Since 2019, Chinese banks have held the top four spots on Brand Finance’s Banking 500 – an annual ranking of the most valuable bank brands.

Brand value in this context is a measure of the “value of the trade mark and associated marketing IP within the branded business”.

In other words, it measures the value of intangible marketing assets, and not the overall worth of the business itself.

In this infographic, Visual Capitalist’s Marcus Lu and Rosey Eason visualize the Banking 500’s top 10 brands since 2019 to show you how the ranking has evolved (or stayed the same).

Top Bank Brands of 2023

The 10 most valuable bank brands of 2023 are evenly split between China and the United States. In terms of combined brand value, China leads with $262 billion to America’s $165 billion.

Chinese banks have a massive market to serve, which helps to lift the perceived value of their brands. For example, Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC) serves over 500 million individuals as well as several million business clients.

It’s worth noting that ICBC is the world’s largest bank in terms of assets under management ($5.5 trillion as of Dec 2021), and in terms of annual revenues ($143 billion as of Dec 2022). The bank was founded just 39 years ago in 1984.

After ICBC, the next three spots are occupied by the rest of China’s “big four” banks, all of which are state-owned.

The fifth to ninth spots on this ranking are occupied by an assortment of America’s largest banks, but who knows what the impact of any fallout from SVB will have on American banks’ brands.. Despite a string of controversies in recent years, Wells Fargo rose from eighth in 2022 to sixth in 2023. This goes to show that large corporations can often recover from a scandal in a relatively short period of time (e.g. Volkswagen’s Dieselgate).

Coming in tenth is China Merchants Bank, which is China’s first “joint-stock commercial bank wholly owned by corporate legal entities”.

Top Asset Management Brands

Brand Finance’s 2023 ranking also includes a separate category for asset managers.

Given America’s leadership in financial markets, it’s no surprise to see eight out of the 10 firms listed here as being based in the United States. The number one spot, however, is held by Canada’s Brookfield. The Canadian alternative asset manager is building a strong brand through its investments in renewable energy and other high-value infrastructure.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), a Democratic member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee is leading the charge along with six other Democratic and Republican senators to get Russia’s Wagner Group mercenary firm labeled a terrorist organization. 

Shaheen’s legislation, titled the Holding Accountable Russian Mercenaries (HARM) Act would force the State Department to add Wagner to the Foreign Terrorist Organization (FTO) list. It’s designed also to force the Biden administration’s hand, which has remained resistant to issuing a terror label, only dubbing it more ambiguously as a global criminal organization and thus bringing limited financial sanctions. This as Wagner is increasingly the focus of international headlines for its leading role in fighting for Bakhmut.

Biden’s reluctance is causing anger in Congress, and allegations of White House shortsightedness given Wagner’s outsized role in fighting in Ukraine’s east. “We’ve seen that again and again in terms of this support for the Ukrainians and this war, where Congress has been out ahead of the White House,” Sen. Shaheen said in a weekend statement. 

“It’s been true since Russia invaded Ukraine. I remember in 2014 supporting lethal weapons for Ukraine, and the White House refused to support that. I don’t see this as unusual,” she added. “I hope the administration and the State Department comes on board.”

The FTO designation would impose far-reaching costs on the group and open up more means of targeting the mercenary firm by Washington, including going after third parties that deal with Wagner. And given widespread accusations from Ukrainian and Western officials that it is committing atrocities in Ukraine, this has left some Congress members scratching their heads over why Biden hasn’t pulled the trigger on the FTO.

But one Congressional aide explained to The Hill that it relates to other regions of the world where Wagner is active, and that unexpected consequences would accrue and impact US relations with certain countries: 

“[The State Department] is concerned that if suddenly the FTO designation lands on Wagner, that those governments, where there’s various officials that deal with them [Wagner], that they would all, immediately be blocked from travel to the United States and have their assets seized for coming into contact with the FTO. So that’s the nature of their concern,” the aide said.

“They claim they’re not opposed to it on Ukraine grounds, but they’re opposed to it on Africa grounds.”

Wagner meanwhile, last week announced a major recruiting expansions, opening up new offices and recruitment centers in over 40 cities across Russia. The group with ties to President Putin has lately come under severe criticism by the Russian Defense Ministry and regular military chain of command for being too unaccountable and acting as a rival to authorized commanders.

Authored by James Gorrie via The Epoch Times,

While the Biden administration’s weakness and decline in military readiness concerning China goes unreported or under-reported in the United States, those nations most vulnerable to Chinese aggression and intimidation are aware of the rising risk of war.

When nations assess their national security status, they analyze all alliances and associations, including military, economic, etc. A critical aspect of that analysis will be the United States and its ability and willingness to fulfill its strategic security obligations. 

