Connect with us

Business

Gold and silver stumble at the end of best year since the 1970s

Published

on



Gold and silver fell on the last trading day of 2025, though both remained on track for the biggest annual gain in more than four decades as a banner year for precious metals draws to a close. 

Spot gold hovered around $4,320 an ounce, while silver slid toward $71. The two have seen exceptional volatility in thin post-holiday trading, plunging Monday before recovering Tuesday and dropping again Wednesday. The big swings prompted exchange operator CME Group to raise margin requirements twice. 

Both metals are still on track for their best year since 1979, supported by strong demand for haven assets amid mounting geopolitical risks, and by interest-rate cuts by the US Federal Reserve. The so-called debasement trade — triggered by fears of inflation and swelling debt burdens in developed economies — has helped supercharge the scorching rally.

In gold, the bigger market by far, those factors spurred a rush by investors into bullion-backed exchange-traded funds, while central banks extended a years-long buying spree.

Gold is up about 63% this year. In September, it eclipsed an inflation-adjusted peak set 45 years ago — a time when US currency pressures, spiking inflation and an unfolding recession pushed prices to $850. This time around, the record run saw prices smash through $4,000 in early October.

“In my career, it’s unprecedented,” said John Reade, a market veteran and chief strategist at the World Gold Council. “Unprecedented by the number of new all-time highs, and unprecedented in the performance of gold exceeding the expectations of so many people by so much.”

Silver has notched up a gain of more than 140% during the year, driven by speculative buying but also by industrial demand, with the metal used extensively in electronics, solar panels and electric cars. In October, it soared to a record as tariff concerns drove imports into the US, tightening the London market and triggering a historic squeeze.

The new peak was then passed the following month as US rate cuts and speculative fervor drove prices higher, and the rally topped out above $80 earlier this week — in part reflecting elevated buying in China.

Yet the latest move swiftly reversed, with the market closing down 9% on Monday then swinging the following two days. In response to the extreme volatility, CME Group again raised margins on precious-metal futures, meaning traders must put up more cash to keep their positions open. Some speculators may be forced to shrink or exit their trades — weighing on prices.

“The key driver today is the CME raising margins for the second time in just a few days,” said Ross Norman, chief executive officer of Metals Daily, a pricing and analysis website. The higher collateral requirements are “cooling the markets off,” he said.

Platinum, Palladium

The enthusiasm for gold and silver has extended into the wider precious-metals complex in 2025, with platinum breaking out of a years-long holding pattern to hit a new high.

The metal is on course for a third annual deficit, following disruptions in major producer South Africa, and supply will likely remain tight until there’s clarity on whether the Trump administration will impose tariffs — as well as on silver.

Prices for silver, platinum and palladium all sagged on Wednesday, though there’s little sign of enthusiasm waning.

“2025’s surprise was how safe-haven metals turned into momentum trades — silver in particular,” said Charu Chanana, chief market strategist at Saxo Markets in Singapore.

Silver traded down 6% at $71.44 an ounce as of 12:28 p.m. in New York. Gold slipped 0.4% to $4,322.04 an ounce, while the Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was up 0.1%.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

5 states to ban soda, candy, other snacks from SNAP recipients under MAHA food-stamp push

Published

on



Starting Thursday, Americans in five states who get government help paying for groceries will see new restrictions on soda, candy and other foods they can buy with those benefits.

Indiana, Iowa, Nebraska, Utah and West Virginia are the first of at least 18 states to enact waivers prohibiting the purchase of certain foods through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP.

It’s part of a push by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to urge states to strip foods regarded as unhealthy from the $100 billion federal program — long known as food stamps — that serves 42 million Americans.

“We cannot continue a system that forces taxpayers to fund programs that make people sick and then pay a second time to treat the illnesses those very programs help create,” Kennedy said in a statement in December.

The efforts are aimed at reducing chronic diseases such as obesity and diabetes associated with sweetened drinks and other treats, a key goal of Kennedy’s Make America Healthy Again effort.

But retail industry and health policy experts said state SNAP programs, already under pressure from steep budget cuts, are unprepared for the complex changes, with no complete lists of the foods affected and technical point-of-sale challenges that vary by state and store. And research remains mixed about whether restricting SNAP purchases improves diet quality and health.

