Reddit, the community-focused message board site with tens of millions of daily users, priced its initial public offering on Wednesday between $31 to $34 per share, the top end of the range, raising $748 million. 

Bloomberg reports shareholders sold 22 million shares at $34 a share, giving the money-losing company a fully diluted valuation of $6.4 billion. That’s a substantial discount from the $10 billion valuation the company had in a 2021 funding round. 

About 8% of total shares were set aside for qualified Reddit users and moderators on the platform, certain board members, and family and friends of employees and directors. 

According to Reddit’s filings, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., and Bank of America Corp. are leading the IPO. Reddit’s shares will begin trading Thursday morning on the New York Stock Exchange under “RDDT.” 

Reddit’s successful offering has occurred amidst a multi-year capital markets freeze that has crushed IPO activity. But there is hope the trend is reversing after semiconductor connectivity company Astera Labs debuted on the market on Wednesday, jumping 72% on its first trading day. 

Reddit’s IPO surpasses major listings last fall by US technology companies Instacart, which raised $660 million, and Klaviyo Inc., with a $659 million offering. 2023’s biggest IPO was British chip designer Arm Holdings Plc’s $5.23 billion offering. 

So far this year, $8.7 billion has been raised through IPOs on US exchanges—an increase of about 150% compared with the same period last year. 

Jason Draho, head of asset allocation Americas for UBS Global Wealth Management, told clients earlier this month that “falling rates, rising confidence in the economy, and record dry powder” could be the catalysts to revive not just merger and acquisition deals but also the IPO market. 

Recall that Reddit signed a deal with Alphabet’s Google, allowing Google’s AI products to analyze Reddit data. So Reddit is now an AI company?

Following two years of interest rate hikes by the Federal Reserve, and just one day before the central bank’s meeting on Wednesday, Senators Elizabeth Warren and Sheldon Whitehouse, both climate alarmist Democrats, wrote a letter to Fed Chair Jerome Powell calling for an immediate halt to the interest rate hiking cycle to avert further collapse of the renewable infrastructure space. 

In the letter, first obtained by Bloomberg, the senators warned that interest rate hikes have “completely tanked major renewable infrastructure projects across the country.” 

They said the tightening cycle had diminished the nation’s ability to create green jobs and lower electricity costs that are critical to President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act. 

“The Fed’s interest rates have stalled progress and hampered the country’s ability to combat the climate crisis,” the letter said

struggling clean energy needs NIRP to survive? https://t.co/ZHNdmkJxsw

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) March 19, 2024

This comes as some of the most ambitious renewable power projects (including wind and solar) have been shelved, electric car sales slump, and clean energy stocks tank. 

The iShares Global Clean Energy ETF, heavily invested in solar, wind, and hydrogen stocks, including SolarEdge, First Solar, Sunrun, Orsted, and Plug Power, has crashed 52% since peaking in January 2021.  

Interest rate hikes threaten the Democrat’s green energy bubble. The bad news for them is that higher rates for longer rates will cause more pain. 

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

Illinois officials are moving to stop providing taxpayer-subsidized health care to thousands of non-citizens, including many illegal immigrants, in a bid to rein in soaring costs.

The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services said in a recent statement it will start annually verifying the eligibility for two programs—Health Benefits for Immigrant Adults (HBIA) and Health Benefits for Immigrant Seniors (HBIS)—after enrollment was paused due to budget concerns.

“This process will mirror the redetermination process used in the traditional Medicaid program to ensure those enrolled remain eligible,” the agency said.

The plans include closing cases for people who are enrolled who make over a certain amount or who otherwise are no longer eligible for the program in which they’re enrolled. Officials also plan on removing legal permanent residents who qualify for Medicaid, which is a federal program.

“The redetermination process ensures that those who are enrolled remain eligible for coverage,” Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services spokesperson Jamie Munks told WBEZ. “If an individual loses coverage through the redetermination process, it is because they no longer meet eligibility requirements, or they are required to respond or submit additional information to prove their continued eligibility, but they do not do so.”

The processes are estimated to reduce the number of enrollees in the state programs by about 6,000 people, state Sen. Don DeWitte, a Republican, told the Center Square after hearing from state health officials. Those removals would result in savings of $14 million.

HBIS, launched in 2020, provides taxpayer-funded health care for seniors who would receive Medicaid coverage but can’t get it due to their immigration status. HBIA, introduced in 2022, provides the same state benefits for people aged 42 to 64. Illegal immigrants are among the approximately 63,000 covered.

