumbing, and in “The Dollar’s Death is Greatly Exaggerated.” The latest data only sharpens the case for dollar dominance.

According to the U.S. Treasury’s most recent Treasury International Capital report, released April 15 with February 2026 data, foreign residents purchased $101 billion of long-term U.S. securities in February alone. Net TIC inflows totaled $184.5 billion for the month. On top of that, foreign holders added $91.6 billion to their Treasury bill holdings. Total foreign ownership of U.S. Treasuries hit a record $9.49 trillion in February, up $198 billion in the month and $587 billion over the trailing 12 months. However, that headline number actually undercounts the reality. It excludes foreign holdings managed through U.S.-domiciled hedge funds and the Cayman Islands basis trade, which the Federal Reserve estimates pulls another $1.5 trillion of de facto foreign demand into the bid stack. Adjusted for that, true foreign-linked exposure runs closer to $11 trillion.

Beyond stock-of-debt figures, the flow data tells the same story. Indirect bidder participation, the auction proxy for foreign demand, has run consistently above 70% of accepted bids on recent benchmark issues. Bid-to-cover ratios on 10-year and 30-year auctions have held above 2.5 across multiple cycles. If the world were truly walking away from the dollar, we’d see weak auctions, tailing yields, and a steepening term premium driven by rejected supply. Instead, we see the opposite. The U.S. just printed roughly two-and-a-half trillion in deficits over the past year, and global investors absorbed every basis point of it.

That doesn’t sound like a fire sale. On the contrary, that looks like the strongest sustained demand for U.S. sovereign debt in history.

Why Central Bank Gold Buying Reinforces Dollar Dominance

Here’s the part of the story the doomers consistently get wrong. The gold bugs have built an entire belief system on a category error. Of course, central banks have been buying gold in size. The World Gold Council’s Q1 2026 Gold Demand Trends report, published April 29, shows central banks bought 244 tonnes of gold net in Q1 2026 alone, up 3 percent year-over-year. That extends 17 consecutive months of net official-sector purchases, even with gold prices peaking above $5,400 an ounce in January.3 Total Q1 physical gold demand reached 474 tonnes, the second-highest quarter on record. Furthermore, the WGC forecasts roughly 850 tonnes of central bank purchases for full-year 2026, on par with 2025 and consistent with the multi-year pace. The trend is real and significant. However, it is not, in any practical sense, an escape from the dollar.

Gold is priced in dollars. The LBMA Gold Price, the global benchmark used to mark central bank holdings, settles in U.S. dollars per ounce. When the People’s Bank of China, the National Bank of Poland, or the Reserve Bank of India accumulates gold, the value of those reserves is reported, audited, and benchmarked in U.S. dollars. Of course, the unit of account doesn’t change just because the asset does. Furthermore, when those same central banks need to deploy gold for liquidity, the counterparty pricing reverts to dollars. That applies whether the deployment is through swaps, repo, or sale. The gold and dollar markets are not parallel systems. They’re the same system, with gold serving as a dollar-priced reserve asset.

That distinction matters because it reframes the entire de-dollarization narrative. A central bank that shifts 5% of reserves from Treasuries into gold has not abandoned the dollar. Instead, it has rebalanced inside the dollar-priced reserve system. The same is true for the Bank for International Settlements gold swaps, the Shanghai Gold Exchange yuan-quoted contract, and even the Russian central bank’s pre-sanction accumulation. Every one of those positions has a dollar-equivalent value because dollars are how the world prices reserve wealth. Even when gold is bought, sold, or pledged, the cross-rate to USD is the reference point. There’s no other deep, liquid pricing rail. In that sense, gold accumulation reinforces dollar dominance rather than threatens it.

The same World Gold Council survey that gets cited to “prove” a dollar decline shows that 73% of central bank respondents expect a moderately or significantly lower USD share of reserves over the next five years. The doomers stop reading at that headline. The reality is that the IMF’s most recent COFER release, covering Q4 2025, puts the dollar’s share of allocated reserves at 56.77%. That figure is essentially flat versus the prior quarter, with most of the variation explained by exchange-rate effects rather than active selling.

Total foreign exchange reserves stood at $13.14 trillion at year-end 2025. The dollar’s share of reserves has fluctuated between roughly 56% and 72% over the past three decades. At every level, however, it has been a multiple of every other reserve currency combined. The euro sits at 20.25%, and the yen and pound around 5% each, with the yuan, despite all the hype, still under 2%.

Bessent’s Dollar Swaps Extend Dominance

Indeed, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has spent the last several weeks discussing the possibility of extending dollar swap lines to allies in the Persian Gulf and Asia, with the United Arab Emirates as the lead candidate. Predictably, the doomers have framed this as a fire-sale-prevention move, claiming that Washington is offering swaps to keep Gulf sovereigns from dumping Treasuries amid the Iran conflict. However, that reading misses the strategy entirely.

