Super Micro Computer said an external review of its business found no evidence of wrongdoing and that the company will appoint new top financial leadership.

The company is looking for a new chief financial officer, chief compliance officer and general counsel, it said in a statement Monday.

On November 5, 2024, the Company announced that the Special Committee’s investigation preliminarily found that the Audit Committee had acted independently and that there was no evidence of fraud or misconduct on the part of management or the Board of Directors.

The Special Committee’s final findings support those initial findings, and the Company is now disclosing the details of the Review, along with measures recommended by the Special Committee.

The Special Committee’s investigation was intended to assess whether the information brought to the Audit Committee’s attention by EY, and certain other matters identified during the Review, raised substantial concerns about (i) the integrity of the Company’s senior management and Audit Committee, (ii) the commitment of the Company’s senior management and Audit Committee to ensuring that the Company’s financial statements are materially accurate, (iii) the Audit Committee’s independence and ability to provide proper oversight over matters relating to financial reporting, and (iv) the tone at the top of the Company with regard to rehiring certain former employees and financial reporting.

The Special Committee’s key findings are summarized as follows:

• Management and Audit Committee integrity: The evidence reviewed by the Special Committee did not raise any substantial concerns about the integrity of Supermicro’s senior management or Audit Committee, or their commitment to ensuring that the Company’s financial statements are materially accurate.

• Audit Committee independence: As to the matters investigated by the Special Committee, the Audit Committee demonstrated appropriate independence and generally provided proper oversight over matters relating to financial reporting. The Special Committee also had no reservations about the independence of the Audit Committee and each of its members.

• Appropriate tone at the top: With respect to the rehiring of former employees, the tone at the top of the Company was appropriate and fully consistent with a commitment to proper financial reporting and legal compliance.

And due to the lack of problems found, the board says no restatement of reported financials is expected.

As announced on November 18, 2024, in its compliance plan to Nasdaq, the Company believes it will be able to complete its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2024, and its Quarterly Report on 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2024 and become current with its periodic reports within the discretionary period available to the Nasdaq staff to grant.

As previously disclosed, the Company does not anticipate any restatements of its quarterly reports for the fiscal year 2024 ended June 30, 2024, or for prior fiscal years.

Specifically, with reference to Revenue recognition and sales practices

• Based on a thorough review of 52 sales transactions from April 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, including two sales transactions specifically designated by EY, the Special Committee did not disagree with any of the Company’s revenue recognition conclusions for any quarter during this period.

• The Special Committee reviewed underlying sales transaction information (including sales orders, purchase orders, shipping documents, payment information, and the Company’s revenue recognition determinations), discussed transactions with accounting personnel, and conducted email reviews as appropriate. The sample was focused on sales that included large dollar amounts, involvement of rehires, discussions with now former auditors, customers with high sales concentrations at quarter ends, and/or changes in delivery dates.

• The Review also examined merchandise returns and warranty practices to assess if there was any pattern or practice of shipping non-working or incomplete products near quarter ends.

• Based on its investigation, the Special Committee did not disagree with the Company’s revenue recognition conclusions. Additionally, the Special Committee did not find evidence of a pattern or practice of the Company shipping incomplete products at or near quarter ends to recognize revenue.

• The evidence reviewed by the Special Committee did not give rise to any substantial concerns about the integrity of Supermicro’s senior management or Audit Committee, or their commitment to ensuring that the Company’s financial statements are materially accurate.

• The Audit Committee demonstrated appropriate independence and generally provided proper oversight over matters relating to financial reporting.

For now the market is happy about this…

Do we really trust the ‘independent’ investigation after an external auditor abandoned ship?

Among its findings, the independent Special Committee determined that the resignation of the Company’s former registered public accounting firm, Ernst & Young LLP (“EY”) and the conclusions EY stated in its resignation letter were not supported by the facts examined in the Review, the Special Committee’s interim findings reported to EY on October 2, 2024, or the Special Committee’s final findings.

Did EY just make it up?

That’s quite a dive from $122 to $17…

And, having found no evidence of misconduct, why did the company fire CFO David Weigand, and seek a chief compliance officer, chief accounting officer, and general counsel?

Back in April, when Intel stock was in freefall and yet still about 50% higher than where it is today, we said that it was time for the company’s well-meaning if absolutely clueless CEO, Pat Gelsinger, to resign.