“Everyone, regardless of documentation status, deserves access to holistic healthcare coverage,” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, said in one of his statements in support of the programs.

Many Republicans have opposed the programs, noting that some citizens still lack health care.

The costs of the programs have increasingly sparked concern among lawmakers of both parties.

Each person aged 55 or older costs about $1,168 a month, while the rest cost about $750 a month, according to the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services. Total monthly costs soared to $71 million in August 2023. Illinois paused enrollment in 2023 after projecting it would cost $831 million for fiscal year 2024 and spike to $1.1 billion if no restrictions were implemented. Lawmakers had only approved $550 million for the programs for the fiscal year.

Health officials said the growing costs stemmed in part from covered populations suffering from “untreated chronic conditions.”

Mr. Pritzker, in his recently submitted fiscal 2025 budget, asked for $629 million in funding for the program.

Fees Introduced

The Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services said in 2023, as it paused enrollment, that it would also be imposing co-pays for certain hospital services that were not eligible for federal money.

The new fees included $250 for an inpatient hospitalization, $100 for a visit to an emergency room, and 10 percent of what the department would pay providers for non-emergency outpatient services.

The agency said at the time that the changes would help bring down costs while describing the programs as “a vital resource for individuals who would otherwise be eligible for Medicaid but for their immigration status.”

The agency later rolled back the emergency room visit co-pay, under pressure from activists.

The rollback came after officials said they checked with the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which conveyed that states can ask for reimbursement for all emergency room visits, regardless of the patient’s immigration status.

“This decision will keep Illinoisans safer and allow them to seek the healthcare they need in emergencies,” Tovia Siegel, director of the Healthy Illinois Campaign, an activist group, said in a statement.

The other co-pays were kept in place. The agency said they would help ensure costs came down. Ms. Siegel said they would be “a significant burden on both providers and patients, limiting access to healthcare for Illinois’ immigrant community.”

Authored by Lani Kass via RealClear Wire,

The presidential election is eight months away. Yet the campaign to preclude a second Trump administration is already in high gear. In the course of two weeks, the public was given a preview of the undemocratic, uncouth, racist dystopia MAGA America is doomed to become. Against the backdrop of the most virulent antisemitism sweeping the U.S. in the wake of Hamas’ savagery, the media has chosen to pillory “white nationalism” as the clear and present danger.

First, a new tome, “White Rural Rage,” is hailed by the New York Times as “an important book that ought to be read by anyone who wants to understand politics in the perilous Age of Trump.”

Next, Politico’s Heidi Przybyla proclaims that people who believe human rights come from God are “Christian Nationalists.” She triggers an uproar. Yet she doubles down in an even more incendiary piece: “Christian Nationalism is a political movement. … The thing that unites them … is that they believe our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any earthy [sic] authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God.”

Evidently, people who have read America’s founding document – the Constitution – are a mortal threat to our very survival.

Then, on March 3, CBS’s “60 Minutes” broadcasts a segment about “Moms for Liberty” waging a “campaign to ban books on race and gender from school libraries.” Could “Fahrenheit 451” be far behind?

We are witnessing what Hannah Arendt calls “the atomization of society.” It is a well-tested tactic: Shatter every natural connection in society; twist the language; isolate people from each other. The individual is all alone – an atom. No family, no community, no solace.

Totalitarianism of all stripes finds fertile ground in frightened, isolated individuals. 

Technology accelerates this “atomization.” We relate to each other in “virtual reality.” Our “friends” are on Facebook.

Truth itself is erased, because the Internet offers “facts” to fit any narrative. We have access to unprecedented amounts of information; yet our knowledge and intellectual discourse are beggared. The free market of ideas gives way to mutually reinforcing opinions, shared in closed echo chambers.

To disorient the “atomized” individual still further, “Political Correctness” takes hold. Things which were acceptable yesterday will get you a reprimand today. You’ll be censored online. You learn to obfuscate, because you need your job; you don’t want to be “canceled”; and, most of all, you dread being labeled “racist.” You self-censor – just like in the U.S.S.R.

Soon, a new language takes hold. Not only our pets can be “groomed”; so can our children. We ask about “preferred pronouns.” We learn new words: “cisgender,” “woke,” and “micro-aggression.”

We’re taught that “the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination.” And thus, “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.”