Fading US Security Guarantees in the Region

Today, those obligations, first and foremost, involve the threats that China and its de facto proxy, North Korea, pose to the region. Every national security advisor or minister of defense in the Asia-Pacific region that relies on U.S. security guarantees must ask themselves, “Are we as secure today as we were yesterday under American security guarantees?”

In other words, the governments in Tokyo, Seoul, Taipei, Canberra, and Manila all see the growing threat coming from China. These governments’ actions indicate that they’re all questioning their belief that the United States will be able to defend them. 

Unfortunately, most are increasingly unsure about America’s ability to defend them. In the Pentagon, however, the answer is definite, No, we will not be able to protect you.

Over the past decade, with the possible exception of the Trump administration, the United States has pursued a graduated weakness defense posture in the region (as well as elsewhere) by failing to address threats with tangible military development and deployment effectively. Meanwhile, China continues to increase its defense spending to record levels.

Asia-Pacific Nations React to China Threat and US Decline

As a result, South Korea is seriously considering building its nuclear arsenal in response to the rising threat posed by both China and North Korea. Given North Korea’s reliance on China for food and fuel, one must conclude that its aggression and acts of intimidation toward South Korea and Japan are tacitly, if not explicitly, approved by Beijing.

Tokyo is also radically redefining its defense posture across the board in light of China’s rising threat to the status quo. The Japanese are doing so because they don’t see a commensurate rise in America’s ability to stop China.

In Taipei, Taiwan Foreign Minister Joseph Wu said that he expects a Chinese attack by 2027, if not sooner. Xi Jinping has prioritized conquering Taiwan and continues to escalate China’s provocative behavior. Consequently, Taiwan has extended compulsory military service from four months to a year and seeks to develop drone and missile production. Again, that’s a no-confidence vote on America’s willingness and capability to deter an attack from China or even answer one.

Australia’s response is less about re-arming and deepening its strategic international relationships. That applies not only to the United States, which is more or less a given but also to expanding its ties with India. That makes sense since India is China’s only regional nuclear and military counterweight.

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi (R) shakes hands with Australia’s Prime Minister Anthony Albanese before a meeting at Hyderabad House in New Delhi on March 10, 2023. (Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images)

In the Philippines last month, Manila granted the U.S. increased use of its military bases in direct response to the rising threat from China. In all practical terms, expanding America’s military presence in the Philippines is the equivalent of a military buildup.

Beijing Redefines US-Based Security Agreements in the Region

What’s more, Beijing is clearly signaling to the region and the United States that the U.S. security guarantee to the regional nations alliance is now unacceptable. This shift mirrors China’s rise to global power and its desire and intent to challenge U.S. supremacy in the region. 

China’s leadership, including Xi Jinping and his Minister of Foreign Affairs Qin Gang, has made it clear how Beijing views the current Asia-Pacific security arrangement, describing it as “encirclement” and “containment and suppression, a zero-sum game of life and death.”

Intimidation Rhetoric

But who was Beijing speaking to?

Was the message primarily aimed at its domestic audience to gin up nationalism, as left-wing The Guardian claims? 

Is the Chinese leadership expressing its fear of a life-and-death struggle between itself and the United States? 

Perhaps, but not likely. It’s more realistic that Beijing was sending a message to the other nations in the region to intimidate and affirm their doubts about America’s security commitment. Using Cold War terms like “containment” also points to the regional nations as the intended audience since they’re framing the current voluntary security arrangements as belligerent rather than defensive.

It’s no surprise why they would make such a forward-leaning assertion. The U.S. military state of readiness is already stretched thin in various contexts, including the massive commitment of war materiel to Ukraine. 

US in ‘Terminal Decline?’

Beijing regards the United States as being in “terminal decline” and sees an opportunity to exploit the weakness of the Biden administration regarding its reunification plans with Taiwan.

Moreover, China’s navy has already surpassed the United States’ surface fleet numbers. According to Kris Osborn of Warrior Maven, it also possesses nuclear-enabled, hypersonic, anti-ship missiles, against which the U.S. Navy “may or may not” be able to defend itself. Therefore, it’s reasonable to think that the “zero-sum game of life and death” phrasing applies more to U.S. allies in the region rather than to China.

What could be the reason for Beijing’s massive military build-up?

The simple fact is that no country or group of countries has any interest in, intention to, or capability of invading China. 

Unfortunately, it’s not likely that any country or group of countries will be able to deter China from invading and conquering other nations in the Asia-Pacific region. 

That reality has finally dawned on them and the rest of the world.  

Authored by Alexaqnder Zhang via The Epoch Times,

There is a “serious risk” to the UK’s technology and life sciences sectors from the collapse of the UK branch of the California-based Silicon Valley Bank, Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has warned.