Pat Gelsinger, it’s time pic.twitter.com/I421ZwSV9c

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) April 25, 2024

A few months later we followed up with an appeal that was pretty clear:

*INTEL SUSPENDING DIVIDEND STARTING 4Q 2024
*INTEL ANNOUNCES $10B COST REDUCTION PLAN

Someone. Fire. Gelsinger.

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) August 1, 2024

If only he had listened to us then, the once-iconic chipmaker would have been in a far better place today, and the outcome would still be the same because early on Monday Intel reported that Pat Gelsinger fired himself, when he and retired from the company and stepped down from its board of directors just as the company is in the middle of trying to execute on a turnaround plan.

Intel CFO David Zinsner and Intel Products CEO Michelle Johnston Holthaus are serving as interim co-CEOs while the board searches for Gelsinger’s replacement, the company said in a statement. Frank Yeary, independent chair of the board of Intel, will serve as interim executive chair.

Gelsinger’s departure is hitting at a tumultuous time for the US chipmaker. Once the industry leader in computer processors, the company is now working to preserve cash to fund a turnaround plan — one Gelsinger called the “most audacious rebuilding plan” in corporate history. The company has fallen out of investor favor amid a shift in the semiconductor industry toward artificial intelligence hardware. Companies are spending on computers built around accelerator chips for AI, an area where Intel’s offerings have barely made a dent.

“We know that we have much more work to do at the company and are committed to restoring investor confidence,” Yeary said.

“As a board, we know first and foremost that we must put our product group at the center of all we do. Our customers demand this from us, and we will deliver for them.”

It would have delivered for them long ago by firing Gelsinger, as the spike in the stock this morning makes abundantly clear.

And now just find a willing buyer since the stock is trading at a 50% discount just to the SOTP liquidation value of the foundries.

Authored by Brayden Lindrea via CoinTelegraph.com,

Elon Musk filed another motion to block ChatGPT-creator OpenAI from converting to a for-profit enterprise, while also alleging that it has been engaging in anti-competitive practices.

Musk accused OpenAI, its CEO Sam Altman, president Greg Brockman and stakeholder Microsoft of violating terms of Musk’s “foundational contributions to the charity,” according to his motion for a preliminary injunction filed on Nov. 30.

Musk co-founded OpenAI in 2015 and was an early board member until he left the company in 2018. 

He has since launched xAI — the firm behind AI chatbot Grok — which he said is falling victim to OpenAI’s anti-competitive practices.

“OpenAI’s path from a non-profit to for-profit behemoth is replete with per se anticompetitive practices, flagrant breaches of its charitable mission, and rampant self-dealing,” Musk’s lawyers wrote.

Extract from Elon Musk’s motion in the US District Court Northern District of California. Source: CourtListener

Through a “series of exclusive arrangements” with Microsoft, the two companies have engaged in “predatory practices,” enabling them to seize control of almost 70% of the generative AI market, lawyers for Musk said, adding:

“Microsoft and OpenAI now seek to cement this dominance by cutting off competitors’ access to investment capital, while continuing to benefit from years’ worth of shared competitively sensitive information during generative AI’s formative years.”

Allowing this to continue will hurt xAI and the public, which has become increasingly concerned about “rushed” and “unsafe” AI products, they added.

California law allows a nonprofit to convert to a for-profit stock corporation, but not to a limited liability company.

OpenAI said it remains nonprofit at its core but has established a for-profit subsidiary capable of issuing equity to raise capital and hire world-class talent. Still, those tasks would be administered at the direction of the nonprofit. 

An injunction to preserve what is left of OpenAI’s nonprofit character is the only “appropriate remedy,” Musk’s lawyers said.

“No objective observer can look at OpenAI today and say it bears any resemblance whatsoever to what it promised to be. Enough is enough.”

Source: Elon Musk

An OpenAI spokesperson slammed Musk’s latest attempt in a note to Cointelegraph:

“Elon’s fourth attempt, which again recycles the same baseless complaints, continues to be utterly without merit.”

In March, OpenAI leaked emails from Musk in 2015 showing support for the firm to find over $1 billion in funding to compete with the likes of Google and Facebook (now Meta).

OpenAI claimed Musk was harassing the firm in a related October filing.