The term “Newspeak” originated in George Orwell’s novel “1984.” “Newspeak” is a controlled language, designed to limit critical thinking.

In Orwell’s dystopia, “The Ministry of Peace concerns itself with war, the Ministry of Truth with lies. … These contradictions are not accidental; they are deliberate exercises in doublethink.”

In today’s Department of Defense:

Diversity management calls for creating a culture of inclusion in which the diversity … shapes how the work is done. … Although good diversity management rests on a foundation of fair treatment, it is not about treating everyone the same. This can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially for leaders who grew up with the EO-inspired mandate to be both color and gender blind. Blindness to difference, however, can lead to a culture of assimilation in which differences are suppressed rather than leveraged. Cultural assimilation, a key to military effectiveness in the past, will be challenged as inclusion becomes, and needs to become, the norm.

The statement is from the 2011 report of the commission on “Military Leadership Diversity.”

Orwell would be proud.

The report – and the implementing law – are breathtaking in scope and implications. MLDC calls for a fundamental “transformation” of our military – making racial and gender representation a “top defense priority.” This effort continues with a new Defense Advisory Committee on Diversity and Inclusion.

We know that accentuating what is different among us fosters division and erodes cohesion. Yet we’re told that it’s “diversity” – of gender, race, ethnicity, sexual orientation – that makes our nation prosperous and our military strong.

We try to reconcile this with our motto, “E pluribus unum.” But we can’t reconcile the irreconcilable. This inevitably leads to cognitive dissonance – disorienting, disconcerting, and further “atomizing.”

A new Utopia emerges, wherein there are 57+ genders and men can give birth.

We know that is inconceivable, but it’s all around us – and suddenly we can’t talk to our children anymore. They think we are racist, sexist, transphobic bigots. We feel like aliens – from outer space, not from across the Southern border. “Up is down, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength.” We are atoms, untethered, disoriented, disconnected.

“And, thus, they had come to a time when no one dared speak his mind.”

Dr. Lani Kass served in the Department of Defense for 30 years. These views are her own.

Northrop Grumman announced on Tuesday that it received the Aviation Week Grand Laureate Award for its role as the prime contractor in delivering the B-21 Raider to the United States Air Force. The company also released a never-before-seen photo of the next-generation stealth bomber. 

“On behalf of the entire nationwide B-21 Raider team, Northrop Grumman is honored to receive this prestigious award,” said Tom Jones, corporate vice president and president of Northrop Grumman Aeronautics Systems.

Jones said, “The Grand Laureate represents the pioneering spirit, innovative technology and trailblazing approach to contract management that has brought the world’s first sixth-generation aircraft to life.”

The stealth bomber is undergoing test flights at Edwards Air Force Base in California and “continues to meet all DoD technical, schedule and affordability requirements on its path to operational capability,” the defense contractor said. 

The Raider’s first test flight was caught on camera and uploaded on X in November. 

B-21 RAIDER FIRST FLIGHT 11-10-23 #RAIDER33 #B21Raider pic.twitter.com/3tEKudqDiw

— Matt Hartman (@ShorealoneFilms) November 10, 2023

Other images of the Raider have been slowly released to the public in the last six months. 

The Raider will be the backbone of the USAF’s bomber fleet, replacing the B-2A Spirit and B-1B Lancer bombers in the coming years. 

“The limited production rate of the B-21 is the only thing that I wish we could do a little quicker,” Gen. Anthony J. Cotton said during a recent Senate Armed Services Committee. 

And why is that?

Well, you’ll find that answer here: “Putin Warns Of ‘Full-Scale WW3’ If West Sends Troops To Ukraine.”

By Matt Taibbi of the Racket News substack

The German people are famous for putting everything in print, even things they shouldn’t, and in this instance at least, American playwright and author CJ Hopkins is glad. “The irony,” he says, laughing. “The Germans, always documenting everything.”

In a letter from the Berlin Prosecutor’s file on Hopkins, the Bundeskriminalamt (BKA, analogous to our FBI) acknowledges receipt of a document from a government office describing an effort to have tweets deleted. “The Hessen Gegen Hetze reporting office,” the highlighted portion reads, “has already initiated measures to delete the relevant post on the social network”:

Hopkins reached out to me after listening in disgust to the Murthy v. Missouri Supreme Court hearing Monday. Standing was a big issue: our government said plaintiffs like Drs. Jay Bhattacharya and Aaron Kheriaty lacked definite proof that the government was responsible for suppressing their speech. No such issue exists in CJ’s case, as you can see.