The National Retail Federation, a trade association, predicted longer checkout lines and more customer complaints as SNAP recipients learn which foods are affected by the new waivers.

“It’s a disaster waiting to happen of people trying to buy food and being rejected,” said Kate Bauer, a nutrition science expert at the University of Michigan.

A report by the National Grocers Association and other industry trade groups estimated that implementing SNAP restrictions would cost U.S. retailers $1.6 billion initially and $759 million each year going forward.

“Punishing SNAP recipients means we all get to pay more at the grocery store,” said Gina Plata-Nino, SNAP director for the anti-hunger advocacy group Food Research & Action Center.

The waivers are a departure from decades of federal policy first enacted in 1964 and later authorized by the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, which said SNAP benefits can be used for “any food or food product intended for human consumption,” except alcohol and ready-to-eat hot foods. The law also says SNAP can’t pay for tobacco.

In the past, lawmakers have proposed stopping SNAP from paying for expensive meats like steak or so-called junk foods, such as chips and ice cream.

But previous waiver requests were denied based on USDA research concluding that restrictions would be costly and complicated to implement, and that they might not change recipients’ buying habits or reduce health problems such as obesity.

Under the second Trump administration, however, states have been encouraged and even incentivized to seek waivers – and they responded.

“This isn’t the usual top-down, one-size-fits-all public health agenda,” Indiana Gov. Mike Braun said when he announced his state’s request last spring. “We’re focused on root causes, transparent information and real results.”

The five state waivers that take effect Jan. 1 affect about 1.4 million people. Utah and West Virginia will ban the use of SNAP to buy soda and soft drinks, while Nebraska will prohibit soda and energy drinks. Indiana will target soft drinks and candy. In Iowa, which has the most restrictive rules to date, the SNAP limits affect taxable foods, including soda and candy, but also certain prepared foods.

“The items list does not provide enough specific information to prepare a SNAP participant to go to the grocery store,” Plata-Nino wrote in a blog post. “Many additional items — including certain prepared foods — will also be disallowed, even though they are not clearly identified in the notice to households.”

Marc Craig, 47, of Des Moines, said he has been living in his car since October. He said the new waivers will make it more difficult to determine how to use the $298 in SNAP benefits he receives each month, while also increasing the stigma he feels at the cash register.

“They treat people that get food stamps like we’re not people,” Craig said.

SNAP waivers enacted now and in the coming months will run for two years, with the option to extend them for an additional three, according to the Agriculture Department. Each state is required to assess the impact of the changes.

Health experts worry that the waivers ignore larger factors affecting the health of SNAP recipients, said Anand Parekh, a medical doctor who is the chief health policy officer at the University of Michigan School of Public Health.

“This doesn’t solve the two fundamental problems, which is healthy food in this country is not affordable and unhealthy food is cheap and ubiquitous,” he said.

——

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

‘You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out’: Pearls of Warren Buffett wisdom on his last day in charge

Published

on



The advice that legendary investor Warren Buffett offered on investing and life over the years helped earn him legions of followers who eagerly read his annual letters and filled an arena in Omaha every year to listen to him at Berkshire Hathaway’s annual meetings.

Buffett’s last day as CEO is Wednesday after six decades of building up the Berkshire conglomerate. He’ll remain chairman, but Greg Abel will take over leadership.

Here’s a collection of some of Buffett’s most famous quotes from over the years:

___

“Be fearful when others are greedy, and greedy when others are fearful.”

That’s how Buffett summed up his investing approach of buying out-of-favor stocks and companies when they were selling for less than he estimated they were worth.

He also urged investors to stick with industries they understand that fall within their “circle of competence” and offered this classic maxim: “Rule No. 1: Never lose money. Rule No. 2: Never forget Rule No. 1.”

___

“After they first obey all rules, I then want employees to ask themselves whether they are willing to have any contemplated act appear the next day on the front page of their local paper to be read by their spouses, children and friends with the reporting done by an informed and critical reporter.

“If they follow this test, they need not fear my other message to them: Lose money for the firm and I will be understanding; lose a shred of reputation for the firm and I will be ruthless.”