Bessent said it himself in plain language. In his April 22 testimony to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee, he stated that swap lines “are to maintain order in the dollar funding markets and to prevent the sale of U.S. assets in a disorderly way.” Two days later, in a coordinated X post, he went further: “Additional swap lines can benefit our nation by reinforcing dollar usage and liquidity internationally,” and “extending permanent swap lines can be a major first step in creating new U.S. dollar funding centers in the Gulf and Asia.” He closed with the line that defines the entire policy framework:

“Dollar dominance and reserve currency status are strengthened by constant long-term initiatives, including countering the growth of problematic, alternative payment systems.”

That’s not the language of a desperate Treasury Secretary trying to plug a leaky bid stack. On the contrary, that’s the language of a policymaker using monetary infrastructure to extend American financial reach. Swap lines are how Washington exports dollar liquidity. The 2008 crisis playbook used them defensively to backstop European and Japanese banks. Bessent is now reaching for the same tool offensively. He’s planting new dollar funding nodes in regions where alternative payment systems, including BRICS clearing rails and yuan-denominated commodity pricing, have been making noise.

Consider the geometry. Permanent swap line access turns a partner country’s central bank into a node of the dollar system. Once that line is in place, local banks have a guaranteed dollar liquidity backstop. As a result, there is no real incentive to develop a non-dollar alternative. The UAE flirted publicly with yuan-denominated oil pricing as recently as last year. A swap line eliminates that option in practice. It makes the dollar backstop too cheap and reliable to abandon. This is the same logic that has kept the existing G7 swap lines (Canada, ECB, Japan, UK, Switzerland) firmly inside the dollar orbit since the financial crisis.

Furthermore, this isn’t theoretical. Bessent has already run this playbook in practice. In September 2025, the Treasury used the Exchange Stabilization Fund to extend a $20 billion swap line to Argentina ahead of Milei’s pivotal October election. The strategic logic was identical. Reinforce dollar liquidity in a partner economy. Prevent disorderly Treasury liquidations during a political stress event. Lock the country into the dollar system at the moment of maximum strategic value. Bessent has publicly stated that the Argentina facility was fully repaid within months, validating the operational template. The UAE proposal extends the same framework to the Gulf, and the broader Asian conversation that Bessent referenced suggests the network is about to expand significantly.

Swap lines are the carrot. Sanctions are the stick. Bessent has been just as direct about the second tool as about the first, and the timing of the messaging is no accident.

Furthermore, in late April, the Treasury unveiled what it’s calling “Economic Fury,” a coordinated campaign to “systematically degrade Tehran’s ability to generate, move, and repatriate funds.” The mechanics are revealing. The U.S. Navy is enforcing a blockade of Iranian ports. Kharg Island oil storage is filling up because Iranian crude has nowhere to go. Tankers facilitating covert trade face direct sanctions exposure. Critically for this discussion, OFAC has already frozen $344 million in cryptocurrency wallets tied to the regime.

That last data point matters more than the doomers will admit. It directly validates the argument we made in our previous piece on digital dollar infrastructure. Stablecoin and crypto rails are not an escape from the dollar system. Instead, they’re an extension of it, with new enforcement capabilities attached. When Treasury can freeze nine-figure crypto positions through compliance pressure on issuers and exchanges, the supposed “uncensorable” alternative to dollar custody turns out to be more censorable, not less.

The reality is that dollar dominance is reinforced by both tools simultaneously. On the carrot side, you have liquidity provision, swap lines, digital dollar adoption, and the deep Treasury bid. On the stick side, you have sanctions reach, OFAC freezes, blacklisting, and naval enforcement of commodity flows. Of course, both capabilities are expanding, not contracting. Foreign reserve managers know this. Furthermore, they are also calculating that being inside the dollar orbit, even with custodial diversification, is far safer than being targeted by it.

The UAE OPEC Exit Validates the Strategy

Then came April 28. The UAE announced it was leaving both OPEC and OPEC+, dealing a heavy blow to the cartel and to its de facto leader, Saudi Arabia. The timing was not coincidental. Just six days earlier, Bessent had publicly endorsed an emergency dollar swap line for Abu Dhabi before the Senate. The UAE central bank governor, Khaled Mohamed Balama, had traveled to Washington during the IMF and World Bank spring meetings to meet with Bessent and Federal Reserve representatives.

Read the sequence carefully. First, Iran’s missile strikes hit Gulf infrastructure, and then the Strait of Hormuz closes. UAE faces a real liquidity stress event. Washington offers an emergency dollar backstop, security guarantees, and the deployment of Israel’s Iron Dome on UAE soil. Days later, the UAE walks out of the petroleum cartel that the doomers have spent years claiming was about to abandon the dollar in favor of a “petroyuan” alternative. Instead, the UAE just publicly chose the dollar bloc over its OPEC peers. The swap line offer didn’t avert a crisis through emergency liquidity. It reorganized a major Gulf state into the U.S. financial orbit at the moment of maximum strategic opportunity.

That is dollar dominance functioning exactly as Bessent described it in his testimony. Carrot first. Then, the strategic realignment is second. The petroyuan narrative just lost its most credible Gulf candidate.

Pushback: But What About De-Dollarization?