Hopkins also wanted Americans who might be up in arms about the specter of legalized censorship in their own country to see that the phenomenon has also spread to virtually every Western democracy, often in more extreme forms than we’ve seen so far in the United States.

CJ’s unique insight involves his ludicrous German case, which as you’ll read in the Q&A below has taken bizarre turns since we last checked and will now go to trial yet again. As an expat following the American situation from afar, he’s seen how the authoritarian tide is rising in similar or worse ways all around the globe.

Hopkins is facing the business end of the German version, among the worst. As detailed last June, he was charged with “disseminating propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization.” The crime? Using a barely detectible Swastika in the cover image of his book, The Rise of the New Normal Reich. Far from “furthering the aims” of Nazism, he was criticizing them by comparing Nazi methods and laws to those of modern health authorities. The offending image:

Hopkins went to trial in January and delivered an impassioned plea to the court. “Every journalist that has covered my case, everyone in this courtroom, understands what this prosecution is actually about,” he said. “It has nothing to do with punishing people who actually disseminate pro-Nazi propaganda. It is about punishing dissent, and making an example of dissidents in order to intimidate others into silence.”

Though the judge was clearly not a fan of Hopkins — a courtroom account by Aya Velázquez, which I recommend reading, described how the judge said CJ’s statements were “ideological drivel,” just “not punishable by law” — he won on the law.

After acquittal, he was made aware that technically the case wasn’t over, because thanks to a quirk of German jurisprudence, the prosecutor had a week to file an appeal. Hopkins was unconcerned. “I doubt he will [re-file]. He made a total fool of himself in front of a large audience yesterday,” he wrote. “I can’t imagine that he will want to do that again.”

Bzzt! Wrong. The prosecutor re-filed charges. The prosecutorial theory in the Hopkins case was based on a bizarre interpretation of hate crime, essentially asserting that if you have to think about an image to realize it’s satire, it can’t be allowed. If that idea spreads, it would make comedy or even sharp commentary impossible. This is why his indictment, and the similar investigation of Roger Waters, are really serious moments. Not to be heavy-handed, but eliminating the loophole for satire or mockery is exactly what Waters meant by “Another Brick in the Wall.” Before you know it, it’ll be too high to see over:

MT: You got charged again?

CJ Hopkins: No… I got acquitted. I went to trial on the 23rd of January, and I wrote this up and I’ll send it to you so you can just look at the whole account. But at the trial I made a big aggressive statement that people republished all over the place. The judge acquitted me, and then called me all kinds of names and then put on her covid mask and stalked out of the courtroom. She called me a Schwurbler, which in German is kind of an idiot, I guess a babbler or someone.

Anyway, I read that statement, which pissed them all off, but she said, “Okay, you’re an idiot, but that’s not against the law, so you’re acquitted.” So I thought, “Great. This is over. I’m acquitted.” The prosecutor had no case whatsoever, and it was really embarrassing, and I figured it was all done, but my attorney reminded me: oh no, the prosecutor can appeal. Which he did. So now I’m facing another trial in appeals court. It’s not new charges, it’s the same charge, but the prosecutor’s appeal of my acquittal.

MT: The double jeopardy thing isn’t big in Germany, I take it?

CJ Hopkins: No.

MT: Are they going to make a different argument?

CJ Hopkins: I have no idea what they’re going to do. They have no argument… I mean, they put my tweets up on an overhead projector, like we were back in high school, and interrogated me about whether the Swastika was on top of the mask or behind the mask, that sort of thing. The prosecutor’s argument was basically, “We don’t believe that Mr. Hopkins is a Nazi, or pro-Nazi, we don’t believe he was trying to spread Nazi propaganda, but he nonetheless spread Nazi propaganda. because his tweet” – and this is a great part of their argument – “because if people saw his tweets, they would have to stop and think for a minute to figure out what they meant.”

MT: Essentially you can’t have satire, because that requires a person to have at least one thought.

CJ Hopkins: You can’t make people think. You’ve got to have beat-you-over-the-head messaging. I think the whole point of this… I’m sure it’s like the plea-bargain thing in the States. They figure if they hit you with a 3,600 Euro fine, you’re going to pay three times that much to fight it in court, so you’re just going to pay the fine and go away. I don’t think they ever expected to end up in court, and I have no idea what the prosecutor is doing with this appeal. The judge a few weeks later submitted a written verdict, which is strongly in my favor. She pretty much reiterated my attorney’s arguments and made it absolutely clear that what I did falls under the exceptions to the statute, and there’s nothing here to prosecute. Nonetheless, the prosecution’s going ahead.

