MMN Editor

Victory Capital says it’s mounted a bid for Janus Henderson that’s 16% higher than the $7.4 billion bid from Trian Fund Management the fund manager already agreed.

Private credit and other institutional investments are now within reach for individuals. But their promises don’t always align with your portfolio.

Fed Independence Is Sacred… Or So We’ve Been Told

Authored by Richard Roberts via RealClearMarkets.com,

For the better part of a year, many had become convinced that the Federal Reserve’s independence was in its final days.

The narrative rested on two prongs.

First, an FOMC browbeaten by relentless public attacks, threats of removal, and a Justice Department criminal probe into Chair Jerome Powell. The pressure, many argued, had grown so intense that Fed decisions would no longer be trusted to reflect economics rather than politics.

Second, a new chair expected to arrive in May 2026, widely projected to be a Trump loyalist, would finish what the pressure campaign had started.

Both prongs have problems.  

On the first, the captured FOMC: the January minutes. Several Fed officials raised the possibility that an interest rate increase might be appropriate if inflation continues tracking above target. Not fewer cuts. A hike. This from a committee supposedly beaten into submission. If the Fed has lost its spine, someone forgot to tell the Fed.

On the second, the Trump loyalist: the evidence does not support it. After an initial market jolt, analysts largely concluded that nominee Kevin Warsh represented a mainstream, independent choice. Warsh himself has said publicly that independent operations in the conduct of monetary policy are essential. Those who dismissed him as Trump’s instrument did so without the kind of evidence they would demand in other contexts. As an aside, while at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York during the Global Financial Crisis, I noted Warsh as a leader who was calm under pressure, analytically sharp, and unwilling to bend to the moment’s politics.

So, Fed independence seems on solid ground. The doomsday scenario looks considerably less likely than the headlines suggested.

Which Makes This the Right Moment to Ask an Uncomfortable Question

If the battle is not coming, we lose the chance to test empirically what we have long assumed: that a Fed stripped of independence would cause serious and lasting economic harm. That makes the underlying question more urgent, not less. If crisis will not force the examination, intellectual honesty should.

Do we actually have compelling evidence that the Fed must be independent in the first place, or have we simply repeated that claim long enough to mistake consensus for proof?

A moment of relative calm is exactly the right time to ask it honestly.

Correlation Is Not Causation

The story economists tell is clean and confident. Independent central banks produce lower inflation. Political interference leads to time-inconsistency problems: governments prefer cheap money before elections, stoking inflation that becomes ruinously expensive to reverse. When the Fed bent to political pressure under Arthur Burns during the Nixon years, inflation spiraled. A brutal recession was eventually required to bring it back under control. Lesson learned. Independence enshrined.

It is a compelling narrative. But compelling narratives are not robust empirical proof.

The foundational academic work, Alesina and Summers in 1993 and Cukierman’s cross-country analysis, found that more independent central banks were associated with lower inflation.

Associated.

Critically, the same research found little evidence that political control had any meaningful impact on growth or unemployment. Countries with stronger institutions tend to have both more independent central banks and better inflation outcomes for reasons that may have little to do with independence itself. After 2000, as inflation fell almost everywhere, the statistical relationship weakened further. The broader literature is not silent, but it is far from conclusive.

Yet the doctrine is treated as settled fact.

A Different World

The financial world of 2026 looks nothing like the world those models were built to describe. Capital moves instantly across borders. The dollar anchors global reserves. Inflation is driven as much by supply chains as by domestic money supply. Bond markets discipline policy in real time; the vigilantes are not a 1980s relic, they are embedded in global capital flows.

The case for independence was built on a world that no longer exists. That is not an argument against it. It is an argument for reexamining it.

What Warsh Should Do

I have previously written about modernizing inflation measurement, still relying on frameworks that predate the data revolution, and rethinking a regional Fed architecture built for a financial system that no longer exists. The independence doctrine belongs on that same list.

Warsh has an opening here, one he should take before the political noise makes any examination look like capitulation. A serious review would start with the right commission. Not an internal working group, but a balanced body drawing on academic economists, market practitioners, former Fed officials, former members of Congress, and institutional scholars, given one narrow question: is the current independence framework optimally designed for modern conditions?