“Since launching a competing artificial intelligence company, xAI, Musk has been trying to leverage the judicial system for an edge. The effort should fail; Musk’s complaint does not state a claim and should be dismissed,” OpenAI added.

In June, Musk threatened to ban Apple devices at his companies when Apple touted integrating OpenAI’s ChatGPT into its iPhone, iPad and Mac operating systems. Later, Apple launched Apple Intelligence on Oct. 28.

During the pandemic a record number of Americans turned entrepreneurs – sending new business applications to soaring heights.

But everyone knows running a business is difficult, and now there’s some new data to validate the sentiment.

This chart, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, tracks the survival rate of all private American companies born in 2013, categorized by industry.

Figures for this chart are rounded and sourced from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), published 2024.

How Hard is it to Run a Business in America?

Unsurprisingly survival rates for new businesses depend on the industry they’re operating in.

From the data, Agriculture and Forestry businesses born in 2013 were the most resilient over the last decade. More than half were still in operation by 2023.

Note: Only select years shown and industry labels lightly modified, both for readability.

In stark contrast, only one-fourth of Mining, Oil & Gas firms survived in the same time period.

Interestingly both industries are some of the largest subsidy receivers from the government. Estimates put federal agricultural support at $30 billion annually—heavily subsidizing five major crops: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice.

Meanwhile, the American energy sector receives about $20 billion a year, 80% of which goes to oil and gas.

It is possible that differences in ownership structure and business size are contributing to wildly different survival rates. For example, 97% of all U.S. farms are still family-owned and 88% of them are “small farms” which may need less capital investment than an oil & gas business.

One trend that is industry-agnostic is that the first year proved the most brutal for all businesses formed in 2013, with a 20 percentage point decline in survivors. As time passed, the declines continued at a slower rate.

Finally, the BLS found that for all private businesses incorporated in 2013, just over one-third (34.7%) were still functioning in 2023.

Businesses in farming and agriculture have some of the most positive public perception ratings in the U.S. Check out America’s Views on U.S. Industries, by creator Chartr.

Via SchiffGold.com,

On Saturday, Peter took to his podcast to cover last week’s economic news and political events. In this episode, he discusses rumors of large downward revisions in jobs numbers, the issues with and irony of a state Bitcoin reserve,  and the striking resemblance between the government’s spending situation and a Ponzi scheme.

Peter addresses the possibility that very large downward revisions in jobs numbers are going to be announced. Now that the election is over, there’s no need for government statisticians to manipulate the numbers:

On Wednesday of this week, the Department of Labor announced that it’s very close to another major downward revision in the non-farm payroll numbers. This will affect the numbers from June 2023 up until June 2024. An entire year’s worth of jobs reports is about to get significantly revised lower. … [The government] is now going to say, ‘Oops, we’re sorry, they weren’t created at all.’ …  I specifically said it would happen after the election, when there was no longer a reason to sugarcoat these numbers.

If this really is the case, there could be major ramifications in foreign exchange and the gold markets, which responded throughout the year to the relatively optimistic labor statistics:

It’s most likely that if you reduce any given month by about 100,000 jobs, you’re going to end up turning a job number that was a beat because it was above estimates into a miss because it was below estimates. So it means all of the headlines were wrong. The market reaction was wrong. If the dollar rallied, if gold sold off, if the market rallied based on a beat, it wasn’t a beat. It was a miss.

Peter turns to increased optimism about the creation of a government Bitcoin reserve. He points out the irony in this situation:

If they do that, it’s great for the people who own Bitcoin, who can sell their Bitcoin to the unwilling U.S. taxpayer who is being forced to buy Bitcoin at gunpoint. Because that’s the coercive power of the state, which is the ultimate irony, right? Because Bitcoin was supposed to be anti-government. It was a way to circumvent government, to get out of fiat currencies. This is a decentralized thing. It’s away from government. It’s voluntary. It’s the free market. But its salvation now is the government. It’s the government buying Bitcoin that everybody is now counting on to make the price go up.

With companies like Microstrategy and Mara Holdings dumping billions into Bitcoin, Peter worries that we’re foolishly misallocating capital in what amounts to a Bitcoin bubble.