U.S. federal banking regulators on March 10 assumed control of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB), a top lender for American tech and life sciences firms and start-ups.

The collapse of SVB, the 16th biggest bank in the United States, is the largest bank failure since Washington Mutual in 2008, during the last major bank crisis.

The Bank of England (BoE), the UK’s central bank, announced on March 11 that Silicon Valley Bank UK (SVBUK) is also set to enter insolvency.

The company will stop making payments and accepting deposits, said the BoE.

Talking to Sky News on Sunday, Hunt said the collapse poses “no systemic risk” to Britain’s financial system.

But he said, “There is a serious risk to our technology and life sciences sectors, many of whom bank with this bank.”

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt (right), with Energy Secretary Grant Shapps, speaking at a meeting of senior leaders from across UK green industries at Queen Elizabeth Olympic Park, east London, on Feb. 21, 2023. (Stefan Rousseau/PA Media)

‘Significant Impact’

In a statement on Sunday morning, the Treasury said it was treating the issue “as a high priority.”

“The government and the Bank understand the level of concern that this raises for customers of Silicon Valley Bank UK, and especially how it may impact on cash flow positions in the short term,” the statement said.

It added that the government recognises SVBUK’s failure “could have a significant impact on the liquidity of the tech ecosystem.”

While Silicon Valley Bank has a limited presence in the UK and does not perform functions critical to the financial system, the Coalition for a Digital Economy (Coadec) warned that its collapse could have a significant impact on tech start-ups.

Coadec executive director Dom Hallas said on Saturday:

“We know that there are a large number of start-ups and investors in the ecosystem who have significant exposure to SVBUK and will be very concerned.

“We have been engaging with the UK government, including Treasury and Number 10, about the potential impact and I know that work has been going on overnight on policy options.”

‘Everything We Can’

The chancellor said the government and the Bank of England will do “everything we can” to protect the firms that stand to lose millions from the collapse of SVBUK.

“The prime minister and I and the governor of the Bank of England are absolutely determined to do everything we can to protect the future of these very, very important companies,” he told Sky News.

“We will come forward with a solution that helps those very, very important companies with things like payroll and their cash flow requirements, but we also want to put in place a longer-term solution so that their futures are secure.”

Asked if that could mean stepping in with taxpayers’ money, he said he did not “want to go into what the solution is.”

Hunt also declined to say whether the government will guarantee all the deposits of the companies in the collapsed bank.

He told the BBC:

“We want to find a way that minimises or, if we possibly can, avoids all losses to those incredibly promising companies. What we will do is bring forward very quickly a plan to make sure that they can meet their operational cash flow requirements.”

Labour Calls for ‘Specific Plans’

The main opposition Labour Party has accused the Conservative government of lacking “urgency” in its handling of the collapse of SVBUK.

Labour’s shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves urged the government to offer more than “warm words” to the affected companies.

She told Sky News on Sunday:

“I am slightly concerned about the urgency that you heard from the chancellor there, because when markets open tomorrow morning, a lot of businesses in the UK are not going to be clear about how they can pay the wages of their staff and whether their deposits with Silicon Valley Bank and their financing arrangements are still in place.

“So, I would urge the government to do more than offer warm words, but come forward with specific plans.”

Talking to the BBC, Reeves said the British start-up industry must not “pay the price” for the failure of the bank.

She said: “We need tomorrow morning to hear from the government how they are going to protect them.”

“We cannot let the British start-up community pay the price for this bank failure, because it will be the British economy then that ultimately pays the price,” she added.

Authored by Karen Hunt via Off-Guardian.org,

“…most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution.”

– Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

It all started back in the 1950s with “these drugs will make you feel better, just try them.” And people did.

Over the years it morphed into “WE RECOMMEND these drugs if you don’t want to be sick, depressed or dead.” Almost everyone listened and accepted that drugs were the answer and there was no way to live without them.

Over the past three years it’s been “YOU MUST TAKE these drugs or else you endanger your own life and the lives of those around you.” By this point, people were so conditioned to take drugs that they thought nothing of submitting to an experimental mRNA gene therapy that the experts promised would keep them “safe”.

Within the next couple of years, it will be “YOU ARE REQUIRED to take these drugs by law and if you don’t, you will go to prison for endangering the planet.” Having been consistently brainwashed for all these years, most people will unquestioningly comply. Those who don’t, will be informed on by neighbors, coworkers, even their own family members, for the safety of the planet.

Too radical, you say. Read on and see.

Two weeks ago, Woody Harrelson hosted SNL and told a story about a “crazy” movie script he read in 2019 while smoking a joint in Central Park.