Then ask the hard questions. Does the empirical evidence support the current degree of independence, or would a more structured accountability framework deliver equivalent outcomes? Are there intermediate models, enhanced transparency requirements, formal congressional review mechanisms, structured communication protocols, that preserve credibility while improving democratic accountability? What can be learned from how peer central banks, the ECB, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, structure independence differently?

Then commit to publishing findings with teeth. A review that produces conclusions no one is bound to act on is just theater.

An Honest Reckoning

I am not arguing that independence should be abandoned. I am arguing that it should not be treated as beyond question simply because it has been around for decades. The profession prides itself on empirical rigor, and it has applied that standard to almost everything except its own institutional assumptions.

If independence is truly indispensable, honest examination will confirm it. If it needs updating, better to find that out deliberately than in the middle of a crisis.

Sometimes the Fed asks hard questions about everything except itself. Warsh can change that.

Tyler Durden
Thu, 02/26/2026 – 08:05

According to court documents obtained by Page Six, Jane Doe claimed she was “held captive” by the “Willard” actor in 2024 and “used for sex and free labor.”

According to court documents obtained by Page Six, Jane Doe claimed she was “held captive” by the “Willard” actor in 2024 and “used for sex and free labor.”

Oman’s foreign minister met Thursday in Geneva with President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff and son-in-law Jared Kushner, as efforts intensify to reach a new agreement over Iran’s nuclear program.The minister, Sayyid Badr bin Hamad Al Busaidi, said the talks focused on Tehran’s proposals and perspectives, as well as questions and responses from the U.S. negotiating team regarding key aspects of Iran’s nuclear program and the guarantees required for a potential agreement.”His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs clarified that the efforts are continuing intensively and in a constructive spirit, under the negotiators’ unprecedented openness to new and creative ideas and solutions, while preparing the supportive conditions for progress and reaching a fair agreement with sustainable guarantees,” the ministry said in a post on X.The closely watched meeting comes amid heightened regional tensions and a visible U.S. military buildup in the Middle East, including the repositioning of naval assets and additional air defense capabilities.TRUMP SAYS IRAN HAS 15 DAYS TO REACH A DEAL OR FACE ‘UNFORTUNATE’ OUTCOMEThe USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier and multiple guided-missile destroyers are operating in the Arabian Sea, as well as additional destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean and Red Seas.Several combat ships are also positioned in the Persian Gulf near Iran’s southern coastline.IRAN ANNOUNCES TEST OF NEW NAVAL AIR DEFENSE MISSILE IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ AS US MILITARY BUILDUP CONTINUES U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters on Wednesday that while Trump prefers a diplomatic solution, Washington views Iran as a “grave threat” and remains deeply concerned about both its nuclear ambitions and expanding missile arsenal.He said the talks in Geneva would be “largely focused on the nuclear program” but warned that Tehran’s refusal to discuss its ballistic missiles poses a major obstacle.POTENTIAL US MILITARY STRIKES ON IRAN COULD TARGET SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS, PURSUE REGIME CHANGE: REPORT”Iran possesses a very large number of ballistic missiles, particularly short-range ballistic missiles that threaten the United States and our bases in the region and our partners in the region, and all of our bases in the UAE, in Qatar, in Bahrain,” he explained. “I want everybody to understand that, and beyond just the nuclear program, they possess these conventional weapons that are solely designed to attack America and attack Americans, if they so choose to do so. These things have to be addressed.”

