After disrupting countless Software/SaaS/finance/real estate/broker sectors, Anthropic’s Claude is now going after targeted companies. 

A little before 2pm ET, Bloomberg sent out a headline that Anthropic’s Claude has found yet another skillset:

• *ANTHROPIC SAYS CLAUDE CODE CAN AUTOMATE COBOL MODERNIZATION

A herd of panicked IBM longs flooded to the Claude blog to read more on what is happening. Here’s what it found (excerpted): 

COBOL is everywhere. It handles an estimated 95% of ATM transactions in the US. Hundreds of billions of lines of COBOL run in production every day, powering critical systems in finance, airlines, and government.

Despite that, the number of people who understand it shrinks every year.

The developers who built these systems retired years ago, and the institutional knowledge they carried left with them. Production code has been modified repeatedly over decades, but the documentation hasn’t kept up. Meanwhile, we aren’t exactly minting replacements—COBOL is taught at only a handful of universities, and finding engineers who can read it gets harder every quarter.

Given these roadblocks, how can organizations modernize their systems without losing the reliability, availability, and data they’ve accumulated over decades? And without breaking anything?

* * * 

How AI changes COBOL modernization

AI excels at streamlining the tasks that once made COBOL modernization cost-prohibitive. With it, your team can focus on strategy, risk assessment, and business logic while AI automates the code analysis and implementation.

* * * 

Start your COBOL modernization

The approach outlined above works for COBOL systems of any size. Tools like Claude Code can automate much of the exploration and analysis work described, giving your team the comprehensive understanding they need to plan and execute migrations confidently.

Start with a single component or workflow that has clear boundaries and moderate complexity. Use AI to analyze and document it thoroughly, plan the modernization with your engineers, implement incrementally with testing at each step, and validate carefully.  This will build organizational confidence and surface adjustments needed for your systems.

In kneejerk reaction, IBM stock, already down sharply on the day, and tumbling 20% from its all time highs just earlier this month, plunged $15 to the lowest level since Liberation Day, briefly dipping below $230…

… as the market realized that it is the latest target of the Claude disruption train. You see, Common Business-Oriented Language (COBOL)  is a high-level, English-like compiled programming language developed specifically for business data processing, via IBM. As such, anything that disrupts this lucrative ecosystem created by IBM (code COBOL, then sell consultancy contracts to adjust the code which virtually nobody knows how to use), would immediately smash IBM stock… and that’s precisely what happened. 

Which begs the question: after various Claude updates caused hundreds of billions in market cap damage in the past 3 weeks, is the company’s strategy to keep rolling incremental disruption updates becoming Antrhopic’s self-funding strategy. After all, if Dario Amodei had bought puts on IBM, and the dozens of companies that have plunge dmore than double digits in recent weeks, he would have made billions, certainly enough to fund his company for months if not years. 

And if not Anthropic, when will OpenAI – which needs capital much more badly than its enterprise-focused peer – do the same? 

Authored by Matthew Vadum via The Epoch Times,

The U.S. Supreme Court is poised to hear two cases on Feb. 23 about U.S. business assets that Cuba’s communist government seized decades ago.

Both cases focus on the 1996 Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act that was created to pressure Cuba by penalizing foreign companies “trafficking” in property that the Cuban regime seized from U.S. interests.

Also known as the Helms-Burton Act, the law allows U.S. citizens and companies to sue any person who traffics in or uses confiscated property. Trafficking in the statute includes using or profiting from the confiscated property.

The law defines “person” to include “any agency or instrumentality of a foreign state,” and contemplates civil judgments being obtained against “an agency or instrumentality of the Cuban Government.”

Cuba’s late dictator Fidel Castro overthrew the then-government in 1959 and turned Cuba into a one-party state in which socialist policies were implemented, including the nationalization of the assets of foreign businesses operating in Cuba at the time.

In Exxon Mobil v. Corporacion Cimex, Exxon Mobil seeks compensation from three Cuban government-owned companies for energy assets seized in 1960 after the communists took power. The company was previously known an Standard Oil Co.

Until recently, parties like Exxon were unable to pursue claims against Cuban government-owned enterprises under the Helms-Burton Act because President Bill Clinton suspended Title III—the part of the law allowing compensation lawsuits to be filed.

In his first term, President Donald Trump revoked the suspension on May 2, 2019, and Exxon Mobil filed its lawsuit the same day.

The legal issue in the case is whether the Helms-Burton Act “abrogates foreign sovereign immunity” in cases against Cuban entities, the company said in its petition.

Foreign sovereign immunity is a legal doctrine that prevents governments from being sued unless they agree to be sued. Abrogation is the act of formally annulling a law or legal provision.

In 2024, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that a separate federal statute poses an additional hurdle for lawsuits against Cuban entities. That court held that Title III claims may only proceed against Cuban entities if the lawsuit falls under an exception in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, which generally forbids lawsuits against foreign governments but allows suits involving commercial activities or property seized in violation of international law.

The appeals court ruled that when the district court considered the case, it failed to properly analyze whether the commercial activities exception applied, and sent the case back to that court for further consideration.

Exxon Mobil argues the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act shouldn’t be interpreted to deprive the company of the judicial remedies promised by Helms-Burton.