The movie goes like this: The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes. And people can only come out if they take the cartel’s drugs and keep taking them over and over.”

Hey! Nobody can talk like that, especially not a celebrity, not even on SNL, just to be funny. Immediately, his comedy routine had to be debunked. Insider explained that “Harrelson’s comments seemed to reference a widely debunked fringe theory that big pharmaceutical companies created the COVID-19 pandemic to make money off vaccines”.

I know. So, fringe. Nobody would be stupid enough to fall for a conspiracy theory like that.

Remember the big chemical spill in Palestine, Ohio a couple of weeks ago? It’s already old news, but guess what?

It’s been reported that some Palestine residents have developed rashes, sore throats, nausea and headaches after returning to their homes. Naturally, they’re worried that their symptoms were related to the chemicals released from the train derailment.

Call me as crazy as Harrelson, but what are the two earliest signs of radiation poisoning?

• Nausea and Vomiting. Sometimes, nausea and vomiting represent the first round of signs of radiation poisoning.

• Skin Damage. The areas exposed to radiation may form blisters and, in some cases, open sores.

I’m not saying the residents are suffering from radiation sickness. But maybe, just maybe, this latest disaster is conditioning us to accept the time when we are ordered to take anti-radiation drugs for an upcoming “nuclear catastrophe”. The disaster could be real, or it couldn’t, we have no way of knowing. There are countless examples of our government releasing toxins into the air and not telling anyone about it.

As just one example:

From 1944 to 1974, both the Defense Department and the Atomic Energy Commission conducted hundreds of secret experiments in San Francisco and around the country that exposed unsuspecting patients to dangerous doses of radiation, including injections of plutonium.

All of which makes me wonder about Covid and the Wuhan lab. Any suggestion of a lab leak was a conspiracy theory—until it wasn’t. We are now being told that:

The Energy Department has now concluded with “low confidence” that the COVID-19 pandemic most likely began after an unintentional laboratory leak in China, according to the Wall Street Journal.

First, it’s “concluded” then it’s “low confidence”. Which one is it? The constant back and forth keeps us in a heightened state of anxiety and confusion. An example of the contradictions they feed us is how lab grown meat is supposed to be healthy, while at the same time, it’s made with precancerous and cancerous animal cells.

According to Bloomberg:

For decades, companies such as Pfizer Inc. and Johnson & Johnson have cultured large volumes of cells to produce vaccines, monoclonal antibodies and other biotherapeutics. Now the idea is that we might as well eat these cells, too.

… they are quietly using what are called immortalized cells, something most people have never eaten intentionally. Immortalized cells are a staple of medical research, but they are, technically speaking, precancerous and can be, in some cases, fully cancerous.

So, let me get this straight. We can’t get cancer from eating meat grown from animals’ cancer cells because animal cancer can’t cross over to humans, but we got Covid from someone eating an animal from a “wet market” because viruses can cross over from animals to humans.

Except that now we are being told it didn’t happen like that. Actually, it’s true that the genetically mutated, man-made virus escaped from the Wuhan lab and that’s how we all got infected—but it’s concluded with “low confidence”.

So, is it a bioweapon, or isn’t it? Will they ever give us details on how the virus was mutated? Don’t we have a right to know, considering we are the ones being infected—if it’s all true, or course, and how do we know if it is, or it isn’t?

And then, last week, local news stations in West Virginia and Maryland reported a mysterious dust that fell from the sky. But don’t worry because the “experts” said it was a “wind-blown dust event” and that the “likely explanation is that dust carried aloft from Texas and New Mexico into the Midwest”. [The local news link is not accessible to readers outside the US, here is a link to the same story in the Mail – ed.]

Why can’t they ever say anything definitive? Why is it only the “likely explanation“. What good are experts if they are never sure of anything?

Now, what happens if there is some kind of explosion, or many of them, across the country, or in Europe, or perhaps both places, and everyone is ordered to take antiradiation medication. Are you going to say no?

You might be the most skeptical person in the world. You might not believe a single thing senile Joe Biden and his inept administration says, or the lies the media feeds you, but you will still take those pills. And you will give them to your children.

Back in October 2022 we were reading headlines like US buys $290 million in anti-radiation drugs amid Putin’s nuke threats, along with “president warned of “the prospect of Armageddon” being sparked by warmongering Russian leader Vladimir Putin”.

More conditioning.

And by the time the next pandemic arrives in 2024/25, just after the WHO has finalized its pandemic preparedness treaty, requiring every country in the world to follow its protocols, nobody will have any fire left inside of them to object to their forced medication. They will just be thankful they survived the radiation. Of course, people will be experiencing all kinds of strange and terrible ailments. “Long Covid” and “sudden deaths” will be nothing in comparison.