A third victim has died from injuries suffered in last week’s Rhode Island rink shooting, police said, in an attack allegedly carried out by a transgender suspect.Gerald Dorgan, the father of Rhonda Dorgan and grandfather of Aidan Dorgan, who were both killed in the attack, died from his injuries after being in critical condition, according to The Associated Press, citing Pawtucket police.Police previously identified the shooter as Robert Dorgan, 56, who fatally shot his ex-wife, Rhonda Dorgan, and their adult son, Aidan Dorgan, when he opened fire at the Dennis M. Lynch Arena in Pawtucket, North Providence Mayor Charles Lombardi previously said, according to WCVB.WHAT’S DRIVING THE INCREASE IN VIOLENT INCIDENTS INVOLVING TRANSGENDER INDIVIDUALS? EXPERT WEIGHS INThe shooter died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound after being tackled by bystanders who intervened and quickly stopped the attack, officials said. At least three bystanders were able to contain the shooter in the middle of the stands as the crowd fled, officials said. Pawtucket Mayor Donald Grebien said he was heartbroken that another person had died because of the shooting.”Our thoughts and prayers remain with the victim’s family, friends, and all those impacted by this tragic act of violence,” he said in a statement.Rhonda Dorgan’s mother, Linda Dorgan, and a family friend, Thomas Geruso, were also wounded.The shooter, who identified as transgender, also went by the names Roberta Esposito and Roberta Dorgano, authorities said.Colin Dorgan, the 17-year-old son of Robert and Rhonda Dorgan and a North Providence High School senior, was on the ice playing in the game when the shooting occurred, per WPRI-TV.RHODE ISLAND ICE RINK SHOOTING VICTIMS CONFIRMED AS SHOOTER’S DAUGHTER ALLEGES ‘VENDETTA’ AGAINST FAMILYVideo from inside the arena shows players diving and fans fleeing their seats as shots rang out during the high school game. At least a dozen shots can be heard in the footage, along with people screaming as they scramble for cover.Police have not publicly identified a motive. Pawtucket Police Chief Tina Goncalves previously described the shooting as a “family dispute.” Amanda Wallace-Hubbard, Robert Dorgan’s daughter from another relationship, accused the shooter of having a “vendetta” against the family.”I just want to make sure people understand this was one person’s vendetta against their family,” Wallace-Hubbard told WPRI-TV. “We were targeted. This was very specific. It wasn’t random.”Court records show Robert Dorgan had a documented history of conflict with relatives in recent years, including disputes tied to his gender transition, WPRI reported.In 2020, Robert Dorgan reported to North Providence police that he had undergone gender-reassignment surgery and said his father-in-law wanted him out of the family home because of it.WATCH: PAWTUCKET POLICE RELEASE NEW DETAILS ABOUT RHODE ISLAND HOCKEY SHOOTINGAccording to court documents cited by WPRI, Robert Dorgan alleged his father-in-law used a derogatory term for transgender individuals and threatened retaliation if he did not move out. The father-in-law was charged at the time, though prosecutors later dismissed the case.Court filings also show Robert Dorgan’s then-wife initially cited “gender reassignment surgery, narcissistic + personality disorder traits” in divorce paperwork before the grounds were amended to “irreconcilable differences.”The divorce was finalized in 2021. Paperwork from the divorce showed Robert Dorgan lived at the time in Jacksonville, Florida, and was working as a truck driver.Also in 2020, Robert Dorgan accused his mother of assaulting him and acting in a “violent, threatening or tumultuous manner,” according to police records cited by WPRI. His mother was charged with simple assault and battery and disorderly conduct, though the case was later dismissed, court records show.The dispute was also referenced in Robert Dorgan’s conflict with his father-in-law. According to court documents, Dorgan told police his father-in-law “told me that if I did not drop the assault charges against my mother that further retaliation could be expected and that was another reason to have me killed.”The day before the shooting, Robert Dorgan posted on X about going “BERSERK” after an actor insisted that Rep. Sarah McBride, D-Del., is a man. Fox News’ Louis Casiano, Alexis McAdams and Bonny Chu, as well as The Associated Press, contributed to this report.

