Money Flow Trading Method along with Risk Management

https://www.fxcm.com/uk/platforms/tr...ion/free-demo/

PLEASE CLICK ON THE LINK ABOVE AND OPEN A $50,000 US Dollars DEMO ACCOUNT FOR FREE SO WE CAN TEACH YOU HOW TO BECOME VERY WEALTHY IF YOU HAVE THE DISCIPLINE AND CONTROL OVER YOUR FEARS, GREED and MOST IMPORTANTLY "YOUR EGO"

Email me your USER NAME and Password to [email protected], and I will set up your account for you.

WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM

Amongst the trading tribe do things that can identify and prove that you are different from the crowd - A real , serious and professional trader.

Don't just proclaim that you are a trader.

Trader does not mean that the sole objective is to make money. The moment you come with money making as the sole and only objective , you are out of the game anyways and part of the larger crowd which is unsuccessful

Do things which can identify you as a professional trader - learn the process, understand and follow risk management and position sizing. Be disciplined and understand that trading is a long haul.


Each day around 8:30 AM to 9:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, I determine whether we have RISK ON or RISK OFF.

There is no indicator that can do this just as no technical indicator can effectively predict what will happen moment to moment as one MAJOR fundamental fact whether GEOPOLITICAL or FINANCIAL or now SUPPLY CHAIN or some New Covid 19 variant can cause the markets to go down 1000 points as the Dow 30 has been doing recently and will continue to do.

That is why my Unique Method of Forex trading developed during 2003 when I started trading Forex and later on during 2012 when I added to my business model and started teaching my unique 100% proven method of Money Flow trading.

It is no longer possible to trade without a STOP LOSS PERIOD.

Having a STOP LOSS of fewer than 100 PIPS is not a good strategy. That leads me to explain why most of the 95% of all Retail Forex Traders lose. They trade with small amounts of money and SCALP which makes it almost impossible to make profits over a period of one year because of the VIOLENT NATURE of the swings in the Asset Classes caused by world changing events.

Each Forex Trade that you do should not risk more than 2% of your trading Capital and that is based on trading Capital of $50,000 US Dollars INITIALLY learning on a $50,000 US Funds Demo account just as I did for a period of three years before I made my first Real Funds Trade.

PLEASE GO WITH THE MONEY FLOW

Let us review what we teach and why it works if YOU WORK.

Without your WORK then you are just wasting your time and probably your money.

There is no such thing as Political Correctness here because we are here to teach and share our knowledge.


SO.... going back to our winning FORMULA for FOREX SUCCESS.

20% of the SUCCESS is yourself the Forex Trader.

20% of the SUCCESS is your EDGE which we teach you and that is Money Flow Trading.

20% of the SUCCESS is control of your RISK (Your hard earned money) Our UNIQUE RISK MANAGEMENT allows you to trade without worry, fear and greed. Of course we want to make sure that you have the right qualities to be a winning Forex Trader so our course is for a period of three months, so we can teach you the right trading methods and we can see your results and make adjustments without your FEAR OF LOSS of Real Money.


20% of the SUCCESS is using and understanding the USE of Technical Indicators which include not only the common ones. It includes the understanding of Supply and Demand. Support and Resistance and the use of Pivot Points which you can see each day on our daily charts that cover ALL our Trade Plans which we also help you develop and explain WHY. These are our Winning Trade Plans that we review every three months or earlier if circumstances in the markets require that.

20% of the SUCCESS is the FUNDAMENTALS, which are much more than Data Releases each day around the world. It includes reports and articles extremely well researched as you can clearly see from this article that explains why the TREND in the Equity Markets especially in North America is DOWN. By understanding the difference between PERCEPTIONS (MARKETS) and REALITY, you then have a good handle on REALITY before the MASSES do and you are not surprised when events eventually unfold.

When successful traders aren't trading, they are researching, developing, and innovating. When unsuccessful traders aren't trading, they're staring at screens and forcing trades. There is nothing better for trading psychology than being at the cutting edge of a growing business.

What makes a trader successful is discipline: doing the right thing with fidelity. What keeps a trader successful is innovation: doing new things and turning them into disciplines.

Thursday, September 25, 2014
A Preview of Trading Psychology 2.0: From Best Practices to Best Processes
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-4zHYD5MY44...teenbarger.jpg
One of the great disappointments I encounter when I read writings on the topic of trading psychology is that they invariably touch upon the same themes: discipline, controlling emotions, etc. Having worked with traders and portfolio managers for over a decade now, there is so much more to the psychology of trading than "sticking to your process" that I decided I had to write a book about what I was experiencing but wasn't reading. The title reflects that interest: Trading Psychology 2.0: From Best Practices to Best Processes.

I think Ted Hayes hit on something important in his recent interview. He pointed out that the personality traits relevant to success among early career traders are different from those that generate success for experienced ones. Perhaps so much writing concerns discipline and emotional control, because those are the dominant concerns of the new traders who buy the books, haunt the websites, and seek the help.

At several of the firms where I work, no one even gets an interview unless they have years of experience managing significant capital with a solid track record of profitability and risk management. So by the time those traders join the firm, discipline and emotional control are not screaming priorities. Instead, they deal with other challenges. In Trading Psychology 2.0, I refer to these challenges by A-B-C:


* Adapting to changing markets
* Building on strengths
* Creating creativity

In adapting to different markets by leveraging their strengths and generating new ideas, successful market participants are not so different from successful businesses in fast-changing industries, such as technology or social media. When markets change from year to year, stasis is a formula for failure. The successful trader, like the successful tech firm, must constantly innovate. Moreover, once traders generate those innovations, they must turn best practices--what they do that is successful--and turn them into robust, best processes.

I think this is very, very important: What makes a trader successful is discipline: doing the right thing with fidelity. What keeps a trader successful is innovation: doing new things and turning them into disciplines. Conscientiousness makes for success, but it is openness that makes for adaptation. Trading psychology as a field has done a fine job of articulating the importance of discipline. My hope is that the new book will broaden the discussion to include a research-informed look at mastering change and innovation.

In order to be able to help you better it is VERY IMPORTANT that you share your thoughts and your QUESTIONS.

https://www.google.com/search?q=Aust...hrome&ie=UTF-8

What Is Austrian Economics?
The Austrian school of economics originated around the time of Carl Menger's 1871 book "Principles of Economics." Menger's theory was based on the simple idea that the value of goods and services is subjective based on an individual consumer's perception. Therefore, increasing the supply of goods decreases their perceived value, an idea that later became known as diminishing marginal utility.
Austrian economics can also be used to understand and interpret macroeconomic factors such as money supply, inflation and foreign exchange rates.
The Austrian school of economics emphasizes macroeconomic ideas such as free markets, private property and minimal central bank intervention. Austrian economists make the libertarian argument that government intervention in the economy typically does more harm than good.
Austrian economists also believe economic recessions are caused by credit cycles triggered when central banks keep interest rates too low for too long in an attempt to stimulate economic growth. They argue monetary policy intended to stimulate instead creates economic inefficiency, wasting resources and sacrificing long-term economic stability for short-term economic growth.
The Austrian school is generally critical of the use of fiat currency and prefers money be backed by gold reserves or some other form of tangible resource. They believe the use of inconvertible fiat money encourages governments to devalue currencies, destroy savings and create inflation.
Austrian economists generally rely on logic and critical thinking more than complex statistical models and formulas. They believe maintaining free markets and protecting the money supply are keys to ensuring social progress and civil liberty. As a result, central banks like the U.S. Federal Reserve can be enemy number one for Austrian economists.
Asher Rogovy, chief investment officer at Magnifina, says Austrian economics suggests central banks should take a hands-off approach to the economy.
"Central banks can control an economy's money supply, which affects interest rates. Austrian-school economists tend to believe that inflation is simply a function of money supply and therefore it should remain constant to avoid inflation," Rogovy says.