Exxon is seeking compensation upwards of $1 billion for assets seized by the Cuban government in 1960. At the time of the confiscation of the assets, then belonging to subsidiaries owned by Standard Oil, they were worth $70 million. 

However, Exxon wants $1 billion in the current claim because interest has accrued and there is potential of enhanced damages. 

Cuban government-owned company Corporacion Cimex argued in a brief that if Exxon’s legal argument prevails, it could open U.S. courts to a flood of lawsuits against foreign entities like itself, despite the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act protections.

The other case, Havana Docks Corp. v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, involves U.S.-based company Havana Docks Corp., which, in its petition, described the case as “the most important case involving U.S. foreign policy toward Cuba to reach this Court in the past sixty years.”

Havana Docks Corp. built the port of Havana’s docks at its own expense in exchange for a concession to run those docks for 99 years. The Cuban government unilaterally ended the concession without compensation in 1960, which had 44 years left to run, along with the company’s property interest in the docks, according to the petition.

In October 2024, a divided U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit overturned a more than $100 million judgment against various cruise lines for trafficking in confiscated property by using expropriated docks in Cuba.

The appeals court held that the cruise lines could not be held liable for using the port facilities because Havana Docks’s property interest “expired in 2004,” according to the provisions of the 99-year concession the company was originally granted.

The appeals court “effectively nullified” the right to sue under Title III, the company said in the petition.

The petition said the cruise lines used the confiscated docks even after the U.S. Department of Justice’s Foreign Claims Settlement Commission certified Havana Docks’s claim against Cuba for taking its property interest in the docks.

The cruise lines disembarked almost one million tourists on the docks from 2015 to 2019, paying Cuba at least $130 million and earning more than $1 billion from their Cuban cruises, the petition said.

The cruise lines argue that Havana Docks Corp. has no legal claim against them because even though that company once had permission to use the docks, it never actually owned the docks, which always remained the property of the Cuban government.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule on the two cases by the end of June.

By Benjamin Picton, senior market strategist at Rabobank

US stocks closed higher on Friday following news that the Supreme Court had ruled 6-3 to uphold a lower court decision that found Trump’s signature tariff policy to be illegal. The court found that Trump acted beyond his authority by imposing tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act with the majority holding that tariffs are a branch of taxation and that the Constitution grants powers over taxation to Congress, not to the President. Critically, the Court found that IEEPA makes no specific mention of delegating tariff powers to the Executive and that there exists no precedent of IEEPA being used to levy tariffs.

Precious metals are higher in early trade, the DXY is down, US equity futures are pointing lower and Brent crude is down by almost 1%. Aussie yields are now bull-flattening after initially moving higher, but Kiwi yields are holding at higher levels following idiosyncratic strong retail sales data. Aussie stocks have opened weaker, but the Hang Seng, TAIEX and KOSPI are catching a bid, highlighting the winners-and-losers effect of shifts in tariff policy that has just delivered a boost to countries who previously had a comparatively bad deal.

Unsurprisingly, the administration reacted with disappointment to the decision but then moved quickly to impose new baselines tariffs of 10% – later increased to the maximum rate of 15% – using powers granted by Section 122 of the Trade Act. As regular readers would know, we have been pointing out for some time that this and other avenues exist – on firmer legal ground – for the administration to continue to pursue its tariff strategy. Other potential avenues include:

• Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, which allows the President to impose tariffs of indefinite duration and with no cap if imports threaten national security. This requires a Commerce Department investigation finding that such a threat exists and would typically be applied on a sectoral basis.

• Section 201 of the Trade Act, which allows tariffs up to 50% above existing rates for a duration of 4 years if imports cause or threaten serious harm to a domestic industry. This would require an International Trade Commission investigation, public hearings and would also likely be imposed sectorally.

• Section 301 of the Trade Act, which authorizes uncapped tariffs in response to unfair foreign trade practices. This requires a US Trade Representative investigation, public hearings and consultation with the affected foreign government.

• ŸSection 338 of the Tariff Act allows tariffs of up to 50% on goods from countries imposing unreasonable restrictions on US commerce. The President can make this determination directly, but it has never been applied and could be subject to legal challenge.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has already indicated that the administration is preparing investigations under Section 232 and Section 301 to expand tariff coverage.

That’s not to say that this isn’t a big spanner in the works. The ruling immediately raises the prospect that US importers may seek refunds on the $160-175bn (estimated) paid in tariffs collected under the illegal IEEPA authority. That’s bad news bears for the US fiscal position, which was already in dire straits, and should only add to the pressure on the US Dollar index where the “sell America” meme has once again been a theme this year. Bessent was adamant over the weekend that the combination of Section 122, 232 and 301 tariffs will result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026, but presumably the 2025 revenues are now a write off. Equity traders will now be pricing in the positive effects of prospective refunds against negative effects of potentially higher term premia.

There are also broader implications. While the Supreme Court ruled that the President cannot use IEEPA to impose taxes (including tariffs), the ruling does not overturn the long-standing interpretation that IEEPA can be used for more direct intervention to impose direct trade restrictions, including import bans, embargoes, asset freezes, restriction of financial transactions and sanctions on individuals or entire sectors. There is more than one way to skin a cat, and the alternative methods may prove more brutal than the one that has just been struck down.