The strongest version of the de-dollarization argument runs as follows. After the 2022 sanctions on Russia froze roughly $300 billion in central bank reserves, every other sanction-vulnerable country had to reassess custodial risk. China shifted holdings from direct U.S. custody to Belgium and Luxembourg. BRICS expanded membership. The Saudi-Iran rapprochement, brokered partly by Beijing, signaled a regional pivot. In addition, Russia and China increased bilateral trade settled in yuan and rubles. All of this is true.

However, none of it actually undermines dollar dominance at the system level. Sanction-driven custodial diversification moves Treasuries from the New York Fed to Euroclear. Yet it doesn’t move them out of the Treasury market. China’s reported direct holdings have declined, but its total exposure, including third-country custody, has remained roughly flat. Furthermore, BRICS settlement still reverts to dollars at the cross-border invoicing layer. No participant wants to hold rubles, rupees, or yuan as a long-term store of value. Bilateral yuan settlement, despite the headlines, remains a sliver of total trade flows.

The reality is the doomers are confusing diversification with abandonment. Foreign reserve managers are doing two things at once. First, they’re spreading custodial risk across more jurisdictions. Second, they’re adding gold as a politically neutral hedge. Both moves leave the dollar as the dominant unit of account, the dominant settlement asset, and the dominant store of value. As shown above, the share has barely moved.

Beyond the traditional reserve channel, digital dollar infrastructure is rapidly expanding the dollar’s reach into emerging markets. Demand for dollar-denominated digital tokens has hit all-time highs in Latin America, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Tether’s Q1 2026 attestation, published May 1, confirmed direct and indirect U.S. Treasury exposure of approximately $141 billion as of March 31, against $191.8 billion in total assets and $183.5 billion in liabilities. The reserve buffer reached a record $8.23 billion, and Q1 net profit hit $1.04 billion. That makes Tether the 17th largest holder of U.S. Treasuries globally.

Furthermore, USDT circulation grew by more than $5 billion during April alone, pushing total supply above $188 billion. In Latin America, dollar-pegged digital tokens accounted for 40% of crypto purchases in 2025, surpassing Bitcoin’s share. The Bitso report on 10 million Latin American users described the trend bluntly as “digital dollarization.” That kind of grassroots demand is dollar dominance in action at the consumer layer.

The GENIUS Act, signed into law last July, created the first federal framework requiring permitted issuers to back tokens with high-quality liquid assets, primarily short-term Treasuries. The April 2026 FinCEN/OFAC proposed rule extends sanctions enforcement directly into the issuer layer. As a result, Washington can freeze, block, or seize dollar-denominated digital tokens through the issuer’s compliance program. That isn’t a workaround away from the dollar system; it’s an extension of it, with new enforcement rails attached.

What This Means for Investors

The investment implications cut several ways. First, foreign demand for U.S. Treasuries is structurally strong, which keeps a bid under the long end of the curve even as deficits widen. Indeed, that’s bullish for duration. Second, central bank gold buying creates a price floor under bullion that didn’t exist in prior cycles. Investors should hold some allocation to gold. However, they should hold it for the right reason. It’s a dollar-priced inflation hedge and a political risk diversifier, not a fiat escape hatch. Finally, the digital dollar buildout is creating a new investable vertical. Custody, payments infrastructure, and compliant on-ramp providers (CRCL, COIN, V, MA, JPM, BK) sit at the intersection of fiat and digital dollar plumbing.

The contrarian read is this. If you bought into the dollar collapse narrative over the last five years, you missed gains in U.S. equities. You missed the Treasury bid that compressed yields during recent risk-off episodes. You probably overweighted gold and Bitcoin at peaks. The bottom line is that the trade that has worked across cycles is owning U.S. assets denominated in U.S. dollars. Diversifying across the dollar-priced reserve system has worked. Diversifying against it has not.

What does this mean for portfolio positioning right now? It means duration risk is rewarded by structural foreign demand. Equity risk is supported by the dollar-priced earnings of multinational franchises. Gold belongs in the portfolio at a strategic weight, not a doomsday weight. Furthermore, investors should pay close attention to which firms are positioning for the digital dollar buildout. That’s where the next leg of dollar dominance is happening.

The doomers will keep selling fear. That’s the business model. Make no mistake, real risks exist. Fiscal trajectory, debt servicing costs, sanctions blowback, and CBDC competition are all worth tracking carefully. However, none of those risks add up to the collapse narrative being pitched on social media every other day. The reality on the tape is that foreign Treasury demand is at an all-time high. Central bank gold buying continues to reinforce dollar pricing. Swap lines are being deployed offensively to extend dollar reach. Digital dollar infrastructure is colonizing real-time commerce in emerging markets.

If the dollar were truly dying, none of this would be happening. The fact that all of it is happening simultaneously tells you everything you need to know about where the smart money is positioning. The dollar isn’t dying. It’s evolving. And dollar dominance is going to be the central pricing rail of the global financial system for a long time yet.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 13:00

Antares Signs World’s First Multi-Year Commercial HALEU Supply Deal With Urenco

survivalnomics
-
0
Antares Signs World’s First Multi-Year Commercial HALEU Supply Deal With Urenco

Antares has secured the first long-term commercial contract for High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) enrichment services from Urenco, a critical milestone for the microreactor sector that has long been starved for reliable Western fuel supply.