But if capital is going into these ridiculous money-losing businesses that are just gambling on Bitcoin, where is it coming out of? We don’t have an unlimited supply of investment capital, right? So any capital that is directed to Bitcoin, blockchain, crypto, is capital that can’t go someplace else. It can’t go someplace where it’s actually needed to produce real goods, real things. Instead, it’s being squandered.

Peter speculates on what Treasury Secretary nominee Scott Bessent will do if confirmed by the Senate:

I know that Scott Bessent has reiterated his belief that the U.S. dollar should stay as the reserve currency. And of course, he’s not going to say the opposite. I mean, it’d be ridiculous to say the opposite. But I think the markets are probably going to take that to mean, ‘Oh, well, I guess we’re going to have the strong dollar policy, return to the strong dollar policy.’ But we never really had a strong dollar policy.

Peter wraps up by comparing the way the government uses debt and spending to a Ponzi scheme. The only difference? The government doesn’t try to hide it:

Every time that we get to the debt ceiling, what does the government say? If we don’t raise the debt ceiling, we’re going to default. If we can’t borrow more money, we’re not going to pay back any of the money we already owe. Well, that is an admission that you’re running a Ponzi scheme. You’re telling everybody that it’s a Ponzi scheme. I mean, Bernie Madoff would never do that. It’s Ponzi 101. You got to keep that quiet.

For more analysis of the week’s events, check out Friday’s episode of the SchiffGold Gold Wrap Podcast.

After years of abusing Iranian sanctions and flooding China’s economy with cheap Iranian oil, China’s larger independent refiners are set to shun Iranian oil “imminently” because of their exposure to the US banking system, said Energy Aspects, which expects sanctions to tighten under Trump.

These plants only started buying Iranian crude this year after receiving guidance from the US State Department that sanctions wouldn’t be enforced by the Biden administration, according to a note from the industry consultant, which didn’t name the refiners. If confirmed that would be the latest foreign policy scandal by the captured and corrupt Biden admin, which has made a mockery of sanctions enforcement, especially if the alternative is sharply higher oil and gas prices.

In any case, with the imminent arrival of Trump, the Chinese refining sector will be under significant pressure to consolidate and the government might be “willing to sacrifice the teapots to score some easy points against Trump by clamping down Iranian imports.”

Limiting access would raise the cost of feedstock and slash margins for teapots and help Beijing to trim capacity.

Activity by independent refiners has picked up in the spot market, with a number of plants securing barrels from the Middle East in recent trades, on top of WAF grades purchased two weeks ago. These were all unsold, discounted barrels from the previous cycles.

With Iranian oil set to become extremely scarce, China’s independent refiners have snapped up barrels from across the Middle East and Africa as offers of Iranian oil remain scarcer and more expensive than usual, in part due to broadening US sanctions.

In a separate Bloomberg report, we learn that a large Chinese processor bought about 10 million barrels of grades from Abu Dhabi and Qatar, according to traders who asked not to be identified. The cargoes are for loading in December and January, and helped to clear an overhang of unsold crude from previous trading cycles, they added.

China’s independent refiners, known as teapots, typically favor cheaper Iranian crude and take around 90% of the OPEC producer’s exports, but a slowdown in the amount of oil available to purchase has forced a change in buying habits. The incoming Trump administration has also led to some large processors backing away from Tehran’s crude due to their exposure to US banking, according to Energy Aspects.

Traders and shippers put the scarcity of Iranian supply down to the broadening of US sanctions in October to include more dark fleet tankers plying the Iran-China trade. That move has crimped the number of vessels available for ship-to-ship transfers, tightening supply and driving prices higher (see “Satellite Analysis Shows Enormity Of Secretive Oil Shipping Hub Funneling Iranian Crude To China“).

Flows of Iranian oil to China have dipped more than 10% this month compared with October, according to Kpler. Meanwhile, the volume of West African crude is at the highest on a monthly basis in at least two years, partly driven by the spike in Iranian oil prices, Sentosa Shipbrokers wrote in a report.

Beijing’s move to issue more import quotas to teapots has also spurred buying activity, traders said. Refiners were asked to submit requests to purchase more crude a few months ago and were provided verbal approvals this week, but some started buying ahead of the confirmation, they added.

Refiners in Shandong province collectively sought an allocation of about 3.8 million tons, or 28.5 million barrels, which will be valid until the end of the year, according to traders.