READ:
What Is a Soft Landing for the Economy? Will We Have One?



What Is Keynesian Economics?
John Maynard Keynes challenged the idea that a free market would automatically maximize employment. The central principle of Keynes' argument is that aggregate economic demand, which includes household, business and government spending, is the most important factor in determining economic growth. Keynes believed passive free markets have no mechanism in place to maximize employment, but government intervention can help create jobs while also maintaining stable prices.
Keynesian economists believe a free market can produce periods of inadequate demand that can lead to extended periods of high unemployment. During a recession, consumer confidence drops and discretionary spending plummets, which exacerbates the problem. Demand for products and services falls, leading businesses to cut their investments and further weaken the economy.
According to Keynesian economics, it is the role of the government to step in during these periods to modify monetary policy and stimulate the economy to maintain stability.
Keynesian economists generally believe maximizing employment should take priority over minimizing inflation. The idea that the government should expand the money supply during economic downturns is known as expansionary fiscal policy. Expansionary fiscal policy can involve the government implementing subsidies, increasing welfare entitlements or cutting taxes to increase the purchasing power of its citizens. Governments can also reduce unemployment by hiring new government workers or contractors.

READ:
De-Dollarization: What Would Happen if the Dollar Lost Reserve Currency Status?

Keynesian Economics vs. Austrian Economics: The Biggest Differences
Keynesian and Austrian economists have vastly different takes on a wide range of economic topics. However, their key philosophical disagreement boils down to one main idea: government economic intervention.
"The central idea behind Keynesian economics is that the government has the power to stabilize the economy through strategic intervention," says Jake Hill, CEO of DebtHammer. "This stands in opposition to Austrian economics, a theory that states that government should have zero involvement in economic processes such as stabilizing market prices."
That one main disagreement manifests in several ways:

 

1. Austrian economists believe free markets are efficient and self-regulatory. Keynesian economists believe free markets are inherently inefficient and volatile.
2. Austrian economists believe government intervention in free markets makes negative business cycles more severe, while Keynesian economists believe governments can implement policies to stabilize the economy and mitigate recessions.
3. Austrian economists believe companies should be allowed to fail during economic downturns to eliminate the least efficient businesses. This process also helps allocate more resources to the most efficient existing businesses, as well as to the creation of new businesses. Many Keynesian economists would argue government investments could help keep major insolvent companies afloat and avoid job losses during recessions.
4. Austrian economists believe inflation is a negative event because it destroys savings and devalues currencies. Keynesian economists believe a low, steady inflation rate stimulates economic growth and encourages investment.
5. Austrian economists believe in "sound money," convertible currency which is backed by gold or other hard assets. Keynesian economists support fiat currencies, which can be manipulated by central banks to adjust the money supply and stabilize the economy.

How to Invest Money to Make Money
It seems obvious, but not all rides end at the top of the roller coaster. These tips can keep your assets on track.
Kate StalterJuly 17, 2023
https://www.usnews.com/object/image/...nsiveSquare150

Tags: investing, economics, money, economy, consumers, prices, inflation, interest rates, recession, economic stimulus, fiscal policy, monetary policy, Federal Reserve


WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM

De-Dollarization: What Would Happen if the Dollar Lost Reserve Currency Status?

Could countries around the world ditch the dollar in 2025?

By Wayne Duggan
|
Edited by Brady Porche
|
June 20, 2025, at 3:49 p.m.

https://www.usnews.com/static/img/usn-logo-large.svg
Is De-Dollarization Coming?



https://www.usnews.com/object/image/...=responsive640
Getty Images

Amid rising trade tensions, nations like China and Russia are challenging the dollar’s global dominance.

One of the more intriguing financial trends that has gained popularity in recent years is the de-dollarization movement.

De-dollarization is an effort by a growing number of countries to reduce the role of the U.S. dollar in international trade. Countries like Russia, India, China, Brazil and Malaysia, among others, are seeking to set up trade channels using currencies other than the almighty dollar. With President Donald Trump's international trade war ramping aggressively, is the reserve status of the U.S. dollar going to be the next domino to fall?

1. History of the reserve currency.
2. Why the dollar is king.
3. Renewed de-dollarization movement.
4. Is de-dollarization coming?
5. What to do if you're worried about de-dollarization.

History of the Reserve Currency
A reserve currency is the currency in which the majority of the world's international transactions are handled. Historically, they have been the currencies of a series of European colonial powers, including Spain, France and England at various points. These empires often backed their currencies with precious metals, typically gold, in addition to the implicit backing of the state.

Following World War I, the British economy struggled to regain its vigour. Much of the world's gold flowed from London to New York for safekeeping and speculation in the roaring 1920s U.S. equity bull market. America's dominant role in World War II further cemented New York as the financial capital of the world, and the dollar as its most important currency. The greenback was formally made the world's reserve currency in 1944 as a result of the Bretton Woods Agreement, a status the sterling had previously held.

President Richard Nixon abandoned the gold standard in 1971. From that point on, the dollar has been backed not by precious metal, but purely by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. And since 1971, critics have called for the end of the U.S. dollar as the world's reserve currency.

Why the Dollar Is King
There are several factors that have led to the dollar maintaining its international reserve currency status. One is the so-called "petrodollar." The vast majority of the world's oil transactions occur in dollars. As the global oil trade amounts to billions of dollars per day and all countries need energy, this creates a great deal of demand for dollars to facilitate these transactions.

While oil is the most obvious example, there's a broader need for a world unit of exchange. Consider a scenario where a Brazilian farmer sells soybeans to a Japanese condiments company. It's highly unlikely that the Japanese firm would have Brazil's currency, the real, on hand to pay the farmer. Similarly, the Brazilian grower is not going to want to accept Japanese yen in exchange for their soybeans. Thus, the logical solution is to use an intermediary to convert yen into dollars, buy the soybeans with dollars and then have the producer convert those dollars into their local currency.

To that point, the Federal Reserve estimates that between 1999 and 2019, the dollar accounted for 96% of international trade transactions in the Americas, 74% in Asia and 79% around the rest of the globe. Globally, banks used dollars for approximately 60% of their nondomestic deposits and loans. And in the foreign exchange market today, the U.S. dollar is on one side of almost 90% of all transactions.

The euro looked like it might have a chance to replace the dollar at the turn of the century. But the 2008 financial crisis and various political and economic shocks in Europe have since diminished the standing of a central European currency as a world standard. Japan has its issues with a stagnant economy and a shrinking population. China is unlikely to become a reserve currency anytime soon, given the extreme capital controls that its government puts in place.

All other potential candidates are likely too small to be a reserve currency. The Swiss franc, for example, is known as a stable and well-regarded currency. However, the economy it's tied to, Switzerland, is tiny and would not be able to support the huge capital flows required of an international reserve currency.

Renewed De-dollarization Movement
The latest de-dollarization movement started in 2022 when the U.S. imposed all-encompassing sanctions against Russia following Russia's invasion of neighbouring Ukraine. Various world leaders took umbrage at the idea that the U.S. could freeze their funds due to any sort of diplomatic or military dispute.