It should also be remembered that the current account (of which the trade balance is a major component) is the inverse of the capital account. Scott Bessent is on a mission to fix external imbalances vis-à-vis China, so capital controls is another lever that exists in the realm of policy tools to tackle the problem. Needless to say, the implications of employing that particular tool for US yields and the role of the dollar in the absence of a compliant Federal Reserve are potentially unacceptable (at least for now). This remains a low-delta trade for the time being, but perhaps the delta rises as the US gains traction with its stablecoin strategy.

US tariff policy will continue to be a source of uncertainty for markets as traders attempt to price in the implications of what is still a movable feast. There is still some fog of war over what happens once the Section 122 tariffs expire in 150 days’ time (can they be momentarily cancelled and then re-applied?), over the implications for the US fiscal position (will the $160bn be refunded? Fully? Partially? When?), over the differing relative impact on trade partners (the first will be last and the last will be first), over whether previous sectoral exemptions will still apply, and over whether bilateral trade deals negotiated to alleviate IEEPA tariffs are still a thing (the US says yes, a cancelled Modi visit says maybe not).

All of this is likely to add cost for businesses who need to understand the new rules, litigate to recover illegal import duties and potentially recalibrate their supply chains (again). Central bank DSGE models will reduce this into an assumption of lower business investment and therefore lower productivity growth, but the experience so far (in the US, at least) has been just the opposite.

US Q4 GDP figures released on Friday were a big miss, printing at 1.4% annualized vs a consensus estimate of double that rate and a much hotter Q3 result of 4.4% annualized. Most of the miss came from a contraction in government spending, which was impacted by government shutdowns and is likely to rebound in Q1 of 2026, while the contribution of fixed investment to growth tripled from Q3. December PCE inflation rose by 0.4% on both the core and headline readings, taking the year-on-year core figure up two-tenths to 3% even as the market remains priced for at least two more Fed cuts this year.

Of course, looming over everything else in markets this week is the extensive US military buildup around the Middle East. The USS Gerald R Ford has now arrived in the region, meaning that there are now two carrier strike groups within striking distance of Iran. A near continuous logistics airbridge has been operating for days and the US has reportedly forward deployed a large share of its AWACS theatre command aircraft and available airpower. Several analysts are noting that this is the most extensive military buildup since the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which would be an awfully expensive negotiating tactic if Trump doesn’t intend to use it.

With tomorrow marking the 4th anniversary of the start of the war in Ukraine, it’s worth recalling how many analysts were saying in late 2021 that the Russian buildup on the Ukrainian border was “probably nothing”. The efficient market hypothesis took a big bath back then as it failed to factor in realpolitik. Surely by now we must realize that if plan A fails, there is always plan B-2.

It was a historic moment for Team USA Hockey as Jack Hughes scored the game-winning goal in a dramatic overtime finish, defeating Canada for the gold medal in Milan. The last time USA won Olympic gold in hockey was during the “Miracle on Ice” at the 1980 Winter Olympics. Now, the celebration heads to Washington, with President Trump inviting Hughes and his teammates to the White House.

The thrilling 2-1 victory ended Team USA’s nearly five-decade Olympic gold drought and marked one of the biggest moments in the US hockey program.

“I’ll tell you what. I just told my people two minutes ago, I didn’t know they’d be calling. I said we’re giving the State of the Union speech on Tuesday night,” President Trump told the players. “I can send a military plane or something, but if you would like to, it’s the coolest night. It’s the biggest speech …”

One player told Trump, “Sir, we’re in.”

🚨 EPIC! Kash Patel put PRESIDENT TRUMP on the phone in Team USA’s locker room so that 47 could PERSONALLY congratulate them

“Congratulations! That was an UNBELIEVABLE game! We love you guys!”

“You’re going to be proud of that game for FIFTY YEARS!”

“I can send a MILITARY… pic.twitter.com/GGCUOadySq

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) February 23, 2026

The New Jersey Devils star became the face of Team USA Hockey and ignited a sense of pride in being American, while the left-leaning outlet HuffPost wrote, “If waving the American flag or chanting ‘USA!’ turns you off right now, you’re not alone.”

Responding to the HuffPost post on X, a Maryland restaurant named Jimmy’s Famous Seafood went absolutely viral for calling out the publication, replying, “Go f**k yourself.”

Go fuck yourself

— Jimmy’s Famous Seafood (@JimmysSeafood) February 22, 2026

Jimmy’s Famous Seafood’s response on X went viral, with more than 9 million views. The restaurant, which also sells crab cakes online, saw such an explosion in website traffic that its backend crashed.

“Overwhelmed by the support! We are doing our best to get the website back up to full strength, and will work tirelessly to answer each tweet!” Jimmy’s Famous Seafood wrote on X.

Overwhelmed by the support! We are doing our best to get the website back up to full strength, and will work tirelessly to answer each tweet! 🇺🇸 🦀 pic.twitter.com/2swd3QuQQ3

— Jimmy’s Famous Seafood (@JimmysSeafood) February 23, 2026

We love to see it: an immigrant-owned business standing up to out-of-touch, unhinged left-wing reporters at a media outlet that is shockingly still around.