The agreement gives Antares access to HALEU produced at Urenco’s new enrichment facility in the United Kingdom, scheduled to come online in 2031. While still years away, the deal marks the first time a Western supplier has committed to multi-year commercial HALEU deliveries outside of government allocations.

The decision by the leading microreactor developer in the US to sign their first long-term contract with an international supplier brings immediate concern to the speed of development in the US for the expansion of enrichment capacity. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent (with billions more pledged) on companies including Centrus and General Matter by the federal government. Yet Antares chose to buy their enrichment services overseas…

“We are pleased to execute with Antares the world’s first multi-year contract for the supply of HALEU, which marks an important milestone in the maturation of this new market,” said Magnus Mori, Urenco’s Head of Advanced Fuels.

Antares CEO Jordan Bramble was equally direct: “Microreactors fueled with HALEU will be more performant and more economical. This partnership ensures that when we scale beyond material allocated by the federal government, we will have commercial supply ready to meet our needs.”

Antares is one of the more advanced microreactor developers, with a sodium heat-pipe design, factory production model, and recent selection for the Department of the Air Force’s Advanced Nuclear Power for Installations program. 

The company is on track to take their first reactor critical prior to July 4th. 

HALEU remains the single biggest constraint for the entire advanced reactor wave. While the U.S. has made real regulatory progress and DOE allocations have helped early movers, commercial-scale Western production has been painfully slow. Most developers are still relying on limited government stockpiles or waiting on facilities that won’t be ready until the early 2030s.

This Urenco-Antares deal doesn’t solve the near-term crunch, but it does show that serious commercial players are finally moving beyond announcements and into actual supply agreements.
 

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 12:40

NATO Condemns Russia After Drone Smashes Into Romanian Apartments: ‘Grave Escalation’

survivalnomics
-
0
NATO Condemns Russia After Drone Smashes Into Romanian Apartments: ‘Grave Escalation’

A Russian overnight attack on Ukraine reportedly involved an errant drone crashing into a 10-story apartment block in neighboring Romania, which is a member of NATO.

“We condemn Russia’s recklessness, and NATO will continue to strengthen our defenses against all threats, including drones,” a NATO spokesperson said on X, in an initial reaction.

 Romanian Department for Emergency Situations handout, via Reuters

Romanian officials described that during the Russian military’s assault on Ukraine, which has basically become nightly at this point, a Russian drone slammed into the residential building in the southeastern city of Galati – resulting in an explosion and a fire that injured two people.

The Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry condemned the “grave and irresponsible escalation from Russia” while further declaring it has issued formal request for more anti-drone defense measures from NATO.

“Romania has informed allies and NATO’s secretary-general about the circumstances and requested measures to accelerate the transfer of anti-drone capabilities to Romania,” the ministry said.

While Romania and other countries which border Ukraine have witnessed ‘errant’ drones and missiles come across the border before, this is the first time Romania in particular has suffered casualties as a result of a projectile hitting a densely populated city or area.

Romania has said that drone fragments have fallen on its territory several of dozens of times – the vast majority or nearly all of these happening without injury or serious incident.

Reuters details that “Romania’s emergency response agency said on Friday a fire broke out in a 10th floor apartment after the drone struck the building’s roof and exploded.” The report indicated that “Two people were receiving medical treatment on site, it said, adding 70 people had evacuated.”

The Kremlin has denied that Russian forces were behind the incident, while state media suggested the drone came from Ukrainian forces:

Moscow denied the allegations, arguing that there is no definitive proof that the drones were Russian.

Several suspected Ukrainian drones have veered into the airspace of the Baltic states in recent months. On May 7, a UAV damaged four empty oil storage tanks in eastern Latvia near the Russian border. Moscow has accused the Baltic states of allowing Ukraine to use their airspace to conduct strikes deep inside Russia, which the NATO members have denied.

In prior recent instances of drones entering neighboring airspace, NATO jets were scrambled – and in some cases drones are safely brought down via electronic intercept means.

Video of drone crash. Romania’s military said it could not safely intercept over densely populated areas:

But each instance creates new tensions between Russia and NATO, and the typical accusations and threats then fly. The Kremlin has of late been especially alarmed at the Trump administration transferring 5,000 US troops from Germany to Poland, near Russia’s doorstep.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 12:00

Iran State Media Says Trump’s Optimistic Claims On Deal Are “Mix Of Truth & Lies”

survivalnomics
-
0
Iran State Media Says Trump’s Optimistic Claims On Deal Are “Mix Of Truth & Lies”

Summary

  • Trump repeats conditions on Iran for lifting US naval blockade, oil pushed lower. Fars responds: “Mix of truth & lies.”
  • Trump vows to ‘unearth’ and gain control of nuclear dust in ‘cooperation’ with Iran and/or China, says no money will be exchanged with Iran, and that it ‘must agree’ to never have a nuclear weapon (Truth Social).
  • NY Times reports surprising element of the Iran peace draft deal: a proposed investment fund for Iran – reportedly $300 billion.
  • Tehran confirms MOU stalled, but is being reviewed, amid lack of trust in negotiating with Washington.
  • The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

US x Iran permanent peace deal by June 30, 2026?
Yes 38% · No 63%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

*  *  *

Trump: Iran’s Uranium will be unearthed by the United States; Fars: Trump’s claims “mix of truth and lies”

These Truth Social messages are starting to appear uncannily similar to ones already issued weeks ago. But this seems more confirmation that there is no MOU which has been ‘finalized’ – but that some key things have been agreed to.