In 2025, Trump's aggressive tariffs and isolationist policies have disrupted U.S. alliances with Europe and other trade partners. Trump's antagonistic approach to trade policy has ostracized American allies and may encourage more countries to seek ways to reduce their reliance on the dollar.

In addition, inflation is weakening the standing of the dollar on the international stage. Some experts have understandably grown concerned about U.S. debt levels and the impact that debt could have on the dollar in the long term. Rather than paying down its debt over time, the U.S. could instead choose to erode away the value of that debt via inflation. When U.S. inflation is high, savers around the world question the security and stability of the dollar for long-term savings and investments.

Against this backdrop, leaders of countries such as China, India and Brazil have been calling for moves to trade directly with each other in their currencies while cutting the U.S. dollar out of the equation. This change would incrementally diminish the role and importance of dollars while creating a multipolar financial world where the next tier of economies would have significantly more say in global affairs.

Russia, along with the aforementioned three countries, formed what's known as BRICS, a group of emerging countries in a loose economic alliance to counter Western influence. The group now also includes South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran and the United Arab Emirates.

At the 2024 BRICS Summit, Russian President Vladimir Putin spoke out about the so-called weaponization of the dollar.
"The dollar is being used as a weapon. We see that this is so. I think that this is a big mistake by those who do this," Putin said.

He also noted that nearly 95% of trade between Russia and China now takes place in rubles and yuan, bypassing the dollar. BRICS members have even floated the idea of creating a single BRICS currency to use to transact with one another, but there appears to have been little actual progress in creating a functional BRICS currency or payment system at this point.

Is De-Dollarization Coming?
The good news for Americans is that the value of the dollar has held up well in recent years, despite growing U.S. debt and inflation. But while the US Dollar Index is up 1.3% overall in the past five years, it has dropped 8.8% year to date as of June 18.

That recent weakness in the dollar stems from Trump giving investors mixed signals about the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency. In 2024, Trump threatened to impose 100% tariffs on any country that opts to trade using alternative currencies. However, Trump has also argued the dollar's strength in recent years has been "a disaster for our manufacturers" because it increases the cost of American-made goods.

Trump's aggressive trade policies may be driving the dollar's 2025 weakness, or it may be that global investors are simply losing faith in the long-term outlook for the U.S. economy.

Fortunately for Americans, there appears to be no viable alternative to the dollar as of yet. While gold has been an effective hedge against inflation, it is unlikely to replace the dollar as a global reserve currency due to challenges with transportation, storage, liquidity and supply. Likewise, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies face their challenges with liquidity, security, scalability and energy consumption (not to mention volatility).

Lucas Kiely, CEO at Future Digital Capital Management, says global de-dollarization is simply unfeasible at this point.
"A complete global shift from USD seems improbable shortly, despite efforts by China and Russia – two countries known for manipulating their currencies – to destabilize it," Kiely says. "Ultimately, where is the alternative?"

Instead of choosing a single alternative currency, central banks around the world have taken a more diversified approach, incorporating currencies of smaller economies such as Australia and Canada.

Philip Alberstat, managing director at DBD Investment Bank, says there are also logistical reasons why the dollar will likely maintain its global reserve currency status for the foreseeable future. Alberstat says it would take decades, not years, for the global economy to transition away from the dollar.

"The institutional relationships and clearing mechanisms supporting the current system represent generations of development," he says. "Even if viable alternatives existed – which they currently do not – displacing an established reserve currency requires sustained effort over extended periods."

What to Do if You're Worried About De-dollarization
Investors concerned about de-dollarization can dial back exposure to U.S.-specific funds like the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (ticker: SPY) and increase their allocation to funds such as the Vanguard FTSE Developed Markets ETF (VEA) and the Vanguard FTSE Emerging Markets ETF (VWO).

Elliot Johnson, CEO of Bitcoin Treasury Corp., also recommends investors diversify into non-correlated assets, such as Bitcoin, real estate, gold and certain commodities.

Investors can also turn to U.S. dollar hedges such as gold via SPDR Gold Shares (GLD) and real estate via funds such as the Vanguard Real Estate ETF (VNQ).
"Whether the dollar retains its dominance or not, the core principle of investment stands: Don't put all your eggs in one basket," Johnson says. "And, in an increasingly inflationary world witnessing fast-shifting global power dynamics, diversification has never been more essential."

Portfolios for an Uncertain Economy
These sample fund portfolios for conservative, moderate and aggressive investors target consistent growth in an uncertain economy. And yes, we get specific.

Updated on June 20, 2025: This story was published at an earlier date and has been updated with new information.
Tags: investing, stock market, foreign investment, currency, gold, tariffs, Donald Trump, money, trade, inflation, China, Brazil

Comparative assessments and other editorial opinions are those of U.S. News and have not been previously reviewed, approved or endorsed by any other entities, such as banks, credit card issuers or travel companies. The content on this page is accurate as of the posting date; however, some of our partner offers may have expired.

WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM

NOTE: THIS REPORT WAS EDITED USING THE SOFTWARE GRAMMARLY BY BWM !!!

Trump’s Fed Playbook: Find Dirt, Make Noise

Not excusing Lisa Cook's mortgage fraud, if proven, but it sure looks to me Trump and Pulte are trying to muscle out Jay Powell by any means necessary.

Quoth the Raven
August 20, 2025, 9:43 AM EDITED BY BWM USING GRAMMARLY
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...GXX0bnxdmA--~D

Nobody is more critical of the Federal Reserve than me. I’ve long argued the Fed has become way too comfortable stuffing crack up the ass of the economy while pretending to be the nation’s high priests of monetary wisdom.

With a seemingly uncanny ability to not be able to forecast inflation (“it’s a mystery”) and/or the neutral rate of interest (asked repeatedly over the last few years, Powell has never given a specific answer) while they implement policy that widens the inequality gap they claim to be fighting, the whole institution just looks like a sad sideshow run by the covert CIA agents dressed like clowns the 1987 classic Real Men.


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...33N9kcOhcQ--~D


But even I can see what’s happening now. President Donald Trump today urged Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign after Federal Housing Finance Agency chief Bill Pulte called for a Justice Department probe into alleged mortgage fraud.

Pulte accused Cook of mortgage fraud, alleging she falsely claimed two different homes as her “primary residence” within weeks in 2021, then rented one out. In short, misrepresenting occupancy status could mean cheaper loans, easier approval, and higher leverage for property purchases.
Illegal, if true? Hell yes. Should she be held accountable? Of course.

But I think Trump is officially bullhorning this mortgage-fraud probe and tying it to Chair Jay Powell for another reason. I think it could be the setup for something bigger. Specifically, if you ask me, it looks like Trump could be laying the groundwork to fire Powell “for cause.”

Trump’s animosity toward Powell isn’t exactly breaking news. During his first term, Trump repeatedly attacked Powell for not cutting interest rates fast enough, at one point even exploring whether he could demote Powell from Chair to a mere governor. Legal scholars reminded him that the Fed Chair can only be removed “for cause” — not simply for making the president mad. But that didn’t stop Trump from calling Powell an “enemy” of economic growth. Back in the office, he faces the same problem: a cautious Fed Chair blocking his desire for easy money. This time, though, Trump looks like he’s coming in with a plan.