But HuffPost’s anti-American article shouldn’t come as a surprise because its readership target is deranged Democrats who increasingly hate America more and more. That data was visible in a recent 2025 Gallup poll…

Will Trump have Jimmy’s Famous Seafood’s crab cakes in the White House for Team USA Hockey?

While the fake news represents the worst, Main Street truly represents the BEST of America. Thank you to the great patriots of @JimmysSeafood! https://t.co/RaDXMrjCL1

— Kelly Loeffler (@SBA_Kelly) February 23, 2026

The Trump administration certainly has eyes on the Maryland crab shack. 

Submitted by QTR’s Fringe Finance

When Zohran Mamdani ran for mayor, he sold New Yorkers a vision of relief. Free childcare. Free buses. A rent freeze. A city that would finally tilt toward the struggling rather than the secure. What he did not campaign on was a nearly 10% property tax hike affecting more than three million residences and over 100,000 commercial properties. Yet, days after his election, here we are.

The proposal, floated as leverage in a standoff with Kathy Hochul, is being marketed as a reluctant last resort. But for a mayor elected on affordability, threatening one of the broadest tax increases available to City Hall is not just ironic—it’s revealing. When the numbers got tight and Albany didn’t comply, Mamdani’s idiotic grand promises collided with fiscal gravity. And instead of rethinking the scale of the agenda, the answer was to reach for the biggest local tax lever available.

Truly a courageous and brilliant new strategy from the left: raising taxes. How novel.

This is not some clever new framework. Property taxes are the most predictable, blunt instrument in municipal finance. They are also uniquely capable of rippling through the housing market in exactly the way Mamdani claims to oppose. Owners of small apartment buildings do not absorb cost increases out of civic virtue. Co-op boards don’t shrug off higher levies as symbolic gestures. Costs get passed along where they can be. Where they can’t, maintenance gets deferred. Either way, renters feel it.

It is a strange approach for a mayor who built his brand on a rent freeze. Even in regulated markets, rising operating costs create pressure. Insurance goes up. Taxes go up. Financing tightens. The idea that rents will somehow remain untouched while property taxes jump by nearly double digits requires a level of magical thinking that would make even this idiot’s campaign rally blush.

And the politics are riskier than they appear. Many of the people who voted for Mamdani also own property—brownstones in Brooklyn, co-ops in Queens, small multifamily homes in the Bronx. They may support progressive goals in theory. They are probably, however, less enthusiastic about writing materially larger checks to City Hall in practice. The coalition that cheers bold rhetoric can fracture quickly when the bill arrives.

🔥 50% OFF FOR LIFE: Using this coupon entitles you to 50% off an annual subscription to Fringe Finance for life: Get 50% off forever

Meanwhile, the wealthiest residents—the ones progressives often argue should shoulder more of the burden—are the most mobile. Florida and Texas have spent years positioning themselves as lower-tax alternatives. Some migration has already occurred. More importantly, the perception has taken hold that New York’s reflex, when faced with a budget gap, is to tax what it can reach.

That perception matters. Capital is cautious. Businesses consider long-term operating costs. High earners with flexibility do the math. A city that signals fiscal instability or punitive tax swings makes those calculations easier. Wealth doesn’t leave overnight in caravans, but it leaves incrementally. A family here. A fund there. A company’s next expansion somewhere else.

None of this solves the structural problem Mamdani says he is fighting. A nearly 10 percent property tax hike does not reform the inequities in the property tax system. It does not fundamentally restructure spending. It does not magically close a multibillion-dollar gap without consequences. It simply shifts pressure onto homeowners, landlords, and—inevitably—renters.

It’s true that New York City has survived worse than one mayor’s budget gambit. It survived the fiscal crisis of the 1970s. It survived waves of out-migration before. It will survive this. The question is not whether the city endures, but what it looks like after years of governing by threat and tax hike. If the answer to every shortfall is to squeeze the remaining tax base harder, how many people with the means to leave will decide they’ve had enough?

And if that exodus accelerates, who exactly will be left to fund the next round of bullshit socialist promises?

Now read:

• “Uniquely Destructive”: Matt Taibbi Talks Epstein Files
• Sh*t Is Getting Ugly In This One Sector I’d Avoid
• When Both Sides Go Quiet
• Bitcoin Mining and the Electricity Grid: A Quiet Savior
• Down 60%, One Stock I Still Love
• Countdown to Detonation: America’s Leverage Problem

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. 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. I am an investor in Mark’s fund.

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.

PayPal shares were briefly halted due to volatility and are now up 9% after a Bloomberg report said the digital payments firm is attracting takeover interest from potential buyers, as the stock slid to a decade low. The report, based on unnamed sources, has not been confirmed by PayPal.

Interest in a PayPal takeover is in the early stages, according to people familiar with the matter. They say the company has met with banks amid unsolicited interest from suitors.

The sources described one of the suitors as a “large rival” looking to purchase the entire digital payments firm, while others are only interested in certain PayPal assets.

Before the news hit, PayPal shares in New York were at 2017 lows (with a market capitalization of around $37 billion) and down more than 85% from the 2021 high of $291.48. Year to date, shares are down 30%.

Wall Street analysts are largely neutral on the stock, with 12 “Buys,” 31 “Holds,” and six “Sells.” The average 12-month price target is $50.08. 