That’s the ethical standard Buffett explained to a Congressional committee in 1991 that he would apply as he cleaned up the Wall Street investment firm Salomon Brothers. He has reiterated the newspaper test many times since over the years.

___

“You only find out who is swimming naked when the tide goes out.”

Many companies might do well when times are good and the economy is growing, but Buffett told investors that a crisis always reveals whether businesses are making sound decisions.

___

“Who you associate with is just enormously important. Don’t expect that you’ll make every decision right on that. But you are going to have your life progress in the general direction of the people you work with, that you admire, that become your friends.”

Buffett always told young people that they should try to hang out with people who they feel are better than them because that will help improve their lives. He said that’s especially true when choosing a spouse, which might be the most important decision in life.

___

“Our unwavering conclusion: never bet against America.”

Buffett has always remained steadfast in his belief in the American capitalist system. He wrote in 2021 that “there has been no incubator for unleashing human potential like America. Despite some severe interruptions, our country’s economic progress has been breathtaking.”



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

JPMorgan says Javice firms billed millions just for ‘attendance’

Published

on



JPMorgan Chase & Co. said Charlie Javice’s “unconscionable” $74 million tab for legal fees included more than $5 million in charges for lawyers and other staff just for attending her fraud trial, even on days court wasn’t in session.

A previously sealed Delaware court filing released Monday offered the most detailed picture yet of JPMorgan’s claim that Javice, who was convicted in March of defrauding the largest US bank in a $175 million deal, abused a 2023 order requiring it to cover the costs of her defense. 

JPMorgan is seeking to avoid $10.2 million in disputed charges and end the requirement that it pay future bills. Lawyers at Javice’s five law firms billed unnecessary work and inappropriate expenses under the mindset that “someone else is paying her bills,” according to the filing.

The dispute has raised the question of how much is too much for a top-flight criminal defense. Javice’s costs have been much higher than the $30 million in bills Theranos Inc. founder Elizabeth Holmes amassed in her defense. 

The bank focused much of its criticism on Javice’s two largest firms, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, which it said “have already received tens of millions, and seek millions more for patently unreasonable fees and expenses that constitute clear abuse.” 

JPMorgan said it has “largely resolved” bills through July with Javice’s other firms, including the one for her planned appeal.

In a statement, a Quinn Emanuel spokesman said, “JPMorgan is trying to walk away from its contractual obligation to pay the remainder of Ms. Javice’s legal bills — all in hopes it can cut off her right to pursue her meritorious appeal.” Mintz didn’t immediately respond to phone calls and emails seeking comment.

The two large firms had already billed more than $22 million in the criminal case by August 2024, when Javice hired two smaller firms defend her in the upcoming trial, offering “no explanation” for why Quinn Emanuel and Mintz Levin couldn’t serve as lead trial counsel. 

Quinn Emanuel’s fee’s “skyrocketed” after telling the court before trial that it anticipated transitioning its responsibilities to Mintz, JPMorgan argued. And the Mintz Levin lawyers were “peripheral and unnecessary, even during trial,” the bank said.

JPMorgan said that Javice had as many as 16 to 29 lawyers and other legal professionals in court for every day of her trial, billing an average of $360,000 a day during the six weeks of the trial. No more then four lawyers had speaking roles, and many of the bills were for “trial attendance alone,” JPMorgan said. “Javice’s counsel even improperly billed for trial ‘attendance’ on non-trial days.”

According to the bank, lawyers attending the trial charged a number of inappropriate expenses, the bank said. Included in 2,377 pages of receipts submitted for March were a Cookie Monster toddler’s toy, lavender and jasmine sachets, 57 hotel room upgrades at $300 a night and a $900 meal at Koloman, a highly rated New York restaurant, JPMorgan said.

A New York jury found Javice guilty of misleading JPMorgan into acquiring her student-finance startup, Frank, by creating millions of fake users for the site. She was sentenced in September to seven years in prison but is free on bail pending her appeal.

As part of her sentence, Javice was ordered to repay the legal fees JPMorgan covered. But even if that order is upheld, the bank is unlikely to ever get back more than a small fraction of the total amount. Javice is only required to pay 10% of her income in restitution after she leaves prison, and the order expires in 20 years.

The case is Javice v. JPMorgan, 2022-1179, Delaware Chancery Court (Wilmington).



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.