Jim Bianco of Bianco Research spelled it out bluntly on the Wealthion podcast just a day ago: “That would sound like to me that Jay Powell should go to Jackson Hole and say, ‘I'm not cutting rates in September.’ If he goes to Jackson Hole on Friday and he says, ‘I'm not going to cut rates,’ then he better hire a lawyer, cuz Donald Trump’s going to fire him.”


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...GbwdLYibZA--~D


Bianco explained that Powell isn’t “at will” like other officials, but “for cause”: “If you want to fire him, and the president can fire him, it has to be for illegal activity, malfeasance, something unethical or something. It's not that we disagree with you on policy.”

And there’s the trick. Trump can’t just boot Powell for being stingy with rate cuts. He needs a narrative of misconduct, waste, or fraud. Suddenly, the Lisa Cook probe makes more sense. If investigators tie her activities to broader Fed oversight — and then to Powell’s leadership — Trump has his scaffolding for “cause.” It doesn’t even need to win in court. The process alone forces Powell to squirm under the pressure, which may be the real goal.


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...RSM3f7BuNA--~D


We’re already seeing how this pressure campaign looks in practice. Trump has gone after the Fed’s absurd multi-billion-dollar headquarters renovation, branding it wasteful. And here I’ll admit: I’m with him. The Fed doesn’t need a Versailles-sized palace while the rest of America struggles to afford groceries. But let’s not pretend this is about fiscal prudence alone. It’s part of the playbook. Find a vulnerability, blast it on the loudspeaker, and connect it to Powell.

As Bianco put it: “If you're looking at a government building that's being done and you want to look hard enough, you're going to find something that's untold, and then you could say, ‘Well, Jay Powell’s the guy that approved all of this.’ That's why that's such an important issue here.”

So the Cook case isn’t just about Cook. It’s about Powell. And it’s about Trump creating a running narrative that the Fed isn’t just wrong on policy, but possibly corrupt, possibly negligent, possibly both. Once you build that cloud, you don’t need lightning — the storm itself is enough.

This is only the beginning. Expect more probes, more leaks, more “accountability reviews.” Trump is going to keep ratcheting up the pressure until Powell either caves or breaks. Because even if Powell survives, the mere threat of firing him might be enough to drag the Fed’s so-called independence into line with Trump’s agenda.
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...4H6ro485Xg--~D

QTR’s Disclaimer: Please read my full legal disclaimer on my About page here. This post represents my opinions only. In addition, please understand I am an idiot and often get things wrong and lose money. I may own or transact in any names mentioned in this piece at any time without warning. Contributor posts and aggregated posts have been hand-selected by me, have not been fact-checked and are the opinions of their authors. They are either submitted to QTR by their author, reprinted under a Creative Commons license with my best effort to uphold what the license asks, or with the permission of the author.

This is not a recommendation to buy or sell any stocks or securities, just my opinions. I often lose money on positions I trade/invest in. I may add any name mentioned in this article and sell any name mentioned in this piece at any time, without further warning. None of this is a solicitation to buy or sell securities. I may or may not own names I write about and am watching. Sometimes I’m bullish without owning things, sometimes I’m bearish and do own things. Just assume my positions could be exactly the opposite of what you think they are, just in case. If I’m long, I could quickly be short and vice versa. I won’t update my positions. All positions can change immediately as soon as I publish this, with or without notice and at any point, I can be long, short or neutral on any position. You are on your own. Do not make decisions based on my blog. I exist on the fringe. If you see numbers and calculations of any sort, assume they are wrong and double-check them.

I failed Algebra in 8th grade and topped off my high school math accolades by getting a D- in remedial Calculus my senior year, before becoming an English major in college so I could bullshit my way through things easier.

The publisher does not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the information provided on this page. These are not the opinions of any of my employers, partners, or associates. I did my best to be honest about my disclosures, but I can’t guarantee I am right; I write these posts after a couple of beers sometimes. I edit after my posts are published because I’m impatient and lazy, so if you see a typo, check back in a half hour. Also, I just straight-up get shit wrong a lot. I mention it twice because it’s that important.


WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM
Invite your friends and earn rewards
If you enjoy QTR’s Fringe Finance, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...zQhItSWLJw--~DLike
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...NZHq_vsBpw--~DComment
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...cRp_HX0L_g--~DRestack

2025 Quoth the Raven
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104
Unsubscribe
https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...xuRyhsgS.w--~D

In Live CNBC Audition, Jefferies' Zervos Says Fed Not Independent, Powell Left-Leaning


https://zh-prod-1cc738ca-7d3b-4a72-b.../picture-5.jpg
by Tyler Durden

Wednesday, August 20, 2025 - 11:10 AM

David Zervos, the Chief Market Strategist at Jefferies, has garnered significant attention as a potential candidate for the role of Federal Reserve Chair, amid increasing activity on prediction markets.

This morning, he placed his flag firmly in the ground as a front-runner and most assuredly got President Trump's attention when he said during a CNBC interview that it's inaccurate to describe the US central bank as independent. Moreover, 'Wall Street Jesus' (as he has been called given his hirsute characteristics) described the outgoing Fed chief as aligned with the political left.

“The Fed has never been independent, and the political pressures on the Fed have always been growing and continue to grow,” Zervos said on CNBC.
He then went further:

“I think he’s quite a bit dependent,” Zervos said of Powell.
“He’s operating politically from the left. Or, let’s put it this way, from the anti-Trump side.”

He highlighted pressure from Democratic lawmakers in recent years on monetary policymakers to lower interest rates.
History features episodes of Treasury secretaries and administrations “behind the scenes” trying to influence Fed chairs, Zervos also said.
Watch the full exchange here (with Andrew Ross Sorkin unable to contain his own 'independence')...

The comments in question! pic.twitter.com/5RqhVoqtRL
— BryGuy (@bryan_muni) August 20, 2025

The Jefferies strategist is no stranger to the limelight as some may remember he refused to cut his hair until Fed Chair Powell cut interest rates...


https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-pu...?itok=SFbcaaiB
...which he did in 2019...

After which he appears to have discovered Ozempic (picture here with Kellyanne Conway whom he reportedly dated for a time)...

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-pu...?itok=hF1Ct6P1


Zervos' odds are on the rise across prediction markets with PolyMarket seeing a big spike yesterday, and now Zervos is up to the 3rd place...

https://assets.zerohedge.com/s3fs-pu...?itok=UeFHwUnM


Zervos also repeated his argument that the steady contraction of the Fed’s balance sheet in recent years has left monetary policy more restrictive than many perceive, adding to the case for lowering rates.

“You’re left now with rates at a much more restrictive rate, without that extra kicker from the balance sheet,” Zervos said.
“So we need to get rates back toward a more neutral level.”

Music to President Trump's ears...
Professional subscribers can read David's full recent notes here...

WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM

NATE - Hello - Register to Post on my Thread - Great Website - Check It Out Please -
www.hyresmarter.com

Best regards, Benjamin Israel Margolese

https://mises.org/mises-wire/does-cu...e5f3-592263969



Does Cutting Government Spending Risk a Recession?


https://cdn.mises.org/styles/respons...?itok=-31xYzVs
ES Lee esto en Español
Tags:Booms and Busts,Keynes,Macroeconomics
08/19/2025•Mises Wire•Paul F. Cwik



“If government spending is cut too fast, we’ll end up in a recession,” is a popular warning against cutting massive federal spending. But is it true? Will cutting federal spending sink the economy into a recession? To answer this question, we need careful economic analysis.