PayPal was one of the pioneers of digital payments, but has been losing market share as consumers shift to alternatives like Apple Pay and Google Pay.

Bloomberg notes a leadership shakeup of the firm is underway, with board chair Enrique Lores set to become president and CEO on March 1, following the ouster of Alex Chriss earlier this month. The latest earnings have disappointed, with quarter four profit and revenue missing estimates and signs of a continued slowdown in payment volume.

In a Monday televised speech on the occasion of Russia’s “Defender of the Fatherland Day,” President Vladimir Putin declared that the development of the nuclear triad “remains an absolute priority” for Russia, coming soon on the heels of the collapse of the New START nuclear treaty with the United States.

The nuclear triad serves as the ultimate guarantee of Russia’s security and allows the effective maintenance of strategic deterrence and the balance of power in the world, explained Putin, calling it “our absolute priority”. Countries like Russia, which are seen by the US either as rivals or even ‘rogue’ – are busy taking note of Iran now being threatened with regime change given it does not possess a nuclear deterrent. 

Putin further emphasized in the context of strategic deterrence that Russia will enhance the potential of its armed forces and improve their combat readiness and mobility – as well as maintaining the ability to operate under the most complex conditions.

He further pledged to accelerate the pace of research and development of advanced weapons and equipment for the military to ensure that they are in reliable hands, according to state media translation.

“The development of the nuclear triad, which guarantees Russia’s security and enables us to effectively ensure strategic deterrence and balance of power in the world remains.” —Putin

As for the US-Russia New START Nuclear Treaty, it officially expired without renewal on February 4. Since then Moscow has declared it will in good faith stick to the nuclear limits outlined in the now-expired arms control treaty, provided Washington does the same.

And yet there’s been relative quiet from the White House on the issue. For now it doesn’t seem the US has made such a reciprocal pledge, leaving the world in uncertain and uncharted territory.

Russia has also made clear that it has no intention of being “the first to take steps towards escalation” and expanding its warheads.

In early February, Secretary of State Marco Rubio gave insight into why the White House has let New START expire, echoing a complaint that goes all the way back to the first Trump administration.

🚨🇷🇺 Nuclear triad remains an absolute priority: Putin

Vladimir Putin’s Defender of the Fatherland Day address dropped the roadmap for Russia’s military future:

◾️Combat experience is being baked into modernization.
◾️Industrial base is running hot.
◾️Strategic forces stay on… pic.twitter.com/Kt4OlmHOwM

— Sputnik India (@Sputnik_India) February 23, 2026

“Obviously, the president’s been clear in the past that in order to have true arms control in the 21st century, it’s impossible to do something that doesn’t include China because of their vast and rapidly growing stockpile,” Rubio said.

Authored by Jacki Thrapp via The Epoch Times,

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen said he does not support President Donald Trump’s decision to send a hospital ship to Greenland.

“It’s going to be a no thank you from here,” according to a translation of Nielsen’s Facebook post on Feb. 22.

“President Trump’s idea to send an American hospital ship here to Greenland is noted. But we have a public health system where treatment is free for citizens. It’s a deliberate choice. And a basic part of our society. It’s not like that in the United States, where it costs money to go to the doctor.”

Nielsen said Greenland is “always open to dialogue and collaboration” but requested Trump “talk to us now instead of just coming up with more or less random outbursts on social media.”

It’s not clear which ship was sent.

The rejection came one day after Trump said on Truth Social that a hospital ship was on its way to the country.

“We are going to send a great hospital boat to Greenland to take care of the many people who are sick, and not being taken care of there,” Trump shared in a Truth Social post on Feb. 21.

Trump said he worked with Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry, who serves as special envoy to Greenland, on making the trip a reality.

“It’s on the way!!!” Trump added.

Trump did not say when the ship would arrive or what health issues crews on board are going to help treat.

The announcement was made hours after Denmark’s military said its arctic command forces evacuated a crew member of a U.S. submarine for urgent medical treatment.

“The crew member needed urgent medical treatment and has been transferred to the Greenlandic health authorities and the hospital in Nuuk,” the Danish Joint Arctic Command shared on its Facebook page Feb. 21.

Trump did not say if the crew member’s medical issue inspired him to act and deploy the ship to Greenland, which is an autonomous territory within the Kingdom of Denmark that Trump has long suggested should be under control of the United States for strategic and national and global security reasons.

The Epoch Times contacted the White House and Landry for additional information but did not hear back by time of publication.

While much digital ink has been spilled on the Supreme Court’s striking down of Trump’s IEEPA tariffs and the consequences of this decision (see “Full Analysis Of The Supreme Court IEEPA Decision: How It Impacts The Economy, Policy And Markets“), a lot more is on deck for this week when we will also have more geopolitical headlines to contend with, as the latest round of US-Iran talks is expected in Geneva on Thursday. The talks come amid a recent buildup of US forces in the region and yesterday the New York Times was the latest outlet to report that Trump is considering an initial targeted strike against Iran in the coming days, which could be followed by a larger attack if Iran does not give in to US nuclear demands. Other highlights for the week ahead include the State of the Union address in the US (late tomorrow), US PPI and preliminary CPIs in Europe (both Friday). In earnings, the focus will be on Nvidia, Salesforce (both Wednesday) and Home Depot (tomorrow). Nvidia’s earnings could be the most important of these but expect lots of headlines from the State of the Union speech.