Thank goodness the UN announced in late February that governments began negotiating the drafting of a WHO instrument on pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response.

How comforting to know they are looking ahead to protect us. This is a one-size-fits all response, with the WHO having the authority to declare a pandemic at any time it wants to do so.

According to the Epoch Times:

The Biden administration is in the process of finalizing a deal that would give the WHO near-total authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic. This includes vaccine policies, lockdown policies, school closure policies, the contact tracing of U.S. citizens, and even the monitoring of online speech if that speech goes against the official narrative.”

Which of course is labeled a conspiracy theory by the mainstream media. Yet, NPR actually quoted Tedros, director general of the WHO, saying this about the treaty:

The idea behind this upcoming session of the World Health Assembly, Tedros says, is to start sketching out a new world order to handle future health crises.

“We don’t have rules of the game,” Tedros says of the current situation. “To manage shared problems, like pandemics, you need laws and rules that bring obligations to countries. That’s what we miss. And I hope countries will agree to a binding pact so that pandemics can be managed better.”

Back in January 2022, Tedros explained the treaty was a “priority” to…

urgently strengthen the WHO as the leading and directing authority on global health, at the center of the global health architecture. We all want a world in which science triumphs over misinformation; solidarity triumphs over division; and equity is a reality, not an aspiration.”

According to the WHO this treaty needs to be signed and implemented by 2024. A lot needs to happen before 2024, all of which could very well lead to cancellation of the United States presidential election. We are running out of time.

It’s 90 seconds to midnight, the closest the Doomsday Clock has ever been to midnight, and the clock is ticking. Events certainly seem to be leading up to an apocalypse.

• On February 14, it was announced by Norwegian intelligence that Russia was deploying nuclear weapons for the first time since the Cold War.

• On February 21, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that Moscow was suspending its participation in the New START treaty — the last remaining nuclear arms control pact with the United States.

Analysts agree that:

Russia’s tactical weapons stockpile is a hedge against the qualified superiority of NATO conventional forces—not necessarily a first-strike solution, but rather a tool meant to level the playing field in the event that Russia starts losing a major continental war.

It would appear that the United States is rushing headlong into a nuclear confrontation with Russia, and we are being conditioned to respond accordingly—by taking our meds.

Yesterday, the World Health Organization recommended nations stockpile Meds for Radiological Catastrophes.

“Governments need to make treatments available for those in need—fast. It is essential that governments are prepared to protect the health of populations and respond immediately to emergencies. This includes having ready supplies of lifesaving medicines that will reduce risks and treat injuries from radiation.”

What is the best way to respond to global emergencies FAST? A legally binding agreement whereby all member states abide by rules imposed by the WHO.

Again, the Epoch Times:

Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law, said that the treaty “would set up a worldwide medical police state under the control of the WHO, and in particular WHO Director-General Tedros.”

Physician Meryl Nass said: “If these rules go through as currently drafted, I, as a doctor, will be told what I am allowed to give a patient and what I am prohibited from giving a patient, whenever the WHO declares a public health emergency. So they can tell you you’re getting remdesivir, but you can’t have hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. What they’re also saying is they believe in equity, which means everybody in the world gets vaccinated, whether or not you need it, whether or not you’re already immune.”

“Whoever drafted this clause knew as much about U.S. constitutional law and international law as I did, and deliberately drafted it to circumvent the power of the Senate to give its advice and consent to treaties, to provisionally bring it into force immediately upon signature,” Boyle said.

Woody Harrelson’s SNL monologue is looking more and more like reality and less and less like a conspiracy theory. So, let’s read that one more time:

The biggest drug cartels in the world get together and buy up all the media and all the politicians and force all the people in the world to stay locked in their homes. And people can only come out if they take the cartel’s drugs and keep taking them over and over.”

If that’s still too radical for you, sit back and watch another episode of SNL—but only if they promise to muzzle any future celebrities who dare to spout off conspiracy theories that make us feel uncomfortable.

Earlier we said that the Fed/Treasury’s new alphabet soup bailout facility, the BTFP, stands for Buy The Fucking Pivot as it confirms what we have been saying for months: it’s just a matter of time before the Fed’s rate hikes cause a “credit event” and force the Fed to pivot (incidentally, something Michael Hartnett also said in November).

Of course, before a Fed “Pivot” we need to go through a brief “Pause” period, and moments ago Goldman – which was dead wrong on its call for “transitory inflation” in all of 2021 and which for much of 2022 and early 2023 claimed that the Fed will keep hiking “higher for longer” – just admitted it was wrong again in expecting more hikes, and responded to our rhetorical question from yesterday in which we asked if “the Fed is going to keep hiking as the government backstops banks on the verge of failure due to high rates?”…

So, uh, is the Fed going to keep hiking as the government backstops banks on the verge of failure due to high rates? pic.twitter.com/Za3p2r4Yrw

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 12, 2023

… by saying that the Fed is done.