The initial build-up of Middle Eastern oil was spurred by bumper trading activity in contracts linked to the Dubai market in recent months. That led to the delivery of cargoes that ultimately went unconsumed and had to find buyers at a later date, traders said.

President-elect Donald Trump has already rattled the market with the threat of tariffs on China, Canada, and Mexico, and investors are closely watching to see how his administration will approach Iran. Sanctions on the OPEC producer are expected to tighten, according to Energy Aspects.

Key concerns include the possibility dark fleet tankers will be sanctioned en-route to their destination, a move that would spook the ports waiting to receive the vessels and lead to cargoes being stranded at sea.

We previously discussed how ship-to-ship transfers off Malaysia are also set to face more scrutiny, a process used to mask the origin of Iranian cargoes by re-labeling them as Malaysian oil.

Authored by Robert Burrows via BondVigilantes.com,

Renewed concerns of European fragmentation: France’s economic and political struggles…

Source: Bloomberg, as at November 2024

What is incredibly surprising is how little differentiation there is among European issuers. Perhaps this signals that there are no concerns within Europe and that the European Central Bank (ECB) has all the necessary tools to stem any divergence. Perhaps investors already view the bloc as a shared fiscal union, suggesting there should be no differentiation.

Source: Bloomberg, as at November 2024

As France grapples with deepening economic and political challenges, the possibility of European fragmentation will likely become a topic of discussion once again. The country’s long-standing fiscal pressures, political instability, and rising populism are troubling for France and the broader European Union (EU). With France playing a pivotal role in the EU’s economic and political structure, its struggles raise questions about the strength of European unity, especially in an era marked by increasing global uncertainty.

France’s economic troubles: debt and stagnation

France’s economic challenges are rooted in years of sluggish growth, high unemployment, and rising public debt. The nation’s debt-to-GDP ratio now exceeds 110%, a level that puts increasing strain on the government’s ability to invest in its economy.

France continues to run worrying deficits akin to the equally worrying US.

Source: Bloomberg, as at November 2024

However, the difference between France and the US is that the US is in a position to raise taxes. Whether the US does is another story altogether, but at least it is in the position to do so. France, on the other hand, is likely at or close to peak tax-raising levels. If there are any further tax increases, the tax revenue could in fact fall as per the Laffer curve1 That leaves reduced spending as the only viable option to bring deficits under control. It is doubtful that the electorate will tolerate significant reductions in spending. Another consideration is that the US can control its monetary policy. In contrast, France is a hostage to the policy set by the ECB for the EU as a whole.

Source: OECD. Provisional 2023 data. *Japan and Australia unable to provide provisional, therefore numbers used are 2022 data.

Meanwhile, inflationary pressures from rising energy prices, supply chain disruptions, and the global fallout from the Ukraine war are making life increasingly difficult for French citizens.

Fiscal constraints, including the country’s ‘excessive deficit procedure’ limit the government’s ability to spend its way out of these problems. This economic stagnation has hit low- and middle-income families the hardest, fuelling social unrest and discontent. With a growing sense that economic inequality is deepening, populist movements are gaining traction in France, pushing back against traditional political parties and calling into question the benefits of European integration.

Political instability and fragmentation in France

France’s political landscape has fractured, as seen in the recent election. The traditional parties of the centre-left and centre-right, which have long dominated French politics, have weakened considerably. The recent election saw no party win a majority; a left-leaning coalition won 188 seats, the centrist coalition won 161 seats, and the far-right won 142 seats. Consequently, the far right became the single largest party and no party was able to claim a majority. The outcome was a fragile centre-right government propped up by Marine Le Pen’s far-right party.

The rise of Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally and Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s far-left La France Insoumise reflects deep divisions within French society. These parties tap into frustrations over economic stagnation, immigration, and disillusionment with the EU’s role in France’s domestic affairs.

This political fragmentation has not just created a challenging environment for Emmanuel Macron’s government, but it has severely hampered its ability to push through much-needed reforms. Macron’s centrist platform, which was supposed to bridge the political spectrum, has instead alienated both sides, and attempts at pension reform, labour law changes, and economic liberalisation have been met with widespread protests, most notably the ‘Yellow Vest’ movement.