MT: Did you have much Western news coverage?

CJ Hopkins: Right before the trial I had you, then Neue Zürcher Zeitung, which is the big paper of record in Switzerland, and James Kirchick at The Atlantic, who was a big help. I think it put a lot of pressure on the judge. My lawyer made her aware that Germany was being portrayed as a laughingstock in the international press. Aside from The Atlantic, it was all independent alternative media.

MT: In the Murthy Supreme Court case in the States Monday, there was an issue with what they call “traceability.” I see you don’t have a traceability issue, with this document from your case file?

CJ Hopkins: Exactly. That’s why I sent it to you. Unquestionably, this is a government office, directly involved with removing the tweets. The other thing that I was going to say, is that I’m looking at things like the Supreme Court case from a non-U.S. perspective. I’m outside of it. I’m watching the legislation that’s getting rolled out in Ireland and the UK and what’s happening to me here and what’s going on in the States, and it’s so obviously much broader than just a red-blue political story in the US. This is happening throughout the Western democratic countries.

I’m just desperate to get that across to people. I think it’s so easy for people to get locked into what’s going on in their own country and not see the bigger picture.

MT: What’s an example?  

CJ Hopkins: There was just a piece in The Herald, in Scotland. The police were being trained there on how to crack down on abusive hate speech. According to this new legislation that’s rolling out and in the training manual, they were saying this could take place in comic performances or stage plays. People are being arrested in the UK for protest signs.

If I can just put one little bug in your head, Matt, to whatever degree you can tweak people and let them know: “Hey, it’s not just Trump and the Democrats and the liberals and the woke people and all that.” This is happening all over the West, in all these different countries. I think that’s one thing that my case does, it provides folks with an opportunity to remind them that this is happening all over. The old rules don’t apply.

MT: Good luck with your case.

CJ Hopkins: Take care.

Authored by Newt Gingrich via RealClear Wire,

As an historian, it has been fascinating to watch the left try to impose new language to describe people in the country illegally.

The left has gradually pushed accepted language away from “illegal aliens” (the term in law), to “illegal immigrants” (the most common term), to “undocumented immigrants” (the left’s current favorite term), and now to “newcomers” (the Joe Biden White House’s latest experiment in gaining language dominance).

It all reminds me of Vladimir Lenin’s great language coup of 1903.

The Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party met secretly in Brussels. (The Czar’s secret police made it impossible to meet openly in Russia). At the meeting there was a split between Lenin’s hardline revolutionary faction and a more moderate democratic wing. Lenin’s faction was the smaller group, but they claimed the title Bolshevik (which means “greater faction” or majority). Group with the most votes were foolish enough to accept the title Lenin gave them, which was Menshevik, meaning minority. That language dominance and branding gave Lenin an enormous advantage in the following two-decade struggle to overthrow the Czar and create Soviet Russia.

At least as far back as the French Revolution, the left has had a passion for labeling things and ideas to gain language dominance.

This process as applied to illegal immigration began at least 25 years ago for me. That’s when I first remember being lectured that using the term “illegal immigrants” was wrong, and I should learn to say “undocumented.”

I thought this was nuts then, and I still do now. By definition, the people we were describing are illegal. Their first act on entering the United States is to break the law. Their decision to do so is an insult to every legal immigrant who patiently followed the rules and entered the United States legally.

In late February, the Biden White House had a handout which said, “The bill also includes $1.4 billion for cities and states who are providing critical services to newcomers.” The reaction to replacing “illegal immigrant” with “newcomer” was so harsh that the Biden team dropped it. But their goal was clear.

This process of normalizing weird and radical ideas goes on constantly on the left. Think of pushing transgenderism on children, kneeling during the pledge of allegiance, ignoring the destruction caused by the Black Lives Matter riots, etc.

The problem for the left is that illegal immigration may be the battlefield on which they can’t win.

The latest absurdity began when Biden responded to jeers from Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene during his State of the Union Address. He said, “Lincoln (sic) Riley, an innocent young woman who was killed by an illegal. That’s right. But how many of thousands of people are being killed by legals?”