To begin, we should define some terms, particularly “recession” and “Gross Domestic Product (GDP).” While there is no singular definition of a recession, the popular definition is two quarters of negative economic growth as measured by GDP. Of course, technical economists add several caveats, but this definition is good enough for our purposes.

GDP is the total summation of spending on final goods and services within a particular geographic location over a particular period. Economists measure the US GDP in quarters and years, and they often compare different countries’ GDPs. While there are several different approaches to measuring GDP, typically GDP is calculated by adding consumer spending (C), business investment (I), and government spending (G) with the value of net exports (NX). In short, GDP = C + I + G + NX. In this formulation, consumer spending (C) accounts for approximately two-thirds of GDP. Thus, whenever consumer confidence wanes, financial markets get nervous.

Federal spending (G) accounts for approximately 23 percent of GDP, the next largest category. It is understandable that if a reduction in spending balanced the federal budget, the removal of $2 trillion from total spending would reduce GDP by 7 percent—a deep recession indeed! In comparison, when the US economy was shut down for COVID during the second quarter of 2020, GDP fell by 7.5 percent. Thus, there is ample reason to be afraid of a quick balancing of the budget through spending cuts.

However, the story does not end here. Economists are famous for asking people to look at the other side. In this case, the other side consists of what these funds could be doing if the federal government didn’t spend them. One way of looking at the economy is to divide it into the productive private sector and the unproductive public sector. To be clear, the governmental sector of the economy is consumptive, not productive. There are only a few categories that the federal government spends money on. The first is pure consumption, like military spending. The second is transfer payments, where wealth is transferred from taxpayers to others in the form of welfare, healthcare spending, education grants, or subsidies. These forms of spending are not productive. Some might object and point to a third category, like the US Postal Service. While the postal service does create some benefit, it does not cover its costs and is a net loss of wealth to society. In each of these cases, governmental spending is not building or creating new forms of wealth.

Before the government can do anything, it must first take resources from somewhere else—the productive private sector. No special insight is needed to see that the private sector is inherently productive. Profits measure the extent to which the private sector transforms natural resources and labour into more valuable goods and services. Losses must either be corrected or such activities cease. Thus, when we examine the extent to which the government adds to the economy, we must first subtract the initial loss of productive private resources. In other words, government spending cannot simply be added to GDP; it should be net government spending.

Only the value that is created beyond that of the private sector should be added to GDP. Otherwise, it is a drag on economic growth. The general conclusion is that the government consumes wealth and does not create it.

When the government takes resources from the productive sector and then applies them to unproductive activities, it is clear that this transfer is a net negative for society. Instead of viewing a $2 trillion reduction of government spending through the narrow lens of the GDP statistic, we should see this spending reduction as a freeing up of resources in the unproductive sector for the economy’s productive sector. And the sooner that we make this transfer, the better it will be for everyone.

Will cutting $2 trillion from government spending send the economy into a recession? The answer is no. No doubt there will be a period of adjustment. However, if we allow the market to freely adjust and keep the state and local governments’ noses out of the way, within six months, the economy will be on a solid foundation and ready for major economic growth.

Image Source: Adobe Stock

Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.

WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM

PLEASE TAKE LESS THAN 30 minutes and learn the future of Europe.

1. Individual Investor

1. Advisor
2. Institutional Investor
3. Individual Investor
4. Set your Site Preference

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...m_logo_alt.svg

1. Our Firm
2. Our Products
3. Thought Leadership
4. Services

1. Search

1. Macroeconomic Research
2. Portfolio Strategy
3. Sector Views
4. Weekly Viewpoint
5. Videos & Podcasts

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...gust-2025.aspx
Evaluating Tariff Impacts on Leveraged Credit Earnings Expectations


Identifying opportunities in higher-quality leveraged credit.

Download Subscribe Follow Guggenheim Podcast Subscribe

August 19, 2025
High-Yield and Bank Loan Outlook
Third Quarter 2025
Leveraged credit continues to offer compelling opportunities, but emerging challenges make active management, rigorous credit selection, and a focus on higher quality issuers critical to capture high all-in yields while potentially safeguarding against downside risk.

With the second half of 2025 underway, the U.S. leveraged credit market appears priced to perfection, even as policy and economic uncertainty persist. While valuations reflect still-solid fundamentals and benign defaults, the main forces pushing spreads tighter have been persistent demand for yield and limited net supply.
Moderating economic growth, fluid trade policy, and high tariffs are introducing pressures across sectors. Although credit fundamentals remain generally healthy, downward revisions to earnings expectations signal emerging challenges. To date, these pressures have been more visible in forecasts and ratings migration than in actual financial results, but this could change in the coming quarters.

Report Highlights:

1. Despite recent progress on trade negotiations, tariffs and related uncertainty continue to pressure the U.S. economic outlook, widening the range of potential outcomes for credit.
2. Substantial downside risk remains should trade negotiations disappoint or if a deeper shock becomes evident when the full impact of tariffs materializes.
3. The leveraged credit market delivered positive returns, supported by strong demand and limited supply, despite moderating growth and sector-specific pressures.
4. Spreads for the strongest credits remain near historical tight spreads, while spreads for weaker credits are wider, reflecting investor caution amid softening earnings expectations and tariff-related cost pressures.
5. We currently favour high-yield corporates with stronger credit profiles and less exposure to tariff impacts, and we are maintaining cash to capitalize on relative value opportunities as spreads evolve.

Macroeconomic Outlook
The U.S. Economy Is Cooling, and Downside Risks Remain Elevated
Macroeconomic data continue to reveal a gradually cooling U.S. economy. Although swings in net exports and inventories from tariff frontrunning have been clouding the data, private final demand has trended lower over the first half of the year as consumers and businesses grapple with policy uncertainty.

Despite recent progress in trade negotiations, the average U.S. tariff rate remains elevated at 18 percent—the highest level since the 1930s—and could rise further. While downside economic risks have shrunk as the tariff rollout has been more gradual than the Liberation Day shock, historically high tariffs will still exert pressure on input costs and corporate margins in the coming months, with potential knock-on effects for both real consumer incomes and business investment.

The July Consumer Price Index (CPI) report indicates that inflation remains somewhat elevated (the gain in core CPI was the highest since January), but price increases driven by tariff pass-through have been slower to materialize than many feared. Reading tariff impacts is likely to be choppy over the next few reports, as the report suggests businesses are absorbing some of the cost at this stage, but it is not clear they will bear the cost indefinitely. Price hikes on affected products could unfold gradually over time, but given recent consumption patterns we expect that it would pressure consumer spending. Our baseline outlook anticipates core Personal Consumption Expenditures (PCE) inflation rising above 3 percent in 2025, but negative demand impacts from higher prices should help inflation moderate toward the Fed’s 2 percent target in 2026.

Businesses also remain cautious. Small business optimism has improved from April lows, but overall sentiment is subdued, and capital expenditure plans remain restrained. Many firms appear to be in a holding pattern, awaiting greater clarity on tariff policy before committing to new projects. Tariff collections in June reached about 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), raising the risk that higher costs will either compress margins or be passed on to consumers, potentially deepening the pullback in spending.