  • Trump is again saying the US will get the ‘nuclear dust’
  • Iran “must agree” to never have a nuclear weapon
  • No toll system for Hormuz
  • Removal of all sea mines
  • “No money will be exchanges until further notice.”

 

Oil pushed lower on the headlines via Trump’s post…

But amid the return to some ‘optimism’ in headlines, there are the usual caveats and counternarratives (likely accurate):

Iran Clarifies Deal ‘Not Finalized’ Amid Lack Of Trust

Iran’s Tasnim reports Friday that the US-Iran Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is not yet finalized, and that Thursday’s flurry of Western media headlines about an agreement finally being reached were inaccurate.

“The text is not finalized yet and the account in Western media is not precise,” a fresh statement indicates. Official confirmation will be announced if it does get to the point of being finalized, Tasnim notes. The report cited an Iranian official to say that “the text of the possible memorandum of understanding has had changes over the past few days.”

The warring sides are attempting to lock in a 60-day extended ceasefire, during which time they will get back to the table – and that’s when finer details like how to address Iran’s stockpile of highly enriched uranium will be dealt with. It is now day 91, and according to the latest Friday:

Iranian Parliament Speaker and top negotiator Ghalibaf says: “We have no trust in guarantees or words.”

Late Thursday, US Vice President J.D. Vance indicated that President Trump has not approved, at a moment Washington is insisting the nuclear issue be more front and center as part of the MOU.

However, the Iranians have consistently said their nuclear program is not up for negotiation toward ending the war – but that it is something that can be talked about once the conflict closes.

According to a summary of the latest on the stalled MOU from an Al Jazeera correspondent: 

Diplomatic efforts to preserve the ceasefire between the United States and Iran have continued behind the scenes, with officials signaling progress towards a framework that could open the door to formal negotiations after weeks of conflict and disruption across the Gulf and beyond.

Despite the optimism, questions remain over the timing and scope of any agreement.

Iranian media reports suggested discussions are continuing and that key details have yet to be finalized, while both sides continue to navigate sensitive issues, including Iran’s nuclear program and security in the Gulf.

Ghalibaf: We Achieved Concessions Through Missiles, Not Dialogue

More from Iran’s chief negotiator in a Friday update:

What has become clear is that US and international media reports have consistently proven premature, too out front, thinly sourced, and ultimately inaccurate in their generally optimistic claims of a deal being ‘finalized’ or else ‘imminent’.

Iran Threatens ‘Utter Ruin’ on US-Gulf-Israel if War Resumes

In the meantime, Iran’s ongoing threats of an escalated, protracted war happen to be very clear:

The Revolutionary Guards said any renewed conflict would spread “far beyond the region,” threatening “crushing blows” and “utter ruin” in places opponents “cannot even imagine.”

The warnings come after a war that saw Iran target US bases, Israeli cities and critical infrastructure in Gulf Arab states, while effectively shutting shipping through the Strait of Hormuz and triggering a global energy shock.

The Islamic Republic has also been touting new “tools” to use against its enemies, per CNN:

Last week, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi warned that any future retaliation would “feature many more surprises,” while Iran’s military threatened to open “new fronts” using “new tools.” Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, Iran’s top negotiator, said the armed forces had used the ceasefire period to rebuild their capabilities “at the highest level.”

Some pundits fear that such references to “new fronts” could mean either the closure of the Bab al-Mandeb Strait in the Red Sea, or even the possibility of missiles reaching Europe.

Umud Shokri, an energy strategist at George Mason University, has explained in a statement, “A simultaneous crisis in Bab al-Mandeb and the Strait of Hormuz would be far more serious, potentially affecting both Red Sea trade and Persian Gulf energy flows, which would raise oil prices, freight rates, and inflationary pressure worldwide.”

Still, the Trump administration is pressing for a deal which would make its Iran gambit look like ‘victory’ – something which finally reopens energy transit points and sees the removal of highly enriched uranium from Iran. Tehran leaders, however, don’t appear in the mood to allow Washington to have its cake and eat it too.