Note that even in acknowledging a young woman who was killed by an illegal immigrant, Biden had to immediately cover it with thousands being killed by legal immigrants and citizens. The illegal immigrant could not be the focus.

Of course, he got Riley’s name wrong, but the left immediately attacked him for using the term “illegal.” This includes former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Biden promptly began trying to backtrack. In an interview with MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart on Saturday, Biden acknowledged his sin of language, “I shouldn’t have used ‘illegal,’ it’s ‘undocumented.’”

But Biden couldn’t stop there. He had to be pro-illegal immigrant. “I’m not going to treat any, any, any of these people with disrespect. Look, they built the country. The reason our economy is growing,” he said.

Biden’s defense of illegal immigration hurt him with the average American – and his use of “illegal” hurt him with his leftwing allies.

His confusion made him look weak. So, in another act of language dominance, the White House simply decided he really never apologized for saying “illegal” in the first place.

As The Hill reported:

“White House deputy spokesperson Olivia Dalton attempted to clarify on Monday, telling a reporter that ‘the president absolutely did not apologize’ despite his expression of regret.

“‘There was no apology anywhere in that conversation,’” Dalton told reporters on Air Force One. ‘He did not apologize. He used a different word. I think what we should be really clear about is the facts.’”

Biden (and his press team) may be confused, but the American people are not. As Scott Rasmussen reported:

“Our recent polling found that 55% of voters believe ‘illegal immigrant’ is the proper term and another 8% prefer ‘illegal alien.’ While 63% favor use of ‘illegal,’ just 24% prefer ‘undocumented migrant.’

“Among traditional Democrats, 54% prefer ‘illegal’ and 33% ‘undocumented.’ But [Bernie] Sanders Democrats prefer ‘undocumented’ by a 48% to 30% margin. It is the progressive Democrats who forced Biden to apologize. This just moves him even further from the mainstream.”

Let’s be clear: Laken Riley was reportedly killed by an illegal immigrant. That illegal immigrant was in Athens, Ga. because of Biden’s insane policies which favor an open border and prioritize illegal immigrants over American citizens.

No word games can overcome those facts.

For more commentary from Newt Gingrich, visit Gingrich360.com. Also, subscribe to the Newt’s World podcast.

By Michael Msika and Macarena Munoz, Bloomberg Markets Live reporters and strategists

Real estate stocks just can’t seem to catch a break. Among this year’s worst performing sectors in Europe, even the prospect of interest rate cuts might not immediately reverse this year’s downward spiral.

Real estate is dismally lagging the broader equity index so far in 2024, with losses of 8% and erasing the outperformance seen at the end of last year. Dovish signals this week from the Federal Reserve and Bank of England could bring some relief, but few expect this to be forthcoming from the Fed.

Javier Miralles, equity fund manager at Mapfre Asset Management, reckons it’s still early for investors to position in real estate “as a strategic call betting on the rate drop.” Recent strong inflation data could well induce the Fed to send a higher-for longer message, he says, adding that “when rates are lowered, there will be a re-rating of the sector but it is still risky to position yourself like this.” 

The first Fed cut is now expected in June, compared with March just a few months ago. What’s more, just three reductions are priced for this year, versus more than five last December. While this pushback hasn’t affected the broader market, real estate stocks have been hit badly. That’s possibly because of other sector-specific issues, including the commercial real estate overhang and mark-to-market property values.

“The problem for the sector in recent months is not so much in the swings in expectations of rate cuts, but in the fall in asset valuation, and how this affects its debt ratios and the need to forcefully sell properties,” says Roberto Scholtes, head of strategy at Singular Bank. The valuation adjustment could be almost complete in Britain, he says, but is less far along in continental Europe.

The depreciation of assets increases loan-to-value ratios, in some cases it’s even threatening to exceed the covenants of the loans and bonds. That can force real estate companies to sell assets at a time of low liquidity and weak investor appetite, Scholtes notes. However, he expects the adjustment to be complete in the second half of this year, which alongside upcoming rate cuts, should allow the property sector to start its recovery. For the time being, he remains underweight.

For Citi analyst Aaron Guy, what stands out is the discrepancy in views between company executives and investors. Recent panel discussions his bank organized on European and UK real estate featured CEOs who were confident the worst was over for the sector. Conversations with investors, on the other hand, revealed a high degree of caution.
“This dislocation of positive CEOs and more cautious investors is likely a significant factor behind most CEOs noting their stocks trading at significant and excessive discounts and are opportunistically inexpensive,” Guy says.