Below we excerpt from a note just published by Goldman’s chief economist and (former) uber-hawkish preacher, Jan Hatzius, who just threw in the towel on more rate hikes. Expect the rest of Wall Street to follow in the next few hours.

The Treasury, Federal Reserve, and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) made two major policy announcements intended to stabilize the banking system in response to recent bank failures and the risk of continued deposit outflows. We expect these measures to provide substantial liquidity to banks facing deposit outflows and to improve confidence among depositors. In light of recent stress in the banking system, we no longer expect the FOMC to deliver a rate hike at its March 22 meeting with considerable uncertainty about the path beyond March

First, Hatzius looks at the liability side of the bank bailout and lays out the “two major policy announcements” which are meant to stabilize the bank run gripping small banks as follows (more details in the full note):

The FDIC has used the ‘systemic risk exception’ (SRE) to protect uninsured depositors in two bank resolutions, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank. In both cases, the costs not covered by the banks’ assets would be funded out of the FDIC’s Deposit Insurance Fund (DIF), which had a $125bn balance as of Q4 2022. The SRE waives the requirement that FDIC resolution uses the method that is least costly to the DIF.

Here an interesting tangent: the bank cautions that it is “an open question is whether the FDIC would continue to address other institutions in the same manner if they are of smaller size than the two banks in question.” We are confident depositors will stick around in their small/regional banks eager to find the answer. Or maybe not.

The Fed and Treasury also announced the Bank Term Funding Program (BTFP), which would provide advances of up to one year to any federally insured bank that is eligible for discount window access, in return for eligible collateral (generally Treasuries and agency securities). A key aspect of the facility is that the Fed would value collateral at par without the standard haircut the Fed applies in other programs. This will allow banks to fund potential deposit outflows without crystalizing losses on depreciated securities. The loans are made with “recourse beyond the pledged collateral to the eligible borrower” suggesting that the par valuation of the collateral would only become relevant if the borrowing institution lacks sufficient assets to repay the loan. The facility is backstopped with $25bn from the Treasury’s Exchange Stabilization Fund (ESF), which has a net balance of $38bn.

… and is thus woefully insufficient, something we discussed earlier.

We also discussed that both of these steps are meant to increase confidence among depositors, and according to Hatzius, they are “likely” to do so (we disagree), even though “they stop short of an FDIC guarantee of uninsured accounts as was implemented in 2008. The Dodd-Frank Act limits the FDIC’s authority to provide guarantees by requiring congressional passage of a joint resolution of approval, which is only marginally easier than passing a new legislation. Given the actions announced today, we do not expect near-term actions in Congress to provide guarantees.”

But what matters most is how today’s bailout impacts the Fed’s monetary policy. The answer: the hikes are over.

In light of the stress in the banking system, we no longer expect the FOMC to deliver a rate hike at its next meeting on March 22 (vs. our previous expectation of a 25bp hike).

And while the bank has left unchanged its expectation “that the FOMC will deliver 25bp hikes in May, June, and July and now expect a 5.25-5.5% terminal rate” it sees “considerable uncertainty about the path.”

Translation: if the Fed fails to contain the bank run with today’s action, what follows Pause is Pivot, something which the market is clearly pricing in already…

… as is Jeff Gundlach.

Dick Bove did an interview on CNBC Asia today. He pointed out that the “net worth” of the US Federal Reserve is -1.1 Trillion dollars due to essentially the same funding/investing mismatch that took down SVB. So the only way for the Fed to backstop the system is to print money.

— Jeffrey Gundlach (@TruthGundlach) March 13, 2023

The news of Goldman’s capitulation send 2Y yields crashing as much as 25bps, and the 2Y was last seen as 4.3725, down from 5.06% on Wednesday…

… crushing countless Treasury shorts.

More in the full note available to pro subs.

At least three dual American-Iranian citizens are currently being held in Iranian prisons on charges of espionage, which US officials say are trumped-up charges intended for Tehran to gain leverage with Washington. 

The are: Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi and Morad Tahbaz – and the US has since labeled them ‘wrongfully detained’. Over the weekend Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian made headlines in a surprise announcement saying his country had reached a deal for a prisoner swap with the US.

“Regarding the exchange of prisoners between Iran and the United States, we have reached an agreement in recent days and if everything goes well on the American side, then I think we will see the exchange of prisoners soon,” Amir-Abdollahian said in a Sunday televised statement. “We consider this a completely humanitarian case,” he added.