More Latest Headlines

More latest Iran developments via Newsquawk:

  • Many points regarding the Iranian nuclear file have been resolved; Iran has agreed to international oversight of its nuclear facilities to prevent their dismantling, Al Arabiya reported citing sources. Iran wants to transfer the enriched uranium to China with a commitment not to deliver it to America.
  • Chairman of the Iranian National Security Committee of the Iranian Parliament said there are no plans to transfer enriched uranium out of the country, Asharq reported.
  • Iran Deputy for Foreign Policy and International Security Ali Baqeri held separate meetings in Moscow with the Foreign Policy Advisor to Brazil’s President and the Secretary General of Egypt’s National Security Council.
  • IRGC Commander said Iran forces are ready to act on Supreme Leader’s order and enemies should not make mistakes as they will get themselves and others into trouble.
  • Iran military source said US drone was intercepted near Bushehr in southern Iran, according to Al Jazeera.
  • US Vice President Vance said that US President Trump is not yet ready to endorse the Iran agreement, while Vance noted that US and Iran made a lot of progress towards a ceasefire deal, according to AFP. Vance said US and Iran are at odds on uranium enrichment and stockpiles, according to SNN.
  • White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller stating in an interview with Fox News that US President Trump is directly involved in negotiations with Iran.
  • US President Trump said we completely sank the Iranian Navy and destroyed their air force, did not target all of Iran’s military leadership so that what happened in Iraq would not be repeated.
  • US military said Iran’s state TV claim that Iranian forces downed a US aircraft near Bushehr is false and no US aircraft was shot down by Iran, with all US air assets are accounted for.
  • US VP Vance said US and Iran are exchanging proposals regarding some drafting points including issue of enrichment, adds time is still early to know when an agreement with Iran will be reached and if it will happen at all.
  • US Treasury imposes fresh sanctions targeting Iran’s military oil sales, according to Reuters. IRNA reported US sanctions 25 individuals, firms and vessels over Iran oil.
  • US President Trump said that US has all the cards, Iran has been defeated militarily, according to a Fox interview.
  • Al Hadath posted Iranian television reported “the downing of an American fighter jet” in the vicinity of Bushehr, with no American confirmations.
  • US official denies what Iranian TV announced about downing any American plane near Bushehr, according to Al Hadath.
  • Israel’s Channel 12, citing military sources, said “The army recommends to the political leadership intensifying the air and ground strikes in Lebanon”.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 11:40

Ferrari Vs Tesla: $640K Luce EV Loses Key Speed And Range Battles To Model S Plaid

survivalnomics
-
0
Ferrari Vs Tesla: $640K Luce EV Loses Key Speed And Range Battles To Model S Plaid

Authored by Aamir Khollam via Interesting Engineering,

Ferrari’s upcoming electric grand tourer, the Luce, has already sparked intense debate online. Much of that attention centers on its unconventional styling. Yet beyond the design discussion, the numbers reveal an interesting comparison against one of the EV market’s most established performance sedans: the Tesla Model S Plaid.

The matchup is far from equal in price or positioning. Ferrari plans to launch the Luce at roughly $640,000, while Tesla’s Model S Plaid starts near $95,000. Ferrari also intends to keep production limited, preserving the exclusivity tied to the brand. Tesla, meanwhile, sells the Plaid in far greater numbers worldwide.

Still, both vehicles target buyers seeking extreme electric performance, making the comparison difficult to ignore.

Performance Numbers Compared

On paper, Ferrari takes a narrow lead in outright power. The Luce produces 1,050 horsepower from four electric motors, while the Model S Plaid delivers 1,020 horsepower through a tri-motor setup.

Ferrari’s approach goes beyond raw output. Each wheel receives its own dedicated motor, allowing advanced torque vectoring and sharper handling control. Ferrari engineers claim the setup will preserve the brand’s traditional driving feel despite the shift to an electric platform.

Tesla counters with proven straight-line performance. The Model S Plaid still launches harder, reaching 60 mph in under two seconds. Ferrari estimates the Luce will hit the same mark in roughly 2.4 seconds. Tesla also claims a higher top speed, touching 200 mph compared to Ferrari’s projected 193 mph.

Battery And Charging Edge

Ferrari equips the Luce with a larger 122 kWh battery pack. Tesla’s Plaid uses a battery closer to 100 kWh. The Luce also benefits from an 800-volt electrical architecture capable of supporting up to 350 kW DC fast charging.

That charging advantage could reduce downtime during long-distance travel, assuming drivers access compatible high-speed chargers. Tesla’s current V3 Supercharger network peaks at around 250 kW.

Despite the smaller battery, Tesla still holds the range advantage. The Model S Plaid carries an estimated range of about 348 miles, while Ferrari targets roughly 280 miles for the Luce. The Ferrari’s additional weight likely contributes to the gap. Early figures place the Luce near 4,982 pounds.

Tesla also maintains an advantage in software maturity. The Model S Plaid includes Tesla’s Full Self-Driving suite, although the system still requires driver supervision. Ferrari has not introduced a comparable autonomous driving package for the Luce.

Exclusivity Versus Accessibility

The massive price difference ultimately shapes the entire comparison. Buyers could purchase several Model S Plaids for the cost of a single Ferrari Luce.

Yet Ferrari is not chasing the same customer base as Tesla. The Luce competes as much with ultra-luxury brands like Rolls-Royce and Bentley as it does with mainstream performance EVs.

The Luce also represents a major milestone for Ferrari’s future. Designed with input from Jony Ive and Marc Newson, the EV signals Ferrari’s full entry into the electric era.