Goldman Sachs analysts including Jonathan Kownator point out that historically, an environment of falling rates, together with high – but falling – inflation, has tended to create a positive tailwind for real estate. They see “property valuations close to the bottom,” while debt maturities are “largely manageable.”

Meanwhile short-sellers have zeroed in on the sector, which is among the most actively targeted in Europe, according to S&P Global data. Real estate management and development stocks have the highest percentage of shares out on loan — an indication of short interest — at 0.37% of market cap, versus less than 0.19% for the overall European stock market. Some names, such as Segro, Unibail-Roadamco-Westfield, Balder and SBB have even higher stock-on-loan ratios, the data shows. With such high figures, any positive central bank message this week could well see a short squeeze unfold on property stocks.

Authored by Jeffrey A. Tucker via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Who or what enforces the edicts of the court? Mostly it is the executors of state power. What if they don’t want to because they disagree with the courts? At that point, we’ve got a problem.

Let’s consider.

Next week, the Supreme Court hears arguments in Murthy v. Missouri over a major free speech issue. The question is whether the federal government can, directly or indirectly, impose itself on social media companies to game their policies in a particular way according to policy priorities of the government itself.

The First Amendment suggests the answer is no. It says that government cannot impose laws “prohibiting the free exercise” or otherwise “abridging the freedom of speech.” Social media is all about speech. For government to game the system in its favor is a major intervention in rights that are supposed to be guaranteed by the government.

This principle has been routinely tested from the early years. The Sedition Act of 1798 targeted newspaper editors who criticized the president. There was outrage about that and it swept Thomas Jefferson into office who repealed the cursed thing.

That was hardly the end. Censorship was tried again in 1835, 1861, 1918, 1940, 1954, and so on, and each time the First Amendment eventually prevailed. And yet underlying this long experience is always the push by government to control the channels of distribution of information.

Now that every citizen is in a position to be a distributor of information to a broad audience via new technologies, we have government exercising its penchant to want to control. The Constitution of the United States, unique in the world for this protection of free speech, stands against this.

That seems rather simple. Surely the court will agree.

Maybe or maybe not.

Here’s the problem. A massive censorship industrial complex extending from federal agencies to every major digital tech platform has been constructed over the last eight years, and went into full effect in 2020. It still exists today. This largely happened out of the public eye. Even four years ago, it was barely known. The cases of banned accounts and throttled postings seemed isolated and often just an unfortunate exercise of editorial zeal.

But FOIAs and court discovery have unearthed tens of thousands of pages of receipts, so that the problem is not isolated or random but gargantuan and systematic. It involves dozens of federal agencies, non-government organizations working as contractors, universities on contract either directly or indirectly, and even embedded employees at social media companies. The censorship network is so elaborate at this point that it is truly an industry—an illegal one!

The 5th Circuit looked at the evidence and was so alarmed that it issued a pre-trial injunction against the federal government, namely many agencies in particular. District Court Judge Terry Doughty described what he saw as “arguably the most massive attack against free speech in United States history” and “akin to an Orwellian Ministry of Truth.”

The appeals court agreed but delayed the injunction pending a Supreme Court judgment. That is the issue the court takes up next week.

Here’s the trouble. I seriously doubt that these justices know much about the existence of this machinery. That’s understandable. Most people had no idea that it was being constructed and deployed. After all, when censorship is effective, most people are put in a position of not knowing what they do not know.

And that’s the whole point: to deny the public information. In this case, the machinery worked to massively distort information on so-called Russiagate, COVID in every aspect of that and what it implies, and the 2020 election, the outcome of which was likely affected by the censorship. For a time there—and we should never have gotten used to this—it seemed like every mainline information outlet became a regime megaphone.

Sadly, the courts have been denied information too. Now the highest court is hearing the case. Any fair hearing and judgment will result in an upholding of the injunction. It might not go that way. Or two other possibilities: the court sides with the Biden administration and for censorship, or simply kicks the can down the road to wait for the trial phase. In that case, the core problem could stay in litigation for many years!

If either of those latter two decisions comes down, every federal agency will have a green light to continue and expand its aggressive intervention in information networks. Even independent platforms will feel the heat. The goal is quite clear: for the public to see and hear no information that fundamentally contradicts regime priorities. That’s the result the Biden administration hopes for, and not just on behalf of President Biden but the entire deep-state apparatus that built this censorship industrial complex in the first place.