The inability to implement structural reforms is compounding France’s economic challenges. With the government hamstrung by opposition forces and increasing populist sentiment, France’s political future is uncertain. As France teeters on the edge of further instability, the implications for the European Union are significant.

A recent hint of concern for the EU came from the European Commission’s acceptance of France’s budget proposals (which are unlikely to come to fruition given the government’s instability) and allowing France to postpone its deficit reduction efforts from 2027 to 2029. In contrast, the Commission’s judgement on the Dutch budget, which is well within the rules, has been delayed. Perhaps the Commission is fretting over larger issues.

The European Union: a fragile union?

France and Germany have always been key pillars of the European Union. However, as economic and political instability deepens in both France and, more recently, Germany, it brings into question the stability of the EU itself. In recent years, the EU has already faced major challenges, from Brexit to the sovereign debt crises in Greece, Italy, and Spain. The COVID-19 pandemic, followed by the energy crisis and the war in Ukraine, have further tested the bloc’s resilience.

In France, populist leaders like Marine Le Pen have openly criticised the EU’s bureaucracy and called for reclaiming French sovereignty, particularly in immigration, trade, and economic policy. Though Le Pen’s position on leaving the EU has softened in recent years, her anti-EU rhetoric still resonates with a sizable portion of the French electorate. This raises concerns about France’s continued commitment to EU integration.

Should France’s economic situation deteriorate further, and populist movements gain even more ground, it could trigger renewed debates over the future of the EU. The rise of populism in one of the EU’s core member states could embolden other Eurosceptic movements across the continent, leading to renewed fragmentation pressures.

Energy crisis and inflation: pressures across Europe

The energy crisis and surging inflation are not unique to France, but they have heightened economic tensions across Europe. Germany, once the EU’s economic engine, is also facing severe challenges due to rising energy prices, weakening manufacturing and industrial sectors, and constrained fiscal spending due to the debt brake. Countries like Italy and Spain, which have already faced sovereign debt crises in the past, remain vulnerable to economic shocks.

While the EU has shown resilience in the face of these challenges, France’s fiscal problems could add further strain. If one of the EU’s key economies falters, it would complicate efforts to maintain unity, especially when fiscal solidarity is already a contentious issue. A divided French government could struggle to support broader EU initiatives, such as energy transition policies and climate goals, which require unified political will and significant financial investment.

The consequences of French economic decline for the EU

If France’s economic and political situation worsens, it could destabilise the European Union in several ways. First, the loss of French leadership in EU policy debates could leave a vacuum that is difficult to fill. France has long been an advocate of closer European integration, especially in areas like defence, foreign policy, and economic regulation. A weakened France could slow the pace of EU reforms and complicate decision-making within the bloc.

Second, France’s decline could embolden other Eurosceptic countries. Italy’s populist movements, Hungary’s nationalist government, and Poland’s increasing resistance to EU authority all point to a growing sense of disillusionment with European integration. France’s struggles could add fuel to this fire, leading to more calls for looser ties within the EU or, in extreme cases, further exits from the union.

Finally, renewed economic fragmentation could strain the ECB’s ability to manage monetary policy across the eurozone. As countries face diverging economic challenges, the ECB could find it increasingly difficult to balance inflation control with the need for growth stimulus in struggling economies. This could lead to further financial instability, making it harder to hold the eurozone together.

Conclusion

France’s economic and political difficulties are not just a domestic issue; they have profound implications for the European Union as a whole. The combination of rising debt, political fragmentation, and populist movements within France could exacerbate concerns about the future of European integration. As one of the EU’s most important members, France’s trajectory will play a crucial role in shaping the future of the union. While the EU has survived numerous challenges in the past, France’s ongoing struggles could spark renewed debates over fragmentation, threatening the unity that has been a cornerstone of the European project for decades.

Total federal student loan debt in the U.S. stands at approximately $1.73 trillion, with 43 million borrowers as of 2023, and has experienced significant growth over the past 15 years, increasing by about 232.7% since 2009.

The average federal student loan debt across the 50 U.S. states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia amounts to $29.9 billion per state in 2024, according to the Education Data Initiative.

This visualization, via Visual Capitalist’s Kayla Zhu, shows the average student loan debt per borrower, by state. Only federal student loan debt is included.

Data comes from the U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Census Bureau via the Education Data Initiative, and is updated as of October 2024.