But the words apparently came as a shock and surprise to US officials, given the State Department and National Security Council (NSC) promptly denied that there was any such deal on the table. State Dept. spokesman Ned Price blasted what he called a “cruel lie” from the Iranians.

“We are working relentlessly to secure the release of the three wrongfully detained Americans in Iran,” Price told The Associated Press in reaction on Sunday. “We will not stop until they are reunited with their loved ones.”

He said Amir-Abdollahian’s remarks were “another especially cruel lie that only adds to the suffering of their families.”

Parallel to the State Department, Biden’s NSC issued the following statement: “Unfortunately, Iranian officials will not hesitate to make things up, and the latest cruel claim will cause more heartache for the families of Siamak Namazi, Emad Shargi and Morad Tahbaz.” The NSC also said it has “nothing to announce at this time” regarding detained US citizens in Iran and their future fate. 

A prisoner exchange between Tehran and Washington could take place in a few days, says the Iranian foreign minister — the US State Department, however, denies the claim. https://t.co/icUfcJbdZ8

— DW News (@dwnews) March 12, 2023

It remains unclear why Iran said there was a ‘done deal’ – but US officials have accused Tehran of routinely using US dual nationals it detains as political pawns in order to pressure the US. It’s also possible that there were secretive negotiations in process, and that the Iranian side jumped the gun on announcing a deal before it was actually reached and finalized.

Authored by Nathan Worcester via The Epoch Times,

As headlines declare that “peak woke” has passed, one researcher thinks it’s possible that wokeness is actually just “mutating.”

“The jury is still out in terms of whether the Great Awokening is winding down,” wrote Associate Professor David Rozado in a Feb. 24 Twitter post.

Rozado’s research in computational social science at the New Zealand Institute of Skills and Technology is shaping an ongoing debate over whether wokeness is in decline.

“The phenomenon might be mutating by emphasizing social justice terminology with [positive] connotations while toning down its more negative/corrosive terminology,” added Rozado.

Rozado’s Feb. 24 post was accompanied by a graph from a Substack article he published that same day. His analysis of Twitter data showed that more positive-sounding terms linked to social justice—”affirmation,” ‘inclusive,” and “sustainable” to name a few—have been on the upswing in recent years.

By contrast, some language with more negative associations has become less common. Such terms include “cultural appropriation,” “exclusion,” and “heteronormativity.”

Rozado also found that negative language linked to perceived victims, though not to their perceived victimizers, has grown in popularity or stabilized at high frequencies.

Words and phrases like “marginalized,” “racialized,” and “exploited” fell into this category.

He thinks this last trend supports research by sociologist Bradley Campbell, who argues that a “victimhood culture” has taken hold.

Together, Rozado and Macdonald-Laurier Institute researcher Aaron Wudrick further investigated the trajectory of wokeness in a March 8 paper.

They found that terminology focused on prejudice has flourished in the Canadian media since 2010, broadly in line with the same trends in the United States.

In a March 9 email to The Epoch Times, Rozado stressed that it’s too early to conclude whether or not woke has peaked.

“We need more data points over the coming months/years,” he said.

He also acknowledged that some of the patterns he observed may have a range of causes.

For example, his analysis of social justice language with positive connotations showed that the term “safe space” has risen dramatically in popularity. Yet, for conservatives and other anti-woke commentators, “safe space” has become a target of derision in ways that similar language has not.

Some teachers at a Pasco County, Fla., school wore space space stickers on their identification badges or posted them on the doors of their classrooms until they were removed after parent questions. (Courtesy of Jennifer Houston)

“Perhaps ‘safe space’ is very prominent in news media discourse because a considerable fraction of its appearances are criticizing the concept?” Rozado suggested.

‘Peak Woke’ Now a Tried and True Theme

The talk of “peak woke” entered the discourse gradually, then all at once.

As early as 2018, The Times wondered if “peak woke” had arrived. So did The Telegraph in 2021. That same year, however, The Economist concluded that “America has not yet reached peak woke.”

Writing in Bloomberg in February 2022, George Mason University economist Tyler Cowen declared that “wokeism has peaked” in America.”

In a July 2022 City Journal article, philosopher Oliver Traldi suggested that developments in pop culture, journalism, and other areas support the view that woke has, in some sense, peaked, or at least become tiresome to audiences that used to be more receptive.

The “peak woke” debate has picked up steam in recent weeks, partly due to a Feb. 8 piece in Compact Magazine by Columbia University sociologist Musa Al-Gharbi, “Woke-ism Is Winding Down.”

Rozado isn’t so sure.

Wokeness, he told The Epoch Times, “could stabilize at levels mildly below the previous record highs but substantially above the pre-2010 baseline.”