Despite these challenges, we expect a continued moderation in growth rather than a more pronounced downturn. Corporate profits remain healthy, which should help cushion some of the impact of tariff costs. Consumer sentiment has revived from April lows, and financial conditions have become more supportive, helped by strong equity markets and a weakening dollar. Markets have become more inured to tariff developments, with subdued volatility, a return of credit spreads to historical lows, and stable corporate earnings growth.

We expect two rate cuts by the Federal Reserve (Fed) in 2025 and additional cuts in 2026, bringing the policy rate to 3–3.25 percent by year-end 2026. As growth slows, the labour market should soften further in the coming months, encouraging the Fed to ease policy, provided tariff-driven price increases remain contained to goods and inflation expectations are stable. However, we continue to see risks tilted toward more rate cuts if labour market conditions materially worsen amid pervasive economic uncertainty.

Leveraged Credit Review
Demand Outpaces Supply as Risk Appetite Recovers
Credit markets continue to be shaped by attractive yields (7 percent in high yield bonds and 8 percent in loans and a very favourable technical environment, which is driving risk premiums tighter. Spreads have returned to near historical tight, with high yield bond credit spreads at 284 basis points, placing them in the 2nd percentile of levels over the past 20 years. Loan discount margins are at their tightest levels since 2022 and rank in the 24th percentile over the last two decades, with higher quality spreads even tighter relative to history (BBs at the 12th percentile and Bs at the 14th percentile). These valuations indicate that investor demand remains strong.

Spreads Retrace Nearly All the Tariff-Related Weakness
Spreads and Discount Margins as Percentiles since 2001
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...reads.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg. Data as of 7.25.2025.

Increased clarity on trade policies is fueling market optimism. The April 8 pause on reciprocal tariffs marked a turning point, followed by a series of constructive developments, including a truce with China, and deals with the U.K., Japan and the EU.

While credit demand has recovered, net new supply remains limited. Most bond and loan issuance has been focused on refinancing or repricing. In the high-yield corporate bond market, new issuance has been largely matched by the market’s coupon reinvestments and net positive fund flows since May. In the loan market, fund flows have been weak, with year-to-date outflows of more than $3 billion. But net loan supply is constrained by heavy repricing and refinancing volume, while collateralized loan obligation (CLO) formation has been strong. These imbalances push participants into the secondary market, supporting prices.

Amid ongoing policy uncertainty and slower growth, we do not see a near-term catalyst for a material shift in these dynamics. Borrowers remain focused on addressing upcoming maturities and pursuing opportunistic repricing, rather than raising new capital. Meaningful additional issuance in the high-yield bond and syndicated loan markets appears unlikely, with borrowing costs still elevated and private credit capturing a larger share of new issuance.

Healthy Fundamentals, but Softening Expectations
Fundamentals in the bank loan and high-yield bond sectors remain broadly healthy. In both sectors, leverage is only modestly above the average of the last decade. Median interest coverage ratios are close to their decade averages—4x for bank loans (vs. 4.1x) and 4.3x for high yield bonds (vs. 4.2x). It is important to note, however, that the bond market is primarily composed of BB-rated issuers, while the loan market has a greater concentration of B-rated issuers. Publicly reported metrics tend to overstate the share of higher quality (BB) issuers in the loan market, suggesting that actual leverage may be understated. Even so, we assess that, for the public market, credit fundamentals remain close to recent historical averages.

Interest Coverage Is Healthy for Higher Quality Leveraged Credit
Median LTM EBITDA Interest Coverage
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...stCvg.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, S&P Capital IQ, Bloomberg. Data as of 3.31.2025.

However, analyst forecasts for growth in leveraged credit earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) have been revised down by 7 percent since the start of the year, reflecting a mix of persistent headwinds and the added impact of tariffs. At the beginning of 2025, consensus expectations called for 19 percent EBITDA growth in leveraged credit this year compared to 2024; this has now been reduced to 12 percent. According to BofA Research and Pitchbook LCD, EBITDA growth in both the bank loan and high yield bond sectors was just 2 percent in the first quarter of 2025, following a modest 3 percent increase for the full year in 2024. Therefore, current forecasts still look optimistic.

Analysts Remain Optimistic About Earnings Growth in Leveraged Credit
Leveraged Credit EBITDA Growth, Actual and 2025 Expected
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...rowth.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg, S&P CapIQ. Data as of 8.8.2025. Based on a universe of publicly available information for U.S. high-yield corporate bond and institutional leveraged loan issuers.

Although downward estimate revisions are common—EBITDA expectations fell 4 percent from January through July in 2024—this year’s cuts have been noticeably sharper in consumer cyclical and technology sectors, where EBITDA forecasts have each dropped by approximately 10 percentage points. In some areas of consumer-related sectors, like food and beverage, weakness in demand has persisted since inflation bifurcated the consumer sector by pressuring lower-income household budgets.

Leveraged Credit 2025 Earnings Expectations Have Weakened
Cumulative Change in 2025 FY EBITDA Since Dec. 31
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...redit.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ. Data as of 7.28.2025.

Several issuers in the technology sector have reported ongoing end-market softness, driven by delayed enterprise technology spending and weaker industrial investment. This contrasts with the record profits often in the headlines from large-cap tech firms benefiting from strong demand in artificial intelligence and cloud infrastructure. In the high-yield universe, semiconductor companies—more heavily exposed to automotive, industrial, and consumer electronics markets—have faced weakness exacerbated by higher interest rates and delayed discretionary spending. Additionally, soft electric vehicle sales have disrupted product launches and pressured earnings across the supply chain.

Most Sectors Have Seen 2025 Earnings Expectations Decline Since Dec. 31
Change in Cumulative Expected 2025 EBITDA
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...nings.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ. Data as of 7.28.2025.

Tariff policy has intensified challenges in both the loan and bond sectors. For many issuers, tariffs have raised input costs, renewing focus on margin resilience and management’s ability to protect profitability. Companies must decide whether to absorb these costs, cut expenses elsewhere, or pass them through to consumers.

The ability to pass on higher costs, however, is limited by demand elasticity and competitive dynamics, as excessive price increases risk eroding consumer demand and market share—especially in sectors already under pressure from increasingly selective consumers.

With growth slowing, tariffs re-emerging, and cost pressures building, we are keeping a close watch to avoid unexpected negative ratings migration in portfolios. Early signs are evident: In the second quarter of 2025, S&P Global Ratings downgraded 32 high yield issuers and upgraded just 12—the highest quarterly number of issuer downgrades since the second quarter of 2023, and a meaningful increase from 17 downgrades in the first quarter.
Issuer Credit Rating Downgrades Accelerated in Q2 2025
Spec-Grade Issuer Upgrades vs Downgrades by S&P Global Ratings
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...ating.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, S&P Creditpro. Data as of 6.30.2025.

Investment Implications
As of June, high yield bond defaults stand at just 1.1 percent par-weighted and 2.6 percent issuer-weighted, well below their 20-year average of closer to 3.5 percent. In the loan market, default rates are somewhat higher—2.8 percent on a par-weighted basis and 3.3 percent on an issuer-weighted basis—reflecting the sector’s concentration in lower-rated credits and its higher sensitivity to interest rates.

Tight spreads suggest the market is priced for positive economic outcomes. Assuming recovery rates of 40 percent for bonds and 50 percent for loans (based on last 12-month trends), and incorporating reasonable assumptions for liquidity risk premiums, we estimate that current spreads imply default rates of 3–4 percent for loans and 1–2 percent for bonds over the next 12 months. These levels are broadly in line with recent default rates but offer a limited cushion against negative surprises.