Which State Has the Highest Student Loan Debt?

Below, we show the average federal student loan debt by state as of October 2024.

Washington, D.C. leads the U.S. in average federal student loan debt at $54,795 per borrower and has the highest share of borrowers, with 17.2% of residents in debt.

Many borrowers in D.C. are recent graduates, including a significant number with master’s degrees, compounding the strain of the city’s steep cost of living.

Second-ranked Maryland, which borders D.C., is also one of the most educated states in the country. Around 43% of Maryland residents have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, significantly higher than the national average of 35%.

North Dakota has the nation’s lowest average student loan debt, and it’s the only state with average debt under $30,000, at $29,647. Only about 11.2% of state residents have student loan debt.

To learn more about labor statistics by state, check out this graphic which shows the union membership rates by state.

Authored by ‘Sallust’ via DailySceptic.org,

It’s Toytown basic economics that the price of any commodity or service is determined by the relationship between supply and demand. The less there is of anything, the higher its price will be, depending on the level of demand. The greater the level of supply the lower the price, and thus the greater the demand and usage.

Nothing could exemplify that better than energy. Restricting the supply of energy whether by design or circumstance, or even elevating the price artificially with taxes and levies, is bound to inhibit demand. And that diminishes the economy.

The Telegraph has published an article by Jonathan Leake on how Net Zero has accelerated Britain’s national decline:

For Ed Miliband and Sir Keir Starmer, Net Zero is the route to clean energy, economic growth and turning the U.K. into a global green superpower.

Across the Atlantic, however, Britain’s drive for “decarbonisation” is increasingly seen as an economic experiment – one that risks tipping the U.K. from miniscule economic growth into full-scale decline.

Chris Wright, Donald Trump’s nominee for US energy secretary, has warned that Britain’s rush to ditch fossil fuels in favour of wind and solar power is causing higher prices, driving away energy-intensive businesses and contributing to Britain’s national decline.

“The U.K., although no longer part of the EU, has continued aggressive climate policies that have driven up energy prices for its citizens and industry,” he wrote in a recent report. “The once world-leading United Kingdom now has a per capita income lower than even the poorest state in the United States.”

Leake doesn’t dispute the effects of climate change or “other consequences of greenhouse gas emissions”. His main point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. How much less?

To quote the Government’s advisory Climate Change Committee: “In our Balanced Net Zero Pathway, the U.K. economy becomes much more energy efficient, with total energy demand falling by around 33% in end-use sectors between now and 2050.”

Improved efficiency – delivering more output for the same amount of fuel, or less – could help to deliver a reduction in energy consumption. Yet huge advances would be necessary to yield a reduction in consumption of a third. Many observers believe the tail will wag the dog when it comes to this target, meaning the U.K. may be forced to curtail energy use in order to hit it.

For Wright and others, slashing energy consumption by a third and still expecting growth is heresy – an economic experiment no other country has achieved, or even attempted before.

Their view – one supported by most economists – is that access to energy has historically always been directly related to prosperity. The more energy we have, the richer we will become. And if we have less, we get poorer.

Britain’s Industrial Revolution, driven by cheap and abundant coal, is proof, Wright says, of the theory. But with decline in energy usage now far advanced, it’s clear the prioritising of climate targets is having a drastic impact on Britain’s wealth and productive capacity.

In 1970, U.K. industry consumed the equivalent of 62 million tonnes of oil each year, making most of what the nation needed including energy intensive products like steel, cement and petrochemicals. Manufacturing was by far the largest sector of the economy, contributing 30.1% of total output.

Last year, manufacturing accounted for just 9% of the U.K.’s economy.

The point is that a key part of Net Zero policy is to reduce energy usage, but only in Britain. Other countries don’t matter because it’s all about the U.K. Government’s climate policy.

For example, one of the U.K.’s proudest boasts is that it has slashed emissions from more than 800 million tonnes in 1990 to just under 400 million tonnes in 2023. These figures refer to the greenhouse gases emitted within Britain’s borders, from power stations, vehicles, homes, offices and industry.