Photo courtesy of China Daily
As of February 2026, U.S. tariffs have significantly slowed China’s economic growth without collapsing its export sector.
Direct exports to the United States fell roughly 20 percent in 2025, but China offset much of that loss by redirecting trade, reaching a record $1.2 trillion trade surplus by early 2026.
Exports surged to ASEAN by 13 percent, Africa by 26 percent, and Latin America by 7 percent, cushioning the blow from the U.S. market.
Some goods continue to be routed through intermediary countries such as Vietnam and Mexico to avoid China-origin tariffs, a practice Washington is increasingly targeting.
The more meaningful damage is visible in growth and profitability. Economists estimate that cumulative U.S. tariff actions since 2025 have reduced China’s annual GDP growth rate by approximately 1.5 percentage points, or 150 basis points.
This refers to a direct reduction in the headline growth rate. For example, if baseline growth had been 6 percent, a 1.5 percentage point drag lowers it to about 4.5 percent.
Current projections place China’s 2026 GDP growth between 4.5 and 4.8 percent, below the long-standing 5 percent-plus targets and reflective of cooling industrial momentum.
During the peak of the 2025 emergency tariffs, the drag was estimated at 2.5 to 3 percentage points, pushing growth toward 4 percent.
After the February 20, 2026 Supreme Court ruling struck down the IEEPA-based emergency tariffs and replaced them with a 15 percent Section 122 global surcharge effective February 24, the drag moderated to roughly 1.5 percentage points.
Despite record trade volumes, structural weaknesses are deepening. To remain competitive under tariff pressure, Chinese factories have cut prices aggressively, contributing to persistent producer price deflation and squeezing manufacturing profits.
Low-margin final assembly operations are shifting abroad to avoid the China-origin label, contributing to gradual manufacturing hollowing. Meanwhile, foreign direct investment remains weak as companies delay long-term commitments amid trade uncertainty.
In sum, U.S. tariffs have not crushed China’s export machine, but they have reduced growth, compressed profits, and intensified structural strain.
Beijing has preserved trade volume through diversification, yet the quality and profitability of that trade have declined, leaving the economy more vulnerable even as surplus figures reach record highs.
The idea that the trade war deepens China’s economic vulnerability and influences the likelihood of a Taiwan conflict has become central to 2026 geopolitical analysis.
Although Beijing has pivoted toward a “fortress economy” strategy, cracks have emerged. China enters 2026 grappling with a fragile property sector, high youth unemployment, and massive local government debt.
The trade war compounds these pressures by constraining the export engine Beijing relies on to offset weak domestic demand.
The “Silicon Shield” theory holds that Taiwan’s dominance in advanced semiconductor manufacturing, producing roughly 92 percent of the world’s most advanced chips, makes war prohibitively costly for China. In 2026, however, that assumption is being tested by competing pressures.
Economists estimate that even a limited conflict or blockade in the Taiwan Strait could trigger between $2 trillion and $10 trillion in global economic losses. Beijing understands that such a shock could destabilize its economy and strain the social contract tied to rising living standards.
At the same time, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick has pressed to bring 40 percent of Taiwan’s semiconductor supply chain to the United States by 2029.
While intended to reduce American exposure, some analysts argue that decreasing global dependence on Taiwan could unintentionally weaken the very “Silicon Shield” that has helped deter conflict.
The relationship between economic vulnerability and the risk of war is a double-edged sword. One school of thought argues economic deterrence: Beijing’s fragility makes a full-scale invasion unlikely in 2026.
The CCP’s legitimacy is tied to economic stability, and a war triggering near-total embargoes and disrupting roughly 20 percent of GDP tied to exports could generate domestic unrest threatening party control.
The opposing view is the “cornered tiger” risk. If trade war pressures and technology decoupling continue degrading China’s industrial base, Beijing may conclude time is not on its side.
If leaders believe the United States will eventually achieve escalation dominance or permanently alter Taiwan’s status through policy shifts, they may choose to act while they still perceive relative military parity.
A complicating factor is the Trump administration’s more transactional posture, at times framing Taiwan within broader trade negotiations.
This has created strategic anxiety in Taipei, even as Washington has approved record $11 billion arms packages for the island.
High tariffs have reduced China’s growth and contributed to capital flight, while potentially lowering the likelihood of war due to CCP concerns about economic destabilization.
Conversely, technology decoupling has restricted China’s access to advanced AI and high-end semiconductors, which could increase the risk of conflict if Beijing believes its window of opportunity is narrowing.
Ultimately, while the trade war has made China more economically vulnerable, it has also increased geopolitical unpredictability.
The post Trump’s China Trade War Deepens Beijing’s Economic Vulnerability – Implications for a Taiwan War appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Welcome to the NFL Combine. 318 athletes, 16 quarterbacks at Lucas Oil Stadium. Fernando Mendoza isn’t going to throw at the NFL Combine. This is why it does not matter.

“Satisfaction Skank,” a collaboration between The Rolling Stones and Fatboy Slim, debuts on two sales charts in the U.K. inside the top 10.