High-yield bond spreads are tighter relative to their history than loans, reflecting the sector’s improved credit profile and resilience after widespread 2021 refinancing at historically low coupons. This has supported low defaults through the challenging macro environment of the past few years. Looking ahead, rising average coupons—now at 6.6 percent, up from 5.7 percent in 2022—could challenge the market’s fundamental resilience. At the same time, these higher coupons generate increased cash flows that need to be reinvested, which may provide technical support and keep spreads tight. Investors will need to watch this tension between weakening fundamentals and supportive technicals as it unfolds.

High-Yield Issuers Are Gradually Absorbing Higher Rates
Distribution of Coupon Rates in the HY Index, By Debt Par Value
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...suers.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg, ICE Index Services. Data as of 7.24.2025.

In the loan market, Fed easing could provide some relief, but pressure is shifting to cash flow and profitability as the economy slows. We expect loan defaults to remain above average and driven by liability management exercises as sponsors and lenders engage in aggressive tactics to prioritize their claims in this environment. But EBITDA expectations for issuers in both sectors are falling as investors expect rising costs and shrinking consumer demand, particularly in the consumer cyclicals, technology, and commodity sectors.

Both Bond and Loan Issuers See Expectations Weaken
Decline in 2025 EBITDA by Issuer Type
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...suers.png.aspx
Source: Guggenheim Investments, Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ. Data as of 7.28.2025.

All-in compensation for both asset classes remains appealing, in our view, but given the uncertain macro backdrop and our position in the credit cycle, risk premiums across both sectors appear compressed. This is particularly concerning in the loan market, where spreads are approaching historical tight spreads, even as the proportion of B3/B- rated assets rises and recovery rates decline—factors that we believe should warrant higher risk premiums. This context heightens the importance of avoiding mistakes, making rigorous credit selection more critical to capture attractive yields while limiting downside risk.

In our view, the most compelling opportunities lie in higher-quality leveraged credit, identified through deep issuer analysis. Sectors with resilience to macro challenges—such as financial services within the broader services sector—stand out, as do select areas of technology that are less exposed to weak end-market demand. Ultimately, a disciplined focus on the stability and resilience of the underlying cash flows is essential to ensure issuers can pay back interest and principal.
Leveraged Credit Scorecard
As of 6.30.2025

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...ables.png.aspx
Source: ICE BofA, S&P UBS. *Discount Margin to Maturity assumes three-year average life. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

ICE BofA High Yield Index Returns
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...fA-HY.png.aspx
Source: ICE BofA. Data as of 6.30.2025. Past performance does not guarantee future results

S&P UBS Leveraged Loan Index Returns
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...CS-BL.png.aspx
Source: S&P UBS. Data as of 6.30.2025. Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Important Notices and Disclosures

INDEX AND OTHER DEFINITIONS
The referenced indices are unmanaged and not available for direct investment. Index performance does not reflect transaction costs, fees or expenses.
The S&P UBS Leveraged Loan Index is designed to mirror the investable universe of the USD-denominated leveraged loan market. It consists of issues rated “5B” or lower, meaning that the highest rated issues included in this index are Moody’s/S&P ratings of Baa1/BB+ or Ba1/ BBB+. All loans are funded term loans with a tenor of at least one year and are made by issuers domiciled in developed countries.

The ICE BofA U.S. High Yield Index tracks the performance of US dollar-denominated below investment grade corporate debt publicly issued in the US domestic market. Qualifying securities must have a below investment grade rating (based on an average of Moody’s, S&P and Fitch), at least 18 months to final maturity at the time of issuance, at least one year remaining term to final maturity as of the rebalancing date, a fixed coupon schedule and a minimum amount outstanding of $250 million. In addition, qualifying securities must have risk exposure to countries that are members of the FX-G10, Western Europe or territories of the US and Western Europe. The FX-G10 includes all Euro members, the U.S., Japan, the UK, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Switzerland, Norway and Sweden.

A basis point (bps) is a unit of measure used to describe the percentage change in the value or rate of an instrument. One basis point is equivalent to 0.01 percent.
AAA is the highest possible rating for a bond. Bonds rated BBB or higher are considered investment grade. BB, B, and CCC-rated bonds are considered below investment grade and carry a higher risk of default, but offer higher return potential. A split bond rating occurs when rating agencies differ in their assessment of a bond.

The three-year discount margin to maturity (DMM), also referred to as discount margin, is the yield-to-refunding of a loan facility less the current three-month Libor rate, assuming a three-year average life for the loan.

The interest coverage ratio is a debt and profitability ratio used to determine how easily a company can pay interest on its outstanding debt.
The leverage ratio is a metric that expresses how much of a company’s operations or assets are financed with borrowed money.
Spread is the difference in yield to a Treasury bond of comparable maturity.

Dry powder refers to highly liquid assets, such as cash or money market instruments, that can be invested when more attractive investment opportunities arise.
1 Source: ICE BofA High Yield Index, S&P UBS Leveraged Loan Index

Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal. In general, the value of a fixed-income security falls when interest rates rise and rises when interest rates fall. Longer-term bonds are more sensitive to interest rate changes and subject to greater volatility than those with shorter maturities. During periods of declining rates, the interest rates on floating-rate securities generally reset downward, and their value is unlikely to rise to the same extent as comparable fixed-rate securities. High-yield and unrated debt securities are at a greater risk of default than investment-grade bonds and may be less liquid, which may increase volatility.

Investors in asset-backed securities, including mortgage-backed securities and collateralized loan obligations (“CLOs”), generally receive payments that are part interest and part return of principal. These payments may vary based on the rate loans are repaid. Some asset-backed securities may have structures that make their reaction to interest rates and other factors difficult to predict, making their prices volatile, and they are subject to liquidity and valuation risk. CLOs bear similar risks to investing in loans directly, such as credit, interest rate, counterparty, prepayment, liquidity, and valuation risks. Loans are often below investment grade, may be unrated, and typically offer a fixed or floating interest rate.

This article is distributed for informational or educational purposes only and should not be considered a recommendation of any particular security, strategy or investment product, or as investing advice of any kind. This article is not provided in a fiduciary capacity, may not be relied upon for or in connection with the making of investment decisions, and does not constitute a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities. The content contained herein is not intended to be and should not be construed as legal or tax advice and/or a legal opinion. Always consult a financial, tax and/or legal professional regarding your specific situation.

This article contains opinions of the author but not necessarily those of Guggenheim Partners or its subsidiaries. The author’s opinions are subject to change without notice. Forward-looking statements, estimates, and certain information contained herein are based upon proprietary and non-proprietary research and other sources.
Information contained herein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not assured as to accuracy. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or referred to in any other publication without the express written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. Past performance is not indicative of future results. There is neither representation nor warranty as to the current accuracy of, nor liability for, decisions based on such information.

2025, Guggenheim Partners, LLC. No part of this article may be reproduced in any form or referred to in any other publication without the express written permission of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC is an affiliate of Guggenheim Partners, LLC. For information, call 800.345.7999 or 800.820.0888.

Member FINRA/SIPC GPIM 65884


Third Quarter 2025 Fixed-Income Sector Views
<
FEATURED PERSPECTIVES
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...tor-views.aspx

July 18, 2025
Third Quarter 2025 Fixed-Income Sector Views

Relative value across the fixed-income market.
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...ro-Themes.aspx

June 27, 2025
Second Quarter 2025 Quarterly Macro Themes

Research spotlight on what’s next.
https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...portunity.aspx

March 25, 2025
Don’t Let Policy Volatility Overshadow Market Opportunity

Long-term signals are positive for fixed income.