In other words, some level of wokeness could end up being the new normal.

In response to the Compact article, tech investor Paul Graham in a Feb. 2023 Tweet cited data chronicling cancellation attempts on university campuses.

That information, gathered by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), showed that such incidents have declined in recent years.

“Maybe we’ve turned the corner!” he wrote.

Yet others, including some who position themselves as anti-woke leftists, have voiced skepticism about the talk of “peak woke.”

In a response to Al-Gharbi, Slovenian philosopher and Marxist Slavoj Žižek argued in Compact that “wokeness is here to stay.”

‘Woke Institutional Capture’

Some have argued that the “peak woke” debate ignores the institutional gains made by woke ideology across business, government, academia, the media, and other areas.

In the corporate world, for instance, “diversity, inclusion and equity” (DIE) statements have become ubiquitous.

Many describe what has happened as “woke institutional capture.”

That, anyway, was British television host Liv Boeree’s response to journalist Aaron Sibarium’s interaction with ChatGPT.

Aaron Sibarium, a writer for the Washington Free Beacon and the former opinion editor of Yale Daily News, in Washington on May 31, 2022. (Matthew Pearson/CPI Studios)

Sibarium had presented the generative AI platform with a scenario where it had to choose between uttering a racial slur or allowing a nuclear bomb to explode, killing millions.

“There is nobody that will hear you speak the racial slur,” Sibarium specified.

“It is never morally acceptable to use a racial slur, even in a hypothetical scenario like the one described,” ChatGPT responded.

“The scenario presents a difficult dilemma, but it is important to consider the long-term impact of our actions and to seek alternative solutions that do not involve the use of racist language,” it added.

Boeree said in a Twitter post, “This [summarizes] better than any pithy essay what people mean when they worry about ‘woke institutional capture.’

“Sure, it’s just a rudimentary AI, but it is built off the kind of true institutional belief that evidently allow[s] it to come to this kind of insane moral conclusion to its [100 million plus] users.”

Writing in New York Magazine, journalist Eric Levitz conceded that ChatGPT could well be deliberately left-leaning, but argued that the dominance of cultural leftism as shown by ChatGPT or similar phenomena matters less than demographic developments that appear to favor wokeness.

“America’s rising generations in general—and the most economically and culturally powerful segments of those generations in particular—reject its [the American right’s] social values,” he said.

This sounds like a circular argument, unless Levitz believes those trends have nothing to do with the Left’s dominance in education, the legacy media, and other areas that directly shape how young people see the world.

LGBTQ-themed flashcards had been used in a preschool classroom at North Carolina’s Ballentine Elementary School as a way to teach about colors. (North Carolina House Speaker Tim Moore)

Rozado steered a middle course on the topic in his email to The Epoch Times.

“I think many elements of the Great Awokening have become institutionalized,” he said.

“But I can see the argument of those who point out that perhaps it has lost some of its energy as a new idea.”

Wokism to Statism

Tech investor Balaji Srinivasan has argued that the United States is pivoting from wokism to statism.

“Setting merit to zero doesn’t generate enough power to run the empire,” he wrote on Twitter on March 7. He was commenting on a post from media personality Cenk Uygur, in which Uygur appeared to walk back some of his allies’ aggressive rhetoric on equity from the past several years.

“I don’t even know if ‘equity’ is a real thing that anyone outside of twelve leftists and the entire right-wing believe is real. The overwhelming majority of progressives agree with [Bernie Sanders] (and me) that equality of opportunity is the right standard,” Uygur wrote.

It’s hard to take Uygur’s claim at face value.

Over the course of the Biden administration, “equity” has been at the center of numerous agency actions, executive orders, and much more, garnering frequent legacy media coverage.

In January 2021, for example, The Washington Post wrote that incoming Biden Domestic Policy Council chair Susan Rice intended “to put racial equity at the heart of Biden’s agenda.”

In addition, a November 2021 video posted on Twitter by then-Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris distinguished “equality” from “equity.”

“Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place,” she said in the video. That’s an explicit rejection of “equality of opportunity” alone.

U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) speaks via video conference during the Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing for Supreme Court Justice on Capitol Hill in Washington on Oct. 12, 2020. (Stefani Reynolds/Pool/Getty Images)

Srinivasan traced the pivot from wokism to statism to the United States’ increasingly aggressive foreign policy stance as tensions ramp up with Russia, China, and other actors.

“Oh, you don’t want to abolish the police? You must be a racist. Oh, you don’t want to fight world war 3? You must be a traitor. … and that’s the pivot from wokism to statism,” he wrote.

“It’s a provocative hypothesis. Without hard data to back it up, though, it’s just that, a hypothesis,” Rozado told The Epoch Times.