Even so, the comparison highlights Tesla’s lasting influence on the segment. Years after launch, the Model S Plaid remains the benchmark many high-performance EVs still chase.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 11:40

“The Real Part Of This Economy Is Not Doing Well”: Ed Dowd Warns ‘Just Wait ‘Til The AI Bubble Bursts’

survivalnomics
-
0
“The Real Part Of This Economy Is Not Doing Well”: Ed Dowd Warns ‘Just Wait ‘Til The AI Bubble Bursts’

Via Greg Hunter’s USAWatchdog.com,

Wall Street money manager and financial analyst Ed Dowd of PhinanceTechnologies.com warned at the beginning of April that the economy was already rolling over. 

He said “Private Credit Problems are Ending the Party.”  Just 10 days ago, BlackRock and other firms with so-called private credit are  locking up investors’ cash because of a wave of redemptions.  Dowd predicted this, and the sagging economy is not going to be getting any better anytime soon. 

If you thought private credit was a drag on the economy, then the Iran war is going to be a boat anchor.  Dowd says:

“The longer this situation persists, the likelihood of oil drifting higher is going to happen.

 We have two scenarios, and one is oil peaks out at $125, and this gets resolved by May.  Inflation would peak around 5%…

We are at the point now, if this does not get resolved soon, oil prices could continue to drift higher…

We have a second scenario where we get $200 to $250 a barrel oil, which was our worst-case scenario. 

If that happens, inflation will peak out at around 11% by our models…”

Martin Armstrong said two weeks ago that gasoline prices could go to $9 a gallon.  Dowd agrees with Armstrong and says you might get $10 a gallon gas in a worst-case scenario.  Dowd adds:

“I see oil going a lot higher, which will cause a tremendous amount of demand destruction and a recession that I think is coming anyway. 

It will be even deeper than we have forecasted. 

It will cause layoffs and economic growth to go into recessionary territory.  The prices of commodities will collapse as deflation sets in.  

The solution to high commodity prices is high commodity prices because it creates demand destruction.”

So, what’s the Fed going to do?  Dowd thinks,

“The Fed could raise rates to combat the headline inflation.  My best guess is they do nothing at the June FOMC meeting. 

They are certainly not going to cut until they see the economic growth slowing…

Depending on this war . . . the real part of this economy, housing, is not doing well and rolling over. 

We are just waiting on the AI bubble to finally burst . . . we are close to that topping out soon.”

Dowd is still bullish on gold and silver long term, but short term, it may get sold off to raise cash like Turkey just did. 

Silver will have stronger headwinds than gold given the deflation that is coming. 

Dowd does not see China’s economic woes getting any better.  Dowd predicted China’s economic problems months ago, and Wall Street is just now catching up on the bad news.  Dowd says,

“China had 8% negative growth in the first quarter.”

Dowd goes into a deep dive on the severe economic problems facing China. 

Dowd points out big problems in housing and says it’s cheaper to rent a house than to own one. 

Dowd also predicts the Fed will be forced to cut interest rates in early 2027 because the deflation will be so severe.

In closing, Dowd says, “This is the normal credit cycle…”

”  The credit cycle is old and aging, and we are seeing the credit cycle get chinks in the armor with the private credit situation, which is effectively frozen.  This was credit growth that happened in 2024 and 2025.”

There is much more in the 44-minute interview.

Join Greg Hunter of USAWatchdog as he goes One-on-One with money manager and investment expert Ed Dowd as he explains why we are seeing big trouble for the US economy.   Dowd predicted this was coming in January with his report called “US Economy Outlook 2026.”

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 10:40

“False”: Musk Denies Bloomberg Report About SpaceX IPO Valuation Drop

survivalnomics
-
0
“False”: Musk Denies Bloomberg Report About SpaceX IPO Valuation Drop

Summary:

  • Musk says the Bloomberg report is “false” 

  • SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target, as per Bloomberg

Musk Rejects Bloomberg Report 

Yet again, corporate media is pushing fake news against Elon Musk.

This time, Musk called a Bloomberg report that cited unnamed sources and claimed SpaceX had lowered its IPO valuation target “false.” 

SpaceX Reportedly Lowers IPO Valuation Target 

SpaceX is targeting a valuation of at least $1.8 trillion in its upcoming initial public offering, Bloomberg reported, citing people familiar with the matter. This is below an earlier goal of more than $2 trillion.

In practice, the initial IPO valuation target is a marketing range, not a final number. Therefore, any valuation shifts ahead of the trading day would not be unusual. This suggests advisers are calibrating the deal to what investors are willing to absorb, especially given the massive proposed raise of up to $75 billion.

The target is settling lower after consultations with advisers and investors, the people said, asking not to be identified as the information isn’t public.

Details of an IPO, such as size and valuation, are typically adjusted ahead of pricing based on feedback from stakeholders, the people said.

SpaceX is seeking to raise as much as $75 billion, people familiar with the matter have said, which would make it the biggest IPO of all time. -BBG

The May 21 SpaceX S-1 filing revealed that Elon Musk’s space company is much more than a reusable-rocket and satellite-internet company. It now encompasses AI services, infrastructure, orbital data centers, and a claimed $28.5 trillion total addressable market.

Earlier this month, Reuters reported that the IPO is set to price on June 11, with a June 12 debut. The stock is expected to list on Nasdaq and Nasdaq Texas under the ticker “SPCX.”