The stakes are extremely high. If this thing goes the wrong way, free speech in the United States is toast and the First Amendment will be a dead letter.

But let’s just suppose there is a good result: the court sides for the plaintiffs, the injunction is immediately upheld, and goes into effect upon the release of the opinion. The social media companies would have lost nothing but their chains. They can still enforce terms of service and community standards but they will no longer be under pressure from any state actor.

Sorry to ask this question but it must be asked: who precisely is going to enforce this?

The pathetic answer is that the people and agencies charged with implementing the injunction are the same people against whom the injunction is targeted.

Do you see the problem here? It is a major flaw in the way the system works. We have to trust the government, whose power is being limited by the courts to limit itself. That’s because the judiciary has no army, no inherent coercive power, no ability directly to punish those who go against its edicts against the enforcers themselves.

In other words, even a good judgment here does not mean that we are out of the woods.

There will still be the need for citizen oversight and resistance because the censorship industry will not simply stop existing.

Another problem: the Biden administration is increasingly attempting to discredit the Supreme Court. This has been going on for a few years now. At the State of the Union address, President Biden directly attacked members of the Supreme Court who were sitting right there. I’m not sure that has ever happened before. And earlier this month, he bragged how his new student loan forgiveness actions are in defiance of the court. Their decision “didn’t stop me,” Mr. Biden said.

This is an extremely dangerous trajectory we are on. The Supreme Court seems poised to rule against many practices by the executive department of the federal government. This hasn’t happened very often in U.S. history. How precisely this is enforced amounts to a large stress test of the American system itself. There is every reason to believe that the people in charge today do not even believe in that system.

Is this a flaw in the structure? Sort of but it’s a problem with every system. If institutions collapse, they collapse, and there is no technical fix. Ultimately freedom is preserved by a public consensus in its favor and leaders willing to make it so. It appears that public opinion is the only real and final check on tyranny.

A final factor here. Notice the mad rush by Google, Facebook, and others to implement artificial intelligence throughout its operation. If they can work with federal officials to make their curation and censorship merely a product of machine learning, they will eliminate all fingerprints from their dirty deeds. This bears watching as well.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times.

The Marxist destruction of private property rights is on full display after a viral video circulating TikTok, then posted on X, shows a migrant informing other migrants how to “invade” unoccupied homes across America and take advantage of progressive squatting laws. 

“I found out that there is a law that says that if a house is not inhabited, we can seize it,” the migrant said in a video on TikTok, which Collin Rugg first posted on X. 

The migrant said he has African friends who have taken over seven homes thanks to squatting laws. 

NEW: TikToker is going viral by telling illegal immigrants how to “invade” homes in America thanks to progressive squatting laws

Remarkable.

“We can invade a house in the USA, what do you think about this new law?” a video from one TikTok user read.

The man said he has African… pic.twitter.com/b92DT9fYq7

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 20, 2024

The video is very concerning because progressive squatting laws are getting out of control. These laws are being abused, and landlords are being screwed. 

Take, for instance, a woman who found her home full of people squatting illegally was arrested this week for changing the door locks. 

NEW: New York City homeowner gets arrested after changing the locks on *her own home* after it got taken over by squatters.

Never do business in New York.

In NYC, anyone can simply claim “squatter’s rights” after 30 days of living at a home which isn’t even enough time for the… pic.twitter.com/xkcfYM9l7u

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 19, 2024

“It’s starting to feel like illegal immigrants have more rights than actual citizens,” one X user said. 

It’s starting to feel like illegal immigrants have more rights than actual citizens

— TheRightGuy (@TheRightGuy101) March 20, 2024

Here’s what other x users are saying:

Lax squatting laws reward the scummiest people of society.

And thanks to social media, many will now be taking advantage of it.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) March 20, 2024

This. People need to flee blue cities and states.

— Honeywell N. Todd (@HoneywellNTodd) March 20, 2024

Take note of what states these squatting laws are getting out of hand 🤔

— Foxy’s Crime Scenes (@thewaryfox) March 20, 2024

Psychopaths and sociopaths don’t blink as frequently as you and I because they don’t have that emotional background noise that can affect it.

Count his blinks.

— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) March 20, 2024

What baffles some is why squatters even have rights in the first place. 

Americans owning multiple properties should be alert for migrants attempting to seize their home.