Friday’s US PPI release – where headline and core inflation are both forecast at 0.3% – will matter less in isolation than for its implications for the core PCE deflator. While January CPI surprised to the downside, the implications for core PCE continue to appear less favorable, with DB economists currently looking for a 0.4% monthly increase. Depending on the strength of key PPI components such as medical services, airfares, and portfolio management fees, a 0.5% increase in January core PCE cannot be ruled out, which would lift the year-over-year rate to around 3.1%. So an important release, especially in the sub-components.

There is a fair degree of Fed speak this week, with Waller (today and tomorrow) a highlight given he dissented in favor of a 25bps cut in January due to concerns over the labor market. However, we’ve subsequently seen a firm January jobs report and a firm December core PCE print, so will he shift his stance a bit? See the day-by-day week ahead at the end as usual for the rest of the Fed speakers and the key global data.  

Elsewhere in the world, we have the German Ifo today and the preliminary European February CPI prints including for countries such as Germany, France and Spain, among others, on Friday. There will also be economic sentiment measures for key economies including consumer confidence in the UK, Germany and France, as well as the ECB’s consumer expectations survey due Friday.

Over in Asia, it’s a busy week ahead for Japan with key releases including the Tokyo CPI for February and the January industrial production both due on Friday. Our Chief Japan Economist expects core CPI inflation (ex. fresh food) of 1.7% YoY (2.0% in January) and core-core CPI inflation (ex. fresh food and energy) of 2.4% (2.4% in January). For industrial production, he sees a robust 4.5% MoM gain. See more in his full week-ahead here. Elsewhere, inflation will also be in focus in Australia and our economists expect a -0.2% MoM headline print and a 0.24% MoM trimmed mean print.

Other than Nvidia on Wednesday, other tech firms reporting include Salesforce, Intuit, Snowflake and CoreWeave. Amongst US consumer firms, the focus will be on Home Depot, TJX and Lowe’s. Over in Europe, there will be results from HSBC and Allianz in financials as well as other large firms such as Deutsche Telekom, Schneider Electric, Iberdrola and Rolls-Royce.

Courtesy of DB,  here is a day-by-day calendar of events

Monday February 23

• Data: US January Chicago Fed national activity index, December factory orders, February Dallas Fed manufacturing activity, Germany February Ifo survey
• Central banks: Fed’s Waller speaks, ECB’s Lagarde speaks, BoE’s Taylor speaks
• Earnings: Dominion Energy, Domino’s Pizza

Tuesday February 24

• Data: US February Conference Board consumer confidence index, Dallas Fed services activity, Richmond Fed manufacturing index, business conditions, Philadelphia Fed non-manufacturing activity, December FHFA house price index, wholesale trade sales, Q4 house price purchase index, China January 1-yr and 5-yr loan prime rates, France February business confidence, EU27 January new car registrations
• Central banks: Fed’s Goolsbee, Collins, Bostic, Waller, Cook and Barkin speak, ECB’s Kocher speaks
• Earnings: Home Depot, Constellation Energy, MercadoLibre, American Tower, Standard Chartered, NRG Energy, Workday, Axon Enterprise, Fidelity National Information, MTU Aero Engines, First Solar, Telefonica, Amer Sports, CoStar, HP
• Auctions: US 2-yr Notes ($69bn)
• Other: US President Trump’s State of the Union address

Wednesday February 25

• Data: Japan January PPI services, Germany March GfK consumer confidence, France February consumer confidence, January retail sales, Australia January CPI
• Central banks: Fed’s Barkin and Musalem speak, ECB’s Vujcic speaks
• Earnings: NVIDIA, HSBC, TJX, Salesforce, Lowe’s, Iberdrola, Synopsys, Medline, Snowflake, E.ON, Diageo, Ferrovial, Haleon, Heidelberg Materials, Alcon, Leonardo, Trip.com, Sandoz, Wolters Kluwer, Paramount Skydance
• Auctions: US 2-yr FRN (reopening, $28bn), 5-yr Notes ($70bn)

Thursday February 26

• Data: US February Kansas City Fed manufacturing activity, initial jobless claims, Italy February consumer confidence index, economic sentiment, manufacturing confidence, Eurozone January M3, February economic confidence, Canada Q4 current account balance
• Central banks: ECB’s Lagarde and Dolenc speak, BoJ’s Takata speaks, BoE’s Lombardelli speaks
• Earnings: Deutsche Telekom, Schneider Electric, Allianz, Rolls-Royce, Intuit, AXA, Munich Re, Dell, Engie, Warner Bros Discovery, Eni, London Stock Exchange Group, Rocket, Erste, Cie de Saint-Gobain, CoreWeave, Autodesk, Baidu, Rocket Lab, Block, Zscaler, Stellantis, Flutter Entertainment
• Auctions: US 7-yr Notes ($44bn)

Friday February 27

• Data: US January PPI, February MNI Chicago PMI, Kansas City Fed services activity, December and November construction spending, UK February GfK consumer confidence, Lloyds Business Barometer, Japan February Tokyo CPI, January retail sales, industrial production, housing starts, Germany February CPI, unemployment claims rate, January import price index, France February CPI, January consumer spending, PPI, Q4 total payrolls, Italy December industrial sales, Canada Q4 GDP, Sweden Q4 GDP, Switzerland Q4 GDP 
• Central banks: ECB January consumer expectations survey, BoE’s Pill speaks
• Earnings: Holcim, BASF, Swiss Re, Amadeus IT

Finally, looking at just the US, Goldman writes that the key economic data release this week is the PPI report on Friday. There are several speaking engagements with Fed officials this week, including events with Governors Waller, Cook, and Bowman. 