Polymarket bets show a 90% chance that SpaceX’s market capitalization will be $1.8 trillion on the IPO date.

SpaceX IPO closing market cap above $1.8T?
Yes 90% · No 10%
View full market & trade on Polymarket

There was speculation earlier this week of a SpaceX-Tesla merger in 2027. Wedbush Securities’ Dan Ives has those odds at 80%.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 10:07

Kicking The Can On A Ceasefire “Which Does Not Solve Anything”

survivalnomics
-
0
Kicking The Can On A Ceasefire “Which Does Not Solve Anything”

Bas van Geffen, Senior Macro Strategist at Rabobank

Both Bloomberg and Axios report that the US and Iran have reached a tentative deal to extend the ceasefire by 60 days as they engage in further negotiations over Iran’s nuclear programme. However, Tasnim reported that the text of the memorandum of understanding had not been finalized.

US Vice President Vance said that the two sides are still “going back and forth on a couple of language points,” which reportedly includes the wording on Iran’s nuclear capacity. But the Vice President said that Iran appears to be negotiating in good faith, paving the way for Trump’s approval of the ceasefire extension.

While negotiators are trying to dot the i’s and cross the t’s of the memorandum, President Trump has reportedly asked for a couple of days to think about the final deal.

Energy prices fell further on the news that a deal could –again– be imminent, after the US administration made similar claims last week. Brent futures are currently down about 10% on the week. That, in turn, is lifting optimism in other markets. Yields dropped, and green figures returned on stock exchanges.

Admittedly, a 60-day extension would lessen some of the near-term tail risks – although both sides have accused each other of violating the current ceasefire. Just the past day, Kuwait intercepted a missile that Iran had fired at a US base, causing the US to respond with new “defensive strikes” on Iran.

More importantly, a ceasefire does not solve anything, unless the US and Iran manage to agree on the key sticking points during that extended ceasefire.

Treasury Secretary Bessent reminded everyone that Trump’s three red lines are unchanged: Hormuz must reopen, Tehran must end its nuclear programme, and Iran must transfer its highly enriched uranium. As we noted earlier this week, a nuclear deal still seems highly unlikely at this juncture.

Likewise, Iran still believes that it can effectively control traffic through the Strait of Hormuz, together with Oman, allowing it to put down toll booths along the strait. Even though this would allow paying ships to cross, that’s not a “reopening” in Trump’s view.

The US imposed sanctions on the Hormuz Strait Shipping Authority, which is supposed to collect the toll. And Bessent warned that “Oman, in particular, should know that the ⁠U.S. Treasury will aggressively target any actors involved –directly or indirectly– in ⁠facilitating tolls for the Strait.” President Trump even threatened to “blow them up” if Oman works with Iran to control shipping through Hormuz.

It still seems unlikely that the key sticking points will be resolved soon. On that basis, we have shifted our baseline for Hormuz to remain closed for up to three more months before we see a crisis resolution. Only if either the US or Iran blinks regarding the nuclear programme, could we see a quicker end to the conflict.

Meanwhile, tensions are rising in other parts of the globe too. Talks between the US and Cuba appear to have stalled, while Cuba and China discussed agricultural cooperation, food shipments, and political support. This increases the risk that the US may resort to military aggression. China, meanwhile, claims that a Dutch frigate entered their waters – which the Netherlands disputed; and a Canadian frigate transited the Taiwan Strait, defying Chinese warnings not to do so.

And, as we’ve noted before, even if the US-Iran conflict is resolved sooner, it would still take a substantial amount of time before energy flows return to some form of normalcy. So, some further inflationary pressure is inevitable.

Policymakers are also starting to realize this. The ECB’s Schnabel noted recently that “even if the war ended today, a lot of damage has already been done to energy infrastructure and global supply chains.” She adds that higher costs will probably trickle through global supply chains and into higher goods prices.

The accounts of the April ECB meeting suggest that Schnabel is not the only policymaker who’s concerned about the size and the persistence of the inflation shock. It therefore looks like a June hike is all but a done deal. According to the minutes, some policymakers said that the decision to hold or hike was already a “close call” for them in April. This group essentially indicated that they would not have opposed a rate hike last month, if this had been proposed as the path forward.

Today’s inflation data are further cementing the case for a rate hike. French HICP inflation rose to 2.8% y/y, while Spanish HICP inflation edged up to 3.6%. Meanwhile, business surveys indicate that companies expect to raise selling prices further – although selling price expectations eased a bit in May, compared to the steep increases in the two months prior.

And, worryingly, consumers’ medium-term inflation expectations have started to pick up alongside the rise in current inflation rates. As Schnabel pointed out, these shifts in consumer expectations could be a first indication that expectations are de-anchoring.

However, we still believe that the current backdrop is less conducive to broader and protracted inflationary pressures than 2021-2022. Yesterday’s business confidence survey indicated that employment expectations continue to score below the long-term average. The labor hoarding index remains above its long-term average, but businesses appear to hoard less labor than before.

Tyler Durden
Fri, 05/29/2026 – 10:00

1...190191192...4,308Page 191 of 4,308

About Us

Popular Category

Editor Picks