However, it excludes all the emissions generated from things we buy from abroad, including cars, clothes, steel and cement. Such “consumption emissions” have grown, from under 200 million tonnes of CO2 in 1990 to 400 million tonnes today

If you add our overseas and domestic emissions together, the overall U.K. carbon footprint is about 800 million tonnes. This is only a slight decrease from 1990 and the U.K. has paid a pretty high price to achieve it, including continuing high energy prices and increased vulnerability to global price shocks and shortages.

“The U.K. has too little production, too much consumption, too little savings and too much debt,” Dieter Helm, Professor of Energy Economics at Oxford University, wrote recently. “Perhaps not surprisingly, since it takes time for the politics to catch up with the economics, the new Labour Government is in the process of doubling down on all four of these.

“Current (and proposed) economic policy is perpetuating an unsustainable economy. What is unsustainable will not be sustained. It will have to end, probably in a series of economic crises played out into the future. The next generation will pay the price.”

Leake goes on to explain that the U.K. is not the U.S. and does not have abundant supplies of energy on its doorstep. Britain is dependent on imports.

The key conflict then is between replacing old sources of energy with new ones or simply reducing energy consumption. Britain is steadily running down its oil-refining and steel-manufacturing capacity.

For Miliband, falling energy consumption is a sign of progress rather than an ominous portent. A spokesman for the Department of Energy Security and Net Zero said: “Making the U.K. a clean energy superpower is essential to end the U.K.’s dependency on insecure fossil fuel markets.”

Exactly where we are headed is therefore not clear. It’s also a moot point whether any government can survive enforcing a vision of the future with policies that seem destined to make people poorer, more immobile, colder, hungrier, and with less and less choice in the matter.

Readers may remember the irony of this pronouncement five-and-a-half years ago:

“We will be able to look back on this period – this extraordinary period – as the beginning of a new golden age for our United Kingdom.”

 – Boris Johnson, statement to the Commons July 25th 2019

He was right about it being an extraordinary period.

Unprecedented protests have swept the Republic of Georgia, with Sunday continuing to witness huge crowd sizes in the capital of Tbilisi for a fourth consecutive evening.

The catalyst for the large and at time violent demonstrations was the ruling Georgian Dream party’s recent announcement that it is suspending EU talks for four years.

Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze on Thursday accused the European Parliament and “some European politicians” of “blackmail” for its rejection of the results of October’s Georgian parliamentary elections. Europe has accused Georgian election authorities of “significant irregularities” after the Georgian Dream party emerged victorious.

Kobakhidze said, “We have decided not to bring up the issue of joining the European Union on the agenda until the end of 2028.”

Each night since, large groups of pro-EU demonstrators have faced off against riot police armed with teargas and water cannon.

Prime Minister Kobakhidze has in a new message warned that “Any violation of the law will be met with the full rigor of the law. Neither will those politicians who hide in their offices and sacrifice members of their violent groups to severe punishment escape responsibility.”

Size of the anti-Russian protests across Georgia tonight are crazy. pic.twitter.com/Tnpw1iz2nV

— Jay in Kyiv (@JayinKyiv) November 30, 2024

He confirmed that he has halted progress toward European integration, saying “The only thing we have rejected is the shameful and offensive blackmail, which was in fact a significant obstacle to our country’s European integration.”

The Guardian has detailed that dozens have been injured and hospitalized in clashes with police:

Georgian media reported protests in at least eight cities and towns. The opposition TV channel Formula showed footage of people in Khashuri, a town of 20,000 in central Georgia, throwing eggs at the local Georgian Dream office and tearing down the party’s flag.

The interior minister said on Sunday that 44 people had been taken to hospital after Saturday’s protests, including 27 protesters, 16 police officers and one media worker.

An effigy of the founder of Georgian Dream, Bidzina Ivanishvili, a shadowy billionaire who made his fortune in Russia, was burned in front of the legislature.

Pro-EU opposition leaders have meanwhile claimed that this is all a mess of Georgian Dream party’s own making, with supposed Kremlin influence. Pro-EU President Salome Zurabichvili said the ruling party “declared not peace, but war against its own people, its past and future.”

Protesters in Georgia used a makeshift firework gun against riot police 😳 pic.twitter.com/mSgqquqEy9

— NO CONTEXT HUMANS (@HumansNoContext) December 1, 2024

The opposition has claimed since the Oct.26 parliamentary elections that there was Russian ‘interference’ and that the vote was rigged. They further claim pro-Russian oligarchs have taken control of the country.