Monday, February 23 

• 08:00 AM Fed Governor Waller speaks: Fed Governor Christopher Waller will give a keynote address at the annual NABE economic policy conference. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On January 30, Waller said, “With total inflation excluding tariff effects close to our target at just slightly above 2 percent and a weak labor market, the policy rate should be closer to neutral, which the median FOMC participant estimates is 3 percent, and not where we are—50 to 75 basis points above 3 percent.”
• 10:00 AM Factory orders, December (GS -0.5%, consensus -0.7%, last +2.7%) 

Tuesday, February 24 

• 08:00 AM Chicago Fed President Goolsbee (FOMC non-voter) speaks; Chicago Fed President Austan Goolsbee will speak at the annual NABE economic policy conference. Q&A is expected. On February 17, Goolsbee said, “If…we can show that we’re on path to 2% inflation, I still think there’s several more rate cuts that can happen in 2026. But we’ve got to see it in coming data.” 
• 09:00 AM Boston Fed President Collins (FOMC non-voter) speaks; Boston Fed President Susan Collins will give opening remarks at a Boston Fed conference on finance and payments.
• 09:00 AM Atlanta Fed President Bostic (FOMC non-voter) speaks; Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic will participate in a moderated discussion on monetary policy and the economic outlook. On February 20, Bostic said, “Our economy has remained remarkably resilient… [which] means that we have to worry about the implications for prices on a strong economy given inflation at around 3% is a long way from the 2% target.”
• 09:00 AM S&P Case-Shiller home price index, December (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.4%, last +0.5%) 
• 09:00 AM FHFA house price index, December (consensus +0.3%, last +0.6%)
• 09:15 AM Fed Governor Waller speaks: Fed Governor Christopher Waller will give a keynote address at a Boston Fed conference on finance and payments. Speech text and Q&A are expected. 
• 09:30 AM Fed Governor Cook speaks: Fed Governor Lisa Cook will participate in panel discussion on AI at the annual NABE economic policy conference. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On February 4, Cook said, “There is an argument for being optimistic about the path of inflation, but, until I see stronger evidence that inflation is moving sustainably back down to target, that is where my focus will be, in the absence of unexpected changes in the labor market.”
• 10:00 AM Conference Board consumer confidence, February (GS 87.0, consensus 87.0, last 84.5)
• 10:00 AM Wholesale inventories, December final (consensus +0.2%, last +0.2%)
• 03:15 PM Boston Fed President Collins (FOMC non-voter) and Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speak: Boston Fed President Susan Collins and Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will participate in a panel discussion at a Boston Fed conference on finance and payments. 

Wednesday, February 25 

• There are no major economic data releases scheduled. 
• 10:40 AM Richmond Fed President Barkin (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Richmond Fed President Tom Barkin will participate in a moderated Q&A panel at the Northern Virginia Chamber of Commerce. On February 4, Barkin said, “I think of the three cuts as having taken out some insurance to support the labor market as we work to complete the last mile to bring inflation back to target.”
• 11:00 AM Kansas City Fed President Schmid (FOMC non-voter) speaks: Kansas City Fed President Jeff Schmid will participate in a fireside chat about monetary policy and the economic outlook. On February 11, Schmid said, “Further rate cuts [would] risk allowing high inflation to persist even longer.”
• 01:20 PM St. Louis Fed President Musalem (FOMC non-voter) speaks: St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem will speak on the role of the Fed in the St. Louis region at the Missouri Athletic Club. Q&A is expected. On February 20, Musalem said, “A neutral real rate [right now] is appropriate, in my opinion, given my outlook for the economy… Policy is in a good place currently.”

Thursday, February 26 

• 08:30 AM Initial jobless claims, week ended February 21 (GS 220k, consensus 215k, last 206k); Continuing jobless claims, week ended February 14 (consensus 1,863k, last 1,869k)
• 10:00 AM Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Bowman speaks: Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman will testify before the Senate Banking Committee on bank supervision. Speech text and Q&A are expected. On January 30, Bowman said, “My view is that we should continue to focus on downside risks to our employment mandate. History tells us that the labor market can appear to be stable right up until it isn’t.” She also said, “I continue to see policy as moderately restrictive, and, looking ahead to 2026, my Summary of Economic Projections includes three cuts for this year.”

Friday, February 27 

• 08:30 AM PPI final demand, January (GS +0.3%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.5%); PPI ex-food and energy, January (GS +0.4%, consensus +0.3%, last +0.7%); PPI ex-food, energy, and trade, January (GS +0.3%, last +0.4%)
• 10:00 AM Construction spending, December (GS +0.5%, consensus +0.2%, last +0.5% [October]); Construction spending, November (GS +0.4%)

Source: DB, Goldman

Shares of Novo Nordisk A/S plummeted again on Monday after the company reported trial results showing its next-generation obesity shot, CagriSema, delivered 20.2% weight loss at 84 weeks, compared to 23.6% for Eli Lilly & Co.’s tirzepatide (Zepbound).

Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Michael Shah explained, “This outcome is the worst-case scenario for Novo and heightens the need for M&A with Novo’s other GLP-1/Amylin drug.”

Shares of Novo in Copenhagen plunged as much as 16.5%, breaking below a support level that had held since August 2025. The stock is now down about 75% from its 2024 peak and is near its 2021 low.

The result is yet more trouble for Novo’s new leadership, led by Mike Doustdar, following Lars Fruergaard Jørgensen’s recent exit, along with board turnover linked to disagreements over a turnaround plan to regain GLP-1 market share. There’s also the copycat GLP-1 compounding issue involving the telehealth firm Hims & Hers.

Novo’s strategy revolves around CagriSema as Wegovy and Ozempic face longer-term patent pressure; it combines semaglutide and another gut hormone called amylin. Early studies have shown mixed results, and at least one large trial failed to meet Novo’s targeted weight loss.

Another CagriSema trial, due later this year, could yield better results because it aims to move patients to the highest dose.

“Clearly this weakens Novo Nordisk’s competitive stance in the obesity market – especially if the obesity market develops into a ‘winner takes it all’ market,” Danske Bank Credit Research analyst Brian Borsting wrote in a note. “That said, we continue to believe that Novo Nordisk’s product portfolio in the obesity market is diversified and solid although we see today’s news as credit negative.”

Meanwhile, Goldman analyst and Novo super bull James Quigley provided clients with an update on the CagriSema trial:

This morning (23rd February), Novo announced that CagriSema did not achieve the primary endpoint of non-inferiority in REDEFINE-4, with weight loss of 23% for the CagriSema arm vs. 25.5% for the tirzepatide 15mg arm, after 84 weeks of treatment. Previously, we had said that in a non-inferiority scenario, taking the PoS of CagriSema down to 0% in obesity, leaving $5bn in sales only for cagrilintide monotherapy, would lead to a -12% impact to our DCF, all else equal, but noted that investor expectations were likely lower for CagriSema. These data points could further reduce market expectations for CagriSema, even ahead of the REDEFINE 11 trial (1H’27), and while we continue to expect approval for CagriSema and likely some use by physicians as part of a portfolio approach in obesity, investors are not likely to give credit here until the sales start to come though post approval. Novo is looking to explore higher doses of CagriSema with a Phase 3 trial planned for 2H26 – although we believe investors are unlikely to give any credit until the sales trajectory is seen. Therefore, given our expectations noted above, the share price reaction at the time of writing of c.-12% appears in line, as any residual potential for CagriSema moves out of the expectations built in for the stock. Continued momentum for the launch of the Wegovy pill is even more important, we believe, as shifting volumes to the oral market could be advantageous, given Novo has a more competitive profile on weight loss.

• CagriSema failed to meet the primary endpoint of demonstrating non-inferiority vs tirzepatide on weight loss at 84 weeks. On an efficacy-estimand basis, 2.4mg/2.4mg CagriSema showed -23.0% weight loss at 84 weeks, vs 25.5% weight loss with 15mg tirzepatide over the same time period. On a treatment-regimen estimand basis, CagriSema showed -20.2% weight loss at 84 weeks vs -23.6% with 15mg tirzepatide. As a result, REDEFINE-4’s primary endpoint of CagriSema demonstrating non-inferiority on weight loss vs tirzepatide was not reached.

• CagriSema showed a well-tolerated safety profile, per Novo. While no tolerability data was given, in the release Novo said that overall CagriSema appeared to show a well-tolerated and safe profile, with the most common AEs being GI AEs. Of these, the vast majority were mild to moderate and improved over time, which was consistent with other drugs in the GLP1 agonist class.

• In terms of next steps, Novo anticipates a decision from the FDA on CagriSema by y/e 2026. This is following the company’s submission to the FDA in December 2025 based on data from REDEFINE 1 and 2. Novo also expects to initiate an additional Phase 3 trial of higher dose CagriSema in 2H26, and expects the readout from REDEFINE 11 of 2.4mg/2.4mg CagriSema in 1H27 (longer term trial looking at the full weight loss potential of CagriSema in obesity).

Not surprisingly, Quigley’s continued “Buy” rating on the stock even as it has collapsed 75% from the peak and nears 2021 lows. “We are Buy rated on Novo Nordisk,” he said.

Related:

• Novo Nordisk CEO To Step Down Following Brutal Bear Market

• “Big Miss”: Wall Street Disappointed After Dismal Novo Nordisk GLP-1 Sales Outlook, Shares Plunge

• GLP-1 Feud: HIMS Fires Back At Novo Nordisk, Slams Lawsuit As “Blatant Attack” By Big Pharma

• GLP-1 Anti-Obesity U.S. Drug Market In Four Charts

Bloomberg data shows 17 “Buy” ratings, 14 “Hold” ratings, and 3 “Sell” ratings on Novo. The average 12-month price target among Wall Street analysts is 353 kroner.

How many Goldman clients are furious with Quigley’s Novo coverage?