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...croMarkets.png

Tune in to Macro Markets to hear the top minds of Guggenheim Investments offer timely analysis on financial market trends. Guests include portfolio managers, fixed income sector heads, members of the Macroeconomic and Investment Research Group, and more.


https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...0d91ed6d/.aspx APPLE

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...60019ddc/.aspx SPOTIFY

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...b4ec9df2/.aspx YOUTUBE MUSIC

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co...e9e22b11/.aspx AMAZON

https://www.guggenheiminvestments.co..._aubergine.png
Subscribe to Our Perspectives
Follow us

OUR FIRM
Firm Overview
Heritage
Guiding Principles
Our People
Sustainability
Compliance
Careers
News
OUR PRODUCTS
Mutual Funds
Separately Managed Accounts
Unit Investment Trusts
Closed-End Funds
Offshore Funds
Guggenheim Credit Income Fund
Variable Insurance Funds
Indices

THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
Macroeconomic Research
Sector Views
Portfolio Strategy
Weekly Viewpoint
Videos & Podcasts
SERVICES
Advisor Resources
Customer Service
My Account
Prospectus and Reports
Contact Us

PRIVACY POLICY
BUSINESS CONTINUITY
LEGAL INFORMATION
Custom Settings

Read a prospectus and summary prospectus (if available) carefully before investing. It contains the investment objective, risks, charges, expenses and other information, which should be considered carefully before investing. To obtain a prospectus and summary prospectus (if available) click here or call 800.820.0888.

Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal.
Guggenheim Investments represents the following affiliated investment management businesses of Guggenheim Partners, LLC: Guggenheim Partners Investment Management, LLC, Security Investors, LLC, Guggenheim Funds Distributors, LLC, Guggenheim Funds Investment Advisors, LLC, Guggenheim Corporate Funding, LLC, Guggenheim Wealth Solutions, LLC, Guggenheim Private Investments, LLC, Guggenheim Partners Europe Limited, Guggenheim Partners Japan Limited, and GS GAMMA Advisors, LLC, .

2025 Guggenheim Investments. All rights reserved.

Research our firm with FINRA Broker Check.
• Not FDIC Insured • No Bank Guarantee • May Lose Value

This website is directed to and intended for use by citizens or residents of the United States of America only. The material provided on this website is not intended as a recommendation or as investment advice of any kind, including in connection with rollovers, transfers, and distributions. Such material is not provided in a fiduciary capacity, may not be relied upon for or in connection with the making of investment decisions, and does not constitute a solicitation of an offer to buy or sell securities. All content has been provided for informational or educational purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be construed as legal or tax advice and/or a legal opinion. Always consult a financial, tax and/or legal professional regarding your specific situation. Investing involves risk, including the possible loss of principal.

Rand Paul Review
From:[email protected]
To:[email protected]

Thursday, August 21 at 6:21 a.m.

https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...ne.lFJwLhw--~D
Rand Paul Has $186 Billion Problems and the Fed IS One - THE One

That's how much the institution sent to banks in 2024, NOT to loan money to you and me. #41

Jack Hunter and America Reborn

Ron and Rand Paul understand the critical need to shield your assets from government-engineered inflation.

The debasement of the dollar originates from a single source — the Federal Reserve.
Isn't it time to safeguard your wealth and secure your family’s legacy?

Like his father, Ron Paul, Sen. Rand Paul has been pushing for an audit of the Federal Reserve since he first entered the Senate in 2011.


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...URBOZNNJ8w--~D


Sen Paul wrote on X in late July, “The Federal Reserve Transparency Act, famously known as ‘Audit the Fed,’ isn’t just legislation. It’s part of a movement my father, Ron Paul, started to bring sunlight to the most secretive institution in Washington.”


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...aDqU7nZHaQ--~D


Rand Paul Review is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

‘No Other Institution Has So Much Unchecked Power’
For years, Paul has made the point that the Federal Reserve does so much damage, and no one is allowed to see what they’re doing.
The senator recently wrote at Fox Business, “The Federal Reserve (the ‘Fed’) is a behemoth agency with the ability to manipulate and control the entire American economy. Our jobs, our finances, our savings and, ultimately, our livelihoods — all of them are subject to the decisions made at the Fed.”

“But the Fed’s deliberations and operations happen behind closed doors,” Paul noted. “It’s time for us to know how the Fed makes its decisions. Congress must take immediate steps to provide transparency for the American people.”

“No other institution has so much unchecked power,” he added.
Paul noted that the Fed wielded its unlimited authority during the COVID-19 pandemic to rack up $5 trillion in debt on its balance sheet.
Just ‘poof.’

Shouldn’t elected officials at least know about what they are up to? Shouldn’t all Americans?
Did you know part of how the Fed manipulates money is pay banks not to loan money to businesses and individuals? So the banks just sit on the money?


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...iSSt77XJHg--~D


The Fed Paid Banks $186 Billion in 2024 to NOT Loan Money

The senator broke down how the Federal Reserve’s inflation manipulation through bank payments has done so much harm in recent years (emphasis added).
Paying interest to banks for holding Fed funds was originally intended to control inflation. And from 2008 to 2016, the interest rate on reserves was a paltry 0.25%, and annual payments averaged $5 billion.

But the situation quickly became dramatically different. Today’s interest rate is over 4% and, subsequently, the Fed’s subsidy to banks skyrocketed. To be clear, what this means is that the Fed has paid hundreds of billions of dollars to banks for not lending money to consumers.

In 2022, the Fed paid nearly $60 billion to banks. In 2023, the Fed's payments to banks rose to over $176 billion, and in 2024, the Fed’s subsidy to banks rose to about $186 billion. And 44% of these subsidies are paid to foreign banks.

$186 billion to block bank loans to Americans who might need them and do things for the economy to boot. The free market. Capitalism.
The Fed is in the way.
“It gets worse,” Paul added.

Uh-oh.

“The Fed is not profitable and hasn’t been profitable for several years,” Paul noted. “I have argued that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the leviathan agency that infamously receives funding from the Fed, should be shut down because the Fed has been operating at a loss since 2022.”
Yes, shut down that bureau.

Ending the Fed altogether would also be a good solution.


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...tl8NEJw4aQ--~D


An Audit on the Horizon?
One light of hope is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent saying in late July that the Federal Reserve needs a “thorough” audit.
Bessent said we need to "examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful.] Has the organization succeeded in its mission?”

“All these PhDs over there, I don’t know what they do."


https://ecp.yusercontent.com/mail?ur...VLLrBIwd4g--~D


As noted, Sen. Rand Paul already has the legislation to get this done.

Support from the Treasury Secretary and this administration could be helpful, to say the least.
End and/or Audit the Fed. Any particular order works.
This needs sunlight. Badly.

With Trump back in office, there’s fresh hope for economic growth. But can he protect American retirement savings?

Major challenges that lie ahead — rising debt, inflation, and global trade issues — are beyond the control of any single leader.

Where have many Americans turned when times get tough? Gold.

Ron Paul Curriculum
Liberty Classroom
Rand Paul Merch


2025 Rand Paul Review
548 Market Street PMB 72296, San Francisco, CA 94104

WWW.AVIELFOREXLEARNINGEDGE.COM